RADIODecember 07, 2023

The CLEAR WINNER of the 4th Republican debate

The RNC's 4th Republican debate of the 2024 primaries is over and Glenn has a clear winner. But it may not be who you think it is. Glenn and Stu review the debate, which they say was the best one yet thanks to moderator Megyn Kelly. And they also discuss whether former president Donald Trump has sat out the debates long enough. How would he perform against his fellow candidates? And if he does win the nomination, would any of the other candidates make a good vice president?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Great to be here, last night.

I thought it was interesting. I thought it was the best one.

GLENN: Me too. Me too.

I think the real winner last night out of all of it was Megyn Kelly. She was really, really good. She's on a plane today. We're hoping to catch her in between. But she was the winner. This was the best debate.

She held everybody's feet to the fire.

She asked tough questions.

She was fair. She told people, shut up.

Nobody can hear you. They were talking over each other. And it ended it. I mean, I thought she was really, really good.

STU: Yeah. Really, really good.

You know, her questions. And this goes back to her previous debate performances as well.

They're very well laid out.

You may not like the question. And I tink that's kind of the point with her. She's trying to ask a question that will put you in a difficult situation. To see what you can do with it. That's the whole point of these debates.

GLENN: Right.

STU: They weren't unfair.

GLENN: But she wasn't asking them for liberal reasons.

She was framing all of her questions, the way a conservative, would want it framed.

There are certain things that we want answered. That the liberals don't even understand.

STU: Yeah. If you think about how the left handles these debates. They ask the questions that they care about.

Which makes sense. But they ask, hey. What about January 6th? Or whatever.

And instead, you've got questions last night, that were substance related. They were actually issue related. They were policy related.

They were important questions that all the candidates needed to answer.

And I thought she did a great job. The whole debate overall, I thought was really good.

Maybe it's a low hurdle to clear. To say it's the best one of the four.

But I thought, look, if you take it out of the context of the actual election, which is difficult here to do. I understand it. You have a candidate, who is 20 or 30 points ahead, depending on which day you are looking at. And he's not there. So there's a big asterisk to all of this.

GLENN: But, you know what, I wouldn't do it either.

If I were Donald Trump, I was this far ahead. I wouldn't do it either.

STU: I think that's -- strategically, I agree with you.

GLENN: Yes. That's all there is.

When you are trying to win, you -- you used strategy. This is the best strategy. Honestly, if I were Donald Trump.

I would consider running the campaign, that Joe Biden did. With an exception of the one chair, and then a big circle around it.

And then like 12 feet later, another circle with a chair in the middle.

STU: Oh, my gosh, remember that? What a weird time.

GLENN: Yeah. It was horrible. But I would just stay quiet. Because everybody is hanging himself. And Joe Biden's economy. And the way he speaks. And hope he would be shamed in a debate. Because we do need a debate between the two of them.

STU: Do you really think that's an option for Donald Trump? Because I think he's doing that now, at some level with the assistance of the media.

The media seems to not really be focusing on Donald Trump right now, for whatever reason.

You talked about this, I think, a couple weeks ago. A former president of the you United States was testifying on stand, in a trial.

And I -- did we see any coverage of it at all. Other than a quick mention or headline.

Normally, they would be wall-to-wall. Saying how bad this guy is.

Or whatever they want to say.

Right now, it seems like they have made the decision, along with a bunch of Democrats, that the person they want to face. In this election is Donald Trump.

That may very well be a terrible decision for them. As we saw in 2016.

They made the same call. And it didn't work at all. But if they're making that choice, it seems like, once we get past the primary. Donald Trump is locked in as the candidate.

They're no longer going to leave every word he says on the sidelines.

GLENN: Okay. Unless --

STU: Do you believe that?

GLENN: They're dumb enough, and out of touch enough to do that.

STU: That's a prequalifier for sure.

GLENN: Let me give this. Comedian Bill Burr. He came out, launched into a rant. And he said, you F-ing stupid liberals. What are you doing?

You're making Donald Trump a martyr. And he's going to come back and win again.

And I think that's true. Remember, his -- his poll numbers went up when they started putting him up as a martyr and going after him.

And the left just doesn't understand. You know, this is Chris Christie. He got booed. Do we happen to have that clip?

Last thing he said was Donald Trump wasn't going to be -- wasn't going to be voting.

STU: Right. He was part of his final statement there. He was saying, picture yourself going to the polls in November.

One thing you won't be seeing is Donald Trump there. Because he won't be able to vote. Because he'll be a felon by then.

GLENN: And the whole place booed. And it's because -- here's what he's missing.

If -- if Donald Trump were being tried fairly. He was charged fairly.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Then it would be a different story.

But nobody. Most people don't feel that this is anything, but a political trial.

And so they're -- every time you go after him, you make him stronger. Because people are like, this isn't going to stand. This is the problem with this country.

STU: And I think we can all agree, with certainty, that that is the effect on Republican primary voters.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: The question is whether that's the effect on general election voters. That's a much more complicated question.

GLENN: Yes, especially independents.

STU: Right now, Donald Trump's polls look pretty good in the general. They look as good or better than any of the other candidates.

You know, Nikki Haley's polls have also looked pretty strong. But there's even some polls where Trump is ahead of Haley, running in a general election.

The issue, of course, with this, is we also are showing in these polls. Ten and 12 percent for RFK Jr. And you're seeing -- you're seeing Cornell West at 2 percent.

When we get further on in this process, what happens?

If you look at the latest polls on Joe Biden. He's down. These are terrible polls for him.

And typically, I think we would all look at that and celebrate. Right?

People are waking up. This is a good thing. Joe Biden's polls are county down. He's a weaker candidate. That's good.

The problem with that, when you look deeper at those polls.

One of those reasons you're seeing an erosion is because younger voters, that are hard-core Democrats.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Are saying, I don't like the way Joe Biden is so pro-Israel.

Now, number one, it's possible, that's just the reality. And they never want to vote.

They just go somewhere else.

It's possible. When we get, after a couple billion dollars are spent.

And we are now in October of 2024, do you think those younger voters whose complaint about Joe Biden is that he's too pro-Israel right now, are going to come back home?

They might just stay home. That might be the best thing possible. Because they're not going to Donald Trump. He's pro-Israel, clearly.

Much more than Joe Biden.

So that weakness, is -- we don't know how real it is.

We know that Joe Biden is a weak candidate.

But the reason why other candidates on the Republican side are beating Joe Biden handily.

Is largely because of this type of erosion.

Erosion from Democrats. Younger Democrats that are not typical Republican voters.

So if they come home, like they usually do. We know what happens with these Republicans.

Or, these third party candidates.

Gary Johnson was showing up at 10 and 12 percent of the polls. People forget that.

It didn't happen. It never holds.

So if that does happen. And people say, okay. Forget that. I'm going back home. I'm going to Joe Biden.

This election is too close. We know the arguments. If that happens, it will get much more difficult.

GLENN: I believe the only way that happens is if the press brings the -- the -- half the country back to this place that Donald Trump is Hitler.

And I don't know if that works universally anymore.

And here's why: Joe Biden conned a lot of people.

The Democrats conned a lot of people. That he was going to bring back normalcy.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Well, we know this isn't normal. Okay?

The country is hurting. Both Republicans and Democrats, the country is falling apart.

And everybody knows it. So he doesn't have the, well, I'm not going to be him.

Right. But you're you.

STU: Right. That was his strength in 2020.

His strength was to say, I'm not him. And look at me. I'll return you to the normal times. That didn't happen.

GLENN: Right. That didn't happen. So there's a lot of people that will just stay home.

Unfortunately, if Donald Trump is the nominee, there might be a lot of Republicans, that would stay home, as well.

Although, I just don't think that that is as true as everyone wants you to believe.

GLENN: Yeah. I really don't think there's a problem with Donald Trump and Republicans.

GLENN: You have the Liz Cheneys.

STU: Liz Cheneys. Yeah, but that's nobody.

GLENN: I think that may actually hurt Biden.

STU: It could. It could. It really could. And some polls show the RFK thing going both ways. But it seems to be hurting Joe Biden more.

I think if you look at where this might go, over a long period of time, you just have to factor it in. I think you have to price it in, in your head. The media is not going to act like they are now. During the general election.

That might be fine.

Donald Trump has survived that already. He already had a really negative media. And won in 2016.

He's already been able to do it.

So maybe he'll be able to do it again.

But you can't look at the current situation, and think, this is how it will go.

It may very well be also, he goes through these trials. People are so upset about it, that he's being targeted, that they all side with him, and he wins easily.

That's a possibility too.

But the media is going to do everything they can, once he gets this nomination, to take him out. In some level, it's true with these other candidates as well.

With these other candidates, you have the possibility of essentially what the Biden approach was, right?

Look, you guys just lived through four years of Joe Biden.

I won't be him.

It will be difficult for Donald Trump to make that same argument. Because he's got that same type of thing built into him.

Everyone has made up their mind on both of these people.

You know, Haley, DeSantis, have a little more have an opening there.

GLENN: It may come down to the vice president.

Because I think everybody is like, man, if he wins, I don't want Kamala Harris to be the president.

That would be a nightmare.

And so it may come down, to the vice president.

STU: If you were doing a draft of who you thought Donald Trump would pick as his VP, who is your first pick?

GLENN: First pick --

STU: Again, not who you think it should be. But who he will pick.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: This is a tough one.

GLENN: I know.

I go back and forth between Ramaswamy and Nikki.

Nikki would be smart, because she'll pacify the -- the old guard Republican.

And she's a fighter.

But he's not going to like that.

STU: Yeah. I can't -- I mean, he obviously put her in his administration.

Right?

GLENN: I know. There's been a deep falling out since then.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Ramaswamy is still fighting for Donald Trump.

STU: Oh, yeah. There's no -- there's no like between them at all, at this point.

It's interesting. Haley strikes me as a Pence-like pick.

Right? It's a little bit different, obviously.

But it's someone who is I think respectable. Quote, unquote.

Would please a lot of those voters who think Donald Trump is -- is -- you know, his tweets are too bad.

And all that other stuff. And that's what he needed in 2016, honestly.

GLENN: And could take the job.

STU: Does he need that in 2024, though?

GLENN: That can take the job?

STU: He needs someone who can take the job, clearly. That's obviously the number one role.

But with Pence, he picked someone, number one to please evangelicals. Who were very on the fence about Donald Trump, early on.

And, you know, you get somewhat of that, with Nikki Haley.

I think you still get -- I don't think that is what he needs anymore. The evangelicals are through the roof.

But you do get a steady hand feel from Nikki Haley. Ramaswamy, you don't really get that. I like Vivek. But --

GLENN: No.

STU: You get a game changer. And you get a bulldog who will go on television 900 times a day, and just say.

And just argue with passion for every point that Donald Trump makes. I think Donald Trump would like that. He likes those people.

GLENN: I agree.

Except Ramaswamy is a star to some degree.

Now, that has faded. People don't like him as much, which Donald Trump would like. He doesn't want somebody that will compete with him. You know what I mean?

STU: Yeah. I just that's true.

GLENN: He wants someone who is solid for certain reasons. Whatever.

But you work for me.

And Ramaswamy, I think, could do that. And you're right. He's a bulldog.

I would lean towards Ramaswamy as Donald Trump's pick.

I have for a long time. And I thought Donald Trump would pick him.

But I -- I think if Nikki Haley is a strong, you know, number two in the primaries. If she starts to -- to become just a juggernaut, next to him. He would probably be foolish not to take her.

STU: We should also point out, that precisely zero votes have been cast in the primary.

So he has not won the primary yet.

GLENN: That can all change.

STU: You're looking ahead a little bit. I thought it was an interesting night last night.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

How to Find God in a Divided World | Max Lucado & Glenn Beck

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

Bill O'Reilly predicts THIS will be Charlie Kirk's 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?

Could passengers have SAVED Iryna Zarutska?

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.