O'REILLY: The Left HATES Trump so much, they'd rather vote for the 'senile, corrupt guy'

The king of "No Spin" and bestselling author of "Killing Crazy Horse," Bill O'Reilly joined Glenn Beck on this week's podcast to talk about the latest developments in Joe Biden's Ukraine and China corruption scandal. Now that some of the details are finally coming out in the open, does the average Democrat care? Maybe, but the Left doesn't seem to.

O'Reilly argued there's more hatred for President Donald Trump now than in 2016, and that some people hate President Trump so much that they'd rather vote for the "senile, corrupt" Joe Biden.

"Hunter got tens of millions of dollars from Ukraine, from Russia, from China because his father was vice president. I have no doubt in my mind," O'Reilly said. "But the hatred for Donald Trump overrides that in the minds of millions of viewers. They're saying, 'You know, we'd rather have the senile corrupt guy than Trump.'"

Asked by Glenn if any other Republican running for president would be met with the same level of vitriol, O'Reilly answered, "The Left is the Left. They don't like America. The want to redo the Constitution. They want to take some of our freedoms, like the Second Amendment and the First Amendment, and change them. And they want to destroy capitalism and replace it with a big centralized government in Washington that controls the economy … but I'm talking about the folks. I have liberal friends and I say to them, 'Do you not understand that when you vote for Biden, you're voting against your own self interest?'"

Watch the video clip from the full podcast below, or find the full episode 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.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that the entire country became excited overnight for Kamala Harris’ presidential bid. Small donations reportedly skyrocketed. ActBlue, the left’s main small-donor fundraiser platform, reported $27.5 million in donations within the first five hours of her announcing her campaign two weeks ago.

Just a few hours later, that number nearly doubled to $46.7 million. ActBlue said the haul was its biggest fundraising day of the entire 2024 election cycle. After 24 hours, ActBlue was reporting over $90 million for Mrs. Yellow School Bus.

Are we supposed to buy that the nation suddenly decided to line the coffers of the least popular Democratic presidential candidate of the 2020 election? Harris was so bad during the 2020 primary that maybe a dozen people voted for her. But now she’s igniting passion and shattering fundraising records over at ActBlue. Call me crazy for saying that sounds a little suspicious.

ActBlue piqued my interest back during the "Summer of Rage.” My research team investigated the fundraising of Black Lives Matter. We noticed this little disclaimer on ActBlue’s website under a section titled “The Fine Print”:

In the event that a campaign or committee (a) fails for 60 days to cash a check from ActBlue which includes your contribution (after ActBlue makes repeated attempts to work with the campaign to ensure all checks are cashed), or (b) affirmatively refuses a contribution earmarked through ActBlue, your contribution will be re-designated as a contribution to ActBlue. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities. Contributions to charitable organizations which are not cashed or affirmatively refused will go to ActBlue Charities.

In other words, if a recipient never cashed the check, ActBlue could do whatever it wanted with the money. Doesn’t that sound kind of shady? What’s to stop a coordinated effort to refuse funds in one area then re-channel those funds to their pet projects? If we’re talking dark money here, this has the potential to be as dark as it gets.

The aforementioned text was still on ActBlue’s website at the end of July. The verbiage changed on August 1, amid the “record-breaking” fundraising campaign for Harris. Now why would they do that?

Perhaps because details like the following are starting to come out. According to investigative journalist James O’Keefe, Maryland resident Cindy Nowe “allegedly contributed over 1,000 times to ActBlue in 2022, totaling $18,849.77.” That means she would have needed to donate to ActBlue at least three times a day, every day, for the whole year.

Nowe denied ever making those contributions beyond an initial donation.

It gets even more nefarious. On June 8, a similar person’s name and address were used to donate through ActBlue five times, and all five donations were for the same amount.

The name was used to donate 19 times, and every single donation was for either $5.26 or $5.27. Oddly specific numbers, aren’t they? It almost looks like they changed the number by one cent just to avoid some kind of trigger or something.

I asked Federal Election Commissioner Allen Dickerson on the radio about this case and others just like it.

“My team conducted its own research, finding donations to ActBlue under names that differ only by a single letter with identical contributions,” he said. “Citizen journalists across the country have found similar trends, and we’re seeing similar cases pop up in more states all over the country.”

