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

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.

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9.

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.

Several months ago, at the Miss Universe competition, two women took a selfie, then posted it on Instagram. The caption read, "Peace and love." As a result of that selfie, both women faced death threats, and one of the women, along with her entire family, had to flee her home country. The occasion was the 2017 Miss Universe competition, and the women were Miss Iraq and Miss Israel. Miss Iraq is no longer welcome in her own country. The government threatened to strip her of her crown. Of course, she was also badgered for wearing a bikini during the competition.

RELATED: Media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam bias sweeps THIS fact under the rug

In an interview, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, said:

When I posted the picture I didn't think for a second there would be blowback. I woke up to calls from my family and the Miss Iraq Organization going insane. The death threats I got online were so scary. The director of the Miss Iraq Organization called me and said they're getting heat from the ministry. He said I have to take the picture down or they will strip me of my title.

Yesterday, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, posted another selfie with Miss Israel, during a visit to Jerusalem.

In an interview, she said that:

I don't think Iraq and Israel are enemies; I think maybe the governments are enemies with each other. There's a lot of Iraqi people that don't have a problem with Israelis.

This is, of course, quite an understatement: Iraq, home to roughly 15,000 Palestinians, refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country, as it is technically at war with Israel. The adages says that a picture is worth a thousand words. What are we to do when many of those words are hateful or deadly? And how can we find the goodness in such bad situations?