RADIOFebruary 12, 2025

New Task Force Could Expose The Government's DARKEST Secrets

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna has been tapped to lead the House Oversight Committee's "Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets." This task force will look into declassifying information on the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations, UAPs/UFOs, the Jeffrey Epstein client list, the origins of COVID-19, 9/11, and more. But Glenn has a few questions, including whether getting Congress involved will slow the process down. Rep. Luna clears up the confusion and says that Trump appointees, like AG Pam Bondi and, hopefully, FBI Director Kash Patel, will still make the big decisions. Plus, she addresses criticism of her promise to subpoena witnesses related to the JFK assassination.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Anna Paulina Luna is with me now from Congress.

She's just been appointed to lead the task force on declassification of federal secrets. Anna, welcome. How are you?

ANNA: Hey, Glenn. Happy to be back on. Thank you!

GLENN: Okay. Now, I just have to say, yesterday, unbeknownst to me before you are appointed, I was on a show with Patrick Bet-David.

And I said, within 15 days, they are going to release the client list for Jeffrey Epstein. No way! That can't be true. And I said, I'm telling you, Kash Patel, I talked to him over the summer. He is for radical transparency. It's in the hands of the director of the FBI.

I think he does it day number one. Let's give him a few days to settle in. They didn't believe me. They said, we're going to track this.

So, Anna, you're going to make me look bad.
And I don't care if lives are destroyed or whatever. But you can't make me look bad.

VOICE: No! You know, we actually also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice. As you know, Pam Bondi is heading up that organization, and we also asked for it there. But I also -- I'm in the same belief, that Kash will get confirmed.

I think he will absolutely be pushing for radical transformation. I also too like to point out, you know, at the same time, that we're basically announcing our press conference at the declassification passports, we actually also found out that the SPI just so happened to locate thousands of pages of previously undiscovered JFK files.

So, look, I know a lot of people are like, well, the American people need to see the information first, and you actually will see it.

It will be declassified. But the reason why we're doing the task force is, A, just because President Trump signed an executive order doesn't mean that bureaucrats and even Intelligence agencies won't attempt to block it.

So we want to make sure that's followed through. We do have punitive authority to hold them accountable, if they don't, A.

And then, B, I think it's incredibly important to look at the evidence that we know now. Which is sure as heck a lot different than what they had even 60 years ago, and what we're finding. What we're finding, and from what I have looked at.

To stuff that's already out there. Also, too, taking into account, many of the doctors that were actually at that initial responding -- or at that initial hospital. I do think that there were two shooters.

And I think the whole Magic Bully theory that the Warren commission pushed, I think that was faulty.
I know another president at the time, also believed that that was a faulty theory.

And so, you know, I'm eager to accommodate this. I know that there's many Democrats and Republicans that also want to get to the bottom of this.

And I am simply asking the questions that every American has been asking for decades.

GLENN: So I have a very good friend, Paul Biets (phonetic), who has the museum of the American soldier in Texas. And he had -- he spent a long time to get the exact right gun, the way it was modified. A scope and everything else, and he just had it redone. And I have to tell you, I've held it.

I will take it out to the range next week. I've held the gun, looked through the scope.

I just don't think you could do it. I mean, it's just so difficult!

ANNA: There were reports from doctors at the time, some of which were first and second-year med students who were at the hospital, in the room where Kennedy was brought. And they reported an entry wound in the neck. From some of the footage that you can see.

Video of Kennedy being shot.

But also the doctors that ran the autopsies at Bethesda, Maryland, had reported seeing an entry wound in the back. And so we're talking about multiple shots here.

I think the whole idea that they would try to just ignore the evidence, or at least try to bury that, and not even answer the question. Is suspect to me. And so I think the whole idea of wanting to push against declassification or even trying to pooh-pooh the evidence that has now been brought to the forefront.

Look, the obligation of the US government to release this to the American people -- Kennedy was arguably one of the most popular presidents, and he was assassinated.

So why did they try so hard to push back against any questioning?

And that's where I come in.

And where the task force comes in.

You know, I'm also telling people, if you're seeing people with large -- especially, pushing against declassification or attempting to discredit. And I thought, immediately after my press conference, try to discredit the efforts of Congress to actually follow through and get this done.

In my opinion, bad actors are just on both sides. If you really have nothing to hide, then you should not be afraid of the questioning.

You shouldn't be afraid of information getting out to the American people.

GLENN: Let me push back on a couple of things, just from, you know, playing devil's advocate.

