Piers Morgan, Cenk Uygur, and Glenn Beck dissect King Charles's diplomatic success in uniting Democrats via historical references to the Boston Tea Party and NATO support for Ukraine. The panel critiques Secret Service failures during Trump's assassination attempt, debating whether bureaucracy or DEI policies caused the lapse while highlighting Trump's own violent rhetoric. They analyze Jimmy Kimmel's "expectant widow" joke regarding Melania Trump, contrasting it with liberal hypocrisy, and conclude that cancel culture often targets conservative figures like Gina Carano despite mutual agreement on protecting individual rights against political suppression. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Honoring The Crown Amidst Chaos00:04:07
It was a joke about him being killed.
And if you want to clarify it, it was a joke about him being older than Melania.
Shut up about jokes.
You can fix it.
You're a joke.
Nobody thinks Jimmy Kimmel was trying to be violent.
Can we skip this crap?
This is obvious bullshit.
It's all the Trojan Syndrome.
He criticized hosting on X after the shooting.
Look at the signs these left-wing C-U-N-Ts are holding up.
Do you have any regrets about what you posted, or you double down on that?
I would quadruple down on it.
I have to be real honest with you.
Don't like Charles, never have liked Charles.
He's here in the 250th anniversary of us kicking your ass.
The fact that he was able to unite the Democratic Party that had spent millions of dollars on No Kings Rally but gave him a standing ovation, like the hypocrisy moment there for me, was worth the entire trip.
It's been a very bad week for those who question the relevance of the monarchy for our modern age.
It's been a very good week for Britain, the United States, and for King Charles, and indeed President Trump.
In four short days, the monarch has done more to repair the strained special relationship between the two countries.
Than entire legions of diplomats and bureaucrats.
And he's done it while managing to appeal simultaneously to conservatives, liberals, royal bashers, monarchists, and most importantly of all, to the president himself.
There's been much debate about the politics, and we'll get into that.
But my favourite discovery this week is that King Charles is genuinely hilarious.
I cannot help noticing the readjustments to the East Wing, Mr. President, following your visit to Windsor Castle last year.
And I'm sorry to say that we British, of course, Made our own small attempt at real estate redevelopment of the White House in 1814.
You recently commented, Mr. President, that if it were not for the United States, European countries would be speaking German.
Dare I say that if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking French.
As Oscar Wilde said, we have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language.
Now, as you may know, when I address my own Parliament at Westminster, we still follow an age old tradition and take a Member of Parliament hostage, holding him or her at Buckingham Palace until I am safely returned.
These days, we look after our guests rather well, to the point that they often do not want to leave.
I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if there were any volunteers for that role here today.
Well, it might seem a little strange to kick off America's 250th anniversary celebrations by honoring the very crown they kicked out.
But as Trump himself explained, you can take the Brits off American soil, but all the ICE agents in the world couldn't remove us from the American soul.
Long before Americans had a nation or a constitution, we first had a culture, a character, and a creed.
Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried within us the rarest of gifts, moral courage, and it came from a small but mighty kingdom from across the sea.
Well, for the Brits, that was really the whole point of this tour.
Nothing better represents continuity than the monarchy.
The fact is that the two countries are stronger together and they will remain stronger together no matter who's in the White House and who's in number 10.
In just a few months, President Trump has insulted Brits who died.
In Afghanistan, savage the Prime Minister as weak, ridiculed the Royal Navy as non existent, and written off Britain's warships as toys.
All of this while demanding Britain's weak leader sends his non existent navy and his toy warships to support the war in Iran.
The king was able to effortlessly make it all feel like small beer without even mentioning it at all.
Two Kings And Diplomatic Skill00:02:10
That takes some diplomatic skill.
And so does giving the US and the president a subtle lesson on democratic checks and balances without sending said president into a tailspin.
The US Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta.
Is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.
Well, all this charm and aura and wit has clearly impressed Trump, who, as we know, reveres the royals.
He'll be well aware that some of his critics believe he'd quite like to be one.
Two kings, the White House posted yesterday, on what could be interpreted as a classic Trumpian troll.
But as we know, practical jokes can get out of hand.
And Trump's decision to put his own face on the US anniversary passport and coinage will do little to quell the no kings movement.
If this talk shows anything, Mr. President, it's that Brits do royalty best.
And judging by the public reaction, if America is going to have a king again anytime soon, Well, it might be King Charles.
Well, joining me on the panel to discuss all this is Clay Travis, the founder of Outkick, Czech Uger, the founder and CEO of the Young Turks, Mike Nellis, Democratic strategist and host of Endless Urgency, and Ben Ferguson, co host of The Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Well, welcome to all of you.
I'm just wondering given the extraordinarily united scenes we witnessed in the United States Congress, where left and right came together as one in roaring ovations for my king and what could have been your king if you hadn't been so reckless.
250 years ago, whether this panel, this panel so ideologically opposed to each other, so used to shouting at each other, could one just come together right now as one and just put a virtual hug around each other?
Am I hoping for too much, gentlemen?
Political Unity Through Shared Rhetoric00:15:13
I think it was a great moment.
It was nice.
I think you all looked a bit shocked by the mere notion of that.
Clay Travis, let me start with you then.
It was an amazing spectacle.
I mean, I've not seen King Charles, either as king or prince, make a speech as powerful as the one he made to Congress, or one as funny as the one he made at the state dinner last night.
So I think he's really stepped up here when, my God, my country needed somebody to, given how bad the relationship's got in recent months.
But I also felt that.
I had no idea.
There was a unity, I was going to say, between everybody in Congress, a rare unity which everyone's picked up on, where you don't often see a united Congress, but they were for the king.
Well, I appreciate Democrats standing for kings after deciding that no kings was the fabric of their entire opposition to Trump over the last year.
So, standing ovation for an actual king was a really good thing for anything.
It was a lot of fun.
But look, first of all, I had no idea Prince Charles is this funny.
And I watched The Crown.
I will defend myself by saying my wife got me to watch The Crown, but it's a very, very good show.
And what I liked about it, Piers, was a recognition of, again, he's here in the 250th anniversary of us kicking your ass.
He's here and he's referencing the Boston Tea Party, the untimely 1814 burning of the White House, the redevelopment of these moments.
And like he said, that we might be speaking French, but for the Brits coming over during the French Indian War and all of the colonial aspects of that, I'm a history nerd.
And so sometimes I think in the immediate moments of trying to analyze everything that happened in the last 24 hours, We often lose the sweep, the majesty, the significance of the historical residents that 50 years from now, 100 years from now, when none of us are around and people are still studying the history of today, will be seen in the context of the longer arc of history.
And so I thought it was really well done.
And I'm not just saying this, Pierce, because back before everybody knew that your DNA was harvested and would be stored forever, I did the 23andMe or whatever the heck it was called.
And all of my ancestors were.
British and Irish.
So, when you look at it from a thousand or fifteen hundred year perspective, many of us have a lot more in common with England than maybe we choose to acknowledge on a day to day basis.
Well, Chick Nugent, I actually had a text exchange with the president this morning.
I'm sure that you did too, right?
But it was just asking how he felt yesterday.
Yesterday had gone.
And he replied, he's a great guy talking about King Charles and had, as you saw, a wonderful evening.
