RADIOFebruary 14, 2024

A DIRE WARNING for independent content creators

We have hit another Big Tech censorship mile marker. Glenn exposes the latest attempts by Facebook, Apple, AND YouTube to soft-censor conservative media during an election year. He warns that independent content creators who believe that they can rely on Big Tech platforms will soon find out the harsh truth: If they don’t fall in line with the narratives of the global elites, they will face the consequences. For political content creators on Facebook, that day has come, as it has made shadowbanning its company policy. And for those on YouTube, Glenn exposes how a shadowy “non-profit” connected to the White House may be pressuring the company to crack down on unapproved narratives.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to start with something you need to know about. You know, I feel like somebody who is just telling you the mile-markers as we go. We are hitting another mile-marker here that you really need to pay attention to. Because it is all about information.

We have been witnessing a very disturbing trend in social media lately.

The giants of social media are attempting to control the narrative and dictate what information you have access to, by punishing people like me, or perhaps people like you, for wrong think.

Now, this is a blatant assault on your freedom and my freedom of speech.

And what do you know, they've decided to do this, during an election year. I mean, what a coincidence.

So I have three updates for you. And the first one is actually a kind of win.

I shared last week, when my team discovered, that Apple had raided everything in my Apple podcast library, as explicit content.

That's over 2,000 episodes of my radio program. Which I am FCC regulated. So I can't have anything explicit on.

And also the Glenn Beck podcast.

Now, the key here is, why did Apple change the rating from clean, to explicit?

Well, my team uploads the -- the episodes to the Apple podcast platform. And they have to rate it either clean or explicit.

The vast majority of my episodes fall under the clean category. But our standards are a little higher than everyone else. Every so often, a guest on my podcast will use colorful language. They'll drop the F bomb. Occasionally. It's happened twice.

And my team, making sure that we understand our audience, have flagged that episodes as explicit. That shouldn't affect every episode. It should affect that episode. So we reached out to Apple for comment, and Apple got back to us right away, and claims this is due to four episodes, that we in the 2,000, have labeled explicit.

Now, Apple claimed, that we didn't say they were explicit. I know we did.

Apple wanted me to delete those episodes to get the label removed from all the rest of the 2000 episodes. Uh-huh.

So censorship, well, I don't know. There's people that use content settings to avoid podcasts that are entirely based around explicit content like pornography. What Apple did was group my shows with those kinds of shows to hide all of my shows from you.

We pushed back. Yesterday, we got a notification, that Apple will remove the explicit label, within a couple of business days. We've got a lot going on here. So it was a big misunderstanding, as it always is. And time and time again. And I just love the fact that they -- they will take a couple of days and correct this right away.

Now, this is called soft censorship.

And these attempts happen all the time.

Let me give you another example. Earlier this week, I got a notification, that Facebook is making shadow banning company policy.

Now, shadow banning, in case you don't know, is when a social media company allows you to post all the content that you want. But then it limits the reach that the content can hit.

So it's -- well, I call it the digital ghetto. You know, they're just rounding everybody up, that disagrees with the government. And they put them in this digital ghetto. There's a wall around it.

Well, they can speak all they want. But nobody will hear them. Unless you too, if into the get zero.

Now, this time, at least Facebook was kind enough to tell us about it.

They posted an article last week, called, our approach to political content. Now, Facebook admitted that they will shadow ban all political content.

But that's for you.

That has nothing to do with like the WEF saying, we've got to silence people. We have to make sure that people aren't misinformed with things that disagree with our policy, and our direction.

Now, Facebook argued that, quote, the people have told us, they just want to see less million content.

So we've spent the last few years, refining our approach on Facebook, to reduce the amount of political content. Including from politician accounts.

In feeds, reels, watch groups. You should join. And pages, you may like.

Okay. That's interesting. Because my team started noticing, oh, a 95 percent drop in our penetration on Facebook, about a year ago.

Which is weird. Which is weird.

But it will be better for our sanity, I guess.

I remember a time, when Facebook begged me to I didn't even their platform.

So what changed?

Well, an election year, where they're scared out of their mind.

And they have to silence anyone, that is telling you, a different opinion, than the overlords.

I would like to know what Facebook considers to be political content. Is advertising, LGBTQ issues to kids considered political?

I'll bet not. How about content on the benefits of abortion?

Is that April?

Does Joe Biden get a pass since he's the president?

Despite the fact that he's running for reelection. Or is it just the right-wing candidates and issues, that are from the right-wing that are considered political?

Don't worry. Facebook isn't banning all political content.

Instead, it's just hiding it by default.

If you want to see the political content. Then you can customize your feed preference, and turn. Back on.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

You can also add people like me, to your favorites list, so you can add content to your feed.

Sounds great and easy, doesn't it?

Now, my team stumbled across a new form of shadow banning, and it could be tied directly to the global censorship regime that I exposed just a few weeks ago.

Just a few weeks ago, on the TV program.
I had exposed the shadowy nonprofit targeting Glenn Beck and other conservative media.

And I laid out how a small British nonprofit, with only one employee, has become one of the White House's go-to censorship experts.

I'm going to tell you what we found just happening, and how it ties to what I said was coming two weeks ago.

And how all of this affects you.

Because it is going to affect what you perceive.

Because it's just taking things away. It's not necessarily adding. It's just kind of falling off. And you don't see it anymore.

This is a way to control the way people think.

Okay. So in the episode I did a couple of weeks ago, I introduced you to the center of countering digital hate.

When I say they are the ones behind the infamous dozen report that the White House peddled back in 2021.

That report targeted so-called COVID disinformation. All the things that we now know are true.

Well, they now have a new report out, about climate disinformation. But not the kind that you may be thinking of. Now, when I say they, I really mean him.

Because there's only one employee, at this nonprofit. Earlier this year, British outlet called the independent, highlighted this new report. Apparently, it's the center for countering digital hate. And they are furious that social media companies, are allowing a new form of climate change denial to spread to their platforms.

It's no longer good enough for companies like YouTube to censor people who believe in climate change. Or believe it is fake.

They've been doing that. But that's not enough. That's the old kind of denial. The center for digital hate defines the new denial as anything that claims global heating is beneficial or harmless. That global elite's climate solution may not work.

Or that so-called climate science or the climate movement can't be trusted.

Now, I'm not sure how questioning the global elites is a form of digital hate. But apparently now it is.

Because that guy at the CCDH has spoken. And the White House will partner with him.

So now, people like me, who have never denied the climate is changing.

In fact, I say, the climate has always been changing. We're considered spreaders of hateful disinformation because we think, things like reimagining farming, might kill millions of people.

You know, like it has every time, it has ever been attempted in the past.

Now, the CCDH, made sure to specifically call me or Blaze TV out as spreaders of this new denial.

Now, this isn't just pointing the finger. This is a threat. Because the CCDH then demanded that YouTube demonetize any content that spreads new denial.

But, remember, this is one of the White House's go-to experts on disinformation.

It's a good thing the White House doesn't have a track record of telling social media companies who to censor. Right?

Oh, wait. We have just learned the Twitter files, that's exactly what they have been doing for years. So let's take a step back here.

Because it's more important for you to understand, what the CCDH's demand actually means.

Stu, do I still have your attention? Because this is really complex. But I just want to make sure that people understand it.

Can you -- I don't know. Do something that would bring in, the people that don't have a real big attention span.

STU: Taylor Swift. She's in the luxury box, watching the radio today. Look at her.

GLENN: Thank you.

So here it is. They want YouTube to limit the monetization of any content that goes against the global elite's narrative. And if I in general, are against the global elite's narrative, then you wouldn't want any of my content monetized.

The truth is, it's not really cheap or easy to produce content and maintain a team to keep all of the trainings running on time.

A subscription model is the best way for us to function.

And that's something that we pioneered here at the Blaze.

I knew working at CNN, and then at Fox. We could not rely on other companies. We couldn't rely on advertisers.

We had to rely on you.

Now, we take advertisers, because it's wildly expensive to do what we do.

But in the end, we'll continue to do it, as long as you are a subscriber.

That's why I ask you, all the time. Please, subscribe to TheBlaze.

Because I know what is coming.

In fact, it's already here.

We only answer to you.

So this -- I'm going to show you some of this. So you understand what it is.

But anyone who is -- is relying on making their money, from social media, is going to be over soon.

So they want you to limit the monetization of anybody that is going against the globally elite's narratives.

It is important for a people to be able to reach new viewers through platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Otherwise, we're only speaking to the choir.

How do you offset the cost for content, when you're putting it out for free?

Well, YouTube shares the revenue, that they take to run ads in our content.

The better the video does. The more ad are sold. The more money both YouTube and let's say somebody like me, makes.

That's how it works.

But late last week, one of my producers was looking through the YouTube analytics on a podcast with the rancher Shad Sullivan. The episode is called millions will starve.

Rancher sounds the alarm on the global food Jeopardy.

It was performing extraordinarily well. In just, I think a day, it had 320,000 views.

It had amassed, a watch time of over 88,000 hours.

Okay. That, if we cared about the money, should have made tons of money for TheBlaze, or for the Glenn Beck Program.

The -- the podcast had 14 YouTube ad breaks.

So they were selling advertisers. But we weren't making any money.

So we don't know what happened to the money, there.

We were searching for a potential problem.

We found a few things. First of all, YouTube had limited ads on this video. Which can take it to, you know, every thousand people, or I don't even know the numbers.

But it -- you get a certain amount for every -- everybody who is watching all of this. And then you split it.

But if you are banned in any way, then that number goes down.

Well, YouTube had limited ads on this video.

They claimed that it had firearms-related content. That wasn't friendly to some advertisers. We double-checked. We -- we didn't talk at all, about firearms. Nothing would have triggered this restriction.

Oh. But there is a catch to this.

And we did. And we made something more powerful than mainstream media.

Now, they want mainstream media and control of the internet, and they've been doing this, with the government, as we knew from the Twitter files.

They've been doing it in league with the government. Shadow banning people.

Well, we're about to go into shadow banning hell.

I called it a digital ghetto. I got in trouble for that.

Because they say, you just hate Jewish people. By saying, no. There's such a thing as a ghetto. The Germans did it. Now you can do it digitally and shut people up, and put them behind a digital wall, that you don't want to be heard.

Well, there's a few things that are going on.

First of all, the shadow banning has now become official policy of Facebook.

And they're a private company, they can decide to do this.

But they're saying, no politics anymore.

I'll be interested to see if that applies to ABC News. I'll be interested to see if they are shadow banning everybody consistently.

If so, then we're all in the same boat.

I think it's a mistake. But we're all in the same boat. Now, there's something else that I told you about two weeks ago.

It's called the CCDH. It's the Center for Digital Hate. In America, it started over in England. And then this guy moved it over to are America. So they have an office here. And it is now the go-to NGO for the White House, on what digital hate is. And how to stop it.

It has quite an -- an incredible roster of people behind it.

It has one employee.

Hmm. That doesn't seem like they could get a lot done with one employee. But, boy, are they doing it.

Okay. So I told you, that we are doing an episode, a couple of weeks ago.

About the -- what's happening to our farmers, and our -- and our meat. We told you, that this is a real problem.

What is -- what is being done in our -- in our ranching and food industry, is going to make a lot of people very, very hungry.

It was called, let's see, I can't remember. Where is the name.

But they were talking about a couple of weeks ago. This group, talking to the White House, about banning people that deny problems with global warming. Also, anybody who is denying the elite solutions. Et cetera, et cetera.

So we have never denied climate change. But they are targeting the spreaders of, quote, hateful disinformation. And that -- we are labeled that, because we believe reimagining farming is a very bad deal.

This is what they call the new denial.

Now, they're not just pointing the finger. They're making a threat. The CCDH demanded that YouTube demonetize any content that spreads new denial.

One of the White House experts remember, on disinformation, is this little -- this one guy, in Washington. So by limiting the amount of monetization, that content can make, it goes against the global elite's narrative. They say they're all for free speech, except for hate. But that hate is now anything that disagrees with them.

It is not cheap to produce content. And I'm telling you, right now, we developed this model of subscriptions for our content.

