RADIOFebruary 15, 2023

Glenn: UFOs a DECOY away from Nord Stream Pipeline rumors?

It’s shocking how little information the U.S. government has told the American people about the UFOs that we targeted over the weekend, and Senator Mike Lee — who recently attended a briefing about it all — agrees. He joins Glenn to explain why that Senate briefing was so ‘frustrating’ and he questions why these objects were destroyed in the first place. Plus, Glenn and Sen. Lee theorize another possibility behind the federal government's focus on the UFOs: Are they a DISTRACTION or a DECOY away from recent rumors about the U.S.' possible involvement in the Nord Stream Pipeline’s destruction? Because if that's true, Glenn says, we’re heading down a ‘very dark road…’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We go to Senator Mike Lee. Hello, Senator, how are you, sir?

MIKE: Doing great, thank you very much, Glenn.

GLENN: I want to give you a couple of headlines.

US intercepts four Russian war planes yesterday, near Alaska.

The next headline.

US warns, it will defend the Philippines, after Chinese laser was shot at their Coast Guard.
Let's see here. Norway warns of growing importance of Russian nuclear deterrent. China's President Xi conveyed his support yesterday, for Iran, during a visit from the first visit from the Iranian Prime Minister.

We are -- we are not in good shape.

Do you and members of the intelligence committee, have any idea, what's going on?

MIKE: Well, we know some things are going on. We know certain things are happening. There's a whole lot we don't know. And in particular, there's a whole lot we don't know about the so-called objects, brought down by fighter jets, firing missiles over the weekend.

That was the focus of yesterday's classified briefing.

GLENN: Okay. So, Mike, we hear balloons. We hear that they now -- the Pentagon came out yesterday, after your briefing and said, you know what, it's nothing. These are probably just commercial balloons. But we have the Canadians sending out the HazMat teams, to look for this, and we hear this morning, that they are UAPs. Which I guess could be balloons. But usually, those are, you know, something solid. These were the size of cars.

And they weren't balloons. They were metal.

Is that true?

MIKE: Yeah. So, first of all, we don't really know what they are. I don't know how they claim now, to know what their nature is. Whether they're commercial, military, or from some other origin.

Because they haven't found them. I -- I suspected at this point, that they're theorizing on what it might be. That is what was so frustrating yesterday, they held this classified briefing, to tell us what happened.

And they showed us, to tell us basically what had happened. We had all hoped and expected, based on public statements, that they had covered what was left of these objects.

And that they were studying them. They hadn't found them, at least as of yesterday, when they briefed us. They hadn't found them. Because we don't really know what they are.

GLENN: I don't know what you can and can't say. Come on. We launched missiles. We know we have the video from the cockpits. We know that.

MIKE: Yeah. We repeatedly asked them about that activity. Show us anything about documentation of video footage, anything like that. They said, yeah. We have some that aren't really useful. The object is so small. So far away.

That the resolution doesn't really do anything for us.

GLENN: And why would we shoot them down?

MIKE: It's an excellent question. So we shot them down, not knowing what they were, just based on their altitude. We just knew that they were there.

But I -- I still can't fathom why it made sense to scramble fighter jets, shoot missiles at them.

Bring them down. When we have no idea, what they are.

GLENN: Okay.

MIKE: They're apparently not that concerned about it. Or else, they would be frantic. And they're not that.

GLENN: Okay. We found out last night, that the United States government had been tracking that Chinese balloon, for over a week. Once it was launched from China, we locked on to it, and tracked it. Did they tell you that yesterday?

MIKE: There are things in there, that I probably shouldn't repeat, from what I know. But it's -- it's safe to say, that we did know, before this thing hit the United States, that it was in the air.

We were aware of it. And we knew what was happening.

And so at that moment, it really should have brought the thing down. And at whatever moment they -- they realized, that it was coming on to the United States. And that it had the ability to collect data, they should have brought it down.

We kept hearing last week, about the fact that, well, been safe, to bring it down to the United States.

Nonsense.

GLENN: Bullcrap.

MIKE: Even at 60,000 feet, these things don't have a glide capacity. They're balloons. So if you puncture the balloon, it will head straight down. Yes, there is a debris field. But there's a lot of space, between Alaska. Off the coast of Alaska. To be clear.

And the rest of the United States. Where there are miles and miles around them, where there are no people.

And they should have brought it down. Here's what I think, Glenn. What I suspect was, these were makeup calls. They were compensating last weekend, for what they didn't do the previous week. Which is take bold aggressive action. Only, they took bold aggressive action on the wrong objects, at the wrong time.

