Evan McMullin Will Be on the Ballot in Potentially 45 States

Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin joined Glenn on radio Thursday for a compelling interview about the state of the election.

McMullin's campaign has experienced a notable surge in Utah, and the Independent Party candidate is already on the ballot in 34 states. By Election Day, that number could soar to 45.

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

Glenn and McMullin discussed the 13 principles outlined in his document Principles for New American Leadership and serious issues like Russia, ISIS, border control and the economy.

Read below or listen to this segment for answers to these questions:

• What qualifications does McMullin have to handle the economic crisis?

• How will McMullin's CIA experience help with fighting ISIS?

• What are McMullin's positions on personal and business taxes?

• Will McMullin force companies to return to the U.S.?

• Where did McMullin earn his MBA?

Listen to Part 2 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: We are talking to Evan McMullin, candidate for president. He is a candidate -- will be a candidate in 50 -- or, 45 states by the time this is over.

Let me give you a couple things, Evan, to talk about. Because, you know, people don't really know who you are. And we are facing some really bad scenarios coming our way. One, Russia has said in several different ways in the last few weeks that they are rattling the saber, saying that we're on the edge of nuclear war.

I don't know how much of that is true. But I do know that Putin -- do you know how who Dugin is? Aleksandr Dugin. Are you familiar with him?

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: Okay. Aleksandr Dugin is one of the advisers of Putin, a really dangerous guy. He has his fingers in the alt-right here in America and all throughout Europe.

EVAN: Oh, yes.

GLENN: So we have that brewing. We have Islamic jihad brewing.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: We have an open border situation where we don't know who is in this country.

EVAN: Right.

GLENN: And then today we have this: HSBC, the head of the technical analyst department for HSBC has said we are now on red alert for an immanent selloff in stocks, given the price over the past few weeks. He says the pattern shows that we are headed for something at least as bad as 1987.

What experience do you have -- we know you have now CIA experience, global foreign relations experience, but what experience do you have on the economy and finance?

EVAN: Well, you know, I attended the Wharton school, earned an MBA there, and then went on to work in finance at Goldman Sachs. A -- a bank that, you know, is very --

GLENN: Oh.

EVAN: -- is very controversial. But I'll tell you what I did and what I learned, which I think are lessons that all presidents should know. And that is what it takes for companies to thrive in this global marketplace in a way that they can create jobs here in the United States, good-paying jobs. I worked with leaders in industrial companies. Companies that make airplanes and airplane parts here in the United States. I worked with technology companies. I was in California, San Francisco. I worked with companies and consumer package products, in health care. But I learned so much about so many different industries during my time there. And they all have different needs. And they all face different challenges.

But presidents should know these things. Presidents should know that we need government, for example, to get out of the way in order for our economy to thrive.

You know, the number one thing I heard from business leaders when I was working with him in that role is that they had a lot of capital on the sidelines, they would say, that they couldn't or didn't feel comfortable investing in new jobs and new equipment, because they were worried about regulatory uncertainty or a regulatory burden, even if there wasn't uncertainty, just the burden of regulations.

So that's a huge problem we have. I mean, there's so many others -- the corporate tax rate and others. But, you know, we've got to have a president who will signal to the business community that this company -- this country is going to be open for business, that companies are going to be able to thrive.

And part of it, also, Glenn, I just have to say this is that we've lost sight of promoting a truly open market. We've got way too much crony capitalism. I saw it with my own eyes, when I was the chief policy director for the House Republicans.

You know, we have a government that's sort of geared towards helping big corporations. But -- but that -- you know, but advances policies that stifle the small- and medium-sized company, that can't deal with these regulations. And so why is that such a bad thing?

It's a bad thing because it harms competition. And because of that, it harms innovation. And innovation is the lifeblood, one of the lifebloods of our country. We need a more open economy. We need to get rid of crony capitalism. It's a huge problem. But we will not thrive unless we make some of these changes or all of them.

PAT: We're speaking to Evan McMullin, independent candidate for president.

Evan, this is Pat. You know, in addition to going to Wharton -- whatever, but you also attended BYU. Right? And I saw you last week or a week and a half ago at the game. And, you know --

GLENN: We have 40 minutes with the presidential candidate and you're going --

PAT: And being a Cougar fan is one of his most impressive attributes.

GLENN: Right. Do you have a real question?

PAT: But you also have been -- you've worked really closely -- like you said, you were the chief policy adviser for the House. And so what are your -- what's your position on taxes, in a business and personal taxes?

EVAN: Oh, on businesses, I think we need to lower the corporate tax rate. I said 20 percent. The reason that's important is we need our businesses to be able to reinvest in technology and in equipment and in jobs. That will make our workers more productive, which will mean their salaries will go up, which will mean other companies will want to be here because --

PAT: So you're saying you're going to force companies to come back to the United States of America.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: What do you think of that idea, Evan? What do you think of that idea, forcing companies, government forcing companies to come back?

EVAN: Well, so let's take a look at Donald Trump's idea, right? So he says, okay. Company X moves to Mexico and starts producing its wages there. So he's going to put a tariff on widgets that come from that company into the United States.

Guess what's going to happen? That country -- or, that company is just going to go to another country where those tariffs don't exist and produce the widgets there. I mean, that's -- it's just so ridiculous. What we want to do is have an open economy that attracts people, companies willingly to come here. That's how we've thrived in the past. That's what we need in the future.

STU: Evan, it's Stu again.

I had an interesting thought or realization the other day, I think, which was, we had this really big debate. We all fought about it in 2009, over this -- Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan. We all thought it was a terrible idea. And 787 billion, you can remember it because we said it so many times, it was such a big number.

We have Hillary Clinton now proposing a new $275 billion stimulus, which no one has talked about at all, and probably because Donald Trump has promised to more than double it, over $550 billion.

He also proposed this new child care and family leave situation, paid for maternity leave and things like that paid for by the government, that the new estimate that just came out from a right-leaning think tank was $680 billion in cost.

We fought so hard against the $787 billion stimulus, but no one is thinking about these sorts of things anymore.

What is your approach on government spending to stimulate the economy and for new entitlement programs?

EVAN: Oh, my goodness. Well, listen, on stimulating the economy, I just have so much faith in the ingenuity of the American, in the -- just the grit that Americans have to create and to build. And that's the strength of our economy. It doesn't come from the government. And the more we think it does and the more we use entitlements and other programs to try to spur economic growth through the government, the less free our economy is. The less open it is. The less competition we have. The less innovation we have. So, look, it's just a fundamental thing.

In order to thrive, we've got to -- we've got to create an environment where people will take risks, where people will innovate. And we can't do that if we're growing the size of government. Therefore, taxing people more. Therefore, depriving people of their economic liberty, which is just liberty. And all of these things are connected.

So new entitlement programs, no, thank you. We need to reform the ones that we have. We do have some important programs that form an important safety net. But they're on autopilot. Congress doesn't even review this spending on an annual basis, if ever. Hardly ever they do.

And right now, it's over -- entitlement programs and our interest on debt that we pay every year is over two-thirds of the budget. If we do nothing, if we stay on our current path, it will be 78 percent of the budget in ten years.

And so we've got to make reforms. And we can do that so that we keep our obligations to people who are retired now and who are retiring soon.

But for people like me who have got decades more of work, let's -- you know, we're going to live longer. Let's increase the retirement age gradually, let's phase it in. And I think we need to do means testing too -- if I'm super wealthy, which I'm not, but if I were, I wouldn't need to collect Social Security. Let's make sure that we have that safety net for people who really need it. Let's just be smarter with our entitlements so we don't burden the American people with an overwhelming -- an overwhelming amount of debt and taxes.

GLENN: Okay. So, Evan, are you available tomorrow at about this time? Do you know? Can you make yourself available?

EVAN: I'll have to check with my team. But I would love --

GLENN: See if you can make yourself available. Here's what I'd like -- because here's what I've heard from you. I've heard a lot of great things, but I've heard your resume. And I can think like the person at home. And they -- what they've heard is, wow, okay. He's got some great background stuff. But on the flip side, you are former CIA, which can mean I'm for foreign involvement everywhere, entanglements, war, yada, yada. Continuation of what we've already done. Two, I used to work at Goldman Sachs, which means to some people I'm for the bank bailouts and cronyism and Wall Street and the fed.

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: I know. I know. I'm just -- but this is what I think your resume screams.

And then the last one is, I also was with the House. Well, the House was for stimulus and the bailouts. And they didn't repeal Obamacare. A lot of people in the G.O.P. despise the American -- you know, the average American. And so what I would like to do, because I don't think it's fair to ask you -- to throw that on you and then say, can you give me a two-minute answer.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: Can you come back tomorrow and tell me what sets you apart in foreign policy from the -- the entanglements that have caused this mess --

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: The Goldman Sachs that are for the cronyism and the bank bailouts and the Federal Reserve just being -- running unchecked, and the House Republicans, what sets you apart from those three things that we hear in your resume? Would you do that?

EVAN: Well, I would love to come back. I just -- because, you know, Glenn, I don't control my schedule.

GLENN: I know. I know.

EVAN: But I will check with my team. I would love to come back. Chances are, we'll do it because this is an important, you know, discussion to have.

But very briefly, I'll just say, on foreign policy, I have said that I think the Iraq War was a mistake. I believe we do need to lead in the world. But I believe we can do it with less blood and treasure. And we can talk about that. I'm happy to talk about that.

With regard to my time at Goldman Sachs, look, I'm not here to represent Goldman Sachs. But I struggled -- I was raised in a lower middle class family. You know, we couldn't turn the heat on in the winter. We worked very, very hard. Parents worked three jobs. I know what it's like out there. And, you know, I'm not wealthy. I've worked hard for everything I have. And I had an opportunity to work at Goldman Sachs. And I learned a ton. I'm not here to defend Goldman Sachs in any way or the bank bailout, which I opposed and all of that.

GLENN: Sure.

EVAN: But I will say that I learned things there that every president should know, period.

As far as my time in the House, look, I was asked to come back and serve. I answered that with a yes, and I did come back and I served. I fought unauthorized spending. I fought mandatory spending. I fought to reform the VA's health care system.

You know, you got to engage. And, you know, that's what I've done. And I've served for most of my life this country.

GLENN: Okay. So tomorrow, if you can, and if not, we'll schedule it some other time, but if you can, I'd like you to focus -- we'll spend the same amount of time, and I'd like to focus on those three things: Foreign entanglements, the cronyism of capitalism and Goldman Sachs kind of image, and where you differ from the House Republicans, which we have -- I feel this audience has fought those guys perhaps harder than we had to fight the Obama administration. And we'll continue the conversation.

EVAN: Yeah, yeah. All right. Looking forward to it.

GLENN: What's your website? Evan, what's your website?

EVAN: Yes. Yes. It's EvanMcMullin.com. And if you want to go to that principled document, which I hope you will, go to EvanMcMullin.com/principles. And you spell McMullin with an I-N at the end, not an E-N. EvanMcMullin.com.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you very much, Evan. I appreciate it. You should buy the E-N domain name too. You should get EggMcMuffin.com

PAT: Have them all. Yes.

GLENN: You should have them all. Anyway, now, this.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin talks to to the media after announcing 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)

It's not just the Twitter mobs, the Leftist extremists and the flagrant fourth-wave feminists who want ICE abolished. As we've seen, there's a growing number of politicians who want to see it as well.

Cue Alejandro Alvarez, who in his 32 years has managed to cultivate his brand as a "serial immigration violator." Alejandro has been deported 11 times. Well, he's facing deportation once again, after allegedly "slashing his wife with a chainsaw." His wife is in recovery and is expected to survive.

RELATED: The cost of unchecked illegal immigration is very real, and very high

Around 3:00 pm last Wednesday, police arrived at Alejandro's. When they arrived, they found Alvarez's wife suffering from "traumatic physical injuries, believed to have been inflicted by a chainsaw." The couple's three children were huddled in fear inside the home. Alejandro's wife was rushed to a nearby trauma center for an emergency surgery.

Alejandro fled the scene of the crime, but was eventually hauled in by police and booked under "suspicion of attempted murder, child endangerment, hit and run, and grand theft auto."

Sounds like the kind of guy who should be in our country illegally, right?

ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley noted that "Immigration officers have lodged a detainer against Alvarez, requesting that local authorities notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement before his release to allow them to take the man into custody."

This is the new reality.

This is the new reality. The immigration agency has to ask for permission, to file requests, to have illegal immigrants who are guilty of crimes dealt with. Luckily for Alejandro, Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, so maybe he'll get another pass and be back on the streets in no time.

The Purple Heart is reserved for those wounded or killed during battle. Awarded by the President, the medal has George Washington's image right there on the front of it. Make no mistake, it is reserved for heroes. True heroes. Men and women who've faced death and still persevered. Soldiers who fought in battle at the cost of their limbs, their lives, or their inner peace. John F. Kennedy earned a Purple Heart for his heroism as a gunboat pilot in 1944. John McCain received one for, well, we all know his horrific story. Colin Powell. Roughly one million Purple Heart medals have been awarded to veterans, all of whom were determined to have fought valiantly, with courage and heart.

RELATED: An FBI Agent Was Dismissed From the Mueller Probe. What Happened?

So it was a bit of a head-scratcher to hear comments from Democratic Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee and self-appointed "Leader in Effort to #ImpeachTrump." During a House Oversight Committee hearing questioning Peter Strzok, Cohen said, perplexingly, that Strzok deserves a Purple Heart. You know, because he's injured by all those mean text messages that HE sent?

As we've seen, other than Cohen's fanboy praise, Strzok hasn't gotten off easy. Thankfully. The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General wrote: "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the [Anthony] Weiner laptop was free from bias."

Lack of confidence. I believe that's one of the criteria for a different medal. Not a Purple Heart, though. Sorry, Strzok, you'll have to get your trophy elsewhere.

Time mgazine is back at it again, reporting the real news, doing the proper journalism. One of their latest articles is sure to earn them a Pulitzer. Surely. The article is titled, "Women Are Buying Up Plan B Because They're Terrified of the Future Supreme Court."

Here's how the article opens:

Within hours of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement announcement last month, Emily Hauser was standing at a drugstore counter asking a pharmacist for two packages of Plan B. At age 53, she didn't need the emergency contraception pills — in fact, she wasn't sure who would, or when. But Hauser bought them anyway.

RELATED: Observations of an Irishman: Lessons from the abortion referendum

I like that the article sets up Kennedy's retirement as an apocalyptic event. A recurring theme in the mainstream media, now that I think of it, especially lately. Here's the gist of it:

Across the country, Americans are stockpiling emergency contraception in light of Justice Kennedy's retirement and President Donald Trump's Monday nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. The nation's highest court is on its way to having a conservative majority, making threats against Roe v. Wade seem more dire than ever.

A good article includes backstory. History. The context. Here's what Time had to say about the sudden influx—some would say panic—in birth control:

To understand the interest in buying up Plan B, you need to brush up on Roe v. Wade. Some background: The court handed down the 7-2 decision in 1973, confirming that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Progress has been rocky since then.

Of course they reduce the issue to a series of strawman fallacies.

Ah, yes. Of course they reduce the issue to a series of strawman fallacies. At this point, it's impossible for those inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and now Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome, to have a civil conversation. They certainly aren't going to budge in their opinion. Our main goal, obviously, is to connect to them as fellow human beings, living in the same chaotic world, and, hey, maybe along the way they'll admit that, maybe, they're a little more biased and deranged than they previously realized.

If all you knew about American politics came from The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, or MSNBC, you'd think that a "Blue wave" is about to swamp the country, with hip, millennial geniuses like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez surfing the crest of the wave. In fact, you would already think Ocasio-Cortez is the greatest hope for America since Barack Obama.

America is a very large country, and reality is usually more complex than the media lets on. But, since the media already has their narrative and superstar Ocasio-Cortez set for this November, there's no room for another young, minority, female, child of immigrants, political outsider, from the ultimate blue-wave state of California, named Elizabeth Heng. Well, there probably would be room for a story like that, except that she's a conservative.

RELATED: Democratic Socialism spun as 'innovative, millennial-friendly' — here's the reality

Thirty-two-year-old Elizabeth Heng is running for Congress against Democrat Jim Costa, in California's 16th district. It's been 40 years since a Republican won in that district.

In the early 1980s, Heng's parents fled the violence in Cambodia and immigrated to the U.S. In 2008, after graduating from Stanford where she was student-body president, Heng opened several cell-phone stores with her brothers in the central San Joaquin Valley. Running her own business and managing 75 employees opened her eyes to a not-so-dirty secret about capitalism trying to survive the virus of progressivism. She says, "I saw firsthand how government regulations impacted businesses negatively. I constantly felt that from Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, they were saying that I was everything wrong with our country, when all I was doing was creating jobs."

That's when she decided to venture to Washington, D.C., where she worked for six years learning the ins and outs of legislation and campaigning. She ended up working as a director for President Trump's inauguration ceremony, a job she managed while also finishing her MBA at Yale.

Fiscal responsibility isn't quite as sexy-sounding as free college for everyone.

One of the biggest lessons she learned working in Washington became the platform she is now running for office on: fiscal responsibility. She says, "In a family or a business, we don't suddenly act surprised when a budget comes up for the year. We get it done."

What a concept.

Still, fiscal responsibility isn't quite as sexy-sounding as free college for everyone. So, don't expect Elizabeth Heng to replace Ocasio-Cortez as the media darling anytime soon.