They'll be back tomorrow morning to say goodbye.
Last night was special.
President DJT.
And I think it would have been to him because he has often said to me that he remembers watching the coronation in 1953, sitting on his mother's knee in New York, watching this first ever global televised event.
And I think the idea of him now hosting a British monarch at the White House where he is the current occupant as president, for Trump, actually, on a personal, emotional, family level, Is a massive deal.
And if it calms him down a bit from what has been a pretty incendiary few months, I'm all in favor.
What are your thoughts?
First of all, I'm enjoying the idea of me and Trump having a texting relationship.
That would be hilarious.
It would be.
If we ever got together in person and debated.
Now, that would be fun.
So, first, big ups to England and to the UK.
King Charles did great, way to represent, okay?
And it was nice to have a head of state who isn't a maniac.
So that was like reassuring for the planet a little bit.
He's not technically, you know, you guys know how the monarchy works.
It's kind of, from an American perspective, it's kind of pointless.
But hey, you know what?
He's a good spokesman for it, okay?
So God bless.
But look, the main thing that I thought is we got 250 years after our independence from these guys, we're wonderful friends and allies.
And I hope that's exactly how we are with Israel.
250 years after our independence from them, which would be hopefully 250 years from now.
So it turns out being an independent nation is a wonderful thing.
And then, by the way, later we can be wonderful allies, okay?
But first, we need our independence from every country, including the one ruling us today.
Ben Ferguson, there were a number of quite strong opinions that the king expressed on behalf of the government.
So I think it's important to Clarify to an American audience in particular that when the King speaks at a function like the Congress or whatever it may be, he does so on behalf of the UK government.
So they help him write certain lines and so on.
But there were things in there.
I mean, we've got a little mashup of some of the more potentially contentious things he said.
If you're an American, particularly an American Republican like you, let's take a listen.
In both of our countries, it is the very fact of our vibrant, diverse, And free societies that give us our collective strength, including to support victims of some of the ills that so tragically exist in both our societies today.
In the immediate aftermath of 9 11, when NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time and the United Nations Security Council was united in the face of terror, we answered the call together.
Today, Mr. Speaker, that same Unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people.
From the depths of the Atlantic to the disastrously melting ice caps of the Arctic, the commitment and expertise of the United States Armed Forces and its allies lie at the heart of NATO.
Now, sometimes, Ben, you know, it's not what you're saying, it's the way you say it can avoid a lot of hoo-ha.
You know, on the face of it, the king of my country coming over.
And sort of lecturing Congress, as some might categorize it, about the importance of NATO when President Trump has indicated he wants to dismantle it, reminding people that after 9-11, NATO, including Britain, were right there shoulder to shoulder with America.
In fact, I'm actually doing the show from the AP down right next to the 9-11 memorial where King Charles and Queen Camilla are currently laying flowers with the New York Mayor Zoran Mandani.
And that's a reminder that Britain was shoulder to shoulder when we were asked then.
It's been a different situation with Iran, and we can come to that.
But that also he was emphatic about support needed ongoing for Ukraine, which is not hugely popular now with the conservative right here.
And of course, he talked about climate change in a way that, again, people on the conservative right would maybe naturally bristle at.
So, my point being, he made a few points that could, under normal circumstances, have they come out of a politician's mouth, have engendered a lot more angry response perhaps than they got.
But it was taken in the right spirit because of the way that he phrased it.
Would you agree?
I think it was taken the way it was taken, and no one really reacted because they know he really doesn't have any power on those issues.
It's Starmer, right?
Like, this is a guy that I look at the King's visit as no different than Roger Federer being a great spokesperson for Rolex or Roy McElroy for Rolex.
They're great ambassadors.
They do a great job.
They don't take many risks.
They smile.
They look good on TV.
And look, if there's anyone that should be praised right now, it's this dude's speechwriters.
Whoever they hired, Give them a raise, pay them double.
Because I met him when he came in, I think it was 05, when in the second Bush administration.
He was not funny then.
Like, this is a brilliant move.
Whoever's working on the PR, I liked seeing him here.
I also liked seeing the fact that there was this moment where you can say, hey, we may disagree politically on a lot of things right now because you guys have got someone we think is a little crazy in the UK in Parliament, the Labor Party.
And we're going to outlast that, right?
And there may be some that say the same thing about Donald Trump that, hey, we'll get another liberal Democrat, woke person there, we'll get along with him better.
And so then we'll get back to green new deals and all of that.
But ultimately, I do find comfort in the fact that the U.S. has an ally.
We're not agreeing right now on a lot of issues.
That's okay.
That's politics.
I also love the fact that he was able to unite the Democratic Party that had spent millions of dollars on no kings rally, but gave him a standing ovation.
Like the hypocrisy moment there for me was worth the entire trip.
That they're like, we have no kings.
We stand at the kings.
Like, oh, we got a king here today.
And Democrats, by the way, were clamoring for any event.
That he was going to be attending.
They wanted to go to the night and the garden party at the UK embassy.
They were begging for tickets.
So, for a party that says they sent up to no kings, they sure as hell wanted to hang out with a king for the last 48 hours in Washington, D.C. Hypocrisy 101.
I love both the points coming out of this trip.
Well, I'm going to come to Mike Nellis to respond to that.
But before I do, what did you make of the White House, Ben, putting out a picture of King Charles and President Trump with the headline, Two Kings?
Yeah, yeah.
It's pretty true.
Donald Trump would quite like it.
Yeah, whoever did that in the PR shop at the White House, like they also deserve a raise because it's trolling 101.
It's hysterical.
It was mocking the Democrats with no kings.
And of course, their heads exploded on social media.
He's going to try to stay in power for longer.
By the way, you're an idiot.
No, he's not.
He's trying to become a king.
Again, this is trolling you guys that are insane.
He's not a king.
We don't have a king in America.
We don't need a Roger Federer or a Roy McElroy for Rolex, okay?
Like, we're the United States of America.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
That's how it works here, but we don't have kings here.
So I agree.
We got no kings in America.
Democrats should be happy.
Mike Nellis, were you happy with Democrats in Congress roaring on the king of my country?
I think it was fine.
I mean, I agree with something that Ben said, which is that the PR team that wrote that speech did a really good job.
And maybe when Ben and Clay are looking for talking points to attack Democrats, they should hire that PR team instead of the one that's telling them to make the same joke about No Kings Day, because I don't think that's going to get anywhere with the American people.
That is a great joke.
That is a really, really great joke.
It's a great joke.
It was a great joke when I heard it.
No, no, no.
It was a great joke when I heard it the first time yesterday, and it wasn't a great joke a thousand times later because it's the only thing that you guys have right now.
So it's just sort of silly to me that you guys are going to repeat it over and over again.
But look, somebody said it earlier.
It seems like it got insignificant.
Well, I have to say, Mike.
I didn't interrupt these guys.
Can I get a chance to make my point?
Well, yeah, but I would just say, Mike, on that point, if the purpose, as Ben Ferguson said, was to troll the libs, you are sounding deeply trolled.
No, I'm not deeply trolled.
I mean, I think the point that I was going to make, though, is somebody said earlier that Donald Trump was loving this whole thing over the last couple of days, which of course he is.
