RADIOJune 23, 2022

NYC gun laws CHALLENGED after 'GREAT' Supreme Court ruling

It’s a great day for the Constitution. Why? Because the 6-3 Supreme Court decision announced today should OVERTURN a New York City law that severely restricts concealed carry rights. Legal expert Josh Hammer joins Glenn to discuss what he says is a ‘career-defining’ majority decision by Clarence Thomas, what the ruling means for gun rights throughout America moving forward, and how this decision will ‘suck the wind’ out of the Republicans who supported the Senate’s current gun restrictions bill…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The huge gun case up in New York, where I couldn't get a gun in New York. I had 15 active threats. I had Gavin de Becker and associates. Which were -- they were probably the best security detail in the country. In the world, really.

And they were following these threats. You know, my kids were looking at pursuer lists on our refrigerator. If these people approached. Go run. Get mom or dad.

I mean, it was really bad. And I couldn't get a gun. In New York City. Because they deemed that I didn't have enough cause. To have a gun.

That's been thrown out now. So tell me what they've done. What does this mean for New York? And the rest of the country?

JOSH: So it's a fantastic ruling. Look, I've not had the chance to pore through it. Looks like they have a Justice Thomas majority opinion, clocked in at 63 pages. You know, including concurrences and dissents, we're up to 130. One hundred 40 pages. So I have my reading cut out for me, for the rest of the day.

But based on my quick skimming of it, this is a thoroughly well-researched. I might even say, thus far, career-defining majority opinion. From Justice Clarence Thomas. I was thinking about this recently.

It's unclear to me, today, or at least before today. Whether Clarence Thomas has a career-defining majority opinion. He's written so prolifically for so long, but most of his greatest writings, especially on the hard-hitting cases. Have been in concurrence. Or more often than not, oftentimes in defense. I think in another gun case in 2008, (inaudible) versus Heller had his landmark career-defining opinion. And at least until affirmative action I predict is likely overturned next term. You can get that if you want to. At least until that day where I predict Thomas will also have the majority opinion. This is his career-defining opinion.

This is an issue that is very near and dear to Justice Thomas. He wrote an amazing concurrence in the courts, last major Second Amendment case. McDonald versus the city of Chicago case in 2010, where you had a magisterial 55 to 60-page concurrence. Just working through the history. This issue was very near and dear to him. He's a personal gun owner. He enjoys hunting. And from what I can tell, it's just a really thoroughly well-researched opinion, that reaches the clear and obvious result, that anyone with any degree of familiarity with the Second Amendment text could tell you. Which is that this is a right.

And the very act of talking about burying arms. Not just keening them. But the burying them obviously entails the ability to do so, outside the home, without oppressive restrictions. The likes of which, again, it sounds like you face in my home state. In my home state of New York. The point that Justice Kavanaugh makes in his very brief concurring opinion. He kind of drives down this point, which is, the vast majority of states, which have so-called shall issue regimes for their gun licensing permits. Which means that you have to give the applicants a permit, as long as they go through X, Y Z tests. You know, they shoot the right number of targets. The permit years ago. Those laws are all untouched. The only laws that are jeopardized by today's decision are the more problematic, quote, unquote, may issue laws. Not the shall issue laws, where they basically give the licensing authorities a ton of discretion to arbitrarily decide, where you have to show that you truly, truly -- whatever the heck that means. But, and then, the fact that --

GLENN: Yeah. It's nuts.

JOSH: Go ahead.

GLENN: So I want to ask you, doesn't this make the Senate gun bill a joke? I mean, that will have no teeth to it, after this ruling. Would it?

JOSH: Yes and no.

It's real interesting. I have tracked a lot of the commentary over the next 24 to 48 hours. Next week is a focus on this exact question, right? So in theory, they are different issues. The ruling here today is talking about concealed carry, and open carry regimes in the states. The Senate gun bill is in theory focused on other measures. It's focused on things like red flag laws. But it is a little intellectually inconsistent. Or at least at a bear bare minimum. It would be a little peculiar, right? To have the liberalize. I say that in a good way. A more liberalized concealed carry licensing regime, while at the same time, having a red flag law, in place that would just infringe upon due process rights, willy-nilly. Those two things would seem to be intentioned with one another. At a bare minimum, the timing of this opinion --

GLENN: But it's not the same.

