RADIOSeptember 15, 2022

4 ways Democrats are RUINING energy & 5 ways we can save it

It’s not just that America needs more energy to run the nation NOW. But we’ll need much more if we actually want to run the technology of the FUTURE. So, it’s a good thing there’s no knowledge OR physical resource deficits to creating more, low-cost energy in thousands of places around the world, Alex Epstein, author of ‘Fossil Future,’ tells Glenn. Rather, he says, today's energy crisis is due to current political reasons instead. In fact, Epstein lists the four steps Democrats seem to be taking — especially within the Inflation Reduction Act — to ruin American energy. Thankfully, Epstein has the answer to save it. He discusses the 5 steps to his ‘energy freedom platform’ and explains how YOU can become involved to help save American energy too...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So last night, I laid out a kind of bleak look for the future of energy. And I don't think most people understand. We don't need just the energy to run things now. We need more energy to run the technology of the future. And Alex Epstein is with us. He's from the Center of Industrial Progress. Founder and president. And also, the author of a book you must read, it's Fossil Fuel.

And he's come equipped with some real solutions to our energy problem, to be able to stave it off. And, really, all you need is support from the American people. Right?

ALEX: Yeah. The great thing about energy, is there's all the potential to produce low cost reliable energy for billions of people in thousands of places. There's no -- there's no physical resource deficit for doing this, and there's no knowledge deficit.

Human beings know how to produce reliable electricity. Right? We know how to produce energy on a scale of billions of people. We're just being prohibited from doing it politically. Which means that there's a political solution, if we are liberated to be able to do it.

GLENN: So we have -- I mentioned that in Colorado -- I mean, people who have these smart thermostats. I've said for a while. Don't do that.
ALEX: That's a euphemism.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. In Colorado, they had to -- they lost control of their thermostats. And I mentioned that and said, you know, if your right to touch your thermostat is only worth $25 a year to you, good luck. But people are bashing back saying, well, that's because the coal-powered plants went down. And, you know, it was an emergency at the coal-powered plants. Because coal is just not stable.

ALEX: Yeah. We're really in this Orwellian world, right? I mean, the inflation act is called the Inflation Reduction Act. Freedom is slavery. And coal is unreliable. And solar and wind are reliable. Despite the obvious.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ALEX: Yeah. What they always point to, they did this with the Texas blackouts too.

They'll point to some individual failure of some fossil fuel plant. And then say, oh, well, this inherently doesn't work.

But we know that we can produce reliable electricity with fossil fuels, because we've been doing it for generations. And we've done it in all weather conditions. You can do it when it's really cold, when it's really hot. So if you know a fossil fuel plant fails, that's just something about the specific situation. That's not the technology. Solar and wind, they do not produce electricity most of the time, and you can't rely on them, almost any time. That's the basic nature of them. And part of what happens when you see fossil fuel failures is often, they have to account for the intermittency of solar and wind. So they have to cycle up and down, or be shut down and restarted more. Much more than they would be if they were on their own.

And -- or what happens is they'll get defunded, the way the whole subsidies just expanded unfortunately. Is that they defund reliable powerplants, including things like weatherization, say, for natural gas in Texas. So we know that we can -- again, we have all the ability to produce reliable electricity at low costs. We're just not using it because of political factors.

GLENN: Okay. So go over can't five-point plan.

ALEX: So I call this the energy freedom platform. And I encourage politicians of all parties to adopt this opinion unfortunately -- I mean, unfortunately right now, Democrats are not being very good in terms of energy. They almost all supported the inflation act. I think basically all of them did.

GLENN: And, by the way, I played the audio from an activist group, that was a part of this inflation reduction bill.

And they admitted, they were talking to their own supporters. And they were like, look, it's not about inflation.

It's really a green bill. Which we all kind of knew, if you were paying attention.

It's a green bill. It's stuffed with stuff about green energy.

ALEX: Yeah. And we can talk about how -- I mean, I consider that a four-step recipe for destroying American energy basically. Because just very quickly.

So it involves increasing dependence on unreliable electricity. If you want to destroy American energy, that's a good step one. Step two is add taxes and restrictions to fossil fuels, during fossil fuel shortages. That's a good -- that's a good step two. What were the other steps? I mean, it's so bad. Oh, yeah. Increase the power of the EPA to shut down fossil fuel projects. We need more of that, obviously. And then increase the power of environmental justice activists to stop all energy development.

GLENN: And you've just done that the lie the DOJ now.

ALEX: Yeah. They have this four-step thing, which if you're trying to destroy American energy, it's hard to think of a better plan. So let's talk about how to improve American energy, with the Energy Freedom Platform. So I'll give the five, and then we can go into depth in any of one of them.

Okay? So number one is liberate responsible development. Number two is end preferences for unreliable electricity. Number three is reform air and water emission standards to incorporate cost-benefit analysis. This is a really important one for EPA stuff. Number four is liberate -- is rather, reduce emissions long-term, through innovation, not through punishing America.

Through liberating innovation, not through punishing America.

And then number five, which I know you will be sympathetic to, is decriminalize nuclear energy. So we can talk about any of those, but they're all crucial.

GLENN: Okay. Let's just take them one by one real quick.

ALEX: Okay.

GLENN: First one.

ALEX: So liberate responsible development. Energy inherently involves developing the world around us. And yet we have an anti-development movement that is setting energy policy, and running many of these agencies. So there's opposition to development even in the investment world. But in particular, just all these antidevelopment policies that are restricting fossil fuel development, nuclear development, et cetera.

GLENN: So ESG is a good example. Well, ESG is a kind of quasi political. But if you just look at how difficult it is, if you take nuclear. Like how difficult it is to start a nuclear plant.

You know, you say, four years.

Now it takes 16 years. Part of that is you have these antidevelopment so-called green activists that can stop things on a dime. So you really need policies that are pro development. And they're responsible development, if they try to stop endangerment. So you don't want to endanger local people, or endanger some national treasure. But you can't have the idea that it's wrong to develop nature.

And that terrible anti-human idea is at the root of so many of our laws and policies.

So when I go into the details, if people go to EnergyTalkingPoints.com, you'll see there's a lot of specific policies that need to be reformed, that are antidevelopment right now.
GLENN: Okay. All right. Number two.

ALEX: So is end -- end preferences for unreliable electricity.

And on that website, there's something called electricity emergency, which goes into the details.

But basically, right now, we do three things. We have mandates for unreliable electricity. We prefer them in that way. Many states have those. Like my state of California, unfortunately has those.

We have subsidies, which we just expanded under the Inflation Act.

Right? So we did that. And then the most insidious that people don't know, is that we have very unfair pricing. Because there's no cost penalty for selling unreliable electricity into the grid. Now, you think about that. Imagine you have a car company, and you got to charge the same for a car that works a third of the time. And a car that works all the time. That's how the grid works. You get the same alternate for selling unreliable electricity. Reliable electricity. And actually, you get more. Because all the subsidies, that we just extended. So you actually get paid a premium for selling something that is not nearly as valuable. And sometimes unreliable electricity is of negative value. Sometimes if you have too much electricity, you need to off-load it. So this is -- if you pay a premium for you be reliable electricity. Guess what, you get unreliable electricity.

GLENN: Okay. Number three.

ALEX: So this had to do with the air and water emissions standards. So right now, let's look at what the EPA is doing. We have in that article, electricity emergency.

I talk about, there's slated to be 93 gigawatts of coal shutting down, in terms of already announced things. That's almost one-tenth of a reliable capacity.

One-tenth. This is by 2030.

But there's also the threat of 92 more.

So almost a fifth of our reliable capacity. There's a reliability bloodbath that's scheduling to happen. The lion's share of this comes from EPA policies.

So it's EPA deliberately trying to do things that will shut down these coal plants, even though as you've talked about, there's no viable replacement in the pipeline. We have almost no nuclear scheduled. Not nearly enough gas.

So how does the EPA justify this? Well, one thing is they don't use real cost-benefit analysis when they're making decisions. So they'll say, hey, wouldn't it be great to have lower emissions? But they don't think about, what is the cost of that, in terms of what is the cost to human life of an unreliable grid. They're almost incalculable. So the EPA is making these decisions, and they're not giving any consideration to the reliability of the great. So that's an example of you need real cost-benefit analysis.

GLENN: These people -- are there any honest people on this side? I mean, I don't understand how an honest person can look at it and not say, yeah, but this will make things more unreliable. And people will either die from heat stroke, or they will either die freezing in the winter. You know, you can't just have an unreliable grid like this? Is there anybody on the other side that is asking these questions that's honest?

ALEX: I think one. I mean, there are some people who are really anti-energy. So essentially, they're honest. They hide it from the public. They want less power. They want to industrialize. That kind of thing. I think one of the challenges is. I talk about this in chapter one, of Fossil Future. We rely on what I call a knowledge system to give us expert knowledge and guidance on all these specialized areas. And what you have is multiple of these specializations are failing, at the same time. But each specialization thinks the other is doing its job. So, for instance, the electricity people have been hiding the electricity emergency.

They're not acknowledging. Many of the companies have not been acknowledging. You talk behind the scenes, yeah. This is a disaster. But publicly, they won't say anything. The regulators are kind of silent. And so the public thinks, oh, there's not that big a threat. And then the EPA people, they'll distort the science about the side effects of coal.

But they'll kind of think, oh, yeah. We don't have to worry about reliability. Because the isn't saying that.

There's dishonesty kind of everywhere.

But one reinforces the other. I mean, we've got a world, that thought legitimately, you could rapidly eliminate fossil fuels by 2050, and it would work well. This was the mainstream view.

And part of it was there were all these false views, that are being combined. And people have this idea. Well, most people -- the experts, so-called.

The people that were told they're experts. They can't be that wrong. But they can be that wrong in part because what we're told the experts think is usually a massive distortion of what actually the researchers in a field think.

GLENN: Yes. That's happening with global warming, all the time.

ALEX: Oh, yeah. Of course. It's the idea that the world is going to end, if it gets one or 2 degrees warmer on a planet where far more people die of cold than of heat.

The researchers don't think that, but that gets distorted by what I call our knowledge system to make it. Oh, it's an apocalypse. And you have to take a crash emergency action and destroy all your energy. And then the planet will be nice to you. And then life will be great.

GLENN: Give me the fourth one.
ALEX: So the fourth one is --

GLENN: Reduce.

ALEX: Reduce emissions long-term. It's very important. It has to be long-term. Because there's no short-term producing of emissions. That's a pipe dream. So it's reduce CO2 emissions long-term, by liberating innovation, not punishing America.

GLENN: When did we lose that in America?

ALEX: Lose which one?

GLENN: The idea that we innovate our way out of problems? Instead, we're just -- we're just dismantling everything. Instead of saying, you know, hey, we've got -- we've got a food storage problem. And somebody comes up with the refrigerator, you know what I mean? We are already seeing technology, that is -- we have reduced greenhouse gases. Better than anybody else.

And a lot of it is because of new technology.

But we just dismiss that.

ALEX: I just there are a couple of things going on. So one of this is there's this idea that CO2 emissions are an emergency. And when you think of something as an emergency, you need to get rid of it immediately.

And if that's your view. The only thing you can do is just massively destroy human life.

I mean, that's the only way you can do it.

To reduce emissions now, in a world where fossil fuels are 80 percent of the world's energy. In a world that needs vastly more energy, 3 billion people using less electricity per person than one of our refrigerators.

Like, the world is going to be using more fossil fuels for a while. So if you think of it as an emergency, the world is going to end, then you are going to do these crash problems and accept these terrible consequences. Which we're just beginning to see. Because we've only reduced fossil fuels a little bit, compared to what has been asked for, in World Economic Forum, and all these other people. So one is this emergency mindset is really bad.

And it's not justified. We're safer than ever from climate. CO2 emissions have a warming impact and a greening impact. It's not a catastrophic impact. If you want to lower emissions. You have to think of it as a long-term thing. That's the only moral way, and it's the only practical way. China and India will not lower their emissions until there's a cost-effective alternative. Now, the greens say they want cost-effective alternatives. They say they want solar and wind. But notice that their approach is to first restrict fossil fuels. I know you've talked about, and then promise a replacement. That's not how markets work. That's not how freedom works.