He loves it because he's at the center of.
Of the attention.
He gets the idea of hosting the King of England, which makes him feel important.
But nothing that's happened in Washington in the last couple of days has anything to do with the average American.
And people are struggling right now.
So they watch a lavish ball.
Donald Trump's talking about building his ballroom now with taxpayer dollars, thanks to Republican members of Congress.
I think people are frustrated when they see this stuff.
So I thought King Charles did a great job.
I thought it was great to have a real diplomat here give a good speech that actually made a little bit of sense and articulated the values I think the vast majority of Americans have.
But I'd like to see this country get back to the actual work of improving this economy.
And that's what I care about more than anything else.
Clay, let's just switch gears slightly to this huge event, which has already the news agenda's moved on, which indicates just how crazy the news agenda is these days.
But the White House Correspondents' Dinner with this appalling latest assassination attempt, which could have been an absolute disaster and massacre.
You've been criticised and praised, I have to say, probably in equal measure, for posting on X after leaving the dinner after the shooting, leaving the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and look at the signs these left wing.
CUNTs are holding up outside.
And the image showed protesters holding signs saying death to tyrants.
Now, given all the debate about rhetoric and the rest of it, obviously you firebed off when you were genuinely angry.
And I don't blame you.
I think people are holding out signs saying death to tyrants when someone's literally trying to kill half of the cabinet, as appeared to be the mission there, is extremely triggering, I would think, for a lot of people that were guests there and were fearing for what may be happening.
Do you have any regrets about what you posted, or do you double down on that?
I would quadruple down on it.
One of those signs said death to all of them, in addition to death to tyrants.
No, I mean, if you look on the right side there, death to all of them.
That's what I saw immediately when I came out of the White House Correspondence Center.
And I think, unfortunately, those two protesters are emblematic of the motivations that this 31 year old, highly educated, Two family household, two parent household, Democrat put in place to justify trying to kill President Trump.
He accepted the rhetoric of these guys as justification.
He thought that he was a hero.
And look, Piers, we're talking about the history of the United States and Great Britain.
I'm reading Rick Atkinson's seminal trilogy right now about World War II and the partnership between United States, Britain, and other democracies to defeat Adolf Hitler.
You know, before Trump, we used to sometimes sit around, have a few drinks, and you would say, Hey, if you could go back in time, would you kill baby Hitler, right?
I mean, that was a real debate that people would have.
And you would answer the question one way or the other.
For 10 years, Democrats have been saying that Trump is Hitler, that he's an authoritarian, fascist dictator.
And that might just be a rhetorical argument for some people.
But this guy, I mean, he's kind of an interesting test case.
He went on Twitter from mostly posting about playing video games and obviously being a bit of a science nerd to being willing to die trying to kill as many people from the Republican Party as possible.
And let me say this, Pierce, I was there too.
So I understand his motivation.
Security Breakdowns And Political Violence00:15:41
It didn't surprise me.
Supreme Court, the Secret Service performance was indefensively bad.
And so I don't know why more people aren't talking about this.
On video, a guy with a gun comes running full speed right by the guys who were supposed to be stopping him.
According to the indictment, five shots were fired by the Secret Service.
They didn't hit the guy, they may have hit another Secret Service agent.
We're not even exactly sure who did.
And the guy might have gotten all the way down to the ballroom.
We don't know if he hadn't tripped and fell.
I mean, in the wake of Butler, in the wake of West Palm Beach, and now we got Washington, D.C., someone else for sure in the next two and a half years is going to try and kill President Trump.
And I actually think the biggest story coming out of this is our Secret Service is completely incompetent at being able to protect the president.
I'm glad this wasn't some sort of trained assassin cabal because he would be dead.
Trump would.
And Pierce, I said this yesterday on my radio show.
President Trump is alive today in spite of the Secret Service.
Not because of the Secret Service.
And that is troubling going forward, no matter who the president is or who people in high positions of power are.
And I say that as someone who saw the president on school there on Saturday night.
Yeah, I completely agree.
And I think it is being said this because if you think about it, the Butler, Pennsylvania shooting, where he actually got hit and somebody got killed, the first place surely the Secret Service would check nobody was hiding would be a rooftop 125 yards away from the stage, right?
And then the golf course one, which I still find I scratch my head about.
This is somebody who hid in a bush at a spot on Trump's own golf course where he regularly played, where the media would go to that very spot because it gave them, ironically, the cleanest shot of the president playing golf.
And if it hadn't been for one Secret Service agent who spotted the barrel of this rifle coming out of the bush, Trump would probably have been killed that day.
And now, third time you have to be killed.
It appears they fired at him, missed him.
The only reason we caught him was because a woman in the parking lot wrote.
Down his license plate.
That guy got in the car, drove away, and was like 50 miles away.
This is incompetent.
I'm surprised.
It's infuriating to hear nobody's talking about it.
I agree.
To finish my point, it's just that, okay, you've got the rooftop would be the first place he'd check.
That part of his golf course would be the second place he'd check, but they didn't.
And here you've got a guy who's checked himself into the hotel on the Friday, armed to the teeth.
And you're like, how is that even possible?
This is your honest opinion.
Let me give you an example.
I wish I had said this before.
I go to the Atlanta Braves baseball team, Major League Baseball.
My kids are monster fans.
I'm a fan.
There is a hotel with rooms that overlook the stadium.
The Atlanta Braves security comes and checks the rooms to make sure you don't have guns in those rooms before every Atlanta Braves baseball game.
How the hell do the Atlanta Braves have better security than the President of the United States?
They didn't go around to the hotel rooms and check and see, hey, let me make sure that there's no one with guns or, God forbid, bombs staying in this hotel.
It's crazy to me.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Pierce, let me say one other thing about this.
I think it's really shocking.
And I hope there's bipartisanship on this.
This is the problem with government work and bureaucracy.
The Secret Service should be the best of the best.
There has been far too much DEI in there.
It puts Democrats at risk when they're at leadership.
Come on.
No, it's a, I'm going to, you can argue it's a downer burden DEI.
It's all you got, Ben.
Okay.
I'm going to go back to what I said.
There should be no female Secret Service agents.
They should not exist.
We should have the baddest ass special force badasses on the planet.
We should have the best of the best.
And there is data that backs up what I'm saying that we had far too much DEI and hiring, not only at the Secret Service, but also at the FBI.
And we had people that should never have been in positions of power there.
Now, I say this as someone that there's Secret Service that's still protecting every living president, including Democrats.
It is far too easy to get close to a Democrat andor Republican, former president, current president, their family members.
And there needs to be a massive overhaul.
I don't want anyone, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, the list goes on, to have this be this easy to go after a president of the United States of America.
And part of this is clearly a massive failure.
And it's because of bureaucracy.
You should have the best of the best.
They should be the, I mean, SIL Team Six should be immediately the first that you think of to come in here.
You're dealing with terrorists around the world and you're dealing with these types of individuals.
And what you have, Is a bureaucratic agency that should look nothing like a bureaucratic agency.
So I hope that Democrats and Republicans will stay together.
This has got to be changed because this is far too many shots being taken at a current president.
And by the way, there will be a Democratic president.