It is why you have noticed, maybe, TheBlaze has just doubled and quadrupled down, on all of our stories and everything else.

I have two huge breaking news from Blaze investigations today.

These things take weeks to do. They take lawyers and everything else lots of research and man-hours, go into these things.

We're doubling down on that, because we need you to understand, A, we do our homework. We know what we're talking about. We are trustworthy.

B, we need you to subscribe. And we will give you the information, you need.

So this -- this rancher, millions will starve. Rancher sounds the alarm. On global food agencies. It has tons and tons of views.

And they said, it was -- it was shadow banned and demonetized, because it was said by YouTube, that it had firearms-related content.

We went back. We looked at the texts. There was nothing. However, there was a read in there, for Byrna, which makes non-lethal firearm alternatives.

That's nothing that violates YouTube ad policy.

Byrna is, in fact, a verified advertiser on YouTube.

So we reached out to YouTube, to get the limited ads rating removed.

We're waiting for a response on this.

However, what happened to the revenue, that they sold?

Because we didn't make any of it. Now, this is the way. And this is why we are bringing this to you. And to all content creators.

If you rely on YouTube, Google, Facebook.

Any of those things.

That revenue is soon going to be gone.

According to the independent, the CCDH.

The Center for Digital Hate, uses an AI tool to discover YouTube has allegedly made up to $13.4 million in revenue, on videos that espouse new types of climate crisis denial. Remember, that's just a video that disagrees with the elites.

In the response, CCDH demanded that YouTube and other social media platforms update their policies to remove the financial incentive for content, that falls under this umbrella of new denial.

If you limit the ability to monetize, you also limit the content's ability to reach a broader audience, and you also limit the new content, because people can't afford to do it.

So does my podcast, with Rancher Shad Sullivan fall under this umbrella?

Yeah. Because in that episode, Shad told us very clearly, what the global elites are doing. They're waging a war on beef, in the name of saving the climate. And their solutions will cause millions to starve.

Now, how many millions of viewers could we have received, and reached, had YouTube not attempted to put a ceiling on all of our views?

So I guess guilty as charged. I'm a super spreader of the new denial, I guess.

And I imagine, anyone who told Stalin or Mao, that they're reimagining of farming would kill millions, was also branded a denier. Or how about anybody who spoke out about Sri Lanka's reimagining. Remember that?

The World Economic Forum held that up as the model for the future. Until 2022. When their model led to a massive food crisis that is still going on.

Are all the Irish farmers who have been warning, that they will have to slaughter their cows, to meet climate goals, disinformation spreaders?

What about the people who point out, while elites want to limit your beef consumption, Mark Zuckerberg is feeding his cows macadamia nuts and beer, so not only can the elites have their beef, you have a cricket patty. Or maybe lab-grown meat.

But they get beef that has been raised on beer and macadamia nuts.

Shadow banning. This is the new shadow banning. And its outcome is the same. Wrong think.

It's punished. This isn't the free market. They will pile these ideas on, one after another. I am telling you, TheBlaze is fine right now, because we built an entirely different model.

This is the time that I built TheBlaze for. We started in 2011. When Netflix and even Amazon wasn't streaming video. We were the first to stream a network.

And it was insane to do it. And I almost went broke doing it.

But it was the right thing to do. And it's the right thing to put all of our eggs in one basket. And that is you.

But you are going to have to start searching. I've told you this in the last year. All of a sudden, you're just -- unless you're looking for it. You won't notice that you're getting less and less from people like me.

So you have to seek us out.

We would really appreciate, we hope that you understand, we're on a mission. We're not here to make money.

We're on a mission.

We're on a mission to tell you the truth. Keep you informed. And show you the mile-markers. We just went through a very frightening mile-marker, this week, on shadow banning.

If you don't know the mile-marker, you're not going to know where you are. And where you are, is heading deeper and deeper into a place where your navigation system is being fiddled with.

I urge you, if you are not a member of TheBlaze, please support us.

Join us, at BlazeTV.com.

Use the -- the promo code free speech.

And you can get $30 off, of your subscription. That includes everything Blaze media is doing now.

Not only in video content, and opinion content.

But also, there are two big stories, that I want to get to.

The -- TheBlaze has just investigated how many people actually died of COVID-19. In the Michigan long-term care facilities. That's a breaking story.

Also, Capitol Police, we've just found. And we are showing you now, footage that has never been seen before.

Capitol Police diverted all of the CCTV cameras away from the DNC pipe bomb investigation. Except one.

And we will show you that video, that has been like pulling teeth to get it. In just a few. Stand by.

Did government PROPAGANDA lead to Charlie Kirk’s assassination?

President Trump and others have posted in support of a proposed Charlie Kirk Act. But Glenn Beck gives a warning: there are 2 versions of this going around. One, proposed by Sen. Mike Lee, would stop the government from using propaganda against Americans. The other would go further, giving the government dangerous powers over truth. Glenn Beck explains the differences as well as what the Smith-Mundt Act was and why an Obama-era decision may be connected to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. I want you to just spend a couple of minutes with me, and switch everything that you've been thinking on, off for a minute. This is very important. I want to take you back to the world in 1948, okay?

The ashes of World War II are still warm. The Cold War is already beginning to chill in the air, and the Soviet Union has a propaganda machine that is in full swing.

Radio Moscow, Pravda, endless streams of anti-American stories are pouring into the homes of men and women, all across the globe.

And Congress looked at this. And said, we need a counterbalance on this.

America needs to tell her story to the world about liberty and about her finding ideals.

And we need to tell it to the rest of the world.

This is the birth of the Smith-Mundt Act. Okay? We needed to launch things, at that time. Like the Voice of America, and radio-free Europe, and Radio Liberty.

These were not just radio stations. For many who were behind the curtain, these were lifelines.

A Polish dissident in the 1970s or a Hungarian who lived through the 1956 uprising, they'll tell you, they're huddled in the dark, and they have that dial of that radio.

And they can tune it. They carefully tune it, listening to an American voice break through the static and break through the darkness. That says, freedom is real. And the world hasn't forgotten you. They remember that as being very important.

