What's Being Said About Megyn Kelly on Social Media Is Shameful

With the number one New Year's resolution being a change of job, you'd think people would cut Megyn Kelly some slack for trying out a new opportunity. Yet, following her announcement that she was giving up her primetime spot at Fox News for a daytime slot at NBC, people reacted angrily on social media.

"I think she took a big pay cut to go there, so it shows me where her values and principles are, which I think is great. If it works out that it's better for her, even in her mind, I think that's fantastic. Here's what is crazy to me, just crazy. The number of people that are online now saying that she's not only a sellout, but a traitor, a traitor to her country for going to NBC," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

When did someone leaving Fox News signify being a traitor?

"When did NBC become a place against the United States of America? When did we pledge our loyalty to Fox News?" Glenn asked.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 1 for answers to these questions:

• Was Megyn Kelly fired?

• Will NBC be a bad influence on Megyn?

• Why did Megyn take a pay cut?

• Who made the list of possible replacements at Fox?

• Why does listener Kevin think Megyn is turning liberal?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

[soundcloud]

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Conversation about a basic income experiment because what the future holds for us is extraordinarily different. We need to chart a course. Whether that's the answer or not, I don't know. I don't think it is, especially for America. But what is the answer? And what is truly coming? Big ideas around the corner.

Also, Megyn Kelly is leaving Fox. Obviously, Pat, they fired her, right?

PAT: Yes. Because she's on the air the rest of the week.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And they like to fire people and then keep them on for a while afterwards. It's a really good idea.

GLENN: No, when they fired me, which clearly they did --

PAT: Clearly.

GLENN: -- they let me on the air for six solid months.

PAT: Six months. Yeah. So...

GLENN: Of course, Greta was off the same day. That's weird. That's really weird. But Megyn is leaving. And what's being said on Facebook about her is shameful.

PAT: Ridiculous.

GLENN: And who the replacement is according to the public, who do they want to replace Megyn Kelly? Boy, I am -- I'm really torn. I'm thrilled and excited, and at the same time, devastated if it would happen. We go there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Oh. Thank you so much for tuning in. Here's Megyn Kelly last night saying goodbye to her audience on Fox.

MEGYN: This is a tough decision for me because I love this show. Our staff, our crew, my colleagues here at Fox.

And you, all of you, those who write me the lovely handwritten notes, asking about my kids and even those who very rarely complain on Twitter about our coverage after a show or a presidential debate, it's the kind of feeling that makes one feel connected to another human being. And that, after all, is why I believe we're here: Human connection.

The truth is, I need more of that in my life. In particular, when it comes to my children who are seven, five, and three. So I'll be leaving Fox News at the week's end and starting a new adventure, joining the journalists at NBC News who I deeply admire. I'll be anchoring a daytime show there, along with a Sunday night news magazine. And you'll see me there on the big nights too for politics and such.

I am very grateful to NBC for this opportunity, and I am deeply thankful to Fox News for the wonderful 12 years I have had here.

PAT: And to be leaving this hellhole now.

GLENN: I don't think she said --

PAT: That part was implied, I think.

GLENN: Really? I don't think --

(laughter)

She considers this a hellhole, you think?

PAT: I would guess.

GLENN: I don't think so.

PAT: That it's been tough for her since --

GLENN: Oh, no, it's been tough.

PAT: The last six months.

GLENN: I don't think anybody in her position leaves that place -- maybe -- without gratitude. I mean, even I left there with gratitude.

PAT: Yes. Yeah. I mean, true.

GLENN: With all the stuff that is going on behind the scenes --

PAT: But you know she is getting -- I don't know, she can't be being treated over there now. Do you think?

GLENN: No. No.

PAT: I mean, there's too many Trumpanistas over there who are pissed at her because she asked difficult questions of a presidential candidate. How dare she.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. I know.

So, you know, I think it has been hell for her. And I think it's -- you know, I don't know what the job is. So, you know, I think it's a good opportunity. Hopefully she will influence NBC more than they will influence her in many ways.

PAT: Yeah. The daytime talk show. Is she talking about MSNBC, do you think? Or is that --

GLENN: I don't know. I can't imagine her leaving -- well, you know --

PAT: I don't know. Really weird.

