RADIOJuly 28, 2022

Glenn DEBUNKS CNN article on 'White Christian Nationalists'

CNN is back at it, spreading more lies than you can count. In fact, its recent article titled “An 'imposter Christianity' is threatening American democracy” was so bad, it made Glenn’s eyes bleed. CNN supports the article’s premise — that American Christianity is being overrun by radical, White Christian nationalists — with far-left thinkers and biased New York Times’ bestsellers. So, Glenn debunks it all, conducting an EPIC TAKEDOWN of the article with facts from history that PROVE ‘everything CNN Is contending here is WRONG.’

You can access Glenn's supporting documents and research here.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Right now, I want to do part one of the article written by CNN. It has been trending all week. The article. An imposter Christianity is threatening American democracy. And I read it Sunday. And my eyes started to bleed. So I went to our Mercury Museum. And started doing some research. Asked Tim Barton. David Barton. And the research staff. To be able to -- can we compile some evidence that everything CNN is contending here is wrong? And, gee, after nine pages of footnotes, yeah. We can do that. We can do that. So I'm going to start today. Probably end it tomorrow in this hour. And I'll make it tomorrow, available in our newsletter. So subscribe, at GlennBeck.com for our free newsletter. So here we go. An imposter Christianity is threatening American democracy. The insurrection marked the first time. What is the insurrection? January 6th. The insurrection marked the first time many Americans realized, the U.S. is facing a burgeoning white Christian nationalist movement. This movement uses Christian language to cloak sexism and hostility to black people, and non-white immigrants in its quest to create a white Christian America. Oh, my gosh. Now we really know what happened on January 6th. It was white Christians that were trying to get anybody -- but they were colored. Get them out of here. Because that's what Jesus says, according to CNN. The media is so busy looking for anyone and anything to blame for January 6th. And also, at the same time, serve two masters. Also, take down not just the country. Not just conservatives. But also Christianity. And if you have faith, now you are on trial. If you believe in God, free game. And the way they do it is by taking your faith, and assigning a false label to it. Your faith, as you will see in this article, is now white Christian nationalist. Do you know of a church that promotes sexism and hostility to black people and non-white immigrants. If you do, please call, because you're probably proud. I don't know of a church that is preaching that, even in the language of dog whistles. Now, if you might be thinking that CNN is referring to their random offshoot of Christianity. A minority, whose relevancy must be called out, because the article goes on to elaborate. White Christian nationals believe, have infiltrated the religious mainstream. Thoroughly, so thoroughly that virtually any conservative Christian pastor, who challenges their ideology, risks their career. Says Kristen Du Mez. Now, who is Kristen Du Mez? She's got a fancy name, she must be smart. Well, she's the author of the New York Times' best-seller Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.

She says, these ideas are so widespread, that any individual pastor or Christian leader who tries to turn the tide and say, let's look again at Jesus and Scripture, are going to be tossed aside. My gosh, I'm terrified now.

Okay. So first, CNN is clearly not talking about some random minority offshoot here. They're insinuating that every church in America, especially if you have a white pastor, is infected. Quote, virtually any conservative Christian pastor. And any individual pastor, or Christian leader. Well, I think that pretty much encapsulates almost all Christian churches. But funny enough, you're probably still grouped on to this label, even if you're not white. If you believe in Christian doctrine to these people, you're the enemy. You know what they're really talking about here, right? Homosexuality and abortion. The doctrine on these issues is clear, and no true Christian pastor will tell you that either is not a sin. They will love the sinner. They will say, that is your choice, but it is something that you need to deal with God with, because this is what God says. But I'm not going to hate you. Oh, my gosh! They want to overthrow the government with stuff like that. Doctrine cannot be changed due to the politics of the time. I'm sorry. But then again, not sorry at all. CNN brings out the big guns, they bring out the experts here to help them. And the one I just quoted is Christian Du Mez. What a -- she is a professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University. Now, Calvin University, that's a Christian university. Calvin is. I don't know about Hobbs University, but Calvin is definitely a Christian, which gives her a basis as a Christian authority, to criticize other Christians, and to point out, they're all off-based. She's referenced six times in the article. It's an amazing high number. But she is a Du Mez, huh? And she has a view of Christianity. And whether she has a good authority on Christian beliefs, I don't know. But we should consider her viewpoint on the subject, such as her work on the faith of Hillary Clinton. Now, here's her description of her admiration for Hillary Clinton's faith. What she says -- she says she's a big fan of, and that should tell us, whether she's a qualified expert on Christian beliefs or not. Because listen to what she says. And I quote. Having spent a lot a lot of time, reading the sermons and the diaries of intrepid Methodist women in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I couldn't help, but see Hillary Clinton as a torch bearer of this vibrant tradition of progressive faith and activism. Yet, it puzzles me, that so many people on the left and the right, saw her as secular. Or even a pagan. The more I begin to dig into her story, the more I begin to realize, to tell her story is to tell the story of Christianity itself, in recent American history.
(music)
And the heavens open. And the sunbeams down on the truth. By the way, CNN also fails to acknowledge, that Du Mez is currently openly contending against the university's Christian beliefs in important areas, such as sexuality. She is currently the leader in opposition to the Christian beliefs in her church, in that area. Not only debating the university's position, but also being photographed, in front of a pride flag. Now, just this one source alone, it's pretty clear, CNN -- we know what they have a problem with here. The Christian faith. What bothers them, gets them so hot, and, oh, my gosh. They're after us. Is the doctrine of the Bible. Which is on trial here. And anyone willing to pervert it, is an expert. A theologian or a historian. The article goes on to identify the key beliefs, three key beliefs associated with the a white Christian nationalist. Oh, well. I'm going to take a break. Because you need to have a sip of water. Because you're going to realize, pretty darn quickly, that you have been calling for the overthrow of this government, all because of black and Hispanic people, or people of another color, which I shan't express at this time.

Hmm. Oh, yeah. So we're going back now into the religion and theology! Raise your hands and praise the Lord for CNN. Gang, stop the music. They have caught us. They have caught us. CNN says that we're all worshiping an imposter Christianity. And they have somebody named Christiane Amanpour, that kind of has Christ in the name so I think we should pay attention. The article released on Sunday, identifies three key beliefs associated with the white Christian nationalists. And here they are. And ask yourself right now, do I belong to a hate group? Belief number one. A belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.
(laughter)
Gotcha! You're in a hate group. For this section, CNN rolls out their expert of experts on this topic. Yale professor, Philip Gorski. Is he a historian? Is he a theologian? No, he's neither. He's a sociology professor, which is code for, I'm a radical leftist, practicing in a -- in a -- a role here, that was designed by Karl Marx. Yeah. Yeah. Sociology. Karl Marx. Look it up. Anyway, he's just looking to indoctrinate as many young minds as he can. And so CNN says, let's find the best and the brightest for this little thesis. CNN refers to him 12 times in this article. He says, erasing the lines separating piety from politics is a key characteristic of white Christian nationalism. Wow. Aren't I told every day, that I am just somebody that is just a horrible, horrible person, unless I apply the politics of this new woke religion? Anyway, erasing the lines separating piety from politics is a key characteristic of white Christian nationalism. Many want to reduce or erase the separation of church and state say those who study the movement. Who are they? Who are those who are studying the movement? Why aren't you quoting them? What is separation of church and state? Well, according to our court and public policy decisions, it includes an individually -- an individual personally expressing his faith and beliefs in public. So they believe Christians are theocrats, for wanting to see individuals receive the Constitution's guaranteed protection for free speech and religious expression, that many courts have ignored recently. Now, consider some of the separation of church and state restrictions that CNN and this Yale professor, just think as nonsense. For instance, a student was prohibited from writing a research paper on a religious topic. Or drawing religious artwork in class. Or carry a personal Bible on to the school grounds. School forbade a Bible for being placed in its reference library. Wow. Try to understand Shakespeare without a Bible. Cadets at a state military academy were banned for praying over their meals. Individually. A state employee in Minnesota was barred from parking his car in the state parking lot because of a religious sticker on his bumper. Five-year-old kindergarten student in Saratoga Springs, New York, was forbidden to say a prayer over lunch and was scolded by the teacher for doing so. Senior citizens who regularly gathered at a community center in Balch Springs, Texas, prohibited for praying over their meals. A library employee, in Russellville, Kentucky, was barred for wearing her necklace because it had a small cross on it. College students serving residential assistance in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, prohibited from holding Bible studies in their own personal dorm rooms. A school lunch official in St. Louis, Missouri, caught an elementary student praying over his lunch, lifted the student from his seat. Reprimanded him from other students. Took him to the principal, who ordered him, stop praying! Now, there are hundreds of these examples. And that's what they claim is the separation of church and state. So what does the separation of church and state actually mean in a historic sense?

Well, the only founder that talked about the separation of church and state, was Thomas Jefferson. So we should ask him! Because the progressives credit him with the -- the origin of that phrase. And they love it so much. So it was Jefferson's firm position, that the federal government had no authority, to interfere, limit, regulate, or prohibit public religious expressions. You mean like praying over lunch? Yes. Exactly. And he stated that, on multiple occasions. Oh. I wish I had ten or 12 examples. Oh, I do. I do. Oh, it's going to take us more than two days to get through all of this. But by gum, we'll do it.

GLENN: All right. So we're debunking the CNN article that America has a real problem. Because Christianity, all the churches have been taken hostage. And now they're white nationalist churches. So they've gone on to identify the three key beliefs associated with the white Christian nationalist. The first one is I believe the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Okay. So we -- we told you about this. And then the separation of church and state. We showed you what was being passed. But I want to get real quickly, to what separation of church and state actually means, okay? We have to go to Thomas Jefferson. Because he's the only one that said this. It was Jefferson's firm position, that the federal government had no authority to interfere with, limit, regulate, or prohibit public religious expressions. A position he stated on many occasions like this. Quote, no power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, First Amendment. In the matter of religion, I have considered -- considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution, independent of the powers of the federal government. Quote, our excellent Constitution, has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Now, none of these statements or other statements by Jefferson, contain even the slightest hint that religion shall be isolated or removed from public square. Or that the public square should be secularized. Rather, that the government could not limit or regulate any religious expressions. So now, let's understand the concern here. Jefferson wrote about the separation of church and state, to people of faith, who were saying, I don't trust this government. I don't trust -- we -- they will find a way to stop us. Jefferson replied to them, January 1st, 1802. Assuring them that they had nothing to fear. Quote, the government would not meddle with your religious expression. Whether it occurs in public or private. Quoting, a contemplate with sovereign reverence, that at of the whole American people, which declared in the First Amendment, that their legislature, should, quote, make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Thus, building a wall of separation between church and state. So he was using that as a metaphor, saying, don't worry about it. They're not going to touch religion, because they're not able to touch religion. It is beyond their reach. The exact opposite of what the Yale professor, who is neither a theologian nor a historian is saying in this lovely CNN article. Let me move on. There's more. But you'll get it in our newsletter. Well, I have to take a breath. I really hate completely blowing up CNN's first key belief of white Christian nationalists, right at the beginning. But maybe they're just ignorant. Or they're being completely dishonest. You'll have to figure out, the article and ignorance goes on. One of the most popular beliefs, writes CNN, among white Christian nationalists, is that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers were all orthodox evangelical Christians. And that God has chosen the U.S. for a special role in history. But the notion that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation is bad history and bad theology, says Philip Gorski, the sociologist who is neither again a theologian or a historian. But he is the coauthor of The Flag and The Cross: White christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy. So it makes him an authority on his opinion. He says it's a half-truth. A mythological version of American history. So saith the Yale sociology professor. Amen. Well, since I didn't get any real historians to comment for this article. Let me give you some very well documented footnotes and quotes, that are actually historically accurate. On literally hundreds of occasions, in the past two centuries, state and federal courts have routinely declared America as a Christian nation. For starters in a unanimous decision in 1844, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed America as, quote, a Christian country. 1892, Supreme Court did it again. Delivered a unanimous ruling, declaring America is, quote, a Christian nation. In 1931, Supreme Court reaffirmed the same position for a third time. Stating we are, quote, a Christian people. Now, I know you have no respect for the Supreme Court, unless it agrees with you. But that's what the Supreme Court has said. But maybe we can go for some presidents. Because presidents have all made comments on this, including John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. John Quincy Adams. John Taylor. Zachary Taylor. James Buchanan. Abraham Lincoln. Ulysses S. Grant. William McKinley. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Dwight Eisenhower. Richard Nixon.

Hey, here's one from Lyndon Baines Johnson, that you'll like if you're a progressive. In these last 200 years, we have guided the building of our nation and our society by those principles and precepts brought to earth nearly 2,000 years ago. On that first Christmas. Oh. And then if I may quote, America was born as a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness, which are derived from the revelations of holy Scripture. Who said that? Oh, it gives me great joy to say Woodrow freaking Wilson. Your God on the left. But let's go back even further on our history.

1606, Virginia charter declared the colony was started for the propagation of Christian religion to such people as yet live in ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God and Jesus Christ. The Mayflower Compact of 1620, declared their endeavor was undertaken for the glory of God. And advancement of the Christian faith. 1629. Charter of Massachusetts Bay Colony, declared that winning the country to the knowledge and obedience of the only one true God and savior of mankind and the Christian faith is the principle end of this plantation or colony. 1639. Do I need to go on? I mean, I can do this all day long. Get it in the newsletter. Okay. Let me -- let me just give you one more. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. I believe no one can read history of our country without realizing the good book and the spirit of the savior. Have from the beginning, been our -- what are we looking at the first charter of Virginia? Or the charter of New England. The charter of Massachusetts Bay, the fundamental order of Connecticut. Same objective is present. A Christian land governed by Christian principles.

Congress has also said, 1852, 1853. When a group sought to complete secularization of the public square, House judiciary committee, half the people, during the Revolution had a suspicion of any attempt, to war against Christianity. That revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, and the universal sentiment, that it was Christianity that should be encouraged.

Not any one sect or denomination. In this age, there could be no substitute for Christianity. The judiciary committee, we are Christians, not because the law demands it. Not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education. And this, in a land, thus universally Christian. Which is what to be -- which is what is expected, what is desired, and what we shall pay due regard to Christianity. House of Representatives said the same thing.

Now, they made a counter with -- yeah. But you really don't need to go any further. I mean, none of -- virtually, I'm quoting. Virtually none of the Founding Fathers could be classified as evangelical Christians. Really? John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence: The holy ghost carries with it the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by through the Holy Ghost, and the authority religious, blah, blah, blah. Samuel Adams. I rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. I conceive I can -- we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the supreme rule of the world. And promoting the speedy bringing up of the holy and happy period with the kingdoms of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ. Do I need to go on? Joshua Bartlett, signer of the Declaration of Independence. I confess before God our grave transgressions and implore his pardon and forgiveness through the merits and meditation of Jesus Christ. Cutting Bedford, signer of the Constitution. To the Tribune of God, the father, the son, and the holy ghost. Be ascribed all honor and dominion forevermore, amen. Charles Carol, signer of the declaration. On the mercy of my redeemer. I rely for salvation. On his merits. Not the works I have done. I hope that through and by merit sufferings and meditation of my only savior and Jesus Christ, I may be admitted to the kingdom, blah, blah. How about Alexander Hamilton. If I rap it, maybe you'll hear it. I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of Lord Jesus Christ. Hamilton also recommended the formation of what he titled the Christian constitutional society. And listed two goals for its foundation. First, the support of the Christian religion. And second, support of the Constitution. John Hancock, Hancock called on the state of Massachusetts to pray that all nations may bow down to the scepter of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. John Hart, signer of the declaration. I give and recommend my soul to the hands of the Almighty God, who gave me my body to be here on the earth, to be buried in a decent and Christian-like manner. Patrick Henry, being a Christian is a character which I prize far above all this world, has or can boast. Samuel Huntington, signer of the declaration. It becomes a people publicly to supplicate the pardon that we must obtain forgiveness through the merits and meditations of our Lord savior Jesus Christ. James Madison, you know, the guy who wrote the Constitution. And the signer of the Constitution. A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves, lest while we are building ideal monuments, of renowned and bliss here, we might neglect to have our name to be enrolled in the annals of heaven. Robert Payne, signer of the Declaration -- do I need to go on? Because I have like 12 more? You know what, get them in the nine pages of footnotes, that you can look up yourself. But the article goes on at CNN. For evidence the United States was founded as a secular nation, look no further than the 1797 treaty of Tripoli. As an agreement, the U.S. negotiated with a country in present day Libya, to end the practice of pirates attacking American ships. And it was ratified unanimously by a Senate, still half filled with the signers of the Constitution. That declared, the government of the United States of America, is not in any sense, founded on a Christian religion. Now, I want you to notice that little gotcha quote. Because it is a little quote. In fact, it has a period, where there is no period. Now, is this seriously the only thing CNN has that they can say -- separation of church and state. Which is absolutely the opposite of what they say it is. And then this one. I mean, I'm sure, you know, you've seen how people talk bang those days. The Gettysburg address was very short, compared to how they talked in George Washington Times. They went on and on and on. Okay. I got it. You don't have a television. So what's with the short sentence? Do you think maybe CNN could have pulled this out of context? No. We'll find out next.

Glenn Beck warns of dangerous government powers in proposed Charlie Kirk act

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

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.