RADIOJanuary 24, 2023

THIS is why global elites & the WEF want you to OWN NOTHING

Global elites and the World Economic Forum may be trying to hide it now, but they’ve clearly stated in the past that by 2030, they want you to ‘OWN NOTHING.’ And that goal, Glenn explains, run entirely oppositely to the principles on which America was founded. Ownership is a HUGE part of the American experiment, so what happens when it’s taken away from us? In this clip, Glenn is joined by Carol Roth, author of ‘The War On Small Business.’ She says the anti-ownership goal of global elites is making us into ‘indentured servants,’ and that there’s one, huge way we can all peacefully fight back…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, Carol, it's a new year. A new you.

How are you?

CAROL: You know, I'm doing well. I'm just making sure that my private jet is doing okay. Because, you know, there was a climate crisis going on. It was very important for me to go take my private jet to go talk about the climate crisis. And then have steak dinners, while I tell everybody that meat is bad. So just trying to get that all together.

GLENN: It is so crazy. By the way, did you hear today, let me see. It was just approved -- where is it? Where is it?

Yeah. The European Union just approved cricket powder, as a component of flower-based foods.

CAROL: Amazing. Amazing. Sounds tasty. Looking very forward to that.

GLENN: Yeah. I unfortunately have a deep allergy to crickets.

I can't have anything with crickets in it. It's too bad.

CAROL: We're all going to develop cricket allergies, as part of our crisis.

GLENN: Yes, and I want to play this clip. This is from the World Economic Forum, last week. Listen.

VOICE: What is a polycrisis? And how and when could it happen?

VOICE: We're actually in the midst of one at the moment. We have energy crisis and food crisis. And they're all happening at the same time. It's the set of concurrent cascading risks that happen at the same time.

So that's where we are today. That's 2023.

What we're seeing though, that in the two-year time frame. And the ten-year time frame, we're at the risk of more of these polycrises unfolding. Two years out, there's still a concern on the experts that we surveyed, that the cost of living will be number one. But at the same time, a big risk of natural disasters. Ten years out, it's all --

GLENN: It's all natural disasters. Nothing else, but natural disasters. She doesn't seem to find any irony in the fact that we're in an energy crisis and a food crisis and a trust crisis. When all of those come directly from the policies of the World Economic Forum.

CAROL: Yeah. First of all, I have to say it sounds more regal, if you say it with sort of a British accent.

Polycrisis sounds much more terrifying. So I think we should do that. But it is. It's so ironic that they're sitting here, and they're talking about the inflation.

They're talking about the energy issues. They're talking about the mistrust and disinformation that came from the policies, that stemmed from global governments, and the World Economic Forum.

I mean, they are the ones that shut down, and said, we need to have this wonderful Great Reset.

They're the ones. The central banks around the world. That printed trillions of dollars. They're the ones that moved away from traditional energy. Because of the push from the World Economic Forum. So they've caused these crisis. All of them. Except for this global climate emergency, that clearly no one is paying attention to.

So we now have to add into our polycrisis or have Al Gore go on an unhinged rant, to make it extra special.

GLENN: Can you give direct correlation to our inflation from ESG?

CAROL: 100 percent. If you think about what inflation looks like. A large percentage of that was gas. Some of that was shipping costs, related to the cost of gas. And then, you know, fossil fuels have 6,000 derivative products, that all thing up in price, because of the cost. And the cost went up because we didn't have enough supply. And we didn't have enough supply because of ESG policies. ESG policies directed capital away from investments in fossil fuel, to the extent that Saudi Arabia, and OPEC, says that we're underinvested by, like, $12.1 trillion over the next coming decades.

So by doing that, by ensuring that companies, who make the investments in drilling and processing, for fossil fuels. Couldn't do that.

They are directly attributable, to the increase in prices. As well as, you know, the obvious direct correlation to the increased energy prices.

GLENN: So here is something that you're hearing. And you're just hearing the setup, right now.

That the Republicans are going to be so dangerous on this debt ceiling. And we are just going to default on all of our debts. And we will have no credibility.

We have no credibility now. But we're not going to default on our debts. But they are talking about the debt ceiling.

Why should the average person care about this?

CAROL: So the reality is, we shouldn't care about the debt ceiling. We should care about spending.

I mean, the debt ceiling is just saying, we cannot finance our overspending with debt anymore. But they don't do that at the same time that they pass the bill. They do it after the fact. So they've already spent the money. And you have to pay for it.

Short-term, we're not going to default on -- on our debt. It's just stupid. We have plenty of assets, that we could lease or we could sell if we got into a pickle, or things that could be reconfigured around. But in the medium to long-term, the spending is unsustainable.

