Best of the Program | Guests: Bill O'Reilly & Charlie Kirk | 7/12/19

Hello podcasters.

Today's episode is titled, What Would Jesus Do?

We looked at a couple of things today.

The abundant amount of holes,

and I mean holes as in a holes in New York City, and what Jesus would do about that.

We have a few things on that.

Also, a little bit more on what might be happening with

Jeffrey Epstein and what's being said behind the scenes that are really quite fascinating.

We also talked to Bill O'Reilly, who knows something about Jeffrey Epstein.

He doesn't know him personally, but he's been snooping around.

He talked to somebody yesterday who knows him quite well.

He said, well, Trump is looking good in this.

There was a witch hunt on Kavanaugh led by the very dangerous Kamala Harris, and he doesn't want to get caught into the same trap on this.

It's an interesting POV on that.

Charlie Kirk also joins us.

Everyone is too serious today, and a tipping point to a brighter tomorrow.

All on today's podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the blend back program.

The Heidi Fly story is

has been turbocharged now with Jeffrey Epstein.

The case is getting uglier and more weird the more we look into it.

Back in 2007, the charges brought against him were brutal.

I want you to listen to this quote.

The FBI and the U.S.

Attorney's Office determined that from 2001 to September 2007, Epstein has conspired to persuade minors to engage in prostitution, conspired to transport minors across state lines for the purpose of illicit sexual conduct, and recruited a minor across state lines to engage in a commercial sex act.

The government has everything they need to put this guy away for life.

Court documents have revealed now that Epstein was partnered with a British woman at an international model agency.

They allegedly promised girls modeling gigs as a trick to groom them into trafficking.

Law enforcement has the names of the victims, lists of several of the

accomplices, everything, again, they need.

But despite what appeared at the time to be a slam-dunk case, the government chose to offer Epstein a plea deal.

They slapped him on the wrist with a lesser charge and serving minimal time.

Now, not only did this deal get him off easy, but it also immunized him and his co-conspirators from prosecution.

Now, I don't think I've ever heard of anything like this happening before.

This was a potential of unveiling of a system of elites all over the world bartering in underage human beings, and nothing was going to happen.

No justice was going to be served.

How is this possible?

Now, the obvious thing is to say, well, this guy just has a lot of clout and a lot of power, and he gets off with a slap on the wrist after being, you know, implicated in a major child sex ring.

But I wonder

if it stops there.

Does it...

Does it include just the names of the people in the little black book of associates and clients.

Can he get off with this because

he is friends with so many people and he has blackmail ability on so many important people?

I mean, how many powerful people were involved in this?

So are they the real reason he's being able to avoid justice for these poor little girls?

Well, there's a woman that has been a journalist and been covering this case since 2003.

Her name is Vicki Ward.

She wrote an article this week that mentions something that I think

might be explosive, explosive enough to blow up a good portion of our system.

In an interview she had with a former White House official, the topic of labor secretary Alexander Acosta came up.

Now, Acosta was the U.S.

attorney in Miami that offered Epstein that ridiculous plea deal.

And everybody's saying, I've never heard heard of anything like this.

How could this have happened?

Now, the media is insinuating that this was because, you know, that's why Trump paid him off with this big,

you know, with his big job because he was hiding things for Donald Trump.

Well, the Trump transition team apparently asked Acosta about the plea deal.

And this is how he responded.

He said he was told by someone in power to back off

that Epstein was above his pay grade.

I want to give this to you as an exact quote.

I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone.

Now, wait a minute.

Is this implying that Epstein was working with an intelligence agency as some sort of asset?

Was this sex ring being used as blackmail material for powerful people all over the world?

Is somebody in the government using and protecting someone like Jeffrey Epstein using these girls to gain power over very powerful people all over the world?

Or maybe a high-level official,

either in the government or perhaps in the intelligence community.

is it somebody who is listed as clientele in the little black book?

Who would tell

a state's attorney to back off, this guy is in Intel?

I know this.

This case cannot go the way of Heidi Fleis.

This case cannot just disappear.

Because when all is said and done, the ground is already shaking.

Powerful people and powerful

organizations

will fall.

If this is pursued, they will fall.

We have to ask ourselves, do we care that much?

Are our politics more important

than

these kids?

that have been put in peril and been preyed upon and been used as

toys.

Where are our real priorities and what does it mean?

