RADIOOctober 12, 2022

A Russian hoax culprit now is helping government CENSOR US!

John Solomon, CEO and Editor-In-Chief of ‘Just The News,’ joins Glenn to expose The Election Integrity Partnership — a coalition of entities that responds to censorship requests by urging social media and Big Tech platforms to throttle certain posts, users, or pages. And, Solomon explains, this is something they’re doing in conjunction with the U.S. State Department: It’s ‘the largest federally sanctioned censorship operation ever uncovered in America,’ he says. But, it gets even worse. One of the players involved in this all is Robbie Mook — former Hillary Clinton campaign manager AND one of the culprit’s in the Russian collusion hoax to take down Donald Trump. Solomon explains the 2 reasons why Mook’s involvement is so significant and what this means for U.S. censorship moving forward…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Our good friend and a serious journalist, John Solomon. Welcome to the program, sir. How are you?

JOHN: Good to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Can you recap this story for anybody who may have missed it or may have forgotten about it, that you broke three or four weeks ago?

JOHN: Yeah. And there's a big development today I'll get to. But the election integrity partnership, was a three -- four-person, or four-entity -- private entity that came together. Two universities. Cyber community companies. And they formed this sort of left-leaning project that worked with the Homeland Security Department, and the State Department, to create a concierge ticket system, that people could file tickets, saying, I think this information will use the election integrity project. Go on behalf of us. And ask the social media companies to throttle the post, delete the post, or block the post, or flag the post.

And they did this. And they did it with significant reach. According to their own after action report, which we obtained. They impacted 4800 URLs, websites, 4800 of them, 20 journalists. More than two dozen conservative influencers. And by the way, we're one of the news organizations that was censored or blocked by this.

GLENN: Right.

We are too, and I was named as a super spreader.

JOHN: You were.

GLENN: I mean, there's a chart that you obtained, introducing the narrative, mainstreaming it, and then super spreaders. And this was about the Colour Revolution.

Which I don't know any -- I don't know who -- Beattie is. I don't know any of the others who were saying this. We were doing our even independent research.

And then it says -- Darren Beattie appears on Tucker Carlson. The next one is: Significant influencer pickup. Glenn Beck and mass spreading, sharing dynamics, as users post stories, and claims to Facebook groups.

So I'm a super spreader.

JOHN: Yeah. Welcome to the club. It's just amazing. The idea that -- and the country that was founded with the First Amendment. The very first one that our Founding Fathers gave us. Free speech. To see this collaboration, DHS sanctions. The State Department actually sends requests.

Helmuth didn't send any requests to actually censor the State Department. Private groups, including the Democratic National Committee did.

And this partnership itself, did a lot of its own flagging under the name of the government, forwarding it to -- 22 million tweets. Social media posts were impacted by the targeting that this group did.

Thirty-five percent of the time, when the request was maid of Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, and Google, the request was granted by social media.

That's a pretty good batting average. I know some baseball players that would take a batting average. A really, really significant -- the largest federally sanctioned censorship operation ever uncovered in America. And today we have a brand-new development. It turns out that one of the players, who was instructing the Homeland Security department during the 2020 election was a Harvard University entity, traded by Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager, Robbie.

Now, why is that significant? First off, another left-leaning person involved in the machinery. But it was Robbie, in 2016, who testified during the Sussmann trial, recently, he and Hillary Clinton sanctioned the idea of leaking key things about the Russia collusion there. The fake Russian collusion narrative, to the news media, even though they weren't sure it was true.

Think about that, in 2016, he's the perpetrator in one of the largest disinformation campaigns ever pulled out in American electorate history, and four years later, he's advising his group at the developer center, at Harvard University is advising the government on how to fight this information

GLENN: This is craziness. Is there anyone picking this up, to break this up? Or is this just getting worse?

JOHN: Absolutely -- well, it's definitely accelerating.

The group is back in action. They said they got the gang back together in a tweet post just a few days ago.

There are multiple members of Congress that have jumped in. Johnson, the Senate Homeland Committee.

James Comer, likely to be the chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Jim Jordan, likely, to be the chairman of judiciary committee, if Republicans gain control, Chuck Grassley, likely to be Senate judiciary community chairman. They're all asking questions. My understanding is, there may be a preservation letter going out in the next couple of days.

GLENN: What is it? Okay.

So, John, can I ask a question that maybe you're not prepared to answer. But --

JOHN: Sure.

GLENN: You know, just based on my gut, and I could very well be wrong, but this doesn't feel like an election that's going to be close.

And I hope it's not. One way or another, I hope it's not.

Because I don't think people are going to believe, that it wasn't fixed. The -- the Democrats will know that it was fixed. But if they lose, they'll say, it was the other side fixing it. And conservatives are so concerned about the last election. And it feels at least in Texas, it feels like a -- a red wave.

And I'm not suggesting that it feels like a 20-point margin. But it feels like we will win if they are close. We would win.

Could be wrong.

Are these elections safe? Are they secure?

JOHN: Well, listen, they're -- we have a much better handle on the rule changes, that really tipped the election to the favor of Democrats in 2020.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court rulings. Arizona legislation. Georgia legislation. Florida legislation. Texas legislation.

A lot of the states, particularly the red states, and the battle ground states, have attempted to fix the issues, that a lot of people believe hijacked the 2020 election. There are some states where the issues aren't fixed. Pennsylvania is a concern for a lot of people.

There has been some unusual activity in Colorado.

I think 30,000 registrations went out. We just confirmed this, this morning, to noncitizens who aren't supposed to vote in Colorado. So there are still failures and mistakes. We know Iran hacked into the 2020 election. We learned that a year after it occurred.

But I think the system is more insulated against the sort of tactics that the Democrats and liberals and their bureaucratic friends and the election bureaucracy, try to use during the covid-19 are wiser, smarter.

There are more election poll watchers ready to go and train, something that I think Glenn Youngkin did very well. And praised the model for the Republican Party, nationally. So I think people have greater confidence, that the system will be better oiled, less craziness.

And, also, changes to rules that they've done in the name of COVID-19, have been rolled back in a big way.

And I think another important thing happened two weeks ago, Glenn. I don't know if a lot of people paid attention. Because it happened on a Friday night.

But an Obama-era judge, Obama-appointed judge, declared that the whole concept that made Stacey Abrams, the national figure that she is, that Georgia is the epicenter of a 21st century Jim Crow race this voting system, an Obama judge struck down every count of her lawsuit. That sends a pretty powerful message to Americans and Georgians alike, that just asking for someone's ID is not racist. Checking somebody's citizenship is not racist.

Having a court declare that. By the way, a court led by a Democratic judge is I think, probably a very important force, going into this election.

GLENN: Let me switch subjects.

Ukraine. First of all, why is the teacher's union head, Randi Weingarten over on the front lines of Ukraine today?

I mean, I'm not even going to joke about it.

Anyway, why is she over there?

She's assessing the situation. What kind of payoff favors are -- what is happening there?

JOHN: Yeah. It's a mystery for a lot of people. She obviously has been over there. She says that she's trying to help the Ukrainian schools weather and perform the middle of a war. Who knows what's really going on there.

Listen, Ukraine has long been a favor to liberal Democrats. They have championed these causes. And, you know, they're in the middle of a brutal war. Putin's attack on Sunday was a brutal attack, because it targeted civilians.

It killed lots of people, unnecessarily.

I don't know what actually motivates are there. We're trying to find out. We put some FOIAs in at the State Department.

Because the State Department probably would have cleared or been -- we found out beyond what she said, what's there.

But, listen, this is a very dangerous war. It is already -- had enormous consequences on the economy of the European Union. Enormous human consequences to the Ukrainian people.

And Vladimir Putin is acting more and more desperate, and I think a lot of people have to look for, do we have a president? Do we have a leadership in the world, that can find an offramp?

Right now, stop this war, and try to create a negotiated settlement.

GLENN: Does it seem like we're looking for an off-ramp to you?

JOHN: I had an amazing interview with Victoria Coates over the weekend. Former Deputy National Security Adviser. She said, that Joe Biden is missing the opportunity.

He has not defined to the American people, what the endgame is, why we're spending this money.
And, well, he tried to find the exit strategy beyond regime change in Russia. And there's no answer. She said, this is a sign of an extraordinary weak leadership, that Joe Biden has brought before foreign policy.

GLENN: Yesterday, we had our airports, the outward facing websites went down. It looks like the Russians, not the government, but probably a front organization, claimed responsibility, that they are going to start to hassle and make our lives more difficult by hacking into systems here.

JOHN: Yeah. That's -- that's something that we're seeing increasingly -- and including indictments. There was an indictment about three weeks ago, of some Iranian hackers, who were targeting a key infrastructure, particularly energy infrastructure.

You see the airport this week, and we know the Iranians successfully hacked a database. Let's keep this in mind. The guy who went on 60 Minutes, said, we have a completely secure proof election in 2020.

We later found out a year later, because of an indictment, because of the FBI and Justice Department. That wasn't true. That, actually, beginning in the summer of 2020, our homeland security department, the agency knew that we had been penetrated by Iran.

They were able to get into one state's voter database, and steal 150,000 American's identity. That's a really remarkable revelation that was kept from us, during the 2020 election. The infiltration of state-sponsored hackers is growing every day in our infrastructure.

It's way behind being insulated. I think that's one of the concerns. We have hospital systems. Energy systems. Water systems. All being penetrated and tested every day. And this is the next front of warfare. Right?

The digital warfare is -- I remember it about a decade ago, was Leon Podesta, the CIA director said we're going to have a digital Pearl Harbor, one day, because we're just not ready for it.

And I think the efforts to get that digital Pearl Harbor, started by our enemies, are growing by the day.

GLENN: If you could, hang on for one minute. I want to take a one-minute break, and then back in with John Solomon, who is just -- he's one of the guys that I really trust. If you don't read just the news, you should. Justthenews.com.

All right. Tonight, when you climb into bed. You're going to be lying down on excellent sheets with maximum comfortability. Or are you just going to get the average sleep?

I'm something of a sheet snob, or I like to say, aficionado. I could tell you, my favorite sheets, and I mean this, bar none. Are the Giza dream sheets. They're from MyPillow. They're absolutely fantastic. I've been sleeping on them for years. I wouldn't trade them for my life. And you can get them for the lowest price ever, new. 39.99. Really good sheets. Cost a fortune.

Well, these are made with Giza cotton. Best cotton comes from Egypt. These are Giza cotton.

And they're fantastic. I do not know about the thread count. I don't really care. I just know, they're super soft. 39.99. Right now. They're as low as they've ever been. So I want you to go to MyPillow.com. MyPillow.com. Click on the radio listener special square.

Check out the flash sale on the Giza dream sheets, along with limited time offers. Enter the promo code Beck, or call 800-966-3117. 800-966-3117.

Promo code Beck. Right now, at MyPillow.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
John, I don't know if you follow the story. I watched it a couple of times. First, the New York Times came out and said, that's a conspiracy theory. And then the very next day, Gasgon from LA put a warrant out for the arrest of this voting machine company, and he was arrested, I think in Michigan, or she, and brought to California because of the transfer of information to China, which they say was a mistake.

But I'm not sure I believe that. Do you know what this story is really all about?

JOHN: Well, this is a really important story.

First off, it's a far left prosecutor, that has brought it.

But acknowledging that this company, this Michigan-based company appears to have stored valuable data about the election poll workers and election system workers on a server in China.

And that this was not only a breach of the contract according to the district attorney's office. It was a national security risk. And it shows, once again, just like the Iran hacking deal we talked about a few days ago. Our foreign adversaries are looking for any way to steal data. To steal identities in America. To influence elections. To influence corporate business decisions.

And this possibility, this idea that this was sitting on the servers, while they were trying to penetrate or not. The indictment is silent on that issue right now.

But it shows it was -- at the very least, very sloppy. And put, you know, this software. This poll chief software, in a location where it could easily be penetrated by the Chinese.

GLENN: But here's what doesn't make sense to me. That's a violation of a corporate contract. What's the criminality here?

JOHN: False representations in the contract, is basically the -- and if you look at the indictment, right? There's a representation that they weren't doing what they were doing.

But there's also, it says, in the charges that were released by the district attorney. A suspicion of theft of personal identifying information. A suspicion of theft.

We don't know more about that yet. We expect more of that, when the extradition of court hearings begin going on. But a lot of cross-pollination. A Michigan county -- L.A. County working together to unravel this case. And bring in this indictment. A lot of eyes are on this, because it goes against the grain of a lot of narratives of the left. But in this case, one of the left's favorite. Gasgon, he's the one bringing this case, and my understanding is, the FBI has been involved. There's a lot of different pieces of -- different players still trying to figure it out --

GLENN: Yeah. That's one of the reasons why I don't trust.

Oh, it's Gasgon and the FBI. Oh, well, I feel safe now. One last thing. You know, I'm seeing something. And I just can't believe is true. But I think it is. They're not going to do anything about Hunter Biden, are they?

JOHN: We'll see. Listen, I think there was a significant amount of activity before the grand jury this spring, that brought forth the sort of evidence that would support charges for tax evasion, or tax violations.

I think for improper foreign lobbying, is one of the things that I worried about people being asked about in the grand jury. This gun charge came in late. Obviously other people have been charged with lying about using drugs, on their -- on their federal firearms license.

So I think at the end of the day, right after the election, the prosecutors will make a final decision. I think there are three outcomes, right?

One, they could cut a deal. That's the thing -- most likely thing will happen. Although a lawyer for Hunter says, two, there will be an indictment. Or, three, there will be some dispute, between the line U.S. attorney and the main justice, that will freeze this up.

But the evidence is now pouring out into the public. It will be hard for the Justice Department, not to take any action.

GLENN: And if the Democrats control the House and the Senate, will they be able to do anything about this?

JOHN: That's a great question. Right?

There may be less pressure for prosecutors to take a final action, and wrap this up. Because they know the Republicans won't be able to get it. I think one of the things to push this along. Has been the outcome of this election. The idea that Republicans may have one chamber of the Congress throwing -- putting pressure on the Justice Department. Hey, we don't want this out there -- about anything.

GLENN: Right.

JOHN: I think that's been the driving force a lot.

GLENN: Right. John Solomon.

Thank you so much always for all your work. Again, as I've said, if you've not read Just the News, you should start your day with Just the News. Justthenews.com. He is the CEO and editor and chief of John Solomon.

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.

The difference between debate and celebrating death

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?

Shocking train video: Passengers wait while woman bleeds out

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.