Evan McMullin: We Must Seek Honest, Wise Leaders, Not Merely Those the Party Gave Us

October 13, 2016

Writer

A recent state-wide poll from Utah's Deseret News showed Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin in a statistical tie with Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, putting the Utahn within striking distance of winning his home state. If that were to happen, McMullin would be the first Independent candidate to win electoral votes in nearly a half century.

Glenn spoke with McMullin Thursday on radio about the 13 principles outlined in his document Principles for New American Leadership and why both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are unfit for the presidency.

Read below, watch the clip or listen to this segment for answers to these questions:

• What principles do the two major party candidates fail to honor?

• Why does McMullin believe both Clinton and Trump are big government liberals?

• Why do we keep electing corrupt leaders?

• What is McMullin calling on all Americans to do?

Listen to Part 1 of Glenn's most recent interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Evan McMullin, welcome to the program, sir.

EVAN: Great to be with you, Glenn. Great to be with you.

GLENN: So, Evan, tell us why we should vote for you. What are your principles that you think are not being represented?

EVAN: Well, Glenn, that's the most important question of this election. It is about principles. You know, we've just put out a document called Principles for New American Leadership. And I would add another part to that title: New American Leadership and Civic Engagement. I think that's what we need in this country. We do need a new generation of leadership, a new conservative movement, but we need also a new era of civic engagement.

And so, as far as principles are concerned, in this document, there are 13 principles. But they start off with some -- there are very basic things that we're losing sight of, things that the two major party candidates don't honor. I'm talking about the first, for example. We say our basic rights are God-given. That is so incredible. Our rights don't come from the government. They are inalienable, and they come from our maker.

Number two, we honor our Constitution. Not what we think it should be. There are different opinions. But how it's written.

Number three, government power must be separated and balanced. We must have checks and balances, and they must be honored in our system to protect against the government's abuse of that power.

Number four, our leaders must be honest and wise. Because the reality is, even though we are blessed with an inspired Constitution, Glenn, if we don't have honest and wise leaders who respect that Constitution, our nation will suffer. And it has.

And then the last one, I'll just mention to start off with, number five, we share responsibility for service and civic duty.

We need to serve our fellow man and woman. We need to be involved in civic engagement. We need to be aware of the issues and well informed. And we need not to be passive in the selection of our leaders.

I believe we must seek out leaders who are honest and wise and promote them into office, not merely wait for the party to give us whoever they want to give us. We must find them. We must recruit them, and we must promote them forward to our leadership, to our service.

GLENN: What do you say to people who say, "Hillary Clinton is -- I mean, I've heard people say she's the devil himself. And some people actually mean it. But some -- others, like me, believe she is so wildly corrupt in all aspects of her life, that she has to be stopped. Some people say, "I don't like Donald Trump, but I will vote for him. And, Evan, no matter how much I like you, you don't have a chance. Why should I vote for you?"

EVAN: Well, I'll tell you this, Glenn, my perspective on both of these two candidates, and, you know, everybody has heard it all before. But they're both deeply corrupt. And I've got news for everyone -- this is my view -- Donald Trump is a big government liberal, just like Hillary Clinton, maybe even worse.

He does not respect our system of checks and balances. He doesn't respect the courts or their power. He doesn't respect, I believe, Article I of the Constitution. He doesn't even understand the Constitution. He doesn't -- you know, he proposes policies that are in violation of our Constitution. It seems like, every week or couple of weeks, it's something new. They're both big government liberals. That is the reality.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves. How did we get here? Because we've accepted the argument that we need to vote for the lesser or decide the lesser of two evils between the two major party candidates for a long time.

That decision, the lesser-of-two-evils decision, that framework posits to lower our standards for our leaders, and as a result of that, we get weaker leaders. We get corrupt leaders like both of them.

We get leaders like many of ours, who have disappointed us this year, who won't stand up for principle, who put their own reelections first. And that is happening right now. And that's why we get -- that's why I think, Glenn, we have a leadership crisis in this country.

So what I'm saying and what my running mate, Mindy Finn, what she's saying as well, is vote for the people who you actually want to see in office. If you do not do that, if we do not do that, Glenn, we will never get the leaders we need in this country.

We must use our voices, which are our votes, to support leaders who we actually want to see in office. And if they don't win this time, well, then they can win next time. But we must start building a movement, a new conservative movement, that will put leaders into the Oval Office and into Congress and elsewhere, who actually embrace the principles of our country.

GLENN: Evan, there are people that say that there may not be a next time. The country is at the breaking point, and you don't know what's going to happen. And the way things are going and how fast -- and how fast we have decayed over the last eight years with rights, that our churches will be under siege. Our rights will be taken. Possibly our guns would be taken. Our banking system could collapse. Just in the next four to eight years, this next president may be the last chance. We can't take that risk.

EVAN: Well, Glenn, I would -- again, I say that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are cut from the same cloth. These are both big -- they're both tax-and-spend liberals. These are people who are going to grow the size of the federal government. Donald Trump has made a promise about the Supreme Court, but he's violated that promise even in the campaign, saying that his sister would make a good justice, saying that, you know, Peter Thiel would make a good Supreme Court justice. And this is not a man we can trust. This just simply isn't a man that we can trust.

We are in a terrible spot right now. Yes, we don't have time to waste. But we have allowed ourselves -- I'll say this -- we have allowed ourselves to be offered two horrendous candidates from the two major parties.

And so this is what I'm saying, Glenn: I'm calling on all Americans now to have a conversation -- a conversation with each other, a conversation around the dinner table, in the backyard, over the fence in the backyard with the neighbor, with your colleagues, about the fundamental principles that have made this country the most prosperous and most powerful on earth.

We've got to go back as American citizens to the essentials. We've got to ourselves recommit ourselves to these principles and pursue better leaders. We're not -- you know, from the two major parties, we're not going to get them this year. But I believe we can get more of them in the future. But we've got to start with basics.

We're in a tough spot this year. There are no great solutions. That's just the reality. That's the difficult place we've been in. We have to start rebuilding something new, and it starts with the conversation with America, one that I and Mindy Finn are trying to have with America and one that I'm asking Americans to have with themselves, using this document, using these principles.

STU: Evan, Stu.

I have -- one of the things that we've seen in this debate is the world of foreign policy has been, you know, really in shambles. Everything from trade to, you know, we have -- I mean, we watched the debate the other night.

Hillary Clinton, we know what a disaster she was with Russia. I mean, you know, the reset button. I mean, that was a total disaster. And then her opponent, in his own defense, says that he doesn't know anything about the inner workings of Russia. So these are our two options. Not to mention, Gary Johnson, you know, who has his issues with where is Aleppo and what is Aleppo. All of this. How does your experience differ from these three?

EVAN: Well, I spent 11 years serving in the Central Intelligence Agency. I was an undercover operative. Most of that time came after 9/11. I managed some of our country's most sensitive counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda leadership and other sensitive traditional intelligence operations against countries that are adversaries to liberty.

GLENN: If you would have -- if you would have handled the documents that you had, which I assume are less sensitive than what the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had, would you be in prison if you handled them the way she did?

EVAN: Yes. Well, I handled some very, very sensitive stuff that she may not have had. But even if I handled lesser classified documents, yes, I would have been fired, first of all. My security clearance would have been revoked. And I likely would have gone to jail.

And that's the reality. But that's what we see. And, Glenn, you pointed that out. Just the corruption. We live in a country where most Americans feel -- a strong majority of Americans feel we're on the wrong track. People don't feel like they're being heard by the government anymore, largely because so much power is centralized in Washington, DC. But this is exactly the wrong moment to elect a deeply corrupt leader. And that's what we're poised to do.

And it is truly unfortunate. And we cannot allow ourselves to be in this situation again.

GLENN: So how would you deal with Russia? Yesterday, the number two guy in the Duma came out and said that, "If America votes for Hillary Clinton and does not elect Donald Trump, that there will -- that nuclear war is imminent." He said, "There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere."

EVAN: Well, look, first of all, the first thing we need to do is reassert our strength in the world. What we've done under President Obama is withdrawn our strength and communicated weakness to the whole world. And so all of the destructive actors, whether it's Vladimir Putin or Bashar Assad or the Chinese -- Chinese government annexing parts of the South China Sea or North Korea, Kim Jong -- the Kim regime. You know, what we've got is a reaction by all these bad actors to a leadership, a power void, a power vacuum that's been left by President Obama.

The first thing we need to do, we need a president who will stand up and be strong. And that is -- that solves a lot of problems, candidly. It used to be that countries knew that they couldn't mess with us. And as a result, they couldn't most of the time.

That is not the case anymore because of our presidency because of this administration. But I'll tell you something, we would get more of the same with Hillary Clinton in that regard.

But with Donald Trump, we would get somebody who has actually aligned himself with these bad actors. I mean, it is unconscionable to me, incredible, that we find ourselves in this situation.

And I struggle and am so disappointed with Republicans. You know, Republicans -- the Republican Party was the national security party. How can they not stand up to Donald Trump's allegiance and infatuation with Vladimir Putin? How is that possible?

But this is where we find ourselves. And this, guys, is why I'm saying we find ourselves in a leadership crisis in this country. And we must return to these principles. Our principles are our strength, and we must have this conversation with each other. It's not the -- it's not the mainstream media. We can't wait for our leaders. They've let us down. We must turn to each other and rededicate ourselves to these principles and find our own leaders and promote them into office.

GLENN: Evan McMullin, running as a third party candidate, doing well in the polls in Utah. May actually win in Utah, which is something that Gary Johnson hasn't even been able to pull off in his own state. He's within four points in Utah and doing well in the Mountain West and is a write-in candidate -- is on the ballot in some states, write-in candidate on others. How many states can people vote for you and actually have it count?

EVAN: Well, it's 34 states. But by the time we get to Election Day, it will be 43, potentially up to 45. Most Americans will have the opportunity to vote for me and to have their vote counted. That's the reality. We're very excited about that.

We already have access to more than 300 electoral college votes, and we've done that in just a matter of weeks. I mean, for us, it's a three-month presidential campaign. I've got a phenomenal team. We've moved very, very swiftly. And we are doing it on the backs of our tremendous supporters. They're very strong, very motivated, and they have helped us get ballot access across the country. It's just been truly incredible to watch.

GLENN: All right.

[break]

GLENN: Evan McMullin is running as a candidate for president. And is beginning to pick up some steam in Utah. He's about to pass both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And only 52 percent of the people know who he is in Utah. And that is starting to happen in the mountain west now, where he just started, I don't know, about six weeks ago because he was fed up.

Evan, I want to talk to you a little bit about the economy. Because HSBC has just come out with a red alert warning for the stock market, and a stock market crash they say is now pretty much imminent. We'll get into that in a second.

Let me talk to you about two things. People believe that the Supreme Court is the number one issue now because they feel religion is going to come under attack and the Second Amendment is going to come under attack. Where do you stand on those two things?

EVAN: Well, first of all, I do believe that religious liberty in this country is under attack. And we need to do everything we can to protect it. The Second Amendment is obviously as well. I agree with that. Unfortunately, I just don't believe Donald Trump would -- would -- would pursue originalist justices on the court. I just don't not believe it. We know Hillary Clinton won't either. But I just think -- look, America, we are in a tough position. We are in a tough position because the two major candidates are not people who respect religious liberty. They're not people who respect the Second Amendment, and it's going to be tough. That's the reality. That's the reality. And that's why I keep saying that, you know, we've got to go back to our principles, and we've got to really develop something new, a new movement in this country.

You know, it's interesting, I think back about John Adams and the way he described the revolution of his time by saying the real revolution began around the kitchen table, in what mothers were teaching their children in their readers. I mean, that's the kind of -- that's what we need to do. If we want to protect religious liberty, if we want to protect the Second Amendment, we have got to strengthen the conservative movement so that it can do that. And we need a political vehicle, in the form of a party who will fight for those things. And we do not have that now, Glenn. We don't have that.

We have a Republican Party and a nominee who don't support these value and who will not protect them. And so we've got to start from scratch in many ways, I believe. So I'm thinking about it in the long game because I've written Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump off. They're both cut from the same cloth.

So let's rebuild our conservative movement, through discussing these core principles, recommitting ourselves to these core principles. We're angry. We're all angry. I get that. But we need to channel that into something constructive and positive for our country. And this is what I believe it is.

GLENN: Okay. Evan McMullin.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin announces his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These 5 governors are refusing to send national guard troops to the border

CAITLIN O'HARA/AFP/Getty Images

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

Rachel Maddow chokes up and cries on air as she struggles to deliver news that migrant babies and toddlers have been sent to "tender age" shelters pic.twitter.com/O6crm8cvyR
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) June 20, 2018

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Obama's tribute center in Chicago will cost taxpayers $200 million

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.

Glenn's Show Prep