RADIOFebruary 17, 2023

‘IT’S ALL A SHAM’: Why Buttigieg & FEMA are DITCHING Ohio

The recent train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio caused intense health and environmental concerns thanks to the massive leaking of toxic chemicals. But, yet, the Biden administration’s Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg is nowhere to be seen. AND, as Glenn details in this clip, FEMA just denied assistance to the Ohio town as well. But since when has FEMA turned down the chance to take control of a town, Glenn asks. In this clip, Glenn explains why he believes the left are ABANDONING Ohio: ‘It’s ALL A SHAM.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So, Stu, help me make sense of this story.

STU: Uh-huh

GLENN: Republican governor Mike dewine said, he's not seen secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg, at all.

At all. Now, I'm sure he's seen him on TV. I'm not talking about Ohio. I'm sure he's seen him, you know, at some point, at his life, maybe.

But since the train derailment, nothing.

STU: I mean, he probably saw him on TV, talking about how there weren't enough black people in construction jobs. He saw that. That's an important thing to talk about.

GLENN: Liar. What a liar!

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Anyway, and then yesterday, the Biden -- I read this verbatim. The Biden administration has turned down Republican Ohio governor Mike HEP Dewine's request for federal disaster assistance, for the train derailment.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, otherwise known as FEMA. Have you ever heard of them?

STU: I have heard of them, yeah. Too many white people working there too.

They say that Ohio is not eligible to receive assistance. Because the incident didn't classify as a natural -- as a national disaster. The rejection came nearly two weeks after the Norfolk Southern train. Which carried harmful chemicals derailed. 2,000 residents were evacuated.

Blah, blah, blah.

FEMA classifies a national disaster declaration as when there is property damage caused by a tornado, flood, hurricane, or earthquake.

The state currently does not have any associated costs that could demonstrate to FEMA to be able to get a disaster declaration.

Bras the train cars didn't cause any power outages, block any roads, or impede resident's property.

That's a quote from FEMA.

STU: Didn't impede resident's property. I mean, they had to evacuate. They are just saying, everything is fine. Right. That's their claim.

GLENN: You can go back there. You can go back.

STU: Just check it out.

GLENN: Just check it out. We're not saying. Do you get your vax. If you got your vax.

STU: Did the vaccine work for this too? For train derailments?

GLENN: I don't know that. But I just don't want them to go back, if they haven't had their vaccine, you know what I mean? But if you've had your vaccine, go back in. You're fine. You're good.

The federal government has nothing to do with your puny, little life there. What?

Train, big toxic clouds.

STU: Is it just -- are they trying to say, it's just not FEMA's purview. I mean, if we had a chemical fire somewhere.

GLENN: Tell me the time that FEMA has not champed at the bit, to come into your community to take over.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I can't think of one.

STU: But their lying there, seems to be, it's not a natural disaster. And we only deal with natural disasters.

Is there another government agency? Another alphabet collection of letters that's supposed to come in and deal with chemical accidents? The EPA?

GLENN: Well, the EPA is there.

STU: Are they helping the people?

GLENN: What they're trying.

Oh, yes, they are. They're saying, come on back in. Everything is fine.

Come into the water. Just, take a net, scoop all those dead fish, off of the surface of the water. They died from something else, I'm sure.

STU: Right. Some of them seem to sprout wings and fly off of your property. Just scoop them up. They're dead now.

GLENN: And if you don't scoop them up, they'll grow feet.

STU: You don't want the fish feet. No, fish feet around your property will lower property values. Your Zillow thing is going to go through the floor.

GLENN: Now, let me give you this story from the New York Times.

By the way, I'm leading someplace, and it's -- it's a happy place.

STU: Is it fish feet? Does this all come back to fish feet?

GLENN: Well, so here's the headline from the New York Times. Now, listen to this story. Chernobyl 2.0. Ohio train derailment spurs wild speculation. So this story is about the conspiracy theories, that are coming from --

STU: Conservatives.

GLENN: Yeah. Conservatives. Yes.

STU: So wait a minute. We finally found an ecological issue that the New York Times is downplaying?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: There finally is one? Every time there is an oil spill of like three drops, they all -- they send like 12 reporters from the scene, and any bird that has any oil on their feathers. There is a snowstorm, and it is because of your hair spray.