GLENN: Right. That's not how anything of common sense works. You don't say, I know all the machines in the hospital are keeping your husband alive, but we're going to try something that's never been done before. So we'll turn off all of those machines. And then hope that something works. That's -- that's insane.

ALEX: But that has been the policy. Part of it has been disguised. They said, to take your analogy. They've said the equivalent of, hey, we have this amazing new machine. We're developing green machines. Right?

But what they didn't say, is their main policy is shutting down the machines that worked. Like, what did Biden do first? Shuts down the Keystone XL Pipeline. Bans leasing on federal lands. He didn't come up with some new energy innovation and prove it.

He shut down, what was -- what was working. And that's the huge prison. And so the approach has to be, you liberate innovation, so you get things like cost-effective nuclear.

But you don't dictate inferior alternatives, and call that innovation. Unfortunately, that's what passes for innovation today. That's what the whole inflation act is about. It's about mandating or coercing us to do these things that don't work.

GLENN: All right. Back in just a second. Now, this is five-step platform. However, we need your help on this.

And it's a -- it's a real thing, that could make the -- a significant difference, and turn things around for us. We'll give it to you, in just a few minutes.

Inflation. Hyperinflation. Recession. Depression. The Great Reset.

Man, if I read one more story out of Europe talking about, well, there's a possibility of nuclear war. The world has gone insane. Finding some security, and a safe place to hide. Look, wherever you are is where you're supposed to be. And you just have to figure out, how to navigate and protect your family the best way you can. In case of a catastrophic, oh, I don't know. Energy crisis. My Patriot Supply is taking $250 off their three-month emergency food kit. Do you know what the price of groceries and the shortage of groceries would have been like, if we -- if we hadn't had saint Biden step to the plate and avert this tragedy of the Amtrak strike?

You -- you might need emergency food, in situations, that you cannot see coming. Please, go to preparewithGlenn.com. Grab your three-month emergency food kit for $250 off the regular price. $250 off today by going to preparewithGlenn.com. PreparewithGlenn.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So you are working with like 100 different legislative offices, correct?

ALEX: Yeah. To various degrees. So two years ago, I was very frustrated by -- I was having success with the public. And I was success with the corporate world. But the political world was just totally ignorant of the kind of pro-human, pro-freedom energy, thinking I had been developing.

And I figured out, like the thing I could do, was I needed to figure out how to give them messaging and policy, in a way that was useful for them.

So I started this website, EnergyTalkingPoints.com. Like, everything on that, can be fit in a tweet. So it's really efficient ways of explaining pro-freedom views.

So if you go there, there's probably thousands of individual talking points, all really well referenced.

And then I found that I got demand for people to get custom help.

So I created something called Energy Talking Points on Demand, where I would have biweekly briefings. And it's just with high-level offices. So it's congressional offices, U.S. Senate offices, and governor's offices.

And so we have about 300 staffers, that are part of it, over 100 offices, and increasing the meetings with the elected officials themselves. I spoke to a group of 20 last time I was in DC. I'm going to DC next week. And what I found there was a real appetite for this. Because many of these offices want to be pro-energy and pro-freedom. But they didn't have the messaging to explain -- to refute all the myths. And also clarity on what to do, going forward.

And that's why I developed the energy freedom platform. Was the clarity on what to do going forward. So what I've been encouraging them to do is, hey, this is a blueprint. You can win on these issues. And you can do something really good. So say Republicans.

Not politically -- not political, really. But let's say Republicans right now, are much more pro-energy. If you guys take over Congress, you need to advocate something positive.

You can't just -- once you take over, you can't just react to negatives.

There's a lot of reacting to negatives, and not a clear having positives. So I would ask your listeners, if they like this, it's really, really simple. Just call your office. Call your office -- oh, are you going to say something?

GLENN: I have got about 20 seconds before we break.

ALEX: Oh, sorry. Just say. Talk to Alex Epstein. Give them my email. Alex@AlexEpstein.com. Just tell the office to email me, and I will set up a call with them, and I'll tell them all about how to use the energy freedom platform.

Did government PROPAGANDA lead to Charlie Kirk’s assassination?

President Trump and others have posted in support of a proposed Charlie Kirk Act. But Glenn Beck gives a warning: there are 2 versions of this going around. One, proposed by Sen. Mike Lee, would stop the government from using propaganda against Americans. The other would go further, giving the government dangerous powers over truth. Glenn Beck explains the differences as well as what the Smith-Mundt Act was and why an Obama-era decision may be connected to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. I want you to just spend a couple of minutes with me, and switch everything that you've been thinking on, off for a minute. This is very important. I want to take you back to the world in 1948, okay?

The ashes of World War II are still warm. The Cold War is already beginning to chill in the air, and the Soviet Union has a propaganda machine that is in full swing.

Radio Moscow, Pravda, endless streams of anti-American stories are pouring into the homes of men and women, all across the globe.

And Congress looked at this. And said, we need a counterbalance on this.

America needs to tell her story to the world about liberty and about her finding ideals.

And we need to tell it to the rest of the world.

This is the birth of the Smith-Mundt Act. Okay? We needed to launch things, at that time. Like the Voice of America, and radio-free Europe, and Radio Liberty.

These were not just radio stations. For many who were behind the curtain, these were lifelines.

A Polish dissident in the 1970s or a Hungarian who lived through the 1956 uprising, they'll tell you, they're huddled in the dark, and they have that dial of that radio.

And they can tune it. They carefully tune it, listening to an American voice break through the static and break through the darkness. That says, freedom is real. And the world hasn't forgotten you. They remember that as being very important.

But and here is the key: We, as a society, drew a very bright red line, none of this could ever be used in the United States. Congress rightfully was terrified of unleashing a government propaganda machine on its own citizens. Now, I want you to remember. 1948, Congress is still Democrat.

Okay?

You just had 20 years of the same president, FDR.

