Sally Yates: The Left's New Hero

January 31, 2017

WRITER

Going out in a blaze of partisan politics, acting Attorney General Sally Yates --- whose departure was imminent upon President Trump's AG nominee being confirmed --- chose her personal morality over the law, refusing to uphold the president's order temporarily banning individuals from certain countries entering the US. The move resulted in her being fired within hours.

"A lot of people like to make a name for themselves when they have the opportunity at the very end of an administration, to go out in flames, to go out as the hero. And I think that's what she did. She saw an opportunity, and I guarantee you, she is going to be a hero of the left," Glenn said Tuesday on radio.

Sally Yates' job was to enforce the law. President Trump's executive order was legal. She made a purely political and calculated career move that had nothing to do with upholding the law.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to the program. Glad you're here. Last night I turn on the TV. I'm in Los Angeles. And thank you so much for listening today.

But I got in last night, I don't even know what time it is. And turn on the television, and Donald Trump had just fired the interim attorney general. And they were calling it the Monday Night Massacre.

Now, in case you don't know what the Monday Night Massacre is referring to -- which, by the way, is crazy, crazy to compare it to the Saturday Night Massacre. This comes from the Nixon administration. It is absolutely amazing to me how the press is so out of control. They are hurting themselves even more.

To refer to what happened last night as the Monday Night Massacre, to immediately -- within minutes, within minutes, compare it to what Richard Nixon did is obscene.

What happened on the Saturday Night Massacre is Richard Nixon was being investigated for Watergate. His appointees would not fire the special investigator. They had a special investigator to look in to see if Nixon was indeed a crook. And he said to his Justice Department, "You have to fire the independent investigator." And they said, "No." And he said, "I'm telling you, I'm the president of the United States. You'll fire them." And they said, "Mr. President, it is independent. We will not fire them."

Now, what's the difference?

Here's what happened last night: The Muslim ban goes into effect, and the Justice Department is the one that has to police the ban. Are you doing it? Are you doing the right thing? Are you following the law? Which, by the way, the problem is, the law is an executive order.

Are you following the law? The interim attorney general says no. Now, not on legal reasons. The Saturday Night Massacre, it was on legal reasons. This wasn't a legal reason. She said her morals told her she couldn't do that, not the law. Her morals.

What else is the difference? The difference between the Saturday Night Massacre and the Monday Night Massacre was that she wasn't appointed by the president. Here's a woman who was appointed by Barack Obama.

Here's the temptation: A lot of people -- a lot of people like to make a name for themselves when they are -- when they have the opportunity at the very end of an administration, to go out in flames, to go out as the hero. And I think that's what she did. She saw an opportunity -- and I guarantee you, she is going to be a hero of the left.

This was a purely political and career move. That's all this was. There was nothing legal about it.

Her job is to enforce the law. Now, if she wants to have some sort of moral reason to do that, she can do that. But don't confuse that with something that happened in the 1970s that was about deep corruption and legal reasons.

So last night, I tweeted something -- I don't even remember. Stu, maybe you can look up my tweet. Because I was talking to Stu this morning, and we haven't even had a chance to talk about this yet. He said, "I gather you're against him firing the attorney general last night?" And I said, "No." And he said, "Oh, I read your tweet."

STU: Yeah, it was the one about you talked about them being betrayed.

GLENN: Read the tweet.

STU: You were betrayed? This PR is unlike anything I've ever seen from the White House before. Principles over parties. Return to the balance of constitutional powers.

GLENN: Yes. Okay. This is the problem with the 144 characters.

STU: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: The problem I had was -- read this PR -- this press release. Read it from start to finish. The entire government is now starting to speak and reflect the actual language of Donald Trump. Either that, or he's writing the press releases, which I hope to God he has other things to do.

But listen to the language of this. Do you have it, Stu?

STU: I can get it.

GLENN: I'm sorry. I thought it was connected to the tweet.

STU: Yeah. Hold on one second. Yeah, White House statement here. It's loading. There we go. All right.

White House statement: The acting Attorney General Sally Yates betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form legality by the Department of Justice office and legal counsel. Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who was weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. It's time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for -- it does sound like Trump.

JEFFY: It sure does.

GLENN: It does.

STU: Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So I agree with him. This is reasonable. This is not a ban.

However, the problem is, he wants both sides. When he signed it, he said it was a ban. As he was signing it, he said, "I'm doing the Muslim ban." He used the word "ban." So why? Why would you do that?

Because everyone is playing populist politics. Why did she refuse to move and put herself in a position where she knew she had to be fired? Because she knew she would be popular with her side.

Why did he use the word "ban" when it is a pause? If you don't want to enflame things, what you do, as you're signing this, you say, "Look, this is -- I want to make it clear, this is not a ban, this is a pause. All I'm doing is pausing so we can look into how we're vetting people and make sure we're safe." That's what you do.

