10/26/18 - Best of Program - Guest, Bill O'Reilly

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Welcome to the podcast.

Really cool show today.

We're going to get to it here in just a second.

I want to also remind you we're coming out on tour next week.

Yes.

You should come join us.

Yeah.

And it's going to be a lot of fun and a lot of audience interaction.

And we can't wait to see you.

I think we...

Next week we start in Richmond, Virginia.

Then we're up in Pennsylvania, then Ohio and Cleveland.

We'd love to see you.

Make sure you grab your tickets to a theater near you, and we will see you then.

Yep.

On today's podcast, a lot of crazy, it was a pretty crazy news day in the middle of the show.

We talked a lot about

two kind of main stories going on.

The bombing and what went on with that.

The breaking news in the middle of the show that someone was

arrested for that.

We're still sorting out the details as of the time the show aired.

Also, the Megan Kelly thing.

She looks like she's gone for sure from NBC.

All reporting is going that way.

We look at some of the hypocrisy attached to that.

Well, we look at, you know, one of the things that, you know, we started the show off with this.

I'm pretty passionate about blaming

Donald Trump for violence

and saying that all this stuff is happening because, well, we all know he says that they're the enemies of the people and they're doing fake news.

The same time that the press is ridiculing Donald Trump and making a big deal out of him saying this, they actually run an article where they have hired five novelists to write the ending of the Mueller investigation.

All five of them are found, find him guilty.

One of them even shows an assassination of him.

It's involving the Secret Service, so a coup.

It's insane.

So we start off with that and Bill O'Reilly and so much more on today's podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

It's Friday, October 26th.

Glenn Beck.

Yesterday.

The day after the pipe bomb started showing up in mailboxes of several Democrats, President Trump took to the

modern day era bully platform known as Twitter to call out

those people he believes is responsible for all the anger we're seeing.

He quoted:

A very big part of the anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the mainstream media that I refer to as fake news.

How could you possibly deny that unless you are a member of the mainstream media and never talk to anybody in the middle of the country.

The middle of the country feels as though we have been laughed at, mocked, dismissed, called killers, called

racists, called terrorists.

We have had enough.

So unless

you know, unless you're just somebody living in this bubble, which the media is, and refuses to get out and actually talk to people with a different opinion,

you don't see it.

He says it's gotten so bad and hateful that it's beyond description.

Mainstream media must clean up its act fast.

Well, the media responded, of course, by turning the finger back around on the president.

Let me just say this to the media: President Trump is a response to you.

President Trump would not have been president 10 years ago.

He is a response to the way you handled half of the country.

Around 200 journalists organized by former ABC News producer Meredith Wheeler co-signed a letter blaming the White House for what they called, quote, cordoning of political or condoning of political violence.

Really?

This echoes the statement of CNN's Jeff Zucker, who more or less said the exact same thing following Wednesday's pipe bomb scare.

You know what, Meredith Wheeler?

You might have a point if you haven't spent the last 10 years dismissing the violence of Occupy Wall Street, dismissing the violence of everybody on the left, dismissing the violence of Antifa, and during all of this with the pipe bombs, going back to what was it, 1968?

Going back to the 1960s and showing, look, this is where they blew up an abortion clinic, and failing to mention that there was a Bernie Sanders guy that tried to kill 20 of our Republican congressmen just a year ago.

Do you think,

maybe,

do you think, maybe

there's slightly a point here?

I'm going to do the unthinkable.

I'm going to place the blame on all of us.

On all of us.

What do you say we just start behaving differently?

What do you say?

We all say, I don't like this.

I don't want to live like this.

I don't want my country like this.

The president is absolutely the victim of attacks by the media.

There is no question.

The mainstream media has been painfully obvious that they are not fans of Donald Trump.

On many occasions, the attacks that they have

have been

hitting him with and then silently retracting

are false.

But also the media has been under attack by the White House for a very long time.

It's not an issue with just the current administration, and stop making it one.

President Obama was historically a nightmare for the free press, and you refused to say anything about it.

The crazy thing is, today,

the craziest thing is that the media gleefully gave Obama a pass, even though he was weaponizing the FBI and the DOJ against the press.

Donald Trump has gone so far as just calling them fake news, and they've got their feelings hurt.

Forget about the, oh, I don't know, threatening to throw us all in jail.

