RADIOMarch 29, 2022

Explained: THIS type of tax is a ploy to STEAL property

In Biden’s newly released 2023 budget request, the president proposed new taxes on not only the income of America’s top earners, but possibly on their 'unrealized gains' as well. So, what exactly ARE 'unrealized gains' taxes? Carol Roth, author of ‘The War on Small Business’ and a financial expert, joins Glenn to explain how this type of tax is an unlawful RUSE by the federal government to STEAL property: ‘It’s a total disaster, it’s unconstitutional, and we have to push back on it’ Roth says…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, I've got a lot to talk to you today. But I want to start with this 20 percent minimum income tax, on people that make over $100 million a year. Hi, Carol.

CARLY: Hi, Glenn. It's not even an income tax. It's a, quote, unquote, wealth tax. Which is an idea that is so bad, that nine countries in Europe abandoned it. I mean, imagine an economic policy being so bad, that Europe is like, yeah, you know what, we're out.

GLENN: So didn't -- didn't France try this recently? And it -- like, all of their wealthy people moved away.

CARLY: Yeah. The statistics were that between 2000 and 2012, 42,000 millionaires and -- had a mass exodus from France.

GLENN: Wow.

CARLY: So it basically drove all the people out. So, you know, if you have those means, capital is mobile. And you're not going to stick around when you have other options. And that was the catalyst for them being, another one of the countries that go, you know what, maybe this isn't such a great idea. And even though, it's still a long tail on it, they're still collecting a little bit of revenue that was grandfathered in, I would think around 2014, they said, were gone.

GLENN: Now, talk to me about -- so nobody has tried to move that number down. I'm concerned always, when they say, it's only going to hit these people. Taxes never do that in America.

CARLY: No. I mean, anything that is targeted at the billionaires, is really a ruse for them to get you to agree to it. Because, oh, well, why would I care for it to affect the billionaires? But, really, it's going to impact you. And that is the ruse. If you think about this is being tied to individual income, usually, if you're an upper tier individual income, you have very sophisticated tax work. You probably have trusts. You may have shell corporations. So I would imagine, there's probably going to be some loopholes. Well, it's not really individual income. It's a family trust. Or some way around it. But now you've agreed to it. Well, we've put it in on this. But we're going to move it down. We're going to move it down. You have to remember the Biden administration wants to hire 87,000 new IRS agents. I mean, that's not for going after the billionaires. That's for coming after you.

GLENN: So they not only want to do that. They got the funding, to do that in this -- in this last bill. So the really dangerous thing, that is in this wealth tax. Is a tax on unrealized gains. This is insanity. Absolute insanity. Can you explain it?

CARLY: Yeah. So unrealized gains, I would say, is not really a thing. We shouldn't normalize it. It's really a ruse to have unlawful seizure of personal property. So let's say, you buy a house, and you bought it for $100,000. And then in your neighborhood, another house sales for $200,000. They're going to say, well, you know, you -- all the houses in this neighborhood are -- they're worth about the same. So you have an unrealized gain of $100,000. We're going to tax you on that. So what do you do? You have to sell your house to pay the taxes. So take that analogy, then, and move it to the stock market. Most of these individuals, who are wealthy, are -- are still on papers. Because they own big pieces of companies, which the market has valued it at higher and higher levels. So on paper, their ownership looks big. But if all of a sudden, they have to now sell stakes in their company, that upends the entire market system. It basically nationalizes or socializes companies. It affects all of us, through pensions and 401(k), because of supply and demand in the market. If you have these big people, who are selling massive shares of their company. It will drive the prices down for everybody. It's an utter, total disaster. It's unconstitutional. And it's one of those things we have to push back on. Because like you said, if just say, it's just for the Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos' of the world. You're accepting a breach in principle, and then the game is over.

GLENN: And it won't be.

I mean, this is the way -- The Great Reset says, by 2030, now, think of this. You have to get people out of ownership in what is it -- eight years. Eight years. Two elections. You have to get people to own nothing. This is a way to do it. If you have unrealized taxes, on up realized income, meaning your house. Think about how often your house is worth today, if you wanted to sell it. Knowing that tomorrow, it could go down. And you lose money, if you didn't sell it. You just don't know where the top and the bottom is, of a market. But if you have to sell your house to be able to pay the taxes, for income that you didn't have. It was all on paper. You don't own houses. You put a lot of people out of their house.

CARLY: Yeah. It's all based on theory. Unfortunately, we already have something close to that in property taxes. This would just double and triple up on it.

GLENN: Yes.

CARLY: But, you know, it's anything that you know. Maybe your grandparent gave you an heirloom, a painting that's now worth a bunch of money. Like, what are you supposed to do? Oh, it's who there a million dollars, now I have to sell this family heirloom, so I can pay taxes for, what? I mean, this is the most un-American concept that you can possibly --

GLENN: This is what caused Robin Hood. I mean, this is the kind of thing, that was going on, in the adventures of Robin Hood. That's what the sheriff was doing.

They were doing unreasonable taxes. And then giving it to the state. Giving it to the king. And all of the people, that were in with the king.
I mean, we are starting to live in Nottingham.

GLENN: And the crazy thing, when someone talks about is this unrealized gain or this theoretical gain in value, they never talk about the unrealized losses.

GLENN: Right.

CARLY: Talk about, you know, something is going down. Are you going to give back to me? Of course not. It never looks like that. Nobody ever wants to socialize the losses. They only want to participate in the gains. It's a one-way street. This is what happened, by the way, in Venezuela. They used this kind of populist language. And said, oh. These elites. They own everything. Let us take it over. Let us take over business. And you're all going to share in it. And obviously they went to the fifth biggest economy in the world, decades ago. To the state they're in today. This is the way in. And it is so dangerous, I cannot even -- even make it emphatic enough.

GLENN: It is truly amazing, that the president is suggesting this, and putting this in. And this is something that the Democrats would have been against, you know, ten years ago. It shows how far left this president and this administration has gone. And the tells me have gone.

CARLY: Absolutely. And even somebody like Janet Yellen, who has been a disaster at the Fed, and now at the Treasury. When this idea first circled around, she was going out and saying how great it was, trying to populate it. And it got a lot of pushback. And it kind of died for a little while. And now, you know, polls are down. So here it is again. Maybe we can distract everybody from all the other economic disasters. And inflation and high gas prices. By saying, we're going to go after the greedy billionaires. And hopefully, again, we'll get that same kind of pushback. And say, it's unreasonable. It's unconstitutional. And it just cannot happen.

GLENN: So let me switch topics. You wrote a great article. I think it came out last week. ESG advocates are killing the American dream.

Can you just go -- in the middle of it, you talk about a 60 Minute piece, where they're talking about -- or talking to the CEO of Tricon Residential. And this is happening everywhere. And nobody is really paying attention to it. And it is so dangerous.

CARLY: This is so infuriating, because the global elites who are pushing ESG, saying, we're doing this for the good of society. And that S, that social piece, we want to make that good for everybody. So these same banks and these financial institutions that have bought into the idea, that they will make decisions good for society. Are now funding companies that are competing for you, to buy houses. But we are underfunded -- or, excuse me, we are underbuilt in this country, by about four to 5 million houses, depending on who you ask. So there's already a supply/demand imbalance. But now you have these big financial institutions backing these folks, like the ones that are quoted in the 60-minute piece I interviewed there, as well as others that are publicly traded that are going in and buying 30,000, 40,000, 80,000. I saw one of them. Residential homes. And they're going in, with all cash offers. They're offering waving inspections. Sometimes they're not even looking at the houses. And so from a buyer's perspective. You know, we know it's going to close. It's all cash. We don't have to go through any brain damage. And they're just selling these houses to these corporations, who are then renting it back to people who now can no longer afford a house. Have been priced out of the house. And this goes back to that whole Great Reset playbook, of you will own nothing. And you will be happy. Except, we know you won't be happy because owning a home is part of that wealth creation. And part of that American dream.

GLENN: So, Carol, when do people -- what is the tripwire, that wakes people up? The average person. Because the average person still is saying, this kind of stuff can't happen. You know, it's -- it's Germany in the 1930s. Okay. Yes. But it's not going to get any worse than this. And if you keep moving the line. To, it can't get worse than this. Look how far we have come in ten years. When -- where is the pain point, for the American people?

CARLY: That's an excellent question. I know you spent a lot of time on social media, Glenn. Have you ever seen the distracted boyfriend meme, where you have the guy who is looking at a girl, and his girlfriend is kind of like looking what's going on. And it's very much, everybody is looking at stuff that isn't important.

GLENN: Yes.

CARLY: And the stuff that is really important, you're looking and going, why aren't you paying attention to me? And there's just so much nonsense out there, that people are highly focused on. That I think you do such an incredible service, to the average American, by bringing up these issues they nobody is talking about.

You know, usually, when the tripwire happens, is after it's too late. You know, after it's affected so many people, that you hit that tipping point. That you're at the point of no return. And they're like, oh, gosh. I guess we should have paid attention to this earlier. And, you know, that -- that is the unfortunate thing. It's why it's so important to have these conversations. And for individuals, to help spread the word. I mean, this has to be a movement. You have to be out talking to your friends. And to your family. And to your neighbors about these things. Because it's really getting out of control.

GLENN: Well, I can't thank you enough, for your stories that you're now writing on TheBlaze. The latest is ESG advocates are killing the American dream. You can find it on TheBlaze.com. You got a letter in, that I want to read.

GLENN: Carol, before I get into this commercial, did you see -- is this true, that the fed came out and said the next four increases on interest rates, will be 50 basis points each? A rise of -- of 2 percent?

CARLY: I certainly saw that they were entertaining it as a possibility. I don't think that it was 100 percent set in stone. But they were -- are more open to that, which basically says, uh-oh, we are really behind the curve. And we need to play catch-up. And as we've talked about, has implications.

GLENN: Yeah. Because that is -- that is -- how much is the increase for each point, just for our federal budget?

CARLY: So basically, it is tied into pushes up the ten-year yield. It's a ten-year yield, already trading up. It was at like two and a half percent, for at least a day last week. And that affects when the government issues bonds. You know, how much it has to give in terms of interest. So when they do that. When they do that financing -- and so this isn't on the current financing, which is already done. But on future financing, every 1 percent is $300 billion in additional taxes. So it's not something that will happen immediately.

But, again, if you go back to that CBO Projection, that this was going to happen, you know, by 2032. It was going to be another 300 billion, they were expecting the ten-year yield to be at 2.1 percent by 2025, and we're already at 2.5 percent.

GLENN: So you got an email in, if I can read it here from an employee. He says, this is -- this is not my employer's opinion. This is mine. My current company, WTW has probably about 40 percent of the market in private pension consulting, with two or three others making up another 50 percent. WTW and other consulting officials cover essentially every employer of any size. We are all full goal pushing ESG. The new CEO at WTW has made ESG his number one priority, wanting to incorporate it into, quote, everything we do. WTW is some sort of WEF partner. I have raised many, many controversial subjects around ESG at local and regional office levels, with some people privately expressing concerns.

The company is located mostly deep, deep blue areas, so it's not surprising. Most just seem to glaze over the controversies. I've also reached out to the attorney general's office, after seeing him on Glenn's program. Discussing this as anti-trust. From a pension 401(k) perspective, Biden issued an executive order on ESG. Which has been prompted the Department of Labor to issue supposed -- or proposed regulations on clearing the way for retirement plan fiduciaries, using ESG strategies in their pension retirement assets. For 45 years, the law governing private retirement benefits has held plan assets, be invested for the sole benefit of the participants, which one would expect.

So is he saying now that -- that these funds can invest in things knowing that it's not the best return?

CARLY: Yeah. It's very interesting. The financial area has been the one, where having a fiduciary duty has been the most important. So whether you are a public company director, or if you're somebody who is managing pension funds. You have what is called a fiduciary responsibility. Things that are in the best interest of the shareholder. What your listener has told us here, is that there are these pension consulting firms, that are whispering and saying, we should be pushing ESG. And, you know, not by law. Just by executive order. Biden has opened the door to say, yeah. It's okay for you to get around this fiduciary duty, and to push ESG, which is not in your best interest.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CARLY: And he actually came up with some things that you should be doing. That I think are really, really important.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on. I've got 30 seconds. I don't want to cut you off on this. This is really important, if you have a pension fund. This is ESG, going into your pension fund. It may not be the right thing for you, financially. But now, the government has opened the way, to say, don't worry about those investors. Don't worry about it. You'll do the right thing for the environment or social justice, we've got you covered. When you're living with aches and pains, especially if you're in frequent pain all the time. It is easy to let that define your life. And it becomes who you are. Your pain. If you've tried everything, that you can think of to combat that pain, you've gone to doctors and everything else. And you still don't get any relief. Trust me, I have been there. And I've also experienced something I've never thought -- I really thought, this is the rest of my life. And I hated that. Because it completely limited me. Because of the pain that I was in. Then I started the three-week Quick Start from Relief Factor. I only did it -- they've been an advertiser for years. And asked me to endorse. And I said no. Because I really didn't think it would work. And then my wife said to me, in one of my bad pain months. You know what, try. Try it. I'm not going to listen to you bellyache, unless you try it. And three weeks later, I couldn't believe it. But I have to admit it worked for me. And it still works every day. ReliefFactor.com. ReliefFactor.com. You can call 1-800-4-Relief. Get their three-week trial pack. ReliefFactor.com.

STU: The Great Reset. Joe Biden and the rise of 21st century fascism is available now, in bookstores or at GlennsNewBook.com.
(OUT AT 9:28AM)

GLENN: This is the Glenn Beck Program. Talking about several things. The 20 percent wealth tax. And the unrealized tax, which I have a quick question for you, Carol. And then we will go back to ESG. But I remember reading a story, maybe 15 years ago. And it was a member of the progressive black caucus, that had introduced a bill. I read about it in the Wall Street Journal. It was a little, teeny story, about how you could no longer take your wealth out of the United States, without like a significant penalty. And I thought, boy, what do they know that I don't know, on what's coming? You know what I mean? Why are they protecting the -- the Treasury? We've never been protective of wealth. Take it. Go. There will be other people. Make it. Can you take your -- if you were one of these billionaires, can you just leave the country?

CARLY: I certainly believe so. You know, I'm not a tax expert. I would imagine, there are certain things that you have to do, depending on where you are domiciled. But if you moved where you live. And, you know, whether you give up citizenship or not, you're not living in the US. You're not earning your money in the US. I would imagine that there's a way to do that. And I know that's why we say that capital is mobile.

GLENN: Yeah.

KAMALA: And that's what happened, by the way, in Europe. That's why we saw all of these celebrities and multi-millionaires, who decided that they were just going to go. And, by the way, if you were out of the country. Even if the U.S. says, we, quote, unquote, can't do that. I mean, if you're gone, you're gone. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. So let's go back to this money manager, who works for a big company? You're familiar with WTW?

CARLY: Yeah. So, basically, we've kept the gentleman's name confidential on purpose, because he's doing a great job trying to work on this from the inside. Yeah. Blow the whistle on this. And so basically he's working for a firm that does consulting for pension -- like, basically private pension funds. So if your company has a 401(k), they're going to have a consultant -- and this company, he works for, by the way, owns like 40 percent of the market there. One of the like two big ones. So everybody has heard of them before.

GLENN: Wow.

CARLY: And this is a really incredible point, that through this executive order from Biden, they're trying to get around the fiduciary duty, that plans have to the people who are invested. Which is insane. They should be doing things for your benefit, not from some central planner's benefit.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the difference. This is the difference between stakeholder capitalism. And shareholder capitalism. They sound alike. But they're completely different. Shareholder means, I take my money. I buy shares. And I expect a return, or I could get a loss. But I pay for it. And it is -- it's my risk, and my benefit. By eliminating stake -- or shareholders, as your capitalist term, and replacing it with stakeholders. You're only one of many at the table. And the others don't have necessarily profit as their first desire.

So you're just one quiet mouse at the table, with very, very little power. Do I have that right?

CARLY: So I would argue that the phrase stakeholder, is complete and utter BS. It's trouble speak.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes, it is.

CARLY: Because the reality is, that as a shareholder, you are a stakeholder. Other stakeholders are your customers. Other stakeholders are your employees. And all of those things in a market system, align very well. If you're a company, that doesn't treat its employees very well. If you're a company that, you know, doesn't treat its customers well, that ends up getting reflected in your revenue, which, by the way, drops down to the profits, and then the real stakeholders. The shareholders get bad, and say, you're not treating these other people correctly. I'm not getting a return, and something needs to change.

So all of those are very much aligned. What they're trying to call stakeholders aren't stakeholders. They're people who think they're morally superior. They're outside the scope of the company. They're central planners who are trying to impose their will on every company that is out there. They have no stake in this whatsoever. They're not putting up money. They're not part of this. They just want their plan. So they've come up with this really cute and clever name, that we're stakeholders. By the way, no, you're not.

GLENN: I love that. So this is where like Larry Fink, from BlackRock. Really, horrible, horrible guy. And he is -- he's not investing necessarily, his money. He's controlling all of the money from the people who have invested. And they're expecting a profit. So this guy says, there are things that you have to do, if you have money in a 401(k). And what are they, Carol?

