RADIONovember 13, 2024

Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?

During his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Donald Trump floated the idea of abolishing the income tax. This would go hand-in-hand with his plan to raise tariffs, especially on China. Glenn, who has historically been against heavy tariffs, may have been won over by Trump’s explanation. But he wanted to speak with an economics expert to see if the math really added up. Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Peter St. Onge joins the program to break down how tariffs work, whether Trump’s plan would boost the economy, and what he must do if he wants to raise enough support to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah. Hmm. Now, we've got a guy, I think he's -- I think -- I think his last name says everything.

Peter St. Onge, which I believe is French!
(music)
STU: What is happening?

GLENN: Sexy, sexy tax and tariff talk from the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow. We have Peter St. Onge.

How are you, Peter?

PETER: I'm great. I appreciate that. It is sexy.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Everybody says it. Everybody says it. So without getting it too steamy in here.

Let's go over the tariffs.

Because I've always been against tariffs. However, I might be wrong.

PETER: Right.

GLENN: Donald Trump is making a good case, when he's talking about getting rid of the income tax. Because tariff -- tariffs will raise the prices of things. Especially, if he does it the way he's talking about doing it.

But if he is getting rid of, or lowering the income tax to, you know, 10 percent, it's such a boon for the economy. That we could make up that deficit, and become a very powerful nation again.

Tell many I'm wrong.

PETER: I think that's absolutely correct.

Yeah. I feel like you're absolutely right.

You know, the vast majority of economists, Glenn, they go after tariffs. And I think they're looking at the trees for the forest here, because if you replace a tariff, which is basically a sales tax. But it's one that focus on his imported goods.

If you replace that with either reducing or in our dream scenario, abolishing the entire income tax. It's absolute rocket fuel for the economy. The reason is because --

GLENN: He just said abolish the income tax. Pay attention, Sara. He just said abolish income tax. Oh, yeah.
(music)
All right. Go ahead.

PETER: Right.

The background music. So, yeah. And he actually started floated abolishing it with Joe Rogan a couple weeks ago. No tax on tips. Then no tax on overtime. No tax on first responders. No tax on Social Security. And it was kind of like he was really flirting with just breaking up with the income tax altogether.

And when he was on there with Rogan, that's exactly what he did. He said, you know, maybe we should go back to the 1800s, when, you know, it was before we had an income tax. Before we had a Fed.

And back then, the federal government had to live off tariffs. And that was the greatest period, not only of economic growth, but of cultural achievement.

It's astounding, what we -- everything Elon Musk does, was invented in the 1880s. Computers.
Rockets.

What's his -- Hyperloop. Every single thing. And it was really the golden age of humanity.

And the key there, we did not have an income tax. We did not have a regulatory state.

We did not have a Fed. So if Trump can take us back there. And all we have to do is an 8 percent sales tax on Chinese socks.

That is the deal of the century.

GLENN: Okay. Let's go over this.

Who pays the tariffs?

American companies or the foreign company?

PETER: Interestingly, during you Trump's first term. He put tariffs on China. And China actually paid up 80 percent of those. So it would issue subsidies to Chinese exporters so they could maintain market share and keep their prices low. So the Chinese government paid the tariffs.

GLENN: Hmm.

I like that.

PETER: So if he does that again, he's talking about hitting China with something like 60 percent tariffs.

And between a ten and 20 percent tariff for everyone else. Now, given Trump's style, he is not going to come and use it across the board. He is going to come and use that as a club.

Right?

So the Europeans, specifically. They act like a fortress. They are brutal to outsiders.

If you want to export something to Europe, they will put you over a barrel. You remember, a couple years ago, the first thing the European Union did was sat them down. And said, nice economy you've got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it. We're going to need a payment from you every single year.

It is literally the Mafia. They do that to Norway. It's all these countries have to fork over billions of dollars to get access to the European market. Now, imagine if we did that. Imagine if we called up Mexico or Canada. And said, hey, listen. We've got this beautiful economy. You guys are settling into it. Hey, why don't you write me a check for 50 billion to keep access? That's exactly what the Europeans do.

So the first thing Trump is probably going to do, given what he did last time. Is he'll call up Europe, and he will do the exact same thing.

You know, I have a 20 percent tariff burning a hole in my pocket. I need you to do some things for me.

But, anyway, even if he does end up applying those to all foreigners, the Europeans are not going to cover the exporters because they're in a deep fiscal hole.

They don't have the money. They're already bankrupt. They're not going to do what China did.

But a lot of those tariffs, especially the ones from China, are probably going to keep getting paid by China. Because exports to America are what they live on. If they lose that, it's game over.

GLENN: And we should not be empowering them, quite honestly.

Now, here's why. Here's why I have possibly turned around.