GLENN: MSNBC just hired Greta, so there's a possibility --

PAT: Oh, they did? I didn't even hear -- I hadn't heard that. Hmm.

GLENN: I haven't heard that either, maybe.

(laughter)

JEFFY: Really?

PAT: You --

GLENN: Somebody Google --

PAT: Did you just do it again?

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Google search that, please. Good God Almighty, Google search.

PAT: I think that's -- you might have just made some news.

GLENN: No, I don't think that's true. I don't think that's true at all. Somebody Google search that.

(laughter)

GLENN: Hey, that was --

PAT: Greta van Susteren to the --

JEFFY: While we're doing that, could be the whole package, right? She does stuff for MSNBC for online, for NBC. I mean, it could be the whole --

PAT: No. Okay. It's on Daily Caller.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you.

JEFFY: Eh.

GLENN: Woo.

PAT: She's making a quick and sudden return to cable news. 6:00 p.m. time slot at MSNBC.

GLENN: Right. So MSNBC is changing. I don't know what they're going to change to.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: But they are changing.

And, you know, they are -- they're looking for a new direction and a new -- I can't even say new direction. They're looking for new people with different voices. I do know that. Whether they're going to try to jam those in with what they already have, which seems to be a disaster to me -- I don't know.

And going on to MSNBC for Megyn Kelly seems like a pretty big step down.

PAT: Oh, yeah. Oh, no question about that.

GLENN: Daytime.

PAT: No question about that.

GLENN: Daytime Megyn Kelly. I wonder what they're paying her. Because apparently Fox offered her 20 million.

GLENN: They said they couldn't compete, and she took a large pay cut.

PAT: To go to MSNBC?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

PAT: Really? Well, then that tells you, doesn't it, that things have not been pleasant at Fox?

GLENN: Not necessarily.

PAT: I think --

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: It depends on what your goals are.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, her goals may not be --

PAT: To go from prime time to daily talk show? Eh, maybe. I don't know.

GLENN: No, that's not all it is.

Apparently, she's going to be one of the lead people, one of the leading voices for politics over there, which I think is big.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. It's big.

GLENN: Remember, that's some of the -- it's Tom Brokaw. You know, the people made their livings, starting out just on the -- what do you call it? On the campaigns.

And is it a possibility that she's not doing a daily talk show on MSNBC, but possibly something along the lines of Kathie Lee?

PAT: Yeah. That was the other possibility I was kind of thinking. But it seems like time slot is already -- you wouldn't go past 10 o'clock in the morning, would you? Eastern time for that? Maybe.

GLENN: I don't know. Maybe. You have the whole west coast. You have the whole west coast. Maybe.

I don't know. But here's what I -- here's what I do think: One, it's clearly not about the money for her, which I'm glad. I was kind of watching this to see if this was a money move for her, where she would go. You know, because everybody said, "Oh, she's just playing them for the cash." Blah, blah. And I never thought that about Megyn. I think she's deeper than just going where the cash is.

So obviously that has happened. Because I think she took a big pay cut to go there. So it shows me where her values and principles are, which I think is great.

If she -- if it works out that it's better for her, even in her mind, I think that's fantastic. Here's what is crazy to me, just crazy, is the number of people that are online now saying that she's not only a sellout, but a traitor. A traitor to her country for going to -- go to NBC.

JEFFY: She betrayed her viewers. She disrespected our president-elect. Worst of all, you misrepresented who you really were all these years.

GLENN: Because she goes to work for NBC?

PAT: That is such bullcrap.

GLENN: When did NBC become a -- a place against the United States of America? When did we pledge our loyalty to Fox News? And, by the way, Fox News is currently saying that -- that Snowden or Julian Assange is a hero. I'm not sure that he's a hero. I'm not sure that I believe everything that he has said. I think it's an important conversation to have. But gosh, it was just a few years ago where Fox was saying he's absolutely a traitor and should be in prison. In the old days, he would have been executed. Now I believe everything that he says. It's an important discussion.

I'm glad that conversation happened on the air. I'm glad that Sean Hannity went over there and said that. That doesn't make Sean Hannity a traitor for doing that or a hero for doing that. It makes him a guy who wants to know the truth and went over and let us decide whether or not he's telling the truth or not. That's an important conversation to have.

