Glenn's review of Vanity Fair


GLENN: So I thought, you know, since the comedy show is tonight in movie theatres all across the country, I thought we could do a review of the reviewers. For instance, the review of the Vanity Fair review, see if I could just do the same thing that they do to me and to you, by giving them the backhanded compliments. And I'm going to be fair. I want you to know I'm going to be very, very fair, Vanity. So here's my review of the review. Who's the most handsome man on the planet? Read one of the excising news morsels on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, the kind that are supposed to lure me in reading further inside. The new girls of summer was another irresistible tease. Whatever you think of Vanity Fair, a cesspool of pointless gossip, a tree murdering outlet for the lame opinions of the artsy tree hugging liberals, a good, clean, fun, somewhat informative page turner, God help us but most don't think of Vanity Fair as a magazine that would give a positive or even fair review to common sense in any form, nor would they would even understand it with all those handsome men and summer girls distracting them. I've been fascinated with Vanity Fair ever since they scooped the world and got the first pictures of TomKat's baby. Before that I thought vanity was just another gossip rag with a babe on the cover, a poor man's Cosmo, if you will, without the intellectual might of Cosmo. Despite my concerns that Vanity's review of my show would be just another liberal hit piece, yet another boring attempt at liberal blogger stardom, I went into the review of this review with an open mind. I would only judge the quality of the reviewer's review, nothing else.

First I had to get a copy of Vanity Fair. I made sure to go to the most redneck store in Oklahoma just to see what kind of universal appeal Vanity Fair has because, remember, I'm being open minded. The magazine rack was full of Vanity Fair magazines. It looked as if they hadn't even sold one at this bait and tackle shop. When I asked the shop keeper, he confirmed it. He said, "Why would anyone read that garbage. Who cares what Lindsay Lohan had for breakfast." Well, after I open mindedly bought the magazine, I realized the cover may as well have read "26 Ways to Please Your Man and One Way to Waste Your Money." One of the most important qualities of a legitimate magazine is that they have a front, back and cover page and some pages in the middle. Well, Vanity Fair has all of those things. And there's some endearing, there's something endearing in the stories, the world's most available heir and heiresses, Johnny Depp's past appearances in Vanity Fair and inside the Vanity Fair's Oscar party all completely unbelievably irrelevant stories that mean absolutely nothing to anything, yet all in one magazine, endearing. The review started with a Lars von Trier reference, I love Lars, especially this time of the year, I mean, who doesn't. But in the end it was apparent that the reviewer was Lars Von Trying Too Hard, you know, exempting to impress his friends with random references of random Dutch filmmakers many would wonder if he was being pretentious enough to testify a Wilder's nationwide banning. And yet that wasn't the end of the self important wordiness as this reviewer used his F7 Shift Microsoft Word thesaurus to spell out the word stentorian like he had ever been comfortably using that in a sentence before. I mean, who's been listening to Fiona Apple? You have, yes. But regardless of how fitfully cryptically true it was, a cunning way to condescend, it was not. It was borderline criminal how far he had gone beyond the Rubicon of a fodderal. Well, I have no idea what I just said but neither did the reviewer.

Then the review recited liberal blog criticisms for six excruciatingly long paragraphs before finally getting to the actual review of the show. Now, I'm not a professional reviewer, only a professional reviewer of reviewers, but this type of writing could be the reason why no one is buying Vanity Fair magazine. Oh, they were apparently displeased, when they went to the show, they were displeased that I poked fun at Henry Waxman's nose. This is because an intelligent liberal never, ever stooped to making fun of someone's appearance. For example, Al Franklin who in this same review that I reviewed was praised as a satirist with a will for real activism. Al Franken, he would never write a book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, would he? I suppose the difference is conservatives who make fun of others' appearances aren't generally rewarded with Senate seats. Franken, however, like the person the reviewer was reviewing, I had actually heard of Al Franken before, unlike the reviewer that the reviewer of reviewers was reviewing. However, this reviewer, in this review, was also referred to the subject of the review as having an overstuffed neck. So in other words, Mr. Beck had an overstuffed neck. Completely true, yes. But it almost seems like some sort of a nasty shot at someone's appearance, doesn't it?

Well, it wasn't until I reached the bottom of the page and clicked down, you know, on that arrow there that I realized there was more of this review. That's actually when I yelled out, "You've got to be kidding me!" Neither Johnny Depp, nor any of the new girls of summer answered.

Wait a minute, the guy yelling out, that wasn't from Vanity Fair. That was the New York Times. That was another review that I reviewed, but we'll review those later.