But and here is the key: We, as a society, drew a very bright red line, none of this could ever be used in the United States. Congress rightfully was terrified of unleashing a government propaganda machine on its own citizens. Now, I want you to remember. 1948, Congress is still Democrat.

Okay?

You just had 20 years of the same president, FDR.

They're about to say, no president can serve that long.

The Democrats said, no Democrat president. No Republican president can ever serve that long. Because we were so close to fascism.

So the Democrats are very concerned about the government going fascistic.

And they should know about it. Because they remembered the control commission.

Now, let me take you back to World War I. The Creel Commission is something that nobody remembers, and everyone should.

Because it's what whipped America up in a frenzy, to get us to go into World War I.

You know it, because you remember the I want you Uncle Sam poster. And I've always hated that Uncle Sam poster because of the Creel Commission. I love it. I think it's really beautiful. It was created by an artist, that he didn't create it for the Creel Commission. So, you know, he was innocent. But it was the Creel machine that plastered it on every wall, every post office, every train station.

And suddenly Uncle Sam's finger was pointing at you. It wasn't just a poster. It was a summons. It was you. We need you to go to war. Americans did not want to go to World War I. In fact, Woodrow Wilson said, the other side, he will put you into war. I will keep I out of war. He knew that wasn't true.

Within three months after his reelection, we're at war. But he had to bring the country along. So the Creel Commission, through films and songs, films like the Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin, it turned the -- it turned Germany into a cartoon villain. George Cohan, he wrote songs, over there. Over there.

All of these things were done by the government, as propaganda to get Americans to go over there.

And fight. Then the government went even further. And they started hiring these, what were called Four Minute Men.

Now, imagine this, you're sitting in a movie theater.

The film. You're watching maybe the -- the newsreel. And as they're changing the reels, some guy who just in the audience, stands up, walks to the front. Clears his throat. And he delivers this really well-thought out and rousing four minute speech about patriotism. And liberty.

And crushing Germany.

The government had 75,000 volunteers. They gave millions of speeches, when anybody would pause in churches and schools. In parks.

In theaters. They were called Four Minute Men.

This was social media before social media. They were short bursts. And they seemingly were everywhere, and always on message.

Because the message was crafted by the government. Then the Creel group, through our government, published booklets, official bulletins. They planted stories in the press. This is when we really started really getting into the press, and information was -- had one goal. All of the information. And that was rallies for the -- rally support for the war, and drown out anybody that was disagreeing with that. Okay?

The government actually encouraged kids to spy on their neighbors.

That you were encouraged and post -- post men did this.

To go through the mail, if they saw -- if they saw letters that were coming in. Ask they wanted to know, who it was. And are you a German spy. Are you somebody who is going to be against the war?

Postal workers went through your mail. And it was legal at the time!

You were encouraged, operators were encouraged to listen to people's phone calls, and to report if they were on the other side.

This is Germany.

In fact, because of the Creel Commission, Germans, and what's his name?

The head of the German propaganda, oh, what's his name? The German douche bag. I can't remember his name. Anyway, what was his name?

STU: Goebbels, is that who you're talking about?

GLENN: Goebbels.

STU: Although, I like your name for it, frankly.

GLENN: Yeah. Goebbels, the douche bag.

Anyway, he said, we lost World War I because of American propaganda. But we learned how Americans did it.

And that's what Goebbels did in World War II. All of this propaganda. Okay?

By the way, American advertising, up until World War II, it was called propaganda.

What I heard, I wouldn't have said, now a message from our advertiser.

I was delivering literally and it was cool at the time, to call it propaganda.

Because that's what it was. Paid for propaganda.

Bit after Goebbels took it. And did what he did with it. We were like, oh, propaganda is bad!

Okay?

So here's what -- here's what happened because of the Creel Commission. They were pushing uniformity of thought. They did that by making sure Americans were hearing the same slogans. The same images. The same stories from every direction. Which created the illusion of unanimous consent. I want you to think about life today.

I want you to think about life during COVID.

What was the goal of the government.

To crush any dissent, and to control all of the messages that were going out, to make sure that you were hearing the same slogans, the same images. The same stories from every direction, to give you the illusion that it was unanimous consent.

What about the global warming? It's exactly the same.

Then on top of it, the Creel Commission demonized dissent. Okay? German Americans were part of this country forever.

In fact, we were I think two votes away from making German our official language, as the United States, not English. But they were all of a sudden, branded as traitors.

You couldn't -- a priest went to jail, because he gave the last rites to a German who fell down in front of him on the streets and was dying. And a priest spoke German and gave him the last rites in German. That priest went to jail! Okay??

Okay? So they demonized dissent. Then they suppressed free speech. The propaganda campaign dovetailed with the Espionage Act of 1917. The Sedition Act of 1918. If you criticized the draft, if you questioned the war, you could be fined. You would be ostracized, and you would go to jail.

This is Woodrow Wilson, gang. Does any of it sound familiar?

Now, here's what the aftermath was, after the war. When the war ended, the mask came off. Millions were dead, and Americans felt absolutely duped. They felt that they were tricked into going into a war that they were manipulated into. They didn't even understand it. And that's why we were such isolationists, in the 1920s and our 1930s, because our own government had manipulated the population to go in to fight this war, and they felt so manipulated and so betrayed by their own government. They were like, I don't want anything to do with foreign wars, okay?

So why did this -- why did this happen in 1948?

Well, because in 1948, all of this stuff is happening, and we're saying, okay. We need to have some sort of -- some sort of boundary.

Because we're going to start all of this propaganda, for the United States. And it cannot be ever turned on the people of the United States. Okay?

So then why -- why was it repealed?

It was repealed without any really kind of conversation. Because it was slipped in, called the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

It was slipped in to a defense authorization bill. Just like it's happening right now, the government didn't pay its bills.

They couldn't come up with the -- with a way to actually fund everything. Because we have to act as an emergency, otherwise all of our war machine. And it's all going to stop. And the world is going to die. And panic and all of that.

;And so somebody has slipped the bill in. And we modernized it.

Why did we modernize?

Well, because don't you like transparency?