ANNA: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would you start with the JFK? Why is that even important?

It happened a year before I was born. Yesterday was my 61st birthday. How is this relevant? How is this relevant?

ANNA: I think -- so when we chose to kind of go through the timelines. It's the MLK files and the JFK files that are going to be released first.

So we wanted to help go through that information. And then also clip some of the historical narratives that were painted on these assassinations.

Obviously, confirming -- or holding hearings to actually present you evidence, I think is important for knowing and fully understanding the story, right?

So that's the first thing.

GLENN: Are these going to be open hearings?

ANNA: Yeah. These are all open. And the reason I want them open. Is because I think the American people will go through the evidence. I am also going to be doing something similar to what I did, to the UAP hearings, which allowed people to ask questions. We're also bringing in experts.

There's a few individuals that I want to bring in. From the previous investigations. That actually were pointing out some pretty incredible evidence, that pointed potentially second shooter.

And they were pooh-poohed. And I think those people deserve a platform.

And if we find anything, it's -- you know, having Kash confirmed is incredibly important. He's also going to bring forward -- I would argue, that have been hidden from the American people.

So this is obviously a big effort. We're not perfect. But we do know that the American people deserve this.

And what we're fighting for is total and complete transparency.

GLENN: The other pushback question I have. And this one is actually pretty sincere from me.

And that is, once we get Congress involved. Then we're re-litigating everything.

The more Congress gets involved, the slower it will happen.

And the higher the percentage is.

It's just not going to come out. We will just get pages and pages of redacted crap.

LINDY: Well, so the whole purpose and objective of this task force is to actually ensure, with President Trump's executive order. That the agencies and the bureaucrats in those agencies, do exactly what that executive order says, which is to declassify it.

So we're not going to be siloing or holding any information, that won't be available to the American people.

So this is all going to be out there.

You will be able to go through it yourself. It will be online from what I gather.

Similar to how they've declassified previous documents from the FBI and the CIA.

So, again, we are simply, reopening the investigation with new evidence. Also, bringing in credible witnesses that will be verified and confirmed via House Oversight, the committee itself.

And we are going to be opening this up to the American people.

So you will access to the same documents that we are looking at.

We are simply ensuring, we will not get blockaded. Or this information is not siloed.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

And when do we get to the things?

By the way, the answer for me, the answer to my first question to you, was, it's relevant. Because I think they've been doing this kind of stuff forever.

And it shows a pattern. If they were doing it in 63. What are they doing now?

I just don't think -- go ahead.

ANNA: You know what is interesting is, if you ask those questions. There are some people.

And to be clear, these people largely exist in the media. And they're largely bad actors.

When you have someone, instead of answering the question, and having a respectful dialogue. To discredit something as a conspiracy theory or try to gaslight into you thinking, you should not be asking the question. That's when you know they are hiding something.

GLENN: Right.

ANNA: So I've talked to many Democrats. Many well-known Democrats. That are just like, we want in on this task force. Because we have questions.

And it just doesn't sit right. Look, this -- this entire task force. I don't believe that this would be possible. Had President Trump not gotten into office.

Had our CIA director not been confirmed. Had there not been people placed in positions of power, that are true ideologues like you and I.

You know, to be clear, I think that also Marco Rubio played a part at -- the Secretary of State's office.

I think that, you know, there are going to be many people. And some of these investigations that will at least give us access to whatever information.

Look, we've asked to declassify everything I've list in that press conference.

COVID-19 origin. 9/11 files. Look what just came out yesterday.

We find out that the FBI was basically ordering lunch for someone that was working with the pilots that crashed the plane into the twin towers. I mean, that's ridiculous. And that's all coming out now.

And that's why we ask these questions on the 9/11 files.

How could it have been prevented? How much did the government truly know?

I mean, look, I could care less if people think I'm crazy for doing this.

I can tell you, I am joined by many high-profile people in Congress, Democrats who have the same questions. And so we are not going to stop.

GLENN: Jeffrey Epstein. When is that coming out?

ANNA: Well, I have the letter out to Pam Bondi. I know Kash Patel has been supportive of it.

So hopefully, once they're confirmed, previously they said that the Epstein list could not be released. This is mind you, under Biden's Department of Justice because there was an open case.

Right? That's what they kept pointing to.

You hear that Pam Bondi. Before she was confirmed.

She called for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein client list. So we're pushing for it. Go ahead.

GLENN: So will Pam and Kash be the ones to make the decision, we're going to release it? They will be the ones.

