RADIOApril 21, 2022

Economist BREAKS DOWN the Fed’s ‘BOGUS’ plan for inflation

Steve Forbes, Economist & Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media, joins Glenn to break down several economic concepts that may be hard to grasp: What IS inflation, is it calculated correctly, and how did it get SO bad today? Plus, Forbes describes the 'gimmicks' used by today's Federal Reserve that are furthering America's current economic crisis: '[The Fed] wants a slowdown, and they just hope they can avoid a recession. It's bogus thinking.'

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome, Steve Forbes. How are you, sir?

STEVE: Good to be with you, thank you.

GLENN: So I'm really interested in hearing your take on what we are headed for with inflation. So let's --

STEVE: What --

GLENN: Let's start here. Explain what inflation is. You know, some people. You are so used to hearing, we're going to have 2 percent inflation. Oh, that's good. No, it's not. Is it, Steve?

STEVE: No. Just as you don't say, reduce the size of a gallon of gasoline, and that's good for you. No, it isn't. Keep it the same. So inflation. That's why we did this reader friendly book. No jargon. Straightforward.

There are really two kinds of inflation. One is a nonmoney kind. Nonmonetary kind. One you say, you have bad weather. Commodity prices go up. Wheat prices go up. Or you get the kind of shutdowns we have the pandemic, which disrupts the supply chain all over the world. We're still suffering from that. That sends prices up.

And then you have the money kind, where the government reduces the value, in this case, of the dollar by creating too many of them. And we know the government has been spending on a spree. How has that been financed, a large part of it has been the Federal Reserve. Buys those bonds. How does it get the money to buy those bonds? It creates it out of the thin air. The ultimate ATF. Now, unfortunately, Glenn, on the nonmonetary inflation, normally, if you just leave the economy alone, those things will heal themselves. We did it after World War II. And we converted from a wartime economy, to a peacetime economy. Disruption. But we did it. But unfortunately, the Biden administration is putting obstacles in the way. Starting with the role on fossil fuels. A lot of other the crazier things they've done. Seventy-seven executive orders. $200 billion of new regulations. So they're making the problem worse, instead of letting the economy heal. And the Federal Reserve, they've been printing a lot of money. They've been producing gimmicks to try to keep that money from flooding the economy. But that's going to run out. So if they don't get their act together, we're in from a rough time. Let me conclude on this. Unfortunately, this is where we have a real danger now. The fed believes, the way you cure inflation, is not by stopping the printing press. And making the dollar whole again. Making it stable again. They believe you do it by slowing the economy down. Throwing people out of work. And that's what they're up to now.

GLENN: So, Steve, first of all, the -- the idea of inflation, we say it's now at 8.5. That's just because we measure it differently.

If you look at shadow stats that measure it the way we did under Reagan. It's at 17.1. Is that fair to do, or not?

STEVE: Well, this gets to the whole thing of, how do you measure prices? The whole labor department. It has a whole bureau devoted to it. What do you put in the index. One of the crazy things is when people's buying patterns change. Let's say you have meat prices, which they have. So instead of having steak. You might go for cheap hamburger. Well, they don't account that as inflation. They just say, the patterns have changed stop, yes, you can manipulate these things six ways to Sunday. But the bottom line is price are his going up. The cost of living is going up. Part of it is the pandemic, and the Biden administration making things worse. We can cure that, hopefully with a new Congress.

But the Federal Reserve, they have to get over this notion, that when we do work, when we're trying to be prosperous, they got to slow us down. That's really bad stuff.

GLENN: I don't know that anybody really understands the fed balance sheet, and what they've done, and the money that they have loaned out. Trillions of dollars, that they have bailed banks out all around the world.

If you can't -- you know, theory trying to sell off the stuff, they have on their balance sheet. But every time they try that. And/or raise interest rates, the economy stops. And so not sure they're going to be able to do either of those. How do you pull this money back in, to be destroyed?