I mean, we're doing this overseas. We're doing this propaganda overseas. Do you know -- taxpayer. You're paying for it. Shouldn't you see it?

There was a Congressman Max Thornberry. He was one of the sponsors. And he said, quote, today the law prevents the American people from seeing or hearing the same things we broadcast overseas, and that doesn't make any sense.

We paid for it. Okay. Then they switched that from transparency to, and it's helping fight terrorism. It will let the Department of Defense and the State Department share counter radicalization material both abroad and at home, because we have to modernize this. The internet is everywhere, okay?
So who doesn't want to fight terrorists? Who doesn't want transparency?

Now, here's what actually happened. I'll tell you in 60 seconds. First, Stu.

STU: Yeah. Let me tell you about Prize Picks. You know, we're talking about daily fantasy sports, which is a nice escape, honestly from where we've been over the past three weeks.

If you remember fantasy sports and you're like, oh, gosh.

Yeah, that's a lot of work. I have to be on there, every single day. You don't have to do it that way. Prize Picks brings it back to what it was meant to be. Simple and quick and actually enjoyable.

No drafts. No leagues. No season-long commitments. You just look at the player projections for the day, decide if they'll do more or less than what is listed, build your lineup. And then you're in.

It takes less than a minute to play. And you can mix or match players across different sports, football, baseball. Basketball.

Whatever -- whatever you want.

You don't have to be a stat wizard. You don't have to be a sports insider. You just got instincts, and you have an opinion.

You can win Prize Picks. It's daily fantasy, the way it should be. Fun, flexible, and easy to fit into real life and a nice escape. No stress. Just sports your way.

Download the app today. Use the code Stu.

Get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. The code is Stu, to get 50 bucks instantly when you play your first 5-dollar lineup. It's Prize Picks. And it's good to be right. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So in 2012, the left decides, we have to get rid of this propaganda thing.

Okay?

Once the firewall was gone, and it's just a blip, no one even really noticed it. Suddenly, the government agencies could circulate diplomacy campaigns, inside of the United States.

And we saw this. This is where you get your USAID. The NGOs. Doing all the things here in the United States.

Because they can all do it. During COVID, you saw this.

You saw government-funded messaging, quietly merging with the media campaigns and big tech content moderation. Narratives weren't debated. They were handed out by the government. And then they were enforced. Then take the DHS disinformation governance board.

This is a direct descendent from this shift. Okay?

It was the government openly declaring it had a role in policing speech at home.

Look at the 2016 aftermath of the elections. Reports now confirm that the US government funds originally intended for overseas information campaigns that had filtered into domestic projects that fact-checked, flagged, and suppressed certain narratives online. The line between foreign propaganda and domestic persuasion was completely gone. Everything they worried about in 1948, was now happening after 2012. Okay. So why am I bringing this up today?

Because after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we have been asking for this to be reinstated.

This Smith-Mundt Act has to be reinstated. But after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there is a new wave of enthusiasm for this as there should be.

But some people on our side, are now demanding more than just a firewall.

You go to change.org. And there's petitions for a Charlie Kirk act.

And it will not only stop government propaganda. But it goes further than that. It starts to punish private media. Educators. Social media platforms. For spreading what they call false narratives. So this is -- this is our side saying, yeah, well, now we want the power to do what they did. Okay? Hear me clearly.

Accountability matters! Lives are destroyed, reputations are smeared. And that matters.

But we have systems in place for that.

What this proposal opens is a new door. A terror where government decides, what is and isn't falsehood.

And the government cannot do that. History teaches us. Once the government claims the authority to define truth.

Liberty is gone. Okay?

Now, enter Mike Lee.

Mike Lee has another proposal. Mike Lee has a version. That he is submitting to Congress. And trying to get it passed. And every American should be for this.

Right or left.

Every American should be for this. He's not going to reinvent the wheel. He just wants the old firewall put back. That's it.

Period.

The government must not, and cannot propagandize its own people. Restore the very bright red line that was attacked in 1948.

It's not about silencing speech. It's about preventing the most powerful institution on earth, with the endless resources of that institution, the government.

And the endless reach, from turning its firehose of influence in on the American people.

This is why it matters. I want you to think of -- I want you to think of football.

Oh, boy. Dangerous.

You wouldn't let the referee this a football game, put on a jersey, and join one of the teams. Okay?

But that's what the repeal did. It let the government be both the referee and the player in the arena of ideas. Mike Lee is saying, put the stripes back on their jerseys. Make sure they're in black and white stripes. So we know exactly who they are!

Change.org and some people on our side want to make the ref not only a player, but the judge, the jury, and the executioner. It cannot happen.

This is -- I'm telling you, if this goes through, Mike Lee is proposing something that is clean. Doesn't have any of this in.

So support the Mike Lee Mundt Act. But if you're hearing people talk about, we have to go further, that is the Patriot Act of our day. We're standing at a fork in the road.

Reinstating the Smith-Mundt protections. They're not going to solve all the problems of misinformation, but it reestablishes the ground rules. And tells Washington, you cannot propagandize us, period.
(music)

Once truth belongs to the state, truth itself ceases to exist. Support Mike Lee's bill.

Restore the Smith-Mundt Act.

New York DROPS key charge against CEO killer. Here’s why.

A New York judge has dismissed state terrorism and first-degree murder charges against the man who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Should the charge have been kept? Why is the state only pursuing second-degree murder charges? And will he avoid the death penalty? Former Chief Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn Beck to explain what’s really to blame for these decisions.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have a good friend, Andy McCarthy who is a Nashville review contributing editor. He's also a former chief assistant US attorney, and a guy who when he speaks, I almost always agree with him. And when I don't, I'm probably wrong. Especially when it comes to things like this, because this was his expertise. He was a former chief assistant US attorney. And he worked on terror most of his career. I mean, he -- he is -- he is well-versed on terror charges and how to try them.

This Luigi Mangione case, the terrorism charges have been dropped. And, Andy, if I remember right, came out with an article I think last year said, this is not going to stand.

These terrorist charges aren't going to stand. And I don't understand why they won't.

And I don't understand how only be charged with second-degree murder.