JOSH: It really kind of sucks the wind out of John Cornyn and the other 13-Senate Republicans' momentum. That's for sure.

GLENN: So how will this affect other states? New York, by the way, has just come out. And I'm going to talk about this in a minute. New York has already come out. And said, it's not going to change anything. We're not going to abide by this. Which is ironic, because that's what the Second Amendment is for. To stop an out-of-control, lawless government, doing what they want. And not abiding by the Constitution. I just want to point that out.

JOSH: Well, that's wild. I have not seen that. But that's just wild stuff, that they said that bluntly here. Hook, the entire idea behind the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Which in itself is a legally debatable matter, I should say. But they have held. The court has held that the overwhelming majority of enumerated rights, in developed rights, including the Second Amendment. By the way. That's the McDonald versus Chicago case in 2010. The court has held that these rights are incorporated against the states. Which, you know, to escape the legalese for a minute, means that a state cannot infringe on these rights. The federal government already cannot. But a state cannot as well. So this case is right out of New York State. If New York State wants to go flip two middle fingers at the court, when they themselves are a party to the lawsuit. Look, parties to the lawsuit aren't balanced.

GLENN: Well, let me -- let me read impala what governor Kathy Hochul said. She said, it's outrageous that in a moment of national reckoning on gun violence. The Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those that can carry concealed weapons. By the way, I don't know if she knows this. But Buffalo is in New York.

So her law didn't do anything. In response to this ruling, we are reviewing our options, including calling a special session of the legislature. Just as we swiftly passed nation leading gun reform legislation. We will continue to do everything we can in our power, to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence. So she didn't say, we're not going to do it. She said, we're just not going to find a way around it.

JOSH: Right. I mean, that statement is about what I would expect from a left-wing hack like the governor of New York State. We'll see what they try to do. I mean, they'll try to pass some law. Meaning, they will try to issue something administrative. Inevitably both find themselves, in court again.

And, you know, with the occurring composition of the court. If that ultimately makes its way up to the Supreme Court itself, you have to like the odds of the side of gun rights. The reality is, if I have the number correctly, I think it's 43 of the current states in the country. If I recall the number from the Kavanaugh concurring opinion today. Forty-three of the states are either, quote, unquote, shall issue states. Or just straight up constitutional county states. They simply do not need a license to exercise a right to give them their arms outside the home. So we should note that this opinion did not actually apply to the vast majority of states. We're only talking here about the blue states such as New York State. And look, I mean, cynically speaking. Someone born in New York, and fled many years ago. If it is oppressive laws like this. That incentivizes more people, to flee blue state tyranny or red state freedom. Far be it from me to criticize people to do so. The statement that you read, Glenn, I would expect them to say something along those lines.

GLENN: All right. We're going to -- if you don't mind holding for just a minute. I will do a commercial and come back. And I just want to ask you, if you looked at any of the others. Is there any that you think is a really good sign, on where things are headed. Just some of the other decisions, that came out today from the Supreme Court. Back with Josh Hammer in a minute.

JEFFY: American Financing. NMLS 182334. Www.NMLSconsumeraccess.org.

GLENN: So listen, right now, it is so imperative, that we are very frugal with our money. We are moving closer and closer to the brink of a recession. I know you listen to the president.

He's -- he's honestly, batcrap crazy on this. I mean, you know. And, honestly, if you voted for the guy, even you know it. We're not -- there's no recession. We're in a transition -- we're in a transitional period. Yeah. So was the Great Depression. I don't even know what a transitional period means.

But we're headed for a recession. The major banks came out yesterday, and said it. The fed said it. And the fed also said, by the way, this is not a Putin gas tax. Just taking them apart. But yet, he's living in a delusional world. I want you to make sure that you are prepared with your financing to do the best that you can to save every penny. American Financing can help you do this. By paying off high-interest debt. To shortening the loan terms. You can access cash from your equity. There's so many possibilities right now. And many of them will save you hundreds, not $1,000 a month. Just by calling American Financing. And seeing your options. You will feel better. Call American Financing now. At 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So my producers are freaking out. Because they want to make sure that I clarify something here. That I just said.

Historically, the reason why the Second Amendment exists, is not for hunting.

