RADIOApril 16, 2025

Trump’s Bombshell Move: Why Harvard’s $2.2B Taxpayer Cash Got Slashed

President Trump has frozen $2.2 billion in taxpayer-funded grants for Harvard University after it refused to stop its DEI initiatives and make other policy changes. But does Harvard even need our money? Glenn explains why he believes the government shouldn’t fund ANY Ivy League school. Plus, he dives into Harvard’s sketchy history that proves the radical protests on its campus are nothing new.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the Trump administration has -- has frozen billions of dollars in federal funding for Harvard.

Because, the Ivy League is refusing to comply to, hey. Let's not let people say, let's kill all the Jews on campus. I don't know.

Seems pretty easy. You know, if you want your money spent, you know, there. Go ahead.

I'm -- I'm really done with the university thing. I'm way past that.

You know, Harvard, you know, you have more money than Jesus.

Okay? And I know, at the time, he didn't have pockets. So he didn't have a lot of money. But the guys who were out there, collecting money for them. Now they have a lot. And you have more!

I'm done bailing your ass out. You don't pay taxes. And I'm still paying for you?

No!

You get no federal money.

STU: Absolutely no reason to be giving Harvard one dime, ever.

GLENN: No. Not a dime.

None of these ivy leagues. No.

Not a single dime.

STU: They have $50 billion in endowment. That they could just milk forever. And let everyone go to the college for free if they wanted to.

GLENN: I think it's more than that.

They should look it up. It's a lot more than that. But these Ivy League schools. There's no reason, that they're paying for them.

None. None.

Why?

Why should we send them a dime? Especially when they're doing the same thing.

Look, this is not new. This whole thing of hating the Jews.

This is exactly what they did in the 1930s. You know, they were -- they were overlooking any kind of anti-Semitism.

And it was all driven by elitism. It was all driven by anti-Semitic thought.

There was even -- you know, they embraced the Nazis. Harvard -- the person that was running Harvard. The Harvard president at the time, James Conant.

You know, he was -- he was keeping ties with the Nazi-controlled universities. And then he brought people in, from the Nazi Party, including a Harvard alumni.

And a Hitler confidant. To canvass in 1934. Well, anti-Nazi students were like, hey, this is a problem. And so what did Harvard do?

Called in the police. Beat the protesters. Protests were suppressed. They tore down the signs.

They arrested the demonstrators. You know, all because they had a Nazi on campus.

And they thought, maybe that's a bad thing.

So also, Harvard, who, by the way, Trump is thinking about defunding.

Thinking?

There should be no thought in that. I'm sure there's no thought in there.

I'm sure he's already went.

I don't have to think about it very long. Cut it!

Anyway, back in the 1830s. Too many Jewish students.

And just too many Jews that are, you know, teaching from all over the world. That are now coming here.

We can't have all this, quote, Jewish thought.

Oh.

Okay.

All right. That sounds -- okay.

Then you have Columbia. They were just as good.

They had Nicholas Murray Butler.

He had the Nazi ambassador on campus. And then did exchanges with the Nazi universities.

And it was great. Because they had all these Nazis on the campus. And they were good for the Jewish population.

They loved it. They loved it. And it -- the Columbia University said, well, you know, we have academic ties.

We're not talking politics.

Okay. Well, they're -- do you know they're gassing the Jews over there know.

And it started with the universities, getting rid of the Jews.

Yeah.

Yale, they were big-time in eugenics. Like Stanford. They were the eugenics leaders. And those guys all had ties with only the best medical people in Germany.

So nothing has changed. Nothing has changed.

This is who they are.

They're the elites. And I say, they're the elites. But not all the elites. Like, they didn't want to hire any of the elite professors. That came from Heidelberg. They're Jewish and out of a job. They're not getting a job out here.

Because they're the wrong kind of elites. We don't want to play golf with them. Or be around them. Or hear any of their Jewish thoughts. This should be a no-brainer on several levels.

Why are we giving Harvard, that is just making money, hand over fist, and putting it into a big endowment, so they can -- they can last forever. They could live off of their endowment forever.

Why are we paying them money?

Why?

I'll tell you why, because we're in bed, with the -- the educational industrial complex.

We're producing people, the government wants produced. That's why.

That's why that's happening, period.

You know, these are the -- these are the same kinds of people that berate in all these operation paper clip people.

When we had -- we win the war, and we find some of the worst of the worst. And we find them over in Germany.

We're like, oh, we have to have that guy. We have to have that guy. Let me give you a couple of them. Herbert Strughold.

