RADIOJune 18, 2024

Exposing Target’s Internal MELTDOWN After Pride Month Backlash

Glenn Beck reveals leaked internal messages between the members of Target’s “Pride + Business Council” that took place during last year's boycott. Target went off the rails last Pride Month and offered “tuck-friendly” bathing suits, chest binders, and transgender-themed merchandise for children. Americans responded with a boycott that sent Target running back into the closet. Thanks to an employee from Target corporate who wished to stay anonymous, Glenn exposes for the first time ever the radical response of Target employees, including a witch hunt that ensued when certain employees defended Target’s rollback of controversial LGBTQ+ merchandise as a reasonable business move. In the end, Target leadership received a list of demands from employees that included a call for Target to bring back the merchandise that started the controversy in the first place. Despite the internal pressure, Target toned down its Pride collection this year. Should reasonable Americans take the win, or is there yet another battle for the culture just around the corner?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So you're the first to hear this exclusive leak, that we received from a source inside Target headquarters who thought the public needed to know how some of Target's employees responded to last year's boycott. First, let me speak directly to the people that made all of this possible.

Women, I know it was hard to boycott Target.

We were there. We -- we as husbands, and men saw you. Like you weren't busy enough.

We saw you drive past that bright red sign. And go from store to store, to be able to boycott. With us. With Bud Light.

I mean, it's beer.

We will just reach in the fridge for another beer. Victory. Real victory is yours with Target. But it's Pride month again.

Which means, it's been one year since Target rolled out a collection of Pride onesies, tuck-friendly bathing suits, chest binders for girls, and apparel made by some transgender Satan apologist. Not today, Jesus. Says Satan.

This year, prayed month, Target has a much more toned down collection. Like, for instance, let me show you their new Pride Month charcuterie board.

That says, it's giving charcuterie. Has no rainbows or Pride symbols on it at all. It's just a wooden board.

I guess maybe Target thinks charcuterie is gay enough on its own. I'm not really sure, but it's a tame collection of rainbow wine bottles and clothes and nothing like last year.

Also, unlike last year. There was nothing for kids. So victory.

Now, some Target locations won't have any Pride merchandise this year. It will only be sold online in the stores. Where Target says, they've seen historically the strongest sales demand.

Okay. That makes sense as a business. To be clear, Target, I don't think is doing this because corporate had some road to Damascus moment, and decided, you know what, we should depoliticize this company and maybe sell things people want.

Remember, this is the same company, that in 2016, when most didn't even know, you know, that there were 96 genders.

They said, put a statement out that said, we welcome. I'm quoting. Transgender team members and guests. To use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.

Well, that make me comfortable when my kids want to go and try something out. Their 2023 sustainability and governance report. This Target is one of them that does ESG on their own. Says, their goal is to take urgent action. To combat climate change and its impacts.

The Target website says, Target is an inclusive and antiracist organization. That's key.

It's not non-racist. It has to be. You have to have a little racism to combat racism, you see.

So the way I see it. There's only one reason Target has pulled back on their Pride collection.

And that is you. But now Target is a really, really tricky position. And that's because, on one hand, they can't afford another boycott. The New York Post reported that after last year's boycott, Target lost ten billion dollars in market valuation, in ten days.

That's a lot. On the other hand, they have created a brand around being basically woke. And just like Disney, the inmates are now in charge of the asylum. And employees at Target, many are very woke and militant. Now, to make matters really complicated, that radical staff they have to deal with, was not happy. Last year.

Last year, our team was given exclusive access to internal messages, that took place on Target's slack chapel for their pride plus business council.

We found culture wars that are taking place, because Target is taking a stand and saying, wait. We're going to slow down on this.

And the people were not just boycotting.

Internally, the employees started a little revolt.

And let me show you what we were sent and found.

Last year, when you were deciding to boycott Target for their choice to sell chest binders to children.

Paneled underwear.

Target hosted a town hall to discuss the move to pull back on some of their more controversial merchandise.

The people of the pride plus business council, were not pleased inside of Target.

Up said, quote.