I want them to have the baddest ass people around them, no matter who they are.
And if you guys get a Kamala Harris in there, I want them to be safe as they can possibly be everywhere they go, including their staff, including their cabinet members, including the vice president.
I don't care about politics.
They need to be safe.
And clearly, right now, there's a massive lapse.
Can I jump in here for a second?
Because, yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
Mike knows first, then check.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, look, I agree that the Secret Service should be the best of the best.
And I think we should wait to find out what actually happened instead of making assumptions based on the limited information that we have right now about what happened.
You got a video of the dude running his ass.
Are you saying that's a good idea?
Congratulations.
You can look at a video, Ben.
But Donald Trump and the rest of the administration are saying the Secret Service did their job.
So why don't we let there be an investigation?
Before you guys do what you always do, you blame it on DEI.
When the plane crashed just a few weeks after Donald Trump was inaugurated, I was in DC that day.
They blamed it on DEI too.
So it's just ridiculous.
Like, let's figure out what actually happened and then make a determination.
Why don't you just wait and let the people whose job it is to figure out what happened actually figure it out instead of just making an assumption and going back to the bullshit talking points?
Like, it's just, it's ridiculous.
Let law enforcement protect the president.
Let the mayor be president.
That's not a bullshit talking point.
Us going to protect Democratic president is not a bullshit talking point.
The problem is you guys want to make assumptions about everything.
Like, it's just.
What grade would you give the Secret Service over the last two years?
Would you give them an A or a B?
No, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't give them an A. I'm not saying the Secret Service is doing a good job, but I don't know what I would give them.
I don't have access to the information.
You guys are the ones that have access to the information.
A guy on a roof, a guy on a roof, and no one watching that roof, you can't grade that as an A.
This is why I say DEI.
You guys are obsessed with.
So you're blaming it on DEI.
You don't have anything to back that up.
It's just lazy.
You guys have the same three talking points.
Points like it's just so unbelievably lazy.
Get some new material.
How would you fix it then?
What would you call it?
Educate me.
Tell me why, what you would do to explain it.
What happened in Butler?
What happened the other night?
What happened where the people go to take pictures the same damn place that take pictures of the president playing golf?
What teach me?
Tell me in the liberal world, listen, how you would fix it then?
No, Ben, clearly there were breakdowns in security and they should be fixed by people who know what the hell they're talking about, not for political commentators on Piers Morgan's YouTube show.
That's the point that I'm making.
You come on here with a cheap political talking point.
To blame it on DEI when you don't know anything that's going on.
You don't know anything about security.
Clay doesn't know anything about security.
Neither do I. Stop making us a buttler.
I saw Bubba Jr.
It's not DEI.
Donald Tolka once should be in charge of it.
You want SEAL Team 6 to go do that.
That isn't SEAL Team 6's job.
SEAL Team 6's job is to go out there and kill bad guys.
That's what they're trained to do.
Their job is not to protect the president of the United States.
Why would you not be the best people to protect the president of the United States?
I want the super badasses going out there and killing evil people.
I want them to go.
Finding lives better than to protect the press against this lazy.
Let me jump in.
Let me jump in, please.
I want to bring in Cenk, who's been waiting unusually patiently, because this segues, Cenk, for me.
And by all means, join in that debate.
But it also segues into this debate about lefty right political violence.
Now, the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported last September that in recent years, the U.S. has seen an increase in the number of left wing terrorism attacks and plots.
And in fact, for the first time in many years, 2025, In fact, the first time in 30 years was the first year where left wing terrorist attacks outnumbered those from the violent far right.
So let's not get into who's worse, let's accept there's been a lot of political violence on both sides.
But why is political violence from the left surging in the way that it is?
And I was particularly concerned about this guy's twisted manifesto because there were no red flags about him, no criminal record, nothing to suggest any violence in him at all.
He's a teacher.
He just won an award a few months ago, right?
What would have driven this guy?
And then you read the rhetoric of his manifesto, as he put it, and you're seeing you talk about talking points, you're seeing a lot of the talking points that are drummed out on the left quite regularly have somehow permeated into his brain, a substantial brain, by all accounts, very smart guy.
And they've made him get a train right across America, book himself into a hotel, and then try and attempt mass murder, which is what was on his mind.
And my question for you, Cenk, is park right wing political violence to one side for a moment.
I'm not pretending they don't have a similar issue, but it hasn't been worse historically in the last 30 years.
Focus just for this on this particular guy and coming off the back of a year where left wing political violence has overtaken right wing violence for the first time in three decades.
What is happening here and how do we stop it?
Yeah, I reject all of the framing in this conversation.
So, But let me address the heart of the matter and then this nonsense talking point that Ben had.
So, number one, I abhor violence.
Political violence is intellectual surrender.
That's saying I'm pathetic.
I don't know how to win a debate.
So, I'll resort to being a savage and doing violence or terrorism instead.
So, I hate it on the right.
I hate it on the left.
And if you're a person who is for peace, especially if you're on the left, and our movement is for peace and nonviolence, well, then if you do violence, by definition, you're not one of us.
Okay.
We banish you and you don't represent a single person other than your.
Stupid ass.
Okay.
So now I won't put right wing violence aside because, as you just said, historically right wing violence has been much more severe.
But that's okay.
I'm not trying to blame people.
I'm trying to get past it.
Okay.
For both sides, for God's sake, what is violence going to solve?
All it's going to create is more violence.
And why are we killing each other?
This doesn't make any sense at all.
We should be resolving this in an American way, and that's through debate and politics and winning the day through your arguments.
So, and both sides have gotten out of hand.
But on the left, are there people egging on violence?
I literally never see that, right?
That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
And now I'm disheartened to see people on the left doing it.
On the right, we all know Donald Trump has historically said violence is great, that you should beat up people who he disagrees with and he'll pay the legal costs.
And Donald Trump has encouraged this kind of rhetoric from day one.
And I don't think it's healthy.
I don't think it's healthy for him or for anyone else.
Now, I do think you're going to have to do something.
Hang on, On that point, it's relevant to what you just said because we actually have a mashup of Donald Trump talking in the way that you're describing.
Let's just watch this.
Knock the crap out of him, would you?
Seriously.
Okay?
Just knock the hell out of him.
I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.
I promise.
We have the enemy from within.
And the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia, and all these countries.
Now, if I don't get elected, It's going to be a bloodbath for the whole country.
That's going to be the least of it.
It's going to be a bloodbath for the country.
For those who have been wronged and betrayed, of which there are many people out there that have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.
We will take care of it.
We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.
You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this?
They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks.
Like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you.
She's a radical war hawk.
Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay?
Let's see how she feels about it.
You know, when the guns are trained on her face.
You know, they're all war hawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, oh, gee, Will, let's send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.
Now that substantiates the point you're making, Cheng.
Yeah, you see, look, that is so unhelpful, including to Donald Trump.
There's one clip in there that isn't quite right.
The bloodbath clip was about the economy, not about violence.
But the rest of it was purely about violence.
And in fact, that last one was a rhetorical shot at chicken hawks.
And so if he just left it at their hypocritical, there's no problem.
But now look at what he said.
If they're going to send in troops to the Middle East, They should have guns pointed at their face.