But everyone is playing into populism. And so he immediately said, "It's a ban." But then he later said, "It's not a ban." Well, which one is it? And he knows which one it is: It's not a ban. But he wants to play into his crew that wants the ban, that want that tough stand. He's no longer playing -- or he hasn't ever -- but the president is no longer playing into the center. He's continuing to do what Barack Obama did. He's not trying to embrace the entire American public, he's embracing the people that think like him. She was embracing the people who look like her or think like her.

That's what happened. And that's -- I heard last night on CNN -- I watched -- oh. I watched all the networks last night, and I could not take it. You can see if you read my tweets by the end. I'm just -- I'm losing my mind.

But I actually heard -- who was it? Who is the guy that does that globalist thing on CNN? It's hard to narrow that down.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Fareed.

STU: Oh, Fareed Zakaria, yeah.

GLENN: Zakaria. Zakaria and Alan Dershowitz were going back and forth and yelling at each other. I shouldn't say that. Dershowitz wasn't. But Dershowitz was saying, "I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, but what he did here was legal. It was right. She was -- yada, yada, yada.

Zakaria, at one point, in the middle of Dershowitz just explaining, said, "I'm not even listening to you, Alan. I'm not listening to your explanation anymore. I'm just not listening to you, Alan."

I'm like, what -- Alan Dershowitz is one of the brightest attorneys on the planet. And I don't agree with him all the time, but he's proven himself to be fairly reasonable on almost every topic. Again, I don't agree with him, but he's reasonable. For someone like Fareed to interrupt and just say, "I'm not listening to you," that's when I turned the TV off. I'm like, "Nobody is listening to each other anymore." I was watching Fox, what did Fox do?

The language of Fox made me or people like me feel pretty good. I'm like, "Yeah, get 'em." I had to turn it off because I'm like, "This is not helpful. This is not helpful."

Honestly, I looked at my wife last night, I said, "Is it just us? Is it just us that sees how close to the edge we are?"

And if we don't start listening to each other, if we don't start calming things down and not saying that it was a massacre last night -- it was not a massacre.

Let me give you this: Let's see if I can find -- try this on for size.

In an article published Sunday on Medium -- if you don't know what Medium is, Medium is a really very smart blog site. It's like -- it's Facebook for people who have patience. Okay?

You can go and you can write posts, but it's not designed for clicks. It's designed for reading time. So it will tell you: This is a five-minute read. This is a ten-minute read. And instead of tracking clicks and shares and everything else, what they track is how long you've spent on that article. And so if people read the entire article and spend time with that article, that article is moved up. It shows that it's -- it's engaging people and they're thinking and reading it.

So it's a very different website. But it is -- it's -- it's much more geared toward I think a Silicon Valley kind of mindset. So it's -- it has very interesting points of view.

Article published Sunday on Medium.

Google privacy engineer, Yonatan Zunger, examined the details of what he believed was a sordid conspiracy among President Trump and his inner circle, which will lead to an eventual coup d'état.

Now, listen to this. First he cited CNN, writing: It's notable that this -- that the DHS lawyers objected to this ban, this Muslim order, specifically the exclusion of green card holders, as illegal, and also pressed that there would be a grace period so people currently out of the country wouldn't be stranded. And they were personally overruled by Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. Also notable is that career DHS staff, up to and including the head of customs and border patrol, were kept entirely out of the loop, until the order was signed.

Next, he cites the Guardian, writing: The mass resignations of nearly all senior staff at the State Department on Thursday were not, in fact, resignations, but a purge ordered by the White House. This leaves almost no one in the entire senior staff of the State Department at this point. It leaves the State Department entirely unstaffed during these critical first weeks, when orders like the Muslim ban, which they would resist normally, are coming down.

He then added: The DHS agents were still detaining and still deporting individuals, even after two major court rulings that said they can't do that.

Some of what Zunger writes is true, the story goes on. Insomuch as it comes from CNN and other reputable outlets, but it appears to be an extrapolation or an interpretation of the news. However, in the end, Zunger seems to believe that all the chaos means one thing: Quote, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS and other executive agencies can act and ignore orders from other branches of the government. This is as serious as it can possibly get. All of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional means nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

Yesterday was a trial balloon for a coup d'état against the United States. It gave them useful information. He also wrote that the orders are being made via the inner circle of Trump, Bannon, Miller, Priebus, Kushner, and possibly Flynn, and that the gutting of agencies and the shuffling of the National Security Council represents something nefarious.

He speculated that Trump will want his personal security to take a higher position, writing: Keith Schiller should continue to run the personal security force which would take over an increasing fraction of the Secret Service's job.

He concluded, especially if combined with the DHS and the FBI, which appears to have remained loyal to the president throughout the recent transition, this creates an armature of a shadow government. Intelligence and police services, which are not accountable through any normal means, answerable only to the president.

Zunger has chosen to view the absolute chaos of the last 72 hours as a trial balloon for a coup d'état against the United States. Nothing is out of the realm of possibility, and Trump's rhetoric suggests he views governing with a more centralized eye than most. However, there is another possibility that bears mentioning.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep