RADIONovember 02, 2022

Reporter finds 'DISTURBING' trend while covering Paul Pelosi attack in San Francisco

Michael Shellenberger is doing what all reporters SHOULD DO when covering the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul: He is on the ground in San Francisco, knocking on as many doors as possible, and interviewing as many people as possible to try and piece together all the details. But Shellenberger, author of ‘San Fransicko,’ tells Glenn he’s witnessed reporters from mainstream media outlets being ‘lazy’ with their coverage, which by default suggests either bad journalism or political motivation. He exposes the ‘DISTURBING’ way some news reporters have covered the attack, and he explains how some have essentially swapped this story with the one about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s near attack just months ago…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Michael, how are you, sir?

MICHAEL: Great. Good to be back, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much for all your hard work on this.

MICHAEL: Well, thank you for having me on. I'm excited to talk about it.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what you've found. What's true? What's not true?

MICHAEL: Well, look, what we know, this is somebody who, according to multiple witnesses, including the mother of his children. Was struggling with mental illness for over a decade. We know he was homeless for a while. We know there was extensive drug use. You know, we -- mental illness. Serious mental illness, like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are pretty rare. But we do see a lot of drug-induced mental illness, particularly from methamphetamine use, but certainly other drugs over time can cause psychosis, which is of course the classic, you know, insanity of not being able to tell the difference between reality and your imagination.

And so what's obvious here is the alleged suspect in the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband was in the grip of psychosis. And to blame political ideology is just what you said, it's the equivalent of blaming Martin Scorsese for making the movie Taxi Driver, on John Hinckley Jr's attack on Ronald Reagan.

It's -- the crazy ideas expressed in the blog posts of the alleged attack of Pelosi, are themselves symptoms of the underlying psychosis. It's incorrect to point to them as the cause.

GLENN: So I heard this morning, that he was in the hospital, or was this weekend.

Was those for injuries, or was he in a psych word?

MICHAEL: I don't know. It could be both. It wouldn't -- he wouldn't be hospitalized long-term, if he was in the hospital. He'll be held. He'll be diagnosed by a psychiatrist. And we'll find out soon. I mean, I think that, the good news is that the truth gets out. It was obvious to me. Because, of course, I'm very close to this. I wrote a book about this. Came out last year. It was obvious to me, as soon as I heard about who it was, and I talked to his neighbors and family members.

That this was somebody who was unwell. And this was the result of a sickness.

I was disturbed by how quickly, even so-called mainstream journalists were to even blame conservatives. Blame Republicans. Blame Trump.

You know if somebody were to be, I read Michael Shellenberger's book, and that's why I committed this crime.

It would be inappropriate to blame me for that the crime. And I think everybody knows that. But in this toxic political environment, I think it's important to remind people of that.

GLENN: We never blamed Bernie Sanders, ever. In fact, we were clear on day one. That it wasn't Bernie Sanders's fault that one of his supporters went and tried to kill all the Republicans in Congress. That's ridiculous.

MICHAEL: Right. Of course. Of course. Yeah. I'm sorry to see. Basically, I had one episode in particular. There was a reporter, who supposedly focused on disinformation at NBC News. Who came out and he tweeted at my -- my reporting, and said, oh.

My reporting had been debunked because there are all these blog posts, showing that the suspect in the attack, had written crazy things. Including their right-wing things.

But also, things about fairies. And demons.

It was very disturbing.

I have a hard time believing that that journalist didn't know that -- what was driving the suspect was -- was mental illness or psychosis. It really appeared that he was deliberately misleading people, in order to engage in partisan political behavior, just ten days before the election. And just think, it's not just on Twitter. I mean, if you watch Meet The Press yesterday, the whole program was basically dedicated to this topic. And at no point, in any of the program, did they even discuss the fact that the suspect was clearly in a psychotic state, suffering from delusions, under long-term drug use.

Instead, Chuck Todd made the whole show, about political radicalization and ideas.

And I just think, that's terrible reporting. I think it's very partisan. I won't speculate as to the motives of the journalist, but it's either bad journalism, or it's motivated by politics.

GLENN: Is it worse that they did that, or that when Kavanaugh, the guy from California, came to kill Kavanaugh, they didn't even report it on any of the Sunday night shows.

MICHAEL: Well, that's the other thing. And I wrote a post about this yesterday, Glenn. And you're absolutely right. I mean, it's disturbing.

When the Kavanaugh assassination happened, of course, I paid attention to it. But I will say this, there are many progressive and liberal people in my life, who still do not know that there was a serious fascination plot against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Because it was not covered. In anything close to this. Just as you said, three days after that assassination plot was revealed. None of the Sunday talk shows wrote about it.

The New York Times varied the story on page A20. The Pelosi assassination. Alleged assassination attempts was on the front page of the New York Times two days in a row.

