RADIONovember 08, 2024

How Charlie Kirk BEAT THE LEFT at its own election games

Much of the credit for Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential victory should go to Turning Point USA founder and CEO ‪@RealCharlieKirk‬, Glenn says. The Left has dominated get-out-the-vote efforts for years. But in 2024, Charlie Kirk was able to beat them at their own game. Charlie joins Glenn to explain his winning strategy and why he believes Trump would have lost states like Wisconsin if they hadn’t targeted new voters so intensely. Glenn and Charlie also discuss how “this was the election of the podcast.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. The first person we have to thank, or the first thing that we have to thank is God.

God worked miracles in this country, this last week.

And we would be remiss and really poor children, if we didn't recognize his hand in this election.

It is incredible, what has happened.

I told you before, I've -- I can find a million ways, this thing flies apart. But there's only one way, we hold it together.

And that's God.

And I think we've all witnessed that. Now, on the human level, one of the guys who I don't think has gotten enough credit yet, but will get all the credit he deserves.

Is Charlie Kirk.

Charlie started something called Turning Point USA. I know you know of it. To have

He is the host and founder of -- the founder and CEO of turning point. Also, the host of the Charlie Kirk show.

But this guy, I don't know what we would have done without you, Charlie.

I mean, you really turned the vote out. Thank you.

CHARLIE: Well, Glenn, first of all, you said it correctly. Glory be to God. We were a couple millimeters to the entire country going to bedlam. You so perfectly said, throughout the entire campaign, I have this -- the spirit of paranoia, are we really going to do this? Are they going to come up another sneak attack? Are they going to do another COVID? And every corner and every turn. So glory be to God. God is not done with this land.

GLENN: That's true.

CHARLIE: And second, I wish I could take credit for this. But it's American people. And I know it sounds cliche and I know it sounds generic. But the American people stood the most intense propaganda political hurricane of American history. There's never been anything like it. It was worse than 2020. It was worse than 2016. Calling us Nazis and fascists. And, you know, saying that Donald Trump was going to -- you know, put people in camps and all that.

The American people weighed their options, despite Kamala Harris spending Donald Trump three to one, and made the right choice.

Look, we played a small role. And we did it in two ways. We said, on this election, we want to try to lose by less with younger voters.

And then we will create the most sophisticated, low propensity, get out the vote, turnout machine in -- in modern political history for the right.

And here was our series of cases.

First, on the get out the vote.

Which is that we believed that there were millions of people that were Trump supporters. That were not Trump voters. The people that would say, yay, Trump! And they would be with them.

But they weren't putting a ballot in the box.

They weren't casting a vote.

We tested the theory of the case.

When I started to go to Trump rallies. And I would ask people, and I would take a lot of selfies with people who are super nice and they love the country. And one out of 30 people, I would say, hey. Are you ready for the vote?

And they would say, oh, yeah. I think so.

I would get this kind of, you know, half answer.

And so I went back to my team. I said, guys, I think there's a lot more in this reservoir than we realize.

And so we compared with the data. With the Trump campaign. Which we were allowed to do, thanks to an FEC ruling back in the spring.

And we said, guys, let's beat the left at their own it became.

Let's engage in early voting. Even though it's a flawed system, in a way that's never been done before.

Because, again, there's actually more days to get low likely voters to go vote. If you have 30 days, you can then get someone who is not as easy to persuade the vote, because then you can get five or six touches on them.

We hired well over 1,000 full-time people into the greatest ground force that's ever done.

We raised tens of millions of dollars. Praise God from our donors. And we pitched them on this thing, saying, hey. The road to the White House will be going through these states.

We know that. We will be the first registered voters build relationships and communities. And then drive a turnout machine over a 30-day period to get Donald Trump across the finished line.

And the states we primarily focused on was Arizona and Wisconsin.

We spent work of course in Pennsylvania, in Georgia, but in really, Arizona, Wisconsin.

And in Wisconsin, I can tell you, that if it wasn't for our effort. Donald Trump would have fallen short.

We chased in excess of over 70,000 low propensity voters in Wisconsin. Donald Trump won by 28,000 votes.

Here in Arizona, as we are speaking, we still have 850,000 votes still to count. We realize it could take at least 90 days to count our ballots here. It's a joke. It's really something else.

GLENN: I know it is. I know it is.

CHARLIE: But by St. Patrick's, we'll find out who won that race in Arizona.

But Kari Lake is down 44,000 votes here in Arizona, and she might -- she might fall 10,000 votes short, or win by ten thousand votes.

But thanks to our effort and the team, we closed an eight-point polling gap for Kari Lake.

And so, look, basically what we did, we took this movement that Donald Trump created, that Donald Trump led, and we added machinery to the movement.

And we were able to successfully turn Trump supporters into Trump voters.

GLENN: You know, Charlie, I've been -- you know, obviously looking at this, forever.

And we've never had a G.O.P. that could get out of its own way.

We've never had one that was competent.

We never had a plan other than, hey. We're just better.

And we -- we lost it. Every time. Because we were either stupid. Or we just couldn't get out of our own way. And get people to the polls.