GLENN: Are we going to know? Do you think we'll ever know this?

MIKE: I certainly hope so. It seems almost unbelievable to me. That we shut down three of these things over the weekend. We didn't cover any of them.

And if there was no immediate threat, as there apparently was -- in the explanation we've heard. Enter space, where aviation happens. You know, okay. Fine.

That's understandable. Sometimes you need to bring things down. But there was no immediate threat.

If that being the case, why can't they use a different kind of aircraft, one that could have surveyed up close, before shooting it down.

You can't really do that. We have a fighter jet, traveling at the speed of sound.

GLENN: Correct. I got to -- it is like our government is being run by, you know, Mrs. Hoffelmeyer's fourth grade class.

It is. I mean, and just the boys.

Because the girls would be a little smarter.

The boys, is just like, let's blow it up out of the sky. This is crazy talk.

There is another possibility here. That they are using this -- whatever it is. That they're using this, to get people off of the Nord Stream pipeline story, from Seymour Hersh.

And I don't know how much you can talk about it, or -- or what. What you know.

But, Mike, I find this extraordinarily concerning. Because there's only a few countries that could do it. None of them really had the incentive, or they would have let us know. If it was another country, would you have gotten a briefing on that?

Do you think, if they would have told us?

MIKE: It's -- it's hard to say.

I -- we don't necessarily get those briefings, just because they feel like it. Usually, it's because a member is asking.

Or because there's been national news about something. And they decide to brief all members. I tell you, I haven't gotten a briefing on this. I'm trying to get one.

All this, of course, goes back to this report published by Journalist Seymour Hersh, last week, indicating that according to his story, there were specialized US Navy teams that planted explosives there. And that the United States was responsible. I don't know whether this is true. I'm trying to ascertain whether it's true.

But I will say this, we need to approach a near peer nuclear-armed geopolitical adversary, with extreme caution.

And so I would like to think, that if we were going to do something like this, this would be some kind of clear authorization from Congress.

You, the chief executive. The president of the United States, commander-in-chief doesn't have the ability to take us to war.

I don't think it's a stretch to say, that doing this, not just to Russia -- a nuclear arms near geopolitical adversaries.

GLENN: All of Europe.

MIKE: It's also an attack on France and on Germany, and it affects a lot of Europe.

It's also an attack on France and Germany, and it affects a lot of Germany. I would like to think, it gets congressional authorization of some sort, before doing that.

GLENN: Well, he said, that there was a way around that. Because obviously, they should have done that, if we were involved.

I just don't believe that we -- that all of the allies, with all of our technology, and everything else.

We can't figure out, okay.

It looks like it's probably these people. I -- I personally, because they're so zipped up about it. It's got to come from the West. And the only ones that can do it really, are France and us. Or Great Britain.

And those guys won't do it. But, you know, you look at -- you look at this, Mike.

And if -- even if that's not true, can we find out if anything is true? As far as, there's these secret SEAL teams, that can be trained off the books, so Congress doesn't know about it?

MIKE: Yeah. Look, I think there are a lot of details, at least enough details, in the Seymour Hersh piece. That there should be fairly amenable for being proven or disproven.

Because either certain things match up, or they don't. It may be easier to disprove than to prove. But I think that can get us a lot of the way there. And there are a lot of others that could have done it. In theory, it could be China. Perhaps China wanted to make sure it had access to more of Russia's natural gas, and that it could get it at a lower price. In theory, it could have been China.

But -- and there are a handful of others, who there could have been. But this is worrisome for me, Glenn. For the simple reason.

Look, I don't know Seymour Hersh. I'm not familiar with any of the facts, alleged in his report.

But there are a couple of things that worry. Number one, on February 9th, 2022. President Biden during a press conference, said that if -- if Russia attacks Ukraine, that there will no longer be a Nord Stream two.

The journalists who had asked him the questions, about what he meant, was doing her job. And followed up with, what do you mean by that?

That pipeline is not under our control. And he reassured her. Believe me, we have the means to do it. And it will be done.

It will not exist.

GLENN: Well, what --

MIKE: So when you cut the fact with the fact that in this country, we have for a long time, seen overreaches from the executives, to the point where a lot of people accept now, that in the name of a clandestine operation, the United States can effectively wage war with them -- an act of Congress, authoring it. That really does concern me.

Not that I'm certain, that we did this. Because it's certainly not. It's not that I could verify the Hersh article. I can't. It really troubles me, that I can't really rule it out.

GLENN: And you can't get a briefing on it. All right. Hang on just a second.

Because when we come back, I want to ask you, do we want to know.

Stu and I were talking about this, this morning. And we were like, you know, the blue pill might be the one to take on this.

MIKE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because this is an impeachable. Maybe worse. It's an act of war.

It's -- I don't know anybody that is going to fight against Russia, because -- if they attack us. Because we -- we blew up the pipeline. Europe -- I mean, the world will hate us.

And it means war. So I don't know -- do we want to know? And we'll come back with Mike Lee for that answer in a minute.

If pain is a part of your life, you may have got to the point, where you believe, you have to take it lying down, sometimes literally.

I'm here to tell you, I understand that. Because I was right at the point, where I'm just going to lay down.

Thank God I have a wife, that is -- woman. She gets tired of listening me gripe about things. Because I gripe about a lot of stuff.

But if it wasn't for her, I might never have tried Relief Factor and got it my life back. Listen, please. Please. Just try it.

If it doesn't work, yes, you're out $20. But $20. What is that? If you can get your life back. 70 percent of the people who try it, find the relief. And go on to order, month after month. So please, just try it. I didn't believe it would work for me either.

ReliefFactor.com. ReliefFactor.com. Or call 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. 19.95. ReliefFactor.com.

Feel the difference.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: All right. Mike Lee. Do we want to know?

MIKE: Look, I think the American people do deserve to be in charge with their government.

GLENN: I agree with that.

MIKE: It's very much a mixed bag. Because as you alluded to before the break, the answer to this question, it turns out the United States was responsible, has very dire consequences.

And I don't -- I'm not even talking yet about what happens within our government.

What the consequences there might be.

GLENN: Is this -- does this rise -- does this rise to more than an impeachable offense.

MIKE: Quite possibly, yes.

I believe it does.

Because if you go to such great lengths, to engage in an attack. A provocative offensive attack, on a a nuclear armed geopolitical adversary, and you do so in a manner that violates our Constitution.

Because that's how I see it anyway. It seems to me like an act of war, last I checked.

War can't be just declared, just decided by our president.

And sure, I know clandestine operations have. Discreet military strikes are something different, than something provocative on this scale. That inevitably lead to and, in fact, are war.

GLENN: Yeah. So if we would find out, that this is even a real possibility, what happens?

What do we do?

How do we tell our allies? How do we tell Russia, so we can kind of -- before we say, I'm going to tell you something. But you have to promise not to be mad.

I mean, we've got to -- you know, in that case. Yeah. We have to promos, that you're not going to launch a nuclear strike.

How do we tell them this?

MIKE: I -- I don't know.

That's part of what makes this such a difficult thing.

But one thing I do know is that ignorance is never something that will put us in a position of strength.

I do think it's important if we get answers on this. I -- I would like to know.

And -- and whether we end up finding out or not, whether this thing is buried so far, so deep by the military intelligence industrial complex in Washington, that we can't get to it. Whether we find out or not, whether we did it or not, I think it's very important for us to have this national conversation.

GLENN: It is.

MIKE: Because for decades, we've seen this gradual accretion of power, within the executive branch, when it comes to the war powers.

And increasingly, Glenn, the way wars are fought these days, they don't typically have soldiers lined up in a battlefield, in corresponding parallel columns.

No. You've got -- you've got stuff like this. This is war.

In the 21st century.

And so we need to have a national conversation about the fact, that today, as -- at the time of the founding, we need our greatest, the people's representatives, to make the decision about going to war.

And clandestine operations need to be reined in to something truly discreet. This one wasn't.

GLENN: Mike Lee, thank you so much for everything you're doing.

And we pray for you. And we'll keep you in our prayers for your safety. As you continue to go down this road.

Thank you. You bet. Buh-bye.

Do you want to know?

It's like

it's almost as if, if we don't -- if it did happen. And we don't expose it. Then we get what we deserve.

STU: Yeah. I mean, of course, I want to know.

But there's that feeling of -- you know, of course, Russia knows, if our media is starting to know. Then Russia knows too. The question is: If it becomes public. And it becomes obvious to everybody. Then Russia has to respond to -- to do something for their own people.

GLENN: They have to.

STU: And that response, even if it is, you know --

GLENN: But maybe the people can temper our response to theirs.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

Like, okay. We deserve that.

STU: It's a dark road though.

GLENN: It's a very dark road. Very dark road.

STU: Look, the blue pill was the right one to take. Just take the freaking blue pill, get along with everyone else.

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?