Take that, North Korea: ‘The Interview’ still watched by millions in America, makes $15 million in online downloads

Despite being shut out of most movie theaters across the country, ‘The Interview’ starring Seth Rogen still managed to make $15 million via online downloads. Not a terrible number considering the likely high number of illegal downloads - but how was the movie itself? Buck Sexton (filling in for Glenn) saw it and gave his review on radio today.

Below is a transcript of this segment:

Buck Sexton: So I saw "The Interview" over the weekend. I watched it. Yes, yes, I did. And before I talk about standing in solidarity with the First Amendment and free expression, let he talk to you about this movie. For those of who you have not yet seen it.

By the way, my understanding is it made $15 million from downloads. Was illegally seen, downloaded many times before that. Or many times in addition to that at least. And made a few million dollars in the theaters from which it was shown.

So let me just say. As much as it seems like free speech has won the day, and in a sense it has. By the way, when this initially broke, I was on Fox and I said, listen, this is about what the American people's response is. It shouldn't just all be dumping on Sony. They'll release in it a different format. I understand that they're licking their wounds right now and the American people will watch it and that's up to us to do. And to show that we won't let some dictator -- people keep referring to him as a Pol Pot dictator. I'm like he does have nuclear weapons, but we'll get to that in a minute. We won't let him tell us what we can read, watch, any of that.

So as for the movie itself, and for the purposes of full disclosure, I'm not a particularly big James Franco slash -- as Obama has dubbed him now, James Flacco fan. For am I up two widely celebrate the theatrical works of Seth Rogen, I give this movie a C, maybe. Maybe a C-plus. There's really nothing particularly clever in it. It seems makes the "Police Academy" movies look like masterpiece theaters. I kind of miss the "Police Academy" movies. It is Pauly Shore bad.

And for those of who your like me, children of the '90s to some degree or whatever, had our formative years in the '90s, I remember going into seeing Pauly Shore films, you will recall just what an atrocity they were. And in certain parts it feels like a Pauly Shore movie.

James Franco plays a guy named Skylark. They go to interview Kim Jong Un in North Korea. There's a lot of idiot stoner humor. They take every opportunity they can to sort of work in a stereotypical Asian accent and of course James Franco, as soon as he arrives in North Korea, turns around to everyone and says (speaking foreign language) -- infusing Japanese with Korean intentionally. Now, look -- it's not intentional for the character but this passes for about as clever as the movie actually gets.

Just sharing my general thoughts on this before we get into the fact that there is a war on free speech around the world. A continuing war. It is a continuous struggle and it's a serious one and it's one I want to spend some time talking to you about today. But before we get into that, I just thought it was worthwhile to discuss "The Interview" a little bit. This movie that's gotten so much buzz because it essentially kicked off at least a battle in a broader cyber war.

Those of you that don't like potty, potty humor, and sort of "American Pie" style, very sexual humor, you will not like this movie.

But you could if you wanted to, it's just an act of defiance, you could just download this. You could download this to show that we will not allow our taste in film and art to be dictate by some guy.

This reminds me of the line from Jack Donaghy's mother in the show "30 Rock." Jack Donaghy is the best part of the show. It's the conservative and he's played by Alec Baldwin and I have to separate out the person from the character. It's a good character. But his mother says if she always travels on Pearl Harbor Day because she wants to show the emperor she's not afraid. This is like in 2008.

Nonetheless, there's a lot of really sort of low brow stuff in 'The Interview; movie. They work in a bunch of 'Lord Of The Rings' references. You get the feeling that they wrote the script, and Rogen and Franco were both paid $7 million apiece for this film and there was some additional money for Rogen directing and I guess this was directed by somebody. They could have spent more money on writers, I would think. This might have been a better idea. And you get the sense that this was written in between bong binges and attempts to outdo one another and how fast one could vacuum a bag of Fritos clean.

But the best part of the movie is actually a King Charles puppy that shows up at one point, because King Charles puppies are adorable. So there's a King Charles puppy and it plays a prominent role towards the end. There is an attractive C.I.A. agent. That's okay, I guess. Trying to think of the other good things. It doesn't actually make fun of Kim Jong Un that much. It makes him pretty likable for most of the film. At the very end, it sort of turns on him. And the time scene, by the way, there's some bloody and disgusting stuff in the movie. But the final scene is not that -- I mean, by American cinema standards now, what we see with these movies where people have, you know, oh, gosh, all this movies with the saws and the -- all the blades and the people being chained up every where and everything. This 'Saw' franchise and all this stuff. It was tame is what I'm trying to say. The ending was tame.

And I think that there was -- it was much ado about nothing. I guess what I'm trying to tell you. That North Korea had such an objection to this.

'Team America,' which is a classic of American cinema, had -- there's no question 'Team America,' it's a better movie. But also was much more humiliating for the regime. You've got Kim Jong Il as a puppet and he's singing the song that he's so lonely and that's now how he pronounces it and in the end he's actually a roach. That went without incidence. So you get this sense, this must be in some way a result of the fact that North Korea, with Chinese assistance, whether overt or covert or whatever, has a capability to do what it did to Sony but it didn't then because 'Team America' lights up the regime.

I'll be honest with you, it did not really go after North Korea that much. Now, I'm not saying that it was trying to, but just given the outrage that came -- well, I shouldn't say outrage. It came from one place and is one place only, which is the Democrat People's Republic of North Korea, which they don't see the humor in the name but all the rest of us do, right? As has been said before by me on this show and elsewhere, Christopher Hitchens best described it as a concentration camp above ground and a mass grave below it -- that this country or this regime would take it upon itself to try to determine for us what movies we can see just seems so crazy. But that the move that they get so upset about was 'The Interview.'

I got to tell you, it was a bad movie. And I'm okay with funny bad. You know, you don't have to be brilliant, clever, funny like best in "Show," for example, which any of you who haven't seen it cannot recommend it for highly. We are being to move from movies to the war on free speech because I'm not one of those shows -- Siskel and Ebert turned into. But this movie did not even really go after the regime very much at all and it was sophomoric in the worst ways and I'm amazed that Sony would spend $50 million on this piece of garbage, quite honestly. And I wish that given all of the hubbub around this, given all the gnashing of teeth -- I guess it's covert, right? They still pretend that it wasn't them but given what happened but -- that was apparently a decent movie. I didn't see it, Guardians of Peace, yes. The GOP. And they don't see the irony of that of course either, I suppose. But given that that's what's going on here, I just wish it was better. I wish it had really rolled up the sleeves and gone after the regime, you know, in the old Irish way. You know, just really gone after it. Right on the chin. But no. No. It really didn't.

It was really just more of a -- sort of stoner bromance for Rogen and Franco. But that's it. And we've had the whole country into hacking and it brought down Sony studios for a move that I got to tell you, I think it would have absolutely bombed without the hacking threat and everything else. I don't think this would have done well at all. I don't think anybody would have cared, I don't think anybody would have seen it. So in a sense, I don't know.

We'll see how this all shakes out for Sony at the end.

Front page image courtesy of the AP.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.

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.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.