Was Glenn right to call bullying kids dead inside”? Caller takes serious issue with Glenn’s comments

Since the story of Karen Klein broke two days ago, many have focused on the victim and the abuse that she suffered. Rightfully so, many have been outraged by what she went through, and there has been an online effort to raise money to send her on a vacation as a way of making up for the abuse. But no one has focused much attention on the kids themselves. Why would they do this? What environment and culture leads to kids being so cruel? Those were the questions Glenn wanted to know the answers to. But some have taken to his description of the kids being "dead inside". Is Glenn off base in his description of the children's cruelty - or are people succumbing to the same rationalizations that allowed this to happen?

The debate came to the forefront during the radio show this morning when a listener called into the show and tried to blame Glenn for any fallout that may occur as a result of the story.

"Glenn, I think this story might be your downfall. I think that money's going to ruin that woman's life and these kids that you've exposed and called dead inside are getting death threats. This should have been a situation handled entirely where kids learn and grow and show remorse and move on, but now you've blown this thing all out of proportion and this money's going to come in, family members are going to come out of the woodwork. They're going to take that money from her," the caller (Chris) said.

Glenn responded, "I didn't start the fundraiser, I had nothing to do with it and personally I like the fact that people are banding together and they are trying to do something good, I don't think that's a great solution at all. But if that's what people want to do, that's what people want to do."

"I don't have an agenda," Chris tried to say. "I just saw you calling these kids dead inside. Kids do stuff like that that parents never even hear about half the time."

"This is a situation that these kids can mature and grow out of," Chris added. "And you've turned them into monsters. I just think it's a bad thing."

"So Chris, tell me what you did as a child that you've been carrying around that you didn't tell anybody about," Glenn asked.

Chris fired back, "I've said bad things and nasty things as a teenager that I would never say now and fully regret. I've cut down people but maybe never to that degree, but you'd be surprised what some of, quote, the good children out there are capable of saying and doing when they're young teenagers. That's when adults step in and say, hey, what you did is wrong. But you don't go on national TV and call them dead inside and start criticizing them as horrible parents. "

"Hold on just a second," Glenn said, "What is the problem with calling them dead inside? Would you call them when they don't see humans as humans anymore?"

One of Glenn's primary critiques of the whole story has been that these kids did not see the elderly Karen Klein as a person anymore. He has said the kids saw her as a YouTube video in the making, and their lack of empathy is a symptom of a larger problem.

" I've never been this way as a kid, Chris.  I was never this way.  I did stupid things.  I did cruel things," Glenn said. "I said cruel things as a kid.  I've said cruel things on the air.  I've had my share of bad things, too, just like you did, Chris.  Just like you did.  However, I have never in my life seen anything like what happened on that bus.  That's 30 kids.  Nobody said a word.  No adults said any word.  No one said anything.  And then in the press conference, the adults come out and say, 'Hey, my kids suffered enough.' Bullcrap.  They're dead inside because that's the kind of society that we are living in now.  It's changed, Chris.  It's changed," Glenn said.

After the break, Glenn continued to address some of Chris's points.

"You know, this last call, I don't know what his problem was.  Maybe he's, you know, a decent guy who just disagrees," Glenn said.

"Sould I be cruel and mean, you know, in my drinking days when I wanted to be?  Oh, yeah.  I mean, I picked a guy up by a tie and told him I was going to eat him for F'in' breakfast," Glenn admitted. "I've done some cruel things in my life.  I could be a cruel man if I wanted to be.  I've never done 10 minutes.  I've never said I was going to F'in' knife you."

"The reason why they're dead inside is because they refuse to see this, they refuse to see this woman as a human.  They're not seeing her, they're not seeing their effect.  They're seeing her as a YouTube video.  They're seeing her as a vehicle for entertainment or stardom. This is the video game or video culture that we're in.  And, you know, if you are ‑‑ if you're my age or around my age, you have to understand, what our kids are being brought up into, new things have been introduced and old things have been ejected and rejected.  So the entire world is different now.  You can't judge the kids today and what they are thinking and doing based on what you thought or did in your day.  It's not the same.  It's just not the same.  And because there's virtual.  We didn't have virtual.  People were people."

"Look, here's the deal.  You have something hard to say?  What's your first instinct?  To go over to their house, to call them on the phone, to write a nice e‑mail or text them?  If you could get away with saying hard things in a text with a little smiley face, you would.  You would.  Because it's the easiest way to communicate.  It's the easiest ‑‑ it's just meaningless.  Our kids are so far removed from actually having to look someone in the eye and have the ramifications of what they say actually hit them.  And because of that virtual disconnect, they stopped seeing people as people."

Stu added, "And, you know, call them dead inside.  At that moment they are dead inside.  That doesn't mean that their whole life they have to be that way.  That doesn't mean they can't learn from this and turn into a good person."

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?