RADIOJanuary 23, 2023

EXPOSED: ATF rule could make 40 MILLION gun-owners FELONS

The ATF is in the process of passing a new rule that could soon turn 40 million Americans into FELONS. In this clip, Glenn explains exactly what the ATF would like to achieve, and how this new rule is just a ‘gateway drug’ in order to ‘disarm’ Americans. Why? Because the far-left FEARS YOU, Glenn says. ‘They’re trying to do anything they can to take away everything that gives you at least a CHANCE to give them pause.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's something that is -- the ATF is doing. That is absolutely beyond the realm. While you feel less safe because more criminals are on the streets, because the DA's office usually when the office is controlled by George Soros. They are just letting criminals go.

The DA used to be the guy that would stand up for the victim. But now we've switched that. Without -- with disregard to, you know, thousands of years of precedent. Of showing that when the prosecuting attorney. When the DA, if you will, when that person that is declared by law, to clean up crime, when they are clean. And they are looking to defend the victim, things are great.

When they're dirty, or they just have just a sweet, sweet spirit for, you know, the criminals and disregard the victim, society falls apart.

Well, that's what's happening. Because, again, we're not applying any common sense. We're -- we're listening to, quote, men of science.

When we now know, men of science have been totally corrupted. The ATF has just put a new rule out. It puts 40 million people at risk of being felons.

Joe Biden, he instructed the ATF, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats that don't -- you don't know their name. You didn't see this process.

Nobody voted on this process. But thanks to Woodrow Wilson, we have an out-of-control administrative arm, and now the ATF is just making up new laws.

They have finalized a rule, that will turn 40 million Americans, into somebody that can be hauled off into prison.

They have reclassified firearms. With pistol braces, as short-barreled rifles.

Okay? Short-barreled rifles are illegal. You can get a special stamp for them. The ATF. If you have any kind of special weapon. You know, you have an old Gatling gun.

You have an automatic rifle. You have to have an ATF stamp. You get it from the government. They do all -- they do months of investigation on you, to make sure that you're going to be safe with that.

And then it has all kinds of rules. That if you don't keep it safe, if you're traveling without it, you hand it somebody else, who is not on your stamp.

That you and they can go to prison. I mean, it's crazy.

Now, they have just decided, that these guns that were legal to buy, are not going to be grandfathered in.

They were absolutely legal to buy.

They now have to be surrendered to the ATF. So you have to give them to the ATF.

Or you have to ask for the stamp. And you'll have 120 days, to come into compliance.

Either give them the gun. Or get the stamp. As someone who has one of those stamps, but would have to apply for a new stamp for a gun like this, I can guarantee you, that there's no way in hell, that you will get that stamp in 120 days.

There's no way. First of all, they have to issue 40 million.

Now, as somebody who has done this, under the Obama administration, it took me eight months closer probably to a year, to get that stamp.

Never thought it would ever come honestly. Now, they have rules. You have to -- they have to do it, within I don't know, 200 days or whatever it is.

They have to issue that stamp. Otherwise, you know, it's their fault. And what are you going to -- I'm going to call the police?

What am I going to do?

They issue it, when they want to issue it. So you have to now either say, I want to get a stamp. Here are my fingerprints. Here's the picture of the gun. Here's where I'm keeping it. Here's all of my information.

You send it in, and I want to get that stamp. But if you don't have the stamp, in 120 days, you're a felon. You're committing a felony.

Now, you could say, this is just -- they just overlooked that. They just didn't think that one through.

But that's the way it's written. There's no out. It's not like, oh, well, you're in the process. Forgetting a stamp.

No. In 120 days, you're just a felon.

Now, they're not going to arrest 100 -- or sorry. They're not going to arrest 40 million people.

But I can guarantee you, they'll arrest some. So what do you do?

Do you apply for the stamp that you're not going to get? At least in 120 days, and roll the dice?

Are you going to turn that gun into the ATF? I don't even know how to call the ATF. Are they in the phone book?

Where are they? How do I turn that in?

This seems a little German, if you remember my history right. You know, hey, turn your guns in. Then if you were in the street with the gun, that was illegal. Then they could legally shoot you. I kind of remember something like that. I would like to make sure that doesn't happen again. How do you do that?

And are they going to have 40 million people?

By the way, this is just the gateway drug. This is just the gateway.