This time around, I felt real confidence, that the G.O.P. had these issues covered, at the polling places.

That it was going to be secure. That if it wasn't, they had the attorneys, and they had he have been of else out there.

Just like the Democrats do, and we were going to catch the bad guys, if the bad guys showed up.

So we had that confidence. And we also had confidence because of what we were doing. That we were going after the -- the low propensity voter.

That we -- you know, I've said for years. Hey, somebody should get a bus, like they do.

And put people on a bus, and take them to the polls.

Somebody should do this.

CHARLIE: Oh, we did that.

GLENN: I know you did. I know you did. And that made all the difference in the world.

CHARLIE: Well, thank you, Glenn. And let me say one thing. Which, again, our theory of the case was that okay. The RNC would limit some of the shenanigans. Which, by the way, we didn't completely eliminate. Without that, we would have Senator Mike Lee from Wisconsin.

But one of the ways to offset the shenanigans and the tomfoolery, is you outnumber there.

And so you have so many ballots in the volume of the system. That, you know, their midnight drops in Milwaukee are just not going to be sufficient. And it turns out, that that was a correct way of looking at it. And I want to say, one other thing, though. This was very, very difficult work, and your team deserves enormous credit.

Not just the full-time staff. You'll love this, Glenn.

We do this thing called commit 100.

Where we say, hey, if you're across the country. And you're tired of listening to talk radio and watching TV and seeing your country fall apart.

If you will be able to fly yourself to Arizona, we'll put you up in a hotel room for a week or two.

And we will give you the mobile technology to go chase ballots. We have over 2,000 people from across the country, that were working neighborhoods in Arizona to go chase ballots.

2,000 volunteers from across the country. On top of, in Arizona, our 600 full-time people, on the ground

So we blanketed the state. And Arizona, again, it's my passion.

It's that that is performing of the seven battleground states, and we're still counting votes.

It's the greatest swing of any battleground states in 2020.

And it should give your audience a lot of renewed confidence.

Is that we are catching up to how the left has gamified our elections.

They turn it into a game. Who can get the most amount of pieces of paper in the box? And we were -- we're still dealing in an antiquated mindset, where we believe that elections were just about worldview and values and issues. Back in, like, 2004.

The left, they changed all the rules. And that made them permanent in COVID. And between 2022 and especially in 2024, we learned the rules. We caught up. And then we beat them at their own with game. And that is what is so promising and encouraging. That we were able to add this machinery, to a once in a generation movement. And I will add one other thing. Is that some people were saying, it was a landslide.

It was. However, Glenn, we're talking about Donald Trump. The final canvases will come out. He won Wisconsin by 30,000 votes.

Pennsylvania, one point. Michigan, point and a half.

Without the turnout operation, without the voter integrity operation, the Trump campaign, and the RNC, you could make an argument -- and also, the second layer is that we did 25 points better with younger voters.

We won the youth vote in Michigan. We almost won -- yeah. Go ahead.

GLENN: What do you attribute that to, other than, you know, your work. And the work of others?

Do me a favor do you -- how much do you put into Elon Musk, RFK, Joe Rogan? Theo Von? Yeah.

CHARLIE: Yeah. First of all, Elon Musk is an American hero. And that guy is the best of America, who decided to just put everything on the line, for his country.

And I can't say enough good things about him. And, by the way, President Trump deserves so much credit for doing this long form podcast. This was the year -- this was the election of the podcast. And Democrats were unbelievable.

GLENN: This is the end of the -- I said this the week before he went on Joe Rogan. I said, you watch. He'll go on Joe Rogan. 100 million people. And it will be the end of the mainstream ahead.

This will -- this will show everybody for 2028, there's no reason to do a debate on ABC.

There's no reason to do an interview with CBS.

Why? Why would you do that?

Everything changed, this time.

CHARLIE: That's exactly right.

And I attribute a lot to that. And in addition, Donald Trump was able to -- he was able to sit for three hours, with no notes and go deep on the issues and have a total command of the subjects.

GLENN: I know. I know.

CHARLIE: Here is the new standard though, and Democrats have to know this.

You will never win another presidential election, if you nominate another candidate who is unable to do long form podcasting.

People won't trust you. End of story. And if you do not have a candidate, who can go deep and that can think on their feet and have memory recall and be personable and charming and affable, the American people will reject that. Long gone are the days of 7-minute, 60-minute interviews, right?

Or, you know, ten-minute Meet The Press, where you have five questions, and they're prepared.

Now, you have to earn the vote. Because people are going to listen to you for three hours and see your tone and inflection. And whether you mean it.

And so Donald Trump excelled in that. And Joe Rogan deserves such credit for having the platform, and to his credit as well, he was very fair. He wanted to broker a fair deal where Kamala was invited and Donald Trump. The other thing I will say though.

And I think you will appreciate this, Glenn. With younger voters.

Is that there was that pent-up rebellion energy, amongst young Gen Zers for how they were treated during COVID.

During COVID, they had their proms cancelled. Their graduation. Summer classes. A lot of their friends committed suicide.

They were part of this generation that was hyper propagandized by the left wing woke stuff during the summer of Floyd.