They're about to say, no president can serve that long.

The Democrats said, no Democrat president. No Republican president can ever serve that long. Because we were so close to fascism.

So the Democrats are very concerned about the government going fascistic.

And they should know about it. Because they remembered the control commission.

Now, let me take you back to World War I. The Creel Commission is something that nobody remembers, and everyone should.

Because it's what whipped America up in a frenzy, to get us to go into World War I.

You know it, because you remember the I want you Uncle Sam poster. And I've always hated that Uncle Sam poster because of the Creel Commission. I love it. I think it's really beautiful. It was created by an artist, that he didn't create it for the Creel Commission. So, you know, he was innocent. But it was the Creel machine that plastered it on every wall, every post office, every train station.

And suddenly Uncle Sam's finger was pointing at you. It wasn't just a poster. It was a summons. It was you. We need you to go to war. Americans did not want to go to World War I. In fact, Woodrow Wilson said, the other side, he will put you into war. I will keep I out of war. He knew that wasn't true.

Within three months after his reelection, we're at war. But he had to bring the country along. So the Creel Commission, through films and songs, films like the Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin, it turned the -- it turned Germany into a cartoon villain. George Cohan, he wrote songs, over there. Over there.

All of these things were done by the government, as propaganda to get Americans to go over there.

And fight. Then the government went even further. And they started hiring these, what were called Four Minute Men.

Now, imagine this, you're sitting in a movie theater.

The film. You're watching maybe the -- the newsreel. And as they're changing the reels, some guy who just in the audience, stands up, walks to the front. Clears his throat. And he delivers this really well-thought out and rousing four minute speech about patriotism. And liberty.

And crushing Germany.

The government had 75,000 volunteers. They gave millions of speeches, when anybody would pause in churches and schools. In parks.

In theaters. They were called Four Minute Men.

This was social media before social media. They were short bursts. And they seemingly were everywhere, and always on message.

Because the message was crafted by the government. Then the Creel group, through our government, published booklets, official bulletins. They planted stories in the press. This is when we really started really getting into the press, and information was -- had one goal. All of the information. And that was rallies for the -- rally support for the war, and drown out anybody that was disagreeing with that. Okay?

The government actually encouraged kids to spy on their neighbors.

That you were encouraged and post -- post men did this.

To go through the mail, if they saw -- if they saw letters that were coming in. Ask they wanted to know, who it was. And are you a German spy. Are you somebody who is going to be against the war?

Postal workers went through your mail. And it was legal at the time!

You were encouraged, operators were encouraged to listen to people's phone calls, and to report if they were on the other side.

This is Germany.

In fact, because of the Creel Commission, Germans, and what's his name?

The head of the German propaganda, oh, what's his name? The German douche bag. I can't remember his name. Anyway, what was his name?

STU: Goebbels, is that who you're talking about?

GLENN: Goebbels.

STU: Although, I like your name for it, frankly.

GLENN: Yeah. Goebbels, the douche bag.

Anyway, he said, we lost World War I because of American propaganda. But we learned how Americans did it.

And that's what Goebbels did in World War II. All of this propaganda. Okay?

By the way, American advertising, up until World War II, it was called propaganda.

What I heard, I wouldn't have said, now a message from our advertiser.

I was delivering literally and it was cool at the time, to call it propaganda.

Because that's what it was. Paid for propaganda.

Bit after Goebbels took it. And did what he did with it. We were like, oh, propaganda is bad!

Okay?

So here's what -- here's what happened because of the Creel Commission. They were pushing uniformity of thought. They did that by making sure Americans were hearing the same slogans. The same images. The same stories from every direction. Which created the illusion of unanimous consent. I want you to think about life today.

I want you to think about life during COVID.

What was the goal of the government.

To crush any dissent, and to control all of the messages that were going out, to make sure that you were hearing the same slogans, the same images. The same stories from every direction, to give you the illusion that it was unanimous consent.

What about the global warming? It's exactly the same.

Then on top of it, the Creel Commission demonized dissent. Okay? German Americans were part of this country forever.

In fact, we were I think two votes away from making German our official language, as the United States, not English. But they were all of a sudden, branded as traitors.

You couldn't -- a priest went to jail, because he gave the last rites to a German who fell down in front of him on the streets and was dying. And a priest spoke German and gave him the last rites in German. That priest went to jail! Okay??

Okay? So they demonized dissent. Then they suppressed free speech. The propaganda campaign dovetailed with the Espionage Act of 1917. The Sedition Act of 1918. If you criticized the draft, if you questioned the war, you could be fined. You would be ostracized, and you would go to jail.

This is Woodrow Wilson, gang. Does any of it sound familiar?

Now, here's what the aftermath was, after the war. When the war ended, the mask came off. Millions were dead, and Americans felt absolutely duped. They felt that they were tricked into going into a war that they were manipulated into. They didn't even understand it. And that's why we were such isolationists, in the 1920s and our 1930s, because our own government had manipulated the population to go in to fight this war, and they felt so manipulated and so betrayed by their own government. They were like, I don't want anything to do with foreign wars, okay?

So why did this -- why did this happen in 1948?

Well, because in 1948, all of this stuff is happening, and we're saying, okay. We need to have some sort of -- some sort of boundary.

Because we're going to start all of this propaganda, for the United States. And it cannot be ever turned on the people of the United States. Okay?

So then why -- why was it repealed?

It was repealed without any really kind of conversation. Because it was slipped in, called the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

It was slipped in to a defense authorization bill. Just like it's happening right now, the government didn't pay its bills.

They couldn't come up with the -- with a way to actually fund everything. Because we have to act as an emergency, otherwise all of our war machine. And it's all going to stop. And the world is going to die. And panic and all of that.

;And so somebody has slipped the bill in. And we modernized it.

Why did we modernize?

Well, because don't you like transparency?

I mean, we're doing this overseas. We're doing this propaganda overseas. Do you know -- taxpayer. You're paying for it. Shouldn't you see it?

There was a Congressman Max Thornberry. He was one of the sponsors. And he said, quote, today the law prevents the American people from seeing or hearing the same things we broadcast overseas, and that doesn't make any sense.

