RADIOApril 22, 2025

Trump Exposes COVID-19 Cover Up, But Will ANYONE Go to Jail?!

The White House now fully backs the COVID-19 lab leak theory after years of calling it a conspiracy theory. Glenn reads from the new website, which explains why the evidence points to a man-made virus and highlights the roles of China, EcoHealth Alliance, Andrew Cuomo, Dr. Fauci, and others in the cover-up. But Glenn has known about most of this evidence for years. So, he asks, will anybody be held accountable for this? Will anybody go to jail? But it’s not just government officials who covered this up. It was the Legacy Media, which is STILL lying to you, and yet, millions of Americans still trust it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This morning, there was a story. Stu, can you check this out for me? See what gold is at right now.

Early this morning, when I got up around 5:00 a.m. Eastern, gold was spiking again. The highest place it's ever been.

Gold -- I mean, the dollar was starting to fall. Not good. It was today. I think it was three -- 3,300 -- I don't know. Sixty. Something like that. Do you have the number, Stu?

STU: Yeah. 3,435, currently.

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: Up another 3 percent.

GLENN: 3500!

Almost 3500. That is -- this is not good!

This is not good. The gold going up is a sign of confidence, and the rest of the world -- central banks are buying gold up. And, you know, again, what do rich people know, that maybe you don't know?

Hmm. That things are shaky with the dollar. And things are shaky with gold. So you might want to consider that. I mean, I'm not a financial adviser. This is not a commercial. But I'm just telling you, that this is a big warning sign. Big, big, big warning sign. We're -- we're -- 3500, approaching $3,500 an ounce.

It was -- what was it? You said this just this last week. I had to look it up, Stu. It was at the beginning of the year that it was 2500? Almost came a thousand dollars?

STU: Yeah. I mean -- let's see. No. You're right on there.

It was, yeah. 2024, we were still at around $2,000 an ounce. Early 2024.

GLENN: Two.

Unbelievable!

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

STU: Five --

GLENN: We're not even halfway through.

STU: Yeah. Five. Pretty flat years for gold. Between 2020 and 2024. And then it started going up, in, you know, early to mid-2024.

Kind of like a rollercoaster story.

You're just climbing. Up at about 100 percent in the past five years.

But in -- in the past year, most of that gain has happened.

And, again, you've mentioned this for a long time.

Obviously, we talk about gold being a good hedge kind of against insanity. And a good piece of your portfolio.

However, you kind of almost don't want it to be this high. Because it's just in case. Such scary times.

GLENN: No. No. No. Bring lost my gold in that horrible boating accident.

STU: Terrible.

GLENN: You know, you would like -- gold is an investment. You would like it to go up. I don't want it to go up. I don't want it to go up anymore.

I would like it to come back down. This is a very, very bad sign.

All right. So the media over the weekend, they were like, oh.

Do you see what Donald Trump did to COVID.com?

Or .gov website. You put it on the White House dot-gov website. All the lies about COVID!

You mean all the corrections on COVID?

This is -- this is an amazing thing. And I would love to hear your just on this, Stu. About what they -- what they published at WhiteHouse.gov.

The origin, according to public health officials and the media, to discredit the lab leak theory, was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally.

Point-one, the virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature. Number two, data shows that all COVID-19 cases come from a single introduction in to humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics, where there were multiple spillover events. Three, Wuhan is home to China's four most SARS research lab. Which has a history of conducting gain of function research. Gene-altering and organisms super charging in an inadequate biosafety level.

Number four, Wuhan Institute of Virology, researchers were sick with COVID, with symptoms in the fall of 2019 months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market. We talked about that.

I mean, probably within a couple of months of COVID happening. We had that information.

We were like, let's look back. Why were they redoing all of that -- that institute?

You know, they completely gutted all of the air ducts. Everything else. They've completely upgraded it, around November.

And then lo and behold, in September, we start to find out, that whoa. Something in the wet market happened. By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced. But it hasn't. This is from the White House now. And it goes through all of it.

And then it goes through Fauci's pardon. And his obstruction. And EcoHealth's obstruction, and Dr. David. And, you know, the obstruction of your favorite person.

I think you'll -- I think you'll really like what they say about Andrew Cuomo on the website.

STU: Yeah, this is the best place on the entire internet for that reason.

GLENN: Cuomo's failures.

