Radio callers express varied opinions on Cecil the lion shooting

July 29, 2015

WRITER

Shot during a big game hunt in Zimbabwe, Cecil the lion has been the subject of intense, emotional debate over the past several days. Buck Sexton spoke with several radio callers Wednesday to discuss the highly controversial killing. Here's what they had to say.

"You don't go to a nursing home in nature" - Jeff in New Hampshire

"My father taught me to hunt. I'm 46 years old. He taught me probably a good 35 years ago. He taught me that in nature, there's no such thing as an easy peaceful death for animals. When you hunt them, legally hunt them, kill them quickly. It's a better death. It's better than starving to death. It's better than being ripped apart alive by predators. You name it. So that's the way I look at it. When I see the deer, I'm giving it an ethical death. You don't grow old in nature. You don't go to a nursing home in nature. You die a horrific death. That's the only way you die in nature."

"It's a good rite of passage for boys" - Carrie in South Carolina

"As I woman, I'd like to draw people's attention to the Ducks Unlimited Phenomenon, where hunters got together and they did fundraisers and they bought wetlands along migratory duck patterns. So the ducks are, you know, making a comeback so that the hunters can still hunt them and keep the tradition alive for their sons. And I -- I think that it's very valuable for sons as masculinity is marginalized in our culture. And as we're getting more and more feminite HEP, it's a good rite of passage for boys to know that they have what it takes to go out and provide for their families. There's something that's eternal about men going out into the earth and, you know, killing something and bringing it home. And providing food. And I've seen my son get confidence that way, and I just think it's very valuable."

"What if it had been a warthog?" - Dan in Michigan

"As a hunter and also a member of the State's Department of National Resources, what I find often is when a state or a game commission declares that this animal needs to be harvested, if somebody harvests that animal or kills it or whatever, I don't care why they did it, whether it's for trophy or meat. That's like asking somebody, what did you do with the money you inherited from grandpa? I see a slippery slope there. And also we tend to manage animals by how pretty or handsome we think they are. This was a beautiful male lion. What if it had been a warthog? I don't see the same guttural reaction if this had happened."

"Assign a monetary value to them" - Will in Colorado

"I'm just trying to explain a little bit better about how exactly hunting is conservation. The best way to preserve and protect these animals, especially in third world African countries is to assign a monetary value to them. Otherwise it gives the people, the governments who are just worried about where the next meal will come from the next time and surviving warlords something else -- to help protect these animals. A lion hunt like this will cost anywhere from minimum probably $20,000 upwards to 100 grand. Now, I don't know what the per capita income is in most of these countries, but I'm telling you that something like that right there can probably take care of ten, 15 families for a year. That doesn't include all your license fees, all your flights, all your drivers, and airplanes that you're tipping. All the things you're doing there is a massive boost to the economy. What that does is that gives the local people and the government reasons to preserve and protect these animals so that they can continue to make an income off of this. It would just be like, fishermen don't want to overfish the feed. People don't want to overdo -- you know, log cutters don't want to devastate every forest. This is their lifeblood. This is what they rely on. You assign a monetary value on the animal. It gives them a reason to preserve and protect it."

Watch Buck's conversation with Joe in Ohio or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcription of this segment, it may contain errors:

We have Joe in Ohio. Joe, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. You're speaking to Buck.

CALLER: Hi, how are you doing, Buck?

BUCK: Good. Thank you for calling.

CALLER: I've been to Zimbabwe three times. Did some big game. I did get an opportunity to do a lion. It was a problem animal. You know, you don't bait the animal in. Usually --

BUCK: Can I just ask you really quickly? I'm asking you honestly because I read this. That either it tried to or eat somebody because that's one of the reasons they'll go after the lion.

CALLER: That can be. But in this case it was cattle. They had gone and killed a bunch of cattle. You set up on one of the previous kills. They'll come back. And then you take the animal. But over there, it is certainly strictly regulated. It kind of depends on if you're on public land or private land. I've been on both. Most private ranches will have their own anti-poaching units. And on public land, you actually get what's called a game scout sort of. A guy with an AK-47 that the government provides to make sure that you're following the laws into -- you know, if there are poachers.

BUCK: And to protect you. Right? Because poachers have been known to try to kill people too because it's such a serious crime in some of these countries. I actually spoke to a hunter once who told me, that poachers, they see you coming. They don't run away. They shoot at you.

CALLER: And I'll tell you why. I actually came across that. What happens is the game scouts, their orders are to shoot on-site, more or less.

BUCK: To shoot poachers on-site?

CALLER: Pretty much, yeah.

BUCK: I had heard that. But you're verifying that. Wow. Continue.

CALLER: Yeah, it happens over there. So with a game scout, when you set up with him, he kind of goes over what y'all are doing, what you're there for. But he says because the poachers know that's happening, they do want to shoot first. They won't run away because, you know, if they run away, they'll just get shot in the back. So they say, I don't necessarily want you to shoot them. But if you see them first, shoot them, and then I'll come back and put some AK rounds in it so it looks like I did it.

BUCK: Wow.

CALLER: So -- and these guides, specifically, if they're in jail in Zimbabwe, it would be interesting to check back in at about six months to see if they're still around. Because Zimbabwean prison, especially for poachers, is more or less a death sentence. And a lot of times on the private ranchers, if they catch poachers and they don't kill them right away, they'll beat the living crap out of them. And if they don't survive, they'll just survive them down a hole.

BUCK: Wow, Joe. Fascinating to hear about your perspective on this. Having been in Zimbabwe on a hunt three times. Thanks for calling in, buddy.

Glenn: Pay attention to what the State Department's RADICAL reset is signaling

John McDonnell / Stringer | Getty Images

For years, the U.S. State Department operated on inertia—an institution locked into a cycle of caution, consensus, and risk aversion.

Speeches were careful, strategies were diluted by committees, and action was often defined by what couldn’t be done. The language was always the same: "nuance," "complexity," "stakeholders." Rarely was it about results.

That has changed.

What’s come out of the State Department in the last hundred days is a complete departure—not just in tone, but in structure.

Under Secretary Rubio, the department isn’t just adjusting tactics. It’s undergoing a philosophical reset.

The most telling shift is this: the department is no longer preoccupied with managing decline or defending abstractions. It’s operating from the premise that U.S. foreign policy must serve actual national interests, not vague global norms or ideological missions.

Look at the key decisions. The Global Engagement Center—an office that claimed to combat disinformation but increasingly acted as an internal censorship tool—is gone. Not repurposed. Not renamed. Eliminated. Aid programs that masked themselves as diplomacy while undermining core U.S. positions have been cut. Contracts to NGOs with open hostility toward U.S. policy goals? Revoked.

This isn’t cosmetic. It’s structural.

The department’s reorganization is consolidating power downward—removing bureaucratic silos, emphasizing merit over ideology, and restoring clarity to diplomatic goals. This isn’t about optics. It’s about removing friction between strategy and implementation. On immigration and border enforcement, there’s now a foreign policy posture that treats visa privileges as exactly that—privileges, not entitlements. Visa holders who break laws or support terrorist groups lose their status. Period. No press conference required. Just enforcement.

Regional partnerships are now framed by expectations, not entanglements.

Countries that allow mass illegal migration into the U.S. are being held accountable. Agreements are being structured around reciprocity. When those agreements are ignored, consequences follow. China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, long treated as inevitable, has been directly challenged. Beijing’s role in Panama, particularly regarding the canal, has been dismantled through diplomacy backed by leverage, not lectures. That wasn’t done through press statements—it required statecraft, pressure, and the willingness to say no.

In Europe, there’s been a reframing of NATO obligations. Not as symbolic unity, but as measurable responsibility. The benchmark is no longer two percent. The conversation is now five. That changes the nature of the alliance. In Africa, the posture is shifting from dependency to commercial engagement. Trade, not aid. Access, not assistance. Diplomacy with terms, not with guilt.

The contrast is stark.

This isn’t a matter of tone or branding. This is a systemic shift away from a model that rewarded process over outcomes, toward one that is rediscovering the purpose of diplomacy: to secure advantage, resolve conflict, and protect national interests.

This recalibration will not be popular in foreign capitals used to ambiguity, or in institutions comfortable with drift. It’s also not universally admirable. It’s direct. It’s unambiguous. And it signals something rare in modern American foreign policy: conviction.

That alone is worth paying attention to.

Glenn: Why Memorial Day is not just another holiday

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

They wore the uniform so you could live free. This holiday, ask yourself if you're living in a way that honors that sacrifice — or cheapens it.

Your son has been a Marine for what feels like an eternity. Only those who have watched their children deploy into war zones can truly understand why time seems to freeze in worry. What begins as concern turns to panic, then helplessness. You live suspended in a silent winter, where days blur and dread becomes your constant companion.

Then, in an instant, it happens. What you don’t know yet is that your child — your most precious gift — fell in combat 60 seconds ago.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives.

While you go about your day, unaware, military protocol kicks into motion. Notification must happen within eight hours. Officers are dispatched. A chaplain joins them. A medic may accompany them in case the grief is too much to bear.

Three figures arrive at your door. One asks your name. Then, by protocol, they ask to enter your home. You already know what’s coming. You sit down. He looks you in the eye and says:

The commandant of the Marine Corps has entrusted me to express his deep regret that your son John was killed in action on Friday, March 28. The commandant and the United States Marine Corps extend their deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss.

This moment has played out thousands of times across American soil. In 2003 alone — just two years after 9/11 — 312 families endured it. In 2007, 847 American service members died in combat. In 2008, 352. In 2009, 346. The list goes on. And with every name, a family became a Gold Star family.

Honor the fallen

For most Americans, Memorial Day means backyard barbecues, family gatherings, maybe a trip to the lake or a sweet Airbnb. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these things. But we must never forget why we can.

Ask any veteran who lived when others did not, and you’ll understand: Memorial Day is not just another holiday. It is a solemn day set apart for reverence.

So this weekend, reach out to a Gold Star family. Acknowledge their pain. Ask about their son or daughter. Let them know they’re not alone.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives — not for accolades but for love of country and the preservation of liberty. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

They died for the Constitution, for our shared American ideals, and the worst thing we could do now would be to betray those ideals in a spirit of rage or division.

We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by abandoning the very principles they died to protect — equal justice, the rule of law, the enduring promise of liberty.

This Memorial Day, let us remember the fallen. Let us honor their families. Let us recommit ourselves to the cause they gave everything for: the American way of life.

They are the best of us.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump exposes Left’s habeas corpus hijack in border crisis

Chicago Tribune / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats accused the president of declaring war on civil rights. In reality, he’s defending habeas corpus while they drown it in delays and legal loopholes.

Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.

Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.

Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.

The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.

But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.

And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.

Habeas corpus, rightly understood

Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.

America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.

If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.

The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?

This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.

Weaponizing due process

The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.

So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.

This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

Abandon the Constitution?

Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.

The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.

President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.

That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.

The path forward

Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.

It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Betrayal of trust: Medicare insurers face lawsuit over kickback scheme

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article is sponsored by Chapter.

The U.S. government has filed a major lawsuit under the False Claims Act, targeting some of the biggest names in health insurance—Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana—along with top insurance brokers eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The allegation? From 2016 to at least 2021, these companies funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to brokers to steer seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans.

If the allegations are true, it means many Americans may have been steered into Medicare Advantage plans that weren’t necessarily the best fit for their needs—not because the plans were better, but because brokers were incentivized by illegal kickbacks.

The Kickback Conspiracy

Navigating Medicare Advantage’s maze of plan options is daunting, so beneficiaries rely on brokers like eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote, who claim to be unbiased guides. But from 2016 to 2021, insurers Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health allegedly paid brokers millions in kickbacks to favor their plans, regardless of quality. Disguised as “co-op” or “marketing” deals, these payments were tied to enrollment targets. Internal emails revealed executives knew this violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, with one eHealth leader joking that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would miss a $15 million Humana deal for minimal enrollments. Brokers used call routing to prioritize high-paying insurers, betraying beneficiaries’ trust.

Discrimination Against the Vulnerable

The scheme wasn’t just about profits—it targeted vulnerable beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage must accept all eligible enrollees, including disabled people under 65. Yet Aetna and Humana allegedly pressured brokers to limit their enrollment, as these beneficiaries were deemed to be less profitable. Brokers complied, rejecting referrals and filtering calls to favor healthier enrollees, incentivized by bonuses. This violated federal anti-discrimination laws and CMS contracts, undermining the founding principles of Medicare by discriminating against the very people it was created to aid.

False Claims and the Pursuit of Justice

The schemes led to false claims to CMS, with insurers certifying enrollments as “valid” despite kickbacks and discrimination. The government paid billions, unaware of the fraud. Examples include Humana’s $12,477 for a 2016 enrollment and Aetna’s $79,047 for a 2020 case. On May 1, 2025, the U.S. filed suit, seeking treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. Aetna and others deny the allegations, per May 2025 reports, promising a fierce defense. The case, demanding a jury trial, seeks justice for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Glenn's Show Prep