STEVE: Well, what -- what you do. First of all, which they won't do this part. Is you leave interest rates alone. Let the market set interest rates. Controlling interest rates is like rent control, which as we know, hurts new construction. This is trying to control the price of money.

Affect the price you pay for renting the money, so to speak. So they should just leave that alone, and let the market sort it out very quickly. On your point about what the balance sheet, when you say balance sheet, people's eyes start to glaze. Just think the fed is sitting on a pile of bonds. And too many of them. And so what they should be doing is letting those bonds mature. Not buying new bonds. Let the money supply go down. And if they do that in a responsible way, we'll avoid a huge slow down.

But let me give you something. A gimmick that they've been employing the past year. When they were creating $120 billion a month. Pulling money out of thin air. Let's walk your listeners through on this.

When the Federal Reserve creates money, they call up a dealer, a bond dealer like Goldman Sachs. And say, we want to buy a billion dollars of bonds. So Goldman says, fine. They give the fed the bonds. How does the fed pay for those bonds? They credit Goldman's bank account. Where does that money come from? No place. The fed just says, voila, you have it. And that's how they create the money out of thin air. So they're doing that last year, at a rate of $120 billion a month. To help finance the government's debt. And so what they did, to try to keep it from an even worse inflation, than we've been experiencing. They then create the money. And then borrow it back from the banks, and money market funds, overnight. If you want to get technical, if people want to look at this stuff, they go to (inaudible), they'll find a thing called reverse repurchase agreements. In effect, the fed is pouring money -- pouring a bucket of water at one end of a pool, and then taking it out at the other end of the pool.

Now, that gimmick can't go on forever. You know, a year ago. A little over a year ago, they had zero of these reverse repos. Now they have $1.7 trillion. That's the game they've been playing. Huge damn of money ready to flood the economy. So we are now also by turning the -- taking the money, and saying, oh, no. You're a central bank. Your dollars are no good, to Russia. A lot of countries around the world are going. Jeez, if I get on the wrong side of America, all of a sudden, what I have as gold is no good. That's not safe for me. We are destroying the dollar at the same time we're inflating the dollar. How is this going to end, Steve?

STEVE: Well, ultimately, and this will sound very strange, and you shouldn't say it in polite company. All the -- in a few years, we're going to do again, what we did for the first 180 years of this country's existence. And that is tie the dollar to gold. What it means is that gold for a variety of reasons, keeps its intrinsic value. What it means, it's like a measuring rod. Not perfect. But it keeps the dollar stable in value. If we maintained the growth rates we did for that 180 years. Which was the greatest in human history. And then we went off the gold standard in the early '70s. And since then, the average growth rate for the United States economy, has gone down by at least one-third, from about four and a quarter percent to two and three-quarters. That doesn't sound like that much, but you do that over 50 years. Let me just give you a number.

The average -- the median household income today is about $68,000. If we had maintained our historic rates of growth, which we did for 180 years, through depressions, wars, civil wars, you name it, we would maintain that average name of growth. You know what the median income would be? $110,000.

That's what we've lost over half a century of funny money. It's bad stuff.

GLENN: Can you explain -- you just said that the fed is going to destroy jobs. Or they're -- you know -- how are they doing it?

STEVE: Yes. They have this theory, called the Phillips curve. It's not a baseball pitch. It's named after an economist who said, if you want low unemployment, you have to have higher inflation. If you want lower inflation, you have to have higher unemployment. They believed prosperity causes inflation. They don't realize devaluing the dollar causes inflation. But they can't grasp that. So as a result, you hear this talk about soft landing, what they mean is, can we slow the economy down enough, without going into a full-fledged recession? Usually, their attempts at soft landings is a crash landing. They are trying to slow the economy down. Create unemployment because they think the economy is too prosperous. That's why they think they have this inflation. So they won't say that, explicitly. But you've pressed them on it. Yes, they want a slowdown. And they just hope they can avoid a recession. It's bogus thinking. Experience disapproves it. But if the fed, the Philip's Curve is wholly writ.

GLENN: By the way, we're talking to Steve Forbes. He's got a new book out called Inflation. What it is, why it's bad, and how to fix it.

Steve, when you look at the money printing that we have done, you immediately think of Weimar Republic. I mean, idiots know that, hey. You can't keep doing this for very long. And at huge sums of money. Okay?

Everybody learned that. Weimar Republic. Zimbabwe. Et cetera, et cetera.

STEVE: Venezuela today.

GLENN: Venezuela. So do we know -- or have a guess on -- on how close we are to that?

I mean, is there a possibility we go into hyperinflation?

STEVE: You can't rule anything out with these people. But I think the answer is, no. I think even some people at the fed are realizing, they're on the -- they're in the danger zone. And so they're trying to figure out, they got themselves into this mess. And they were doing this, by the way. Undermining the value of the dollar. Before the covid crisis. This was starting in 2018. So they can't say, oh, we did it because of covid. No, they were doing it before covid. So I think they're trying to figure out now, how do we get ourselves out of it, without getting a disaster? So I think they're going to slow down the money creation. But what they should be doing now, is instead of trying to manipulate interest rates, just let their -- just let the bonds mature. And the size that they hold of those bonds, go down. Nature will take -- nature will take care of it.

Treat the -- keep the dollar stable. And then let the bonds mature. Run off.

And we'll -- we'll get through this. But the other side of the coin, is even if the fed starts to behave itself, then you have a government that is doing everything it can to slow the productive part of the economy. You know, the genius of Ronald Reagan was, when he cured the inflation. At the same time, he cut taxes, deregulation. And that's why we roared in the '80s. After those tax cuts went into effect.

GLENN: We're doing the exact opposite.

STEVE: So we'll have to wait until 2024, to get that done. But with 2022, hopefully with the November elections, at least we can put barriers in the way of the Biden administration, from putting new burdens on the economy. And also start questioning the fed. What in the world are you guys doing? Why do you think prosperity is bad for us?

GLENN: Steve, can I hold you for one minute?

I have about five more minutes, if you have time. Hang on. Sixty seconds, and we're back with Steve Forbes.

Sometimes we send people out to do our bidding. Sometimes we send them out to protect us in our own communities. We send firefighters out to fight our fires. We send soldiers out, and they don't come back. Or they come back forever different, as a person.

This is where Tunnel2Towers Foundation comes in. Tunnel2Towers was started right after 9/11. And they have been supporting America's heroes. And their families. The first responders, or military service member, when they don't come home. And children are left behind.

They pay off their mortgage to lift the financial burden. This really is a great organization. For catastrophically injured veterans and first responders. Tunnel2Towers, built mortgage-free smart homes, enabling severely injured heroes to live more independent lives. And now through operation home base, Tunnel2Towers is gifting tiny homes to homeless veterans. You can help. Donate $11 a month. Just $11 a month. T2T.org. T2T.org.

Do it now. And let's start -- can we just take care of our own, and stop looking to the government to do these things? T2T.org. Ten-second station ID.

(music)

GLENN: Steve, I know this is off the inflation path, a bit. We're talking to Steve Forbes. The book inflation. What it is. Why it's bad. And how to fix it. But I'm really concerned about these ESG programs. You know, going and switching our economy to a stakeholder. Capitalism. Which is just bullcrap. In my opinion.

And -- and -- and the way we are letting BlackRock and others come in and just buy us all up. They're buying in every seven homes, for sale. Going to BlackRock.

STEVE: Well, this -- and the nice -- the good thing about a free economy, free country, and free speech, is when these things start to happen, you can arouse the public. They won't say it publicly. But Coca-Cola, and Delta, really reversed course after they did what they did last year. When they booted the all-star game out of Atlanta. Because they didn't understand what Georgia did with the voting laws. Which are more -- more liberal than they were in New York City.

Hello. And they got burned on that. They got real pushback on that. Disney is getting pushback on it.

So the way -- the way you answer this stuff, is you push back.

And one of the things I think you're going to see happen after the November elections, is looking at ideas on how, if you're a shareholder in a fund, or a group, BPF or something, how can you have a voice on how your share of the shares, so to speak, are voting at these annual meetings? It's complicated. But I think you're going to see a real thinking on that. So it's not just a group of people. You know, decades ago, there was a great business guru called Peter Drucker. And some schools still read his book. Business schools. But he warned of what he called pension fund socialism. He noted the rise of pension funds, owned by the state. And by -- by endowment funds. And he said, they can end up buying the economy. The government doesn't have to do it. They're doing it for them.

So I think you're seeing real pushback, on that. But they get to what you might call, modern socialism. The modern socialists recognize, you don't have to take over a company or an industry. You just have to regulate it, so its survival depends on your whims. And that's what the Biden administration is doing. Practicing modern socialism. And pressuring the BlackRock and others. BlackRock and others, go along. With the pushing that kind of agenda. That has to be resisted. But modern socialism, different from our mind, you have the regulators to do it. You don't have to take them over.

GLENN: Would you -- would you say that we are now doing modern monetary theory in Washington? We have one minute.

STEVE: They're doing a form of it. Modern monetary theory. Is simply modern gash on the old idea of devaluing money, by creating too much of it. You know, in Roman times, they did it by reducing the precious metals in a coin, and putting that tin and junk in it. In modern times, we do it by printing up a lot of paper money. With now ellipses on your handhelds.

And it's the same thing. And what you see unfolding now -- we discuss this in the book, inflation is the old response of government. They scapegoat.

You know, in Roman times they blame Christians. In able times, witches. Now today, we blame company executives, with the same old movie.

GLENN: Okay. Steve Forbes. Thank you. Hold on for just a second. Steve Forbes. His new book is out today. You want to pick it up.

Inflation. What it is. Why it's bad. And how to fix it. More in just a second.

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

Confronting evil: Bill O'Reilly's insight on Charlie Kirk's enduring legacy

Bill O’Reilly joins Glenn Beck with a powerful prediction about Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Evil tried to destroy his movement, Bill says, but – as his new book, “Confronting Evil,” lays out – evil will just end up destroying itself once more…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Bill O'Reilly, welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

BILL: Good, Beck, thanks for having me back. I appreciate it. How have you been?

GLENN: Last week was really tough. I know it was tough for you and everybody else.

But, you know -- I haven't -- I haven't seen anything.

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Family is okay. Family is okay.

BILL: Good question good. That's the most important thing.

GLENN: It is.

So, Bill, what do you make of this whole Charlie Kirk thing. What happened, and where are we headed?

BILL: So my analysis is different for everybody else, and those that know me for so long. About a year ago, I was looking for a topic -- it was a contract to do another book. And I said, you know what's happening in America, and around the world. Was a rise in evil. It takes a year to research and write these books.

And not since the 1930s, had I seen that happen, to this extent. And in the 1930s, of course, you would have Tojo and Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and all these guys. And it led to 100 million dead in World War II. The same thing, not to the extent.

But the same thing was --
GLENN: Yet.
BILL: -- bubbling in the world, and in the United States.

I decided to write a book. The book comes out last Tuesday. And on Wednesday, Putin lobs missiles into Poland.

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

And one of the interviewers said to me last week, your -- your book is haunting. Is haunting.

And I think that's extremely accurate. Because that's what evil does.

And in the United States, we have so many distractions. The social media.

People create around their own lives.

Sports. Whatever it may be. That we look away.

Now, Charlie Kirk was an interesting fellow. Because at a very young age, he was mature enough to understand that he wanted to take a stand in favor of traditional America and Judeo Christian philosophy.

He decided that he wanted to do that.

You know, and when I was 31 or whatever, I was lucky I wasn't in the penitentiary. And I believe you were in the penitentiary.
(laughter)
So he was light years ahead of us.

GLENN: Yes, he was.

BILL: And he put it into motion. All right? Now, most good people, even if you disagree with what Mr. Kirk says on occasion, you admire that. That's the spirit of America. That you have a belief system, that you go out and try to promote that belief system, for the greater good of the country. That's what it is.

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

So when you essentially break all of this down. You take the emotion away, all right?

Which I have to do, in my job. You see it as another victory for evil.

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

This is the most important story. So when you read my book, Confronting Evil, you'll see that all of these heinous individuals, Putin's on the cover. Mao. Hitler.

Ayatollah Khomeini. And then there are 14 others inside the book. They all destroy themselves.

Evil always destroys itself. But it takes so many people with it. So this shooter destroyed his own family.

And -- and Donald Trump, I talked to him about it last week in Yankee stadium. And Trump is a much different guy than most people think.

GLENN: He is.

JASON: He destroyed his own mother and father and his two brothers.

That's what he did. In addition to the Kirk family!

So evil spreads. Now, if Americans pay attention and come to the conclusion that I just stated, it will be much more difficult for evil to operate openly.

And that's what I think is going to happen.

There's going to be a ferocious backlash against the progressive left in particular.

To stop it, and I believe that is what Mr. Kirk's legacy is going to be.

GLENN: I -- I agree with you on all of these fronts.

I wonder though, you know, it took three, or if you count JFK, four assassinations in the '60s, to confront the evil if you will.

Before people really woke up and said, enough is enough!

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

Is -- I hate to say this. But is -- as far gone as we are, is one assassination enough to wake people up?

JOHN: Some people. Some people will never wake up.

They just don't want to live in the real world, Beck. And it's never been easier to do that with the social media and the phones and the computers.

And you're never going to get them back.

But you don't need them. So let's just be very realistic here on the Glenn Beck show.

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

And you will see that play out the next five years.

Because the corporate media invested so much of its credibility into hating Donald Trump.

And the hate is the key word.

You will find this interesting, Beck. For the first time in ten years, I've been invited to do a major thing on CBS, today.

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

BILL: Now, that only happened because Skydance bought CBS. And Skydance understands the brand CBS is over, and they will have to rehabilitate the whole thing. NBC has not come to that conclusion yet, but it will have to.

And ABC just does the weather. I mean, that's all they care about. Is it snowing in Montana? Okay? The cables are all finished. Even Fox.

Once Trump leaves the stage, there's nowhere for FNC to go. Because they've invested so much in Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

So the fact of the matter is, the corporate media is over in America. That takes a huge cudgel out of the hands of the progressive movement.

Because the progressive movement was dependent on the corporate media to advance its cause. That's going to end, Beck.

GLENN: Well, I would hope that you're right.

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

You've known me for 55 years. When have I been wrong?

GLENN: Okay. All right. All right. We're not here to argue things like that.

So tell me about Skydance. Because isn't Skydance Chinese?

BILL: No! It's Ellison. Larry Ellison, the second richest guy in the world. He owns Lanai and Hawaii, the big tech guy and his son is running it.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

I though Skydance. I thought that was -- you know them.

BILL: Yeah.

And they -- they're not ideological, but they were as appalled as most of us who pay attention at the deterioration of the network presentations.

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And it just -- it -- you know, you know, I don't know if you watch it anymore.

GLENN: I don't either.

So do you think they can actually turn CBS around, or is it just over?

BILL: I don't know. It's very hard to predict, because so many people now bail. I've got a daughter 26, and a son, 22.

They never, ever watched network television.

And you've got -- it's true. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

BILL: They're not going to watch The Voice. The dancing with this. The juggling with that. You know, I think they could do a much better job in their news presentations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

BILL: Because what they did, is banish people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

That's why Colbert got fired. Because Colbert wouldn't -- refused to put on any non-progressive voice, when they were talking about the country.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: Well, it's not -- I'm censoring it.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's not that he was fired because he wouldn't do that. He was fired because that led to horrible ratings. Horrible ratings.

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: Fallon has terrible ratings and so does Kimmel. But Colbert was in your face, F you, to the people who were signing his paycheck.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Look, evil can only exist if the mechanisms of power are behind it.

And that's when you read the front -- I take them one by one. And Putin is the most important chapter by far.

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

And I'm -- on Thursday night, I got a call from the president's people saying, would I meet the president at Yankee stadium for the 9/11 game?

And I said, when a president calls and asks you to meet them, sure.

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

BILL: It will take me three days to get into Yankee stadium, on Long Island. But I'll start now.

GLENN: Especially because the president is coming. But go ahead.

BILL: Anyway, that was a very, I think that Mr. Trump values my opinion. And it was -- we did talk about Putin.

And the change in Putin. And I had warned him, that Putin had changed from the first administration, where Trump controlled Putin to some extent.

Now he's out of control. Because that's what always happens.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: It happened with Hitler. It happened with Mao. It happened with the ayatollah. It happened with Stalin. Right now. They get worse and worse and worse and worse. And then they blow up.

And that's where Putin is! But he couldn't do any of that, without the assent of the Russian people. They are allowing him to do this, to kill women and children. A million Russian casualties for what! For what! Okay?

So that's why this book is just in the stratosphere. And I was thinking object, oh. Because people want to understand evil, finally. Finally.

They're taking a hard look at it, and the Charlie Kirk assassination was an impetus to do that.

GLENN: Yeah. And I think it's also an impetus to look at the good side.

I mean, I think Charlie was just not a neutral -- a neutral character. He was a force for good. And for God.

And I think that -- that combination is almost the Martin Luther King combination. Where you have a guy who is speaking up for civil rights.

But then also, speaking up for God. And speaking truth, Scripturally.

And I think that combination still, strangely, I wouldn't have predicted it. But strangely still works here in America, and I think it's changed everything.

Bill, it's always food to talk to you. Thank you so much for being on. I appreciate it.

It's Bill O'Reilly. The name of the book, you don't want to miss. Is confronting evil. And he takes all of these really, really bad guys on. One by one. And shows you, what happens if you don't do something about it. Confronting evil. Bill O'Reilly.

And you can find it at BillO'Reilly.com.

Should people CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk’s death be fired?

There’s a big difference between firing someone, like a teacher, for believing children shouldn’t undergo trans surgery and firing a teacher who celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. Glenn Beck explains why the latter is NOT “cancel culture.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I got an email from somebody that says, Glenn, in the wake of Charlie's assassination, dozens of teachers, professors and professionals are being suspended or fired for mocking, or even celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.

Critics say conservatives are now being hypocritical because you oppose cancel culture. But is this the same as rose an losing her job over a crude joke. Or is it celebrating murder, and that's something more serious?

For many, this isn't about cancellation it's about trust. If a teacher is entrusted with children or a doctor entrusted with patients, publicly celebrates political violence, have they not yet disqualified themselves from those roles? Words matter. But cheering a death is an action. Is there any consequence for this? Yes. There is.

So let's have that conversation here for a second.

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

I mean, we've seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their job now, just for saying they don't believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries. Okay? Lost their job. Chased out.

That opinion, whether you agree or disagree is a moral and medical judgment.

And it is a matter of policy debate. It is speech in the public square.

I have a right to say, you're mutilating children. Okay. You have a right to say, no. We're not. This is the best practices. And then we can get into the silences of it. And we don't shout down the other side.

Okay? Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we've seen teachers and professors go online and be celebrate.

Not criticize. Not argue policy. But celebrate that someone was murdered.

Some have gone so far and said, it's not a tragedy. It's a victory. Somebody else, another professor said, you reap what you sow.

Well, let me ask you: Are these two categories of free speech the same?

No! They're not.

Here's the difference. To say, I believe children should not be allowed to have gender surgeries, before 18. That is an attempt, right or wrong. It doesn't matter which side you are.