Now he's sending in troops to the Middle East.
And that's why you shouldn't talk like that, because it encourages violence overall.
Now, to the Secret Service.
Look, guys, they've had tremendous failures, and I have a ton of questions.
And a lot of people on the left and the right have a ton of questions about their performance, including, by the way, the guy who failed miserably in Butler, Pennsylvania, the head of the Secret Service in that particular location and date, has now been promoted to the head of the Secret Service.
That is a very curious, bizarre thing.
And by the way, if you listen to Ben talk, you would think that the Secret Service is all minorities and women.
No, it's overwhelmingly white males.
So, why are you blaming white males?
Is that.
Your problem with DEI that we're hiring too many white people or too many men.
So the guy who got promoted is also a white male.
I think the real question isn't this distraction about identity politics and culture wars.
The real question is what the hell is going on?
Why did they let him take that shot in Butler?
Why did they move the photographers into place to get the exact right shot?
There's a lot of people on the right as well as the left going, that Butler, Pennsylvania shooting makes no sense at all.
Jimmy Kimmel's Tasteless Jokes00:13:59
And we're not saying we know who did it and what happened.
What we're asking is why isn't our government Care about shooting of the president.
Why doesn't Trump care?
Trump never talks about it.
Normally, Trump would be crazy on that.
What a hero he is, et cetera.
When I talk about bureaucracy and DEI, it's not just women.
There's social promotion of men of certain, whether it's skin color or political beliefs.
You've made that agency.
But the Secret Service is overwhelmingly white.
Let me at least finish what I'm saying.
If you're getting promoted because you're a bureaucrat, because you're a liberal white guy, okay?
Then that's the thing.
You think there's DEI for liberal white guys in the Secret Service?
Liberal white guys are liberals?
Then if my God is just remote, is there no bounds of reason?
I do.
I believe, I absolutely believe, this is why you guys are getting creamed in the midterms right now.
You have nothing to do with nothing.
I'm going to finish my point.
I'm going to finish what I was saying.
Nothing but culture war.
It is a failed culture war bullshit, identity politics nonsense, nothing.
I didn't interrupt you when you were saying it.
I listened to what you said.
Man, you're the biggest interrupter in the entire commentator set.
You've been interrupting me since the minute we started this.
Like, stop.
Come on.
Okay, you actually got the last time I talked to you, Ben.
You were on CNN, and the host had to tell you to shut up.
I'm literally going to finish what I said, and I'll go back to the core point here.
If you run the Secret Service the way it's being run now, it will continue to be a failure.
There needs to be a massive overhaul of the Secret Service for Democrats and Republicans.
The way that it's being done now is not working.
When you've got a guy that can run through, have multiple people shoot him, and he not get hit by what's supposed to be the best security force for a president of the United States of America, whether they're Democrat or Republican, and he can run right through the damn metal detectors.
And then get shot at, and no one should have been.
The only thing that saved him from being killed, I guess, is that he fell down and saved people's lives in that room.
Like, let's not act like the Secret Service is above reproach here.
And there has to be a moment where we say, No one is saying that we deserve better than this.
Ben, nobody is saying this is above reproach.
You're just making it about stupid identity politics because it's all you have.
Let me jump in.
I want because we've got a very slight delay from me to you guys.
So I just want to make sure we can get to other stuff here.
Clay, Obviously, Trump says a lot of incendiary things.
And, you know, his language about Iran, for example, you know, talking about wiping out the whole country and all this kind of thing, all of that is what I would categorize as unnecessarily over the top political violent rhetoric.
And all of it permeates down to disturbed minds in some way.
I'm a firm believer in that.
I do think that people calling Trump Hitler and a Nazi and all the rest of it, that to the deranged mind.
I keep Jeffrey's Max warfare all the time?
He was a police official when he said that.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
I mean, this is for Clay.
My point is that I think it works on both sides.
I think incendiary, violent kind of rhetoric, or massively over the top, exaggerated rhetoric, like Trump's a Nazi or Hitler, to the deranged mind, it's like a signal to them to go and deal with that problem then.
If he's really the new Hitler, we've got to kill him.
It's a public duty.
And that brings me to the Jimmy Kimmel saga, where just to remind people what he said, I think we've got the full clip here.
Our first lady, Melania, is here.
Look at more.
So beautiful.
Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.
Obviously, it was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together.
It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am.
It was not, by any stretch of the definition, a call to assassination, and they know that.
Now, for what it's worth, my thoughts about the Kimmel thing are that I didn't think the joke was funny.
I found his explanation a bit torturous, but I do think that the right has to be careful.
It doesn't fall into the same trap it has always accused the left of doing, which is wanting to cancel comedians for jokes.
He may not like it, it's tasteless, and so on.
And he didn't say it in the aftermath of this shooting, obviously.
But at the same time, Clay, it plays into this whole debate that everyone's having about violent rhetoric.
And I would say that Kimmel's a hypocrite because he wouldn't have said that about Michelle Obama or about Jill Biden.
He wouldn't.
He wouldn't have done that joke.
And he could easily have done it about Jill Biden, exactly the same joke, when it was obvious that Joe Biden was a walking zombie and Jill's a lot younger than him.
But he never did.
So to me, it highlighted the ongoing issue that I have with the late night guys, which is that to a man, and the irony is always never lost on me that for the guys that bang on most about DEI, they're all middle aged white guys, that they, to a man, They skew to the liberal left and they have a double standard that drives what they do.
But I don't think he should be cancelled.
And I think it's dangerous for the conservative right to call for him to be cancelled or to put pressure on Disney or whatever it may be, because that's exactly what they've always accused the woke left of doing.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, look, the punchline is Melania hates President Trump and is going to be excited when he actually dies, whether it's of old age or whether it's because somebody kills him.
I don't think that's a very good punchline.
I don't think it's a particularly funny joke.
And I agree with you, Pierce.
Never would have been said about Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, or certainly Jill Biden.
Now, they probably would push back and say, well, they actually love their husband, but then you're getting into why the joke wasn't funny because if you have to explain humor, it loses its punch.
I would not fire Jimmy Kimmel.
I defended him when he made the last tasteless joke, so called.
Look, I have a dark sense of humor.
I'm in favor of tasteless jokes.
I'm in favor of humor in general.
I think we're all better when we laugh more.
What I would do, Pierce, if you're asking me how I would respond to this, we got a new CEO of Disney.
I would actually defend Jimmy Kimmel by setting forth the new precedent.
And that is, we're not going to fire people for jokes or because cancel culture comes for them.
I've got two examples recently inside of Disney that I think would make a lot of sense, maybe three.
One, I would rehire Roseanne, let her do a comedy special, say, Hey, we didn't make a good decision when we fired her over a joke, whether we liked it or not.
I would also go back, I don't know if you ever watch it The Bachelor.
They fired Chris Harrison for defending someone going to a party back when they were in college.
He'd been on the show for 20 years.
I would bring him back.
I know they got their own issues right now with the Bachelor and Bachelorette over throwing chairs and everything else.
And then I know they kind of said this, but I would say it even more publicly.
They fired Gina Carano from the show The Mandalorian for so called conservative posts relating to her opinions on Instagram.
I would set a new precedent, and that would be we're going to be wide open creatively.