This president is calling us fake news.

Yeah, well, he kind of has a point.

Just if you even look at how President Obama treated the press compared to you,

President Obama was putting you people in jail.

He was weaponizing the government against you, and you failed to stand up and say anything.

As the media was gearing up for its outrage over being called fake,

the New York Times was publishing an article on the very same day these pipe bomb packages were delivered.

Now, I want you to remember this.

I just want you to just put this in your pipe and smoke it for a little bit.

They're being called fake news.

They're being called liars.

They're saying, no, no, no, no, no.

We're not.

We don't publish fake news.

We don't have anything against the president.

It's not a vendetta.

And while this is happening, the New York Times is printing an article titled, Five Novelists Imagine Trump's Next Chapter.

Five Novelists Imagine Trump's Next Chapter.

The main image at the top of this story shows the White House on fire and sinking into the ground as President Trump waves goodbye.

Each novelist had one assignment.

Write out what you think happens after the Mueller investigation is completed.

Okay?

So let's come up, let's go to fiction writers and come up with what they think is going to happen with Mueller's investigation and what's going to happen immediately after.

And you mock me?

You mock me.

Every single one, this is going to come as a surprise.

They found five fiction writers who were going to do it, but every single one wrote a short story depicting a scenario where the president was found guilty.

Every single one.

Isn't that amazing?

They couldn't find one fiction writer to write something where Trump was not guilty.

It's crazy.

One story had Trump signing the 25th Amendment, and another even had him being assassinated by a Russian agent with the help of Secret Service.

Yeah.

No, no, we can write about the president being assassinated.

We're not advocating violence.

No, no, no.

What are you talking?

Are you kidding me?

No,

that was about the Russians.

That wasn't about a coup.

Yes, yes.

Okay, Secret Service was involved, but that's not about a coup.

This is the New York Times.

You know the ones who are leading the way saying, oh my gosh, the talk of violence is so horrible.

Oh my gosh, and we don't print fake news.

You're supposed to be investigators.

You're supposed to be neutral.

I thought that was the idea.

Let's be neutral.

Now, I understand that everybody has an opinion, but five writers and no one can come up with anything other than the guy is guilty and maybe he's going to be killed by the Secret Service.

This is unbelievable.

How is it that 200 journalists can sign a letter claiming that everything is the president's fault when the flagship of the American media is writing this bull crap while the pipe bombs are coming in?

This Times Piece, Exhibit A

for why journalism is currently dead in America.

It is dead in America.

All of you dancing on the grave of Megan Kelly,

really,

what was her big sin?

She asked a question.

Oh my gosh, lock her in a tower.

Oh my gosh, she's got to be chased out of the public square.

You can't ask a question.

Don't you dare ask a question.

This is frightening America.

Fact-finding is gone.

The media has already made up their mind.

They know the answer.

And if you disagree, they will chase you out of the public square.

They have no inclination to actually even attempt to find the truth, even attempt to understand.

Yes, there's a little righteous indignation in me.

It's not anger.

It is

righteous indignation

because I have called these people.

I have talked to these people.

I have gone to them over and over again with hat in hand and said, listen, you need to understand how half the country feels.

Just have a conversation.

You're making a huge error.

And yes, I made all these errors.

Oh my gosh, I'm the worst person in the world.

I'm with you.

Just listen to me, please.

You have to hear what half the country is saying.

They won't do it.

They're not interested.

They don't care.

And now they're quite literally making it up.

What's the difference between a novelist and a New York Times journalist?

I don't know.

Media,

this is a radical concept.

And I know you like radicals.

You love radicals.

You, you, there's nothing wrong with being radicals.

It's not a mob.

No, no, no.

Those are, those are just people that feel passionately.

So I know you love radicals.

But here's a radical idea.

If you don't want to be called fake,

you might want to just start with literally stopping publishing fiction.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Can we check what the New York Times is saying about this?

No, we can.

Now, there's, of course, we all know.

We all know.

Let's rush to judgment.

Kavanaugh was, of course, a gang rapist, and these bombs are clearly Donald Trump's fault.

Okay, here's the New York Times.

None of the devices harmed anyone, and it was not immediately clear whether any of them could have.

Wait.

No, these are pipe bombs.

These are very dangerous.

Yeah.

I mean, in fact, it shows a level of sophistication.

That's what I heard from CNN.

These pipe bombs show a level of sophistication.

What's the New York Times say now?

One law enforcement official said investigators were examining the possibility that they were hoax devices that were constructed to look like bombs but would not have exploded.

Wow.

Now,

you may have read this story from the New York Times, and you may have said, well, they never gave us really any details on that.

Well, you probably didn't get to paragraph 34.

That's what I'm saying.

But you like.

You know how Jewish people read from right to left.

We read left to right.

Okay.

I, with the New York Times, it's like reading a foreign language.

I like to read bottom-up.

There's a lot of good stuff towards the bottom.

Yeah, when you get to the bottom, you start with the bottom.

It's funny because usually the headline doesn't match.

Some bomb technicians who studied photos of the device that circulated on social media suggested the bomb sent to CNN had the hallmarks of fake explosives, the kind more typically depicted on television and in movies rather than devices capable of detonating.

Almost like like a wily coyote kind of bomb.

Almost.

A digital clock was taped to the middle of the pipe, a feature that experts say is typically shown on fictional bombs in an attempt to ratchet up dramatic tension,

but unnecessary in real life.

Unnecessary.

In fact, in fact, they go on.

The New York Times, in fact, bomb makers generally avoid attaching visible clocks to their devices

to keep from tipping off their targets

about when the bombs are set to explode.

I thought it was just like a nice little clock they were sending to these people for their desk.

That's what I thought.

You look at that and you're like, that's not a bomb.

Here's a bonus if you survive.

That's all it is.

That's it.

You got a nice little alarm clock.

You know what?

100% survivability so far on these bombs.

100% survivability.

Isn't that weird?

It is weird.

Now, look, could it be a, I think, here's a plausible scenario that someone on the right did this.

Okay.

Someone on the right who really does not like all these figures decided that they wanted to send a message to all these figures, but aren't actually a murderer.

They wanted to scare the hell out of them, but they didn't actually want to kill somebody.

I think that is a plausible scenario.

Do you want to know what you could be doing to this country?

Let me show you.

And they're crazy.

They were wrong.

Totally horrible.

Despicable.

But they weren't murderers.

And so they built this to look like a bomb.

If you look on, I mean, you get this example of this on social media all the time.

I mean, if we counted all of the death threats and horrible things that you get on social media as real all the time,

you'd have to have a staff of a thousand checking them all out.

Instead, you know, most of the time, people say crap on social media that goes way too far and that they don't actually intend on doing.

They don't intend on, you know, you saw the stuff that happened to, for example, Dana Lash, right?

Like, had to take all those things seriously when she was on TV.

She got all sorts of threats on her family, and they did take them seriously.

But, like, as far as I know, at least, no one actually acted on those things.

Thank God.

Right.

So, you have these serious threats that come into public figures often, and sometimes they don't wind up panning out most of the time, right?

Even you go look at terrorists.

I mean, the amount of people in the Middle East who say that they would execute a terrorist attack on people who are, on, you know, people from another country, for example, the United States, is so high, it's incredibly disturbing.

You almost would never walk outside if you realized how many millions of people will tell pollsters that, yes, I would kill American citizens.

However, obviously, they're not all doing it, right?

Whether it's because they're not capable of doing it, or whether they're

in reality, they just want to send a message or they really don't like them, but I'm not going to go kill someone, whatever the reason is.

And that could be the situation here.

Could be the same thing from someone on the left who wants to make the right look bad a week before the election, sending these things around with no intention of killing anyone, but wants to make a big media circus.

These things are all plausible possibilities.

We have no reason to know that other than the fact that these were all political figures and none of the bombs seemed to work.

Those are really all that's all the information we have right now.

Well, but I know that's that's pretty much all the information they had on the Reichstag fire.

And I don't know about you, but I think the Germans behaved admirably.

I think the Germans did exactly the

go with you on that one.

No, no, but it's it's the Reichstag, the communists did that, right?

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

Like listening to this podcast?

If you're not a subscriber, become one now on iTunes.

And while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show.

Should we talk a little bit about

Megan Kelly?

Yes, and the heinous, horrific crimes she committed.

I'm surprised.

I don't know.

Why is she still walking around in this society?

Sincerely.

Has she been imprisoned yet?

I don't think so, and she needs to be.

She's dangerous.

Well, she has, you know, she has violated something that NBC feels passionately about.

They do.

Well, they started to.

They didn't feel that passionately about it when Jimmy Fallon dressed up in Blackface as Chris Rock.

Wait, what?

Yeah, he dressed up and imitated Chris Rock.

Yeah, but on what network, though?

Well, that was on CBC.

Oh, it was NBC.

NBC.

Wait, that's the same network that Megan Kelly worked for.

And she just said, dress up in Blackface.

No, no, no.

She said it might be okay for Halloween.

If you are not making fun of someone, right?

So he wasn't making fun of them.

Well, he was.

He was kind of making fun of Chris Waldo.

He was.

He was imitating him.

You know, it's even more egregious than that, though.

And

it's despicable that we have to play this game.

And it's okay for all of them.

The Jimmy Kimmel thing with

imitating Carl Malone.

Do we have that audio yet, Sarah?

My God.

That one is egregious.

Oh, we haven't.

Listen, this is Jimmy Kimmel in Blackface.

Sometime at night, Carl Malone looks up in the sky and say, what the hell is going on up there?

Do UFO live on another planet, phoning home like E.T.?

Wow.

Carl Malone read on TV about white people getting deducted by aliens, sticking all kinds of hell up their butt.

And that's a damn thing.

Now, Carl Malone never seen no flying saucer himself, but if he do, that's going to be a spooky time.

That's why Carl Malone says, government got to

that's hang on.

That's Jimmy Kimmel.

It's unbelievable.

It's unbelievable.

We talked about you imagine even

talking that way.

No.

Without blackface, just talking that way.

It would be our last day on

the game.

We talked

of a couple different examples of blackface being used in comedy fairly recently.

It's always Sunny in Philadelphia.

It was one of the examples we brought up.

And it's always Sunny in Philadelphia.

They did it, and they did it as for a, they were making a point, right?

Like that only these moronic characters on this show would think that that's an appropriate thing.

This Jimmy Kimble bit is just saying, hey, I'm black and I'm Carl Malone.

It's just him mocking a black person and mocking the way he

can't speak.

The only thing that's funny about that is the way he speaks.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's it.

I mean, play that again.

Tell me the joke in here other than the way he's speaking.

What was it?

Ebonics.

Isn't that what they used to call?

Yeah, and then the third person.

That's the only other thing he's doing.

Right.

Now listen to this.

Tell me the joke.

Sometime at night, Carl Malone looks up in the sky and say, what the hell is going on up there?

No joke.

Do UFO live on another planet, phoning home like E.T.?

Carl Malone read on TV about white people getting deducted by aliens, sticking all kinds of hell up their butt.

And that's a damn thing.

Stop.

Now, there's not a single joke there.

No, no, not a single joke.

As Carl Malone always did,

not always, but often did, referring to himself in third person.

And it's a random topic.

That's the only other part of that.

It's a joke.

And he's in Blackface, right?

Like, that's unbelievable.

That's the gig.

And again,

and the Jamie Fallon one work because Jimmy Fallon is not a political enemy.

Kimmel has put himself in as a political commentator, so it's really egregious for him.

But Fallon, who is, I think, there's no ill intent by Jimmy Fallon doing that bit.

He's friends with Chris Rock, right?

But the issue here is it's on freaking NBC.

Yeah.

You can't, you're going to fire Michigan Kelly for mentioning it, but you're going to let Jimmy, you're going to give Jimmy Fallon the top place in your network.

So what she said was,

wait, but if you are, if you are holding somebody up, if you're making fun of them, okay, but if you're holding somebody up like this woman who, you know, with Diana Ross, she liked Diana Ross.

She wanted to look like Diana Ross for the night.

And she's not making fun of them.

And she's not making fun of Diana Ross.

Well, isn't that what Fallon did?

Actually, didn't ask the question, he just did the bit, did it.

Yeah,

you brought up a great point yesterday, Glenn.

I thought about this as we were getting close to we're getting close to Halloween.

The biggest deal in the world was made of finally African Americans have a superhero, Black Panther.

Finally, they have one.

Finally, after all this time, we've given them a superhero.

And one that actually people want to be.

White kids and black kids would want to be.

So if your white son decides he wants to be Black Panther

and thinks that it's now, of course, as a father, I would be like, sorry, dude, you're going to be surprised to hear this, but no, you cannot do that.

Like, he's not going to have no awareness of race.

But, I mean, if what he's trying to do is to, you know,

be one of his heroes who happens to be African-American and he obviously notices the difference in characteristics.

I mean, is that a horrible, horrible thing for a child to consider?

No,

of course not.

Would it be horrible if a black person dressed up as Superman?

No, no, no, it would not.

But wait, if they put on white face as Superman?

No.

I mean,

it seems ridiculous to do it because you don't.

I don't see.

Superman is white or black.

He's just a Superman.

It doesn't matter.

But because the name of the show isn't white Superman, it is Black Panther.

Try this.

Okay.

I just got this from an African-American friend of mine who I am not going to name because I'm afraid that they will be targeted.

Okay.

Glenn,

what about white face?

Literally this morning, my son in 11th grade said he and his friends want to be white chicks from the movie White Chicks.

I thought it was funny, but I don't know, especially at school.

People will take what's supposed to be funny and they'll be overly offended by it and start this back and forth drama that none of us need.

We live in a white community

and I literally said, I think this is going to come back to bite you later.

I never thought I'd have to tell my kid that from an African-American.

That's amazing.

Amazing.

And you know, it may not, there not, may not be a backlash.

We're going the other way for blacks dressing in white face.

That movie came out.

It depends on the political climate now.

There would have never been before, everybody would have thought it was funny.

There would have never been.

But because of the political climate, because people are, you know, you can't even talk about it.

This is.

So, what did we learn from Megan Kelly?

Don't you dare even ask a question.

Exactly.

Don't you dare even ask the question.

Here is a woman who is one of the smartest people on television.

She is as sharp as the sharpest razor.

We all worked with her.

We all know

you screw with Megan Kelly, and she will cut you to ribbons.

She is wicked, wicked smart.

Agree?

Oh, very smart.

So here's this woman who is working at a place that hired her.

And then my theory is they hired her because they thought, oh, she's a great investigative reporter.

She's great as an interviewer.

She was a big get at the time.

They're in a bidding war.

Yeah, she was a huge get.

As soon as, and they all thought this is going to be great, they put her in, and then the social justice warriors, all in in the network and outside the network, oh my goodness, how could you possibly?

She worked at Fox News.

And then they realized, oh, crap,

we're in trouble now with all of the fringe that we thought would be cool with anything that we do.

Now all the social justice warriors, and so they needed a way out.

They have persecuted her, persecuted her all the way through.

So what happens?

They see this opportunity.

She's asked a question.

That's it.

She just says, well, wait a minute.

Is this wrong?

So here's what we learn.

That even one of the most powerful celebrities, one of the most powerful educated women

is so frightened by the social justice mob inside NBC that the very next day, this very bright woman

who knows who she is,

goes on on television crying, literally, you can see it in her face, crying.

She's so frightened by these people that she says, I'm sorry, I've learned a lot.

Well, what did America learn?

America didn't learn.

And I mean this sincerely.

Mean this absolutely sincerely.

Pat, Stu, can either of you give me a non-politically correct reason why this is so offensive to wear blackface like Diana Ross if you're not making fun of her.

You're not, you're not

aspiring to be someone you would admire.

Right.

Can either of you give me a non-politically correct answer?

In other words, you can't use political correctness.

Well, because people will be upset.

No, no, no.

Tell me why.

Well, the only reason I have is the one from Al Roker, and

which is?

Which was that this was used sort of as a battering ram against blacks in the 20s and 30s.

Okay, okay, so hang on.

Right, sure.

Absolutely.

And it was over-the-top impersonation.

Exactly.

Exactly right.

And that's the 2030s.

Ask any millennial, ask anyone under 30, who's Mr.

Bojangles?

They're not going to know.

No, they don't.

Do you know who Mr.

Bojangles is?

He's from the song.

He's from the song.

Do you know who he was?

Yeah, dancing with Shirley Times.

Shirley Temple.

The guy that you always see with Shirley Temple that's doing the dance up the stairs.

That's Mr.

Bojangles, okay?

One of the greatest dancers of all time.

Now, you know, Mr.

Bojangles, that's just for some reason politically incorrect.

You ask people who Mr.

Bojangles is, they don't have any idea.