Why is somebody who is leaving Fox News all of a sudden a traitor? This is out of control.

JEFFY: Good riddance. She always was a liberal whiner.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: This is unbelievable.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

PAT: It just -- it's pretty amazing because every -- it seems like every anchor, every news anchor, every reporter now has to adopt every sensibility of the president-elect. I've never seen anything like this.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: If Trump doesn't like or likes somebody, everybody who voted for him must also like or not like that person.

GLENN: That's the same mentality that happened under Obama.

PAT: I don't -- I don't know that it is.

GLENN: Yes. It did.

PAT: I've never seen anything quite like this.

GLENN: Pat, it did. Because no one -- remember what we were saying. It's slightly different.

What we were saying at the time was, "Is there no one going to stand up?" They didn't shame each other, they just all fell in line. So they didn't have any traitors, if you will. They were all like, "It was a thrill up my leg." But you know that there were people there that were like, I don't know if I agree with all of that. I don't know if he's God. You know what I mean?

But they just never said anything. So there was nobody that fell out of line.

But do you really believe that they -- if somebody would have fallen out of line, that they would have killed them. And I don't mean that literally.

PAT: Right. Yes. Maybe.

GLENN: Seriously.

PAT: And it could be that I just -- I never expected this from the right. I just never thought that would happen because nobody fell in lockstep with absolutely everything George W. Bush said. We --

GLENN: Do you remember how much trouble we had though when -- when we fell out of step with him? Not to the degree at all by what's happening now.

PAT: Nowhere near. Nowhere near.

GLENN: But it was in that direction.

PAT: And there was -- I mean, with his immigration policy though, people weren't saying, "Well, yeah, all of a sudden, I welcome this comprehensive immigration plan." They weren't doing that then. They weren't doing that then.

GLENN: Yeah, that's true. That's true. That's true.

PAT: And many people disagreed with him on the Ramos and Compean situation and fought him hard on that. They disagreed with him and fought him hard on him siding with Mexico for that illegal alien rapist murderer that he was trying to save.

GLENN: That's true. That's true.

PAT: I didn't expect this from the right. So it's been pretty bizarre to see. It's been pretty weird.

GLENN: So I wish Megyn Kelly --

PAT: I do too.

GLENN: I wish her all the best.

PAT: And I hope she's making a fortune at MSNBC.

GLENN: I hope that she influences them and she's not influenced by them in any stereotypical negative way.

PAT: I hope so too. But that's hard. That's hard. When you're surround by it.

GLENN: And especially if you've been mistreated, you know --

PAT: By the other people.

GLENN: Yeah. I remember when I first went over to Fox. You know, I think one of the things that didn't -- that helped me not hold back, where I maybe should have watched my tongue a little bit more, like I don't know people on my own show stressed -- is the long elevator rides that I would have at CNN, the way that I was treated over at CNN. I was treated by management at CNN very well and by a select few at CNN, like Anderson Cooper, very, very well. Others, I was literally a cancer. And elevator -- nobody would talk to me on the elevator. Nobody would look at me. In fact, all talking would stop when I would walk into the elevator. I mean, really bad, baby, nursery school stuff.

And so you just kind of walk -- I walked out of there going, "You know what, that's the way you're going to be, screw you."

And I hope that Megyn doesn't walk out of that -- for any bad things she may have experienced -- and I think the way she was gracious and the fact that they let her on last night shows that hopefully she doesn't have that attitude.

JEFFY: Yeah, that's why she's a sellout and a traitor. Good luck!

(chuckling)

GLENN: We got to stop, or we're not going to have anybody, except our own little teams. Our own little teams, and nobody will be listening to each other.

PAT: I hope our listeners aren't treating her that way.

JEFFY: No, I hope so too.

GLENN: No, I don't think they are. I don't think they are.

PAT: That's ridiculous.

GLENN: All right. Now, this, looking out your windows, you have your crooked, busted blinds. Are they blocking your view at all?

Let blinds.com help you start the new year off right. Blinds.com helped Tania and I completely transform our house. They gave us some of the best customer service we have ever experienced. There are two companies that I put into the highest level of customer service I have ever experienced. Number one, Apple. I don't know if it's still this way. I would assume that it was. But I -- I was all IBM. I didn't like Apple.