We paid for it. Okay. Then they switched that from transparency to, and it's helping fight terrorism. It will let the Department of Defense and the State Department share counter radicalization material both abroad and at home, because we have to modernize this. The internet is everywhere, okay?
So who doesn't want to fight terrorists? Who doesn't want transparency?

Now, here's what actually happened. I'll tell you in 60 seconds. First, Stu.

STU: Yeah. Let me tell you about Prize Picks. You know, we're talking about daily fantasy sports, which is a nice escape, honestly from where we've been over the past three weeks.

If you remember fantasy sports and you're like, oh, gosh.

Yeah, that's a lot of work. I have to be on there, every single day. You don't have to do it that way. Prize Picks brings it back to what it was meant to be. Simple and quick and actually enjoyable.

No drafts. No leagues. No season-long commitments. You just look at the player projections for the day, decide if they'll do more or less than what is listed, build your lineup. And then you're in.

It takes less than a minute to play. And you can mix or match players across different sports, football, baseball. Basketball.

Whatever -- whatever you want.

You don't have to be a stat wizard. You don't have to be a sports insider. You just got instincts, and you have an opinion.

You can win Prize Picks. It's daily fantasy, the way it should be. Fun, flexible, and easy to fit into real life and a nice escape. No stress. Just sports your way.

Download the app today. Use the code Stu.

Get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. The code is Stu, to get 50 bucks instantly when you play your first 5-dollar lineup. It's Prize Picks. And it's good to be right. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So in 2012, the left decides, we have to get rid of this propaganda thing.

Okay?

Once the firewall was gone, and it's just a blip, no one even really noticed it. Suddenly, the government agencies could circulate diplomacy campaigns, inside of the United States.

And we saw this. This is where you get your USAID. The NGOs. Doing all the things here in the United States.

Because they can all do it. During COVID, you saw this.

You saw government-funded messaging, quietly merging with the media campaigns and big tech content moderation. Narratives weren't debated. They were handed out by the government. And then they were enforced. Then take the DHS disinformation governance board.

This is a direct descendent from this shift. Okay?

It was the government openly declaring it had a role in policing speech at home.

Look at the 2016 aftermath of the elections. Reports now confirm that the US government funds originally intended for overseas information campaigns that had filtered into domestic projects that fact-checked, flagged, and suppressed certain narratives online. The line between foreign propaganda and domestic persuasion was completely gone. Everything they worried about in 1948, was now happening after 2012. Okay. So why am I bringing this up today?

Because after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we have been asking for this to be reinstated.

This Smith-Mundt Act has to be reinstated. But after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there is a new wave of enthusiasm for this as there should be.

But some people on our side, are now demanding more than just a firewall.

You go to change.org. And there's petitions for a Charlie Kirk act.

And it will not only stop government propaganda. But it goes further than that. It starts to punish private media. Educators. Social media platforms. For spreading what they call false narratives. So this is -- this is our side saying, yeah, well, now we want the power to do what they did. Okay? Hear me clearly.

Accountability matters! Lives are destroyed, reputations are smeared. And that matters.

But we have systems in place for that.

What this proposal opens is a new door. A terror where government decides, what is and isn't falsehood.

And the government cannot do that. History teaches us. Once the government claims the authority to define truth.

Liberty is gone. Okay?

Now, enter Mike Lee.

Mike Lee has another proposal. Mike Lee has a version. That he is submitting to Congress. And trying to get it passed. And every American should be for this.

Right or left.

Every American should be for this. He's not going to reinvent the wheel. He just wants the old firewall put back. That's it.

Period.

The government must not, and cannot propagandize its own people. Restore the very bright red line that was attacked in 1948.

It's not about silencing speech. It's about preventing the most powerful institution on earth, with the endless resources of that institution, the government.

And the endless reach, from turning its firehose of influence in on the American people.

This is why it matters. I want you to think of -- I want you to think of football.

Oh, boy. Dangerous.

You wouldn't let the referee this a football game, put on a jersey, and join one of the teams. Okay?

But that's what the repeal did. It let the government be both the referee and the player in the arena of ideas. Mike Lee is saying, put the stripes back on their jerseys. Make sure they're in black and white stripes. So we know exactly who they are!

Change.org and some people on our side want to make the ref not only a player, but the judge, the jury, and the executioner. It cannot happen.

This is -- I'm telling you, if this goes through, Mike Lee is proposing something that is clean. Doesn't have any of this in.

So support the Mike Lee Mundt Act. But if you're hearing people talk about, we have to go further, that is the Patriot Act of our day. We're standing at a fork in the road.

Reinstating the Smith-Mundt protections. They're not going to solve all the problems of misinformation, but it reestablishes the ground rules. And tells Washington, you cannot propagandize us, period.
(music)

Once truth belongs to the state, truth itself ceases to exist. Support Mike Lee's bill.

Restore the Smith-Mundt Act.

New York DROPS key charge against CEO killer. Here’s why.

A New York judge has dismissed state terrorism and first-degree murder charges against the man who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Should the charge have been kept? Why is the state only pursuing second-degree murder charges? And will he avoid the death penalty? Former Chief Assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy joins Glenn Beck to explain what’s really to blame for these decisions.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have a good friend, Andy McCarthy who is a Nashville review contributing editor. He's also a former chief assistant US attorney, and a guy who when he speaks, I almost always agree with him. And when I don't, I'm probably wrong. Especially when it comes to things like this, because this was his expertise. He was a former chief assistant US attorney. And he worked on terror most of his career. I mean, he -- he is -- he is well-versed on terror charges and how to try them.

This Luigi Mangione case, the terrorism charges have been dropped. And, Andy, if I remember right, came out with an article I think last year said, this is not going to stand.

These terrorist charges aren't going to stand. And I don't understand why they won't.

And I don't understand how only be charged with second-degree murder.

When it was clear he was stocking the guy. Privy planned on killing him.

He was waiting for him outside.

That's premeditation, which is murder one.

But I know Andy will have all the answers for us.

Can you make sense of this for us, Andy?

ANDY: Yeah. I'm afraid I can, Glenn.

I think to start with the second point first about why it's murder two, rather than murder one. Back in the McCaughey days, which is like the 1990s in New York, when he was governor.

STU: Yeah.

ANDY: They tried to revise the New York capital murder statute. Because they haven't done a death penalty case in New York in decades.

And this was not -- this ultimately was not a successful effort. They still haven't revised the death penalty.

But what they did, they took the things that you could get the death penalty for, which in New York, were only things like killing a police officer or killing a prison guard in the prison.

And they made those the only murder in the first degree. Variety. Homicide, and all other murder.

GLENN: Why?

ANDY: Well, because they were trying to clean up -- their idea was, they were trying to clean the statute in a way that murder one would be revised as capital murder.

GLENN: Death penalty.

ANDY: Right. And all other murder was going to be second-degree murder, so because --

GLENN: That's insane.

ANDY: What we're dealing with Mangione, under New York law, would not have qualified for the death penalty because that would have been very, very narrow, and it's mainly killing police officers or prison guards.

That puts it into the category of second-degree murder. That doesn't mean, by the way, that it's unserious.

It has a -- I think the -- the offense in New York is like 25 years to life. Societies -- it's --

STU: The guy should get -- I mean, you could. You could argue against the death penalty. But guy should get either the death penalty, or life without payroll.

Not 25 years! This guy -- help me out on this one. How is he not a terrorist? He had the intent to terrorize. He said himself, he wanted people to look over their shoulders.

I mean, he is a textbook terrorist. And premeditation. Textbook!

ANDY: Yeah. To -- to prove terrorism, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.

And you have to sort of get out of the -- the mindset that murder is terrorizing. I mean, all murder is terrorizing, to the people who are obviously involved in it. And to the extent that it intimidated people. But we can't turn every murder into terrorism.

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: Terrorism --

GLENN: But he did it for. But isn't terrorism about trying to scare the population to either vote different or change the laws to be so terrorized that they -- in this particular case, he was trying to send a message to the -- the industry, you better watch your back, because there's more of me.

And you'll get it in the end.

That's terrorizing a group of people to get them to act in a way, the terrorists wants them to act.

ANDY: Yes.

GLENN: Isn't that how they define it?

ANDY: It's not terrorizing the government to change policy or terrorizing the whole civilian population. What the judge said, this was very narrowly targeted at the health care industry, and this particular health care executive.

And I --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Wow.

ANDY: And I just don't think it trivializes the murder to say that it's not a terrorism crime.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDY: You know, the federal government, Glenn, just so we're clear on this part of it. There were two charges brought here. There's a -- the federal charges and the state charges.

So Alvin Bragg, the -- the New York DA, brought the terrorism charge.

GLENN: What a joke.

ANDY: I said, at the time, I thought he was bringing it because he knew the Justice Department wanted to charge this guy. So he wanted to make a splash. Like the Justice Department wanted to make a splash.

When the Justice Department indicted it, even though Biden is against the death penalty, and the Democratic administration was against the death penalty. They indicted it as a death penalty case.
Because they wanted to make a big to-do over it. Even though, you know, if you look at the fine print, they would never impose the death penalty.

They had a moratorium on the death penalty. So in order not to be outsplashed, what Bragg turned around and did was indict this -- what he -- like ten times out of ten, indict only as a murder case.

If you could get Bragg to indict something that was actually a crime. And he decided to make it a terrorism murder case, so that they could compete for the headlines in the press.

Unfortunately, this is kind of what happens in these -- in these cases.

But to your point about stalking and all of that stuff.

The federal charges. Which are the death penalty charges, include exactly what you're talking about.

The fact that this guy was stalked.

That it was done in a very cold-blooded way.

And actually, if he gets convicted in the federal -- can in the federal system, now that Trump is running the Justice Department, rather than Biden, he gets convicted on the death penalty charge, he's going to get the death penalty.

GLENN: Okay. So it's not like he's getting murder in the second degree, and he'll be out in 25 years. The federal government is also trying him. Will it be the same trial?

ANDY: No. No.

In fact, the interesting thing, Glenn. Just from a political standpoint, I hate having to get political on this stuff.

GLENN: I know. Me too.

ANDY: If we can avoid it. The Biden Justice Department was working cooperative with Bragg. I don't think the Trump Justice Department is going to work cooperative with Bragg.

GLENN: No.

ANDY: And the interesting thing about that is under New York law, they have a very forgiving double jeopardy provision. Which basically means, if the Feds go first, that will probably block New York state from going at all.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

ANDY: Because of their expansive protection. And I think what Biden's Justice Department was willing to let Bragg go first.

So that they would go second. And then everybody would have --

GLENN: Trump won't do that.

ANDY: I'm not sure the Trump guys will play ball with that.

GLENN: No. Okay.

So are you confident the justice will be served in this. Oh.

ANDY: Well, I think -- you know, look, I think if your idea of justice served. Are this guy be convicted of a severe murder charge and never see the light of day again?

I am confident in that.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDY: If you believe as I do, that if you're going to have a -- a death penalty in the law, which our Constitution permits.

GLENN: He deserves it.

ANDY: If you're going to have it, he deserves it. And if he doesn't get it. He would be among a long line of people, who probably didn't deserve it and must get it.

Though, I guess it depends on what your idea of justice is. But I guess if we could agree that justice is this guy never sees the light of day again, I think justice will happen here.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Can I switch to Charlie Kirk?

ANDY: Of course.

GLENN: How is this unfolding? What are your thoughts on this. What are your thoughts on -- you know, I really want to make sure I don't want to go too far. I don't want another Patriot Act kind of thing.

But I do believe, you know, the -- it appears as though, there may have been many people involved. At least in knowing.

What does that mean to you? And what should happen?

What should we be doing? What are we doing that is right and wrong?

ANDY: Well, to the extent -- I'm sorry -- I do -- I do think, Glenn. That this is being very aggressively investigated by both the state authorities and continuing by the federal authorities.

I heard Kash Patel, because I happened to be on television this morning. And they -- they broadcasted that while I was on.