STU: Just says Andrew Cuomo's failure. And it's a great summary of his entire life, not just this particular issue.

But, you know, it's -- I've done a lot of it. If you followed this stuff closely, it was not new information. Right? It was a good summary.

GLENN: No.

STU: A breakdown of the stuff that we have learned over the past years on this. On this topic. I think the key thing maybe --

GLENN: You know what, I still don't think that it is recognized as the official thing.
I mean, this has been out now for a long time.

You know, we started doing most of this stuff we had in, what?

Six or eight months of the actual outbreak. We knew by the summer.

And we were broadcasting all of this. And we didn't have all of the documents. But we had everything that led up to the document. That said, hey. We have to change all of this.

We had the document before going, hey. I think you guys are wrong. Then a document that said, we should probably talk offline.

Then the next document we had, was no. Everything we were saying, is the complete opposite now!

We didn't have the middle document there. And that's been released now.

So we had all of this stuff, just not the smoking guns. All the smoking guns are there.

And I still don't think -- I mean, and it's partially because, who is going to jail over this?

Millions of people die. Millions.

Is anyone going to be held responsible for this?

STU: That's a great question.

I hope that's a high priority of the administration. There's several things of this level. I will also throw something like Joe Biden is mentally incapable to be president of the United States. And everybody was hiding it.

I put that in the same category.

But I think the key thing from this. Which I don't think enough people know, is the cover-up.

You know, I think -- yeah, that's the real -- it always is.

STU: You're right. We said a lot of these things in the months after COVID came out.

And A lot of it really early, frankly. But part of the problem as to why it didn't become, I think, the consensus at the time. Was all of these institutional mainstream sources, disagreeing with it. Right?

GLENN: Correct.

STU: And no offense --

GLENN: No offense. And the fact, Stu, we couldn't say anything about COVID and not get banned and demonetized.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: You know, all the shows that we did, unless you were a member of TheBlaze. See them.

We put them online. And you didn't see them.

STU: The solution of that problem was to say it anyway, and get banned and demonetized.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: What else are you going to do?

I don't know why else you would have this job, if you aren't going to go for that.

But there was that situation where, sure, we were saying it. And, sure, people in this audience, heard it.

And, yes. Some people on the right were familiar with the skepticism and the pushback on this stuff.

But because none of these mainstream outlets really adopted any of those positions, or took them seriously. Or even gave them a fair hearing. A lot of people just -- you know, understandably. If you're on the left. You look at this stuff, and you say, okay. Well, Glenn Beck is saying it.

I'm not going to believe it. The New York Times is saying it's a conspiracy theory.

I'm not surprised that they just believed that.

That cover-up, where people right under Fauci, are on record, saying they want to delete the emails, so that they can't -- so no one finds out what they're talking about.

That sort of stuff. While I think the lab leak theory. And some of those other pieces of skepticism. That the conservative side had early on.

Had been very much vindicated.

The cover-up as to why it needed to be vindicated. Has not really had the attention it deserves yet.

GLENN: 100 percent try.

Now, why?

Why?

STU: I mean, it's the same people. I will say, some of these -- some of these places have written about this now.

Some of these places have talked about -- talked about it. But it hasn't been -- you know, the, hey, did you know Donald Trump is Hitler sort of march?

And you would think, it would be. As you point out, millions of people have died here.

You would think it would be something that they would focus on, and draw a lot of attention to.
And continue to kind of beat the drum, until someone is held responsible.

And they don't seem to have any interest in that whatsoever. They kind of like -- it seems like, they're now under that stage.

Where they say, look, we have this op-ed.

We've talked about it. Like, and most of them have run an op-ed by now. Right? Like they've run.

But it's not been this constant thing. It's not this deep dive, constantly sending reporter after reporter after reporter to find out, what actually happened. That stuff doesn't seem to be of interest at all.

GLENN: If we make a mistake, we correct it.

Because it drives us crazy that we made the mistake.

And I don't -- I don't want anybody to believe that I'm standing behind something, that we found out was wrong and a lie.

I mean, we might be wrong from time to time.

But we have never knowingly lied.

I think some of won't groups.

They knowingly lied.

The New York Times, they were knowingly lying about Joe Biden and his senility. Knowingly lying. They knew. People in the media, knew. They just didn't want to hurt. Or I should say it this way. They just didn't want to help Donald Trump. They thought a senile old man with the buttons is much better than a Donald Trump.