We all know that our government is very dirty.

We all know that there are predators in our government.

We know that.

So now the question is: now we have the guy who has the decoder ring.

What is it we're going to do about it?

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Hey, it's Glenn.

And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

He'd be very glad to go home.

I mean, I love New York.

It is a

great city.

I mean, it's just the access to minds and to thinking and to

everything

is just incredible in New York.

But your access to,

excuse my French, and I don't think it's French, a-holes is enough.

I mean,

it's overwhelming.

Yesterday in an elevator, I wasn't in an elevator, but some friends were in an elevator,

and

they had a five-year-old and a nine-year-old.

Now they have eight kids, and they were all out running around all day.

with these kids.

They get into the elevator of this hotel and two of the kids take and push three extra buttons.

Okay.

And they're like, stop it, stop it.

And so the kids stop.

Now, as the elevator doors are closing, a woman sticks her hand into the elevator and opens the doors again.

And the guy, my friend, said immediately,

just so you know, kids pushed some extra buttons here.

So if you want to take another elevator, you might.

And the woman gets in and she just this.

Oh.

So their first response is, oh, no, not a problem.

You know, I got kids.

I know what it's like.

No.

Uh-uh.

Oh.

So she stands there and they stop at the first floor.

It opens, it closes, they continue on.

Oh,

gosh.

Oh, this is so irritating, she says to herself.

So my friend's wife says,

Wow, some people's lives are really,

really hard.

That's when the woman turns around and says,

You know, I have children.

And so my friend tries to lighten things up and says, Oh, so then you

understand.

I mean, kids do stupid stuff sometimes.

And she says, No,

I have children, and I taught them not to do things like this.

First of all, really,

did you, you're perfect little angels.

Now, if I were on the elevator, I would have started engaging right now.

My friend does not engage.

When she says, I taught them not to touch the buttons.

Oh,

and she turns around.

That's when my friends just start to laugh.

And And she doesn't say anything except a few more grunts.

Then the elevator doors open.

Now, this is the third time it has opened.

They only pushed three extra buttons, so she's got an extra floor to go, but they're getting off on this floor.

And as they get off, they say, We're really sorry for the hassle.

And

as they're walking out of the elevator, she

says loudly, and yet you laugh about this as if it is no big deal.

Now that's when my friend puts his hand in the elevator to stop the elevator door from closing.

And he told me last night, he said, Glenn, I had a choice.

I could

either tell her exactly what I was thinking, or I could be Christ-like.

So when I said to him last night,

Please tell me you didn't choose Christ.

Please tell me this is the one time you said, you know, Jesus, I'm not going your way.

And he said, no,

I chose Christ.

And I said, you know, I'm really sorry.

We apologize to you.

You know, we're sorry that this has affected your day.

And I said,

You're pathetic.

You're pathetic.

This is when my son chimes in, who is really really good at accents.

I'm not.

He's really good at accents.

He does a really good Scottish accent.

And

he said immediately, I would have said, don't get your tit in a ringer.

I said, boy, you know,

we should have been on that elevator with you because

I would have looked at her.

I would have had a few choice words for her.

And then I looked at my son and I looked at Rafe and I said, I just would have looked at you and shook my head.

And what would you have done?

And he said, as you are walking out, Dad, I would have hit all of the buttons on the elevator.

That's what you're supposed to do.

Okay?

I know Jesus is wonderful, but there were no elevators with crappy people in them at the time of Jesus.

So elevators don't count on the Christ-like time.

I just want to throw that out there.

I might be wrong.

I have to admit,

I was hoping for the...

No, I ignored everything I've ever been taught

too, yeah.

Because I would have.

Right.

You would have gone

crazy.

I wouldn't have been nice.

Would not have been nice.

No.

Although I will say, I mean, the first lesson I taught every one of my children, and I reinforce this year after year, don't touch the elevator buttons.

That was, you know,

the uppermost thing in my mind.

And I can't believe that

in these parents' minds.

No, it was.

They've taught their children that.

And their children just do.

They did it anyway.

Do you remember, Pat?

Tanya and I wanted to buy a piano.

We ended up buying like a $1,000 piano, okay?

Because none of us really play.

But we had this dream that we were all going to learn, you know, and we had two young children.

And so we're going to learn and we get a piano.

and i said well let's get a good piano let's let's you know can we look at steinways now i've never i don't know what a steinway cost i thought like you know i don't know maybe 10 000 maybe 10 000.

no uh no no no uh they're about a hundred and twenty five thousand dollars they can be as high as half a million and i and so we walk into the steinway place and tanya's like glenn these are really expensive and i'm like let's just look you know and so i go in there and I'm looking at just like a black one.

Okay.

There's nothing special about, it's just a black piano.

And I said, so how much is, how much is this one?

She said, oh, this is $125,000.

And I wanted to say, does it cook me breakfast too?

Or what else does it do besides

play music?

Yeah.

And does it play music on its own?

She looked at me like I was a Cretan.

I'm like, for $125,000, I should be able to say, hey, play something nice.

And the piano should play something nice, okay?

Without anybody sitting there, unless somebody from Steinway would like to sit in the little chair, maybe that comes with it.

For $125,000, maybe a little person comes that can play the piano too.

No.

So she's telling me, but we can make these any way you want.

And she's showing me all these, you know, inlaid pianos that are like 250.

Now I'm kind of getting into it.

I'm not, I have no intention of buying one.

I'm just like, I'm just looking at how stupid these pianos could become.

And

so, you know, but you're doing what you always do when you're way out of your league.

You pretend there's a possibility that we might buy it, but we're going to have to go away and talk about it first.

So I'm pretending that I'm very interested.

And I said, so what do you do, you know, like

Do you, can you put the little lock on the keyboard thing, you know?

And she looked at me like I was a Cretan and she said, No.

I said, Well, you could put anything on these pianos.

We don't put little locks on the keyboard.

And I said, Well, how do you keep your kids?

I've got, you know, three-year-olds.

How do you get them from, you know, pounding on the keys?

She said,

You tell them that it is a Steinway.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glenbeck program.

If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts.

Kind of some ominous, scary music because the one, the only Mr.

Happy Pants himself, Bill O'Reilly, joins us.

Hello, Bill.

Happy Boots.

I'm going to give you a happy boots to you, too.

Yeah, you sold that pretty well.

Are you?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, I would get them, you know, and if I would pay extra if they would insert themselves in people's butts for me.

So I didn't have to do it.

I could just.

Anyway,

how are you doing, Bill?

I'm the same, which is tragic for everyone.

You know that.

Were you always, as a kid, were you miserable?

No,

I was a happy kid, Jerry Mathers-like, a beaver cleaver kind of kid.

Really?

I did beat up Wally on a regular basis.

Yeah.

What happened to you, Bill?

I mean, you had great six shoes,

you're very popular,

and yet you're just a get off my lawn kind of guy.

No, no, I like the urchins on the lawn.

It's just anybody over 25 can't go on the lawn.

No, I am a realist, and just looking at the world the way it is is a little draining these days.

Yes, it is.

So, Bill, I want to talk to you about Jeffrey Epstein.

First of all, do you know him?

Do not.

Okay.

It seems everybody in circles, yeah.

I mean, look.

No,

I know that.

I had dinner with a guy last night who's a friend of his.

And I didn't know that.

I mean, I was talking to this guy about other things.

He's a political player.

But this guy,

he ran in a lot of circles that merge entertainment with politics.

There's a guy named Ron Burkel out in Los Angeles.

He does that.

They basically are very wealthy people with a fleet of private jets.

They ferry people people around the world

for various reasons.

I am, as you know, a guy who doesn't comment unless I really know what happened.

But I can tell you this.

They have so much on this guy, they being the feds in Manhattan and the

lower Manhattan, the southern district.

You know, he's looking at probably 15 to 20, and they'll get him.

I will tell you, Bill,

he'll die in prison, I bet,

at that point.

I will tell you, being in Manhattan this week, everyone, everyone is talking about it in the upper circles.

Everybody

talking about it.

Yeah, they're trying to link politicians into him.

I did look at that vis-a-vis President Trump.

I talked to an attorney in southern Florida who is very conversant with the victims down there there coming forth?

Now, there is a court filing on the record that says that Trump in the early 2000s expelled Epstein from Amor-a-Lago.

That's on the record.

I have to tell you, Bill,

I think that Donald Trump not only is looking good in this because of that, he immediately expelled Epstein from his club when he found out he had preyed on a

woman, a teenager,

and immediately expelled.