Sometimes creative people are going to say things that people of a variety of perspectives find a Defensive, but that's the job of being in creative business.
So I would defend Jimmy.
I'd defend Roseanne.
I'd defend Chris Harrison.
I don't want anybody getting canceled for actual opinions.
Now, acts where you commit acts of violence, things like that, that's very different.
But that would be my perspective on it.
And I think conservatives should be making poor choices.
But before I go to the others, I'll come to you, Mike, next.
Before I go to the others, Clay, do you accept that Donald Trump should dial down his rhetoric?
I mean, that was the point that Kimmel made.
Milani, if you want to start, because Milani was obviously very upset about it and I totally understand it.
But she made the point, you know, that he shouldn't have said it, blah, blah, blah.
And Kimmel replied, well, the reality of this joke is that it was a joke and you should just accept it.
And if you want to start with rhetoric, which is not very nice, start with your husband, right?
So do you accept that Donald Trump's own rhetoric doesn't really give him the bragging rights or the high moral ground when it comes to this issue?
Well, look, I think Trump's jokes and Trump's often bull in a china shop vocabulary and way to express himself should be of anyone who should be more in favor of wide expression.
It's Trump.
And look, Pierce, I doubt this is ever going to happen.
I think Jimmy Kimmel should have Donald Trump on as a guest.
And I think he should talk to him like late night hosts.
He used to talk to the president of the United States.
I agree.
I don't tune into Jimmy Kimmel to see him try to analyze geopolitical issues.
Uh, back in the day, do you remember when Fallon went on and kind of rubbed Trump's hair and everybody ripped Jimmy Fallon and since that, yeah, they never did it again.
It was great TV, yeah.
It was actually what TV should be, by the way.
Well, I remember, I actually, well, yeah, well, let me come to Mike Nellis.
I mean, I remember when Greg Gutfell went on Jimmy Fallon, I think it was, wasn't it?
Um, was it was it was it Kimmel?
Uh, it was Kimmel, and it was it was it was Kimmel, whichever one it was, but it was it was Fallon, you're right.
I'm sorry about that.
It was fun.
And it was deemed a huge controversial moment that a Fox News comedian would be on a late night show.
And I remember scratching my head going, well, there, right there is the problem.
Right there.
The fact that Greg Gutfeld is a hilariously funny guy, is the number one guy in the ratings on cable news, both with The Five and his own show.
The idea that his appearance on a late night show in America would be deemed remotely controversial because they skew so left.
I think somebody, New York Post, did a check of how many right wing guests. Jimmy Kimmel had had after the last thing he had.
And it was like one in four years.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
So there is a genuine bias, genuine bias that is inherent in those late night shows, Mike, which I think does them all a disservice.
I loved it with, I used to go on Jay Leno or I went on David Letterman or whatever it was.
And they were all just impartial guys.
They just had everybody on.
What's happened to that?
Well, I want to start by giving Clay a little bit of praise for being ideologically consistent on comedy because a lot of His fellow MAGA influencers are not.
And I just appreciate it anytime somebody's actually being consistent on their values because I also have a dark sense of humor and I like a good joke.
And I don't really care for Kimmel.
I never really tuned into his show.
I was more of a Conan guy when I actually stayed up that late.
But I think this whole thing is silly.
Now, the one thing I will push back on just a little bit is like comparing what Jimmy Kimmel said to like Roseanne Barr and Gina Carruno, whatever her last name is, I apologize.
But like Roseanne Barr tweeted a racial slur against Valerie Jarrett that was highly offensive.
It was not a joke.
It was like a sincere comment that was frankly very offensive.
And Gina compared being a Republican to being a Holocaust survivor.
So it's just a little bit different.
And I think that's why they got fired.
And it isn't about comedy.
It's about you say something stupid, your employer can fire you.
That's true whether or not you're a comedian.
It's also true if you're one of the idiot liberals who was celebrating Charlie Kirk's assassination a few months ago, you can be fired by your employer for saying something stupid.
Now, a lot of this is very much in bad faith.
I agree that probably liberal shows could do a better job of having conservatives on, that we can all do a better job of having real conversations, which to your credit appears like you brought on two liberals, you brought on two conservatives, we're having a conversation.
Sometimes it's unpleasant.
But we could do a lot more of that.
And I don't have a problem with Donald Trump going to do Jimmy Kimmel's show, but Trump would never do Jimmy Kimmel's show.
I mean, he only agreed to do the White House Correspondents' Dinner this weekend because they wouldn't invite a comedian.
And it used to be an event where the whole purpose was the President of the United States would sit and take his lumps from a comedian, whether or not it was Barack Obama or George W. Bush.
So we've kind of gotten away from that.
And I think I would take, going back to what Clay said earlier about the signs that were outside the White House Correspondents' Dinner about killing the president and killing everybody who was there.
It's disgusting.
Like people should not say that.
They should not put that on a sign.
But I would take those criticisms.
With a grain of salt, because they're not willing to call out the president of the United States for the things that he said.
And the president of the United States, not that long ago, was calling Democrats terrorists and saying that they were treasonous, and then talking about how George Washington would have hung Democrats for having opinions that are different than Donald Trump.
So he invites this stuff.
He has moved the Overton window.
Plenty of people on the left do it too, but the president of the United States is the president of the United States, and he continues to use incendiary rhetoric that has created this moment in time that we're in more than anybody else.
Pierce, let me say this.
Okay, I've got to leave it there.
I'm sorry.
It's victim shaming.
This is the problem with Jimmy Kimmel and with so many.
Every single time someone tries to kill Donald Trump, there is this rhetoric afterwards like, well, I mean, you kind of should expect it because Donald Trump said X, Y, and Z. Like, Jimmy Kimmel the other night, the audience was clearly laughing, not in an age joke.
And by the way, Jimmy Kimmel, if you're being funny and you make a mistake, you can tweet out you made a mistake.
You don't have to wait till Monday to correct it.
And he didn't correct it.
He doubled down and came up with an excuse.
Nobody thinks Jimmy Kimmel was trying to be violent.
Can we skip this crap?
This is obvious.
Have you watched this show every night?
Obvious, obvious.
Jimmy has the definition of Trump's derangement syndrome.
He hates President Trump.
The only derangement syndrome is whatever the hell you have.
He hates President Trump.
It was a joke about him being killed.
And if you want to clarify it, if it was a joke about him being older than Melania, you take your phone out and you be a real man and you go, in light of what happened five minutes ago, my joke the other night.
Was inappropriate, and I'm sorry that it was put out.
Elite Normalization Of Epstein Files00:08:14
You can fix it.
You're a joke because you guys want Donald Trump to die.
That's what it boils down to.
You have no problem with your and I still allow you every time someone takes a shot.
You know who we need right now?
We need King Charles to intervene to bring some unity to this panel.
My hope, my hopes we can replicate it.
Sadly, fallen at the last hurdle.
But thank you all very much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thanks, Peter.
See ya.
One of the many things that was expected to overshadow this week's royal visit was the Epstein files.
The former Prince Andrew is, of course, the King's brother.
But in the event, it barely registered.
Joining me now is Tara Parmary.