That is an attempt to protect life. Protect children. And guide society.

It's entering the debate about the role of medicine. The right of parents. And the boundaries of childhood. That's what that is about. To say Charlie Kirk's assassination is a good thing, that's not a debate. That's not even an idea. That's rejoicing in violence. It's glorifying death.

There's no place in a civil society for that kind of stuff. There's not. And it's a difference that actually matters.

You know, our Founders fought for free speech because they believed as Jefferson said, that air can be tolerated where truth is left free to combat it.

So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, at all. I don't think you do either. I hope you don't. Otherwise, you should go back to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Error can be tolerated where truth is left to be free to combat it.

But when speech shifts from debating ideas to celebrating death, doesn't that cease to be the pursuit of truth and instead, just become a glorification of evil?

I know where I stand on that one. Where do you stand?

I mean, if you go back and you look at history, in colonial matter -- in colonial America, if you were to go against the parliament and against the king, those words were dangerous. They were called treason. But they were whys. They were arguments about liberty and taxation and the rights of man.

And the Founders risked their lives against the dictator to say those things.

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

You Thomas Paine, one of or -- one of our founder kind of. On the edges of our founders.

He thought that what was happening in France is exactly like the American Revolution.

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

There the crowds. They didn't gather to argue. Okay? They argued to cheer the guillotine they didn't want the battle of ideas.

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

And roll they did. You know, until the people who were screaming for the heads to roll, shouted for blood, found that their own heads were rolling.

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

Cicero begged his countrymen to preserve the republic through reason, law, and debate. Then what happened?

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

Okay. So now let me bring this back to Charlie Kirk here for a second.

If there's a professor that says, I don't believe children should have surgeries before adulthood, is that cancel culture, when they're fired?

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

However imperfect, it is speech meant to protect children, not to harm them. You also cannot be fired for saying, I disagree with that.

If you are telling, I disagree with that. And I will do anything to shut you down including assassination! Well, then, that's a different story.

What I teacher says, I'm glad Charlie Kirk is dead, is that cancel culture, if they're fired?

Or is that just society saying, you know, I don't think I can trust my kid to -- to that guy.

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

I don't want them around my children! Scripture weighs in here too.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Matthew.

What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?

To me, you go back to Scripture. Whoa unto them that call good evil -- evil good and good evil.

A society that will shrug on speech like this, say society that has lost its moral compass.

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

Now, our free speech law doesn't protect both. Absolutely. Under law. Absolutely.

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

Can a parent trust their child to a teacher who is celebrating death?

I think no. I don't think a teacher can be trusted if they think that the children that it's right for children to see strippers in first grade!

I'm sorry. It's beyond reason. You should not be around my children!

But you shouldn't go to jail for that. Don't we, as a society have a right to demand virtue, in positions of authority?

Yes.

But the political class and honestly, the educational class, does everything they can to say, that doesn't matter.

But it does. And we're seeing it now. The line between cancel and culture, the -- the cancellation of people, and the accountability of people in our culture, it's not easy.

Except here. I think it is easy.

Cancel culture is about challenging the orthodoxy. Opinions about faith, morality, biology.
Accountability comes when speech reveals somebody's heart.

Accountability comes when you're like, you are a monster! You are celebrating violence. You're mocking life itself. One is an argument. The other is an abandonment of humanity. The Constitution, so you understand, protects both.

But we as a culture can decide, what kind of voices would shape our children? Heal our sick. Lead our communities?

I'm sorry, if you're in a position of trust, I think it's absolutely right for the culture to say, no!

No. You should not -- because this is not policy debate. This is celebrating death.

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

And, you know, the big thing was, can you keep it?

Well, how do you keep it? Virtue. Virtue.

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

So if anybody is making this case to you, that this is cancel culture. I just want you to ask them this question.

Which do you want to defend?

Cancel culture that silences debate. Or a culture that still knows the difference between debating ideas and celebrating death.

Which one?

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.