They're trying to tie it into him, but

I think there's a strong possibility,

even though he's

been with Epstein before, that he is clean on this.

I'm going to go a step further.

I would love to hear your opinion on

that this may have actually kind of been pushed by Donald Trump in some way because

they say, what is his name, Acosta, is,

you know, pardon him.

Did you see what the reporter actually said that's not getting a lot of play?

The reporter said, the one who started this and been following it since the early 2000s.

Who's the Miami Herald reporter?

Yes, and she came out this week and she said

what people really need to understand is

he was asked about this by the Trump campaign.

You know, how did you give this sweetheart deal?

And he said that it was because he was told by

the politically elite above him that

to leave it alone, the guy was an intelligence operative.

Now, I don't believe that he was an intelligence operative.

Yeah, I can't comment on any of that because I haven't been able to confirm it, and I'm not really working the story hard.

Not that I just have other things to do.

But I think that in America, it is true if you are a billionaire, you can spread money around and get lenient treatment in our criminal justice system.

I believe that's true.

I believe that people who make that accusation are accurate.

I've seen it myself,

and

it's very bad.

And if anything comes up...

Well, they they are looking at the division that is the division that is working with the FBI

on this and

the

southern New York officials

is the

corruption division.

Yes, that's the best.

So it's not just the corruption.

Right.

It's a very good observation, Beck.

It's not the rank-and-file prosecutors.

And it's not the sex crimes division only.

Right.

It's public integrity.

So I don't think there's any doubt that you're going to see more on this story and that it may have a chilling impact on the Democratic Party because it seems that they were far more involved with Epstein than the Republican Party.

However, that's speculation.

So now let me ask you this.

Doesn't this show a pattern of the Democrats that they're going to start to have a hard time?

If this comes out and there are big Democrats Democrats involved in this,

isn't this, aren't they going to have a hard time with the Me Too movement seeing that one of their big donors was Harvey Weinstein and everyone knew about him.

And the other one on this coast was Jeffrey Epstein and everyone, they called his plane the Lolita Express.

Everyone knew it and they still took money and invited him and tolerated him.

What does that say about the

well, it was a division, okay?

And there always has been a division.

So there are

sincere people

who

believe that American society tolerates behavior that it shouldn't.

And they have a right to go out and make their case in the strongest possible way.

But there are other people who use these cases for political reasons

and witch hunt it, and we saw that with Kavanaugh.

That is the most dangerous example that I can give anyone of how you take an injustice and then compound it 100 times by a far larger injustice.

It's a new book out by Molly Hemingway that gets into Dr.

Ford.

I didn't check out Hemingway's research, so I'm not going to repeat it.

But I said from the very beginning, this was a witch hunt that almost destroyed Kavanaugh and his family.

Kamala Harris drove it.

Corey Booker drove it.

The New York Times drove it.

So they used a legitimate issue, okay, and just spun it around to destroy political opponents.

So that this is a very complicated issue that Americans should think about very seriously.

When I see this Kamala Harris, and I see what she did in that Kavanaugh hearing, okay, I could never vote for her for anything, ever.

This is a dangerous woman.

So you

let's change this subject slightly and talk about what we should be talking about.

We should be looking for the predators, but the injustice of these women,

I've had people come and say, well, I don't know if I believe it.

I mean, why wouldn't they come out and say it?

Oh, I don't know.

The guy was friends with everyone.

He was a billionaire.

Everyone, you think they're going to believe you over the voice of a former president who's like, no, Jeffrey's a good guy.

They're not going to believe you.

And so

this hurts

by not exposing this and not going all the way on this.

This hurts anyone who has been a victim of sexual abuse because it just reinforces they're not going to believe you.

It's horrible.

The federal government,

if they did indeed botch the original case in Florida, as the Miami Herald contends, and it looks like the evidence

costs out.

It's pretty overwhelming.

Yeah, it costs us out.

So it looks like that happened.

The federal government is trying to right that wrong now, and that's a good thing.

But if you know history, you know that powerful people in politics and entertainment, particularly, have gotten away with an unbelievable stuff

because they have the money and

the access to

do whatever they wanted to do.

I think the question is.

Yeah, that was going to say, that's the real question.

Is this?

Everything is coming to an end now, and that's a good thing.

I think that's great.

That's a very good thing.

Thank you.

Let me change because you were just overseas

and I think you went to Germany.

Were you over in England at all?

No, I was not in England.

I went to Germany and Austria, combination business, pleasure.

And I wrote a brilliant column, and I hope you read it, called The Pro.

Oh, my gosh, did I ever?

Okay.

I've read it.

And while I was in Germany,

I had very high-level meetings.

I love those high-level meetings.

And I did a very astute analysis of the tax system there,

which is what the Democratic Party wants here.

But they won't tell you.

I really wish you weren't as humble as you are.

You know, I have to say these things.

I'm like Trump in that regard, to get your attention back because you're always

drifting away.

You drift away.

No, I am.

But I get you back.

All right.

That's right.

Okay, so

what was the point of this beautifully wonderful, best-written piece of all time?

What was the point of it?

The point is that, okay, I'm in Munich, Germany, and Munich could be in any state USA minus the language in the old buildings.

People live exactly the same in there as we live in the United States.

They have a BMW.

They live in small homes or apartments, not expansive like some people live here, but they go to work, they work hard, they're industrious, and after their weekly paycheck, they have no money left over.

Nothing.

Okay, the government takes everything.

They keep them in beer and cigarettes.

You can have your little wine.

You can have your BMW.

You can have your little later hosen, whatever you want, but you can't have anything left over to put in the bank and invest.

And that makes it impossible for German workers to improve their status.

So your son and grandson, it's going to be the same as you.

All right?

Because the government takes it all.

And I break it down so that even Stu could understand it.

I mean, I just, it was amazing to me.

And I had a guide, I hired a guide who was like furious about this.

And of course, the underground economy, cash that they don't declare is all over the Germany, all over it.

So, you know, what's weird, Bill, is, you know, you started out, I was listening, you started out saying, you know, this is the same thing that's happening here in America.

I don't know if you saw the Washington Post story from David Montgomery on AOC's Chief of Change.

And he's talking about a meeting between her

chief of staff and

Sam Ricketts.

Is this a millionaire?

No, no, no.

Okay, that's a matter of money.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Right, but this is

what's his name, Sycott Chakrabarty,

who is

her sugar daddy when it comes to politics.

He is chief of staff.

He helped her get elected, et cetera, et cetera.

He was meeting with the climate director for the Washington governor, Jay Inslee.

And

it's an article about their conversation, and it is amazing.

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure.

He said, the interesting thing about the new Green Deal, this is a quote, it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.

Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an intended poker face.

Did you guys think of it as a climate thing?

Because we really think of it as a how you change the entire economy thing.

And it goes into how they are talking.

And it's,

I don't know if this is written as a bad thing or not.

It's the Washington Post, but it's horrifying where they're just talking about, yeah, you know, we cloaked it as a climate thing, but it really has nothing to do with that.

And

Inslee's people say, well, I know, and it's good because it included the the climate, which we have to do, but this whole system needs to be destroyed.

We need to end the free market.

And it's amazing how open they are.

Just this week, France passed a tax on anyone flying out of that country, got to pay 18 euros, which is about 25 bucks, just to leave on a plane.

All right, and they say this is the environmental tax.

Now, you look at France and you go, this isn't going to do anything for the environment at all, anywhere.

This is just another sneaky way to take as much money as you can from anybody on your soil.

So that's what's happening here.

Okay, we're going to continue with Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com.

He's got a great book coming out this fall about Donald Trump.

You want to pre-order it right now?

Just go to the Bill O'Reilly page at amazon.com and order it now.

BillO'Reilly.com is also where you will find his

daily rant, you know, and his happy corner.

It's quite a happy place.

BillO'Reilly.com.

This is the best of the Glenbeck program.

Charlie Kirk is a best-selling author.

He was featured in Forbes magazine The 30 Under 30 in 2018.

He's the youngest speaker ever at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

He is an Eagle Scout.

He started Turning Point USA,

which

is now one of the biggest grassroots organizations with 1,200 high school and college campuses nationwide blanketed,

150 full-time staff, and he's 24 years old.

This guy is quite amazing.

Welcome to the program, Charlie Kirk.

Thank you so much for having me, Glenn.

Great honor.

Thank you.

So, you know, Charlie, I posted something that you wrote to me when I was at Fox and you were like 17 and you say, I'm speaking at tea parties and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And I read some of the comments after, and you have a lot of people that don't like you.

And you tweeted something about me a couple of weeks ago.

And

I'm reading the comments underneath that.

And there's a lot of people that don't like me.

You're a very controversial person as I am.

Tell me what you feel like you are doing and why your work is important.

Well, again, thank you for having me on the show.

It it's always a a great honor.

I mean, the kind of the main big picture of what I'm trying to accomplish and what trying to do at Turning Point USA is try to continue the most successful experiment in human history, which is the American experiment.

There's no guarantee that this is going to continue.

The constitutional republic that we're still enjoying to this day, but seems to be crumbling around us, there's no guarantee that

this experiment will still be successful.

And my focus is primarily on college and high school students that are not necessarily opposed to our ideas, that they're never exposed to to them at all in the first place.

And it is putting forth the ideas of individual liberty, limited government, constitution, American exceptionalism, you know, the ideas that were really birthed and rooted in the Scottish Enlightenment that have allowed the greatest civilization ever to exist in the history of the world to have that permission to exist.

And it draws some critics, some people on the left.

and some people on the right that

might not seem to think that there is a sense of urgency to save the country right now.

And that's perfectly fine.

That's how you know you're making a difference, and you know that better than anybody else.

But the main thesis of what we're doing is that there's an entire generation that instead of being thankful that they're living in America, they're angry that they're living in America.

And

there's no way you can make an argument that is healthy for our country or for our society.

So, Charlie, you were at this meeting at the White House

where the president brought in some

social media people.

And the press is saying that these people are very controversial and some of them are.

Who was there and why and how were these people chosen?

Well, I was there.

Our good friend Lila Rose was there from Live Action.

Our friends from Krager University were there, Heritage Foundation.

And there were some people that I haven't met before and I've seen some of their content online, definitely more in the creative space.

But what I think is really promising about the kind of conservative movement is we don't all have to agree.

We don't even all have to agree on tactics

at times.

It's almost as if the leftist media is attacking Donald Trump for not having everyone be exactly the same in the room, almost as if that's what they're used to.

They're used to looking at a press pool where there's no disagreement whatsoever.

which is completely antithetical to what journalism and expression should be.

And so so I actually applaud the fact that not everyone in the room agrees on every issue or sees eye to eye on even the way to go about advancing those issues.

That's something that should be celebrated.

But the insinuation that this is some form of a radical summit, nothing could be further from the truth.

I mean, you have,

you know, you're.

Sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead.

No, go ahead.

Well, no, just to finish the point, I mean, there's people in there that are consistently attacked

in a misleading way by the media for doing nothing more than investigative journalism or really exposing some of the biggest stories of our time.

And I wouldn't call Lila Rose a radical.

I mean, Planned Parenthood would call Lila Rose a radical.

That doesn't make her one.

And certainly Prager is not.

And Prager is being,

you know, his algorithms are all upside down to make sure people stay away from Prager University.

So

what what came out of this meeting?

Well, first and foremost, the fact the meeting happened in the first place is a really promising sign.

It shows that the White House is listening in real time to the wants and concerns of the American people.

I think this issue of tech censorship is one that has been given a much bigger platform over the last two, two and a half years than it was, you know, previous to that.

And I think that the tech companies

really unchecked and out of control in a lot of different ways.

And whether it be the demonetization of Steven Crowder's videos or the restriction of Prague University videos on YouTube or Lila Rose not being allowed to advertise on Twitter while Planned Parenthood is

these sorts of isolated incidents, it shows an actual pattern.

And so the big takeaway first and foremost is that this has really elevated this issue to the highest possible level and has definitely got the tech companies' attention.

And now the president even said that he wants to call the the tech companies back in and have them answer some of these questions of why these individuals and why these voices are being suppressed.

But even beyond this, is that this has been, and this is where I really applaud the President, this has essentially been a third rail of politics issue for whatever reason, that both parties have been perfectly fine with bending the knee to the valley oligarchs and elites.

Because Google, for example, is the most lobbied for company in the world.

I mean, they have an amazing amount of K-Street lobbyists that advocate for them.

So this was not necessarily something that, you know, the president will benefit from politically, from the, you know, the wise men of Washington or the K-Street ruling class, but it's something that resonates with the American people and definitely puts a lot of these social media oligarchs on defense.

And I think that's for the better.

Let me switch subjects

about Tommy Robinson.

Change to Tommy Robinson.

Wilkow was on with me.

Andrew Wilkow was on yesterday.

And he was speaking about Tommy Robinson.

And I don't know.

I haven't spoken to Tommy Robinson, and I haven't done a lot of in-depth homework because it's over in England.

And, you know, I see things on both sides and think, that's kind of bad.

And then

other times I think, oh, no, I think he's being persecuted.

But I'm not sure.

The Blaze just did a story on Tommy Robinson.

Tommy Robinson was not convicted of journalism.

He was convicted of illegal illegal immigration, assaulting a cop, and fraud.

He's no hero.

I don't know.

I haven't even had a chance to read this whole thing.

And I don't know.

I'd like to talk to Tommy myself and ask him about some of these things.

Do you know Tommy?

And I know Donald Jr.

has come out and said, hey, we should...

You know, we should at least consider what he's saying about coming here to America because he's facing jail time.

Do you know him?

What is your feeling on him?

And

is this something that we should be considering?

So I do not know him.

And I, like you, am hearing very conflicting information on this story.

And usually that goes to show me that the truth is somewhere in the middle of both of those things.

Usually that's just kind of comes from experience there.

I will say this, though.

I think what is really difficult for us Americans to understand

is how

the UK and Europe really don't appreciate free speech at all whatsoever or the freedom of the press.

They don't have a First Amendment.

They don't.

They don't.

And I mean, the kind of Corbynite movement in the United Kingdom, led by Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labor Party, is essentially his satellite cell with Bernie Sanders in the States.

And so

my point, kind of what I'm talking about with Pommy Robinson and all of this, is that it's a tough thing sometimes for Americans to digest, saying, wait a second, Tommy was locked up last year for filming outside of a courthouse.

And yes, there are laws about that in the United Kingdom, whether they're, I think they're totally incorrect.

But there is something to go to show that if the left in this country gets their way, and they want to make America Europe, I mean, you're going to have a completely different set of standards and rules.

And I think that applies in this case.

I can't speak to the other stuff in regards to Tomny.

I read a similar article to that where someone talked about the illegal immigration and so on and so forth.

But

again, when you hear such conflicting information, I think the truth is somewhere in between there.

Yeah, and I think it's both a frightening thing, but at the same time, a really good thing that I'm not willing to take other people's words for it.

You know, I want to personally do my own homework, and I want to talk to the person, and I want to look at both sides myself before I judge it.

And I think

that's really good.

That's what we didn't do, really, I think many people didn't do on Kavanaugh.

They were just

going along with their side until Kavanaugh really spoke out and the two were sitting there.

And I think America figured out: I don't know.

I can't be the guy who decides the guilt or innocence with a media trial.

And I think that maybe this is good, that we're a little wary of judging people as good or bad.

Would you agree with that?

I totally agree.

And look, the whole idea of due process and the idea of the cross-examination of witnesses and trial by jury is to try to remove kind of the trial by the mob.

And this was something that was really rooted in English common law which was trying to bring rationality and try to derive emotion away from sentencing and I and we saw this with the Covington kid back in January let us not forget how the media was so quick to indict a group of high school kids because they dared wear make America great again hats you know on on a monument in Washington DC while an agitator got up in the face in their face and started banging a drum and all of a sudden we were supposed to believe these were the worst kids in the world

I've only got about 40 seconds here.

Can you just tell me on your editorial about naming

these

corporate, you know, Google, Facebook, et cetera, naming them not platforms or instead naming them publishers, which carry some real heavy ramifications for those companies.

Did you talk to Donald Trump about that?

And is he interested in pursuing this?

There was a question about it yesterday.

and he seems I think he, like I, wants to try to find a way to solve this without growing government.

However, there is kind of a there was a sense and a tone, and this wasn't outwardly said, but it was kind of the subtext, is if these tech companies continue the way they're going, that there's going to be more and more options put on the table.

I don't know if this can be done outside of the legislative branch, if it can be done executively, but I do think that the changes in the six hundred two code need to happen because these big tech companies are hiding behind the platform label when in reality they're acting like news publishers.

Exactly right.

Charlie, thank you so much.

We'll talk again.

Charlie Kirk, founder and president of Turning Point USA, somebody who

is going to be around for quite a while.

He is very, very sharp

and has built a very powerful organization.

And he's 24.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On Demand