And he was talking about how they are going through all of the social media stuff.

To see, who may have had an inkling about this beforehand. And if there was any conspiratorial activity, they're going to go after it.

Now, the chats that have come out so far, that have been reported in the last couple of days are chats in which Robinson admitted to committing homicide and told the people that he was chatting with -- that he had already arranged his surrender.

If that's all these people knew, that is to say, he had --

GLENN: Then there's nothing there.

ANDY: And he was turning himself in. Well, they might be good witnesses in terms of what his state of mind was at the trial of Robinson.

But I don't think that implicates them in criminal misconduct.

On the other hand, the feds are going to keep digging.

And I assume Utah is going to keep digging.

And if they find out that someone was involved in planning it, I think those people will be pursued.

GLENN: You know, there's probably Texas would be a bad place to commit this crime.

Utah, however, they have the death penalty. And they used the death penalty.

And the governor who I'm not a big fan of this governor.

But, boy, he has been very strong, and I think right on top of this whole thing.

And he said, day one, you will get the death penalty. We catch you. We prove it in a court of law. You do get the death penalty. And I think that's coming from this guy.

ANDY: Well, it's deserving. Because if it's ever indicative of premeditation and repulsive intent, I would say, this is a textbook case of that.

GLENN: The idea that Trump is now going to go after -- possibly RICO charges for people like George Soros and, you know, organizations like that, that are -- are pushing for a lot of the -- the -- the Antifa kind of stuff. Do you see any problems with that. Or is this a -- a good idea?

ANDY: I just think the first thing, before you get into RICO. And all these. You know, RICO is a very complicated statute, even when it obviously applies. So I think the bedrock thing they have to establish, is that you are crossing the line. From protected speech. A lot of which can be obnoxious speech. And actual incite meant to violence. And if you can get invite meant to violence.

You know, I didn't need RICO to prosecute the Blind Sheikh, right? I was able to do it on incitements of violence and that kind of stuff. Those are less complicated charges than Rico.

But the big challenges in those cases, Glenn, is getting across the line into violent action. As opposed to constitutionally protected rhetoric.

GLENN: Is there anything to the subversion of our -- of our nation. That you are -- you are intentionally subverting the United States of America.

You are pushing for revolutionary acts?

VOICE: You know, there's a lot of let allegation that arose out of that, in connection with the Cold War and the McCarran Act. And, you know, you remember all the stuff from the -- from the '40s and '50s, forward.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

ANDY: And I think when that stuff was initially enacted, the country was in a different place.

I think when the McCarran Act was enacted, it was a consensus in the country, that if someone was a member of the Communist Party.

Hadn't actually done anything active to seek the violent overthrow of the US, but mere membership in the party. I think if you asked the question in 1950, most people would have thought that was a crime.

And by 1980, most people would have thought, it wasn't a crime. Based on the Supreme Court --

GLENN: Yeah. I don't.

Look, if you're a member of the Communist Party, you can be a member of the Communist Party.

But if you are actively subverting and pushing for revolution, in our country, I think that's a different -- I think that's a different cat, all -- entirely.

ANDY: Yeah, that's exactly right. But if you had that evidence of purposeful activity, and look, if you had a conspiratorial agreement between two people that contemplates the use of force, you don't need much more than that. You don't need an act of violence. If you have a strong evidence of conspiracy. But you do have to establish that they get over that line and to the use of force, at least the potential use of force.

STU: Yeah, okay.

Andy, as always, thank you so much. Appreciate your insight. Appreciate it.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

How to Find God in a Divided World | Max Lucado & Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck sits down with beloved pastor and author Max Lucado for a deep conversation about faith, humility, and finding unity in a divided world. Together, they reflect on the importance of principles over politics, why humility opens the door to true dialogue, and how centering life on God brings clarity and peace. Lucado shares stories of faith, the dangers of a “prosperity gospel,” and the powerful reminder that life is not about making a big deal of ourselves, but about making a big deal of God. This uplifting conversation will inspire you to re-center your life, strengthen your faith, and see how humility and love can transform even the most divided times.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Confronting evil: Bill O'Reilly's insight on Charlie Kirk's enduring legacy

Bill O’Reilly joins Glenn Beck with a powerful prediction about Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Evil tried to destroy his movement, Bill says, but – as his new book, “Confronting Evil,” lays out – evil will just end up destroying itself once more…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Bill O'Reilly, welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

BILL: Good, Beck, thanks for having me back. I appreciate it. How have you been?

GLENN: Last week was really tough. I know it was tough for you and everybody else.

But, you know -- I haven't -- I haven't seen anything.

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Family is okay. Family is okay.

BILL: Good question good. That's the most important thing.

GLENN: It is.

So, Bill, what do you make of this whole Charlie Kirk thing. What happened, and where are we headed?

BILL: So my analysis is different for everybody else, and those that know me for so long. About a year ago, I was looking for a topic -- it was a contract to do another book. And I said, you know what's happening in America, and around the world. Was a rise in evil. It takes a year to research and write these books.

And not since the 1930s, had I seen that happen, to this extent. And in the 1930s, of course, you would have Tojo and Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and all these guys. And it led to 100 million dead in World War II. The same thing, not to the extent.

But the same thing was --
GLENN: Yet.
BILL: -- bubbling in the world, and in the United States.

I decided to write a book. The book comes out last Tuesday. And on Wednesday, Putin lobs missiles into Poland.

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

And one of the interviewers said to me last week, your -- your book is haunting. Is haunting.

And I think that's extremely accurate. Because that's what evil does.

And in the United States, we have so many distractions. The social media.

People create around their own lives.

Sports. Whatever it may be. That we look away.

Now, Charlie Kirk was an interesting fellow. Because at a very young age, he was mature enough to understand that he wanted to take a stand in favor of traditional America and Judeo Christian philosophy.

He decided that he wanted to do that.

You know, and when I was 31 or whatever, I was lucky I wasn't in the penitentiary. And I believe you were in the penitentiary.
(laughter)
So he was light years ahead of us.

GLENN: Yes, he was.

BILL: And he put it into motion. All right? Now, most good people, even if you disagree with what Mr. Kirk says on occasion, you admire that. That's the spirit of America. That you have a belief system, that you go out and try to promote that belief system, for the greater good of the country. That's what it is.

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

So when you essentially break all of this down. You take the emotion away, all right?

Which I have to do, in my job. You see it as another victory for evil.

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

This is the most important story. So when you read my book, Confronting Evil, you'll see that all of these heinous individuals, Putin's on the cover. Mao. Hitler.

Ayatollah Khomeini. And then there are 14 others inside the book. They all destroy themselves.

Evil always destroys itself. But it takes so many people with it. So this shooter destroyed his own family.

And -- and Donald Trump, I talked to him about it last week in Yankee stadium. And Trump is a much different guy than most people think.

GLENN: He is.

JASON: He destroyed his own mother and father and his two brothers.

That's what he did. In addition to the Kirk family!

So evil spreads. Now, if Americans pay attention and come to the conclusion that I just stated, it will be much more difficult for evil to operate openly.

And that's what I think is going to happen.

There's going to be a ferocious backlash against the progressive left in particular.

To stop it, and I believe that is what Mr. Kirk's legacy is going to be.

GLENN: I -- I agree with you on all of these fronts.

I wonder though, you know, it took three, or if you count JFK, four assassinations in the '60s, to confront the evil if you will.

Before people really woke up and said, enough is enough!

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

Is -- I hate to say this. But is -- as far gone as we are, is one assassination enough to wake people up?

JOHN: Some people. Some people will never wake up.

They just don't want to live in the real world, Beck. And it's never been easier to do that with the social media and the phones and the computers.

And you're never going to get them back.

But you don't need them. So let's just be very realistic here on the Glenn Beck show.

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

And you will see that play out the next five years.

Because the corporate media invested so much of its credibility into hating Donald Trump.

And the hate is the key word.

You will find this interesting, Beck. For the first time in ten years, I've been invited to do a major thing on CBS, today.

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

BILL: Now, that only happened because Skydance bought CBS. And Skydance understands the brand CBS is over, and they will have to rehabilitate the whole thing. NBC has not come to that conclusion yet, but it will have to.

And ABC just does the weather. I mean, that's all they care about. Is it snowing in Montana? Okay? The cables are all finished. Even Fox.

Once Trump leaves the stage, there's nowhere for FNC to go. Because they've invested so much in Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

So the fact of the matter is, the corporate media is over in America. That takes a huge cudgel out of the hands of the progressive movement.

Because the progressive movement was dependent on the corporate media to advance its cause. That's going to end, Beck.

GLENN: Well, I would hope that you're right.

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

You've known me for 55 years. When have I been wrong?

GLENN: Okay. All right. All right. We're not here to argue things like that.

So tell me about Skydance. Because isn't Skydance Chinese?

BILL: No! It's Ellison. Larry Ellison, the second richest guy in the world. He owns Lanai and Hawaii, the big tech guy and his son is running it.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

I though Skydance. I thought that was -- you know them.

BILL: Yeah.

And they -- they're not ideological, but they were as appalled as most of us who pay attention at the deterioration of the network presentations.

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And it just -- it -- you know, you know, I don't know if you watch it anymore.

GLENN: I don't either.

So do you think they can actually turn CBS around, or is it just over?

BILL: I don't know. It's very hard to predict, because so many people now bail. I've got a daughter 26, and a son, 22.

They never, ever watched network television.

And you've got -- it's true. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

BILL: They're not going to watch The Voice. The dancing with this. The juggling with that. You know, I think they could do a much better job in their news presentations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

BILL: Because what they did, is banish people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

That's why Colbert got fired. Because Colbert wouldn't -- refused to put on any non-progressive voice, when they were talking about the country.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: Well, it's not -- I'm censoring it.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's not that he was fired because he wouldn't do that. He was fired because that led to horrible ratings. Horrible ratings.

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: Fallon has terrible ratings and so does Kimmel. But Colbert was in your face, F you, to the people who were signing his paycheck.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Look, evil can only exist if the mechanisms of power are behind it.

And that's when you read the front -- I take them one by one. And Putin is the most important chapter by far.

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

And I'm -- on Thursday night, I got a call from the president's people saying, would I meet the president at Yankee stadium for the 9/11 game?

And I said, when a president calls and asks you to meet them, sure.

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

BILL: It will take me three days to get into Yankee stadium, on Long Island. But I'll start now.

GLENN: Especially because the president is coming. But go ahead.

BILL: Anyway, that was a very, I think that Mr. Trump values my opinion. And it was -- we did talk about Putin.

And the change in Putin. And I had warned him, that Putin had changed from the first administration, where Trump controlled Putin to some extent.

Now he's out of control. Because that's what always happens.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: It happened with Hitler. It happened with Mao. It happened with the ayatollah. It happened with Stalin. Right now. They get worse and worse and worse and worse. And then they blow up.

And that's where Putin is! But he couldn't do any of that, without the assent of the Russian people. They are allowing him to do this, to kill women and children. A million Russian casualties for what! For what! Okay?

So that's why this book is just in the stratosphere. And I was thinking object, oh. Because people want to understand evil, finally. Finally.

They're taking a hard look at it, and the Charlie Kirk assassination was an impetus to do that.

GLENN: Yeah. And I think it's also an impetus to look at the good side.

I mean, I think Charlie was just not a neutral -- a neutral character. He was a force for good. And for God.

And I think that -- that combination is almost the Martin Luther King combination. Where you have a guy who is speaking up for civil rights.

But then also, speaking up for God. And speaking truth, Scripturally.

And I think that combination still, strangely, I wouldn't have predicted it. But strangely still works here in America, and I think it's changed everything.

Bill, it's always food to talk to you. Thank you so much for being on. I appreciate it.

It's Bill O'Reilly. The name of the book, you don't want to miss. Is confronting evil. And he takes all of these really, really bad guys on. One by one. And shows you, what happens if you don't do something about it. Confronting evil. Bill O'Reilly.

And you can find it at BillO'Reilly.com.