GLENNMarch 13, 2017

Mike Lee on Repealing Obamacare and His Wild Curiosity About Wiretapping

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to talk about why the GOP won't resurrect the Obamacare repeal bill passed in 2015, his wild curiosity about evidence the administration might have about wiretapping, and why Republicans are suddenly in love with infrastructure spending.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

GLENN: Senator Mike Lee who is at an airport getting ready to board a plane. We're glad you would take the time to hop on the phone with us. How are you, sir?

MIKE: Doing great. Thanks so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Good. Let's get to Obamacare repeal and replace. This thing is nothing like what the Republicans were promising us they would do. Nowhere even close.

Do we have a chance of getting something good out of this?

MIKE: Sure. Something good can come out of it. What happens, whether something good comes out of it, the extent to which it might be good depends entirely on how members of Congress handle this in the next few days, on how they choose to cast their votes.

Now, look, you're right. What we promised was to repeal Obamacare, as much of Obamacare as we possibly could, and then to start trying to find new ways to put the American people back in charge of their own health care.

Well, what this bill does is it doesn't repeal nearly as much of Obamacare as we could. It leaves all kinds of things intact. It leaves most of the Obamacare regulations in place. Most of -- many of the Obamacare taxes remain in place, at least for a time. It leaves expanded Medicaid intact for a period of time. And then doesn't make as many adjustments to it long-term.

Meanwhile, it comes up with a new refundable tax credit, which we don't know the cost of yet. We don't know how many people are going to take it.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, which begs the question: Why are we not just repealing? Why are we not just passing the same repeal bill that Republicans in the House and in the Senate voted for in December of 2015? That's what I'd like to see.

STU: Mike, is it true that you can't just repeal it unless you have 60 votes? You can't do it through reconciliation with just a full repeal?

MIKE: There is some ambiguity as to how many of the insurance regulations of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation. So there's an open question on that. But we do that know we could repeal all the taxes and all of the subsidies and possibly some of the regs through reconciliation. We know that because the reconciliation bill we passed in 2015 repealed all of the taxes and all the subsidies.

GLENN: So why aren't we doing it?

MIKE: That's a very good question. That's what I believed we were going to do. That's what many of us were told -- otherwise led to believe.

GLENN: Why aren't we doing it?

STU: He said it was a good question.

MIKE: There are those in Congress who chose to take a different path. Now, I can't speak for them. I can't speak to what their intentions are. I think the easiest, simplest way of explaining it is, they had other priorities that they wanted to attach to this. Priorities that were perhaps higher than simply achieving repeal, at least to the degree that --

GLENN: Can you give me an example of what might be more important than what you promised the American people?

MIKE: Okay. So here's how I think they would explain it, and I want to be clear, I'm always careful not to try to speak for somebody else. But I think if they were here with us, they would probably say, look, we don't want people to be in a state of too much uncertainty and doubt. We don't want them to be afraid. We want them to have a degree of confidence about what comes next after Obamacare repeal. And so we want to provide a soft landing spot for them. And that is so important. It's important enough to them, apparently, that they're willing to go a little softer on some of the repeal and provide more programs through this bill right now.

The problem with that is, it's -- it's not going to pass. And it probably shouldn't pass until they can answer more of these questions, more of these questions about why we can't repeal more of Obamacare than this bill does.

PAT: And the other problem with that, Mike, is that that's not what they promised us. That's not what they said they were going to do. They didn't say, well, we're going to think about this and provide a safe landing spot for people. It's going to take a really long time. We're going to not repeal -- it was repeal and replace. That's what they ran on. That's what they were elected to do. And now, again, as so often happens with the Republican Party, they're not doing it. Frustrating.

MIKE: Yeah, that's right. By the way, I love the Kermit the Frog imitation that both you and Glenn do.

GLENN: Thank you so much. Thank you. That's what happens when your best friend since 1980 --

PAT: Yeah.

MIKE: Well, he has, in fact, been the spokesman for the AHCA, so it's appropriate that we use his voice when doing this. But, no, you're exactly right, this is what we ran on, this is what we promised. Now, to my great dismay, to my great surprise, on many instances over the last week or so, we've had legislators from the House and the Senate somehow saying that this bill, the AHCA is somehow what we campaigned on, what we ran on. Well, that's news to me. That's news to me because we've had this bill for only a few days.

PAT: Me too.

MIKE: That's news to me if we somehow ran on this specific bill, a bill the score of which we still don't know. We still don't know how much this thing is going to cost. We still don't have any idea how many people will take this refundable tax credit. And, therefore, how much it's going to cost. So that's news to me, that that's somehow what we ran on.

What I remember that we ran on was that we would repeal every scrap of Obamacare that we possibly could, the whole thing, if we could get away with it under our procedural rules in the Senate. And that's what we should be doing.

STU: We're talking to Senator Mike Lee. And every time you're on, Mike, I like to ask you the nerdiest, most boring, uninteresting question to see --

GLENN: So please keep this answer short. Please, for the love of Pete.

STU: So I apologize in advance for this.

But when the Bush tax cuts were passed, they were passed under reconciliation. And because of that, they expired after ten years. Would the same thing happen here? If we repeal all these Obamacare taxes, in ten years, are we going to be talking about the expiration of the Obamacare repeal, and then it's going to be back into effect again?

MIKE: No, not necessarily. In fact, almost certainly not.

GLENN: Good end to that.

MIKE: Because of the fact that we were dealing with taxes in that circumstance, rather than something else. So that wouldn't be it.

STU: I thought it was a tax, which is the only reason it was constitutional. Wasn't that -- tax versus fee. Wasn't that a big conversation with Roberts?

MIKE: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that question. Can you say that again?

GLENN: Good. No, no, let's move on.

STU: Let's move on.

GLENN: So, Senator, let me ask you about the intelligence committee has given the president until this afternoon, they say they can't find any evidence that Barack Obama was spying on Donald Trump. And to present some evidence -- and we'll go pursue that. Any indication that he's going to present that evidence? And is there any reason to believe that he couldn't present the evidence if he had it?

MIKE: Okay. That's a good question. I'll answer the first question, I have no idea. I would love to see what the evidence is. I'm wildly curious about it. As to whether he could present it, that depends on what the "it" is.

I will tell you, my first reaction to this, when I very first learned about the tweet, my first reaction was, he's probably not talking about a traditional wiretap, where somebody actually goes to a judge and the judge orders a phone line to be tapped. Perhaps he's talking about a foreign intelligence surveillance court order issued pursuant to Section 702 of the FISA amendments, which would say, you know, here is an identified agent of a foreign government. Let's monitor this person's communications. And that there might have been some incidental communications with some US citizens, perhaps including people who were involved in one way or another with the campaign. That incidentally got pulled into that. That was my first reaction is that seemed the most plausible possibility. If, in fact, it's that, there might be some reasons why we might be reluctant to share that. Or --

GLENN: No, but he could share it with the intelligence committee, could he not -- or committee?

MIKE: Yes, yes, they've got the clearance to do that. So there's no reason why he couldn't share something like that with them. They've got clearance to see pretty much all of that. But as far as his ability to share that publicly, that would seem less likely if my theory is correct.

GLENN: And there's nothing that the president can't get, right? If he said, I want to show it, but, you know, this agency won't let me, you know, have access to this. There's -- everybody in in the Senate, would be like, okay. We need to see this. Behind closed doors. But you will open these books or whatever it is that he's saying the evidence is -- there's nothing the president couldn't get to, is there?

MIKE: I assume so. Because -- and, look, he's the commander-in-chief. There's nothing that he doesn't have access to. And so if he can -- if he can back this up, if he knows what it is that he's referring to, there's no reason that I'm aware of why he couldn't come up with something that he could produce to these Intel Committees. Now, whether he will choose to do so or not is a different question. Perhaps there are those close to him advising him, hey, you don't have to do this if you don't want to. But that --

GLENN: Why wouldn't you?

MIKE: -- that requires rank speculation.

GLENN: Why wouldn't you?

MIKE: I don't know. If perhaps he didn't want to set a precedent that he could just be required to answer questions every time the Intel Committee wanted to hear something. But I would think in this instance, he would want to, particularly because these questions are going to be raised from time to time.

GLENN: Right. And we're talking about national security. I mean, we're talking about something that he's accused another president of doing. And if that president was doing that, that needs to be stopped.

MIKE: Yes. Yes. Exactly. And that's -- that's -- all the more reason why I suspect he'll provide them with what they want to know because you're right. Look, this is one of the things I've been worried about for years. And I've expressed this concern on your show previously. But if you remember the Church Committee, the Frank Church Committee back in the '70s --

GLENN: Yep.

MIKE: -- conducted a series of hearings to look into abuses by our intelligence-gathering agencies, and what they concluded was startling, which was that in every administration from Ford -- from FDR through Ford and Nixon, who was in power at about the time they concluded their research, that the US government's intelligence gathering apparatus had been used to engage in political espionage. Now, look at what's happened since then. Our technology has improved dramatically. Our technological means of gathering intelligence have grown by leaps and bounds. And our laws haven't always kept up with that.

And so to me, it would be almost surprising if some of this were not occurring. That's why we need to be watchful of this. That's why I was concerned, immediately, when I saw the president's tweet was because I considered it plausible, if not likely that this kind of thing would be going on.

GLENN: One last question, let's go to infrastructure. The G.O.P. went out of their gourd -- and I believe rightly so -- for a stimulus package for roads and bridges and tunnels and everything else for $787 billion. I remember that number. It's burned -- seared into my memory of $787 billion. Now the president is proposing a trillion dollar stimulus package, and the Republicans are very excited about it. Can you tell me what made the 787 billion-dollar stimulus package an affront on the Constitution and this one a dream come true?

MIKE: Well, I can't point to any distinguishing characteristic between the two, as to why this one would be good and that one bad.

In fact, look, when I look at the Constitution, I see the powers of Congress being limited. They're enumerated powers, most of them in Article I, Section 8. And they talk about things like the power to provide for our national defense, to declare war, to regulate trade between the states with foreign nations and with Indian tribes. I don't see anything in there that says that it's the prerogative of Congress to create all infrastructure.

Now, look, it's one thing if we're talking about an interstate corridor here or there. But it's another thing entirely if we're talking about wholesale, top to bottom, soup to nuts transportation infrastructure, even intrastate projects.

I think whether we're talking about under the Obama administration or any subsequent administration, headed by a Republican or a Democrat, I think we've got to look carefully at what we're doing there. Not every transportation infrastructure is necessarily outside of Congress' authority. Because some of them do involve a distinctly interstate function. But where they don't, we have constitutional problems.

GLENN: Mike Lee, always good to talk to you. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it.

MIKE: Thank you very much, sir. It's good to be with you.

STU: So positive.

GLENN: Yeah. He is. Boring as snot.

STU: Thank you very much.

Oh, I love him. He is saving my hope in the entire country right about now.

GLENN: He is so good and so smart. And, you know, he's just tickled pink by, you know -- I love -- I love because you know he's accurate. But when you're talking to him -- because he's like this all the time, well, I mean, in section 508, subsection B, paragraph four --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- you'll see -- and he did that like four times during this. You just have to get used to, that's the way he is.

STU: He's that guy.

GLENN: And that's why he is so good and so needed in the Senate. Want to give you this from the New York Post today. Bank fees rise to an all-time high. The average customer now pays $666 a year in banking fees.

STU: Satan.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: This is how it happens.

GLENN: The overdraft revenue from the top three banks has surged from 5.1 billion to $5.4 billion. That's what they make if you overdraft.

$5.4 billion. Does anybody remember that we're providing them? It's a service that we're providing them as well. We're giving them our money.

JEFFY: No. No.

GLENN: So they can loan it out to other people. No, they don't care anymore.

JEFFY: No, they do not.

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

RADIO

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.

RADIO

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?

RADIO

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Mike Lee on Repealing Obamacare and His Wild Curiosity About Wiretapping

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

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

Transcript

Should people CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk’s death be fired?

Transcript

Could passengers have SAVED Iryna Zarutska?

Transcript