GLENNFebruary 27, 2017

Concessions of a Transgendered Wrestler

Texas high school wrestler Mack Beggs recently won the state championship --- the female state championship --- amid controversy that caused some competitors to forfeit rather than wrestle the junior from Trinity High School in Euless, Texas. Beggs, who is transitioning from a girl to a boy, has been taking regular doses of testosterone.

"Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second, and we'll just talk about how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone --- for a girl, right? --- would be able to compete at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Many argue that the high levels of testosterone, which build strength and muscles, give Beggs an unfair advantage. Begging the question, if it's Beggs' choice to transition, shouldn't she make concessions during the interim to maintain a level playing field? Concessions like not wrestling until the transition is complete?

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

PAT: We've had this situation where there is a girl who is transitioning to a boy. And she's 17 years old. She's a wrestler. And so she wanted -- apparently, she wanted to wrestle in the boy's division this year, right?

JEFFY: Correct. Correct.

PAT: Because she's making that switch. So she's going from boy to girl.

STU: And the Texas rule is, you compete in the gender that you were born.

PAT: That's on your birth certificate.

STU: Yes.

PAT: Especially I guess as long as you have that genitalia, which she does. She's a girl.

STU: Yeah, I don't know -- if you've gone through the full transition, I don't know -- again, if you're talking about kids, this is a pretty new development. I don't know if they have a rule for that.

PAT: Yeah, I don't either.

STU: I think the rule is the gender you had when you were born.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: So that's the rule in Texas because it's hateful. How can you possibly ask somebody to compete in the gender category they were born into, how can you ask that?

STU: You can't, Pat. You can't.

PAT: You can't. Because what if you feel differently? Anyway, she does.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: But she was made to -- she was put in the girl's category for wrestling. So she just won the tournament last week.

JEFFY: Yeah, she won the championship.

PAT: She won the championship.

JEFFY: The -- one of the issues is, is that she is actually going through the transition and taking the prescribed medicine to make the change. And so it's working.

PAT: The testosterone.

STU: Right. And, by the way, this ends any argument of all time as to whether men or women are better athletes. Just -- because this whole thing of -- the old Billie Jean King thing back in the day. Let's be honest about it. You take testosterone, you become better and stronger at sports.

PAT: Right.

STU: Sorry.

PAT: Now, that is science. That is science.

JEFFY: That is science.

STU: So sorry. I guess we have to apologize for that.

PAT: Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. You can -- I guess you can try to deny it and say that women are just as strong in every instance as men. It's just not the case.

STU: No, they're better at certain --

PAT: Yes. They're just not built the same way as we are. And that's a good thing. It was supposed to be that way. We're supposed to be different. And we are. And we are.

STU: Stunning. A stunning development that everyone knew at a level of 100 percent until very recently.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: This is insane. And, by the way, if a man were to take testosterone in the -- in Major League Baseball or the NFL --

STU: I like how you're saying this as a crazy hypothetical.

PAT: I know.

STU: If in some circumstance somehow --

PAT: And they do.

STU: -- some at least decided to take performance enhancing drugs --

PAT: I don't remember who it was. But your testosterone as a man in the normal range is 400 to 800, maybe up to 1,000. And that's fairly normal. I can't remember who the baseball player was. It might have been A-Rod. He had a testosterone level -- and I shouldn't mention him because I don't remember who it was. But I remember their level was 4,000. So clearly they had been --

JEFFY: That's a man.

PAT: No man takes -- or has that much natural testosterone. So clearly, they had been taking testosterone, so they were better at what they were doing than they otherwise would have been. So it works on men as well as girls transitioning to men. So obviously, this girl is going to become stronger, she's going to be faster. She's going to be better able to wrestle than she was as a girl with no testosterone.

JEFFY: Right. And the argument also from the other parents that are suing the school board is that, hey, she is taking this medicine. That's making her into a boy. We don't want her wrestling.

PAT: And in Texas, you can take -- you can compete if you've been prescribed the testosterone by a doctor, and she was.

JEFFY: Correct. And there are several -- there are three or four other things on that list that the Wrestling Association says it's okay as long as it's prescribed and that would not be okay if it was not prescribed, for sure.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And the reason for that, by the way, quickly, steroids are like standard treatment for a lot of illnesses.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Yes. Right.

STU: If you break out in a rash or if you have -- if you're sick in any number of ways.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: One of the first responses is to give you a shot of steroids because, you know, it works. It's pretty effective.

PAT: It reduces swelling, aids in healing. It just -- it calms down infection. I mean, it does a lot of different things. I've taken steroids quite a bit. Because I've been sick lately. And it helps. They help.

STU: A lot.

PAT: So it kind of makes sense that there are certain circumstances under which -- you know, because if you're taking anabolic steroids, that's one thing. But if you're taking steroids that a normal doctor would prescribe for an illness that's a different deal.

JEFFY: Which is pretty much what they were covering when they made the rules, before this.

PAT: Right. So, anyway, Stu heard this interview on the way in by Chris Cuomo. And is it the lawyer representing the other girls in the tournament?

STU: No, this is Ben Ferguson, who is a talk show host. He's a CNN contributor, so he's there to take the evil right-wing side of this argument. Chris Cuomo who purpose or it is I guess to be a journalist. I don't know that for a fact. But it seems like he wants to come off as evenhanded on the show is a straight-out activist on this show.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And the reason is because he's in the middle of his own personal issue with the transgendered argument, which is last week someone tweeted to him -- when talking about the transgendered issue, what do you tell a 12-year-old girl who doesn't want to see a man's unit in the locker room?

So a 12-year-old girl is in the locker room, someone changing next to them, takes down their pants and has a guy junk. Right? He's got guy junk.

What do you tell that 12-year-old girl? His response was, I wonder if she is the problem.

PAT: Good gosh.

STU: Or her overprotective and intolerant dad. Teach tolerance. That was his response.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

STU: Now, look, that's unbelievable, to put that on the 12-year-old girl.

PAT: Unbelievable response.