And so if you overspend, and you have a deficit, there are only so many ways to find it. And we're probably not selling off all our assets at this point in time.

So that means, we're going to finance it with debt. And it's just going to become by and large, and bigger. To the point, that it becomes unsustainable, from a tax standpoint. From a money printing and erosion of your wealth and value standpoint.

And so that's really the area that -- this whole debt thing is kind of the sideshow at the circus. We need to be focusing on the main act. And that is the spending.

And I said this before, Glenn. If we just rolled back, like, five years.

If we went back to 2018 spending, which, you know, two years before the pandemic. Or even the year before the pandemic, we would be running a surplus, we would be paying down debt.

Or 2018, we would be about breaking even. So it's not like we would have to change that much, to get this under control. And they refused to do it.

GLENN: Okay. There was a call last week, for a windfall tax on food companies.

I've never heard anything more dangerous and stupid than that.

CAROL: So there's a legendary investor named Charlie Munger. He's Warren Buffett's partner in Brookshire Hathaway, one of the best.

And he has this famous saying that says, show me the incentive, and I will show you the outcome.

The reality is that taxes influence behavior. And if you don't want something, you tax it. That's what you do. Right?

GLENN: Right. A tax on SUVs.

CAROL: Right. A tax on Sim products. Alcohol. We don't want them.

We tax those things. By the way, the things we want. We get tax credits.

GLENN: Marriage, kids. All of it. Yeah.

CAROL: So here's what you're saying. We're going to tax food. And it's saying, we do not want you to produce food.

Who says that, other than utterly nefarious, and crazy people, who want people to starve.

It is utter insanity. And the fact that people are like, oh, yeah. That makes a lot of sense.

We should definitely put a tax on food!

It's -- I mean --

GLENN: First of all, that -- that does not hurt anybody at Davos. But it hurts the very poorest among us, in the world.

And I'm not even talking about America. I mean the poor of the poor. And they're already in a food shortage. These people are so anti-human, they do want people to starve.

They also, you know, said that they are raising, I think it's $3 trillion, privately, and with the help of governments. To buy farmland. To buy up 30 percent of the land eventually, 50 percent, on the entire planet.

CAROL: Yeah.

GLENN: And they're talking about 30 percent by the end of this decade. And they're going to do it with fundraising. I mean, the guy who was talking about it, was -- was John Kerry.

I mean, it's insanity.

They -- when will people understand, they mean you will own nothing.

CAROL: Perhaps when they read my next book, which you have been instrumental in helping shape.

Which ironically, is called You Will Owe Nothing.

And connect the dots between all of these things that they are saying, and the destruction of our property rights and freedom.

I mean, when they come out and say, oh, you know, we -- you owe nothing. That's a right-wing conspiracy.

It's not. It was on their website. In an article in 2016, which now they -- I think they have pulled. So we --

GLENN: Yeah, they have. They have.

CAROL: We can use the wayback machine to resource it. Then they made a video that they put their logo on, that it was their first prediction.

So they're predicting the end of private property. This is not a coincidence. And, by the way, it's not like a cute little Jetsons fantasy. It's not Rosie the Robot folding your laundry. Like, these are scary things. But they're going, oh, this is going to be great for you.

This is not great. And so going through all the different things. That we've been talking about, ESG. The purchase of land by private individuals.

It is scary how much has been purchased by a small group of people, and as you said, the government is now paying to take some of that farmland, out of commission.

There are reasons for this. There are sort of empire cycle reasons for this. And there is a jockeying of the elite to put themselves in positions to rule.

GLENN: What do you mean an empire building process? What do you mean?

CAROL: End of empire. So basically, we are where the Romans were at one point in time. Where the British were. Where the Dutch were. And here's this sort of disconnect between high debt loads and power. And when we're in a high debt situation like the US is, and frankly a number of other countries, the people in charge get desperate. And they start doing desperate things. They never cut back on services.

They never try to salvage it. They just kind of run straight into that cliff. This has happened many, many times in history.

And we're moving in that direction. The elites see this.

So all these things we're seeing is basically them trying to reshape the outcome and put themselves up on top, by having you owe nothing.

GLENN: Correct.

I'm going to go back to owning nothing.

And the -- what that does to a nation, that was built around ownership.

That is a total reversal of the basic foundation of America, and most of the western world now.

More with Carol Roth. I'm sure you can -- can you order the -- the book yet?

CAROL: No. But you can sign up for more information at CarolRoth.com/Glenn.

And we'll let you know.

GLENN: Yeah. It will be a good book. I have seen the outlines. And it's really -- she's good.

All right. Donald wrote in about his dog's experience with Ruff Greens. He says, I've never seen my dog lick the bowl clean. I mean, she's licking the bowl clean all the time now.

Because she's looking for any remaining traces of Ruff Greens.

My dog does that too. And I'm like, dude, it's not soaking into the metal. You're done. You're done. And man, lick and lick and lick.

You really need to check out what Ruff Greens can do. It's not a dog food. It's a supplement. Developed by naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black. You sprinkle it on the dog's food. And it's chalked full of vitamins, minerals, probiotics, antioxidants. You name it.

If it's healthy for your dog, it's probably in Ruff Greens. I want you to see the special deal, where you can get the first bag free. It's just a trial bag that you can just test, to make sure your dog likes it.

They don't want to you pay for anything, if your dog doesn't like it. But if your dog likes it, then start on Ruff Greens.

And feed Ruff Greens -- put it on the food, every single day, twice a day.

And over the months, you'll see a huge difference in your dog, at least I have.

And so has everybody here, that's tried it. The first trial bag is free.

You just pay for shipping at Ruff Greens. R-U-F-FGreens.com/Beck. That's RuffGreens.com/Beck. Or you can call 833-Glenn-33. 833-Glenn-33. RuffGreens.com/Beck. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So what does this mean, Carol, the -- the idea that you will own nothing, in a country that's whole identity and whole theory is that you can become wealthy. You can change your station by even landownership. Just being able to own something and call it yours, is fundamental to the American experiment.

What does that do to us?

CAROL: I mean, if you owe nothing, then the powers that be, own you.

It completely changes everything. It crushes the American dream. And it makes basically -- basically makes people indentured servants to the government.

And, you know, to some extent, big tech as well. I mean, that's really -- if you think about all these things that are being put out there, they sort of want to take your life and rent it back to you. Whether it be through a terms of service, or through, you know, dependence on the government. But that is the goal. They want that intradependence. They want you to not have freedom. Not to have agency. Not to make your own choice.

They want to control everything you do.

And it's coming from a wealth standpoint. It's coming from a technology standpoint. It's coming from a cultural standpoint.

Social credit. So, you know, really, this is -- this is a war. And this is one that you're going to have to fight, on multiple fronts. And at the end of the day, we need people to own everything.

We need you to have that ownership, so that you can fight back, and not be at their whim.

And not be an indentured servant to big technology, to big business, and to the global elites.

GLENN: If we don't stop the regulatory state, the unelected officials from just being able to introduce new rules on things.

If we don't stop that, you -- you won't own anything.

Because they will make it so onerous, that there's no way you could afford to own it. They don't have to take it. If you're so broke, there's nothing else you can do, but sell it.

CAROL: Yeah. It used to be when they were looking for riches, they would go out and invade another land. And they would take those riches. And obviously that's somewhat politically unpopular. But for whatever reason, this legal plunder, the idea that they're stealing our wealth and doing it in a legal way, because they're passing the rules and the regulations that we have to deal with, somehow is more palatable to people. And it shouldn't be. This is your wealth.

GLENN: That's the sheriff of Nottingham story. I mean, all the king did was just say, hey, what's yours is now mine.

CAROL: Right.

GLENN: Go, sheriff, go out and take it. And he would take it.

That's Robin Hood. This is the part they always get wrong. They think Robin Hood worked for the government.

No. Robin Hood was against the government. Because they were doing exactly what they were proposing to do, to the entire world now.

CAROL: Yeah. And if you look at just a case study, like Venezuela, who, you know, mid-last century was the fourth wealthiest nation in the world, and they used this rhetoric. They said, things are unequal. And we wanted to make it more fair.

So us and the government, we'll just nationalize everything.

We'll take it over, and you'll be so much better off. And with that, they went from the fourth wealthiest country in the world, to, you know, a recent study, showed that the median net worth of a person in Venezuela was zero! Literally zero.

So that is, you know, a very clear case study on how quickly it can happen.

To say, it will never happen here in America. Ten years ago, 15 years ago, maybe I agree with you, Glenn. But look at what just happened over the past few years. Look at the level of compliance, with these COVID rules and regulations. They took away people's jobs and livelihood. Of course, they're going to continue down.

GLENN: I remember saying in 2008. We stay on this path, we will be Venezuela.

Venezuela had just really collapsed. And I realized at the time. And I said it at the time. It took 20 years, to take that strong state, that was the fourth wealthiest, and destroy it.

Well, we are now approaching a 20-year mark, where we have been doing it.

It's not out of the realm of possibility. In fact, every day we continue down this road, it becomes more likely. All right. Her new book coming out soon. You will own nothing.

CarolRoth.com/Glenn. Will get you all the information. CarolRoth.com/Glenn.
(music)
Carol, talk to you again.

CAROL: Thanks, Glenn.

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

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.