When it was clear he was stocking the guy. Privy planned on killing him.

He was waiting for him outside.

That's premeditation, which is murder one.

But I know Andy will have all the answers for us.

Can you make sense of this for us, Andy?

ANDY: Yeah. I'm afraid I can, Glenn.

I think to start with the second point first about why it's murder two, rather than murder one. Back in the McCaughey days, which is like the 1990s in New York, when he was governor.

STU: Yeah.

ANDY: They tried to revise the New York capital murder statute. Because they haven't done a death penalty case in New York in decades.

And this was not -- this ultimately was not a successful effort. They still haven't revised the death penalty.

But what they did, they took the things that you could get the death penalty for, which in New York, were only things like killing a police officer or killing a prison guard in the prison.

And they made those the only murder in the first degree. Variety. Homicide, and all other murder.

GLENN: Why?

ANDY: Well, because they were trying to clean up -- their idea was, they were trying to clean the statute in a way that murder one would be revised as capital murder.

GLENN: Death penalty.

ANDY: Right. And all other murder was going to be second-degree murder, so because --

GLENN: That's insane.

ANDY: What we're dealing with Mangione, under New York law, would not have qualified for the death penalty because that would have been very, very narrow, and it's mainly killing police officers or prison guards.

That puts it into the category of second-degree murder. That doesn't mean, by the way, that it's unserious.

It has a -- I think the -- the offense in New York is like 25 years to life. Societies -- it's --

STU: The guy should get -- I mean, you could. You could argue against the death penalty. But guy should get either the death penalty, or life without payroll.

Not 25 years! This guy -- help me out on this one. How is he not a terrorist? He had the intent to terrorize. He said himself, he wanted people to look over their shoulders.

I mean, he is a textbook terrorist. And premeditation. Textbook!

ANDY: Yeah. To -- to prove terrorism, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

And you have to sort of get out of the -- the mindset that murder is terrorizing. I mean, all murder is terrorizing, to the people who are obviously involved in it. And to the extent that it intimidated people. But we can't turn every murder into terrorism.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: Terrorism --

GLENN: But he did it for. But isn't terrorism about trying to scare the population to either vote different or change the laws to be so terrorized that they -- in this particular case, he was trying to send a message to the -- the industry, you better watch your back, because there's more of me.

And you'll get it in the end.

That's terrorizing a group of people to get them to act in a way, the terrorists wants them to act.

ANDY: Yes.

GLENN: Isn't that how they define it?

ANDY: It's not terrorizing the government to change policy or terrorizing the whole civilian population. What the judge said, this was very narrowly targeted at the health care industry, and this particular health care executive.

And I --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Wow.

ANDY: And I just don't think it trivializes the murder to say that it's not a terrorism crime.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDY: You know, the federal government, Glenn, just so we're clear on this part of it. There were two charges brought here. There's a -- the federal charges and the state charges.

So Alvin Bragg, the -- the New York DA, brought the terrorism charge.

GLENN: What a joke.

ANDY: I said, at the time, I thought he was bringing it because he knew the Justice Department wanted to charge this guy. So he wanted to make a splash. Like the Justice Department wanted to make a splash.

When the Justice Department indicted it, even though Biden is against the death penalty, and the Democratic administration was against the death penalty. They indicted it as a death penalty case.
Because they wanted to make a big to-do over it. Even though, you know, if you look at the fine print, they would never impose the death penalty.

They had a moratorium on the death penalty. So in order not to be outsplashed, what Bragg turned around and did was indict this -- what he -- like ten times out of ten, indict only as a murder case.

If you could get Bragg to indict something that was actually a crime. And he decided to make it a terrorism murder case, so that they could compete for the headlines in the press.

Unfortunately, this is kind of what happens in these -- in these cases.

But to your point about stalking and all of that stuff.

The federal charges. Which are the death penalty charges, include exactly what you're talking about.

The fact that this guy was stalked.

That it was done in a very cold-blooded way.

And actually, if he gets convicted in the federal -- can in the federal system, now that Trump is running the Justice Department, rather than Biden, he gets convicted on the death penalty charge, he's going to get the death penalty.

GLENN: Okay. So it's not like he's getting murder in the second degree, and he'll be out in 25 years. The federal government is also trying him. Will it be the same trial?

ANDY: No. No.

In fact, the interesting thing, Glenn. Just from a political standpoint, I hate having to get political on this stuff.

GLENN: I know. Me too.

ANDY: If we can avoid it. The Biden Justice Department was working cooperative with Bragg. I don't think the Trump Justice Department is going to work cooperative with Bragg.

GLENN: No.

ANDY: And the interesting thing about that is under New York law, they have a very forgiving double jeopardy provision. Which basically means, if the Feds go first, that will probably block New York state from going at all.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

ANDY: Because of their expansive protection. And I think what Biden's Justice Department was willing to let Bragg go first.

So that they would go second. And then everybody would have --

GLENN: Trump won't do that.

ANDY: I'm not sure the Trump guys will play ball with that.

GLENN: No. Okay.

So are you confident the justice will be served in this. Oh.

ANDY: Well, I think -- you know, look, I think if your idea of justice served. Are this guy be convicted of a severe murder charge and never see the light of day again?

I am confident in that.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDY: If you believe as I do, that if you're going to have a -- a death penalty in the law, which our Constitution permits.

GLENN: He deserves it.

ANDY: If you're going to have it, he deserves it. And if he doesn't get it. He would be among a long line of people, who probably didn't deserve it and must get it.

Though, I guess it depends on what your idea of justice is. But I guess if we could agree that justice is this guy never sees the light of day again, I think justice will happen here.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Can I switch to Charlie Kirk?

ANDY: Of course.

GLENN: How is this unfolding? What are your thoughts on this. What are your thoughts on -- you know, I really want to make sure I don't want to go too far. I don't want another Patriot Act kind of thing.

But I do believe, you know, the -- it appears as though, there may have been many people involved. At least in knowing.

What does that mean to you? And what should happen?

What should we be doing? What are we doing that is right and wrong?

ANDY: Well, to the extent -- I'm sorry -- I do -- I do think, Glenn. That this is being very aggressively investigated by both the state authorities and continuing by the federal authorities.