All right. Since a train carrying hazardous materials derailed in Ohio, nearly two weeks ago, writes the New York Times, residents have feared for their safety.

A controlled burn of toxic materials, has filled the air, and covered surface waters with soil -- and soil with chemicals.

Dead fish that floated in nearby creeks. And an unnerving aroma has lingered in the air. Okay.

STU: This is a lot of -- this is a lot of evidence.

GLENN: But for many commentators, from across the political spectrum. The speculation has gone far beyond known facts.

Right-wing commentators have been particularly critical, using the crisis, to HEP sow distrust about government agencies. And suggest that damage could be irreparable.

You mean like, we have to act on global warming, and completely destroy all of any kind of modern living, and eat bugs? Within the next ten years?

Or the earth will be destroyed forever?

You mean that kind of irreparable?

On social media, like Twitter and telegram, commentators have called the situation, the largest environmental disaster in history. Or simple --icismy Chernobyl 2.0. Invoking the 1986 nuclear disaster.

By the way, let's go back and see how the press reacted to the Three Mile Island accident. Remember?

That was the greatest nuclear meltdown of all -- no. Nope.

Nothing was measured in the air. Nothing. Nothing.

STU: Yeah. The worst side effects of that incident were the equivalent of a full set of chess x-rays.

GLENN: Correct. And that, they made in -- they stopped nuclear energy.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Because of that.

STU: And arguably caused day -- if you want to believe their narrative, or at least their outcomes. They're not going to give this narrative. But arguably caused the problems that we had with global warming today. Right?

They shut down the nuclear industries, so we had to go to other --

GLENN: Stay on fossil fuels.

STU: Fossil fuels.

And in their world, this is what has caused all the problems.

Which, by the way, which means they caused all the problems.

GLENN: Well, isn't that what progressivism worked?

They caused the problems, and then tried to fix the problems they caused. Which causes more problems, which they then try to fix those problems.

It's a never-ending series, chain of events.

They warned, they said, they warned, that vital water reservoirs, serving states downriver could be badly contaminated.

Key word there, could.

And they suggested that the authorities, railroad companies, and mainstream news media were purposely obscuring the full toll of the crisis. Right.

Because when have you ever done that, mainstream media. Government.

Or railroad companies.

STU: You've already had several bits of information that have come out, that different chemicals were on board, that we didn't know about initially.

There were more effects than we thought. Of course, they're going to speculate, that there was more than they told us.

GLENN: Stu, please read the New York Times.

STU: I've read the New York Times. And the New York Times, every time there's any sort of chemical that leaks anywhere on the planet, they say it's going to be a catastrophe. This is the entire papers. Is basically based on someone dripped some chemical 3,000 miles away.

GLENN: But those were disasters. This is not.

Listen --

STU: This is fine.

GLENN: Since then the EPA has said air quality has returned to safe levels. Residents have been allowed to return.

Yeah. A chemical order lingers, because people can smell the contaminants, even when they are far below hazardous concentrations. This is all according to the EPA.

That's what it says right here.

Water testing found no indication of risk to public water systems so far, the EPA said.

Through private -- though private wells should be tested, but the public water, fine. The private water we're not sure.

Utilities drawing from the Ohio river were taking precautions at least one company said.

At town hall meetings on Wednesday, frustrated residents, pressed officials for assurances that the air and water were safe.

Experts urged caution as they assessed the long-term consequences. Warning that airborne contaminants, settle on to surfaces. Seep into wells, and migrate through cracks and basements to homes.

Yet, influencers and right-wing commentators were quick to draw the conclusion of their own, theorizing about the extent of damage in and the federal response, which they say, have amounted to an extensive cover-up.

STU: This makes no sense. How could the New York Times take that side of the story?

There's a good argument to be made. This happens a lot. You have an accident like this. And it's a pretty natural series of events. That people who live close by. They are pretty worried about it. Because they can smell stuff in the air, and they're worried about what's going on with their water. They are worried if their children are going to die or develop cancer next week.

All really rational fears. And then maybe some scientific experts come in and say, we don't think it's a risk.

When that series of events occurs. The New York Times always sides with the families.

Always sides against the companies. Always says, actually, we found some person, this one random person, who has this effect.