And I was all IBM. And would always use Windows and everything else until I couldn't get customer service. And I actually had an Apple product that I would never use. And I called their service, and I said, "Look, I've been trying to get service." And the guy said, "Look, I don't know anything about these. You know, I'm not authorized to tell you. And I might even get in trouble for telling you this. I shouldn't because we're in Apple. But I understand your frustration. Here, try this, this, and this."

He got my system to work. I hung up the phone, and I said, "Apple from here on out because of their customer service."

The other one that is customer service like that is blinds.com.

You will never witness customer service done right better, I think, than blinds.com. It's absolutely unbelievable. And the reason why they're so good is because they are the pioneer in doing this stuff online. So they had to get good at talking to people and talking with people and helping them say, "No, no, no, I want to make sure that you know what this looks like, so we're going to send you a sample, and it's not a hassle. I want to make sure you understand how easy it is for you to install, or you can grab us on the phone and we can help you, while you have the screwdriver in your hand, or we can help you line somebody up in your area that can install them." Whatever it is that you need to do, these guys will jump through hoops. It's why they are the biggest seller of blinds, shades, shutters, drapes online, anywhere on the planet. Number one is blinds.com. And now through January 31st, you'll get 20 percent off everything at blinds.com if you use the promo code Beck. 20 percent off of everything, site-wide at blinds.com. You just use the promo code Beck. Cellular shades. Roller shades. Blinds. Faux wood blinds. Shutters. Drapes. Whatever you need. Blinds, promo code Beck. Rules and predictions do apply.

[break]

GLENN: I have the names. Included a lot of people. Eric Bolling, .5 percent. Sean Hannity moved back to 9:00, 5 percent. Chris Wallace, 1 percent. Shannon Bream, 6.4.

PAT: She's actually pretty good.

GLENN: Greg Gutfeld, yeah, 3.8. Tucker Carlson, he's already at 7:00, 12.4.

Jake Tapper, 3.2. Brit Hume, 2.6. Kimberly Guilfoyle, 6.2. Bret Baier, 1.1. Shep Smith, .4. Janet Piro (phonetic) is five and a half. And Dana Loesch is at 32.6 percent.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I would tell you, I would hate that, as Dana's coworker -- I would hate that. But if there's anyone who could sit in that seat and not be pushed around by anybody, she could do it. She could do it.

PAT: Yeah, she could pull that off.

GLENN: She could do it. You know, I've been saying for a long time, she's our Megyn Kelly on TheBlaze. She's great.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And with the resources at Fox, she would be unstoppable.

PAT: There's another poll on Mediaite that has Laura Ingraham at 24 percent, followed by another Blaze person, Tomi Lahren at 17 percent.

GLENN: Really? Tomi would be --

PAT: So kind of interesting.

GLENN: If you're going to retool and go for youth --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know, because she is huge.

PAT: Somebody who has huge social media presence.

GLENN: Social media is huge.

PAT: Gigantic.

GLENN: She would be a game-changer for Fox in more than one way. And, again, largest shareholder -- I don't involve myself in TheBlaze at all. I don't -- I have self-imposed lines around that for me.

But I am the largest shareholder. I would hate to lose either of them, but what a great opportunity for both of them. I wouldn't stand in their way. They're tremendous.

PAT: They have some really interesting candidates here, in this other poll: Katrina Pierson. Would that surprise you? If they brought in a Trump insider?

JEFFY: No. That's a good call.

PAT: And Dana Perino is the other pretty good option, I think there, that they've listed here, along with a lot of people on CNN that they'll never hire at Fox. Pretty interesting.

GLENN: Like who?

PAT: Like Don Lemon.

GLENN: Oh.

PAT: No way.

GLENN: Not only would they not hire him, he wouldn't take the job at Fox.

PAT: No, I don't think he would. I don't think so.

GLENN: Back in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to the program. Let me go to Kevin on line one in West Virginia. Hello, Kevin.

CALLER: Hey, Glenn.

GLENN: How are you?

