Beck and O'Reilly Are Skeptical of This University That Wants a ‘Free Speech Year’

August 17, 2017

WRITER

University of California – Berkeley will commemorate a “Free Speech Year” under new chancellor Carol T. Christ, who is planning to use “point-counterpoint” panels to promote open-minded discussions.

Asserting that “more speech” is the right response to hate speech, Christ has said that she aims to keep students “physically safe” while not shielding them “from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious.”

In February, UC Berkeley students wreaked havoc on campus and caused $100,000 worth of damage in order to stop an appearance from Milo Yiannopoulos, a Trump supporter and former Breitbart editor who is known for his outrageous and often offensive remarks.

“Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view,” Christ told the Los Angeles Times. “We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.

On radio Thursday, Glenn and Bill O’Reilly were a bit skeptical of UC Berkeley’s ability to promote open discussion.

“I’m sure they’ll respect what I’ll say, and we can have a very, very intelligent, calm dialogue,” O’Reilly said sarcastically.

“And that is the problem with America: we can’t,” Glenn added.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Here's what's really exciting is we have BillO'Reilly.com and Bill O'Reilly on with us right now. I don't think he's going to have much to say when I ask him about Berkeley announcing the free speech year, where Berkeley is going to teach everybody how to all come together and be tolerant and really celebrate diversity and free speech.

Bill, that's exciting news, isn't it?

BILL: Very exciting.

(laughter)

GLENN: You sound almost like you don't believe that might happen.

BILL: No, it's so exciting, Beck, I'm going to buy a condo in Berkeley. I'm moving there, so I can have free speech rights because I'm sure they'll respect what I say, and we can have a very, very intelligent calm dialogue with those people out there.

GLENN: Yeah. And that is the problem with America is we can't.

Now, let me change to the media.

Bill, I think you would agree with me that, you know, the -- the media and tolerance and actual fair and balance has changed on multiple fronts.

BILL: It's done. Absolutely done.

GLENN: Done.

BILL: What you're seeing -- you know, talk radio is the last holdout because basically you guys can run the show the way you want. Your syndicators and your corporations understand who you are. That's why they hired you. You're going to take some hits on sponsors from time to time, but you basically do and say what you want.

But on television, it's totally different because there's so many things involved. You've got, in cable, you've got all the different systems that have to buy the program. You've got the corporations that run the actual presentations. And all of these people are very susceptible to being attacked, as we talked about in the prior segment.

And the far left knows this. They know they can hire people like Color of Change. I want everybody to Google "Color of Change." This is an organization that was formed solely to get paid to go out and attack people with whom they disagree publicly. Right?

GLENN: No.

BILL: And so they're for hire. You can hire them to go stand in front of a building or to go stand in front of a house and scream and yell and accuse and smear and hold signs and do whatever they want.

Well, instead of marginalizing that group as anti-democracy, the corporations fear them. And Color of Change, Media Matters, all of these people, they know that.

GLENN: Well, besides -- hang on. Hang on. That's quite a statement here, Bill. Besides the actual evidence of one of the guys who started Color for Change, Van Jones, working for CNN, what evidence do you have that they embrace and bring Color of Change into the news media?

(laughter)

BILL: Beck, first of all, Van Jones is a self-avowed communist. We all know that, right?

GLENN: No!

BILL: All right. So he even says he is. I don't have anything against Van Jones, by the way.

But the organization -- all right? And many others like it, they're not the only ones. All right?

They are basically being paid good money to do destructive things. And corporations know it, but look the other way and tremble when they get the call from Color of Change.

GLENN: Do you think --

BILL: So this is what -- you want Nazis again? Let's get Nazis here again. You want Nazis? I'll give you Nazis. Okay? This is exactly what happened in Germany in the early '30s, when the Third Reich people would show up and basically tell the newspapers, "Hey, if you say one bad word against us, we're going to burn your place down. Okay? So you better not." Now, the Color of Change people, they're burning the place down through sponsors, not through torches. But it's the same thing. And Stalin did it. And Castro did.

GLENN: Mussolini. Yep.

BILL: They all do it. And people don't know about it.

GLENN: So, Bill --

BILL: No, I'll ask your next question and answer it, Beck.

so how does that affect on television that you see every night? They're scared as well. They're frightened. One of the few that isn't is Hannity.

You know, I've had my issues with Hannity in the past. But I admire Hannity for going out and basically being in your face, telling folks what's going on. You may not agree with Hannity's take, but he's honest about it. And he loves Trump. He thinks Trump is the savior to the country, but he'll tell you that he's under siege 24/7. So -- but that's a very rare exception.

The others are -- I better not say this. Everybody -- oh, that's right. We have to condemn Trump. You know, Trump made a mistake, a tactical error. All right?

He's not an idealistic Nazi, but that's what you're hearing in the media constantly over and over. And who's saying that's not true? They're afraid to say it, Beck. Because then they'll be lumped in with Trump.

GLENN: Well, hang on -- let me give you -- and I agree with you, Bill. You know that I agree with you. I mean, when you're treading the Van Jones, Color of Change, Media Matters thing, I got that one down in spades. I'll show you all the chalkboards on that. So I agree with you.

However, there is one name that people don't pay attention to, and they should. Because I believe -- this guy is one of my heroes: Michael Medved.

BILL: Oh, he's great! He's great.

GLENN: Okay. So do you know what happened to Michael?

BILL: Tell me.