And they realized that it was lies. And that it was misrepresentations, and then they get their news from podcasting. And podcasting comes out, talking about how great Donald Trump was and how awful Kamala was, because that was the right framing. And the generation started to tilt right.

And so -- what was so remarkable, is that Democrats, they didn't see this coming.

They were so confident.

They were so cocky. That younger voters were going to continue to support them.

Again, you could make the argument.

If it was for the mass movement of younger voters in some of these states.

Donald Trump might not have won. And, again, the Sunbelt was a separate story.

We did very well in the Sunbelt, 4 or 5-point margins.

But the Rest Belt was one and a half, 1-point margins. We're talking about 30,000 votes here. So all of these things add up, in a very significant way.

And it also should give your audience such hope.

There's almost no documented case of a generation that becomes more liberal, as they get older.

So the fact that this generation is the most conservative voting generation since 1988. That means that the future is only going to get redder.

It's only going to become more conservative, as they own property and get married and have children.

So our starting point is the best starting point for our political movement since Ronald Reagan.

And credit to Donald Trump. And please, sorry.

GLENN: And I think that it is only going to grow from here, if Donald Trump can tick off the things that are on his list to do.

GLENN: So, Charlie, we were talking about what -- you know, why Trump won. Why did Kamala lose?

CHARLIE: Well, that's interesting. And, again, I will say, the narrative should be that Trump won more than she lost. However, she was unable to do the basic, as we said, long form podcasting. She misread the room. And I think the interesting story that should be explored is, where did all the money go? The most funded campaign in history. A billion dollars.

Now, $20 million in debt.

And I have a personal axe to grind here.

Because, you know, we were one of the groups that the media was setting up to fail. Okay? Let's just be honest. There were so many articles written in the last couple of months. Trump team takes big risk outsourcing GOTV to Turning Point and Elon Musk.

You probably saw the stories, right, Glenn? It was every major outlet.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I did.

CHARLIE: And they were setting us up to fail, and we would get on the phones with these reporters. And we would say, hey, we're doing real things.

Maybe you guys should be more nuanced. And they said, well, the Kamala team has the most sophisticated get out vote operation ever, and their ground game. And they're knocking on tens of millions of doors, and we would tell them. And this was true. I said, never conflate results and activity.

The Kamala team was doing a lot of activity. But they weren't producing results. So the Kamala ground game was completely overrated.

Somebody made a lot of money, and misled a lot of people, and a lot of Democratic donors.

So let's just be honest on the issues. Let's just also on the issues though.

Is that Kamala Harris and the entire regime, they were trying to continue to occupy a country that they resent.

And that, as a basic operating formula, is almost an impossible way to hold on to political power.

You can't continue to govern a country when you disdain the people that you are pathed to oversee.

And, I mean, we can go one example to the other. I'm sure you cover this on your show.

But Star County, Texas. Which has not voted Republican. In over 100 years.

The most Hispanic county in America, Donald Trump won.

I mean, there was this multi-racial reckoning against the Democrat Party.

Young, old, black, Hispanic.

And finally, Kamala Harris and her entire team, they -- they -- they did everything they possibly could to not defend their own positions. But try to make it a referendum on Donald Trump.

Now, Donald Trump refuted quite a gift.

He received quite a gift. Because for the first time since Grover Cleveland, he was able to embrace the advantages of being an incumbent and the advantages of being a challenger.

So think about it. You can say, how great my record was. And how terrible the person currently in office is. If you think about that analytically, that's almost an impossible. It's impossible to beat that. Because you could be incredibly -- you could be very, very critical. So that wins you points. People like that in politics. At the same time, you can also have a sterling record to run on. So it's not just hypothetical. So Donald Trump leaned into the best of all circumstances. Being a challenger and also an incumbent. And, yeah. And also, Kamala Harris didn't have a primary. That's another thing that I said.

Don't -- when I try to implement a candidate without a primary, don't assume that all the Democrats are going to support you. I have many other thoughts on this.

GLENN: Well, I've got just about 30 seconds here, before a break. So good time to just take a breath. I do want to go back to that.

But I -- I also want to go back to Hispanics.

Because they have alienated themselves with everybody. Now, they're talking about how Hispanics are anti-black. And I've heard black are anti-Hispanics. I mean, they're just -- they're at war with themselves.

I don't know how they come back from this. But, you know, vampires, you always think are dead. But they come back.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

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

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

GLENN: It is.

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

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

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

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

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

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

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

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

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

People create around their own lives.

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

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

He decided that he wanted to do that.

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

GLENN: Yes, he was.

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

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

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

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

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: He is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

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

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

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

And you're never going to get them back.

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

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

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

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

And the hate is the key word.

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

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

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

BILL: Yeah.

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

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

GLENN: I don't either.

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

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

They never, ever watched network television.

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

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

GLENN: I know.

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

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

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

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

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

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

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

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

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

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

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should people CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk’s death be fired?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No! They're not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

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

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

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

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

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

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

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

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

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

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

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

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

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

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

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

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

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

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

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

Except here. I think it is easy.

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

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

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

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

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

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

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

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

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

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

Which do you want to defend?

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

Which one?

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.