Sally Yates: The Left's New Hero

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.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


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.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


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.

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast" recently came out as "unhappily" voting Republican, including for President Donald Trump, because the Democratic Party is now being controlled by a far-left movement that seeks to destroy our country and the U.S. Constitution.

He joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to explain why this election isn't "Trump versus Biden." It's Trump versus a "movement that wants to tear apart American society at its very foundation." Lindsay warned that if it isn't stopped, the left can toss out our rights by rewriting the Constitution — or abolishing it altogether.

"A lot of people don't understand what's happening with the election we have right now," he said. "They think it's a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And at the surface level, of course, it is. We're voting for each candidate to be duly put into the office of president. But that's not what we really have going on. We have, in Donald Trump, a man who's going to govern as we've all seen — the way he feels like he's going to govern. And we have in Joe Biden, a man captured by a movement that wants to tear apart the American society at its very foundation."

Lindsay noted the popular leftist narratives that call to "abolish anything they don't like," which now includes the U.S. Constitution. He added that "this is the movement that is controlling the Democratic Party."

"It is my belief, that there has been a largely effective kind of silent coup of the Democratic Party, that's turned it completely under the control of this movement. And that's what we're going to be electing with Joe Biden. So I can't do it," he said.

Watch the video below for more details: