‘She has no idea what a hero is’: Glenn reacts to one Lone Survivor critic

By all accounts the film adaptation of Marcus Luttrell’s bestselling book Lone Survivor has been a huge success. It far exceeded expectations in its opening weekend, bringing in over $38 million and finishing number one at the box office. Critics have also widely praised the film, but one negative review, courtesy of LA Weekly’s “head film critic” Amy Nicholson, has gotten attention for its bizarre tone.

“We have a really nice review of Lone Survivor from the Hollywood elite, and I think it's fantastic,” Glenn said mockingly on radio this morning. “It's the way I saw the film – would you agree, Stu? The way most people saw the film.”

Nicholson’s review, entitled “Lone Survivor has too much violence and jingoism for its own good,” takes issue with what she feels are factual inaccuracies and gross pro-war themes. It is clear from the onset that her intent was to write a snarky piece – and that is well within her rights. But, after reading the article, one can’t help but question whether Nicholson actually sat through the entire film before penning her review.

Below are a few highlights (in italics)  from Nicholson’s piece Stu read aloud this morning:

Here's a movie that'll flop in Kabul. Lone Survivor, the latest by Battleship director Peter Berg, is a jingoistic snuff film about a Navy SEAL squadron outgunned by the Taliban in the mountainous Kunar province…

“That should be a standard we all should try to aspire,” Pat said. “What's a flop in Kabul?”

“She's snarky, Pat,” Stu quipped. “She's being snarky here.”

It's based on the memoir Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10 by sole evacuee Marcus Luttrell (played by Wahlberg)… Luttrell didn't exactly write his book. Rather than sitting in front of a word processor, he was back in action in Iraq. Instead, the United States Navy hired British novelist Patrick Robinson, who, among other embellishments, upped the number of enemy Taliban fighters from 10 to 200…

“Hold on just a second. First of all, she's concerned that he didn't actually write the book,” Glenn said. “He had all that happen to him, then he got well and went right back to combat, while some writer sat at home and fired up the dangerous word processor.”

“This is the thing,” Stu continued. “I had this impression over this time that what Marcus did was really impressive and what his brothers did was really impressive, very heroic… then I realized he didn't write it.”

These four men were heroes. But these heroes were also men. As the film portrays them, their attitudes to the incredibly complex War on Terror… were simple: Brown people bad, American people good.

“And the most important about the story that's not in the movie is that those two people have become very good friends,” Glenn said disgusted. “That the guy who had all of his friends killed by, quote, brown people, has gone back over and protected the brown people and has made it a very important mission in his life to make sure everybody understands, you know, not everybody over there is a bad guy. Marcus has never believed that.”

“It's as if she walked out half way through the movie,” Stu added. “It's hard to have understand how she could say the brown people.”

We're meant to cheer, not that anyone in my theater did. But there will be audiences who do, and I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable with what they're cheering for. This is death. Look at death.

“I sat with a group of Navy SEALS. Nobody cheered… They applauded at the end, but did you hear anybody go yay, during that move,” Glenn asked. “This is not a superhero movie. This is an ode to heroic people, and not just the SEAL team, not the people who died in the helicopter, but to the town that protected them. They ‘brown’ people.”

Read the entire review HERE.

After reading the review for himself, Glenn had an offer for Nicholson: Come to Dallas (on Glenn’s dime) and read your review in front of Marcus himself. While she has not yet responded to Glenn's request, Nicholson did Tweet the following message to "Glenn Beck Listeners":

“Does she have any idea who this guy is… This guy had to look the people who wanted to kill him in the eye and say, ‘Let him go. We'll roll the dice. Let him go.’ He's had to look people in the eye as he's killed them,” Glenn explained. “I don't know what it's like to kill another man, but… if I had to go to war, I would much rather be on a battleship and blow a plane out of the sky… from a distance… Not to say it doesn't screw with you if you're up in the sky, but you don't see the eyes. You don't see people's eyes and carry those eyes around for the rest of your life. [Marcus] does.”

“[Nicholson] has no idea what a hero is. She has no idea what bravery is,” Glenn concluded. “You make me sick. You make me sick. But to each his own.”

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.