RADIOMarch 17, 2022

What the Fed’s interest rate hike MEANS FOR YOU

In an effort to curb rising inflation, The Federal Reserve just announced an interest rate hike of 25 basis points (one-quarter of one percent). It’s the first time the Fed has raised such rates since 2018. So, what exactly does this mean and how could it affect YOU? Carol Roth, financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business,’ joins Glenn to break it all down…

You can read more of Carol's take on this issue here: https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/roth-what-the-feder...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hello, America.

Yesterday, the fed raised the -- the interest rates.

And they said, they're going to do it, I think six or seven times more this year. This could get dicey in many ways, for everyone.

And I want you to understand, what happened yesterday. And not in terms of, well, you know, us traders believe. I don't care. I don't watch CNBC. Because I only understand about half of it.

I want to know what this means to the average person. Carol Roth joins us. The author of the war on small business. She gets it. And can explain what it all means. In 60 seconds.

Carol, welcome to the -- welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

CAROL: Hey, Glenn. Lots of things to talk about.

GLENN: Yeah. Boy, I have a long list for you too. So let's start with what happened yesterday, and why people should care.

CAROL: So I want to take a step back, and talk about, you know, why the fed did what it did. In terms of raising interest rates. What we call 25 basis points, or a quarter of a percent.

100 basis points is 1 percent.

GLENN: Okay.

CAROL: And basically, they were undoing the -- at least attempting to start to undo the effects of what they in part cost.

Their monetary policy, zero interest rate policy, printing trillions of dollars, the government spending trillions of dollars, in terms of fiscal stimulus. Turning parts of the economy off, and wrecking these labor markets supply chain.

All of those things are the reasons we have inflation today, exacerbated by decisions that the Biden administration made around oil and gas, dependents and what not.

So basically, we had inflation.

GLENN: Correct.

CAROL: Which we've all been talking about. As we go to the grocery store, and certainly the fuel pumps and whatnot.

And so finally, they said, we have to do something. Now, I'm going to tell you, this is a little bit of window dressing. Because they were doing accommodation. They were in the market, purchasing securities, last week.

So last week, they were being accommodative.

But this week, we have to maintain our credibility, and we need to do something. So they decided to raise what is called the fed funds rate. It's a rate, where banks lend to each other overnight. In terms of their reserves.

And that reverberates through the market. So they brought that down to a target, of zero to a quarter of a percent. And they had held it there for the last couple of years. And they said, okay. Well, you know, inflation is getting away, we better raise some interest rates. One of our tools in order to do that. And they took the huge step of a whole quarter of a point increase, to do it.

GLENN: Wow.

CAROL: Yeah. They're very -- because they need to be credible.

GLENN: Right. So the last time we had a problem of this size, it took an interest rate of about 19 to 20 percent, if I'm not mistaken.

Raising it a quarter is really -- is a joke.

Where do you think, these interest rates should be?

Not -- not considering killing the economy.

Just where it should be. Should it -- if we were in a healthy country, still, would it be 20 percent, or more?

CAROL: So there's a couple of things to unpack there.

First of all, this is an unprecedented situation. We don't have a benchmark, because we have never had central banks, not just in the U.S. but around the world, printing trillions upon trillions of dollars. This has just never happened before. We've never had governments turn off the economy.

You never have a situation, where there's 1.7 jobs available, for every job seeker, because of what the government did.

So we're flying a little bit blind. I've always been a fan of normalized interest rates. I think it's a horrible idea, to have the fed meddling, and trying to direct things.

I want the market to set it. And so before all of this nonsense started, before the financial crisis, the great recession, financial crisis in '07 and '08, which was really the first time we went totally off the rails, with the zero interest rate policy and the purchase of securities, the interest rates were around 5-plus percent. And that seems to be, you know, a healthy place, where things should be.

We should not be in a place, where we're saying, you know, when you take risks, you shouldn't be getting rewarded for it. You know, 0 percent interest.

It makes no sense. So in reality, you're still at very historically low interest rates. And in a healthy economy, to have three, four, 5 percent, would be completely acceptable. We just have been so addicted to this easy money and this free money for so long, I'm not sure how we get out of this.

GLENN: Okay. So there's a couple of problems with 5 percent interest rates, right now. One would be that people would not be able to afford a new house, et cetera, et cetera. Because of inflation, and everything else.

But the other, that nobody ever talks about, is that we now have a national debt over $30 trillion. And that is just like buying a house. You have an interest rate, on that.

If we have an interest rate of 5 percent, how much more money do we have to pay?

CAROL: Bingo, this is the dilemma that the fed has gotten themselves into, by keeping down interest rates. They've basically given the government a free pass to just spend and spend. And to rack up more and more debt.

And we're at a point, to where the debt is completely out of control.

And, you know, has competed our level of GDP.

So if you think about 30 trillion of debt. And obviously, the fed fund rates. And the interest rate on the debt is not a 1:1 correlation. But we know that as one moves up, the other moves up. So in terms of the interest on our national debt, I want everyone to pay very close attention because this is staggering. For every 1 percent increase, that is another $300 billion, that we have to pay in interest, on the national debt.

That is our tax dollars, that are going to pay more, for things, that we have already purchased.

It is not new purchases. It's literally, a finance charge.

Almost like a credit card interest rate, on stuff we have already bought.

And this is the dilemma, the fed has. Because they know, as they raise interest rates, this is going to get out of control. The CDO. Had made a projection, than saying, this is going to get out of control. But in their projection, they said, well, we think the yield on the ten-year treasury note, gets to about 2.1 percent in 2025.

So, you know, we're going to have to really be concerned, maybe in 2029, the yield on the ten-year Treasury note is at that 2.1 percent today. So multiple years ahead of time.

GLENN: Please talk down to me like I'm in kindergarten.

I don't understand the yield thing with the Treasury. How that works. How that's affected. So can you explain that?

VIVEK: Yeah. It's basically how much the government has to pay on debt.

So what the market demands

And obviously, if there's a lot of demand, for Treasury securities. The price of that goes up.

Then the yield, or the interest that you demand is lower.

Because there's a lot of demand. You have to pay a lot for your debts.

GLENN: But we had been at very, very, very low --

CAROL: Very low.

GLENN: Because the fed was buying up. There was no demand for our treasuries, which is our loan.

CAROL: So let me put it in context, what we're paying currently on our national debt, in terms of a combined interest rate, is somewhere in the neighborhood of projections of 1.4 percent to 1.6 percent. So they've been able to finance that at a very low rate. But that number is starting to creep up. And with the fed increasing interest rates, it will further creep up. And every 1 percent is $300 billion.

GLENN: So if we have an interest rate of five or -- five or six percent, we're talking like between two and three trillion dollars more, the entire budget.

CAROL: Yeah. Exactly.

It's just completely untenable, at that point in time.

So I would -- I would imagine other things happened, in the interim. But this is why, when we talk about things like MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, or what I call Magic Money Tree.

That says, well, you can just print into infinity, because we can just print more. Well, we're now living through that realtime experiment. As you said, no, you can't. It causes inflation.

It has real costs for the average American, and it decreases the value of every dollar that you hold.

GLENN: All right. So the best thing you can do is get out of credit cards. You should cut those up if you can.

CAROL: Yes.

GLENN: And pay them off if you can. Get a refi right now. Because you're probably paying about 16 percent for your credit cards, correct?

CAROL: Yeah. And it could be going up.

And anything that has that adjustable interest rate associated with, some people may have something called an arm and an adjustable rate mortgage. Where it adjusts over time. Maybe it's fixed for a certain number of years. Anything that is adjustable rate debt, is going to increase in price. And if you need financing -- let's say you have a business, and you haven't taken advantage of low rates yet. You're going to want to lock that in on a fixed basis now, because it's not going to get cheaper any time soon.

GLENN: Now, the other problem is, with raising interest rates. Let's say you have a business. And you need a loan.

If the interest rates starts to go up, that kills that business. They can't afford that loan. Just like we can't afford our national debt. Or you want to buy a house. Yesterday, mortgages. New mortgages fell immediately, just on the -- on the whisper, that it was coming.

We are seeing a slowdown in mortgages. Which means people will buy fewer houses. The scary thing about this, is you don't know where that switch is. You're just going to have to kind of guess. And it might shut everything down.

CAROL: That's the needle that the fed is trying to thread, in addition to dealing with the consequences of the national debt. What happens, is as they raise interest rates. You know, their intention is to slow down the economy. I mean, that's basically what it is. They want to slow down consumer demand.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: But the question is: How do you do that, without creating a recession, or without creating reverberations for the economics of the average American?

GLENN: So can I be really, really cynical? I mean -- in fact, let me go beyond cynical. Let me go into, I'm a thriller writer. Okay? And I'm writing a thriller. And for some reason, this country needs to slow down the economy. But they can't slow down the economy, because then businesses will fail. But they don't really care about the average person. You know what I mean?

That's going to fail. We'll print more money. Put them on welfare. Tell they believe to stay home. Or whatever.

Wouldn't one way to slow the economy, for the consumer, but not slow the economy, for the big corporations, would a war do that?

CAROL: I think that would completely change the tenor of the economy. But I think that raising the interest rates does that, because kind of like we saw over the last couple of years, if you are a big corporation. You take advantage of that debt. You have that war chest. We've had that strong balance sheet. So in terms of the transfer of wealth, that is one way to do that. But the war, that would completely change the tenor of, you know, who benefits. And certainly, it would be the bigger guys versus the smaller guys. But it would be more defense, rather than the financial services industry, for example.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Carol, hang on. I have some more questions. And I would like you to explain a couple of other things, coming up in just a second. Give me 60 seconds. We're back with Carol Roth. The name of her book, is The War on Small Business. A must-read.

GLENN: All right. So I want to talk to you about the dollar being the world's reserve currency.

Because I'm watching these sanctions, that are being put on.

And I'm seeing things happen, to where, if I'm another country, especially Russia. I'm going to China, immediately, saying, I want to partner with you. Because they just made my money worthless. I can't get my money out of the central bank. The Federal Reserve. That's my money.

And they won't let me get to my money. If that starts to happen. And then Saudi Arabia starts to sell oil, off of the petrodollar, that's really bad news. And let's say, the West holds together. But half the world is off the petrodollar.

What does that mean for us, Carol?

CAROL: It potentially means the end of the U.S. dollar, as a reserve currency.

GLENN: Explain what that means. Because -- I mean, to the average person. Forget about, you know, the central banks and everything else. What does it mean to the average person? To have half the world get off our dollar?

CAROL: Yes. So this is why I love you, Glenn. Because we take the most complicated concepts in the world.

GLENN: I know.

CAROL: And trying to explain them, as if, you know, it's Elmo and Big Bird here --

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: The idea of being the reserve currency. Is something that's -- you know, has sort of a long history. And it means, particularly in the case of goods and services. But also in the case of oil, that everyone in the world, pretty much agreed to use dollars, for a settlement. And that puts some responsibility on the United States. There's something that is called the Triffin dilemma. And there was an economist back in the 1960s, who basically said, there's a conflict. If you are going to be the world reserve currency, you're going to have to make tough choices. And you're not always going to be able to do what's right, at home, in order to make sure you're doing what's right, in the national sphere.

GLENN: Everywhere. Yeah.

CAROL: And unfortunately, you know, this has been an issue, that's been going on for a long time.

But in recent times. As we've been talking about with the fed and the decisions they've made. They actually haven't done right by either party.

They've been screwing over the average American, with their policy. And transferring wealth. But they've been doing the same thing in the national sphere.

And, frankly, a lot of countries are getting sick of it.

And so there have been predictions for quite some time, that there was going to be an event -- an adviser actually to the OECD said that it's probably not an economic event. It's a geopolitical event, that's going to expose the system. You know, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. And so a lot of folks feel like the sanctions that were made against Russia, were potentially a cover story. That we know that we'll potentially lose this reserve currency status. So we're going to say, well, we did it, because we had to take a stand.

But the reality is, you know, as we've now shown the world, you can put your money, in our central bank. And you can buy Treasuries. And U.S. dollars.

But you might not be able to access them. Which is not a really good thing, if you're going to be the world's reserve currencies.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

CAROL: So there's a couple of potential outcomes. And I know you've been talking about this, Glenn. But, you know, one thing that folks have been talking about.

Is does China potentially step into the reserve currency position?

There is an issue around them. Because usually, if you have the reserve currency, you run a trade deficit. And we know that China is a nation of exporters. Are they really going to step into that? I'm not sure.

The other thought is, listen, we've seen so many banks. Central banks around the world. Print so much money. There's all this debt. You can't really just say, we're going to cancel it all. Because there's counterparties. There are people on the other side of the debt. So what could you do to offset that?

GLENN: Hold on. Hold on. Elmo and Big Bird has to stop. Because Elmo says, there's only 20 more seconds left.

CAROL: Okay.

GLENN: So we will come back. Because I really want to hear this -- this other new plan, and canceling debt just opens up Pandora's box, at least in my head. We'll talk about that, coming up more. Carol Roth, coming up in in just a second. Stand by. That's right. Did you get the vaccines yet?

GLENN: We're with Carol Roth. She's the author of the -- of the book, The War on Small Business.

She's a former investment banker. Don't hold that against her. She calls herself a recovering investment banker. She worked on Wall Street for years and years. Then kind of went, oh, I might be on the wrong side here.

And is trying to do everything she can, to strengthen individual businesses. Small businesses all across the country. And I love her for it.

Carol, you were just saying, that one of the options, in this nightmare scenario, which I think is unfolding in front of us. Where the world reserve currency, is not going to be the dollar.

I don't know what it is. But they're going to change the dollar, from what it is. To a digital dollar.

And I don't know how it all shakes out. But probably not very well.

But you brought up, there is all this debt within that we just can't cancel, because there's other people on the other side of that debt. So explain what you think.

That can't happen, you say.

CAROL: Well, I mean, nothing is a never scenario. Right?

GLENN: Not anymore.

CAROL: In an unprecedented situation. And, you know, for people who are students of history, despite all of the wreckage that could come from this, it's a very interest pointing in time. Especially, financially, you had the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. You had then us going off the gold standard. Then you had us, you know -- with the petrodollar, basically saying, we will manage the dollar as good as gold for oil.

And then you had the fed, basically go completely rogue. And not do that.

And anybody who is holding reserves, that they're supposed to say, well, the U.S. dollar is safe. And it's a good store of value. We'll keep devaluing it. That's not a thing.

And so -- and, by the way, these are not my theories. I'm just communicating what is out there, from people who are far smarter than I -- everybody by writing up another asset. So is there a neutral asset, that central banks have access to, that's on their balance sheet, that maybe they have been buying, at really good prices, that all of a sudden everybody comes together, and says, well, we'll just write up the value of that?

It's like writing down the -- gold.

GLENN: Gold.

CAROL: So central banks have been buying tons of physical gold. By the way, billionaires have been buying a lot of physical gold as well. And I'm using the term physical, because it's different than the market that is traded.

GLENN: ETFs. Those are ridiculous.

CAROL: ETFs. That's done in dollars. So who is backing that?

But physical gold. So there is a theory going around, that potentially that standalone basis or a basket of neutral metals. Which was thrown out as an idea, early on. When it was pushed aside for the U.S. dollar. That maybe there is this -- meeting of the minds.

And, you know, this is the way that you make all of these other central banks. And countries full. Is you just write up the value of that gold.

So if you think that that's going to happen. And you think that the financial system is going to collapse, you know, then you want to be owning physical metals. And have a store of that.

GLENN: Because when you say, they're going to write off debt, you don't mean people's houses. You mean --

CAROL: No. This is government debt. They cannot write up government debt. Because when you take -- that's a loan, right? You owe the money back to somebody. So the other side of potentially doing some sort of. We'll have mass forgiveness.

Is that when you take something else that everybody else has. And you say, it's more valuable. Overnight. It's magic.

GLENN: That doesn't sound like --

STU: Bad magic trick.

GLENN: Yeah. It sounds like -- we're dealing with a lot of black magic.

Stu and I were talking about this story that came out of Britain. We hadn't heard anyone talk about this. Explain what happened.

STU: Yeah. Just a little background. It's in the London metal exchange.

And it's the price of nickel. Now, I know no one cares about the price of nickel. Just to give you the basis here.

GLENN: Tesla does.

STU: Yeah. That's true. If you're buying an electrical car, it's true. Basically, the last five years has bounced back and forth between 10,000 and 20,000 per metric ton. Okay?

It got up to a little bit above 20,000, in the last few weeks. Obviously, all this time going on with Russia. Russia, Ukraine. Big sources where it comes from, for all these electric batteries. It goes basically from 20,000 to 80,000, in basically a day.

Okay? So four times, in one day. So let me read this: This is from the Wall Street Journal.

GLENN: Listen to this. Have you read this, Carol?

CAROL: Oh, I know this story. I do know this story. So we can talk about this.

GLENN: Yeah, this is crazy. Listen to this, America. This is craziness.

STU: Yeah.

So traders on the London Metal Exchange smelled blood, and nickel prices almost doubled in a short period of time. A Chinese company faced a 1 billion-dollar margin call. That exchange officials felt they couldn't meet. Rather than let it fail, which would have probably taken down several of the smaller brokers that serviced them. The London metals exchange decided to cancel all of the day's trading. More than 9,000 trades, worth about $4 billion.

It canceled the trades. Not because of a fat finger error. Which exchanges often cancel. Not because of a rogue algorithm, as regulators claimed in the 2010 flash crash in U.S. stocks, but because someone with too much leverage was going to blow up, with effects on some members of the exchange.

This moral hazard is taken to an extreme. It's always been true, that if you face a 100-dollar margin call, it's your problem. While if you have a one billion dollar margin call, it's the broker's problem. And the authorities might save them. What is almost unprecedented here. Is the exchange authorities decided to save them, with money taken from other traders, who otherwise would be sitting on fat profits.

I mean, you won. You picked the right direction. You've got these huge profits. And they cancel your trade, to save someone else.

GLENN: And it's China.

STU: And it's China.

GLENN: I mean, there is no such thing as a free market with this.

CAROL: No. This is another too big to fail scenario. It happened to be -- I believe it was an individual billionaire, who had made a short set against nickel. So he went in the other direction.

GLENN: Wow. I mean, then you don't -- you don't put the money down on the table. If you don't know what the odds are, and you're not willing to lose your money.

That's like going to Vegas, and -- and placing a huge bet, and when you lose it, you're like, hey.

You know, Caesars. I mean, this is crazy. And Caesars says, oh, we're not going to count that bet.

That doesn't happen!

CAROL: It's horrendous. And it goes back to the integrity of the market. And so many that the retail investors have been rallying against. And it's just another example. And there are big name banks involved. The exchange was actually shut down for multiple days, I believe. Before it started trading again.

And the people who made a bet, and decided to participate in the market, ended up getting screwed out of their profits. But they're never going to get the leniency, if it happens to them on the other side.

GLENN: No.

CAROL: And just the overall integrity, like you said. This is not a free market. It's not a fair market.

And we have too many of these big guys, who are being saved, at the expense, sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively, of the small guys, over and over and over again.

GLENN: And that's what I think people are so sick of.

And when they see this next crash. Especially with Janet Yellen saying, it will be equitable. When we reassemble, it will be equitable. What the hell does that mean? Probably stuff like this. And when they see the rich getting richer. And I don't mean a person who runs a business and may have a million dollars.

I mean the rich.

The elite of the elite. The BlackRocks of the world.

The banks of the world.

I just -- when their debt is being bailed out and real Americans are paying huge money for their food and their gas. And then their home is taken, there's trouble. That's real trouble.

CAROL: Yeah. And unfortunately, that is the scenario. There's one thing to become wealthy, because you earned it in a fair playing field. That's something that we want to celebrate. But we do not want to celebrate, when the playing field is tilted. When somebody has their thumb on the scale. When we have this transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street. Which has been going on for, you know -- in a very large part, for a decade and a half. But it has accelerated over the last year and a half. And, you know, we talk about all of this coming to fruition. And us losing reserve currency status. It's going to mean a slower economy for us. Because we are not in a position. We don't have the strong manufacturing face. Or a competitive pricing. To be able to export. So all these people are like, oh, that's great. We'll reshore the job. They're not thinking in context of the existing economic structure. It will be unfortunately, very painful. But just to have a moment of hope here, Glenn. Because this is really doom and gloom. Is you have to remember, in any time of pain, there's always opportunities. So it is incumbent upon you, to find where those opportunities are. And what --

GLENN: So average person is saying, what is that opportunity?

CAROL: Yeah. It's finding the things that have inelastic demand. Meaning, people will pay prices even when they're continuing to increase and making investments and those kinds of things. Or retooling your business. To be servicing those markets. It's those kinds of shifts, where you have to look for those hidden opportunities.

In what could be a completely new economic scenario for us, going forward.

GLENN: I -- I think what you just said, translates to what I just told my kids.

You get into the job market. You have to be the most effective, efficient, and hard-working employee. Even if you're not at the top of the food chain, you have to be the one that the boss says, oh, we can't.

Because he'll do everything. I mean, he's a little bit. I mean, he works like crazy. You have to be that person. Right?

CAROL: Absolutely. Absolutely. Invest in yourself. And make yourself indispensable to a customer or to somebody that you're working for.

It's a huge competitive differentiation that will only get more important.
GLENN: I would love to have you on, maybe early next week. I just had one of my producers put some stats together on inflation.
And what that actually means to people. I mean, when Biden got in, a hamburger. An average hamburger was $4.40.

Today, that average burger is 601. And if we look at what they say, things are going to be, you know, with -- with the -- what are they saying? 7.9 percent inflation.

That number is going to be $7 force a burger by the time of the next election. I don't think that stat is right. You want to compare apples to apples. Look at how they measured it back in the 1970s and '80s, when we hit it before. That would mean that that hamburger would go from $4.40, to almost $8 by the time we hit a presidential election.

I just want to talk to you about inflation. And how to beat that.

CAROL: Plenty to talk about, would love to.

GLENN: Thank you very much, girl. Appreciate it. Carol Roth. The name of the book is War on Small Business. Make sure you pick it up.

Glenn Beck warns of dangerous government powers in proposed Charlie Kirk act

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.

Shocking twist: Terror label removed in UnitedHealthcare CEO case

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.