RADIOMay 19, 2023

THESE FBI actions may be WORSE than the Durham Report

The recent Durham Report exposed inexcusable moves done by the FBI (and by many others, too). But FBI abuses do not stop there. In fact, Rep. Jim Jordan tells Glenn that recent actions from the agency — like its attempt to CRUSH whistleblowers who speak out — may be worse than the ones Durham revealed. In this clip, Glenn and Rep. Jordan discuss the recent FBI whistleblower hearing, the way the FBI tries to silence anyone who speaks out, and why recent FBI actions hurt more than a presidential campaign — they’re deeply affecting the everyday American, too…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

JIM: I'm fine, Glenn. How you are today?

GLENN: I'm actually kind of positive today. I think you are.

JIM: Good.

GLENN: Doing a great job and a great service. I think there are several of you now in Congress, that I actually trust and believe. You're actually going to do something.

So thank you for that.

JIM: Thank you. Well, thanks for all you are doing, if we go to the word out to the American people.

GLENN: So, Jim, tell me -- first of all, you gave your opening dialogue -- your monologue on what you were going to see. And then the Democrats came out, and they said, what you will see are lies, half truths, and fantasies. I've never seen anything like that, especially when you were presenting whistle-blowers.

JIM: Yeah. And these guys are good men, who love the country. And value the Constitution. And the First Amendment. But for guys like them. These guys and other guys like them. We wouldn't know what they did with parents at school board meetings. We wouldn't know about what they're doing to pro-lifers praying in clinics. We wouldn't know about Catholics attending mass at the Richmond field office, viewed them as radical extremists.

I mean, we wouldn't know about those things, but for guys like this. And the fact that they were willing to come forward, shows just what good people they are.

And coming into the Constitution, and to the oath they took.

But then what they faced, the retaliation.

I mean, they literally tried to crush these guys, particularly Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. --

GLENN: It's crazy.

JIM: Yeah, it's so sad. But for them, we wouldn't know the things we know. And wouldn't be able to be in the position for going after these agencies and the appropriations office, which is what we have to do.

GLENN: So I did a special last night on the reckoning of the Biden crime family, and one of our listeners wrote in. And wanted me to ask you today, is there a way to help these whistle-blowers.

I'm concerned for them and their families.

JIM: Yeah. They have -- they get to keep. It's not go fund me. There's ways, that I should have that information.

GLENN: Okay. I will get it from your office, and we will share it.

So what is the -- the next step here? Because we had -- we had the dossier come out. Yeah. No. Not the Steele dossier. We had the Durham report come out. Thank you. And the media is blind.

JIM: Yeah.

GLENN: And to me, this shows how deeply in trouble this nation is. You have intelligence, CIA, FBI, Justice, the White House, Congress, all of it dirty, like majorly dirty.

JIM: Well, I don't think -- it's funny how the good Lord works. Because of the Durham report, we didn't have to have scheduled this hearing where we have these whistle-blowers coming forward.

So understand the Durham report. He said as clearly and as straightforward as you could say, that the FBI, I think the best line was, the FBI failed in its fundamental mission of fidelity to the law. They didn't follow the law. There was no evidence. No probable cause. No predicate whatsoever to want to investigate. They did it anyway. They did it based on a fake document, a document they knew was false.

At a time they used it. They go to the court to get the warrant, to spy on a presidential campaign. That's terrible.

They put the country through all three years of craziness. That's terrible. But worse than that, it's what's happening today.

Because today is not just women who are oppressed. It's the American people. And it's what I just said.

If you're a pro-life Catholic, they view you as radical.

i mean, if you're a parent speaking up for your kid, they view you as a terrorist.

It's like, you have to be kidding me.

So that's what -- but I just found it interesting. That those two big pieces of information, came out on the same week. Underscoring how dire of a situation. How real of the situation it actually is.

GLENN: So Jonathan Turley had an op-ed out. I just read it this morning. How Congress could have the final say on the Russian collusion scandal.

In the Durham report, it shows that people like what's his name? Elias.

JIM: Yeah. Marc Elias.

GLENN: Yeah, Marc Elias from the DNC, he wouldn't participate. Wouldn't talk, wouldn't give anything.

And Turley is saying, why don't you start giving the screws to these guys. And offer immunity. Now, I don't think there's a chance that Marc Elias will turn on anybody. But it's worth a try, isn't it?

JIM: You know, that's interesting. He's Mr. Democrat. He's the guy. He's the man in that area. So I don't know. But that's an interesting strategy.

I haven't read Turley's piece. I really respect professor Turley. So I'll read that.

GLENN: So do I.

JIM: I don't know. I will have to give it some thought. But I do think we should begging -- in our investigative report, in our oversight work, we should begging focused on getting every single fact, and getting that information, the truth to the American people.

Because if you don't have all the truth on the table. And do our constitutional duty of oversight. Then you're not on the position to make the case. Which we will have to make, which we have to do.

When it comes to appropriating money, we're going to have to change how that sounds. We will have to limit funds. We will have to say, you can't use funds for certain things.

We will have to tell the FBI, ain't no way, you will get a new headquarters for how many hundred million dollars. Are you kidding me?

There are those kinds of things. But you make the case when you show what they want.

GLENN: So when you're going through all of this, you're not getting the documents.

Christopher Ray, the other day, was just unbelievable to watch.

Well, I can't talk about that document.

What do you mean, you sent a letter to us. We asked for the document. You're not getting anyone, in Congress, getting the documents that you're demanding. You have oversight. And they -- they seem to feel like they have oversight over you.

JIM: Yeah. Yeah, so two quick points: One, you're exactly right. When the Founders put this great nation together, three separate equal branches of government, if there was one branch that was supposed to be equal to the other, it was supposed to be the legislative branch, and in particular, the House of Representatives. Because that's the body closest to the American people. Every two years, the American people get a chance to throw us out. That is a good thing. That's a healthy thing.

That's why the Founders said, that's the body where all the taxing and funding bills have to originate. So we're supposed to be able to tell the executive branch, hey, we need information, to do our job, when it comes to legislating and appropriating. So give us the darn information.

Second, when we've had these struggles. Sometimes you go to court.

We went to court for a witness, we wanted to give in the whole Alvin Bragg crazy situation in New York. And the court ruled in our favor, and we had Mr. Pomerantz in for a deposition, just last week.

So sometimes you have to go to the courts, to get what you need. So we will continue to press, whether it's subpoenas, what have you. For documents, or for people to come in for an interview. We will continue to press here. But we have to in the end. The only thing that gets people's attention.

The only thing that gets people's attention is the money.

You have to go after the money. It's that simple.

We will have to do that, here in the next couple months, if we go through appropriating these agencies in the federal government.

GLENN: Well, you can do that, even if they don't pass a budget.

Does Congress have control of the purse strings still?

JIM: We sure do. It will be a fight with the Senate. It will be a fight with the White House.

You know what, you had an FBI who is retaliating against good guys like Garrett O'Boyle, Marcus Allen, Steve Brennan.

I think it's worth the fight.

GLENN: Yeah. And I think you would have the American people squarely behind you.

I think Congress with the people like me.

I don't really. I don't care for the Republican Party.

But they're better than the Democrats. But I don't want to give a dime.

I would give a dime directly to a candidate. But not to the Republican Party.

People like me, are seeing, I think, are starting to see, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Something is different.

And there's just a few of you guys now, that are standing up.

And I have to say, I am shocked at McCarthy. I did not think he would have the spine.

I would like to see that continue, but he seems to be doing a lot of good things. And his poll numbers are going up.

JIM: Yeah. No. You know, Glenn, I talk about this all the time. We make his job too complicated. What did you tell the people you were going to do when you ran for the ballot, and ran for the job.

If you get elected, if they put you in this job, go do what you said. And Kevin McCarthy is doing that. I think our team is doing that. The most important thing is what you just said, we have to continue to do that. We have to continue to do that. That's our mission. Do what you told the American people, you said you were going to do.

GLENN: So there's one thing that concerns me on the budget. That is the expanded Capitol Police role.

Now, everything I understood from the Capitol Police from the last administration is, this is Nancy Pelosi's police force.

So whoever is in charge of the House. That's their police force.

They have expanded way beyond the Capitol.

They have new offices now in Florida.

In California.

They are now turning into an intelligence force.

Pentagon has given them things to collect intelligence on Americans.

This is way beyond their scope. And I don't know about you, but I don't trust the -- any other police force with intelligence capabilities. No more. No more.

JIM: Yeah. Look, the rank-and-file offices -- I talk to him all the time.

Coming in, different buildings. Wonderful guys. Do the Lord's work.

Like good local police officers do the Lord's work.

But you're right. We don't need these officers around the country. We don't need this expanded, surveillance capabilities. So I agree with you there.

I think that's where the country is.