CALLER: I'm doing all right. I found out last night about Megyn Kelly leaving Fox. I think I can sum up why people have a problem with Megyn Kelly leaving Fox. It doesn't have anything to do with having a loyalty pledge to Fox. It has to do with the fact that outside of Fox News, the other networks, they've been lying to Americans. They have been lying about Americans for years. And she just joined another one of those networks.

Had she joined, let's say TheBlaze or Breitbart or some other conservative network, I don't think anyone would have a problem with her. But I think a lot of people see -- myself included, that Megyn Kelly is either becoming more liberal or she was a liberal the entire time and is now sort of just joining the people that she thinks more along the lines with.

GLENN: So, Kevin, let me ask you a couple of questions here.

CALLER: Sure.

GLENN: That assumes a couple of things that Fox, TheBlaze -- I'll include TheBlaze -- me, Breitbart, have never had an agenda or ever skewed a story or ever, you know, lied to people, knowingly or unknowingly lied to people. That there is no agenda. That our side is completely pure, A. Do you believe that?

And, B, that Megyn Kelly going over there would be an influence on them in a positive way. That there is only our side and their side, and those two should never meet.

CALLER: Well, if NBC was suddenly like, "Hey, we're not going to demean conservatives anymore. In fact, we're going to hire a more conservative host and give her a prime time spot," I think that would be amazing. But I wasn't born yesterday, so I don't think that's what they're doing.

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second. Hang on just a second. Did you have a problem with Greta van Susteren going over to MSNBC? Not NBC, MSNBC.

CALLER: I will fully admit, I do not not much about Greta van Susteren. So I would be -- it would be ignorant of me to start commenting on something I don't know anything about. So I'll defer to you on that.

GLENN: Okay. She is more liberal. I think she is more liberal in her life. But I don't think she's a crazy liberal. But she is more liberal. But I don't think she changed from a liberal Greta on CNN to a conservative Greta on Fox. I think she was consistent.

So I just -- I worry about these lines being drawn, where we're in camps. And if you go to the other side and even talk to them, you're in trouble. And I'm getting heat for this now. You know, I am intentionally going over to the other side and saying, "I'm not going to change my principles. I have not changed my position on policies, but I have changed my approach." And I refuse to put people into camps, or we're really going to put people in camps some day.

I want to have conversations, and I will have a conversation with anyone until they betray me. If they say one thing to my face and then do another, then I'm done with them. But I've worked with the New York Times. I went, and I met with them. And they -- you know, what you said that NBC wasn't doing, the New York Times did. And I've seen movement in this direction, where the New York Times said, "We cannot survive as a newspaper for just half the country. And we know we have this reputation. We don't believe that reputation. But we know that reputation is real, and we want to do everything we can to fix that reputation. Can somebody help us? How can we fix that?"

That's a good step. I'm willing to help anybody who says that. "How can I change the perception? And if I'm really doing something that I shouldn't be doing, can you help point that out to me?" Because they don't see it. They honestly don't see it, just like I think we don't see things. We're doing much of the same thing that Obama supporters did, and we don't see it.

CALLER: Glenn, I can understand that perspective. I actually voted for Ted Cruz as a protest vote in both the primary and the general election.

GLENN: Wow.

CALLER: Because I couldn't compromise my principles to vote for somebody who I felt did not deserve the office, which was, of course, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But -- so I'm not coming at this with like, "Oh, she --

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, I get it.

CALLER: Some sort of lockstep, you know, brainwashed, oh, well, she must be in lockstep with the god/emperor Donald Trump or anything like that.

But I've grown up watching the media -- everyone except Fox because Fox is the only one around -- the only conservative network around for a while -- just lie about -- and to the American people, especially when I was younger about the Iraq War. Basically doing everything they could to help us lose that war.

GLENN: I agree.

CALLER: And considering I'm in the Armed Services, I take that pretty personally.

GLENN: I agree.

CALLER: And, like, it's not that she went to work for another network, it's the fact that she went to work for another network who has a decades' long history of being the most disgusting liars you could possibly imagine. I mean, it's like -- it goes in order. Number one, liars. Liberals. Number two, mainstream media.