I heard Kash Patel, because I happened to be on television this morning. And they -- they broadcasted that while I was on.

And he was talking about how they are going through all of the social media stuff.

To see, who may have had an inkling about this beforehand. And if there was any conspiratorial activity, they're going to go after it.

Now, the chats that have come out so far, that have been reported in the last couple of days are chats in which Robinson admitted to committing homicide and told the people that he was chatting with -- that he had already arranged his surrender.

If that's all these people knew, that is to say, he had --

GLENN: Then there's nothing there.

ANDY: And he was turning himself in. Well, they might be good witnesses in terms of what his state of mind was at the trial of Robinson.

But I don't think that implicates them in criminal misconduct.

On the other hand, the feds are going to keep digging.

And I assume Utah is going to keep digging.

And if they find out that someone was involved in planning it, I think those people will be pursued.

GLENN: You know, there's probably Texas would be a bad place to commit this crime.

Utah, however, they have the death penalty. And they used the death penalty.

And the governor who I'm not a big fan of this governor.

But, boy, he has been very strong, and I think right on top of this whole thing.

And he said, day one, you will get the death penalty. We catch you. We prove it in a court of law. You do get the death penalty. And I think that's coming from this guy.

ANDY: Well, it's deserving. Because if it's ever indicative of premeditation and repulsive intent, I would say, this is a textbook case of that.

GLENN: The idea that Trump is now going to go after -- possibly RICO charges for people like George Soros and, you know, organizations like that, that are -- are pushing for a lot of the -- the -- the Antifa kind of stuff. Do you see any problems with that. Or is this a -- a good idea?

ANDY: I just think the first thing, before you get into RICO. And all these. You know, RICO is a very complicated statute, even when it obviously applies. So I think the bedrock thing they have to establish, is that you are crossing the line. From protected speech. A lot of which can be obnoxious speech. And actual incite meant to violence. And if you can get invite meant to violence.

You know, I didn't need RICO to prosecute the Blind Sheikh, right? I was able to do it on incitements of violence and that kind of stuff. Those are less complicated charges than Rico.

But the big challenges in those cases, Glenn, is getting across the line into violent action. As opposed to constitutionally protected rhetoric.

GLENN: Is there anything to the subversion of our -- of our nation. That you are -- you are intentionally subverting the United States of America.

You are pushing for revolutionary acts?

VOICE: You know, there's a lot of let allegation that arose out of that, in connection with the Cold War and the McCarran Act. And, you know, you remember all the stuff from the -- from the '40s and '50s, forward.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

ANDY: And I think when that stuff was initially enacted, the country was in a different place.

I think when the McCarran Act was enacted, it was a consensus in the country, that if someone was a member of the Communist Party.

Hadn't actually done anything active to seek the violent overthrow of the US, but mere membership in the party. I think if you asked the question in 1950, most people would have thought that was a crime.

And by 1980, most people would have thought, it wasn't a crime. Based on the Supreme Court --

GLENN: Yeah. I don't.

Look, if you're a member of the Communist Party, you can be a member of the Communist Party.

But if you are actively subverting and pushing for revolution, in our country, I think that's a different -- I think that's a different cat, all -- entirely.

ANDY: Yeah, that's exactly right. But if you had that evidence of purposeful activity, and look, if you had a conspiratorial agreement between two people that contemplates the use of force, you don't need much more than that. You don't need an act of violence. If you have a strong evidence of conspiracy. But you do have to establish that they get over that line and to the use of force, at least the potential use of force.

STU: Yeah, okay.

Andy, as always, thank you so much. Appreciate your insight. Appreciate it.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

Glenn Beck sits down with beloved pastor and author Max Lucado for a deep conversation about faith, humility, and finding unity in a divided world. Together, they reflect on the importance of principles over politics, why humility opens the door to true dialogue, and how centering life on God brings clarity and peace. Lucado shares stories of faith, the dangers of a “prosperity gospel,” and the powerful reminder that life is not about making a big deal of ourselves, but about making a big deal of God. This uplifting conversation will inspire you to re-center your life, strengthen your faith, and see how humility and love can transform even the most divided times.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Confronting evil: Bill O'Reilly's insight on Charlie Kirk's enduring legacy

Bill O’Reilly joins Glenn Beck with a powerful prediction about Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Evil tried to destroy his movement, Bill says, but – as his new book, “Confronting Evil,” lays out – evil will just end up destroying itself once more…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Bill O'Reilly, welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

BILL: Good, Beck, thanks for having me back. I appreciate it. How have you been?

GLENN: Last week was really tough. I know it was tough for you and everybody else.

But, you know -- I haven't -- I haven't seen anything.

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Family is okay. Family is okay.

BILL: Good question good. That's the most important thing.

GLENN: It is.

So, Bill, what do you make of this whole Charlie Kirk thing. What happened, and where are we headed?

BILL: So my analysis is different for everybody else, and those that know me for so long. About a year ago, I was looking for a topic -- it was a contract to do another book. And I said, you know what's happening in America, and around the world. Was a rise in evil. It takes a year to research and write these books.

And not since the 1930s, had I seen that happen, to this extent. And in the 1930s, of course, you would have Tojo and Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and all these guys. And it led to 100 million dead in World War II. The same thing, not to the extent.

But the same thing was --
GLENN: Yet.
BILL: -- bubbling in the world, and in the United States.

I decided to write a book. The book comes out last Tuesday. And on Wednesday, Putin lobs missiles into Poland.

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

And one of the interviewers said to me last week, your -- your book is haunting. Is haunting.

And I think that's extremely accurate. Because that's what evil does.

And in the United States, we have so many distractions. The social media.

People create around their own lives.

Sports. Whatever it may be. That we look away.

Now, Charlie Kirk was an interesting fellow. Because at a very young age, he was mature enough to understand that he wanted to take a stand in favor of traditional America and Judeo Christian philosophy.

He decided that he wanted to do that.

You know, and when I was 31 or whatever, I was lucky I wasn't in the penitentiary. And I believe you were in the penitentiary.
(laughter)
So he was light years ahead of us.