He was known as the father of space medicine. Oh. How did he become the father of space medicine?

Well, he oversaw all the experiments at Dachau, where all of the prisoners were subjected to extreme conditions. High altitude. Hey, how high can we fly before somebody pops?

Hey, let's put them outside, pour water on them, and see how long it takes them to freeze.

Or let's just -- just force seawater in them, and see how long they can last, with just seawater?

Okay.

They didn't end well for the patients that were there, but it didn't matter.

You know, Columbia didn't mind because they're all Jews. They're all Jews. So we can get rid of those guys.

So he is -- he's one of the guys that oversaw all of the doctors. He then went to the Air Force School of Aviation for medicine, where he was the guy, here in America that advanced all of our space medicine. He's the guy who said, hey. You know, we did this with Jews. We saw how high you could go, before they popped. Before their heads exploded. You know, what happens to them, if they get really, really super cold. So I kind of know. I have a little expertise in this. So let me design all of the regulations and all of the safety protocols, you know, for Mercury and Apollo. That's it. By the way, he also -- he has an award named after him.

The Strughold Award. This is still being given out. But, you know, don't worry about that. So then you had the Surgeon General of the Third Reich.

He was brought over. He was the guy who supervised all of the medical experiments, including typhus and plague weaponization.

He improved all of the tests, exposing the prisoners to lethal pathogens in camps like Buchenwald. High-ranking SS kind of guy. Don't worry. He just came over, he was doing stuff with our medicine. Kurt Blome came over. He was great. Nazi biological warfare guy. He was the tippy top of that. You know, strangely. All these guys worked at the concentration camps.

I don't know what. I don't know what was going on in those concentration camps, why they were working there. But this guy was working at Auschwitz.

And other camps. And he was just exposing people to all kinds of biological -- he's the guy who came over here, and he helped us make aerosol bioweapons. Isn't that great?

All this guys were academics. All of them were academics. All of this needs to be burned out of our society. All of them!

We should not have any awards named after Nazis. I'm sorry. I'm not a guy for tearing down statues.

I want people to remember who these people are. I want the building, you know, the names of all of the buildings in Stanford. I want the building to remain with those names on it.

Because I want everybody to know. They named them after the worst eugenicist in the world!

Stanford University. And in the meantime, I don't think we pay for any of it. Myself.

I don't think we pay for any of this stuff. They haven't changed. They're exactly the same people. And they keep reintroducing the same pathogen, anti-Semitism.

Over and over and over again.

No. By the way, I don't know if anybody has noticed. They have plenty of money in their pockets.

How much money do we have in our pockets?

Okay? None!

We're borrowing money to give money to people who have all the money.

I don't think so.

I don't think so.

Are we going to give grants, to Bill Gates?

I don't think that would be very smart.

I bet you, we would be doing it.

Wouldn't be real smart, would it? That's what we're doing. So we've got that going for us. Let's see. What else is going?

Oh, while we're here on medicine and Nazis and universities, a transgender activist that was employed as the community navigator for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the Children's Hospital, suggested that women should be allowed to donate their wombs to be transplanted into transgender women, otherwise known as men to allow them to give birth.

Now, I don't think you can just sew those parts in, and it works. You know.

I don't think so.

Might be able to a little bit more complex than that.

But what do I know? I'm not a doctor. Oh, I am a doctor.

No. No.

So Alice and Kathleen Simpson, reportedly made the comments that surfaced in a video on social media.

She said, the possibility of womb transplants was theorized in the trans community.

Yeah. You know when they did this the you first time? 1925.

You know where they did it? Berlin, Germany. Whoa! Wait a minute.

Are you saying all of this sexology and transgenderism, and all that stuff was being done in Berlin, Germany, right before the Nazis took over?

Yes. Honey. That's exactly what I'm saying. That's exactly -- and, you know what, when the Nazis came in, and they decided that this was unacceptable. See, the homosexuals do have gay community.

You do have a reason to fear Nazis. They're not your friends. I don't know why you march for them.

You know, the new Nazis are just the Palestinians. I don't know why you march for them. But you do have a reason to be afraid of Nazis. Because they don't like you very much. And when it got completely out of control and all of the literature about sewing wombs into people were in the schools and the -- the sexology university, I think of Berlin.

All of this stuff was coming from them.
And it went, and it permeated their schools, just like it's doing now. That's when the Nazis came to power.

And so many Christians were like, I -- I can't fight this. It's completely out of control. You know what, these guys will. The first book burnings were all the burnings of the stuff that we're pumping into our society, right now.

So you don't want to grow Nazis.

You might want -- you might not want to be an extremist. And then shut everybody down, who says.

Hey. That's extreme.

Because you produce extremists. The natural consequence is the other side produces extremists.

And then all of us in the middle are like, oh, dear God.

That's what's happening. So it's -- it's good.

She went on social media, and she said. I have these parts. I don't want them. I want you to have them because you need them. What if I gave you my womb?

Well, if you did, he probably would die.

I think his body would reject the womb.

That's what happened to the first guy they tried to sew it into.

In 1929 -- 1925 is when they started putting breasts on him, and everything else.

And in 1929, finally, you know, he got that womb. And they sewed it inside of him. For some reason, the male body rejects a womb. Who would have seen that coming?

And he died, in 1929. But, hey, let's do it again.

Because what did she say? The transgender community has been theorizing about this for a while.
Yeah. Yeah. Since the 1920s.

Not a lot has changed.

Science doesn't change.

Real science doesn't change.

A man will always be a man. All right. Back in just a second.

Imagine you leave the faucet running. Just a drip.

It's barely noticeable. You come back a few months later, and your water bill looks like you've been running a car wash, outside of your kitchen sink.

That's what high-interest debt is like.

A few credit cards here. A personal loan there. A balance transfer that never got paid off.

It doesn't look like much. Until you realize you're pouring hundreds of dollars a month down the train. And that's where American Financing comes in. They're not trying to sell you anything. They're not pushing products at you.

They're just helping you to find ways to get out of debt. And start building up your financial house. So you can have future success.

The call is free.

The process is simple. And the savings could be absolutely life-changing. You wouldn't let your sink run all day, right? For months.

Why on earth, would you let your money run that way? Why keep throwing the money away on debt? Money that could help you and your family in the years to come.

It's American Financing. 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440.

Go to AmericanFinancing.net. AmericanFinancing.net. 800-906-2440.

VOICE: NMLS 182334. NMLSConsumerAccess.org. APR rates in the five, starts at 6.725 for well-qualified buyers. Call 800-906-2440 for details about credit costs and terms.

GLENN: Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: I'm going to go to -- I'm going to talk to you about another taxpayer-funded debacle that should go away.

STU: Let down quite a bit.

GLENN: That's PBS and NPR.

Donald Trump is talking about ending the taxpayer funding for that happen.

There's no reason. There is absolutely no reason!

You know, they're violating all of their noncommercial bullcrap.

They're not supposed to be able to talk about the benefits of a certain you product.

They can say, paid for by people just like you.

Like, you know, George Soros foundation.

That's all they could say.

They can't say, the George Soros foundation.

Which specializes in such-and-such. And is making the world a better place.

They can't say that. By law, they can't say that. They've been saying that for years.
And they're making money. Lots and lots of money.

Can we stop giving funding, to people that are already making money?

STU: Yeah. But we did this with Big Bird. Remember when Mitt Romney said something about PBS or something. And they said, they will try to kill Big Bird. And it's like, well, Big Bird, they make billions of dollars a year, just on merchandising.

GLENN: Merchandising.

STU: Right?

They should be able to function with a budget, you know, like other sources.

GLENN: Right. I know we can run TheBlaze on just a fraction of Big Bird plush toys.

STU: Oh, gosh, yes. 100 percent.

GLENN: I don't know why they can't run their whole thing.

STU: And that's the thing. Do you have a list of things? I have a list of things loosely in my head of what the government. We shouldn't even consider spending money by the government, unless you hit certain things.

Like, for example, no one else can do it.

Right? Like the military.

No one else can really do that.

GLENN: Well, they can. But we don't want them to.

STU: We don't want them to.

We expect and will afford ourselves and whatever program is being funded, some level of inefficiency.

Like the military is another good example of this.

Some people would argue, medical research is. Like I'm kind of okay with the government and its military, wasting some money, on some new weapon system that doesn't wind up working out.

I'm like, okay -- I want the DARPA stuff. I want that in that particular category.

GLENN: Yeah, you have to.

STU: So that makes sense. If -- the arts are a great example of what you should never fund. Because, A, people already like doing them. Right?

People do art all the time. They pay to do art. They like doing art.

People enjoy it. You don't need to pay for it by the government, if there is already --

GLENN: You know, I really like Dallas.

I like Texas.

You know, Rick Perry came to the Dallas people, because Boeing rejected moving to Dallas.
Because there weren't enough arts. And he came to the community. And he said, you need to build some stuff. And they did, without any taxpayer funds.

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

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.

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?