GLENN: Let me -- let me -- let me -- well, that's a hasty generalization. I would urge you to define liberals as progressives. I know a lot of liberals who are really good people who I strongly disagree with on policy, but I don't believe are liars. Those who are self-pronounced progressives and especially those like Hillary Clinton who say, "I'm an early 20th century American progressive," that indicates to me they know exactly what that game is, and I will put those people into the category of liars. But I don't want to put that as a hasty generalization because I think a lot of people don't -- they don't know.

CALLER: I don't think it's a hasty generalization of Megyn Kelly though.

GLENN: That she's a liar?

CALLER: For one reason -- this is why I would think less of Megyn Kelly doing this than somebody else who is not as veteran or has been in media as long as she has, because she has been on the fighting side against a lot of liberal nonsense and mistruths. And so it's not like she's been insulated from the fact that the mainstream media outside of...

GLENN: So what happens -- what happens -- well, has George Will going over to ABC, is he less of a conservative because he's not at Fox and he's at ABC?

CALLER: I have to admit, again, I don't know who George Will is, so I couldn't comment on that.

GLENN: George Will is probably one of the biggest conservative minds -- do you know who Charles Krauthammer is?

CALLER: Yeah, he's the disabled gentleman on Fox, right?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Everybody knows K Ham. Everybody knows K Ham.

GLENN: Yeah. So K Ham is in the same category as George Will. George hasn't changed. We haven't seen what Megyn Kelly -- if Megyn Kelly goes over and she starts doing the same stuff and changes who she is and her approach, well, then you're exactly right. But I went from -- I went from -- I went from CNN -- I went from talk radio to CNN. And I said all the same things that I'm saying over -- now, over at CNN. And I said the same things when I went from CNN to Fox. Was I traitor? Because there were those who said, "Glenn Beck sold out going to CNN."

CALLER: No. I don't think it's hypocritical for me to have that opinion. Because at the time, at least for most people, anyway, most people didn't realize the media was as biased as it was.

I don't think somebody like you could get a job at CNN now. I don't think somebody half as conservative as you could get a job at CNN now.

But with Megyn Kelly going to the other networks as opposed to George Will going to, what was it? ABC. The reason why I think she might be becoming more liberal or revealing a bit more of her liberal ideas is because during the whole transgender bathroom issue, she was really sort of taking the side of, "Hey, it's perfectly okay to let non-men, pretending to be women into bathrooms, even if that means letting grown men into bathrooms with little girls." And seemingly showing that she probably holds legitimacy to the idea that you can be born with an XY chromosome, but if you decide that, well, actually I'm a woman, that that is a perfectly rational belief to hold. And that does not strike me as a conservative thing because that doesn't strike me as a factual or rational belief to hold.

GLENN: That is fascinating.

Okay. Okay. I agree with you 100 percent on that. However, does holding that position make you a liberal or just wrong on that issue? And if you are wrong -- depending on which point of view you have, if you're wrong or right on that issue, does that make you a traitor or just make you wrong on that issue?

CALLER: Well, like I said, Glenn, I don't think Megyn Kelly is a traitor. I'm not some sort of weird, you know, loyalty. We all have to be in lockstep. That kind of thing. But I do think if you hold that opinion, well, you are probably an idiot if you hold that kind of opinion. And I haven't met many conservatives who hold that opinion.

GLENN: Right.

CALLER: So we're going to assume that if she holds that opinion, she's probably a liberal. And I don't think that's too far of a stretch.

GLENN: Okay. So let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. Let me use two people because we both have our own networks and we're not going anywhere. Let's use Mark Levin --

CALLER: I wish I had my own network.

GLENN: Yeah. So let's use me and Mark Levin. We have our own thing. So I don't know what it would take to get us to go on to network television.

If NBC -- let's say that NBC is doing what I think they might be doing at MSNBC -- and I don't think -- it would be a crazy step down for Megyn Kelly to go to daytime on MSNBC. But let's just say that MSNBC has this new epiphany and this new vision, and they say, "You know what, we're getting slaughtered by doing what we're doing now." It's Crazytown to most of America. So we are in the business of making money, and we need to put something on that appeals to more than four people. So we want to add conservatives.

Now, I don't think this would work. But we want to put Greta van Susteren on and we want to put -- we want to put Megyn Kelly on, and we want Mark Levin to be right before Rachel Maddow. Would those people -- it wouldn't work. It would be a train wreck. But would those people be a traitor, or would that be a good thing?