It may have been in the 20s and 30s, but it's not today.

And again,

Roker is still inserting.

An over-the-top impression, which was not suggested by Megan Kelly.

You know, wait a minute, like an over-the-top impersonation like Sarah Silverman did with giant cartoon lips?

You mean like

what,

what's his name just did, Jimmy Kimmel or Jimmy Fallon?

It's always sunny in Philadelphia, Robert Downey Jr.

in

Tropic Thunder.

I mean, blackface is not a, it's been used particularly in comedic circumstances, usually, though, to make a point that blackface is ridiculous.

Not the case with Jimmy Kimmel.

And again, she

was blackface.

She did not know what she was doing.

And she talked about somebody doing it.

She specifically said:

if you are trying to, you know, lift this person up because you're a huge fan.

That's what she said.

This was a political hit job.

Sure was.

And this should stiffen the back of every single conservative and anyone in the media.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are going against everything this country has ever stood for.

No matter how ugly the speech is, the First Amendment, a member of the press, is being silenced by you

for asking a question.

Now, you may not.

You may not have agreed with this question because I can see how corrosive, how dangerous, how awful that question really was.

But God help you when you ask a question that your overlords, who may I just point out,

Antifa, the far, far, far left, that many of you are starting to go, I don't know, I'm starting to be afraid of my own side.

When they actually grab you by the throat and say, you can't ask that question,

know this.

I will still be consistent.

It will be really hard, but I I will still stand for your right to ask whatever stupid question you want to ask.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Bill.

Beck.

Pipe bombs.

Yeah.

No idea.

You know, I think we have have to wait for the FBI to erect company, which I think.

No, we don't, Bill.

Come on.

We don't have to wait for any of that.

CNN was out and New York Times were they were out with their opinion immediately.

I know, and they bear no responsibility for the acrimony, word of the day, sweeping across the nation.

The New York Times and CNN bear no responsibility

for 18 months, more than that, two years, two years of constant

negativity,

constant criticism, constant smearing,

but they bear no responsibility back.

Okay,

just to make your point so crystal clear, I'd like to play a couple of audio pieces for you just to

listen to them.

And then this, I'm sure, backs this up.

Could we play flashback Rick Wilson, please?

Trump is still a very powerful force right now, and he's still holding a lot of

the part of the base that is very activated by his message, the nativist message

that's got a fraction of the base very energized.

And the donor class can't just sit back on the sidelines and say, oh, well, don't worry, this will all work itself out.

They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump.

And that's a fact.

Okay, so that's MSNBC.

How about this is Johnny Depp?

It's just a question.

I'm not insinuating anything.

By the way, this is going to be in the press.

It'll be horrible.

But I like that you're all a part of it.

When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?

How about this one?

Flashback law professor on Trump.

You can't be the boy who cried wolf and expect to have a viable impeachment power.

You can't use it over and over again against the same president.

Right.

If you're going to shoot him, you've got to shoot the kill.

That requires an overwhelming majority of a bipartisan kind.

Okay.

Let me go to MSNBC again.

What Jeb Bush should do.

So I told Jeb Bush after that debate that I thought he should have punched him in the face.

I said, even if you lost, he insulted your wife.

He came down the escalator and called Mexicans rapists and murders.

He said, well, what do you think I should have done?

I said, I think you should have punched him in the face and then gotten out of the race.

You would have been a hero.

So,

Bill.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, we can't target districts.

We can't target because that causes violence.

Put a bullet in the head, punch him in the face, take him out, put a bullet into Donald Trump.

When's the last time an actor killed a president?

I don't know.

What do you think?

You know, it's hard for me to

keep stating the same thing over and over again.

I mean, I think everybody listening to us right now understands

that,

yeah, President Trump is undisciplined in the way he phrases things,

but his choice, as I laid out in my column on billorilly.com, he had a choice.

So President Trump could have done what George W.

Bush did, was ignore the personal attacks.

Bush is a fascist.

Bush is stupid.

Bush knew about there were no weapons of discretion, but killed American soldiers anyway.

You know, Bush ignored it all.

65%.

65% of Democrats believed when George Bush was in office that he had something to do with 9-11, and that conspiracy was started by someone they claim is on the right, and he is not.

It was started by what's his fat-faced loudmouth guy.

What's his name?

No, no, no.

Alex Jones.

65%.

Whatever it is, you know, and I talked to Bush about this on television extensively, and he basically said, factor, that's my strategy.

I'm not changing it.

Okay, so that's number one.

So Donald Trump could have done that, easy, but he chose to fight back.

Trump did.

And he said, I'm not going to let these people marginalize me because it'll never end.

And the American people see me as a fighter.

They see me as a person who strikes back when attacked.

So

I'm going to do that.

So then you have to say, okay, well, who started the fracas?

fracas?

Who started this?

And you can make a case that Trump's bombastic attacks on his rivals

in the primary process

started it.

You can make a case for that.

How?

How?

Look, he's a symptom.

Yeah, he's a symptom.

The American people have never been this way.

We've never been this way.

No, no.

He was a symptom of people feeling beaten and kicked to death by being called racist and homophobe and everything else by the press.

That came later

when it was apparent that Trump was a player and could win.

See, what people don't understand is that in the beginning, the press didn't think that Donald Trump could

do anything.

He didn't have a chance.

He was like, entertainment.

All right?

Let's bring out the dancing bear.

That's how the press saw him.

But then when he started to win, the whole strategy changed.

And I keep saying that this comes from the corporate level, and it does.

Okay?

So then it was destroy him.

Destroy him.

That were the orders that came down from the editors of the New York Times.

Not in those words, but it was very clear what they wanted to do.

Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and then...

Destroy here.

They're on video saying that.

Yes, okay.

So there's no doubt that people listening to us know that.

So then it's, all right, if that's the destruction that has been ordered, how does Trump

counter?

What does he do?

He doesn't have surrogates.

I mean, there are no surrogates who can do it for him.

He has to do it.

So he does it in a very blunt and sometimes disturbing way for a president.

But my column said, what is his choice?

If he doesn't do it, they are going to marginalize and destroy him.

He'll be the laughing stock.

And yeah, in the liberal precincts he is already, but he doesn't care about that.

But he has a growing, I believe, growing number of people supporting him.

And the reason he has it is because he gives them no quarter.

He fights back.

But now they're turning it around saying, well,

you're fight back.

It's like Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh fought back.

Oh, he's out of control.

Oh, that's not,

that fight back shows he doesn't have the temperament.

Oh, come on.

You're being destroyed by these people and you're not allowed to show emotion?

It's the same thing.

So now with the bomb thing, oh, Trump did it.

We're CNN.

We're not responsible for any of it.

Oh, no, not us.

Now, I'm hoping that the vast majority of the American people understand what's happening.

I think they do because CNN's ratings are so terrible.

No matter what they do, no matter how they ratchet it up,

still very, very few people watch them.

So I'm hoping they get it.

Well, they're not going to.

So, Bill,

how much trouble are they in?

I mean, the New York Times, literally paragraph 35

in the New York Times, talks about how this doesn't look like these bombs were made by somebody who wanted to actually kill anybody.

This was just a statement of some sort.

What happened?

From the jump.

Of course.

They're cartoon bombs.

The only thing it doesn't.

This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight or bomb straight.

This is ridiculous.

From the jump.

This was a press.

We're going to do this to get it into the press because we know the media will go hysterical.

Correct.

And it could be somebody who was on the right and didn't want to kill anybody but wanted to make a statement and they're crazy.

Could be somebody on the left who wanted to do the same thing.

Could be somebody who is just a really

unbelievably worst bomb maker known to man, which I highly doubt.

But it could very well be somebody who thought, you know what, we're going to send these to the press.

We're going to send these to

all of the enemies of the right, and

it will sway an election.

Obviously, contrive to get media attention to influence the midterms.

I'm putting my money on Putin.

Yeah,

Putin did it.

How does the media respond when it turns out that

it's either a prank with no political motive or it was politically motivated by the left.

Well, that would be an amazing story, wouldn't it?

That's why I'm hoping the FBI can flesh this out pretty quickly.

How would the press handle that?

I think that they would

look, you have to understand that every morning out of the Washington, D.C.

think tanks, progressive think tanks, they send stuff

to Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow and these people.

They get stuff.

So that

they'll sit down and go, okay, now how are we going to spin this?

Maybe the person sending it was insane, you know, that kind of thing.

They'll never say, well, gee, maybe

our side is so crazed now that we have to criticize our side.

You're never going to see that.

I want to start

with

something that John Kasich said said yesterday because he was on CNN and boy isn't he the voice that we should all be listening to.

Listen to what John Kasich said about the

caravan coming from Honduras.

They're marching north and you know what?

It could easily have been all of us that we're in the caravan, that we're marching north trying to save our families and save our children.

We've got to start putting ourselves in the shoes of other people.

We've got to start thinking about the consequences that others suffer.

And if we've been spared those by the grace of God,

let us be appreciative.

Let us count our blessings.

Please stop.

I can't take him anymore.

Bill,

within six hours, my crack team

found out who these people were, what the real intention was.

And the press and John Kasich still are just saying, no, no, no, these are just good people.

You want to talk a little bit about the caravan?

Yeah.

First of all, I know Kasich's a long time.

He used to sub for me once in a while on a factor on Fox.

He's a good man,

very sincere, did a nice job running Ohio.

But John is a theoretical guy.

He's not...

a real world guy and people ought to know that.

So he basically saying, Americans, we have to put ourselves in the position of somebody in Honduras who is poor and oppressed because the society down there is violent and out of control.

Okay,

but then what is the point of that exercise, Governor Kasich?

That we allow everyone in Honduras to come to Ohio?

Everyone?

And the same thing with all the poor countries in the world.

Because that's what you are espousing by saying that the caravan people should be allowed to seek asylum in the United States.

That's what you're saying.

Everyone can come here and do that.

We would leave California.

California would be a foreign country within 18 months.

Right.

Three-year backlog right now of asylum

hearings.

And if you apply, you are in the country.

You're here for three years at least.

Okay?

What do you do here?

Who knows?

50% of all immigrant families, both illegal and legal, are on means-tested welfare.

So there's a one out of two chance that the American taxpayers are going to have to pick up some of your bills.

$22 trillion debt right now for the USA.

So if you look at the unintended consequences of John Kasich's vision of compassion, it's not compassion at all.

You're basically wrecking

a system that does provide true opportunity for 320 million Americans should they do what they need to do to succeed.

You're wrecking that system, Governor Kasich.

Do you not understand that?

See, I could, and that's the debate.

I mean, I just crushed him in the debate because he would have no answer for any of that.

Bill,

tell me who's behind this.

Who's financing this?

Well, I do believe it's the progressive crew,

the George Soros people,

because

that's who has done it in the past.

And we did a big thing on BillO'Reilly.com last night about Soros after CBS glorified him.

We said, no,

he's pumping in 2018, this year alone, tens of millions of dollars into the worst organizations.

And by that, I mean they attack and smear anyone they disagree with.

David Brock runs one of them.

That's the media matters guy.

And don't tell me that

this is a benevolent man.

So I believe that these

kinds of people, I can't prove it because there's no accountability in Honduras, but I believe they're behind it because there is big money behind it, as everybody knows.

Bill, I invite you to read what even the president of Honduras is saying.

This is backed by a Cuba,

Venezuela,

and ousted president of Honduras that are blaming the United States for all of the unrest.

The former president says that America is going to have to pay for all of this.

They'll have to accept our citizens.

This is just an ongoing internal battle in Honduras that has, quite honestly, lied to many of their people

and said that America is going to have to take you and they're going to because they're responsible for this mess.

This is a Marxist revolutionary

that

has tried to take Honduras by force.

The Supreme Court, two branches of their government, found what he was doing to be unconstitutional and kicked him out.

And he's been causing problems ever since.

And now he, Venezuela, and Cuba are together in what was formerly known as ALBA, but they are pissed at the United States, and they're the ones financing at least the beginning of it.

That's how it started.

Now, Soros or others may be involved, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet, but I would not put it past them.

Right.

And it would be interesting to see if there is a pipeline of cash going into Tegu Sagalpa.

So this is what I say.

I'm skeptical of everything, and I agree with you.

There has been no hard evidence put forth that George Soros or people like him did this.

But if, you know, it's one of

the things they've done in the past.

But the government of Honduras should be able to trace

foreign money coming into that country back.

They should be able to show people this is what has arrived here.

So

I hope they do that.

If they believe Cuba and Venezuela are actively involved in subverting their own country, Honduras, and then by extension hurting the USA, they have the ability to find that out.

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.