And I would have to check with the people's office. But I don't know what speaker McCarthy is going along with that.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you. I will tell you, in the Republican's annual appropriations bill, they have an increase of $46.3 million more than last year. Which already last year was a 22 percent increase.

That's got to stop. Got to stop.

JIM: Yeah. We'll take a look at that, too.

GLENN: Do we finally have the Congress and the Republicans that will stand and not blink on the budget?

JIM: I am just saying. I really do. Because the spending went up so dramatically. We don't have to get up to all the numbers. We're set to run a deficit. Of a trillion and a half.

$1.5 trillion this year. What?

It's so out of whack. We have to spend less than what we spent before. If we can do that. They get back to lower levels. That would be the first time in my time in Congress.

Maybe the first time in modern history. Where the next Congress, didn't spend more than the previous one.

If we can actually reduce spending and begin to show the country and the economy and the world, that okay.

They're at least going to kind of rein this in, and get a handle on it, and begin to pay back some of this debt.

Get to balance at some point. If we can do that, then we'll be fine.

But if we just keep the crazy stuff up that the Biden administration is doing. I worry about the dollar staying as the reserve currency, which is critical for our country.

And a host of other things. That is on this path. I think we will get to where we're spending less, after the crazy increases in the Biden administration.

GLENN: So one last thing, the church committee did the Lord's work, if you will.

And tried to reign things aback in.

And it's gotten worse than it was back then.

Do you -- do you think that this Deep State, whatever you want to call it? The people that have no fidelity to the law or the Constitution, can we save the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence community? Or is it too far gone? How do you see this working?

JIM: Here's the key measure, I think this Congress. That will tell us if we can get things back in the right direction or not. That's the FISA renewal.

The 702 program of FISA is up for renewal. If that gets passed, and we just keep doing the same old thing. Because understand the church commission brought a lot of good facts to light. But the church commission gave us the FISA court and the FISA process.

That's a problem. That has to change. That's up for reauthorization this year. If we fundamentally change that, if we get rid of this ability for them to quierie that database that they get. Where they're -- the 3.4 million Americans had their information queried, information that was picked up when they were surveilled. But they talked to some American.

And then they got the Americans -- that's the kind of stuff. If we don't change that, then I'm very worried. But I think we will change it.

I think yesterday's hearing showed that. When you have the FBI gauging some of the things. That will be a critical test. And, of course, as I said a couple of times. What happens during the appropriations and the spending process. The power of the pure is important. That's the power that resides in the Congress and specifically, in the House.

We need to make sure we use it.

GLENN: I will tell you, I found out just the other day, that this program now has a bigger footprint than Fox news does. Which blew me away, when somebody gave me the stat to me.

JIM: Testimony to your good work.

GLENN: No. What's happening is all the mainstream media is dying. And shows like minds and others are all growing.

JIM: Right.

GLENN: I don't know if we could turn this corner, even five or six years ago. But I think if you guys just keep going, we're going to turn a corner. We're going to turn a corner. Because the mainstream media extent have a lock that they used to have.

JIM: Well, said. And praise the Lord for that. And the second thing I would say, the American people, smart people. They have common sense. And they hear common sense. And they hear good information from people like you, and a bunch of folks like you.

That makes a huge difference. So thank you for what you're doing.

GLENN: Likewise. Stay the course.

JIM: All right. Buh-bye.

GLENN: Jim Jordan.

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

Bill O'Reilly predicts THIS will be Charlie Kirk's 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.

The difference between debate and celebrating death

There’s a big difference between firing someone, like a teacher, for believing children shouldn’t undergo trans surgery and firing a teacher who celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. Glenn Beck explains why the latter is NOT “cancel culture.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I got an email from somebody that says, Glenn, in the wake of Charlie's assassination, dozens of teachers, professors and professionals are being suspended or fired for mocking, or even celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.

Critics say conservatives are now being hypocritical because you oppose cancel culture. But is this the same as rose an losing her job over a crude joke. Or is it celebrating murder, and that's something more serious?

For many, this isn't about cancellation it's about trust. If a teacher is entrusted with children or a doctor entrusted with patients, publicly celebrates political violence, have they not yet disqualified themselves from those roles? Words matter. But cheering a death is an action. Is there any consequence for this? Yes. There is.

So let's have that conversation here for a second.

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

I mean, we've seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their job now, just for saying they don't believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries. Okay? Lost their job. Chased out.

That opinion, whether you agree or disagree is a moral and medical judgment.

And it is a matter of policy debate. It is speech in the public square.

I have a right to say, you're mutilating children. Okay. You have a right to say, no. We're not. This is the best practices. And then we can get into the silences of it. And we don't shout down the other side.

Okay? Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we've seen teachers and professors go online and be celebrate.

Not criticize. Not argue policy. But celebrate that someone was murdered.

Some have gone so far and said, it's not a tragedy. It's a victory. Somebody else, another professor said, you reap what you sow.

Well, let me ask you: Are these two categories of free speech the same?

No! They're not.

Here's the difference. To say, I believe children should not be allowed to have gender surgeries, before 18. That is an attempt, right or wrong. It doesn't matter which side you are.

That is an attempt to protect life. Protect children. And guide society.

It's entering the debate about the role of medicine. The right of parents. And the boundaries of childhood. That's what that is about. To say Charlie Kirk's assassination is a good thing, that's not a debate. That's not even an idea. That's rejoicing in violence. It's glorifying death.

There's no place in a civil society for that kind of stuff. There's not. And it's a difference that actually matters.

You know, our Founders fought for free speech because they believed as Jefferson said, that air can be tolerated where truth is left free to combat it.

So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, at all. I don't think you do either. I hope you don't. Otherwise, you should go back to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Error can be tolerated where truth is left to be free to combat it.

But when speech shifts from debating ideas to celebrating death, doesn't that cease to be the pursuit of truth and instead, just become a glorification of evil?

I know where I stand on that one. Where do you stand?

I mean, if you go back and you look at history, in colonial matter -- in colonial America, if you were to go against the parliament and against the king, those words were dangerous. They were called treason. But they were whys. They were arguments about liberty and taxation and the rights of man.

And the Founders risked their lives against the dictator to say those things.

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

You Thomas Paine, one of or -- one of our founder kind of. On the edges of our founders.

He thought that what was happening in France is exactly like the American Revolution.

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

There the crowds. They didn't gather to argue. Okay? They argued to cheer the guillotine they didn't want the battle of ideas.

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

And roll they did. You know, until the people who were screaming for the heads to roll, shouted for blood, found that their own heads were rolling.

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

Cicero begged his countrymen to preserve the republic through reason, law, and debate. Then what happened?

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

Okay. So now let me bring this back to Charlie Kirk here for a second.

If there's a professor that says, I don't believe children should have surgeries before adulthood, is that cancel culture, when they're fired?

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

However imperfect, it is speech meant to protect children, not to harm them. You also cannot be fired for saying, I disagree with that.

If you are telling, I disagree with that. And I will do anything to shut you down including assassination! Well, then, that's a different story.

What I teacher says, I'm glad Charlie Kirk is dead, is that cancel culture, if they're fired?

Or is that just society saying, you know, I don't think I can trust my kid to -- to that guy.

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

I don't want them around my children! Scripture weighs in here too.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Matthew.

What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?

To me, you go back to Scripture. Whoa unto them that call good evil -- evil good and good evil.

A society that will shrug on speech like this, say society that has lost its moral compass.

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

Now, our free speech law doesn't protect both. Absolutely. Under law. Absolutely.

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

Can a parent trust their child to a teacher who is celebrating death?

I think no. I don't think a teacher can be trusted if they think that the children that it's right for children to see strippers in first grade!

I'm sorry. It's beyond reason. You should not be around my children!

But you shouldn't go to jail for that. Don't we, as a society have a right to demand virtue, in positions of authority?

Yes.

But the political class and honestly, the educational class, does everything they can to say, that doesn't matter.

But it does. And we're seeing it now. The line between cancel and culture, the -- the cancellation of people, and the accountability of people in our culture, it's not easy.

Except here. I think it is easy.

Cancel culture is about challenging the orthodoxy. Opinions about faith, morality, biology.
Accountability comes when speech reveals somebody's heart.

Accountability comes when you're like, you are a monster! You are celebrating violence. You're mocking life itself. One is an argument. The other is an abandonment of humanity. The Constitution, so you understand, protects both.

But we as a culture can decide, what kind of voices would shape our children? Heal our sick. Lead our communities?

I'm sorry, if you're in a position of trust, I think it's absolutely right for the culture to say, no!

No. You should not -- because this is not policy debate. This is celebrating death.

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

And, you know, the big thing was, can you keep it?

Well, how do you keep it? Virtue. Virtue.

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

So if anybody is making this case to you, that this is cancel culture. I just want you to ask them this question.

Which do you want to defend?

Cancel culture that silences debate. Or a culture that still knows the difference between debating ideas and celebrating death.

Which one?