CALLER: Well, it would be a good thing. But this is a -- this is a fantasy world hypothetical here.

GLENN: I don't think it is. I don't think it is. I don't think it is.

If NBC just hired Greta van Susteren --

PAT: Which they did apparently.

GLENN: Which they did. And they just hired Megyn Kelly, there is something in the air. Now, it's not -- it's not -- I don't think it is -- it's from the top-down. It's not from the bottom-up, in these institutions. I think the very top levels are starting to say, "This isn't working, and this is really going to hurt us in the long-run. We are going into camps. And it's only going to get smaller and smaller and smaller because the voices are louder and louder and louder on, you're a traitor. We can't be a part of that." And I think the top of these organizations are starting to understand that and are starting to say, "We can't do that anymore." So I don't think it is a fantasy.

CALLER: Well, I guess I'll have to give it some time because something like this hasn't happened in the media before. I need time to see it actually happen before I have I think as much like hope and faith as you do. I mean, I guess it's better to be, you know, positive and hope that the networks are becoming a little bit more unhinged -- becoming less unhinged.

GLENN: No, I think they're -- hang on just a second.

CALLER: I hope it's that, but I'm too cynical to believe it.

GLENN: Yeah. And I want you to know that I don't think -- I have just as much skepticism on them as they may have on me. Let's put it that way.

But I'm choosing to believe that there is -- only because I've had the discussions. I've had a discussion with a guy who came down for the full day and wanted to spend the full day with me from one of -- I mean, an organization that is -- oh, man -- more credible than this. But, I mean, like Mother Jones, almost. It's a print -- it's a print organization.

And the guy called several times and said, "Hey, I want to come down." And we said, "No." And then after a few phone calls, we said, "Okay." We sat down, and he said, "Look, I don't agree with anything you say. Nothing you say. But here's what I do see: We're all going to be out of business, we're all going to be destroyed, and we might all start building camps for each other if we don't stop this. And I want to know: Do you have some sort of insight on business, on how to make this work, because what you're doing right now is crazy, but maybe you have some insight that nobody else has."

And I said, "No. I just happen to believe that one thing that you just said, we're going to kill each other if we don't stop it. And that's more important than money or success to me." We had -- pardon me.

CALLER: Could I say something about that? About reaching out to people outside your camp.

GLENN: Yeah. Hold on just a second. I got to do a commercial. Then we'll come back and we'll get your comment.

Now, this. Resolutions are good, but action is much, much better. Goldline, the only company I trust and recommend. And here's the way I can tell you I put my money where my mouth is. I have some platinum I got from Goldline because right now platinum is less expensive than gold. That's how crazy this market is right now, where nothing makes sense. Platinum is less expensive than gold. Historically, that's -- that doesn't happen. What did I get my grandchildren? Oh, they loved it. Teething platinum. I got them a couple of coins to have their parents put in a safe-deposit box and save for them.

Gold, silver, platinum, I don't believe in the US currency for a long-term investment. I don't. But I certainly am not taking all of my money out of currency and putting it into gold. 10 percent of your 401(k) or your IRA is smart. Call them and do your own homework. 866GOLDLINE. 1866GOLDLINE or goldline.com.

[break]

GLENN: Cary, we have one minute. Can you make your point here? Go ahead. Cary, are you there?

PAT: It's Kevin.

GLENN: Oh, Kevin. Are you there? Go ahead.

Oh, jeez, did we lose, Kevin?

PAT: Are you there, Kevin? Kevin.

GLENN: Kevin, are you there? Line one.

PAT: Did we lose him? We lost him. So young too.

GLENN: Oh, shoot. I'm sorry.

PAT: You know, part of it is -- the problem with his premise was that it presumes Fox is pure conservatism. Fox is not pure conservatism. Fox is pure Republican Partyism. I mean, I wasn't even on the air there like you were, and I saw how not necessarily purely conservative Fox was. Fox is not the conservative outlet people believe it to be. I mean, look who they supported the whole campaign. Not a conservative.

Featured Image: Megyn Kelly (Getty Images)

The Deep State's NEW plan to backstab Trump

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.