It feels like leadership wants to keep support for LGBTQ causes on the down low. Like they want to be able to point it out to people. You know, make a fuss.

But they don't want to advertise it for people who might disagree. Senior management for philanthropic operations agreed, saying, quote, reasoning with the down low piece for real!

See, what they're saying is, Target while -- while we were saying Target went too far.

The employees were upset, that they hadn't gone far enough.

And now they were pulling back. One employee said, see. We need to cater to the bigots to get our sales up.

Okay. But it wasn't just the town hall announcement that started the internal firestorm at Target. It was the comments in the community chat, while it happened. The leaked messages were given to us, in backward order.

So as we went through them, we saw the Pride-plus council's reaction to the comments, before we saw the comments, themselves.

Remember, we weren't given access to the actual conversation, just the comments.

So we don't know what was said, by the Target leadership during the meeting.

But we were given snapshots. And screen shots of what happened in the chat.

So we don't know what they said, at the leadership of Target.

But it must have been pretty horrible.

Based on just the reactions. The comments must have been awful. From Target leadership.

Here are a few examples of what the chat said, during it.

How the Pride Plus business council was reacting. JPG 22, here. I've been through a lot in my life. I have PTSD to show for it.

And I have to say, that was the most gaslighty dystopian thing I ever witnessed in a while. Here's another one: JPG 24.

We need to protect ourselves. There are consequences for hateful statements and displays.

So now, what did Target say that has made their employees say, we have to protect ourselves from these hateful statements and displays?

Number 27.

A few more. I'm still in shock, and disgusted.

I'm sure a lot of people are examining, whether they want to continue to be a team member after all of this.

Kind of hard to get back to work after that one, huh?

So at this point, we're assuming something truly terrible had happened in that community chat.

The acronym HR was repeated over and over again in the chat.

And people were talking about filing ethics complaints.

One woman put the name and email of an intern, who she said was advocating for discrimination.

Wow! Another intern was exposed for basically putting thumbs down on a comment.

Which promoted one of the lead buyers for Target's pride collection to say, each person should be submitted to ethics.

An intern who gave a thumb's down on a comment, should be submitted to ethics.

So what horrible things were these people saying, to elicit such an extreme reaction.

Surely, they had to be sexist, racist tirades, that started this chaos.

Well, here's what we found. And you may want to sit down for this one. Because it's pretty darn shocking.

Here's one of the comments, that we found.

A woman who was a Christian. Hang on just a second.

That wrote this.

I'm a Christian. And I don't support violence against guests or team members.

Okay. I also don't hate people who view differently than myself.

However, for some to say my Biblical views are disgusting, that's not inclusive.

Wow! Now, it gets worse.

The people in the chat need to look at past year's Pride assortment. The backlash this year has been specific to gender-plus children, to imply leadership is now bowing down to bigots is highly offensive.

Then this: A lead designer, who had been at Target for 25 years, defended the people, who felt a little weird about Target partnering with a designer, who currently produces products that say, Satan respects pronouns.

This lead designer at Target said, so someone who doesn't think a partnership with an artist who glorifies Satan in their products is a bigot? Would Target partner with a similar individual who had a racist-themed product, or would you have the same feeling towards those partnerships?

Maybe quit calling names, because their beliefs are different than yours. The most inflammatory comment that we could find was made by a woman who started working at Target in the early 2000s.

She said, quote, not all people agree that giving hormones to kids, which only provides long-term health issues is a good thing. So inclusivity, means ignoring 95 percent of the population? To make sure 5 percent are able to keep grooming kids, end quote?

Read about some of the stories. I'm still quoting now.

Of the young girls who have had a mastectomy at 13. And are now in their 20s. And have horrible health issues. From the hormones that they've taken. I don't care what an adult does.

But kids should be left alone.

Is that unreasonable?

My favorite comment was this, with JPG 45. Our leadership team has a difficult decision to make.
They answer to something called shareholders.

We're also responsible for thousands of team member jobs. Please, don't attack your leadership or your fellow team members when you don't know their heart.

We are a business, and this is capitalism. Good day now. End quote.

Well, Target needed to send out a company-wide letters addressing the comments before the end of the day. And here's what they said.

Several comments made during the town hall, violated Target's policies. Those incidents are being addressed directly. Target does not tolerate discrimination or hate speech of any kind.

Wait. The ones who just said don't attack the leadership?

That that's hate speech? That wasn't enough for some of the members of the Pride Plus business council.

The idea was floated in their chat. On the day of their town hall.

That they needed more organized response.

That response came about a month later, in the form of a list of demands, sent to target leadership. Which we were also given access. Exclusive access to.

In the memo, they said, they wanted from Target, quote, an acknowledgment of harm. A sincere apology.

And a clear statement of unwavering support for the LGBTQ+ community.

They wrote, we have always regarded Target as an inclusive and progressive company. However, these recent events have called into question, the company's commitment to these values.

They said, the removal of some of the Pride collection was disappointing and distressing. So fort company to atone, they needed Target to acknowledge in writing, the harm done to the LGBTQ+ community, explicitly the trans and nonbinary -- nonbinary members of the community. Forge partnerships with prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups and immediately reinstate the Pride collection in full, which we know didn't happen.

Donate to LGBTQ causes and implement sensitivity training for employees and cease all contributions to politicians and organizations that do not support the LGBTQ community.

This is so crazy. Because here is a company, that supports LGBTQ. Way beyond what other companies do.

And they're not woke enough. Even after all that pressure from within the company. And all the pressure outside the company, from people like Governor Newsom accusing Target CEO of selling out the LGBTQ+ community to extremists.

We're the extremists. Target still toned down its Pride collection this year, and they did it because of you. This is a testament of what you can do, when we come together, which brings me to the point of this whole story.

What is this story really all about?

Because I'm not showing you all about this stuff?

You know, saying that Target has issues.

We know that already.

It's why you staged a boycott.

What is this story really all about?

Okay. So I wanted to give you this exclusive story today, on Target. Because I want you to see a couple of things here. First of all, we do have the power to make a difference.

We have more power than you think you do.

That's why they need to shut people up, using fear, okay?

The second thing is, is a little bit of hope.

And sadness as well.

Wokeness will always destroy itself.

This is -- it's like the plant in little shop of horror. You give it a little bit of blood, and it will eventually eat you.

And that's what's happening to companies like Target. They created a monster, and they planted it inside their own company. And it's eating them alive.

It's as if all of Target's virtue signaling came to life in the form some of their employees. And now it's the battle to the death. It's the same in higher education. There are those professors who have been teaching revolutionary theories for years. But now have been run out by revolutionaries they created. Same thing in the Democratic Party.

The new generation of progressives is threatening the Democratic establishment, who used to be the radicals, for not being radical enough.

Wokeness always eats its own. And it's because the entire ideology is fueled by deconstruction.

And critical theories that rage against the hierarchy. Or the debate. And do you know whams when you're in a movement for a while?

You, the radical, become the establishment. If you climb your way to the top of the woke ladder, you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the movement. And the new revolutionaries always destroy the old ones. The ending of the story for places like Target and Disney is inevitable.

And I think most of us understand that innately, which is why we watch these stories unfold like it's the end of the Daytona 500. We know someone is going to crash. It's just a matter of time. So what do we do?

Do we sit back, point and laugh?

No. That would be tempting. And fun. A little bit.

But not useful. Because in the short-term.

Whatever crash is coming. Is going to affect all of us.

There are plenty of sane people. Normal people. That work at Target.

Hike the ones that we saw, trying to be reasonable in their community chat.

All of us will be caught in the crossfire of these woke institutions as they implode.

We just need to be ready to fill the vacuum. That it's going to create.

In the long-term, we have to focus on creating an alternative. Business. Movie. Media.

Everything.

That's what we need. Alternatives. Kind, gracious. Decent. Alternatives.

You build it. They destroy. But you build. You restore.

Wokeness is a destructive force.

We just have to hold on to our values. And be ready to rebuild.

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

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.

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?

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.