It's not proven to be connected. But we're going to say it's connected anyway.

They always, always side with the freaking out side of this this argument. And for this one side. This one incident, they're all of a sudden, on board, with it don't go going on.

Seriously, isn't this weird? Seriously, isn't this weird?

GLENN: No. You have no -- you have no example of that. Let me give you -- let me give you an unrelated story.

Headline, Russian pipeline leaks spark climate fears, as huge volumes of methane spew into the atmosphere.

STU: Every time.

GLENN: What is methane?

That is natural gas. Natural gas. Key word, natural. Okay?

It seeps out into the atmosphere all the time. Because it's coming from the earth, and it's natural gas.

Not man made chemicals, that are not meant to burn, that they just set on fire.
(laughter)
No, no, no. This is natural gas. They call it methane, which is also what comes out of the butt and the mouth of a cow, that they say, God created all of this. This is a master plan.

This is an incredible thing.

But what he didn't know, is that he actually created animals, that live on the planet, that spew a toxic chemical that will make their entire planet die!

That's what -- yeah. Yeah. Well, if you don't believe in God, you believe in -- you know, natural evolution.

Well, if the cow and the farts from animals, is toxic to the planet. Well, evolution will figure that out.

No, no, no. No.

Methane, natural. Natural. Not chemicals in the sky.

Again, used, made for World War I, setting those on fire. No. It's not a problem.

Climate scientists acknowledge that it's hard to accurately quantify the exact size of the emissions. And say leaks. Are, quote, a wee bubble in the ocean, compared to the massive amounts of methane emitted around the world every day.

Nonetheless, environmental campaigners argue the incident reaffirms the risk of sabotage or accident makes fossil fuel infrastructure, a ticking time bomb.

Wow.

But you and Ohio.

Now, I'll tie this together.

I'll tell you what I think this -- what's really going on here in 60 seconds.

Just about every day on this program, they share real experiences with people here. People with their lives changed on Relief Factor.

I'm one of them. I can honestly say, I wouldn't be here today, if it wasn't for Relief Factor.

That is an honest statement. I told my wife, I don't know how I'm going to live this way, and continue to go on and do this.

In my mind, I was settling for, I'm going to live this way the rest of my life.

Moments that I have, that's not in pain, I'll enjoy them with my family. And before, you know, I said, I have that decision to make next year. We have to talk about it.

And she said, have you tried Relief Factor?

This is an honest to God conversation. have you tried Relief Factor?

No, it's not going to work for me. It's all natural, blah, blah, blah.

I've been to the Mayo Clinic. Really? Something that's not a drug, it's all natural. And advertised on radio, and TV.

That's going to fix it.

Well, I don't want to hear you whine about it. If you won't try everything. So I tried it. Three weeks later, I said, it's not working.

But I -- I didn't notice, I was dismissing within that I was feeling better. Thinking I was just in a good period.

Then I stopped taking it.

And all of it came rushing back. That's my experience with Relief Factor.

Want to give it a whirl?

Get out of pain. What if it works.

70 percent of the people who try it, go on to order more, month after month. ReliefFactor.com.

Try the three-week Quick Start.

Exactly the same thing I did. ReliefFactor.com. 800-4-Relief. Relief Factor, feel the difference. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: Okay. So let me tell you exactly what I I think is going on. These people do not care about the things they say they care about. It's all a sham. It's all a sham.

This whole global warming thing. Look, at first it was global -- no. First it was global ice age coming. When I was growing up.

It was an ice age. Then it was global warming.

Now it's global climate change, because it's going different ways. Okay?

Now you can't predict it. But they were absolutely sure you could predict it, just a few years ago. That it was going to be warming. Now, we can't predict it. But we can predict, that will it will be unpredictable.

Oh, okay.

It's a sham.

Now, I believe climate is always changing. We may be in a new period, but all the rest of it is bullcrap for control.

Otherwise, they would care about this just as much as they care about everything else. But see, this one has politics involved. This is a red state.

This is a state where they don't care about. They'll rush FEMA any place. Any place.

Well, not to the border here, where we're being overrun. Not to Ohio. Where the skies are on fire.

No, no, no, no. These people honestly don't care about any human condition, except for their condition of power.

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.

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.