They thought, not knowing who the president of the United States actually is. You know, they say they're defending the Constitution now.

Because if we don't have a Constitution. If we don't have rule of law. We have no country

Where is your rule of law with Joe Biden?

Who actually was running the White House?

Who was running it?

You don't want the rule of law. You want control.

That's what you want.

And, you know, I would be horrified, if I had been a part of any of that.

Horrified. They're not.

And, you know what, there's no -- there's no consequence.

They're not going to lose any advertisers. The New York Times hasn't lost any real money because of this.

They're just people continuing to watch.

I mean, if we were this wrong about things, I would hope that we would have seen a lot of cancellations.

I would hope that people were like, I don't know if we can trust you anymore, Glenn.

Because we would earn that.

Especially after a couple of years, by the way, all of that stuff we said was wrong.

Hey, in other news!

And that's what they're doing. They just run one little story.

And then they go on, but Donald Trump is Hitler!

Why should I -- that's the thing I just don't understand.

How do people continue to believe the people, who have been so wrong, about stuff that is this important.

They lied to you. They knowingly lied to you.

How? Donald Trump appointed someone to do DOGE.

Yeah. Well, he wasn't elected. Who was the president of the United States?

Because the guy we elected, he wasn't the president.

Why does it matter now, that DOGE, which the president has every right to do.

He's not the president. He's not making these calls on his own. He's reporting the president.

Why is DOGE such a problem, but, you know, Joe Biden crapping his pants and looking, trying to find old jellybeans in the couch from old Ronald Reagan days.

That's totally fine.

I mean, I don't know.

I don't know how people live with themselves. But they do, strangely.

STU: At the very least. Wouldn't it give you a sense of fallibility.

That like, hey. I can get sucked into something like this and be totally wrong, and I should really watch myself next time I decide, I want to write story number 9,345 that Trump is Hitler.

Maybe question whether my certainty is warranted. And I think that's the -- something they just never have that moment of self-reflection.

GLENN: I know. None. None.

It's come out.

Everything about the Russia gate.

Came out now in court documents.

That Hillary Clinton was the one that approved all of that.

And she knew it wasn't accurate. But she approved it.

Why? Why doesn't anybody know about that?

Why doesn't anybody care? Because no one in the media cares. Ends justice means. They just hate Donald Trump so much.

They'll do anything.

Anybody.

They will sleep with.

They will sharpen the knives of anyone that says they'll put it in the back of Donald Trump.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

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

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Bill O'Reilly predicts THIS will be Charlie Kirk's legacy

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

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

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

GLENN: It is.

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

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

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

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

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

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

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

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

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

People create around their own lives.

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

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

He decided that he wanted to do that.

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

GLENN: Yes, he was.

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

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

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

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

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

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

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

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

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

GLENN: He is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

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

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

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

And you're never going to get them back.

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

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

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

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

And the hate is the key word.

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

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

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

BILL: Yeah.

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

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

GLENN: I don't either.

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

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

They never, ever watched network television.

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

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

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

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

GLENN: I know.

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

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

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

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

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

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

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

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

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

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

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference between debate and celebrating death

There’s a big difference between firing someone, like a teacher, for believing children shouldn’t undergo trans surgery and firing a teacher who celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. Glenn Beck explains why the latter is NOT “cancel culture.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I got an email from somebody that says, Glenn, in the wake of Charlie's assassination, dozens of teachers, professors and professionals are being suspended or fired for mocking, or even celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.

Critics say conservatives are now being hypocritical because you oppose cancel culture. But is this the same as rose an losing her job over a crude joke. Or is it celebrating murder, and that's something more serious?

For many, this isn't about cancellation it's about trust. If a teacher is entrusted with children or a doctor entrusted with patients, publicly celebrates political violence, have they not yet disqualified themselves from those roles? Words matter. But cheering a death is an action. Is there any consequence for this? Yes. There is.

So let's have that conversation here for a second.

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

I mean, we've seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their job now, just for saying they don't believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries. Okay? Lost their job. Chased out.

That opinion, whether you agree or disagree is a moral and medical judgment.

And it is a matter of policy debate. It is speech in the public square.

I have a right to say, you're mutilating children. Okay. You have a right to say, no. We're not. This is the best practices. And then we can get into the silences of it. And we don't shout down the other side.

Okay? Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we've seen teachers and professors go online and be celebrate.

Not criticize. Not argue policy. But celebrate that someone was murdered.

Some have gone so far and said, it's not a tragedy. It's a victory. Somebody else, another professor said, you reap what you sow.

Well, let me ask you: Are these two categories of free speech the same?

No! They're not.

Here's the difference. To say, I believe children should not be allowed to have gender surgeries, before 18. That is an attempt, right or wrong. It doesn't matter which side you are.

That is an attempt to protect life. Protect children. And guide society.

It's entering the debate about the role of medicine. The right of parents. And the boundaries of childhood. That's what that is about. To say Charlie Kirk's assassination is a good thing, that's not a debate. That's not even an idea. That's rejoicing in violence. It's glorifying death.

There's no place in a civil society for that kind of stuff. There's not. And it's a difference that actually matters.

You know, our Founders fought for free speech because they believed as Jefferson said, that air can be tolerated where truth is left free to combat it.

So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, at all. I don't think you do either. I hope you don't. Otherwise, you should go back to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Error can be tolerated where truth is left to be free to combat it.

But when speech shifts from debating ideas to celebrating death, doesn't that cease to be the pursuit of truth and instead, just become a glorification of evil?

I know where I stand on that one. Where do you stand?

I mean, if you go back and you look at history, in colonial matter -- in colonial America, if you were to go against the parliament and against the king, those words were dangerous. They were called treason. But they were whys. They were arguments about liberty and taxation and the rights of man.

And the Founders risked their lives against the dictator to say those things.

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

You Thomas Paine, one of or -- one of our founder kind of. On the edges of our founders.

He thought that what was happening in France is exactly like the American Revolution.

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

There the crowds. They didn't gather to argue. Okay? They argued to cheer the guillotine they didn't want the battle of ideas.

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

And roll they did. You know, until the people who were screaming for the heads to roll, shouted for blood, found that their own heads were rolling.

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

Cicero begged his countrymen to preserve the republic through reason, law, and debate. Then what happened?

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

Okay. So now let me bring this back to Charlie Kirk here for a second.

If there's a professor that says, I don't believe children should have surgeries before adulthood, is that cancel culture, when they're fired?

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

However imperfect, it is speech meant to protect children, not to harm them. You also cannot be fired for saying, I disagree with that.

If you are telling, I disagree with that. And I will do anything to shut you down including assassination! Well, then, that's a different story.

What I teacher says, I'm glad Charlie Kirk is dead, is that cancel culture, if they're fired?

Or is that just society saying, you know, I don't think I can trust my kid to -- to that guy.

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

I don't want them around my children! Scripture weighs in here too.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Matthew.

What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?

To me, you go back to Scripture. Whoa unto them that call good evil -- evil good and good evil.

A society that will shrug on speech like this, say society that has lost its moral compass.

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

Now, our free speech law doesn't protect both. Absolutely. Under law. Absolutely.

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

Can a parent trust their child to a teacher who is celebrating death?

I think no. I don't think a teacher can be trusted if they think that the children that it's right for children to see strippers in first grade!

I'm sorry. It's beyond reason. You should not be around my children!

But you shouldn't go to jail for that. Don't we, as a society have a right to demand virtue, in positions of authority?

Yes.

But the political class and honestly, the educational class, does everything they can to say, that doesn't matter.

But it does. And we're seeing it now. The line between cancel and culture, the -- the cancellation of people, and the accountability of people in our culture, it's not easy.

Except here. I think it is easy.

Cancel culture is about challenging the orthodoxy. Opinions about faith, morality, biology.
Accountability comes when speech reveals somebody's heart.

Accountability comes when you're like, you are a monster! You are celebrating violence. You're mocking life itself. One is an argument. The other is an abandonment of humanity. The Constitution, so you understand, protects both.

But we as a culture can decide, what kind of voices would shape our children? Heal our sick. Lead our communities?

I'm sorry, if you're in a position of trust, I think it's absolutely right for the culture to say, no!

No. You should not -- because this is not policy debate. This is celebrating death.

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

And, you know, the big thing was, can you keep it?

Well, how do you keep it? Virtue. Virtue.

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

So if anybody is making this case to you, that this is cancel culture. I just want you to ask them this question.

Which do you want to defend?

Cancel culture that silences debate. Or a culture that still knows the difference between debating ideas and celebrating death.

Which one?

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.