STU: A 12-year-old girl is not equipped to -- even if this were the most logical thing in the world, is not equipped to make that determination. She's going to be interested in what she's interested in at that age. That's going to be -- it's a moment -- it's an era of discovery, right. And so that is not something that you would necessarily want -- that's why they have separation.

Because honestly, with this standard, why bother with two different bathrooms? Why bother with two different locker rooms for any reason? Why bother? Why not just be tolerant of male genitalia all the time for 12-year-old girls? Why is it only when someone else outside of their decision-making process makes a decision they identify a different way. Right? Someone else has done that, that doesn't affect the 12-year-old girl in this scenario. She hasn't made any judgment, well, I identify that person as a female, therefore the junk that I'm looking at is not male. That's not her determination. It's someone else's determination. So that is -- it's an absurd argument on its face.

But he got so much heat for that tweet, blaming the 12-year-old girl and her intolerant dad of not being accepting of penises in the locker room, which is essentially what he said: You should be tolerant of the penis.

That was the word they used. He got so much heat for that. He's now in, I've locked myself in the corner, and I'm going to be defensive on this point no matter what. Which, it brings out the best in Chris Cuomo. Because he's now so desperate to prove that this wasn't a mistake, he'll say anything.

PAT: Yeah. Listen to this.

VOICE: What's your take on the tournament, my friend?

VOICE: Well, first off, I think this -- take the transgendered issue out of it for a second. If you are taking testosterone, which is a performance-enhancing drug in sports, you shouldn't be able to wrestle.

PAT: Correct. There you go.

VOICE: And this gave a completely unfair advantage to this participant. You can talk about that whether you are in your age-group or in your sex group that are associated with. If you're taking something that is performance enhancing, you're not a real champion. You cheated and you won.

Now, the state I think has some blame for this, by having it where they're even allowing these testosterones to be used if they're prescribed by a doctor. That's where I think the big fix probably needs to come.

STU: Stop for a second. Because this is -- so, first of all, this is his first response. Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second. And we'll just talk about you how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone for a girl, right? Would be able to compete at all. So taking out the transgendered issue, it's still wrong. So he's already won the argument at this point, right?

JEFFY: Right. Right.

STU: But not with Chris Cuomo who can't possibly accept this.

CHRIS: If there was acceptance, we wouldn't have had this issue because this kid would be wrestling against boys.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

STU: So here's his argument: So Chris, he falls back to --

PAT: If there were acceptance.

STU: I don't know what level we're going to fall back to on this. It's going to be hard to keep track of. But he falls back to, if there was -- if we taught acceptance, this wouldn't be an issue because she would be able to wrestle the boys like she wants to.

PAT: And in that eventuality, we wouldn't be talking about the story at all because she would have lost in the first round, and it would be over.

STU: Right. That's true.

PAT: It would be over.

STU: That's true. However -- however, we still would be talking about the issue. Why?

Because in a liberal state, let's say California, there would be a -- it would go the opposite way. You would have a boy who was transforming to be a girl and wanted to identify as a girl and then went into the girl's division and then destroyed all the girls. So the issue would still exist, it would just be in a liberal state and the opposite way. So he's completely wrong there to say the issue goes away if -- if we, quote, unquote, teach acceptance. The issue still exists, it's just on the opposite side.

VOICE: We know. And for those as you're learning about -- just so people know.

VOICE: Here's the thing.

VOICE: But hold on, Ben. Let's just clarify one thing: The science, you have to be careful about.

STU: This is argument two.

PAT: The science now.

VOICE: The amount of hormone that this kid is given is the minimum standard they can give to replicate the output of a boy.

STU: Okay. Stop. There's so much there.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Does he know the amount she's being given?

STU: First of all -- yes. So that was one of his big arguments in this. I assume he knows it because he quotes -- he kept saying, you have to look it up. You have to look it up. So, again, that's a bad assumption on my part.

PAT: Look it up, Jeffy. See how much testosterone --

STU: However, it's not the minimum amount that a girl would have, right? It's actually way more than a girl would have, which is what makes the transition happen.

PAT: Yes. Way more. It's the minimum amount for a boy.

STU: For a boy. Now, let's just say that that's true. So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating --

PAT: So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating.

STU: It still would be cheating as the girl. So his point is, well, then they should allow him -- her -- him to wrestle with the boys, right? Because he wants -- she identifies as a man. So we should think that she's a man. We should allow her to wrestle with the boys. Because she's not getting -- his point there is, he's not getting so much -- she's not getting so much more testosterone than the boy would normally have. So she's not a superhuman boy, she's just a boy, right? First of all, his wording is interesting there. The amount to replicate a boy.

If she's a boy, you do not need to replicate the boy.

If you're replicating something, you're replicating it because it's not actually happening. Therefore, your whole scientific argument is flawed. The thing that you're saying you want to happen isn't happening.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: She is not a boy. So if she was a boy, you would not need to replicate it.

PAT: Yeah, if you need to talk about science, what is she scientifically? She's a girl.

STU: She's a girl.

PAT: She's had no surgery. There's nothing been changed on her body. She's a girl. So if you want to talk science, she's a girl. And then -- so it's unfair for the girl to be getting testosterone, when the other girls aren't getting it.

STU: Right. Exactly. Now, his point seems to be, what he wants to happen is that she wrestles against the boys and then loses because she is getting only the appropriate level for a boy of testosterone.

Again, it's a ridiculous argument in and of itself. But if you're going -- even if you're going to entertain it, the point is, getting performance-enhancing drugs -- it's not to say that you let everyone come to the same level of testosterone. The point is, you don't get additional testosterone as to what you have naturally. That's the point of the rule. It's enhancing. Whether you think it's enhancing it only to equal, it's not the point. The point is, you don't enhance it to what you have naturally.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: She has very little naturally. And they're enhancing it to get a higher level, regardless of what level.

PAT: And all we're talking about here is -- the level of the other competitors is what we should be talking about, not the level of the boys.

STU: Yes. Right.

PAT: Because is it unfair for her to have beaten all these girls whose level of testosterone is ridiculous?