GLENN: So his corporation -- his radio corporation put down an edict that you are not allowed to have anybody on -- on-air that is anti-Trump. And everybody is falling in line. Michael was the only one that pushed back and was fired.

Michael doesn't have his radio gig now because he stood against the same kind of fascism, just on the other side. There is the fascists on both sides.

BILL: Yes. But it's nearly as organized.

GLENN: Oh, I agree with you on that. I agree with you on that.

BILL: I experienced it when I did The Radio Factor. I did The Radio Factor for seven years, and I was not a conservative ideologue by any means. And I got attacked by the right, as you know.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

BILL: And I remember one station in Houston basically called us and said, "Well, we don't like O'Reilly. We're going to drop him." Good. You know, I mean, because it was -- but it was just one station out of 280.

GLENN: Yeah. I --

BILL: That we had. Or something like that.

GLENN: I agree with you. And the -- the blessing on the right is, you know, herding a bunch of Libertarians and free market people is like herding cats. It's almost impossible. So we can't get our act together well enough to boycott the free speech that we shouldn't -- so that's a good thing, they're so disorganized, they're way behind the left.

BILL: Way behind.

GLENN: It does exist, but it is way behind.

So let me ask you this, Bill: Play out the media. Because people may not know the names. They may not know the connections like you do, like we've tried to lay out for a long time.

But they -- they know they're not getting the truth. And on top of it, all they're getting is yelling back and forth. You're a Nazi, or you're a communist.

BILL: But there's not even much yelling anymore. Because all of the -- not all -- but most of the commentators, at least on cable news, are cowed. They know now that their whole livelihood is in jeopardy.

Look, on Wednesday night -- no, sorry. Tuesday night. Tuesday night. The -- the biggest news night of the year, with Trump in Charlottesville, right? The press conference.

GLENN: Yep.

BILL: Guess who came in third in cable news? Guess who came in third.

GLENN: Fox? Fox?

BILL: Yes. Fox News came in third. CNN and MSNBC -- CNN beat them in the demo. MSNBC beat them outright. And it wasn't even close.

Fox -- it was stunning to watch the television ratings come in. Why? Because on Fox, which would be naturally inclined to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt. All right? The benefit of the doubt.

GLENN: Yep.

BILL: They no longer do that, en masse. Because they're afraid. And so the audience of Fox knows, outside of Hannity and maybe Carlson a little bit, they're not going to get a robust defense of the right, of the conservative position. And so they don't watch.

Yet, the left hate Trumpers. Flock in to watch CNN and MSNBC work Donald Trump over.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: So, therefore, the whole thing is changing and collapsing.

GLENN: Okay. So may I propose one change to this theory and see what you think.

I agree with that theory, generally. Generally. Except this time.

Because of the injection of the actual torch-carrying Nazi banner-wearing Jew -- you know, anti-Jew chanting Nazis, now people don't want to -- they don't feel comfortable with a full-throated -- and I'm talked about the audience. A full-throated defense. Because they -- it worked to Trump's -- to his advantage.

BILL: That's absolutely right, Beck. But you don't have to do that. You do what I did in my two columns on this: You explain the mistakes Trump is making.

GLENN: Correct.

BILL: Which I did. All right? And then you say, "Here's what should take place."

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Here's the truth. Okay? That's all the audience wants.

The audience isn't mad at me. My audience on BillO'Reilly.com and on The Hill and every place else I go isn't mad at me because I point out Trump's mistakes -- they aren't. They're happy that I'm trying to apply some perspective to it. That's what's missing.

And so that you have a media now that is -- it's flocking -- it's unbelievable. Let's get Trump out of office. That's the goal of the media.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: So where is the counter to that? It's evaporating, which is why Fox News came in third place on Tuesday.

GLENN: Because I don't think, honestly -- I mean, I have a very low opinion of people in the news. I don't think they're generally curious. I think they're intellectually dishonest. I mean, I think they've gone a little dead inside, quite honestly. And so I don't know a lot of people that can make that intelligent case and draw that line and -- and be able to say, "No. He's wrong here. He's right there."

Most of them are too afraid by the numbers, by, you know, whatever.

And so --

BILL: They're intimidated. They don't really have the intellectual heft to do it anyway. All right?

GLENN: Exactly right. And you have the intellectual heft to do that. And that's why you're being successful right now. Our ratings are going up. While everybody else is going down, our ratings are up 11 percent. Why? Because we will tell you when Donald Trump has done well. And we will tell you when he's really screwing it up. We will try to give you perspective as well.

But we don't -- I don't believe that people are comfortable right now. And this is what the media thinks they have to do on the right. And that is just, you back him. Back him. Back him. No matter what.

That's not the right course.

BILL: You can't do that. But you can't buy into a dishonest analysis. But you're wrong about why your ratings are going up, Beck.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

BILL: It's your goatee. It's the goatee. Ever since --

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Did Bill O'Reilly just make something not about him?

STU: I thought for sure --

GLENN: That is not possible.

BILL: Personal attack. Personal attack.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: Bill, good to talk to you. BillO'Reilly.com. Check out his new webcast. Once in a while he has a good guest like Colonel Sanders.

BILL: Oh, yeah, is it all about you, Beck?

GLENN: But BillO'Reilly.com. Check him out every day. The No Spin News. Thank you very much, Bill. I appreciate it.

BILL: All right. Thanks for having me in.

GLENN: You bet.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep