BLOGMay 03, 2017

Did Reagan's Assassination Attempt Thwart an Invasion of Poland and Nuclear War?

Paul Kengor, political science professor and author of the new book A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century, joined Glenn on radio for a fascinating discussion about the bond between Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. Both men survived assassination attempts in an age when the Soviet Union met its end. Kengor revealed incredible details about the lives of these two great leaders and how divine intervention may have prevented a geopolitical disaster.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Paul Kengor, professor at Grove City College, author of numerous books. He has a new one out about Ronald Reagan, The Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century. I don't want to tell you the name of the book because it will spoil the surprise. I would have thought that the best friend -- that someone Ronald Reagan would have said was my best friend would be Nancy. That's not what Paul found. Paul, welcome to the program.

PAUL: Hey, Glenn, thanks so much.

GLENN: So how did you find this about Ronald Reagan? Where did you find this? And -- and were you shocked by it? Not shocked, but just shocked that you didn't know it.

PAUL: Yeah, I'd say both, really. And, in fact, Nancy Reagan -- and here's the giveaway, said that John Paul II was her husband's closest friend, which is an amazing thing to say. So you had Ronald Reagan referring to John Paul II as his best friend, and then Nancy said that John Paul II was her husband's closest friend.

GLENN: Isn't that amazing? I've never heard that. Never known that.

PAUL: That's right.

GLENN: That -- in many ways, that completely changes my view in a positive way of Ronald Reagan and who he was. To be John Paul's closest and best friend is remarkable.

PAUL: It is. And I think, look, to be sure, I think there's probably a little bit of a kind of genial overstatement, right? On the part of Reagan in saying that. But the first time that I heard it, it was about ten years ago. And somebody from the Polish Solidarity Movement told me about him and three other members of the Polish Solidarity Movement.

They were visiting with Reagan. This would have been the spring of 1989. And Reagan was no longer president. He was at his Century City office. They were about to hold these historic elections in Poland that would really -- I mean, that's what really took down the Communist bloc, those elections in Poland, even before the Berlin wall fell.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

PAUL: And he said, you won't believe this conversation. We're talking to Reagan. The old campaigner who won 49 out of 50 states. And we asked him for some campaign advice. And he looked at us and he said, "Yeah, listen to your conscience because that's where the Holy Spirit speaks to you." What? What was that?

And they gave him a sort of puzzled look. And then he turned, and he gestured to a picture on his office wall of Pope John Paul II. And he said, "He's my best friend." Said, "Yes, you know I'm Protestant. He's obviously Catholic. "But he's my best friend." And when I started asking people about this, including Nancy Reagan, who was great. Every time I had a question for Nancy, I usually sent it by email or phone call, and she would respond to all of these. She was wonderful because she loved John Paul II herself.

She said that John Paul II was her favorite leader among everybody that Ronnie met with. And I think, Glenn, what they both mean by that is it's not like the two were calling each other up and talking about the ball game or going fishing.

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

PAUL: Or -- but I think what Reagan meant was, in terms of this kind of historical and spiritual -- he and John Paul II both thought this way, this historical, spiritual struggle to take down and defeat this evil empire, atheistic Soviet communism, Reagan felt that there was no better friend or no closer friend that he had in that endeavor than Pope John Paul II.

GLENN: We're talking to Dr. Paul Kengor. A professor and a great author. Written several books. One of them is -- that he did with Mercury, Inc. The Communist, which was about Barack Obama's mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Great researcher on history. His new book is A Pope and A President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and The Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century.

Paul, they had this -- they had this connection of not only bringing things down. But I think they also had -- and you talk about it in the book -- this connection because they both felt that they were men of destiny, and they both had an assassination attempt against them. And they both survived, which I think hardened that man of destiny, we're on God's side kind of feeling.

PAUL: Yeah, that's exactly right. People forget this now. Everybody remembers that they were both shot. But, I mean, they were shot only six weeks apart.

GLENN: I did not remember that.

PAUL: It was March 30th, 1981, that Reagan was shot by John Hinckley. And then John Paul II was shot on May 13th, 1981. And immediately after Reagan was shot, the pope sent his prayers to Reagan, you know, wishing him well for a speedy recovery. And then Reagan, right after John Paul II was shot, immediately tried to call the Vatican. He called Cardinal Cook, Cardinal Krol in New York and Philadelphia. Sent a letter off to the pope saying that he was horrified by this, telling him that he was praying for him. Had a personal letter delivered to him by Congressman Peter Rodino, a Democrat from New Jersey. Had it taken all the way to Rome. And, I mean, they -- they already had wanted to meet with each other, Glenn, at least since early 1981 when Reagan was president.

And actually for Reagan, he wanted to meet with John Paul II from the moment that he saw footage of the pope going to his homeland in June 1979. Reagan said we got to get elected, and we got to reach out to him and the Vatican and make him an ally. So now with the two of them being shot -- and people didn't know this then either. They both very nearly bled to death.

GLENN: Right.

PAUL: They should have died. The pope needed 6 pints transfused of blood. Reagan needed eight. They both should have bled to death on their respective ways to the hospital. And then when they finally got together for the first time at the Vatican in June 19832, they met for about an hour alone, and they confided to one another their mutual beliefs that they believed that God had spared their lives for a special purpose, to take down atheistic Soviet communism.

STU: Hmm. Talking to Paul Kengor. Paul, this is I think new. I've never heard this before. Reagan being shot may have prevented the Soviet Union from invading Poland. Is that true?

PAUL: Right. It's incredible. It's an incredible story. It was told to me by someone who was at the Berlin station at the time in the late '70s and early 1980s. And I first heard this about five years ago. And I was blown away by the -- by the possibility. I spent a summer at the Reagan Library, looking into this. And it pretty much checks out. And, I mean, look, here's what we know: Between about November 1980 and the time that the Soviets declared -- helped declare martial law in Poland. This would have been December 1981.

Everybody was on pins and needles that the Soviet Union was going to invade Poland. I mean, we thought it was possible. We were hoping it wouldn't happen. Thought it was possible.

I was told by my source that -- he said, "You have no idea how close this was." He was -- he was decrypting information from the Soviets, throughout March 1989. And he said that he had information that they were literally ready to march into Poland on March 30th, 1981. On that exact -- that exact date March 30th, 1981. And you say, well, why is that so profound? Because of course Reagan was shot on March 30th, 1981.

And he -- he claims that because Reagan was shot and the US military went on full nuclear alert, highest level of DEFCON --

GLENN: Wow.

PAUL: Al Hague, you know, stomped into the White House. Said, "I'm in charge here." It's funny because everybody made fun of Hague for that. But the Soviets saw that, and they said, Al Hague, you know, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He's no one to mess around with.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Wow.

PAUL: And they sent a DEFCON alert. And my source told me they were ready to go. And then when Reagan was shot, that's what called off the whole thing.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: So --

PAUL: And I think --

GLENN: Go ahead.

PAUL: I think it's accurate.

GLENN: Let me go back to the assassination on the pope.

You have in your book, New Details, that the KGB was involved in the pope's assassination.

PAUL: That's right. And we've long suspected that the Soviets were involved. John Paul II, Glenn, fought it as early as July 1981. In fact, when he got to the hospital, before he passed out, he said to the nurse, "How could they do it? How could they do it?" They meaning who? The one guy that lifted his gun? Mehmet Agca. And shot him.

I mean, he suspected right away that something was going on. He was telling people by late '81 -- his aides and confidants -- that he thought Moscow ordered it.

Reagan, Bill Casey at the CIA -- Casey called a very tight meeting of the National Foreign Intelligence Board on F Street in Washington, the very next morning, May 14. Wanted to know what Moscow was up to.

Bill Clark, the National Security Council. So they all suspected Moscow. Then when the word got out that the Bulgarians were involved. And you and Pat and Stu knowing your Cold War history, I mean, you know what the Bulgarians were like. They were stooges of the Soviet Union. Some people called Bulgaria the 16th Soviet Republic.

So when they heard that Bulgaria was involved and was behind Mehmet Agca, that immediately raised red flags, pun intended.

And, you know, they -- when they heard Bulgaria, they thought, "Okay. Moscow had to have been involved." But they kept all of this quiet until Casey ordered a truly super secret investigation at the CIA. And this is really kind of the blockbuster thing that I broke in this book.

And Casey -- this was a very tight investigation. I was told it was spearheaded by two young women, one of them in her late 20s, early 30s. Another in her early 40s. And they came to the conclusion that Moscow did, in fact, order the hit on the pope. And, specifically, it was through the Soviet GRU -- military intelligence -- they're the ones that organized it. But they did it with the go ahead and the approval of Yuri Andropov at the KGB.

GLENN: How much -- and I'm trying to keep of the timing here. I think it was after the assassination. How much did this play a role in Ronald Reagan having zero doubt or fear of labeling the Soviet Union an evil empire?

PAUL: Well, that's a good question. Reagan said that in March of '83.

GLENN: Right.

PAUL: And I think for Reagan, I mean, he had always known they were evil.

GLENN: But, I mean, if you knew they were evil -- but even the pope said, "How could they do this?"

PAUL: Right.