What is going on? Money controls this election. It dumped a sitting president and installed a new candidate. Now it’s being shot out all over the place in ways difficult to explain. This isn’t some random conspiracy theory. The data is right there. It even got the attention of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and an assortment of House Republicans.

Authorities have fined ActBlue at least twice for facilitating illegal contributions. If money controls this election, data from the FEC shows that Harris has only been running for president for a couple of weeks, yet her funding destroys Donald Trump’s! How could she enter the race this late and still out-fundraise a candidate who has been fundraising the entire time?

According to the FEC under “Transfers from Other Authorized Committees,” all the money raised during Biden’s candidacy has already been transferred to Harris.

How is that even remotely fair? How is it legal? Harris now has the money that people gave to Joe Biden. Millions of Democrats voted for Biden in the primary. Then there was a coup, and then the coup money went to Harris. These are the people who claim to be “defenders of democracy.” They are anything but.

6 things that prove Tim Walz is a RADICAL progressive

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

It's a common practice for a presidential nominee to pick a VP that represents another demographic within their party to balance out the ticket and pull a wider base of support. Apparently, Kamala skipped that day in "Running for President 101," as she doubled down, and picked a VP that is every bit as radical as she is.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has made a name for himself as a champion of the progressive movement ever since he won the governor's seat in 2019. This choice sends a clear message to the American people: the Democratic Party is committed to jumping off the deep end and dragging the country even farther left. Glenn recently dug up some illuminating clips from Walz's past that clearly communicate just how radical he is. Here are the top six moments that prove just how progressive Walz is:

1. Defending illegal immigration

While interviewing with CNN, Walz attacked Trump's border wall proposal with the age-old and thoroughly debunked rebuttal: "Just use a ladder." Except Walz takes it a little further, stating that if the wall were 25 feet tall, then he would "invest in a 30-foot ladder factory." We can expect the border situation to continue to degrade should Walz replace Kamala as "border czar."

2. Protecting the "right" for children to get transgender surgery in Minnesota 

Tim Walz made his stance on transgender issues very clear. He is all for the "right" of underage children to receive permanent "gender-affirming" surgeries. He also states that Minnesota, which is already far too tolerant towards experimental transgender treatments on minors, needs to be "much more aggressive about making sure [transgender] folks are protected," which is as ominous as it is unclear.

3. Dropping the ball on COVID

Walz's response to COVID-19 was infamously horrible. He had more nursing home deaths than New York under Cuomo and wasted millions of dollars on dead-end causes and fraudulent schemes. But that wasn't enough for Walz, who instituted a snitching program that encourages neighbors to rat out each other forleaving their houses while the lockdowns were in place. This only had to be instituted because local sheriffs refused to enforce Govoner Walz's draconian edicts.

4. Defending socialism

During the recent comically pathetic fundraiser "White Dudes for Harris,” Walz joined the livestream as a guest speaker. During his speech, he defended and downplayed socialism with the following statement: “One person’s socialism is another person's neighborliness.” Glenn pointed out that historically socialists, such as the USSR or Nazi Germany, were not known for their "neighborliness."

5. Having tampons put in men's restrooms 

By now most people have heard Tim Walz's flattering nickname, "Tampon Tim." Tampon Tim won this nickname with his decision to have public schools provide free tampons to all "mensurating students," including biological males, and tampon dispensers were installed in the men's restrooms in public schools across the state.

6. Defending Biden's age (pre-debate)

During an interview with NBC this January, Walz defended President Biden's mental competency, which has aged incredibly poorly. Walz defended the senile president by citing his elderly mother's ability to drive a tractor as evidence that an elderly person is capable of running the country. It's a mystery how anyone can trust a word that comes out of his mouth now that it's clear Biden has hardly been capable of standing unassisted, let alone being president.

Glenn once again made his mark on the New York Times bestselling list with his newest book—and first novel for young adults— Chasing Embers, ranking No. 8 on the Bestselling Young Adult Hardcover Books list. But is the New York Times once again cooking the books against Glenn?

This isn't the first time the New York Times has been accused of cooking the books against authors who go against their narrative.

Chasing Embers falls behind other trending teen novels like Darkness Within Us, Shadows Between Us, and Nightbane. Yet, according to the raw sales, Chasing Embers sold twice as much as the number one spot, Reappearance of Rachel Price. While all the other entries are, for the most part, listed sequentially after the number one spot according to raw sales, Chasing Embers sits at the number eight spot with twice the amount of sales than the top five, and three to four times the amount of sales as the bottom five.

Is the New York Times suppressing Glenn's ranking because of his political stances or Chasing Embers' anti-establishment message? If so, it wouldn't be the first time.

Glenn's previous non-fiction book, Dark Future, published in 2023, quickly made it on the New York Times Bestselling Non-Fiction Hardcover list at the No. 13 spot. However, if the list were determined by raw sales alone, Dark Future would have been ranked number seven on the list. While Greg Gutfeld's book, The King of Late Night, had fewer sales than Dark Future, it outranked Dark Future in the No. 5 slot. Moreover, Granger Smith's faith-based nonfiction book, Like a River, was excluded from the list, even though it received nearly twice as many sales as the list's No. 1 spot, Outlive, by Dr. Peter Attia.

Is the New York Times suppressing Glenn's ranking because of his political stances or Chasing Embers' anti-establishment message?

This isn't the first time the New York Times has been accused of cooking the books against authors who go against their narrative. Legendary author James Patterson, who holds the Guinness World Record for the most #1 New York Times bestsellers, criticized the list as "inaccurate," recounting how his book, Walk The Blue Line, which tells the real-life stories of law enforcement officers, wasn't even on the New York Times Bestseller List for the first week after publication, despite its sales outperforming its competitors. Once it was on the list, it continued to rank below books it had significantly outperformed, according to raw sales. The ongoing discrepancy between Patterson's ranking and raw sales raised suspicions that the New York Times was silently publishing Walk The Blue Line''s pro-police message.

Is the New York Times at it again? Perhaps the once-acclaimed source for the top-trending books of the day has lost its credibility. If you want to read the books the New York Times is trying to suppress, like Chasing Embers and Dark Future, click HERE.

The RADICAL track record behind Kamala's VP pick, Tim Walz

JIM WATSONCHRIS KLEPONIS / Contributor | Getty Images

It's just under two weeks until the Democratic National Convention takes place in Chicago, and the assumed Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, has just announced that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will be her running mate in the 2024 election.

Governor Walz has been in politics since 2006 when he was first elected to Congress where he represented Minnesota's first district. He was elected Governor in 2019.

Walz has a spotty track record, which seems par for the course for the current Democratic ticket. As Glenn pointed out on air recently, Governor Walz is every bit as radical as Kamala, which indicates exactlyhow Kamala will govern if she should win the election in November.

Walz has proven to be a radical and incompetent governor, a dangerous compliment to Kamala.

Walz was brought on board to bolster Kamala in the Midwestern states, some of which Biden barely won in 2020, and to win over middle-class Americans, a class of voters the Democrats the taken major losses in recently. While the Governor certainly attempts to come across as a moderate, middle-class Midwesterner, a quick look at his record shows a different story. The first thing Walz did after being elected governor was to institute a statewide diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, which he has renewed. Just last week, Walz defended socialism during the “White Dudes for Harris” livestream, a fundraising event for the assumed Democratic nominee.

Walz was also responsible for the state of Minnesota's responseor lack thereofto the BLM riots of 2020. Walz stood by as the BLM riots burned down city after city across his state, resulting in millions of dollars in damage. In Minneapolis alone, the rioters did $55 million in damages while Walz watched from afar.

Walz was one of the many governors who bungled their state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He wasted millions of dollars on unused morgues and a fraudulent scheme involving money that was supposed to go towards feeding poor children. Overall, Tim Walz has proven to be a radical and incompetent governor, a dangerous compliment to Kamala.

We can't forget his military experience.

His service in the Army National Guard has been a selling point for Governor Walz during his many political campaigns over the years, but his service wasn't as honorable as he claims it to be. While it is true that Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard for approximately 20 years, he resigned as soon as he learned that his unit was going to be sent to Iraq. While Walz claims that his term of obligated service had ended, National Guard records contradict that story, showing that he left early to avoid being deployed. The records also show that Walz snuck out of the National Guard rather quickly and failed to complete the required paperwork with his retirement filing showing “Soldier not available for signature.” Walz, who was a key leader in his battalion, abandoned his fellow soldiers right when he was needed most.

How did Kamala reckon he would be a good pick for VP?