She's the host of the Tara Parmary show, who's covered the story exhaustively and extremely comprehensively, as well, I might add.
Tara, welcome back to Uncensored.
King Charles has been criticized for not meeting any of the Jeffrey Epstein victims.
My understanding was that Queen Camilla was quite keen to do that and has spoken out about this before.
But they have been advised by lawyers that it would be inappropriate for them to do so because of the ongoing.
Police inquiries.
What do you feel about this?
Would it have been a good thing for them to have spoken out, or should they take legal advice and just honor that?
You know, I've heard mixed things.
I think, you know, the Epstein survivors are not being advised by the same lawyers, obviously, and some of them would have liked to have met with the king, even if it was like a simple handshake to observe them, because many of them were on the Capitol.
They were in the Capitol when he was giving his address to Congress.
But I think.
What this entire spectacle that we saw in Washington was about when King Charles came to town, without obviously stating the elephant in the room that his brother is under investigation right now, that he's been abused by middle class American girls of sexual abuse.
You know, it's created a sort of sense that there is elite normalization going on right now around the Epstein files and the Epstein case.
And that's what we've seen all along.
You know, you have an attendance at a state dinner, you have this.
Garden party where you're having members of both sides just fed him, elite media, you know, enjoying being around the king.
And really, there are some unresolved moral issues going on with the monarchy and that institution.
And I think that if he did the very least address them, whether it's in his speech or acknowledge them in comments or meet with them, I think it would send a real sign to our leadership in our country, including President Trump, who has some sort of, you know, Royal, I guess you could call it fascination.
He seems to be very, he seems to fantasize the idea of being a king himself, as you saw from his two kings' posts.
I think it would send a really strong symbol to him that it's not something that the rest of the world is ignoring and he's willing to let it, you know, take up a new cycle in his own visit.
Yeah, I mean, Lauren Bobet, the congresswoman, she said this afterwards, after the king's speech to Congress.
Let's take a listen.
Congresswoman, should the King be meeting with Jeffrey Epstein survivors?
Some of the victims of Virginia Dufresne are here today in Congress.
You know, it's interesting.
Last night we were given a list of do's and don'ts for the King by the Speaker.
And we were told, you know, no selfies, no touching, no hugging, no conversations.
And it really sounds like a list of don'ts, you know, for the royal family with victims more than members of Congress.
So it sounds like everything that his family's already done.
I mean, it was a sharp point, and some people will have some empathy with that point.
But I think it's important to recognise that King Charles has never faced any allegations of any involvement with Epstein.
It's nothing to do with him, it's his brother who's been completely disgraced.
He should face, in my opinion, Andrew, investigators and authorities, but there's a moment resisting that.
But we'll see how that plays out.
There is this ongoing sense, though, Tara, that the UK has been getting his act together about holding.
Men to account over this Epstein scandal.
Lord Mandelson disgraced and investigated by police, Andrew disgraced, arrested, and so on.
But we're not seeing that pattern in the United States.
You're seeing some men below the radar a bit who are sort of being brought to account, but none of the big, high profile names that have been associated with Epstein have had the similar kind of public shaming, police investigation, and so on.
Why is that?
I mean, it seems like the public officials that's the problem in America is that our civil servants, our public officials, our politicians, they haven't faced justice.
The only people who have Actually, paid, I guess you could say, in their reputations or losing their positions are people who work at various institutions like Larry Summers.
You saw Leon Black have to step down from the board of the private equity firm he founded, Glenn Dubin.
There's just been various members of the media and of elite financial institutions and education that have had to pay some consequences, but we haven't seen anyone.
In public life, actually be investigated.
And that's the difference between the United States and the rest of the world, frankly, where they're actually opening investigations into possible impropriety between Epstein and members that now are in our cabinet, that, you know, even all the way to the top, President Trump.
But I just want to go back to the idea that, you know, King Charles, he made an impassioned plea to Congress, you know, that we need to remember our humanitarian roots.
We have to defend democratic values.
And it's like, There are so many accountability questions hanging over his brother, over him.
And I know that in the UK, you are actually investigating him, but not for the crime of sexual abuse.
It's something completely unrelated.
And so it just feels like there's a bit of a mismatch there when he comes to the United States and sort of tries to appeal to our moral higher ground.
And yes, he should be because we are failing in that place.
And in some ways, the UK is doing better, but I don't think we can just sort of say, you know, I don't think we can give this one a pass and say this was just a successful visit.
And just finally, Tara, do you think we're going to see the remaining 3 million documents in the Epstein files?
Because it does seem quite extraordinary that half of the files just haven't been made public.
I mean, I can't think of anything less transparent.
Actually, more than that, Piers, if you count the 40 terabytes of video, I mean, that would answer so many questions.
And we know from emails within the FBI, That they're sitting on this.
And I don't know how we're ever gonna get this without either whistleblowers, maybe some of the lawsuits against the DOJ will stand, but it's really baffling.
And I don't know that the next administration is going to want to release them because everyone looks so bad.
And I think it would just place so much doubt in the Department of Justice and create so much suspicion.
And I think it really reveals.
You know, national security concerns, et cetera.
How is Epstein related to national security concerns?
Because that's why they're withholding those millions of documents.
Yeah.
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.
Tara, keep up your great work.
You've been doing brilliant investigative stuff on this.
Tommy Robinson And Prison Incarceration00:12:13
Thank you.
And I appreciate it.
I'm sure lots of other people do too.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you.
Well, joining me now is Glenn Beck, host of the Glenn Beck program and founder of Torch.
Glenn, welcome back to Uncensored.
How are you?
Thank you very much.
Very good.
Very good, Pierce.
Good to talk to you.
Did you feel the warm glow of royal patronage yesterday as my king addressed both Congress and then the state?
I have to be real honest with you.
Don't like Charles, never have liked Charles.
Loved his mother, loved his grandmother, great grandmother, Victoria.
She was fabulous.
Him, not so much.
I have great hope for William and Kate, but I'm not a king person.
It's amazing that we're marching on here, no kings, but you got one and you're still getting the.
But there was the irony, Glenn, wasn't there, of all the Democrats who've been marching about, no kings, then cheering on an actual king repeatedly in Congress.
Yeah, it's not irony, it's hypocrisy.
But there are those.
And this is the thing, Piers, that I'm coming over for the Tommy Robinson rally and I don't know what to expect.
And I honestly say that because I'm not even sure about my own countrymen sometimes.
The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights is not the Magna Carta.
Magna Carta was a good start, but we have something that is totally different.
And we don't just guarantee rights, we guarantee the right of the individual.
And so many Americans don't understand that even.
You know, everything.
And that's not what our founders were for.
And I worry, you know, when I hear talk about the Magna Carta and stuff, yeah, well, you can still become a dictator.
And Trump could become a dictator if he doesn't concentrate on the Bill of Rights and the founding document of all men are created equal.
And we are as individuals, not a collective.
And I don't know what to expect from England or Europe as we go into these scary times.
Well, let's talk about Tommy Robinson then, because I saw that you posted.
I'm going to head to stand shoulder to shoulder with Tommy Robinson at the Unite the Kingdom rally on May the 16th and said you were excited and proud to do so.
How much do you know about Tommy Robinson?