VOICE: Kids are going to be superhuman -- it's the opposite.

PAT: No, it's not the opposite.

VOICE: Scientifically, that is the outcome. If you look and do the research as I have, you'll see that.

STU: Oh, God.

PAT: What a condescending ass.

STU: Yes. Remember, this is a guy who is in full standing in the Douche Hall of Fame. And this is him showing off why he's there.

PAT: Exactly.

STU: And, by the way, on Pat and Stu today, a vote on Chris Cuomo as the Grand Nozzle after this interview. Because he deserves it from Harry Reid.

VOICE: If this state allowed this kid to wrestle against boys, which is what he wants, we wouldn't be talking about this case right now.

STU: Right. This case. You would be talking about a different case in a different state that went the opposite way. The issue would not go away at all based on that. You would just be arguing the opposite side of it.

PAT: True.

VOICE: But you also have to look at, there has to be a standard. And I think it's not insane or crazy for a state to say that you compete with the sex that's on your birth certificate. That's what I would refer to as logical. It is illogical to somehow imply that this kid is a victim because he decided to do something or change something and therefore you change the entire sport around it. That is the part that I think many people are sitting here and saying, "Hey, if you want to compete in a sport, period, then you cannot be taking performance-enhancing drugs and do it." But to say that we should change the entire way that sports is done because of one person and their decision to do something, that is unrealistic.

VOICE: Right.

But the premise is flawed. Because the logic requires --

STU: We got to come back. We're not going to have time to get it --

VOICE: I disagree. That's why we're having a discussion. That transgender doesn't count. But it does count, and that's why we're having this bigger debate about what you allow trans kids to have access to and what you don't.

PAT: He goes on to say that she identifies as a girl.

STU: Yeah, but we have to come back and play -- because that part is unbelievable as well.

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: His scientific argument is that she identifies. Well, that's not science.

PAT: That's not science. Now you're talking feelings. You're not talking science.

STU: As you said, they're replicating it. She's identifying. You're laying it out -- subconsciously, you're saying the truth. You can't help yourself. You can't help yourself. You keep saying the truth.

PAT: I can identify as a gerbil, if I want to, but I'm not. I'm not one. And I won't fit into the little thing with the wheel that goes -- spins around and around. So...

STU: Right. And any other circumstance, this argument would be completely bizarre.

RADIO

Will the Conclave Elect a RADICAL Pope to Follow Francis?

The Conclave to elect the Catholic Church’s next Pope has begun. But will the next Pope be “conservative” and orthodox, will he follow in Pope Francis’ footsteps and be more friendly to leftist and globalist ideas, or will he be an “anti-Pope,” as some Catholics are claiming Francis was? Glenn speaks with LifeSiteNews co-founder and CEO, John-Henry Westen, who reviews the most likely candidates for the papacy and why he believes the “anti-Pope” claims against Francis are not ungrounded.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN:

RADIO

THIS is Why We Don’t Trust the Mainstream Media

A recent New York Times hit piece is a perfect example of why many Americans no longer trust the newspaper. Glenn compares the piece, which criticizes “The MartyrMade Podcast” host Darryl Cooper’s revisionist history, with the New York Times’ own “1619 Project,” written by Nikole Hannah Jones. Glenn disagrees with both people about major historical events. But the Times, with its elitist hypocrisy, pushed Jones’ attempt to frame America as a racist nation since its inception as unquestionable truth. “I’m not defending [Cooper or Jones],” Glenn says. “I’m defending the idea that We the People decide what’s true, and that takes work and curiosity…The minute you let somebody else decide what you’re allowed to hear, you have already surrendered your freedom to think.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to take on something else that I don't know. Maybe I should just keep my big, fat mouth shut.

Because I think this one will piss off everybody. But it's the truth. There was a story in the New York Times. The podcaster asking for you to side with history's villains. It was in the New York Times. Let me read something.

Darryl Cooper is no scholar. But legions of fans, many on the right, can't seem to resist what he presents as hidden truths.

All of a sudden, everyone was coming for Darryl Cooper. There were the newspaper columnists. The historians. The Jewish groups. Repugnant says the chairman of Yadveshev (phonetic), Israel's Holocaust museum in a statement.

Even the Biden White House released a statement, calling him a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda. So it was for a time for Mr. Cooper. One of the most popular podcaster in the country, to do what he does best. Hit record.

In a special on his history program, Martyr Made. Mr. Cooper addressed the controversy, which had exploded out of September 2nd appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show.

The podcast started by the former Fox News host. At first, Mr. Cooper, a gifted historic storyteller, but not a trained historian, defended the claims he had made on Mr. Carlsen's show. One that Winston Churchill was the chief villain of the war. Ridiculous. Not by implication. Adolf Hitler.

The two -- and two, that millions had died in Nazi-controlled Eastern Europe because Nazis had not adequately planned to feed them. Okay. Not true.

He then said, the story goes on to say, I don't know if we retracted some of that stuff. This emotional ventriloquism is part of Mr. Cooper's approach and appeal. On TikTok, a fan praised him as one of the best historians of our time, because he tries to go out of his way, to understand the perspective of everyone involved in a situation.

These critics have probably helped make Mr. Cooper bigger than ever. He's been the most subscribed to history newsletter on Substak. One spot ahead of the evident economic historian, Adam HEP Toos in the wake of the Rogan interview. Martyrmade. Blah, blah, blah.

Okay. So they go on and on and on. To talk about how this just can't stand. I mean, we've got to -- there's got to be some sort of filter. And, you know, Joe Rogan just can't have on, whoever he wants to have on. That's the problem!

Is it? New York Times. Is that the problem?

Hmm, that's really interesting.

Now, let me just look and -- and let me just look in the past here, and see if we've had this exact same problem, with anybody else. Because the person that came to mind was not Darryl Cooper, but Nicole Hannah Jones. Because I think those two are the same coin, and the coin is counterfeit.

Just opposite sides of the same coin. The martyr made podcast spins a tale of grievance and distrust. And it's wrapped in enough fact to keep it plausible.

But there are some facts in there. Okay.

Jones, she did the 1619 Project.

She did the same thing in reverse. Except, I think she's actually worse.

I mean, because I think she made up almost everything in that. She recasts American history. As racist from the very inception of the country.

Neither one of them is telling the whole truth. Neither one of them. Neither wants to, I think. They're both in the business of narrative, and not history.

So am I. But I tried to be fair.

The real problem is not these two.

Honestly, it's the New York Times.

Because in their Sunday styles, write-up on Cooper.

The Times poses as a concerned observer.

Wary of growing influence among the disaffected right.

Why are we disaffected. Why is the right disaffected?

We're disaffected because you have tried to take our country from us.

Everything that we believe. Our history.

Our values. Our traditions. And you've tried to denigrate them. And destroy them, every step of the way.

And you've done them with one lie, right after another.

Okay?

Why are they framing him. Not with facts. But with suspicion.

Not because he's -- dishonest or not dishonest. But because he's popular. They clutch their pearls, because he has an audience. And only the New York Times can have that you audience.

But where that was concern, when they did -- when they gave an audience to Nicole Hannah Jones.

And gave her a Pulitzer for a project now so discredited by the very historians that are now talking about Cooper!

Where was the caution when they declared that 1619, not 1776, was the true founding of the nation? They didn't question her authority. They didn't say, well, she's not a historian. They printed it. In fact, they taught it, and endorsed it. They platformed it in schools!

That's different than anything that Joe Rogan is doing. They platformed it in schools.

So let's be clear. Okay?

I think both Cooper and Jones are wrong.

They may have points worth considering.

But I think that they get it fundamentally wrong, in a few places.

They are looking at facts to sell the story.

And not necessarily reveal the truth.

Now, maybe I'm being too cynical.

But that's the way I see it. And I'm not condemning either one.

I'm condemning all of those on the left, or the right, that are now doing the same thing that the New York Times did with -- with Cooper, but didn't do with Anna Nicole Jones. Only one of those two was lauded by the New York Times, as legitimate. And a necessary corrective, even though, it was all a lie! Made up!

So that's what -- when I'm -- I'm reading that op-ed in the New York Times.

I can't take the -- oh, my gosh. The hypocritical nature of it. Just, blood shoots out of my eyes.

Because that's what the New York Times is actually saying. Don't you little people understand. We must decide what stories are acceptable. Not you!

Not somebody like Joe Rogan. We will decide. Which distortion are his virtuous and which ones are dangerous. Not you.

We get to choose the false prophets that get a column, which -- and which ones are called conspiracy theorists. We, at the New York Times, we in the media!

And athat is the problem! This isn't about the authors. Okay. First Amendment gives him a right to say whatever they want.

You may not like. You don't like it, stop listening.

Well, but other people might listen. Yeah. Well, other people might listen.

Maybe we should pay more attention to our education in our schools. Maybe we should pay more attention, so we don't become somebody that is a dummy, themselves. And are -- because this is the problem!

We don't have a press that exposes lies anymore. We have a press that curates the lies.

I really think this is why I started collecting -- you know, we have now, the third largest collection of founding indictments, in the American journey experience.

Along with David Barton's wall builders.

It is -- it's only behind the national archives. And the library of Congress.

Most people don't know it. Because, you know, we don't talk about it yet.

Beginning in '26. We will be making a big deal out of it.

We also have the largest collection of pilgrim era artifacts and documents in the world.

The largest. So I can tell you what happened in Jamestown in 1619.

I can tell you this, the ship that Hannah HEP Nicole Jones talks about. There were no slaves on that ship.

How do I know?

We have the manifest!

No slaves. Hmm. That seems problematic, doesn't it?

And the Mayflower did not launch a system of slavery.

In fact, they fought against it.

We -- this is so crazy.

What the Pilgrims did against slavery was remarkable.

Remarkable. When a slave shipbuildingsly gave into their port, it was -- slavery was against the law. They called it man stealing.

It was against the law. As soon as the slave came into port. You could smell the slave ship. They knew exactly what it was. They marched and up arrested the captain of the ship.

They put anymore irons. And put him in jail.

And these people, who were already paying 15 percent of everything they make. These poor people.

15 percent of everything they make, to a king they can't be they despise. But they paid it, because they wanted to just stay alive.

They took up a collection from each other. Not outside. From each other.

Got a new captain. Refueled. Restocked the ship. And sent those people. Those slaves back to Africa, so they could be free!

That's who our pilgrims were. Don't believe me? You don't have to take my word for it.
We have the evidence. Please, you know, the longest running treaty with Native Americans happened with our Pilgrims. And you know who broke it? Not the white man. It was the Native Americans! And you know why?

Because after years and years of the Pilgrims and the Native Americans getting along, Christianity was starting to seep into their culture. And they needed to go to war with the tribe. And the war that the way they used to fight it, the Native Americans, it was okay to enslave your enemy.

In fact, you needed to.

You could torture them, after you won!

Just to make a point. And then you would enslave anybody you wanted.

And Christianity said, no. You can't do either one of those things.

And so the native Americans, that were part of this tribe, that were and friends under this treaty, with the Pilgrims. They started telling their chief. You know, we can't do these things.

And the chief got so pissed. Because he was like, we're fighting a war.

We fought it like they always fought it.

That they broke the treaty. Did you know that?

No. They were just horrible. We stole the land.

Ay-yi-yi. Did America live up to its ideals?

No! Has anybody, ever?

Have you? Has the pope? Has anybody really lived up to their ideals all the time?

No! But you have ideals, and that's what matters.

By the way, on the other side, I also happen to own a few original Nazi documents, from the actual perpetrators. I've got documents from the engineer that actually calculated how much Zyklon B it would take to murder a room full of Jews, okay?

It wasn't because they didn't want to -- they didn't have enough food.

This was calculated. I have the final prescription signed by Dr. Mengele, for a thousand liters of lumen that will for the so-called children's hospital. That's how the right was killing the undesirables in the children's hospital.