I'm willing to listen to tariff talk, because in my -- in my cute little head, I keep thinking that all of the -- when you have an extra 20 or $30,000, that you're pulling in, every year. Whatever it is, you are paying in income tax. And everything -- everything goes down that's made here in America.

If you're not paying that income tax. You have a lot of extra buying power, which means, most of Americans, will spend that.

And will grow our economy, which will put more taxes. Well, we don't have taxes. So that wouldn't work.

How does it work, when you don't have taxes? Go ahead.

PETER: Yeah. So just kind of running into the numbers. The first thing that happens, if you get rid of income tax altogether. So I estimate you get about a 20 percent jump in incomes in the US.

So it would be something like $15,000 for typical families. That's what you get off the bat. The typical family currently has about 18,000 in income tax, and then you knock off about 3,000 for the tariffs.

There's a variety of estimates on that. But that seems to be the cluster. So you get a 15,000 raise, because the economy is growing faster. You get an 18,000 raise because you don't have to send your income tax to the government. People don't realize how much they're paying to the government.

Right? A lot of it is tips. But, anyway, you've got -- what do they call it?

Withholding. So, anyway, that's 33. I call three for the tariffs. 30,000 dollar raise per year, 2500 a month. Now, currently, the median American take home is about 58,000.

Okay. Which is about 76, minus the income tax. So you go from taking home 58, to taking home 88. Right? That is a massive difference.

And that sort of sets the stage.
(music)

GLENN: Hold. Hold on. You go from 58 to 88. Oh, yeah.
(music)
Ding-dong. Pizza deliveryman. Anyway.

STU: Why is that the part you like so much in his movies? It's interesting what he is excited about.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

All right.

PETER: No. I love it. And it's true. You know, if you're making 88. You can go to Vegas. And things happen in Vegas.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right. Creating jobs.

PETER: Right. Yeah, well, and so that's the fun part, right? Is you mentioned earlier, that if you're not paying income tax, then production in the US is cheaper.

So instead of the Chinese socks coming in -- you know, they used to come in at $6, now they're at $9. Fine. But China is paying for that, so they're probably still coming in at six.

But, meanwhile, American factories can make socks for less, because they are not paying the income tax.

There's a very good chance that we will see a lot of that manufacturing, even if the Chinese government pays for the tariffs.

GLENN: And that means, also because the economy -- we're building factories. We're doing things ourselves, because we can.

Everybody's pay goes up. Because we need more workers. Right?

PETER: Exactly. Exactly. And then there's actually mass deportations, then the socks will actually go American.

So you've got two possibilities, right?

One of them is that China covers the tariffs. In which case, it's a free lunch for us.

China is, what?

Putting us about 500 billion -- well, their share would be -- let's say 300 billion. So that would be fantastic. Thank you very much.

Or China does not cover the tariffs, in which case China is priced out of the market. America pays no income tax, so they're cheaper. By the way, every headquarter on earth would try to move to the United States. If you're paying no income tax on the single biggest economy on earth, everybody will be trying to move here. Including the Chinese companies. The worst-case scenario, the Chinese don't cover it.

They get outcompeted. And it all comes back to America. And if it's only Americans living here, then Americans will be swimming in jobs.

GLENN: I mean, this is just -- this is big.

How -- how much --

PETER: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He has only floated this on the Rogan show. How real do you think this is? Because I know he loves tariffs. I know he loves tariffs.

PETER: He loves tariffs. And he hates the income tax. So it's beautiful. It's like a -- it's just like the perfect Newton president.

STU: Peter, isn't the complication here, that he can essentially do what he wants with tariffs. But he can't do what he wants with the income tax. And that becomes the heavy lift here?

PETER: Right. So he would need Congress to play ball on the income tax. And Congress is very tight, as we're all discussing at the moment. There's a ton of RINOs over there.

So that's going need to the pressure and the passion that people showed during the campaign, that millions of Americans showed. We have to put that on the RINOs.

GLENN: Yeah. I think that if he did, you know, a tour even. And was just all about income tax. You just have to say to people. You go from 58 to 88 in take home pay. I think a lot of people will be like, you know what, I love that.

STU: I agree. But you're not going to get -- obviously, in theory, you could put it into a reconciliation bill. Right?

At least a massive reduction.

You couldn't -- not a constitutional amendment, unfortunately.

That's what I would prefer.

Repealing the 16th.

GLENN: Yeah. Me too.

But you could capture American's imagination with this.

STU: Yeah. I think that's pretty -- that would be pretty great.

I do think you would have issues with some of these, as you point out. RINO-type republicans, who would complain about all sorts of things.

Including deficit stuff. Right?

They would say, we're going to lose all this income.

GLENN: All right. Let me take a break, and then let's talk about the deficit, Peter. All right? Peter st. Onge. He -- hmm. I'm not going to hold it against him for being French. I mean, somewhere in his past, somebody had sex with a French person. Okay. Let's -- let's move past that. He's with the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow.

