Lib politician: Cops may be shooting all the black kids in Chicago

On last night’s O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly confronted Illinois State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), who is pushing a theory she allegedly heard from constituents that Chicago police are the ones gunning down black children in the streets. This contentious interview was just the latest for O’Reilly, who has weathered quite a storm in recent weeks for the conversation he is raising about the problems facing blacks in America.

“So Bill O'Reilly is also being very, very brave. He is taking on the poverty pimps, and he has been saying since the Zimmerman thing that this is an outrage on what is happening and what is being preached,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “And he said what we have to really talk about is the decay of the black family. The black family unit, as is the white family unit, the black family unit is just way, way ahead. But our families are disintegrating. And when our families disintegrate, no matter what the progressives want to tell you, the family is the essential building block of all society.”

Earlier this week, O’Reilly played this remarkable audio from Rep. Davis during his Talking Points Memo:

DAVIS: I'm going to tell you what some suspicions have been and people have whispered to me. They're not sure that black people are shooting all of these children. There's some suspicion – and I don't want to spread this, but I'm just going to tell you what I've been hearing. They suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids.

Her comments, made on a radio show this week, appear to condone a “destructive” rumor that, as an elected official, she should have shot down immediately. Davis, however, has refused to take responsibility for publicizing the irresponsible allegation, which enraged O’Reilly during last night’s interview.

O'REILLY: Joining us now from Chicago is Ms. Davis. Do you regret saying that, madam?

DAVIS: Well, I didn't say it, Bill. I repeated what members of my community have said to me. It is important that people realize that that was not Monique Davis' statement. I was repeating what community members have said to me, over 70%.

O'REILLY: But you didn't say, "But that's crazy and they shouldn't think this because that's not what's happening."

DAVIS: Do I have to say that? Do I have to say that?

DAVIS: Why do I have to say it?

O'REILLY: Here's why you have to say it. Number one, your credibility as an elected official, all right? And number two, people don't know where you stand. Are you buying that, are you not buying that, are you refuting that? I mean, that is destructive to the discourse. I mean, Chicago police…

DAVIS: What I am saying, Bill…

O'REILLY: …As you well know are not gunning down black children. You know that, right?

DAVIS: Well, of - certainly they are not, Bill, but based upon the history of African Americans in this country and based upon the fact that 70% of the murders in Chicago are unsolved, 70% are unsolved, people are wondering what the heck is going on. Certainly Monique Davis, who is a good friend to the police, who support the police, I believe they're our First Responders, and I respect that. But I have the right as a legislator to repeat what my community says to me.

O'REILLY: Not if it's irresponsible you don't. I hear a lot of irresponsible stuff and I don't report it.

DAVIS: Well, I don't think it's irresponsible. They will…

O'REILLY: You don't think it's irresponsible for a person to accuse the Chicago police force of gunning down children without a shred of evidence? You don't think that's irresponsible?

DAVIS: I don't think they said that. I said there was some suspicion that that could be occurring.

O'REILLY: Even if the suspicion – no, that's irresponsible without any evidence.

DAVIS: But you don't know what my response to my community was, Bill O'Reilly, because you were not there.

O'REILLY: It doesn't matter.

DAVIS: I talk to people in private.

O'REILLY: I know what you said on the radio in the full context of what was said.

DAVIS: I repeated…

O'REILLY: You didn't walk away from those comments. You didn't refute them.

DAVIS: I repeated what was said to me on a radio show in Detroit never knowing it would get national attention and perhaps…

“Yeah, who knew? Who knew that it was broadcast,” Pat asked sarcastically. “I didn't know radio signals went into other people's homes. I thought I was just saying it to the host. “

“So this magic box called a radio does what exactly,” Glenn quipped. “So irresponsible.”

Watch the entire interview HERE.

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:

Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.