GLENN: To go and try to assassinate the pope. And a guy who sees a black and white world already, that just pushes you into a whole new level of evil.

PAUL: That's right. It really does. And, I mean, it doesn't surprise me. Knowing the way that -- the Soviet Union, they had been killing priests and bishops, Russian Orthodox Church rabbis, Roman Catholic priests, Protestant priests. They had been doing this since 1917. I mean, they killed hundreds, if not thousands. They were blowing up churches. Reagan knew that history. John Paul II knew that from being in Poland, where they harassed him since the 1950s. So really I think the answer to your question, Glenn, whereas a lot of the establishmentarians in the State Department and the CIA couldn't imagine that the Soviets would descend to that level, Reagan and Bill Casey and John Paul II and guys like Bill Clark, they had no problem at all imagining that the Soviets --

GLENN: So I want to go -- I have to take a break. But I want to come back and talk to you -- we're talking to Paul Kengor. His new book is called A Pope and A President. You get into something that I wasn't aware of, and maybe others are, that the pope was a big scholar or big fan -- I don't know how you would describe it -- of the secrets of Fatima, which I would like you to describe what those secrets of Fatima are. How the Vatican has the last parts of the secrets of Fatima. Did Reagan know any of that? And the role that those secrets played with Russia. Something that nobody would have wanted to know about the president at the time. The press would have had a field day with that.

But I'd like to hear about his connections with the secrets of Fatima and the pope coming up in just a second.

PAUL: Sure.

GLENN: The name of the book again is A Pope and A President. Fascinating and new material on Ronald Reagan and the pope. Sponsor this half-hour is My Patriot Supply. Yesterday, two US B-1 bombers departed Anderson Air Force Base in Guam. And they conducted a joint drill with South Korea and Japan. They flew over the North Korean peninsula. And they flew close to the 39th parallel. Why? The reason why is they are showing -- they showed off our stealth and our -- our B-1 bombers, saying to North Korea -- they flew close enough to the zone for them to know what they were, to say, "We can knock out all of your infrastructure."

PAT: Does the 39th parallel scare them as much as the 38th does?

GLENN: I'm sorry. The 38th parallel. Thank you. No, it doesn't. It doesn't.

PAT: Okay.

[break]

GLENN: We're talking to Dr. Paul Kengor. Great friend of the show and a great brilliant historian and writer. A Pope and A President is his new book. And before we move into the secrets of Fatima, Paul, I want to go back to what you said about the Soviets planning on invading Poland the day of Ronald Reagan's shooting. And if it wasn't that Ronald Reagan was shot that day, they were going to invade.

A couple of things on that: If they would have invaded, even without Al Hague, America would have immediately assumed it was the Soviet Union that was behind this assassination attempt, which would have been false. But we would have immediately assumed that that was not a coincidence.

PAUL: That's right.

GLENN: And even if it wasn't for the shooting, if they would have invaded, we may have gone to nuclear war over that.

PAUL: That's right. You know, that would have been absolutely and ultra devastating. And I think one of the reasons why they pulled back, Glenn, is because people might have linked it to the shooting.

GLENN: Sure.

PAUL: The shooting of Reagan. It turns out, of course, it was John Hinckley and he was trying to get the attention of Jodi Foster. He wasn't involved in any kind of international conspiracy whatsoever, but people would have definitely thought of that.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

Glenn Beck sits down with beloved pastor and author Max Lucado for a deep conversation about faith, humility, and finding unity in a divided world. Together, they reflect on the importance of principles over politics, why humility opens the door to true dialogue, and how centering life on God brings clarity and peace. Lucado shares stories of faith, the dangers of a “prosperity gospel,” and the powerful reminder that life is not about making a big deal of ourselves, but about making a big deal of God. This uplifting conversation will inspire you to re-center your life, strengthen your faith, and see how humility and love can transform even the most divided times.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

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

The difference between debate and celebrating death

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No! They're not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

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

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

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

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

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

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

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

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

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

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

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

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

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

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

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

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

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

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

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

Except here. I think it is easy.

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

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

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

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

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

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

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

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

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

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

Which do you want to defend?

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

Which one?

RADIO

Shocking train video: Passengers wait while woman bleeds out

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

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

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

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

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

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

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

Hmm. No.

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

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

Do you know off the top of your head?

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

STU: Yeah.

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

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

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

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

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

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

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

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

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

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

In that situation.

Glenn's Show Prep

Did Reagan's Assassination Attempt Thwart an Invasion of Poland and Nuclear War?

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

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

Transcript

The difference between debate and celebrating death

Transcript

Shocking train video: Passengers wait while woman bleeds out

Transcript