STU: This is definitely the weirdest interview he's ever done. And he's regretting every minute of this.

GLENN: He's like, this is the end of my career and my credibility.

GLENN: Okay. I think I've got this number from you, Peter.

But a -- tariffs would bring in about 900 billion.

Almost a trillion dollars.

But our -- we're spending now, I don't even know how much.

$4 trillion a year? Some crazy number like that.

So how do you bridge the gap?

PETER: About six and a half.

GLENN: Six and a half. Okay. Good.

STU: There's a bit of a gap.

GLENN: There's a five and a half trillion dollar gap.

PETER: So income tax itself is taking about two and a half trillion.

And then you've got -- what? You've got payroll. You've got excise. Things like gasoline and cigarettes, things like that.

You've got capital gains. Corporate income tax. Those hopefully would be folded into an income tax repeal.

You put it together. You're looking at 2.4 trillion in lost revenue. And then you've got 900 in tariffs. About 1.5.

Now, the economy grows 20 percent, then you're going to get about 500 billion more from payroll tax and from excise. So you're looking at a net loss of 1 trillion. Now, I personally would prefer to get rid of the payroll tax as well.

STU: Yes!

GLENN: Pernicious.

PETER: It's not as bad as the income tax. Because the income tax is on top of it. It also varies on how much you produce. The payroll tax is a flat tax.

So, you know, in a perfect world, we're not taxing work at all. We're taxing bad things, not good things.

In the grand scheme, you know, in the terms of incentives, get rid of income tax first. Then we can have the next conversation, which would be getting rid of the payroll tax. If you're just going to the income tax, you're talking about 2.4 net of the tariffs. Net of the economic growth. You're talking 1 trillion. So you would be cutting 1 trillion out of a budget of about six and a half.

Now, Elon is -- he's talking about his department of government efficiency.

He's floating 2 trillion.

So I haven't seen the math on those.

I don't know where it's coming from.

I agree whole-heartedly.

I'm certain we could get a lot more than that.

It's cutting out the parts of the military, that is part of our country.

Bring them home. Put them on the border. Divert the Navy that patrol our waters. Stop invading other countries.

That would be a very easy 800 billion, if we look at countries like Japan or UK, which the UK has a functioning military. It has a Coast Guard.

Although, it doesn't use it.

About the whole kit. They spend less than hundred billion.

Of course, you can cut welfare for able-bodied people.

Which the government tries very, very hard to hide how much it spends on welfare. But it's easily over a trillion.

The cost of illegals themselves, which very conservatively is about 150 billion a year. Maybe closer to 350 billion by some estimates. Because, again, they're trying to hide the costs.

Pharmaceuticals. Right?

That's going to be coming into focus with RFK here. But there is a ton of waste and corruption in pharmaceutical payments. Those are something like 20 percent of our economy.

But really, you know, if you sort of zoom out, you're very familiar with the Tenth Amendment.

There are precisely four agencies that are authorized. Right? State, justice, defense, treasury with both offices.

So strictly speaking, if we had a Supreme Court, that actually read the common sense language in the Tenth Amendment, almost the entire thing is gone. You would slash everything. Personally, I would keep Social Security and Medicare because they've already been paid for. That's a complicated issue. I think you have to make sure people are protected, because they already got ripped off on the way in. But aside from that, almost everything they do, from DEI, to just -- to the Federal Reserve, all of that is unconstitutional.

You slash that down, and you are -- gosh, you're probably more than 3 trillion down.

GLENN: So do you think we have a shot at doing that?

Is he putting the team in, around him to do something like this?

PETER: So the closest we have, I follow Polymarket very closely. They've got odds on pretty much everything out there. The sort of tip of the spear on income tax repeal is starting with tax on tips.

Right? That was the one that he most clearly promised.

And so that's kind of a proxy for whether we're going to start hacking away at the income tax. So tax on tips, is currently running 38 percent on Polymarket.

That's the number I'm watching. That's encouraging. Because it means, it's not just talk.

That people with capital, believe it's the real.

But for sure, Congress will play ball.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much, Peter. We'll have you on again. Great explanation of this. Peter St. Onge. He's with the Heritage Foundation. You can follow him @PeterStOnge. Good luck spelling Onge. I mean, just saying.

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.

Should people CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk’s death be fired?

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No! They're not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

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

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

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

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

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

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

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

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

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

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

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

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

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

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

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

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

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

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

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

Except here. I think it is easy.

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

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

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

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

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

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

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

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

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

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

Which do you want to defend?

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

Which one?

Shocking train video: Passengers wait while woman bleeds out

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

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

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

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

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

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

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

Hmm. No.

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

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

Do you know off the top of your head?

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

STU: Yeah.

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

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

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

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

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

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

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

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

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

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

In that situation.