A Caller Shares a ‘Liberal’ Perspective on Roy Moore vs. Al Franken

Each of us brings a different set of biases to the table, and sometimes it’s just best to be honest about it.

While Doc sat in for Glenn on today’s show, a caller named Kevin shared his perspective on the sexual misconduct allegations that are disrupting Washington. Listen to his chat with Doc (above) for some blunt commentary from a Democrat voter.

He acknowledged that Republicans are more likely to overlook accusations that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to seduce a 14-year-old girl and Democrats are prone to make excuses for Sen. Al Franken after a photo was released showing him groping a woman.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: It's Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck. You can join the program. 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. Or online. Join me on Twitter. It's @DocThompsonshow. By the way, Facebook is Facebook.com/DocThompsonShow. We're talking about the latest allegations. I spent a lot of time on it today. But a little bit of sexual improprieties. And the big one last night was Charlie Rose. It's pretty awful if true. There's a lot of salacious stuff. Some of the other ones have been less significant. You know, people like Ben Affleck. He may have touched me inappropriately as we passed, you know, on the set, or something. Charlie seems systematically, again, if proven true.

Then we also heard that John Conyers may have settled a case for $27,000, when he was a sitting congressman in Michigan. John Conyers, you remember, they say you got to pass the bill. They say, vote for -- what was it? Study the bill? Research the bill. Read the bill.

KRIS: Read the bill.

DOC: How are we going to read the bill? That was John Conyers back in the day. Served for 200 years or whatever it was. John Conyers accused of settling for $27,000. The interesting thing, Conyers' settlement came out of his budget, his office budget in DC. Unlike the other 264 allegations for sitting members of Congress over the last 24 years -- or, 20 years. Over 20 years, Congress has paid off 264 people, from a special slush fund that they've created.

KRIS: Can I correct you on that?

DOC: Yes.

KRIS: Because it wasn't Congress. We paid for that. We paid for that.

DOC: Thank you. Thank you, Kris Cruz. We have paid into this slush fund, where Congressmen get to act -- in many cases, it's probably going to be true -- inappropriate. People challenge them on it. And we have paid $17 million to 264 cases.

That averages about $64,000 every four weeks. Every four weeks for the last 20 years, we have paid 64 thousands dollars because congressmen acted inappropriately or were accused of it.

Just another perk they get. Let me go to the phone lines now in Illinois. Kevin, thanks for holding here on the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: Hey, I'm doing pretty good. How are you?

DOC: Doing well, sir. Thank you.

CALLER: Well, let me first state in full disclosure that I am a liberal.

DOC: Oh, my gosh.

CALLER: I'm a liberal.

DOC: I appreciate the disclosure, sir.

CALLER: That's fine.

So everybody is going to see this through the lens of me being a liberal, which is fine. Because I see things through the lens of you being a conservative. So...

DOC: Real quick, side note, Kevin, that's how it's supposed to be. Because my frustration is when Fox and MSNBC and whoever else doesn't admit and lead with their biases, because it's like they're trying to trick people. Whereas, you know, just lead with your bias. Just tell me who you are, you know.

CALLER: Which is exactly what I did. So I'm going to tell you that my liberal bias says that Al Franken's infracture (sic) is not so bad that he should be kicked out of Congress. Because I want him in, because I'm a liberal.

Now, my liberal bias says that Ray (sic) Moore's infractions are severe.

DOC: Because you don't want him in.

CALLER: And should not be in Congress. Now -- now, we have to weigh these things, about how bad the infractions are. If it were found out that Ray Moore were a Jeffrey Dahmer, well, clearly that about trumps all political efforts, right?

DOC: Sure, mass murderer, absolutely.

CALLER: But Kellyanne Moore (sic) implied that it's sort of okay to assume he might be because we need his vote.

DOC: Uh-huh.

CALLER: She did that just a couple days ago.

DOC: Uh-huh.

CALLER: And I would say with Al Franken, it's sort of okay that he did these little jokes. You know, faux groping and maybe kissing, because I need his vote.

DOC: Yep.

CALLER: So we really have to see that through this lens.

DOC: No, I agree. And we have to be consistent with this. And that's the reason I break down each case. And, I mean, Al Franken's, half of his have been proven because of the photo. Half of them, the kiss is be the not proven. That's still just an allegation. Roy Moore's have not been proven, although it's looking real sketchy for the guy. And I think he probably did based on the, well, I always asked their mom.

