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)

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.