They didn't do it in a frenzy. It wasn't a riot. It wasn't out of desperation. It was silence out of lab coats, and beauracrats and experts signing off, and the press like the New York Times refusing to say a word about it. The scariest people are not the ones in the streets. They weren't. They were the ones with titles. With offices, with press credentials.

They were the ones with the doctorates.
They were the people who decided what could be published.

Who could be punished. What could be known? What could be said?

And that's the danger that we're staring down, right now. Not from cringe theorists on a podcast. Not even from overzealous academics with a Pulitzer.

But from the institutions that bless one distortion, and condemn the other.

Not based on truth. But based on usefulness.

Is it useful to our side?

I just want you to know. This is my stance on this. and make this very, very clear.

The First Amendment does not exist to protect comfortable speech. It doesn't exist to protect Cooper, as opposed to Jones. It exists to protect both of them!

It protects uncomfortable points of view.

Things you do not like to hear. And disagreement. It protects people who are absolutely wrong, and even those who are lying!

It protects the process, so you can figure it out. There is no licensed priesthood in our country.

You know, that are -- the priesthood of truth-tellers. No official ministry of facts.

That's where countries go wrong. The Times should be exposing both sides of these stories.

Just like I'm doing.

The distortions of the right, and the left.

But instead, they become exactly what they've warned us about.

A newspaper that prints dogma, and not dialogue.

And the real problem here: No.

The real solution here is you. Jefferson warned that a man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Sorry. A man who reads nothing is better informed than a man who only reads the newspaper. Okay? I would say, the newspaper is today's social media.

Man who reads nothing is more well-educated than a man who just only reads social media.

But today we might say, better to be ignorant than confidently misled by trusted media.

They see themselves not as a watch to go. But as a shepherd. And we are the sheep.

So I am not defending either one.

I am defending the idea that we, the people. Not the institutions. Not the elites. Not the New York Times.

Not Joe Rogan.

You decide what's true. And that takes work and that takes curiosity. Maybe the other guy is wrong.

I don't know. Maybe I don't have the whole story either. I don't know.

Look it up. Because the minute you let somebody else decide, what you're allowed to hear, you have already surrendered your freedom to think!

RADIO

What Christian Movies Can Learn from Serial Killer Films

Christian movies can learn a whole lot from serial killer murder mysteries, The Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan tells Glenn. While Christian films tend to have good messages, they don’t often touch on the dark realities of this fallen world we live in – realities that even the Bible addresses through the stories of Cain and Abel and many others. Instead, Klavan argues, he gets more biblical truths out of movies like “Halloween” and “The Silence of the Lambs” and books like “Crime and Punishment” than he does films like “God’s Not Dead.” Klavan tells Glenn how he finds God in the literature of darkness, a topic he further delves into in his new book, “The Kingdom of Cain.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andrew Klavan. Host of the Andrew Klavan program. The Andrew Klavan Show.

How are you, sir?

ANDREW: I'm good. Good to see you.

GLENN: Good to see you. I don't think I've seen you out of your element ever.

ANDREW: Yes, I've been many times to the studio.

GLENN: Have you? Well, they were memorable.

ANDREW: I get this reaction a lot.

GLENN: No. I just love you. I love you. And I got to tell you, the best compliment I could give you, your son is remarkable.

ANDREW: He is remarkable. He is.

GLENN: I hope some day, somebody will say that by my children. Really remarkable.

You and your wife are amazing parents.

ANDREW: Oh, well, thank you.

GLENN: So tell me about the Kingdom of Cain, and talk down to me.

ANDREW: It's a really simple book, and very entertaining, because it's about the movies that we all love.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. He says this. Let me read this to you, Stu, and see if you understand what this is.

STU: The Kingdom of Cain looks at three murders in history, including the first murder. Cain's killing of his brother Abel. And at the art created from imaginative engagement, from those horrific events by artists ranging from Dostoyevsky to Hitchcock. To make beauty out of the world, as it is shot through with evil and injustice and suffering. It is the task, not just of the artist, but Klavan argues of every life rightly lived.

Examining how the transformation occurs in art. Grants us a vision of how it could happen in our life. What is this about?

STU: I don't know what you're missing.

ANDREW: I will tell you, I'm a crime writer. Right? I get this letter all the time. Constantly. It says, you call yourself a Christian.

That part is true, and yet you write about horrific things. You right about murder.

Prostitutes and gangsters, and all this stuff.

Why do you do that?

And the reason is very simple. I believe that God is a central fact of reality. And I believe that any artist who speaks truthfully about reality, will speak about God.

And so what I did. I took three murders. Three very famous murders.

I showed how they inspired works of art. Over and over and over again.

They're -- not just one work of art. But they kept coming back, inspiring other works of art. And how those works of art actually speak about something, that happens to a society, when it begins to lose its faith. As our society has certainly done.

You know, and they chart those works of art, and some of them are like the stupidest little horror movie.

And yet, the guy who is making that horror movie understood what he was talking about.

And can show you. If you go back, for instance, and watch a slasher movie. Like Halloween, which is a very scary movie.

It's actually about the fall of the end of faith. And how it destroys sexual responsibilities.

So it takes place in the suburb. Have you seen it?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Yeah. I have seen it.

ANDREW: Where there are no moms. And the dads are very weak.

And this knife-wielding crazy man comes back. And basically preys on kids having sex while nobody is watching.

And it's a very, very stark picture. I bet if you asked the director what he was doing, he would tell you that. It's right in the movie, when he see that. But you have to be watching this.

The thing is, these movies are -- not just movies. But novels.

The arts are -- really reveal the conscience of a culture.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDREW: And so taking the way they look at murder, tells us things that are bad about our culture.

But it also tells us about ways we want to go in the future.

The role, for instance, of psychiatrists in -- in these films.

Films. Most of these films are based on murder, committed by Ed Dean in the 1950s, a guy who was constant. Who used to kill women.

Right?

And then dress up in their bodies. Just like in Silence of the Lambs. That inspired Psycho.