CALLER: Come on, man. Come on, man. You know that Ray Moore is guilty. You know it. Everybody knows it.

DOC: Well, no, Kevin, this is what I'm saying, I believe he is. Although it's still allegations. Half of Al Franken's -- I just admitted, I believe he probably kissed her. But that's still just an allegation. The only difference with the picture is we have proof of that. Now, Kevin Spacey, still an allegation. Much of Harvey Weinstein, still allegations.

CALLER: Proven or not?

DOC: Most of those are still allegations. I don't know if there's any proof of his. And, by the way, I would even accept proof in a court of law. So if Harvey Weinstein gets convicted of something, I go, that's proof. If Roy Moore does too --

CALLER: We don't have time to deal with that with Ray Moore. The election is coming in three weeks. There's no chance for a court of law at that point. We have to decide that right now.

DOC: Right. I know. It's frustrating.

It's likely going -- I mean, he's -- his competitor, Doug Jones is leading by a pretty good margin by most polls.

CALLER: Look, Roy Moore is guilty. This is clear. Look at the handwriting. All these handwriting experts. Give me a break. He wrote that in the yearbook. That's obvious. Okay? Maybe the woman added a line about where it was exactly. But this is just a red herring. And you know it. And everybody --

DOC: Well, wait a minute. You still have to admit, it's still an allegation.

CALLER: Okay. It is. It can't be proven. I don't know why Gloria Allred doesn't submit that to a handwriting expert because it's obvious to me that it's true. Just give it up and let an independent handwriting expert verify that he wrote that.

DOC: Now, do you say the same thing -- are you holding -- and I'm fine, as long as there's consistency. If somebody says, Roy Moore is guilty and therefore should not serve. That's fine. You're entitled to my opinion. My frustration is when you wouldn't also include Al in it. I believe both of them -- both of them are just allegations at this point. With that extra caveat that part of Al Franken's have been proven true. You say that about Roy Moore. You would support someone who did that. Do you still support Al Franken serving?

CALLER: Well, it depends on the severity of his offense.

DOC: Okay. Yeah.

CALLER: Now, I'm pro-liberal. So if this offense is not too severe, if he did a little joke, this is an SNL joke, you know, it's bad, but not disqualifying.

DOC: The allegations against Roy Moore seem more severe because the allegations --

CALLER: A 14-year-old. Underage.

DOC: Exactly. Right. Right.

CALLER: Way more severe.

DOC: Right. Right. However, based on what so many progressives and liberals lead with, when it comes to allegations about, you know, the whole Me Too campaign and how women are second class citizens and need the extra attention and whatever, I would say that based on your philosophies, Al Franken needs to be held accountable even for the joke.

CALLER: He does need to be held accountable even for the joke. Absolutely. Look, I am not so partisan that I don't think a wrong is a wrong, when it's a wrong. Okay? But should he be kicked out? I don't think so. I don't think so. If that were true, then half the Congress would be kicked out. Okay?

DOC: Yeah. And, listen, I'm fine with jokes like that. Again, Kevin, I'm just looking for the consistency person to person. So if you lead with your philosophy --

CALLER: It's just not the consistency. It's the severity of the --

DOC: Well, there's consistency within the severity of all that.

CALLER: If what Bill Clinton did was true, then he should be kicked out. And I'm a Democrat. I'm the first to admit that if someone did something seriously wrong --

DOC: Right.

CALLER: -- even if it was my party, they have no business in my government. Even if it means that I lose the vote to what I want to happen. Now, that's what bothers me about Kellyanne.

DOC: You know, and, Kevin, you're the type of person that I -- that I want to deal with. You're the type of person that I want to have those discussions with. And we can find common ground. If you're willing to hold your own people accountable and parties that you would normally support with as little as bias as possible and be consistent like that, that's -- that's what's missing right now. You're the type of person I want to talk to. You're my fellow American.

CALLER: We are all Americans. And I believe there's more commonality between us than most people would like to believe.

DOC: I mean, Kevin, we can both admit Glenn Beck is overweight, right?

(laughter)

DOC: I'll take that as a yes. Kevin, thanks for the call. Have a happy Thanksgiving, buddy.

What was that?

KRIS: Really?

DOC: I'm trying to find common ground here.

KRIS: And you find it on saying that our boss is fat?

DOC: I didn't say fat. I said overweight. He's big-boned.

KRIS: Okay.

DOC: He's big-boned. He's husky. He may have a medical condition. I don't know. I'm just saying overweight, for his own concern. You know, for his own health. I'm concerned about this.

KRIS: Wow.

DOC: Well, I couldn't start with one of the more nuanced things. You have to go to the obvious things, right? Look, we can all admit that the fourth Indian Jones should not exist and is reprehensible. Kal, am I right?

KAL: I don't even speak of it. I don't know --

DOC: Exactly. See that's what I'm saying. You got to go with those big ones, then you get closer and closer to the more difficult ones.

KAL: I disagree with your last statement completely.

KRIS: Yes. Our boss is not fat.

KAL: Not fat at all. He's not overweight at all.

KRIS: He's fantastic. He's awesome. He's good.

DOC: Just letting you go here. Just letting you go. Just letting you go. All right.

KAL: His hands are very, very slender as he writes my paycheck.

KRIS: Yes. Yes. And when he gives me a hug, I literally can get all around him. He can't get around me.

KAL: I don't know about that.

KRIS: Oh, really?

DOC: Okay. All right. All right. So you're saying Glenn Beck is thin then?

KRIS: Yes, he's thin.

DOC: Kal, do you say he's thin?

KAL: I'm sorry, what? These headphones are not working.

DOC: All right. Move on. Well, I was trying to start with something that was more obvious. Perhaps I made a mistake there. All right. Let's go to line 11. Bill in the great state of Florida, thanks for calling the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: I'm doing fine. I have a question, do they realize how much power they gave women? Anyone can hit the lotto or have a successful business and someone can come from the past and say, "Hey, he did this," just to make money, and nothing really happened.

DOC: Yeah. We've given women way too much power. I mean, that whole suffrage thing, that started the ball rolling, Bill. That was the whole -- no, I know what you mean. If you go back 30, 40 years or whatever, women and many people have a legitimate beef when they say women were never believed. You know, that they automatically didn't believe them. And that's the reason now they keep saying, every woman deserves to be heard. The problem is now the pendulum has swung completely the other way, where as long as you accuse somebody, you're believed, and it's believed to be true. And that's a bigger problem.

CALLER: Yep. That's all I had. You guys are doing a great job. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

DOC: Thanks, buddy. Appreciate it. Happy Thanksgiving.

You understand what I'm saying there? It's a bigger problem to accuse people and have that accusation be believed with no proof, no rule of law, no justice system. Now, a lot of this stuff is just tried in the court of opinion.

But that's a bigger problem. The idea of --

KAL: The court of opinion matters almost as much.

DOC: Matters. Because we live on social media, Kal. Everything. You can't even have a restaurant without having it rated by four different apps.

KAL: Yep.

DOC: Everything is judged like that. And we share this information. The court of public opinion is now as valuable and important and powerful as it ever has been. Yes, I recognize, as Mitt Romney said, that, you know, innocent until proven guilty is for the justice system. The legal system.

But shouldn't it also apply in the court of public opinion?

Shouldn't it? So while women were not believed and they were victimized, some men were not believed and victimized over the years. And they said, oh, well, I'm not even going to entertain what you're saying about so-and-so touching you inappropriately, because I like that guy and just go away, and that was horrible. That person who was guilty of something got away with it. That's horrible. But worse, to convict somebody -- even the court of public opinion, when they're innocent, I would rather when we're dealing with the justice system, set free 100 guilty people than send one innocent person to jail. Maybe you disagree. I think that's a pretty good system. So that's the reason we discussed this.

Please, keep recognizing which claims are segregations which ones are proven. Half of Al Franken's are proven. She said he kissed her without permission. Forcibly, whatever. And then number two, he groped her. The groping is on film. That part is proven.

Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders joined Glenn Beck on this week's podcast to share her unique perspective as a trusted adviser and confidante to President Donald Trump for two and a half years, which she also details in her new book, "Speaking for Myself: Faith, Freedom, and the Fight of Our Lives Inside the Trump White House."

Sarah described the unprecedented levels of corruption she saw firsthand during the Russia probe and shocking lengths to which Democratic leaders and the mainstream media would go to "take the president down."

Sarah said she often saw sides of Donald Trump that the media never covered. Recently, she went on the record denying the Atlantic's claims that the president mocked our military during a 2018 trip to France. She was on that trip, she told Glenn, and her account of what really happened paints a very different picture.

"The people who are making this outrageous charge are such cowards for doing so in an anonymous way. If you really believed this, and believed it was wrong, one, why did it take you so long? And, two, put your name on it the way the rest of us have," Sarah said.

"He didn't say those things. Not only was I there that day, Glenn, I spent two and a half years traveling all over the world with the president, watching him interact with men and women of our armed forces almost every single day during that two-and-a-half year period," she added.

"This is a person who loves America and loves the people who allow the rest of us to live in America, free, and have prosperity. And I got to see that a lot. I think it is shameful that people are trying to distort who he is and what he has done, particularly when it comes to the men and women in the military."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Sarah Huckabee Sanders below:

Find the full podcast below, on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.


Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The Daily Beast recently reported on a group of 50-plus leading progressive organizations that calls itself the Fight Back Table or FBT, who are planning for a "post-Election Day political apocalypse scenario."

The FBT held a meeting on Zoom to launch an initiative they dubbed the "Democracy Defense Nerve Center." Meeting participants prepared for expected threats to a fair election in November, such as "armed right-wing militia dudes show[ing] up in polling places," or poll locations that "mysteriously close" on Election Day. They also predicted that President Donald Trump would claim victory regardless of November's election results, which would lead to inevitable "mass public unrest."

"It is very obvious that Trump is laying the groundwork for claiming victory no matter what ... we will fight to protect [our democracy] from what we truly see as a president who has gone off the rails and taking this country down an authoritarian fascist path," said MoveOn Executive Director Rahna Epting.

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program," Glenn argued that the left is using large-scale mail-in voting — which unlike absentee ballots does not require voters to submit an application ahead of the election — to set the stage for chaos, revolution, and ultimately cause civil war to destroy our nation.

"No one will believe the [election] outcome because they're changing the way we're electing a president this time. And people don't understand the difference ... this is Democratic states just printing ballots and mass mailing them," Glenn said.

"They've been war-gaming this forever," he continued. "And the media is trying to make it look as if the right is the one that is violent. We're not planning anything to happen on Election Day, except to go and vote. The chaos that's coming, I think is remarkable. And if the DOJ doesn't get involved and find out who these groups are and what they have planned, you are going to have intimidation and chaos the week of the voting, and for weeks [afterward] until we go into civil war. This is not hyperbole. This is what the left is now saying."

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:

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.

Netflix film 'Cuties' is darker than you thought

'Cuties'/Netflix

Plague. Recession. Riots. Looting. Fires. Murder Hornets. And now, as we round the third base toward the home stretch, 2020 gives us Cuties, a delightful French coming-of-age film by Maïmouna Doucouré that's half Stand by Me and half Coyote Ugly – if you were to combine both films into an anthropomorphic entity and then forcefully dip its toe into the perilous waters of pedophilia.

Cuties begins by showing us an 11-year-old Senegalese girl named Amy, whose fundamentalist Muslim family has recently moved to France. We learn that Amy's father has gone back to Senegal to bring home the woman who is to become his second wife. The mother's struggle is very clear to Amy, who begins right then and there to develop a hatred for her father. She starts looking for ways to rebel, and soon lands in the company of a group of ne'er-do-well girls, who fancy themselves dancers and have adopted the group name "Cuties". Their primary goal in life at the moment – and the thing that drives the film's narrative – is to participate in and win the big dance competition coming up soon. The ring-leader – a dark-haired bespectacled girl who resembles Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to such an eerie extent that it can't have been on accident – lives in Amy's building, and the two form a kind of delicate friendship throughout the film.

Here is where the movie most resembles a female version of Stand by Me, and it's also where I began to understand that this is a remarkably beautiful film at times. It's well-shot, well-scored, and well-acted. In fact, Fathia Youssouf Abdillahi (the actress who portrays Amy) is quite possibly the most talented child actor I've ever seen.

I began to understand that this is a remarkably beautiful film at times.

The portrayal of this group of girls wending their way through the thick tangles of childhood and constantly grasping at what they perceive to be higher concepts of adulthood is somehow both charming and bothersome at the same time. Knowing virtually nothing of the real world of sexuality, they engage in a kind of whimsical speculation as to how sex works that almost comically mirrors the aforementioned Oscar-winning film (and a ton of other coming-of-age movies as well). Some of this is fine. There's a particularly funny-turns-emotional moment when one of the girls, upon finding a used condom lying around in the woods, blows it up like a balloon and begins playing around with it. The other girls – who at least know enough to know that one doesn't touch such things for fear of disease – immediately recoil from her, tell her that she's going to catch AIDS, and so embarrass and frighten her that she begins to cry. The scene is, again, beautifully shot, and I found myself sympathizing with the character as she feels an overwhelming moment of ostracization-through-misadventure. In the following scene, we are treated to a montage of the girls washing her mouth out with soap, and it breaks the tension.