Everything comes down to the two Senate runoffs in Georgia. If we lose both races, we lose the country. Democrats know this and are pouring in millions to usher in a Marxist agenda.

As the Left tries to hide how radical the two candidates really are, Glenn takes us inside the Democrat war room to expose the wolf in pastor's clothing, Raphael Warnock, and America's Justin Trudeau, Jon Ossoff. Socialism, the Green New Deal, and "defund the police" are all on the table. And Glenn warns of what's to come if conservatives don't activate: Chuck Schumer will weaponize the Senate, and the radical Left will launch an all-out assault to ravage the Constitution.

Watch the full special below:

The election and its aftermath are the most important stories in America. That's why we're offering our most timely discount ever: $30 off a one-year subscription to BlazeTV with code "GLENN." With BlazeTV, you get the unvarnished truth from the most pro-America network in the country, free from Big Tech and MSM censors.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" to explain how mail-in ballots are typically disqualified during recounts at a far higher rate than in-person, Election Day ballots, and why this is "good news" for President Donald Trump's legal battle over the election.

"One of the things that gives the greatest cause for optimism is, this election ... there's a pretty marked disparity in terms of how the votes were distributed. On Election Day, with in-person voting, Donald Trump won a significant majority of the votes cast on in-person voting on Election Day. Of mail-in voting, Joe Biden won a significant majority of the votes cast early on mail-in voting," Cruz explained.

"Now, here's the good news: If you look historically to recounts, if you look historically to election litigation, the votes cast in person on Election Day tend to stand. It's sort of hard to screw that up. Those votes are generally legal, and they're not set aside. Mail-in votes historically have a much higher rate of rejection … when they're examined, there are a whole series of legal requirements that vary state by state, but mail-in votes consistently have a higher rate of rejection, which suggests that as these votes begin being examined and subjected to scrutiny, that you're going to see Joe Biden's vote tallies go down. That's a good thing," he added. "The challenge is, for President Trump to prevail, he's got to run the table. He's got to win, not just in one state but in several states. That makes it a lot harder to prevail in the litigation. I hope that he does so, but it is a real challenge and we shouldn't try to convince ourselves otherwise."

Watch the video clip 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.

Subscribe to BlazeTV today with our BEST DEAL EVER for $30 off with promo code GLENN.

Fox News senior meteorologist Janice Dean is perhaps even more disgusted with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) for his coronavirus response than BlazeTV's Stu Burguiere (read what Stu has to say on the subject here), and for a good reason.

She lost both of her in-laws to COVID-19 in New York's nursing homes after Gov. Cuomo's infamous nursing home mandate, which Cuomo has since had scrubbed from the state's website and blamed everyone from the New York Post to nursing care workers to (every leftist's favorite scapegoat) President Donald Trump.

Janice joined Glenn and Stu on the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday to ask why mainstream media is not holding Gov. Cuomo — who recently published a book about his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic — accountable?

"I'm vocal because I have not seen the mainstream media ask these questions or demand accountability of their leaders. [Cuomo] really has been ruling with an iron fist, and every time he does get asked a question, he blames everybody else except the person that signed that order," Janice said.

"In my mind, he's profiting off the over 30 thousand New Yorkers, including my in-laws, that died by publishing a book on 'leadership' of New York," she added. "His order has helped kill thousands of relatives of New York state. And this is not political, Glenn. This is not about Republican or Democrat. My in-laws were registered Democrats. This is not about politics. This is about accountability for something that went wrong, and it's because of your [Cuomo's] leadership that we're put into this situation."

Watch the video excerpt from the show below:

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.

As America grows divided and afraid to disagree with the Democrats' woke plan for America, Megyn Kelly is ready to fight back for the truth. For nearly two decades, she navigated the volatile and broken world of the media. But as America leans on independent voices more than ever, she's breaking new ground with "The Megyn Kelly Show."

She joined the latest Glenn Beck Podcast to break down what's coming next after the election: Black Lives Matter is mainstream, leftists are making lists of Trump supporters, and the Hunter Biden scandal is on the back burner.

Megyn and Glenn reminisce about their cable news days (including her infamous run-in with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump) and to look into the chaotic and shady world of journalism and the growing entitlement it's bred. For example, many conservatives have been shocked by how Fox News handled the election.

Megyn defended Fox News, saying she believes Fox News' mission "is a good one," but also didn't hold back on hosts like Neil Cavuto, who cut off a White House briefing to fact check it — something she never would have done, even while covering President Obama.

Megyn also shared this insightful takeaway from her time at NBC: "Jane Fonda was an ass."

Watch the full podcast here:

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.