It inspired a really good horror movie called the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Even though it's a crazy title. It's actually a good movie. The Silence of the Lambs. All of these movies grow out of that one murder.

And what it's about? It's about confusion. It's about sexual. About gender. You know, we don't see that going around nowadays. In fact, it's everywhere. In fact, these movies were made in the 1950s, '60s, '70s, and '80s and on. And so they were predicting, as art often does, what was going to happen, and explaining why.

GLENN: So do you think Alford Hitchcock knew that this was coming? Or he was just a good storyteller?

ANDREW: You are a good story teller. Who was it? T. S. Eliot said a great poet writes himself, and in writing himself, he writes his time.

And I think that that's what happens. These artists basically bring something out of themselves. But it reveals where we are all are. And it reveals where we are going. If you see where we are, you can tell where we're going.

That's why the book does not just concentrate on the darkness. It actually says. What do you do?

How do you react? Now that you know what's happening. How do you react to those things in a creative, joyful way?

Because this is -- the Bible doesn't say things will be great. The Bible says. Yeah.

GLENN: That's not the main point.

ANDREW: Being crucified. And at the same time, it says, rejoice ever more.

GLENN: Right.

ANDREW: So one of the things that really bothers me about Christian movies.

Is they don't really represent life.

If you do a Christian movie, that has real things in it, you get slammed.

Why would you put it in?

Why was there sex? Why was there murder?

One of the major influences that turned me to Christ, when I was 19 years old. That took three decades to kick in.

But it was reading Crime and Punishment. About an axe murderer. And about a prostitute who basically turns this axe murderer's life around.

If you walked into a Christian bookstore today.

And say, can I have that book about the axe murderer and the hooker? Yeah, they would look at you like you were nuts. Because Dostoyevsky was a great artist and a great Christian.

One of the truly deep and interesting Christians in history.

He revealed something about the philosophies that were rising up at that time.

And that are still with us today. And the philosophies that later became spoken out by Nietzsche. And Nietzsche affected all of the leftist philosophers that you and I have loved so much. And have done so many good things for our survival.

GLENN: So let's pretend somebody didn't read that by Dostoyevsky or whatever his name is.

And tell us the story -- and tell us the story. And exactly what -- what he was teaching.

ANDREW: Well, the idea is God is dead.

And therefore, instead of having this horrible Christian philosophy. That is nice to the poor. And the weak, and has charity. And compassion.

We need strong special men. Like Napoleon, for instance. Who will make their own law.

And this man, in this story. Crime and Punishment says, well, if I can make my own law, I can murder somebody.

And it will be a sin. It won't be wrong.

And then he actually accomplishes this murder.

And finds a way. Oh, wait. I've actually shattered the moral order. And now my life is spiraling out of control.

Now, Nietzsche wrote his philosophy, which is the exact philosophy in his book.

After Dostoyevsky wrote the novel, and then his philosophy inspired two murderers in America, named Leopold and Lowe. This was called the crime of the century. The crime of the 20th century.

GLENN: I don't remember it.

ANDREW: I know, nobody remembers it now, but it was one of the biggest crimes of the century. It inspired countless movies and television shows.

It was two kids, they were -- they were rich, gay Jewish kids in the suburbs.

GLENN: What year?

ANDREW: This is 19 -- I want to say 30 -- 30 or 40.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDREW: Yeah. It was the '30s. I'm sorry.

And they decided, well, we're Superman. Like Nietzsche. They read Nietzsche. And they thought, yes. This is what we want to be.

One of them. We will commit the perfect murder, to show we could do it.

They took a kid at random, who they know, and killed them.

GLENN: This is Rope.

ANDREW: Exactly. Exactly. And Rope became the Hitchcock film. And also inspired Compulsion, which is another movie.

Almost a true movie about it. Pops up again and again.

Two people who said, we will commit the perfect murder. Because we're superior.

If you look for it, you will find it in one story after another.

And it's based on the idea, that there's no God. And therefore, anything is permissible, and strong men have to make the rules.

GLENN: That's one of the best movies out of Hitchcock.

Nobody even knows it. Great movie from Hitchcock. And great movie with Jimmy Stewart and just really -- and disturbing.

ANDREW: Yeah, and written -- the original play was written by the guy who also wrote a play called Gaslight, which is where we get the word gaslighting.

So I talk all about these works of art. These works and movies. And listen, I think it's an entertaining book, Glenn.

GLENN: I love your work. I love your work. Most people, if you don't know who Andrew Klavan is.

You've written movies. I mean, you've written just some thrilling novels.

And novels that have been made into movies. And I'm a huge, huge fan.

But, I mean, you know, you are talking to mice here.

ANDREW: I try to just make it about things that people like and enjoy.

GLENN: Yeah. So what is -- what is the lesson that we learn from -- from all of this?

ANDREW: Well, I think the most important lesson, if I can call it that, in the book. Is that the beauty has something to do with the answer to evil.

You know, one of the things that keeps people from believing in God. They say, there's so much evil in the world.

How can a good God, allow this evil to exist?

And at the end of the book, the last third of the book. Which is a very personal statement about what I do, to basically live joyfully in the world, that I can see is evil.

It ends with looking at the statue of Michelangelo. Which is one of the most beautiful works --

GLENN: Beautiful.

ANDREW: But it think about what it's about, Glenn. It's about a mother with her dead son. It is a world with a dead God. It's the worst movement in human history. And yet Michelangelo, a man, made it beautiful.

And my question at the end of the book, is if a man can take that misery, that suffering, that evil, and turn it into beauty, what can God do with the world that we're living in now?

When he works with the marvel of eternity. And so I work my way to that point, by going to the movies that we watch, the stories that we read.

And why we're so fascinated with murder.

You know, think about try crime. This is what this is about.

STU: Why are we?

ANDREW: Because it is the borderline, where you cannot say, there's something right about this.

It's the place where I suddenly realize that the moral order has its great points, but it also has a very stark --

GLENN: So explain to me. Explain to me why shows like, let's say.

