Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Ryan Seacrest Was Investigated, Cleared After Harassment Claims – Why Is He Still Under Fire?

February 28, 2018
Staff

WRITER

What’s going on?

Longtime TV personality Ryan Seacrest is set to host the E! News coverage of the 2018 Academy Awards this Sunday. Why is that controversial? Because old allegations about sexual harassment have resurfaced even though Seacrest was already cleared in an E! News investigation.

Glenn, Pat and Stu talked about this story on today’s show. What happens in a world where people are cleared after allegations, but we’re all still expected to believe the accusers?

Catch me up:

NBC Universal, which owns E! News, said that an independent counsel “interviewed more than two dozen people” following the harassment allegations by former stylist Suzie Hardy. She worked for Seacrest between 2007 and 2013 and accused him of touching her inappropriately, asking sexual questions and otherwise harassing her.

What are people saying?

“E!’s Ryan Seacrest Situation Is Getting Complicated,” Vanity Fair said in a headline, while a Daily Beast opinion piece demanded that “It’s Time for E! to Pull Ryan Seacrest From the Oscars Red Carpet.”

Hardy’s claims resurfaced this week after an anonymous source told NBC News that the stylist’s claims were accurate; however, a video clip of Seacrest and Hardy from the time contradicted that story.

“Over the course of a two-month process, our outside counsel interviewed more than two dozen people regarding the allegations, including multiple separate meetings with the claimant and all firsthand witnesses that she provided,” NBC Universal said in a statement. “Any claims that question the legitimacy of this investigation are completely baseless.”

 

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Pat Gray, welcome to the program. On your mind today.

PAT: Many things. But maybe the top of my list right now is Ryan Seacrest.

First of all, Ryan Seacrest was accused by his hairstylist or the person that does his makeup at E!.

GLENN: For six years.

PAT: Yeah.

And she claimed that he sexually harassed her on a regular basis. So quietly, E! did an investigation. I think they handled it right. They didn't suspend him. They just waited to see what would happen. They found zero evidence that what she said was true.

GLENN: Zero.

PAT: And he kept going. And Seacrest talked about it. He put it on his Facebook post. Put out a story.

GLENN: And he said, this is not true, but I'm cooperating.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Whatever the company wants to do, I'll cooperate.

PAT: And he did.

GLENN: He did.

PAT: And they found no evidence.

GLENN: Zero.

PAT: And now it's everywhere all of a sudden. And now they're talking about public relations people are advising their clients not to go anywhere near him at the Oscars because he has the red carpet thing. The interviews that he does.

STU: Oh, jeez.

PAT: And so the PR people are saying, why would you even take that chance? He's been accused. So go to the other person, or go to some other outlet.

GLENN: He's been accused.

PAT: And he's been cleared. And he's been cleared.

GLENN: He's been accused. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? My gosh.

PAT: If this isn't a worse McCarthyism than we had in the '50s -- I mean, it's getting as bad.

GLENN: It's getting as bad. Except that did have the power of the government to put you in jail.

PAT: Very true. So that's worse. That's true.

GLENN: This is just destroying your life.

PAT: And, I mean, witch hunt is appropriate on this. There's an ABC star. Bellamy Young. She's on Scandal. She said, I think this is the time for Ryan Seacrest to step aside and let someone with equal talent that is beyond reproach that is in charge. First of all, the guy has every job in the world. There is nobody of equal talent.

GLENN: I'm sincere about that. I think he's one of the most talented, smartest guys around.

PAT: He's really good. He just is really good.

GLENN: Yeah, he's really good.

PAT: And how -- aren't you above reproach if you've been cleared of any wrongdoing? That seems to be --

GLENN: No, you never get to go back.

PAT: I guess not. I mean, you're just totally tainted now forever because somebody accused you.

GLENN: It's wrong.

PAT: Anybody can accuse anybody else of wrongdoing. And then --

GLENN: I have a llama in the wings right now that will swear out of testimony about Pat. And you want me to bring the llama out, I will.

PAT: If you actually had a llama, I would be nervous.

GLENN: But once that llama does what llamas do.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Baas or barks or whatever they do. It can't be unbarked, Pat. It can't be unbarked.

PAT: Scary.

STU: You know what's interesting. You're talking about how people can be accused. And it's always -- they're always tainted with it. And it's over.

PAT: And it's over.

STU: We're in the me too era. Right? It's over. You know what's one accusation that has had no attention since the me too movement has started?

GLENN: I bet I'll say the same thing.

STU: Are you really? I was going to say Al Gore's second chakra. Remember?

PAT: Oh, wow. That's a good callback.

GLENN: Oh, wow.

STU: Remember the accusation by the masseuse who said that Al Gore was constantly trying to get him to touch her.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: To --

PAT: I want you to adjust my second chakra.

STU: Right. Remember this?

PAT: Because of our SUVs that my chakra is out of place. So, yeah, he was trying to get her to do things to him in regions she didn't want to touch.

STU: And she complained about it. And it was brushed off by the media completely. He has not faced word one of a second thought on this over that time. And Bill Clinton has. Right? There have been a lot of people on the left, who said, okay. We handled that Clinton thing wrongly. But one accusation has been enough for almost everybody.

PAT: And that wasn't 30 years ago. That was eight years ago. That was in 2010.

STU: Was it 2010? I knew it was late 2000s.

PAT: Yeah. Yep.

GLENN: Let me go where I was going to go.

Jimmy Kimmel. Jimmy Kimmel is hosting the Oscars. Not outside like Ryan Seacrest. He's hosting the Oscars.

PAT: Has he been accused?

GLENN: Have you seen any of the videotapes of what he's done?

STU: He used to host a show called The Man Show.

PAT: Oh, man. Wow.

GLENN: Yeah, he did a, I'm going to put something in my pants, and you can feel around to see what it is. You might want to use your mouth.

Okay?

PAT: Oh, yeah. Wow.

GLENN: He's on video doing that.

STU: Yep. Over and over. It was part -- that show -- look, and I defend that show at that time. And, you know, they did things --

PAT: No way.

STU: It was funny, right? It was funny. And it was totally fine --

PAT: Sorry. It's retroactively inappropriate.

STU: It's retroactively inappropriate, however.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Remember, this is the show that ended every episode with girls jumping on trampolines in their underwear. Every episode end the same way. That was literally --

GLENN: And he's --

STU: Now girls jumping on trampolines.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And he's the guy that's totally okay to host the Oscars.

PAT: Yeah. Nobody said a thing.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?