ANNA: Yes, they will be the ones.

Again, I'm going off what we were told as the previous administrations. But what they were saying, that there was an open investigation.

So I believe that Pam has the authority to release that. And, look, I don't believe that any of that should have been classified.

If there are people that were doing bad things. We should know about it.

GLENN: It's unbelievable.

I mean, radical transparency.

It is the only thing that will heal our nation.

Is if we deal with all of the corruption that we have been dealing with. That we know has happened.

And if we can get an honest look.

You know, maybe. Maybe the Warren commission was right.

I don't know.

CAROL: We should be able to know that, and look at the evidence for ourselves. Yes.

GLENN: Yes. All of the evidence. All of the evidence. Without protecting anybody.
Anna, thank you.

It's got to be -- what was it like to be -- did you get the call from the president?

How did this work?

ANNA: Initially, in full transparency, this was actually supposed to -- the task force looked a little bit different. And I chose to expand it. Because even our investigators said, there's a lot here. If we're truly -- our absolute objective is to begin restoring trust in the relationship with the American people.

We have to go into these, you know, different theories. Going to these cases. And investigate. And actually find the truth. And let the American people decide.

I agree with them.

Also, Glenn. There were two other members that were potentially going to be taking over the initial task force.

And they turned it downed, because there was a climate of fear, that it was considered dangerous territory.

And what I will tell you, I do not believe that it's dangerous territory. Because we have, you know, the 800-pound gorilla in the White House, and our allies in the Intelligence Agencies. That are pushing for this.

So it's not just one person. I think where you had, you know, previous historical -- it was one person that was leading up the charge.

But when it's a group effort pushing for this, it's -- it's a systematic change that occurred.

And so in my opinion, I think I'm going to be okay.

But, you know, a lot of people. I had a reporter that called me actually, a very well-known reporter from Fox News yesterday said, it's interesting.

One of the initial reporters that had reported that there were three shots heard at the JFK assassination. One that was -- one of the prizes for writing. And he actually committed suicide several years later.

Stuff like that has happened in the past. And I just -- I'm in the perspective and belief, that right now, we have a very small window of time. To bring true change. You see everything happening with USAID.

Mike Benz has been uncovering a lot. Elon Musk has been uncovering a lot.

But there are a lot of good people that are really cleaning the system. You saw 40,000 federal employees resigned. Or not resigned, but chose to leave the workforce.

So you're seeing a big change happen, and I'm not saying that this is a complete fix. But it definitely is going to change I think our country long-term and historically.

I'll also tell you this, Glenn. Yesterday, after we made the announcement, I felt a massive orchestrated campaign, specifically coming from a lot of other people that had typically been political on social media. That were trying to discredit what I was saying about potential witnesses, and trying to spin it.

And the reason why they were doing it, is because the Warren Commission presented a faulty theory on the bullet. The magic bullet theory.

To think that that was how Kennedy was taken out. And the Texas governor --

GLENN: But they were -- they were saying, nobody is alive. So who were you going to --

ANNA: Yeah, that's not true. First of all, I was using the Warren commission, as an example of the commissions that have been set up. The hearings that have been set up. But who we are actually looking to subpoena. I don't want to say their names yet.

GLENN: No. No. No.

ANNA: Are individuals that, A, were -- are at Bethesda, in the room during the 8:00 p.m. autopsy that the military did. Individuals that were on the assassination board, that that did not agree with the findings initially with the new evidence coming out. I think that they will -- it will reflect their government employees, that should pass backgrounds. And then there's another individual who is going to be very key, in I think resetting the narrative upon Kennedy.

GLENN: Interesting. Anna, thank you so much. Interesting.

And you sound like you are. You know exactly what you're walking into. There's a new stat out this morning.

Over three times more people in DC are Googling criminal defense lawyer than anywhere else in the US right now.

So you've got a lot of people who are freaking out.

Keep up the good work.

God bless you.

Thank you.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

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

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

GLENN: It is.

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

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

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

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

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

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

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

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

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

People create around their own lives.

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

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

He decided that he wanted to do that.

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

GLENN: Yes, he was.

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

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

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

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

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: He is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

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

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

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

And you're never going to get them back.

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

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

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

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

And the hate is the key word.

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

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

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

BILL: Yeah.

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

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

GLENN: I don't either.

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

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

They never, ever watched network television.

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

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

GLENN: I know.

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

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

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

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

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

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

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

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

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

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

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.