All of that to say that not only does this movie have plenty of redeemable moments that are on the beat film-wise, but also that it will pull you in headlong whether you want it to or not – which is what a good film is supposed to do.

But, alas, there's more. And I'm not so much talking about the risqué dancing that's done throughout the film. Here's why: as if the plot structure of every coming-of-age story didn't lay it out clearly enough for us, kids strive to be adults. The results are often hilarious, sometimes disturbing, but it's their nature. Kids want to be more like adults. And in a world – such as the one depicted in this movie – where children either can't or won't seize on the example of adulthood provided by their own parents, a vacuum is created. And nothing fills the vacuum of responsible parenting better than social media.

For the girls, it is the well from which they draw their inspiration, acceptance and love. "Likes" are the currency of the realm, and if you don't think this is true in your own kids' world today, you need to wake up and smell the Zuckerberg.

Thus, it is no surprise that these young dancing girls are modeling their very existence after what they see in online videos, and regurgitating the same back at the soulless machine. That they would be twerking and gyrating in a manner that falsely suggests they do know a thing or two about sex is normal when you consider that they're dining daily on visual and musical junk food – art perhaps not entirely without merit, but certainly without taste. And if there's one thing about the movie that phone-it-in parents might do well to see, it is perhaps the juxtaposition of budding childhood and the laissez faire morality adhered to by the demigods of popular culture. In short: these girls are just trying to be like the only set of role models afforded to them.

Here's what should (in my opinion, anyway) not be okay, though.

Aside from the moments of dancing, this film is filled with the cinematography of sexuality. When you watch any film in which there is a femme fatale character (or in some cases several of them), the way in which they are shot by the camera is extremely suggestive of overt sexuality. To quote one of my favorite online film critics: "You may not have noticed, but your brain did." Tracking shots over women's bodies, particularly up their backside or across a heaving bosom all decorated in cleavage, are a stock in trade for many filmmakers (and the only one for some of them). It's so common in the making of movies that it's often lampooned as a trope.

I'm reticent to accuse the woman who made this film of directly catering to the desires of pedophiles – but... I can't completely dismiss the idea, either.

We'll save the discussion about whether or not this is offensive when actresses in their twenties and thirties do it for another time. What I would hope we could all agree on is that you don't – in good conscience – use those same tracking shots over the bodies of a group of 11-year-old girls, even to make a point. And you certainly don't do it over and over and over throughout the course of a movie. The unstated purpose of such shots in a regular film is to give the viewer a taste of the voyeur. You wouldn't be allowed, in polite society, to walk up to a woman and stare at her from inches away, scanning down her body as if you were about to fax her someplace. But with the movie camera, you get a little taste of that. Dopamine rushes to your brain, and you're instantly glad you shelled out the twenty bucks to see the movie.

And while it's theoretically possible that the unstated purpose on behalf of the filmmaker changes when the subject is a little girl, it can't be denied or even overlooked that, for a certain subset of the viewing population, the effect does not. I'm reticent to accuse the woman who made this film of directly catering to the desires of pedophiles – but after having sat through an hour and a half of shot after shot of this very overt technique, I can't completely dismiss the idea, either.

As Amy progresses down the path that her (barely) world-wise friends have chosen, she becomes far more steeped in it, because she has no sense of the unseen boundaries which exist even in a hedonistic postmodern society such as present-day France. She spirals out of control very quickly, trying to outdo her friends in overt displays of sexuality and even violent aggressiveness. If there is a redeeming quality to the message of the movie, it is that we are fairly explicitly told through what we see her go through that this is not the best life for her. That escaping from the oppressive Muslim traditions of her family is a thing she should seek, but that this is not the way to go about it. All throughout her journey, we are subjected to close-up images of her body (and the bodies of the other girls). At one point, Amy's mother and aunt seem to be performing a kind of exorcism on her to drive out the evil rebellious spirits they believe have taken over, and Amy vibrates in the middle of the room on her knees in a paroxysm of movement which is half-dance, half-apparent-demonic possession, and all sex. I don't mean to be graphic here, but she may as well have been doing a full-on sex scene, for all the heavy breathing and gyration and rank passion that's going on. As an adult – and particularly as a parent – it made me literally feel ill to watch.

It's a beautiful final scene... but it fails to pull the film from the mire into which it's dipped.