Not a sport. I want to go shoot Clay pigeons. Okay. That's not what it was about. Otherwise, you might be able to find, like bowling in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

It's not about a sport. It's about protecting yourself. And protecting your community against an out-of-control rogue government. That's what it's about. So I just find it ironic. That if they're like, we're not going to obey Biden's rule. That's what the Second Amendment. That's what the Founders were talking about. As somebody that just decided --

STU: As you just read that statement. That's not exactly what's happening. You're not exactly calling for a Civil War against Albany. Are you? I want to make sure here.

GLENN: Oh, my God. No. No.

STU: Because you were talking about this was the motivation at the time. You have to follow these traditions and these rules. But this is a much, much different case here, as we're talking about it now. As a statement from a --

GLENN: Anyway, I'm just talking about how ironic it is, that that's what the Founders, you know, said, that that's really important.

Because if they're -- as George Washington said. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

And, you know, part of that, is being able to question them. To speak out. To have a free press, to assemble. And also, to own a gun.

Anyway, josh, anything else that -- that you see, that came out today, that you think is -- is good news in a -- in a far-reaching way?

JOSH: Well, first of all, let me chime in briefly on the conversation that you and Stu were just having. I obviously could not agree with you guys more on the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment. Glenn, I know that you all. You will uniquely appreciate this. Just because I know how much you care about this issue. You know, I'm Jewish obviously.

I keep it on my desk at all times. A rock that a rabbi gave to me years ago, that he smuggled out of the crematorium at Auschwitz. And I keep next to that rock.

A rock that I myself took from Treblinka. And then across my room, I have my -- you know, my game of defense AR, with lots of ammunition.

And mags and all that. And to me, I refer to that, as to my friends. As my Warsaw ghetto gun. So no one understands the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment more than I do. So I just want to echo your sentiments on that.

GLENN: Okay.

And, you know, the Germans gave -- the Germans gave all of the information of where their guns were, to the Weimar Republic. You give it in gun faith. Because the Weimar Republic said, oh, we'll never use this. Well, then the Nazis came in, and guess who took all the information. And knew where all the guns were. That's why you just don't do these things. But, anyway, go ahead.

JOSH: Exactly. Shifting a little bit, as far as the other cases that came across today. There's an Eighth Amendment case about an execution that I have not had a chance to review yet. A state in Georgia called Nancy Ward. Long story short. All sorts of activist litigation for many years now, where the ACLU, groups like that, will sue -- and they have the effect of the incrementally outlawing or seeking to outlaw various forms of execution, which you have to look harder and harder to find the right cocktail. A very pernicious people passed it with the obvious, not so subtle end goal of trying to re-abolish the death penalty in America.

It looks like the wrong side won today. But I -- a glimmer of hope, though, I see that Justice Barrett actually filed a dissenting opinion in that case. Even though Kavanaugh defected, it's good to see that Justice Barrett is on the right side of this Eighth Amendment issue.

Another case that I've not fully had the chance to break down. It's out of the fourth circuit. It's a case in North Carolina. They basically -- it's a case called Berger versus North Carolina state conference of the NAACP. The court rules, and it's notable. Because it's an 8-1 ruling. An 8-1 ruling. They ruled that Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina are able to intervene to defend their state's voter ID law. That the NAACP challenged. So the procedural posture there, it's not a substantive claim. It's more a procedural claim. The reason why I want to bring it to your listeners. I think it's worth discussing a little bit. Is because it's an 8-1 opinion. The only person who dissented here is preemptively speaking, Sotomayor. And that's a real read into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit. The lower court that heard this. When you, again, reverse won by the court. When Sotomayor sort of disagreed. And it really paints a stark picture as to how much the Obama presidency, changed the Fourth Circuit amongst the other circuits. We do really have a long road ahead of us, to get the lower court in order unfortunately. This case did come out the right way.

GLENN: Josh. Josh, thank you so much. This is Josh Hammer. He'll be joining us tomorrow. More rulings are coming out tomorrow.

And we're coming close to really big ones.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

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.

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?

Could passengers have SAVED Iryna Zarutska?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

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

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

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

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

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

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

Hmm. No.

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

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

Do you know off the top of your head?

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

STU: Yeah.

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

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

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

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

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

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

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

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

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

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

In that situation.