CARLY: Well, before that, let's talk about the huge moral hazard here. You've got a couple of different huge entities. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. Which are the top shareholder, pretty much every public company, because of their size and scale. They have $10 trillion in asset under management, just in BlackRock. So for them to be able to vote on behalf of everybody's money, in the way that they think is fit. I mean, they're supposed to be fiduciaries, and somebody should be raising a flag here, and maybe testing them legally. Are you really doing things in the best interest of the shareholders? Or are you pushing your agenda? Which goes back to the part that you asked of this gentleman. In terms of your pension funds. He says, you can talk to an ERISA attorney to see if maybe there is a case for a breach of fiduciary duty.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. How do you find -- I've never even heard of an ERISA attorney. How do you find an ERISA attorney?

CARLY: My favorite way to do anything is by internet search or asking around to people, as you know.

GLENN: And that's E-R-I-S-A?

CARLY: I-S-A. Yeah. So basically ERISA is the broad set of laws that oversee pension fund management. So if you have a pension fund or a 401(k), and they're pushing ESG, you should be talking to an attorney. You can also talk to your state legislators about that. So laws, that say, you know, what your breaching fiduciary duties -- and maybe even suggesting something around a law requiring employers, who use retirement funds, to not only disclose it, but to look into whether that's even legal. And then use your voice. Contact your employer and your benefits administrator. And tell them that you are concerned that this push for ESG, is not in your best interest. And if you can get a bunch of people to do that, and make noise. This is where you can really make a difference. And help to stop that nonsense.

GLENN: And this is really important, because, again, these companies that are being tagged, are not necessarily the most successful companies. They're not necessarily the ones that you would bet on. In fact, quite the opposite. Because these are new upcoming companies. And everybody is investing in them for ESG standards.

However, that doesn't mean, they're turning the big profit yet. That's a future bet. Well, if I'm a retiree. I want my money to go in where I'm going to get the best return. That's not necessarily what an ESG plan is doing.

CARLY: Well, it can't. Right? If by definition, over time, that if your company is pursuing standards, other than doing what's in the best interest of the company and its actual shareholders and stakeholders, just by it's straight-up logic. If they do that, you're not get the best returns. And, by the way, it is going to shape what happens in the economy overall. We're seeing it right now. Part of the reason, why your gas prices are so high. Part of the reason, why we're having, you know, these issues, is because ESG is funneling capital to the projects they want, and keeping capital from things like oil and gas. This is by dictate, by mandate. And so it's not letting the consumers and the choices of millions of people shape the decisions. It's a handful of people, who are saying, this is how we want the economy to look. And we know, that is not capitalism.

GLENN: It is phenomenal, that more people aren't paying attention to it. Carol, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

CARLY: Thank you. And, by the way, read your book The Great Reset to find out more about this ESG play -- play. Because it's so important, people have to understand the underpinnings. Just a little plug over there!

GLENN: Well, thank you very much. We don't pay you to be on this show. But perhaps we should, that was very good. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Carol.

CARLY: That's a good one.

GLENN: Carol Roth. By the way, she's right though. The book will explain all of this. And it is going to cost you in your pension. And you need to find out. The California -- what is it? Calipers? That's all ESG. Now, all of it is ESG. And if they're doing it, I can guarantee, your state benefits. That's why Idaho. You should have passed a law, that said, you can't invest in anything, that is working with the E, S, or G. Because ESG will hurt these investments, while hurting our own states. So ask your company. And if -- if you want to really get serious about it, find an ERISA. ERISA. An ERISA attorney, and ask them. Do I have a case for breach of fiduciary duty, with the respect on my 401(k) or my pension?

Are they doing the right thing for me? Or are they doing the right thing for them?

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

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.

The difference between debate and celebrating death

There’s a big difference between firing someone, like a teacher, for believing children shouldn’t undergo trans surgery and firing a teacher who celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. Glenn Beck explains why the latter is NOT “cancel culture.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I got an email from somebody that says, Glenn, in the wake of Charlie's assassination, dozens of teachers, professors and professionals are being suspended or fired for mocking, or even celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.

Critics say conservatives are now being hypocritical because you oppose cancel culture. But is this the same as rose an losing her job over a crude joke. Or is it celebrating murder, and that's something more serious?

For many, this isn't about cancellation it's about trust. If a teacher is entrusted with children or a doctor entrusted with patients, publicly celebrates political violence, have they not yet disqualified themselves from those roles? Words matter. But cheering a death is an action. Is there any consequence for this? Yes. There is.

So let's have that conversation here for a second.

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

I mean, we've seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their job now, just for saying they don't believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries. Okay? Lost their job. Chased out.

That opinion, whether you agree or disagree is a moral and medical judgment.

And it is a matter of policy debate. It is speech in the public square.

I have a right to say, you're mutilating children. Okay. You have a right to say, no. We're not. This is the best practices. And then we can get into the silences of it. And we don't shout down the other side.

Okay? Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we've seen teachers and professors go online and be celebrate.

Not criticize. Not argue policy. But celebrate that someone was murdered.

Some have gone so far and said, it's not a tragedy. It's a victory. Somebody else, another professor said, you reap what you sow.

Well, let me ask you: Are these two categories of free speech the same?

No! They're not.

Here's the difference. To say, I believe children should not be allowed to have gender surgeries, before 18. That is an attempt, right or wrong. It doesn't matter which side you are.

That is an attempt to protect life. Protect children. And guide society.

It's entering the debate about the role of medicine. The right of parents. And the boundaries of childhood. That's what that is about. To say Charlie Kirk's assassination is a good thing, that's not a debate. That's not even an idea. That's rejoicing in violence. It's glorifying death.

There's no place in a civil society for that kind of stuff. There's not. And it's a difference that actually matters.

You know, our Founders fought for free speech because they believed as Jefferson said, that air can be tolerated where truth is left free to combat it.

So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, at all. I don't think you do either. I hope you don't. Otherwise, you should go back to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Error can be tolerated where truth is left to be free to combat it.

But when speech shifts from debating ideas to celebrating death, doesn't that cease to be the pursuit of truth and instead, just become a glorification of evil?

I know where I stand on that one. Where do you stand?

I mean, if you go back and you look at history, in colonial matter -- in colonial America, if you were to go against the parliament and against the king, those words were dangerous. They were called treason. But they were whys. They were arguments about liberty and taxation and the rights of man.

And the Founders risked their lives against the dictator to say those things.

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

You Thomas Paine, one of or -- one of our founder kind of. On the edges of our founders.

He thought that what was happening in France is exactly like the American Revolution.

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

There the crowds. They didn't gather to argue. Okay? They argued to cheer the guillotine they didn't want the battle of ideas.

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

And roll they did. You know, until the people who were screaming for the heads to roll, shouted for blood, found that their own heads were rolling.

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

Cicero begged his countrymen to preserve the republic through reason, law, and debate. Then what happened?

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

Okay. So now let me bring this back to Charlie Kirk here for a second.

If there's a professor that says, I don't believe children should have surgeries before adulthood, is that cancel culture, when they're fired?

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

However imperfect, it is speech meant to protect children, not to harm them. You also cannot be fired for saying, I disagree with that.

If you are telling, I disagree with that. And I will do anything to shut you down including assassination! Well, then, that's a different story.

What I teacher says, I'm glad Charlie Kirk is dead, is that cancel culture, if they're fired?

Or is that just society saying, you know, I don't think I can trust my kid to -- to that guy.

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

I don't want them around my children! Scripture weighs in here too.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Matthew.

What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?

To me, you go back to Scripture. Whoa unto them that call good evil -- evil good and good evil.

A society that will shrug on speech like this, say society that has lost its moral compass.

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

Now, our free speech law doesn't protect both. Absolutely. Under law. Absolutely.

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

Can a parent trust their child to a teacher who is celebrating death?

I think no. I don't think a teacher can be trusted if they think that the children that it's right for children to see strippers in first grade!

I'm sorry. It's beyond reason. You should not be around my children!

But you shouldn't go to jail for that. Don't we, as a society have a right to demand virtue, in positions of authority?

Yes.

But the political class and honestly, the educational class, does everything they can to say, that doesn't matter.

But it does. And we're seeing it now. The line between cancel and culture, the -- the cancellation of people, and the accountability of people in our culture, it's not easy.

Except here. I think it is easy.

Cancel culture is about challenging the orthodoxy. Opinions about faith, morality, biology.
Accountability comes when speech reveals somebody's heart.

Accountability comes when you're like, you are a monster! You are celebrating violence. You're mocking life itself. One is an argument. The other is an abandonment of humanity. The Constitution, so you understand, protects both.

But we as a culture can decide, what kind of voices would shape our children? Heal our sick. Lead our communities?

I'm sorry, if you're in a position of trust, I think it's absolutely right for the culture to say, no!

No. You should not -- because this is not policy debate. This is celebrating death.

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

And, you know, the big thing was, can you keep it?

Well, how do you keep it? Virtue. Virtue.

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

So if anybody is making this case to you, that this is cancel culture. I just want you to ask them this question.

Which do you want to defend?

Cancel culture that silences debate. Or a culture that still knows the difference between debating ideas and celebrating death.

Which one?

Could passengers have SAVED Iryna Zarutska?

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.