You know, I'll tell you the other thing about it, is that the suspect in the Kavanaugh killing was clearly motivated by his pro-choice and his pro-gun control views. And his own lawyers, last week, said he was mentally fit to stand trial.

In other words, it appears -- again, there's more information to come. And I don't want to get ahead of it.

It appears as though the suspect of the Kavanaugh plot, was genuinely motivated by political fanaticism, not by mental illness.

Whereas, in the Pelosi case, he clearly was driven by psychosis, mental illness, drug induced, or underlying. We don't know. The media basically reversed those two stories.

And did not -- and covered the Pelosi plot attempt, as though it was driven by political fanaticism, rather than by psychosis.

STU: It really is incredible. You are from the area, Michael. And you were down there. Some of these interviews you were -- you were there, right?

MICHAEL: I was. I was. I mean, I think it's -- you know I'm a journalist at heart. And you know it's not that far from my heart. And I went down there. And I interviewed all the neighbors. I'll tell you a couple of shocking things. I won't name names, but I was not impressed by the reporting of the other journalists. Good journalism is you go and knock on all the doors, and you interview as many people as you can. I was the only one doing that.

There was a lot of laziness here. And that's also, the partisanship and the laziness are related, because if you have the idea that this was a Trump supporter, who went after Pelosi, then you don't want to go to get to the bottom of this stuff. You don't want to go through these interviews. You want to stick to your story.

So that was part of it. You know it's just -- you know when you get into it, Glenn. As you might imagine. It's a tragic story.

It's drug use. It's pedophilia. The mother of his two kids is in prison for basically child molestation. She was a crazy person. She herself is something -- I think she probably has a personality disorder and long-term drug use. The kids were in that house. They apparently weren't going to school. I mean, this is a real -- it's basically a symptom of exactly the problems I describe in San Fransicko, which is that we stop enforcing basic laws. And when you stop enforcing laws against people that are suffering mental illness or are addicted to hard drugs, they don't get that help they need.

And I think that's part of the lesson here. Is that this tragedy could have been averted if we enforce basic laws and mandated drug treatment. And psychiatric care for the people who need it.

It's not that every time someone -- you arrest somebody for breaking a law, that they have to go to prison or be punished. Certainly, some people do. But other people are just sick. And I think what we'll discover, as time goes on. The suspect in the Pelosi attack was somebody who was very ill. And needed to get treatment mandated. Many, many years ago. But didn't get it. Because we're in the grip of frankly some radical left political ideas.

GLENN: Did you see the op-ed by -- gosh, who was it?

Shoot. Lost his name. The guy who -- who just wrote this weekend, about the you know op-ed about Tom Cotton at the New York Times.

And how -- yeah. He's an op-ed columnist. And he even didn't say anything about it. He said, because we were afraid to.

When you said a minute ago, that you know they don't want to find it. How many are afraid to do their job in -- in journalism?

MICHAEL: Well, I was afraid. You know, my story. I came from the radical left. I considered myself a moderate. I'm politically independent.

But, yeah. I was afraid on everything. And you know partly you worry about losing your friends.

You worry about upsetting your family. You worry about not making a living. What you're describing is a column from Washington Post reporter, Eric Wimple who writes a media column. And to his credit, there was an ambivalent reaction to it, interestingly enough. But basically to his credit, he came out and said it was wrong for the New York Times to fire its op-ed page editor, who ran, of course, this op-ed by Senator Cotton, arguing for the use of the National Guard and US troops to put down the riots.

Well, he was not only -- the New York Times, because of the outrage, by its woke journalist staff. They basically denounced the op-ed. Fired the op-ed editor.

Everybody watched it happen. Knew it was wrong. To his credit. Whatever it was, like two years new. This columnist, at the Washington Post, said that that was wrong.

You know I think it's good. You know it's better late than never.

And he's one of the first people to say it.

Yeah. It's kind of -- it's social fear. You worry about your friends and family. It's also a financial fear. Like, am I getting fired from my job?

This is really serious stuff.

And I think that the partisanship. And you always emphasize this.

I think it's so important. We need to allow disagreements in our society. We need to appreciate and reward it.

I'm always shocked by how many people -- instead of being like, oh. I disagree with you. They're like, you should stop saying that. They want people to stay quiet.

GLENN: Right. Right. We're with Michael Shellenberger. We'll get more facts on -- I have a few more facts on what's true, what's not true. Then, I want to also talk to him about this push from the Democrats, to nationalize our gas and oil.

Hello, Venezuela. We'll go there, in 60 seconds.
(music)
Tracy wrote in about his experience with Relief Factor. He said, you know the first time I encountered the evil clown. I just ran away. And everything was fine. I was pretty sure he grabbed my wallet. So that sucked.

But I was happy to get away with my life. Instead of getting dragged into that drain. Then, he kept coming after me. Every day, over and over. On my way to work. And I had to keep running.

Yeah. Eventually, my knees and my lower back were so sore from running from the killer clown, that I could barely get up in the morning. Then I heard about Relief Factor.

And that voice came from the radio. Not from the sink, in my bathroom. I'm still coming close to death every day, with the clown thing. But, boy, do my knees and back feel better. Thanks, Relief Factor.

Well, thank you, Tracy, for writing in, especially on this Halloween day. 19.95. It's a trial pack. So if you have some crazy clown chasing you, get out of pain. Relief Factor. 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. Get the 19.95 3-week Quick Start developed for you at ReliefFactor.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So I think, Michael, because you have experience in your family with schizophrenia. I think it was your aunt.

MICHAEL: Yes.

GLENN: So you've seen it firsthand.

MICHAEL: Yeah. So it's interesting. Of course, when you're a child, and you know she -- she would say crazy things. So your parents have to explain to you, what's going on. And it is a little scary. Of course, it helps to have your parents there to kind of talk you through it. But, yeah. She thought the president of the United States.

I think it was Ford. Yeah. I think it was Ford or Nixon. They were communicating with her.

So I think -- there's a reaction, that they'll have in this case. That okay. Maybe he was like psychotic. But there's all these terrible conspiracy theories out there. And those need to stop.

Well, no. First of all, we have freedom of speech. And that means we actually have people have conspiracy theories. We let people believe all sorts of things. That's the point of a free society. So the idea that we'll get rid of certain ideas, is a very bad road to go down. The other thing is just that psychotic people will always find some justification for their behaviors. That's different than suggesting that those are the motivations. I do think that this is something that people can get. But you have to think about it for a minute. Which is that -- and we know this is true for everybody. Is that you have a motivation to do something. But you might give a different reason for why you did it. Well, people who are psychotic, they give crazier reasons often. But in many cases, I look at this, and I suspect that what we'll discover is that this was somebody who was lost. You know he lost his wife and kids.

GLENN: Right.

MICHAEL: He wasn't able to hold down a good job. He was using heavy drugs. His motivation was probably to somehow make his life better. As crazy as that sounds. To be a hero, or something like that. He had some story in his head, about how he was going to become a hero. This is how often these guys think, by making this attack. And that's ultimately what was driving it.

Not some political radicalization.

GLENN: Yeah. But there are few things about the story, that I don't know if they're true or not.

You know I -- I look at these things. And the reason why we have a plethora of conspiracy theories, is because we no longer trust the media. We no longer trust the government, to tell us anything close to the truth.

And then there are arming things that just kind of hang out in the air. And nobody explains them. And it doesn't fit in with the -- with the story line, that the media is going for.

First of all, is it that make sense to you? You think that's right?

MICHAEL: Yeah. Sure. The media, they're partisan now. Maybe they've always been. Although, I think there's no doubt, that it's gotten worse. So when this happened, they rushed to make this a story about why you should not vote for Republicans.

I mean, it's just sort of tragic.

Shocking twist: Terror label removed in UnitedHealthcare CEO case

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

He was waiting for him outside.

That's premeditation, which is murder one.

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

Can you make sense of this for us, Andy?

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

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

STU: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Why?

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

GLENN: Death penalty.

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

GLENN: That's insane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Correct.

ANDY: Terrorism --

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

And you'll get it in the end.

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

ANDY: Yes.

GLENN: Isn't that how they define it?

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

And I --

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Wow.

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

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

GLENN: What a joke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that this guy was stalked.

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

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

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

ANDY: No. No.

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

GLENN: I know. Me too.

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

GLENN: No.

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

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

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

GLENN: Trump won't do that.

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

GLENN: No. Okay.

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

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

I am confident in that.

GLENN: Yes.

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

GLENN: He deserves it.

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

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

GLENN: Right. Okay.

Can I switch to Charlie Kirk?

ANDY: Of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Then there's nothing there.

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

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

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

And I assume Utah is going to keep digging.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are pushing for revolutionary acts?

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

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. I don't.

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

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

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

STU: Yeah, okay.

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

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

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

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

GLENN: It is.

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

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

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

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

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

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

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

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

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

People create around their own lives.

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

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

He decided that he wanted to do that.

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

GLENN: Yes, he was.

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

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

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

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

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: He is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

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

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

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

And you're never going to get them back.

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

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

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

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

And the hate is the key word.

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

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

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

BILL: Yeah.

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

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

GLENN: I don't either.

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

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

They never, ever watched network television.

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

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

GLENN: I know.

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

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

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

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

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

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

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

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

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

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

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should people CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk’s death be fired?

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?