I think I know enough, but not as much as you know.
I've seen him over the years change a great deal.
I think we all have.
I know that he was, he said himself, he was very thuggish when he was young.
But I think he brings up strong warnings that are important for reasonable people to listen to.
But he is, look, his name isn't even Tommy Robinson.
His name is Stephen Ashley Lennon.
He's got convictions for assault.
He was a football hooligan, led a mob.
He was convicted of using a fake passport.
He's been done for mortgage fraud, contempt of court, he's been in and out of jail for all sorts of different things.
And I've got a feeling that most of America, most of the conservative right on the American side, sort of either don't really know this about him or just are prepared to turn a blind eye because they're kind of locked in.
And forgive me if I don't want to include you if you don't recognize this characterization, but there's a growing sense, I said it on Hannity's show last night, of Britain being overrun by Muslims, overtaken, we're becoming an Islamic state, and so on.
To which I say, well, we have 5% of our population is currently Muslim.
And I live in London, which is an incredibly multicultural city with several million Muslims living in it.
I just don't recognize this portrayal of my country or my capital city as being overrun by Muslims.
But this is what Tommy Robinson wants America to think.
And he's over here all the time, doing podcasts and interviews, talking about the country being invaded, being overtaken.
Now, there are legitimate questions about immigration, both legal and illegal, which I've absolutely agreed with.
I also think, and I've said this before, that Robinson was one of the louder voices calling out this absolute disgrace of the grooming rape gangs.
And he was right to do so.
But I'm not sure I'd be comfortable when even Nigel Farage.
Head of the Reform Party here in the UK.
I'm in New York at the moment.
But even he doesn't stand shoulder to shoulder with Tommy Robinson.
Does that not give you pause for thought, Glenn Beck?
Sure, it gives me pause for thought.
I've talked to Tommy.
I mean, he has told me all of the things that you just said.
He called himself a hooligan, said that he had made huge mistakes, et cetera, et cetera.
But I don't know what he's standing for that I would object to.
I mean, I'm a recovering alcoholic.
I've made huge mistakes in my life.
We all can make mistakes in our life.
But I'm not sure, you know, because what I see here is an unequal application to the law and a warning of Sharia law.
I don't have a problem with Muslims.
I don't have a problem with people coming into the country.
If, you know, as long as you want to become in America, it may be different.
I could move over to England and I'd never be an Englishman.
You can move over to America and adopt our country and become a citizen and you will become an American.
It's so it's different.
And I want that.
But I don't want Sharia law.
And that, I think, is the warning that he is giving and the warning that people should pay attention to all over the West.
You are seeing a group of people.
I just saw, was it Denmark?
48% of those who are living as a newcomer and is Islamic, 48% want Sharia law.
That's incompatible with the West.
That's the warning that I think people should hear.
But I also want to be careful, that's why I brought this up.
I want to be careful.
You can go wrong quickly if you get into us versus them.
You can go wrong quickly if you are not understanding universal individual rights.
We have to stand what kept America from going fascist for so long, we understand the individual right.
And that I don't know how to judge in Germany or Europe or anyplace else because you don't have that's bred into us.
We're losing it.
But a lot of us still have it bred right deeply into us, that individual strength and love of individual rights that I don't know if the rest of the country has.
I mean, my issue with Robinson, who refuses to come on my show, because he knows I'm going to ask him stuff he doesn't get asked when he does American shows.
And he knows he doesn't want to get into that, because it might even send him back to prison, because he'll repeat lies where there are laws which are currently contempt of court laws in the UK, which if he repeated them, he'd go back to prison as he did before.
So I think he's a mega charlatan.
Can I ask you a question?
And again, I'm not an expert on your laws and everything else, but are you a little concerned about how many people in your country are being arrested for freedom of speech?
I mean, I think it was 14,000 people in the last two years.
I mean, it's gravely concerning what's going on.
I've talked out about that.
I think there's been a massive overdone response to people putting stuff on Facebook and whatever, whatever.
And it's inconsistent with our country.
Saying they're a country of free speech.
And then, I mean, I thought the worst one was Graham Linehan, the comedian who posted two trans jokes on X and then months later got arrested by five armed police at Heathrow.
It was ridiculous.
Or the teacher in England was thrown out.
Teacher in Ireland, I think, that is just, I think, got life in prison.
I mean, that's craziness.
That's craziness.
Well, there are some absurd cases, but I think that the thing about Robinson I don't like is that his recent stay in prison was nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with the fact that he had lost a defamation case, a libel case with a Syrian refugee boy, who won the case, won a six figure sum.
In damages.
And there was a contempt of court order put against Robinson not to repeat his demonstrable proven lies, which is why he lost the defamation case.
He then goes and makes this movie called Silence, which is the one thing he never is.
And he repeated all the lies.
And then he got put back in prison because he was in breach of contempt of court.
That's not a free speech issue.
That's someone spewing lies, being told if you do it again, you're going to prison.
And he does it again.
So I'm not here to defend or defame.
Him, you know, let him speak for himself.
I know I've asked him some of these questions, and one of the things that he did bring up that I thought was at least worth consideration is how many of these things, because we've seen it in America, how many of these things are happening to you because you're on the wrong side of power?
How much of that is actually righteous prosecution, and how much of that is prosecution because shut up and sit down?
And I don't know the answer to that.
Well, it's a legitimate.
No, no, it's a legitimate question in all of these cases.
And I'm sure there is an element of that with some people.
He is, you know, he's a self-acclaimed sort of enemy of the establishment and so on.
I don't know.
I would feel uncomfortable, Glenn, because I've got a lot of respect for you, a lot of time for you.
I would just be slightly careful how close your shoulder gets to his shoulder at this rally, because there are some people that go to these things who are perfectly normal, decent people that care about their country.
I've no doubt about that.
But there are also some absolute hardcore, genuine Islamophobic.
Thugs.
And the reason I say that is if you ask Tommy Robinson, here's the point I would make.
The vast majority of sexual crime in the UK is perpetrated by white men.
When was the last time Tommy Robinson ever alluded to any of that on his social media platforms or at his rallies?
It's always Muslim, as if the only people committing crimes in my country are Muslims.
And it's a grotesque mischaracterisation of reality.
So, I will tell you, Piers, when you say, you know, be careful who you get close to, I would say that about anybody.
I think we all need to be very careful because on both sides of the aisle, in my own country, it is starting to become, there are crazies on both sides, far more.
I mean, a death cult now on the left, you know, what happened over the weekend with the president is a death cult.
But there are crazies now starting to appear on the other side.
But you can't, you have to be brave enough to say, I am an individual and this is what I believe.
And I plan on being in England to observe and to watch and to speak on what I believe is important.
And what I bring is a warning that individual rights, this cannot be about religion.
And I'm not preaching to anybody in England.
In our own country, this is not about religion.
This is about a political force that wants to shut down freedoms.
That is a legitimate concern in Western culture and needs to have legitimate airing and discussion.
Without hatred or name calling.
Glenn, on that point, I 100% agree with you.
Always good to have you on Uncensored.
Good to talk to you.
And maybe see you in London.
Returning To Independent Media00:01:02
Take care, Glenn.
Love to.
Thanks, Piers.
Bye bye.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.