And, if you believe the film's director, that's what you're supposed to feel. She claims that the whole intent of the movie is to get people to feel uncomfortable as they realize the hyper-sexualized nature of children in our modern world, and how it's driven by the nanny state that is social media in our modern era. Part of me wants to applaud the effort – it certainly worked on me. I walked away from my television with a feeling of nausea and a renewal of the commitment in my head toward doing anything and everything I can to make sure that my own children never watch this film. The fact that the movie ends with Amy making a choice to reclaim her childhood – that she walks away both from the more oppressive elements of her Muslim upbringing (insofar as she will be able – we are never told) and from trying to become an adult too soon (insofar as she will be able – we are also never told) and embraces just being an 11-year-old girl – that fact doesn't change what's transpired. It's a beautiful final scene – it really is – but it fails to pull the film from the mire into which it's dipped.

In summary, I can't really put any sort of seal of approval on this film, despite part of me wanting to. I generally subscribe to the idea that showing us a thing is far better than telling us a thing – but there are limits, and I think Cuties crosses them. As much as I want to believe that the director's motives are pure as the driven snow, it's not lost upon me that – as I mentioned before – one of the main characters (with whom we are meant to be sympathetic multiple times throughout the film) is very obviously meant to be the prototypical girl-who-wants-to-be-AOC. This film is at war with its own supposed message – it seeks to convey the horrors of oversexualized youth while laying out on for open display an entire smorgasbord of pedophilic fantasies. The game simply isn't worth the candle.

Osama bin Laden's niece, Noor bin Ladin (Noor's family has always spelled their name differently than her uncle) wrote an open letter to America, praising our country as "a beacon of democracy and hope for all subjugated peoples" across the world, and warning: "America, you are at the very edge of the precipice. Please wake up! Take hold! Fight for your country, and be proud of your roots! Uphold your values. Stand for your flag and your anthem. Defend your history. Don't relent in the face of those who seek to re-write it to serve their narrative and justify the destruction of your nation. You have much to cherish and protect for your sake, and ours."

Noor never stood with or supported her uncle. In fact, she grew up with an American flag proudly displayed in her childhood bedroom. Now a resident of Switzerland, she describes the chaos and destruction she's seen spread across America over the last several months.

"Watching the gratuitous violence, streets burn, buildings and statues being defaced in America over these past months, I am heartbroken to see how an entire generation was successfully brainwashed into hating the very nation that has yielded the most freedom, justice and equality anywhere in the world.

"I am also highly distressed by the blatant erosion at various levels of your most basic individual rights and freedoms as guaranteed by your Bill of Rights, from arbitrary censorship of speech to unlawful, politically motivated abuses of justice," she wrote.

Noor warned America that if we don't stand up, defend our history, and cherish the principles which make our country great, than those who have sought to undermine our country for decades will divide and destroy us from within.

"The truth is that the undoing of America has been decades in the making. The globalists, Deep State, swamp, whichever name you call them, have been hard at work to weaken America's sovereignty and standing as world leader. Intent on erecting a new system of world governance where they would be in total control, they are seeking to undermine the fundamental principle of your country, "a government for the people by the people", replacing it instead with a world order of international institutions ultimately puppeteered by a caste of technocrats, oligarchs and international bankers.

"Though your Constitution stands firmly in their way, it never deterred them. Like a trojan horse, they infiltrated governmental and intelligence agencies, and all realms of society - education, media, entertainment, culture. At their disposal, tools of mass population influence: propaganda, fake news and censorship. By pushing their marxist-socialist progressive agenda for years, they set out to destroy your fundamental values and divide you. They negated God, dissolved the family unit and dissevered us from moral objectivity, effectively leaving a vacuum of degeneracy, cognitive dissonance and absurdity in its wake," she added.

Read the full letter here.

On the radio program Friday, Glenn Beck shared several highlights from Noor's letter as well as her first-ever interview with the New York Post.

"A letter was written to America this week. I want you to listen to the words," said Glenn. "'America, you are at the very edge of the precipice. Please wake up! Take hold! Fight for your country, and be proud of your roots! Uphold your values. Stand for your flag and your anthem. Defend your history. Don't relent in the face of those who seek to re-write it to serve their narrative and justify the destruction of your nation. You have much to cherish and protect for your sake, and ours.' [...] The woman who wrote that, the woman who is an American at heart, who is warning us, is Osama bin Laden's [niece]."

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:

*Note: Glenn mistakenly referred to Noor Bin Ladin as Osama bin Laden's sister. She is his niece.


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.