Yellowstone.

Are so satisfying, because you're kind of like -- kind of like seeing that guy taking to the train station.

You know what I mean?

You know that it's wrong. But you're kind of in there. You're kind of like -- you know.

And you feel. At least I do. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people watch. Yeah. That's fine.

I watch it. I don't like the fact that I kind of -- I'm rooting for them.

ANDREW: I think the best art does that to you. I really enjoy this. That actually tells me something about myself, that I don't want to think about.

GLENN: Yeah.

ANDREW: See, a lot of people think art is like a sugar pill, that they used to give you a little lesson in life. A little parable of sorts. I don't think that's what it is at all.

I think it's an experience that you really can't have in your life, that broadens the way you look at life. Broadens your view of humanity. So when you get Christian stories like God Is Not Dead. I don't want to pick on anybody.

GLENN: But you'll pick on them.

ANDREW: I will pick on them. The guy is hit by a car. He says, well, at least he was saved.

I think, really? We can't just say -- you can't call his wife say, and say, this is a sad moment. Let me grieve when people die? We can't say we're horrified by death and afraid?

So I want Christian art that deals with life in a real way.

And shows that people who are afraid. And people who have evil thoughts, and people who want to justify murder. And they -- there are moments when we all sort of think -- but if you go off into a room by yourself and ask, how can I make the perfect world?

Within two minutes, so help me.

You will be committing mass murder in your mind.

Let me see. Well, first, I have to go to rid of these people because these people can't be reformed. You'll wipe them out, right?

So that's who we all are.

When he start to see that. I believe that's actually a layer on top of who we really.

I believe who we really are is who Christ wants us to be. That's the question.

How do you get through that layer?

That's what artists do for us. They show us our true selves.

And lead our conscience to the place we're supposed to go.

GLENN: All right. Our natural soul is who Christ wants us to be.

ANDREW: Right.

GLENN: And we're encapsulated in this flesh. And the natural man is an enemy to that. And it's the battle back and forth.

ANDREW: And that's what art is. That battle. That's where drama comes from. That's where tragedy comes from.

You know, one of the stories I mentioned in the Kingdom of Cain is Macbeth, because it's such a great story about murder.

And it ends with the most beautiful speech about nihilism, about things, nothing makes sense. Nothing is worth anything. Right? Life is a tale told by an idiot. But because you're watching a play, you understand, Shakespeare is not saying that. A guy has detached himself from the moral order is saying that. He's lost the meaning of life, because he's detached himself from the meaning of life.

And so studying murder and writing art about murder. Takes you to the most serious questions about who we are. And who we really are. And what we really want. And how we -- you know, that inner battle that goes on. Which is to me, the source of drama.

RADIO

This is PROOF the Democratic Party is NOT Becoming Centrist

The leftist leadership of Washington State recently made some terrifying moves that caused Glenn to warn any conservatives living there: “Get the HELL OUT!” Glenn and Stu discuss some of these totalitarian moves, including the likely failure of a bill to limit the governor’s powers during a medical emergency. Democrats have also passed a “Tesla tax” on EV credits and a bill that prioritizes criminal illegal immigrants over US citizens for pardons. If this is what the Democratic Party is already doing in Washington, what will be next?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things that I wanted to talk to you about. If you're living in Washington State. May I just say, get the hell out now! I've said --

STU: The entire state?

GLENN: The entire state. Get out of the state.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: And I'm dead serious on that. You're living in a state that has gone absolutely insane. First of all, we talked about this before. And nobody is really talking about this.

The medical thing that they just passed in Washington State. And they passed it, and the governor has signed it. And basically, it says, if there's a medical emergency. We can do whatever we want to you.

Now, remember, this is the state that was talking about building like little internment camps for people who wouldn't get vaccinated last time. Okay. They were talking about that. If you think they won't do that, you're out of your mind. You're crazy. And so it says, if the governor decides that there's a medical emergency, statewide emergency, that the state, based on -- love this one.

Based on scientific experts, they will dictate what happens to every -- you know, every individual. What you have to get -- if scientific experts tell you, you have to take this, you will be forced to take that. I'm not having my kids in that state. I'm not living in that state. Are you living in that state? Because they will do it.

They are telling you. After everything we went through in COVID. They're now doubling down and saying, yeah. By the way, we're going to code this into law.

STU: Really, the COVID era was such a great separator. You know, very roughly blue states and red states.

Where you saw what the approach was going to be. And you can make the decision as to which one you want to live in. When something like this goes down.

And I think people make that decision with their -- you know, California abandoned for places like Texas and Florida.

You know, that's I think really, really clear.

And I think what we've seen after the COVID separation there, you also have seen kind of a codification on both sides.

I mean, conservatives and red states have really gone out of their way to signal that they would not do this again. And they would do things differently than the other states would. And blue states are now codifying their side of that.

Which is, hey. If you don't listen to the science, then you -- we don't want you here.

And we're going to put in the law, that these sciences shall be followed next time.

Not, wait a minute. We made a big mistake. And those schools have closed and everything.

They're going the opposite way.

GLENN: They're going the opposite way.

They're saying their science is right.

STU: Which is horrible.

GLENN: Even if we don't get it wrong, we won't get it wrong next time.

We will follow the science.

Are you mad? Did you see what just happened?

STU: Even places like the New York Times are now admitting, school closings are completely crazy.

That's all happened, not just in our publications. But it's not just on our side of the debate, but on their side of the debate, in many ways.

GLENN: Get out. Get out.

Okay. So that's one of them.

The new Tesla tax. Just passed by Democrats in Washington State.

It cleared the house, 52-45, supported solely by Democrats. And it's to address the state's budget deficit. Okay?

Well, you know, all of these states that have been spending money like crazy. California, Washington State.

I'm not bailing you out. I tell you, I will -- I will march to secede, if this government is going to bail out the states that have been spending money out of control, while our states have been responsible.

I am not sending my tax dollars to support your state, because you went under.

I'm sorry.

