Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

BLOGFebruary 02, 2018

Real-Life Heroes Turned Movie Stars Share the Story That Became ‘The 15:17 to Paris’

Three young Americans were at the right place at the right time to thwart a terrorist and save a train full of people. Now, their story of real-life heroism is a movie directed by Clint Eastwood.

Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos are playing themselves in the movie version of their trip on Aug. 21, 2015 on a train headed from Amsterdam to Paris.

The three 25-year-old friends recently chatted with Glenn about that fateful train trip and how Eastwood talked them into starring in the film.

“It was quick thinking, everyone else was running the other way, and they ran toward the problem and saved hundreds of lives,” Glenn said on today’s show.

Listen to their full interview here:

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Do you know why you were born? Do you know why you're here?

You ever -- have you ever thought your whole life is leading toward one moment, and you never know when that moment is coming?

August 21st, 2015, three American friends, really average guys. They boarded a train from Amsterdam to Paris. They had no way of knowing that their lives were building to that moment. And they would be worldwide heroes, later in the day.

The three friends, Anthony Saddler, Alek Skarlatos, and Spencer Stone, they were on a train, going to Paris. They took a lone gunman down who had 300 rounds of ammunition on board.

It was quick thinking. Everyone else was running the other way. And they ran toward the problem and saved hundreds of lives.

I spoke with them about that fateful day and how their story eventually caught the attention of Clint Eastwood. Alek, Anthony, Spencer, welcome to the program. How are you?

VOICE: I'm great. How about you?

GLENN: Very good.

All right. So I want to talk to you about one thing that, you know, I -- I had a problem with, with the story. And I just want to hear it from, quite honestly, Experience, I want to hear it from you, and then I want to hear the excuses from Alek and Anthony. At some point, you're on this train with this terrorist. And Alek says, go!

And then you go. He's got a gun. And I noticed, at least in the movie, Alek and Anthony, I'll give it to you, Anthony, you were asleep. But where the hell were you, Alek?

VOICE: I've been asking him the same thing for a few years now.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: He asked me to go. And then he waits for me to make it to him.

GLENN: Look -- no, no, no. Just didn't wait to make it to -- then you're wrestling. And you're trying to hold on to the guy. And, I mean -- I mean, I know that you took the butt of the gun to his head after a while, Alek. But it was a little sloppy and slow.

(laughter)

VOICE: Thank you! America speaks, finally.

STU: Yes. Let's hear the rebuttal, please.

VOICE: All right. Yeah, let's do this.

VOICE: So, first of all, Spencer was on the aisle seat. So he had to go first. I wasn't going to, like, climb over him and then trip in the aisle and just get shot.

GLENN: Right. Right. Usually, that is -- then that phrase should have been, go. I'll meet you in about five minutes.

(laughter)

VOICE: Well, obviously, I was using him as a human shield.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: I wasn't trying to get shot. And if he was dumb enough to go first, I mean, it's his own fault for getting shot, right?

VOICE: Natural selection.

(laughter)

GLENN: It's -- you know, it's -- it's an incredible story from -- from start to finish, with the three of you. Your friendship. But also the -- what happened on that day.

I was struck by the fact of how many people didn't do anything. I mean, really didn't do anything.

Some people were just paralyzed by fear. But -- but everybody else just ran. And there was no one that stepped to the plate.

VOICE: Kind of hard to ask people to do that, we know. We're all unarmed. And so nobody was really expecting that. So it's kind of a crazy situation to find yourselves in, that's for sure.

VOICE: Yeah, but, I mean, truthfully, we cannot even say that we would have done the same thing, if we hadn't had the confidence in ourselves, just based on the experiences that we had in life. And the skills that we had.

You know, the only thing that really gave me, you know, the confidence to run up at the guy and get up in his face was because I had been practicing Jiu-Jitsu for the last year. And all I said pretty much to myself was, man, if I could just get up in his face, I know I could do something.

You know, getting too close to him. He won't be able to be as effective. So I just -- that's what really gave me the boost.

VOICE: And also too, that I think our friendship -- I mean, we had been friends for so long. I think we knew we would kind of have each other backs. And we all kind of talked about similar situations before.

And we all knew we were kind of, of the same mindset.

GLENN: Do we -- what do we know about the terrorist that was the guy that you took down?

VOICE: Actually, he was later found out to be connected to the Brussels airport bombing and the Bataclan Theater Attack. He was from the same village in Morocco as those guys. And one of the first to come out of that terrorist cell. And so, I mean, he's being held in French custody right now. And he's become a much larger investigation. And hopefully we'll be able to get some more information and be able to relay that soon.

STU: One of the things I remember of when this happened -- because obviously a terrorist attack starts. You start hearing about how bad it could have been. And there's such a moment of pride as an American, to hear that it was three Americans who stopped this.

GLENN: And can I tell you something, when I first heard it, thought it was, okay. Three Americans. And because two of you have background in the service, you just assumed, okay. They're probably Navy SEALs. And I know a lot of Navy SEALs. And they're just going to snap your neck if you get out of line.

VOICE: You're a wannabe Navy SEAL.

GLENN: Right. You guys are not that. I mean, no offense, but you're --

VOICE: Oh, thanks. I'm still infantry.

GLENN: Right. I mean, you're not me. But you're -- but you were -- you were not drilled over and over and over and over again to kill.

I mean, Spencer, you were drilled to heal.

VOICE: Yeah. I mean, but it was -- it was truly a life or death situation. I mean, we had no options. You're on a moving train going 200 miles an hour. This guy has an automatic weapon. I mean, Option A, you sit there, wait till he shoots you. Or you get up and try to do something. And, I mean, that was -- the fight was a fight for survival. It was either he was going to kill us, or we were going to kill him. But luckily, we were just able to subdue him and choke him unconscious.

VOICE: I think that's the best thing about the movie. Because like you said, of course, people remember the headline. And they're like, of course, two off-duty servicemen, of course they would.

But the movie does a good job at showing that we're three ordinary guys that none of us have ever seen anything traumatic like that before.

And I think that that's wild to speak to more of the masses of people, because they'll be able to identify with one of us or all three of us and see just how ordinary we are. And that we were really faced with an extraordinary situation.

GLENN: So, Anthony, if you were -- if -- you know, when they ask -- when Spencer said, hey, come to Europe. And you guys thought that there was a chance something like this would happen. Would you have thought that you were the three guys that would have stood up and done what you did?

VOICE: No.

That would have -- that would have definitely been hard to pay. I would have never thought nothing like that would have happened. But I guess hindsight being 20/20, I guess me being the civilian that I didn't have formal training.

I couldn't have picked two better guys to go on the trip with. So I couldn't have imagined being in that situation with any other two people. That's for sure.

VOICE: That's one thing our families kind of joke about, is that, oh, it would be -- it would be us that did something like that. Not just because of like our training or, you know, anything like that. But just because we're always getting in trouble together and always --

VOICE: And something always happens when we hang out.

GLENN: Yeah. You should stop hanging out.

STU: And stop getting on trains. Please, planes.

GLENN: The other interesting thing is, off of that is in the -- you know, in the movie, it shows that you are troublemakers.

I mean, none of you excelled in school. You were always in trouble. And been most likely -- not your moms. Your moms come off as wonderful mothers.

VOICE: They are.

GLENN: But, you know, besides your moms, doesn't seem like anyone with any authority in your childhood expected anything like this from you guys.

VOICE: That's for sure.

(laughter)

VOICE: There's one thing in life, we never being, like, told what to do. So, I mean, we were difficult kids to raise. But we all are super thankful for the parents that we had, feel like they really shaped us.

VOICE: That's a good theme to draw from the movie too. It's just that, you know, even our success, our failures, they were all part of the bigger plan.

And I think people would be able to identify like that. Like, if they feel like they're on the wrong path, that could be something pushing you in a direction that, for all, you know, could be working in your favor in the future. So it's all part of the bigger plan.

STU: What was it like when you were approached with the idea of actually acting?

GLENN: No. Go before that.

First, what was it like, when Clint Eastwood said, hey, I want to make your story?

VOICE: Well, honestly, we were just extremely excited. Because we've all been -- I mean, we were raised on Clint Eastwood movies. So it was kind of a no-brainer for us. And even when we were talking to him about, how they're going to do the movie. Sully had just come out. So I watched sully. And once I saw how good of a job he did on that, especially, it was just kind of like, let's just let the man work. And let's do it. We were just -- we were just so excited. Because, I mean, you couldn't have picked anybody better to do it.

STU: Definitely. Clint Eastwood, he's legendary first as an actor. And now as a director.

But he made this choice. And in case people don't know, the movie stars -- the three guys you're hearing, the real people who are in the incident are the actors portraying themselves in a movie.

GLENN: Clint Eastwood, you know, didn't get Sully. He got Tom Hanks. So when he said to you, hey, guys, why don't you do it? What were your thoughts?

VOICE: I mean, we were just totally blown away and shocked. We never considered it a possibility because that's not the normal thing. And we also just really didn't want to risk the success of our story. Because we knew it was going to be forever, so we wanted it to be good.

And so, I mean, it's just something that totally came out of nowhere.

But how are you going to tell Clint Eastwood no playing yourself in your own film? It's just something we couldn't turn down. We just jumped at it.

VOICE: Nobody wanted to get that death stare from Clint Eastwood.

GLENN: No, I know. I understand that.

Spencer, you were -- you were wounded, seemingly in the movie pretty badly. I mean, at least painfully

VOICE: Just a flesh wound.

GLENN: Just a flesh wound. And then you went on and stuck your hands in a wounded man's throat to save his life. How long did that actually happen?

VOICE: On the fight took place probably tops two minutes. And then from the point when the attack started until when we got to the next train station, it was about 25 to 30 minutes.

GLENN: Holy cow.

VOICE: And so -- I was over with Mark. I would say it was, yeah, a solid 20 minutes, I had my hand in his neck.

GLENN: And he is -- and he is okay?

VOICE: He is good. And actually, that is another thing about this film. Is, you know, it's not only us playing ourselves. But Mark plays himself. His wife plays herself. We have Chris Norman, the British man who tied up the terrorist playing himself.

One of the same train employees. We had a lot of the same police. Had the same exact medical team that brought us up to train two years ago.

GLENN: Wow.

VOICE: And oftentimes, people, you know, think that we were the only ones that really did anything. But, I mean, without all those people contributing and doing what they did that day, we would have never been in the position to do anything ourselves and be successful at it.

So it's really awesome that they're going to be able to finally get the credit they deserve in such a big way.

GLENN: He did a good job of taking the television footage at the end with the president of France awarding you the legion of honor. Because he was, you know, mixing new footage with real footage. And I couldn't help, but wonder, are your parents the ones in that crowd in the new footage?

VOICE: No. They are -- they were actors portrayed. They were actors.

GLENN: No, no, no. I know that those -- I know the actors. But I mean the other people in the crowd. Did they include your parents at all in this, your moms?

VOICE: No. They weren't able to. But also, on the day of the actual ceremony, there's no footage of the crowd. It was just us.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: And we have, you know, Judy Greer and Jen Fisher playing our moms throughout the movie. So it would probably throw off the audience at the end if they would have put our real parents in.

GLENN: What was it -- what was it like when, you know, this happened and then you're called to receive the -- you know, the legion of honor award and you're standing how many days, three days later, a week later?

VOICE: Three days after.

GLENN: Three days later.

VOICE: It happened on Friday. And we're receiving the medal on Monday.

So we're going from hostels and doing the cheap way all through Europe, to terrorist attack on Friday, until all of a sudden, in the Élysée with the French president on Monday. So it's -- it's a quick turnaround, that's for sure.

VOICE: Yeah. Staying in the ambassador's personal residence, like, we were sleeping in the same bed like Charles Lindbergh slept in when he crossed the Atlantic. And it was honestly just, like, the coolest experience.

VOICE: My room was called the Benjamin Franklin room, okay? That's where the president stays, when he comes to France.

We really got an upgrade.

GLENN: Wow. And more importantly, the French people were nice to you.

VOICE: We love the French people.

VOICE: Yeah, we love them.

I mean, I feel like that's a common misconception these days, actually. It's very cliche to say. But they're very nice people.

VOICE: But our experience is a little different.

VOICE: Yeah.

STU: You're saving their lives, of course, they're be nice to you.

GLENN: They're going to be nice to you. Trust me, they're not going to be nice to me.

VOICE: We'll be the ambassadors for you, don't worry.

GLENN: Yeah, my wife and I are taking our kids over to Europe this summer for the very first time.

And just last week, we planned a trip from Paris to Amsterdam and back, on that same train. I'm not sure I want to take it now.

VOICE: Same thing.

VOICE: It's a popular thing.

VOICE: Well, now you know what to do.

GLENN: Yes. And here's the role I'll play, go!

(laughter)

GLENN: God bless you guys, thank you so much. And it was -- it was -- it's really stirring -- your story is really stirring. And it was really a great moment, I think for all Americans to -- to watch the French say the truth about Americans. And sometimes, you know, the rest of the world doesn't -- doesn't see us like this. But I think that's -- we all at least want to be in that -- in situations like that. And you guys actually did it. So thank you so much, God bless.

VOICE: Thanks for having us. God bless you too, man.

(music)

GLENN: The new Clint Eastwood movie, 1517 to paris, opens up a week from today.

Shocking twist: Terror label removed in UnitedHealthcare CEO caseplay icon
RADIO

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.

How to Find God in a Divided World | Max Lucado & Glenn Beckplay icon
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

How to Find God in a Divided World | Max Lucado & Glenn Beck

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 legacyplay icon
RADIO

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.

Should people CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk’s death be fired?play icon
RADIO

Should people CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk’s death be fired?

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?