GLENN: Yes, he was.

BILL: And he put it into motion. All right? Now, most good people, even if you disagree with what Mr. Kirk says on occasion, you admire that. That's the spirit of America. That you have a belief system, that you go out and try to promote that belief system, for the greater good of the country. That's what it is.

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

So when you essentially break all of this down. You take the emotion away, all right?

Which I have to do, in my job. You see it as another victory for evil.

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

This is the most important story. So when you read my book, Confronting Evil, you'll see that all of these heinous individuals, Putin's on the cover. Mao. Hitler.

Ayatollah Khomeini. And then there are 14 others inside the book. They all destroy themselves.

Evil always destroys itself. But it takes so many people with it. So this shooter destroyed his own family.

And -- and Donald Trump, I talked to him about it last week in Yankee stadium. And Trump is a much different guy than most people think.

GLENN: He is.

JASON: He destroyed his own mother and father and his two brothers.

That's what he did. In addition to the Kirk family!

So evil spreads. Now, if Americans pay attention and come to the conclusion that I just stated, it will be much more difficult for evil to operate openly.

And that's what I think is going to happen.

There's going to be a ferocious backlash against the progressive left in particular.

To stop it, and I believe that is what Mr. Kirk's legacy is going to be.

GLENN: I -- I agree with you on all of these fronts.

I wonder though, you know, it took three, or if you count JFK, four assassinations in the '60s, to confront the evil if you will.

Before people really woke up and said, enough is enough!

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

Is -- I hate to say this. But is -- as far gone as we are, is one assassination enough to wake people up?

JOHN: Some people. Some people will never wake up.

They just don't want to live in the real world, Beck. And it's never been easier to do that with the social media and the phones and the computers.

And you're never going to get them back.

But you don't need them. So let's just be very realistic here on the Glenn Beck show.

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

And you will see that play out the next five years.

Because the corporate media invested so much of its credibility into hating Donald Trump.

And the hate is the key word.

You will find this interesting, Beck. For the first time in ten years, I've been invited to do a major thing on CBS, today.

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

BILL: Now, that only happened because Skydance bought CBS. And Skydance understands the brand CBS is over, and they will have to rehabilitate the whole thing. NBC has not come to that conclusion yet, but it will have to.

And ABC just does the weather. I mean, that's all they care about. Is it snowing in Montana? Okay? The cables are all finished. Even Fox.

Once Trump leaves the stage, there's nowhere for FNC to go. Because they've invested so much in Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

So the fact of the matter is, the corporate media is over in America. That takes a huge cudgel out of the hands of the progressive movement.

Because the progressive movement was dependent on the corporate media to advance its cause. That's going to end, Beck.

GLENN: Well, I would hope that you're right.

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

You've known me for 55 years. When have I been wrong?

GLENN: Okay. All right. All right. We're not here to argue things like that.

So tell me about Skydance. Because isn't Skydance Chinese?

BILL: No! It's Ellison. Larry Ellison, the second richest guy in the world. He owns Lanai and Hawaii, the big tech guy and his son is running it.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

I though Skydance. I thought that was -- you know them.

BILL: Yeah.

And they -- they're not ideological, but they were as appalled as most of us who pay attention at the deterioration of the network presentations.

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And it just -- it -- you know, you know, I don't know if you watch it anymore.

GLENN: I don't either.

So do you think they can actually turn CBS around, or is it just over?

BILL: I don't know. It's very hard to predict, because so many people now bail. I've got a daughter 26, and a son, 22.

They never, ever watched network television.

And you've got -- it's true. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

BILL: They're not going to watch The Voice. The dancing with this. The juggling with that. You know, I think they could do a much better job in their news presentations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

BILL: Because what they did, is banish people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

That's why Colbert got fired. Because Colbert wouldn't -- refused to put on any non-progressive voice, when they were talking about the country.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: Well, it's not -- I'm censoring it.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's not that he was fired because he wouldn't do that. He was fired because that led to horrible ratings. Horrible ratings.

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: Fallon has terrible ratings and so does Kimmel. But Colbert was in your face, F you, to the people who were signing his paycheck.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Look, evil can only exist if the mechanisms of power are behind it.

And that's when you read the front -- I take them one by one. And Putin is the most important chapter by far.

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

And I'm -- on Thursday night, I got a call from the president's people saying, would I meet the president at Yankee stadium for the 9/11 game?

And I said, when a president calls and asks you to meet them, sure.

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

BILL: It will take me three days to get into Yankee stadium, on Long Island. But I'll start now.

GLENN: Especially because the president is coming. But go ahead.

BILL: Anyway, that was a very, I think that Mr. Trump values my opinion. And it was -- we did talk about Putin.

And the change in Putin. And I had warned him, that Putin had changed from the first administration, where Trump controlled Putin to some extent.

Now he's out of control. Because that's what always happens.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: It happened with Hitler. It happened with Mao. It happened with the ayatollah. It happened with Stalin. Right now. They get worse and worse and worse and worse. And then they blow up.

And that's where Putin is! But he couldn't do any of that, without the assent of the Russian people. They are allowing him to do this, to kill women and children. A million Russian casualties for what! For what! Okay?

So that's why this book is just in the stratosphere. And I was thinking object, oh. Because people want to understand evil, finally. Finally.

They're taking a hard look at it, and the Charlie Kirk assassination was an impetus to do that.

GLENN: Yeah. And I think it's also an impetus to look at the good side.

I mean, I think Charlie was just not a neutral -- a neutral character. He was a force for good. And for God.

And I think that -- that combination is almost the Martin Luther King combination. Where you have a guy who is speaking up for civil rights.

But then also, speaking up for God. And speaking truth, Scripturally.

And I think that combination still, strangely, I wouldn't have predicted it. But strangely still works here in America, and I think it's changed everything.

Bill, it's always food to talk to you. Thank you so much for being on. I appreciate it.

It's Bill O'Reilly. The name of the book, you don't want to miss. Is confronting evil. And he takes all of these really, really bad guys on. One by one. And shows you, what happens if you don't do something about it. Confronting evil. Bill O'Reilly.

And you can find it at BillO'Reilly.com.