It's not a suicide pact. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and because you are committing suicide, doesn't mean my state has to commit suicide.
I'm not doing it. I'm not doing it.

And that is a hard, fast line with me.

I'm not doing it.

When -- when New York and Illinois, and California, and Oregon, and Washington State, all are hemorrhaging, because they can't pay their bills.

Why should I have to pay for that? Why?
I don't live there. We've been preaching against it.

The red states have been trying to live within their means.

No! No!

I'm not cutting my own throat, so you don't ever learn a lesson.

So you just keep doing whatever it is, you're doing. When we're all living the hard way.
You know What that is?

That's TARP. That's the bailout of the big banks. Do you think the big banks learned a damn thing?

No. Not one. Not one.

Why? Because we, the taxpayers, had to bail their ass out! And so what did they do?

Well, just keep doing the same thing. They just put it on another name.

STU: They did learn that. They did learn that that's the way the world works. That's an important lesson.

GLENN: That's exactly right.

And that's why Donald Trump has got to win.
He has got to get this to win. He's got to turn this thing around, and turn it around quickly.

STU: What does that mean?

GLENN: He's got to break the back of this World Economic Forum, Great Reset. Big bank, bullcrap.

All these central -- he's got to break the back of that.

And reset it to an actual economy, that runs with the people. Not the big banks.

And the big businesses.

You know, they've built this -- this public/private structure.

And they're just -- and they're just going to -- all they're going to do is those people will continue to get rich.

If you're with them. You're fine. Let me tell you about the Tesla tax.

So lawmakers in California said that Tesla's profits need to go to a greater public purpose.

So the legislation targets the windfall profits that Tesla earns from selling ZEV credits. The proponents arguing that the revenue should been in public goals, like improvising EV accessibility, rather than enriching a single company. So they're taxing Tesla.

And if you think that that money is going to go to a build more electric stations, you're crazy!

How many billions did we just give to Joe Biden? So he could have what? Three electric stations? Please!

So now, this is socialism. This is socialism.

They are going after Tesla, declaring that they're -- their profits need to go to a greater public purpose.

Who are they to say that?

And all of your -- all of the people that live around you, in Seattle, and everywhere else. If you think you're going to beat this system, at this time, if they're still going down the road that hard, you ain't going to win.

You're not going to win. They're going to take that state down.

And you do not want to be anywhere near it.

I say this with a love for Seattle. I love Seattle

I love Washington. It's my home.

I love it. But I've got to tell you, get the hell out of there!

There's something else, that I have in the show prep today.

You can get it at GlennBeck.com.

There was another story about what they're doing in Washington State. About gosh. Where was it?

About -- about the removal of -- oh, gosh.

I can't find it now. It's another bill that they're passing.

That if you're in trouble, and I don't remember. I need to be of mind. Or you're trying to exonerate yourself or whatever.

Illegals are going to be ahead of you in that line.

Illegals are going to be ahead of you.

STU: Washington Democrats pass bill to give illegal aliens with convictions priority for pardons. HB1131 allows convicted non-citizens facing deportation, to skip the front of the clemency line ahead of US citizens.

PAT: Okay. Wait. What is that?

What is that? Is that a state that understands what America is? Is that a state that is pulling towards a greater America?

That is -- that -- get out of that state!

Sell your house and get out of that state.

I mean, this -- if this isn't -- I mean, if this isn't every warning, that you get in World War II. When you were living in Europe, you're like, wow.

I can't get any worse than this.

It's getting worse. It's getting worse, and they're telling you! Yeah, well, they'll never do it. What makes you think, they will never do that?

They would have done it if they had it encoded in the law. They would have done it the last time.

Do you think it's only Australia that would build concentration camps? By the way, I know. My family is from Washington State. My grandfather told me one time with tears running down his cheeks.

Only time I say my grandfather CIA cry.

On me time.

When he talked about the good Japanese family that was taken. And taken because we were at war with Japan.

And he never say them again.

That's all he said.

He was one of those, you know, greatest generation that ever talked about feelings. And tears running down his cheeks. And he talked about that.

I know what Washington State is capable of. They have done it before. You think they won't do it again?

Please. And now you have what's his name? David Hogg. You think that guy is not a round him up kind of guy?

He's now saying, he's going to spend all his money going against the old Democrats. And the old Democrats are saying, no.

You're not going to do. Who do you think is going to win that?

The old Democrats?

Do you really think that the Democrats are going to become less radical, or more radical?

They're going to be more radical. They're showing you.

They are showing you the path.

Let me just reiterate what I said, a minute ago.

I have great hope, in this administration.

I do. I have great hope.

I have great hope in the people. I have great hope that we can renew.

I have a great hope. That a golden age is right around the corner.

But I'm telling you, it is going to be a photo finish. Which one crosses the line first?

The left with their collapse, and their bonfires in the streets?

Or us, with the renewal of America, and a new promise, and a resetting back to the individual and not the collective.

I don't know which one wins.

We're still in this fight.

Don'ts get -- don't get.

Don't fool yourself. Donald Trump is in it. It's all great. No, no, don't fool yourself. And I know you're not.

I hear it from people. I hear it all the time. I didn't hear it like this in 2016. Donald Trump came in. And everybody is like, I'm fixed.
I'm not feeling that now.

I think people -- you know, I had a guy say to me, a good friend. A really reasonable guy.

I said, what do you want me to ask the president? He said, honestly? I said, yeah.

Is this even fixable? Can it be saved? At this point.

That took my breath away. This is a regular, regular reasonable guy. Whose not think like I do.

You know, where everything -- can it even be saved?

That's where we are, gang!

And don't forget it.

And when your government, in Washington State, is sending you a sign. Get the hell out of there.

Glenn's Show Prep

Concessions of a Transgendered Wrestler

Will the Conclave Elect a RADICAL Pope to Follow Francis?

Transcript

THIS is Why We Don’t Trust the Mainstream Media

Transcript

What Christian Movies Can Learn from Serial Killer Films

Transcript

This is PROOF the Democratic Party is NOT Becoming Centrist

Transcript