Okay. This isn't a machine gun or anything else.

This is a gun, that is about the size of a -- of a very large, larger than a very large pistol. Okay?

And the stock goes into the gun. It collapses into itself.

So you could use it, you know, as like a pistol. But like, you -- it's built to put up against your shoulder.

And anybody who knows anything about guns, if you're using one of these, you better just be spraying everything with bullets. Because you're not going to be very accurate.

And they're not machine guns. So you're not spraying them.

Anyway, these were perfectly legal. Now it's ten years in jail. And a 10,000-dollar fine.

So you just have to reclassify now. I don't remember anything where we've ever done this before. Maybe we have. If anybody can remember, I would love to hear from you. But I don't think they've ever dub this before. It's always been grandfathered.

STU: And this also seems like the type of thing, we have a big debate about.

We have a bill that's proposed. It goes through a process. People need to vote on it.

Like, what is this process?

All of a sudden, this stuff -- there's 40 million illegal people, they've created out of thin air?

That seems like -- that doesn't seem like how our government runs. Is there a court challenge, that we can?

GLENN: No. And I think that's what people are waiting for. Say court challenge.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But what -- I mean, luckily, all my guns -- I mean, unfortunately, all my guns.

STU: You said luckily. What you meant was unfortunately?

GLENN: Unfortunately.

STU: All your guns were...

GLENN: All my guns are at the bottom of a lake. I was going to -- I was going to take them and throw them off the top of Mount Crumpet. Just take those guns and dump it.

And on the way, they just slid down, and they all went to the bottom of this lake.

STU: Do you remember which lake? We could look for.

GLENN: I can't.

It was somewhere around Mount Crumpet. So look at that up. That's at least where I remember the name.

But it might not be the name of the mountain. I don't know. I've got to call and report those, all at the bottom of the lake.

STU: I just don't understand. Again, there are these protections. But the Second Amendment quite clearly protects these things.

You can't do this. I think we've already done far too much. The process you had to go through, should not have existed in the first place.

And I think, you know, there is -- there has been attempts to overturn things like the automatic weapons ban, for example. Which, again, you can say, you don't want automatic weapons in this country. That's -- it's very -- maybe even sensible of you, however, you can't just overwhelm -- constitutional amendments with what you want.

GLENN: So, but this is the problem here.

No matter what Joe Biden says, and no matter what common sense would tell you, and only the people without common sense would tell you that common sense says this. You know, Joe Biden. You're going need to F-16s. And you're going need to tanks to fight the United States. Really?

Because the Taliban did a pretty good job. I mean, they're back in the power. Huh.

Who would have thunk it? They didn't have F-16s.

STU: Well, they do now.

GLENN: Of course. But then if you just have some old weapons that barely function, you can beat the United States, and then you would get the good stuff at the end.

STU: Really difficult to go door-to-door to take out a population that is at war with you. By the way, of course, this is a ridiculous scenario. That's what they want you to do.

They want you to believe, like think of yourself. Look down your driveway. Here comes a bunch of tanks. And all you have is this gun, you can't do anything.

Well, then that situation would be very difficult. But, of course, going door to door, and trying to clear a city of people fighting back against you. This is all stuff you hoped, never, ever occurs.

And would only occur, if they went down this road, even farther. Right?

We're not on the verge of -- as much as, it feels like atmosphere at times. We're not about to have a Civil War. Let's calm down a little bit here. Let's not have a Civil War. That's really, really bad. You really, really don't want to be at war with your government. It's really, really bad.

GLENN: It doesn't usually work out for anybody.

STU: Anybody, ever. It's really terrible.

But like, this idea that you can't stop a more powerful force, with small arms, is just not -- it's not true.

GLENN: It's ridiculous.

STU: And, yes, in theory.

GLENN: How about David and Goliath?

STU: Yes. Kind of a fundamental story to the human experience. But what are you going to do?

Yes, you could, I guess, nuke every single city. You could nuke everyone. And kill all your allies and every opponent. Right?

And then what are you ruling over?

A nuclear wasteland? I don't understand -- this is not -- this is just a ridiculous argument to make you not think.

Having the ability to protect yourself against a government, that could go into tyranny, is exactly why you don't have tyranny.

That's why it happens. Because you have that ability.

It's why we are still on the same Constitution, from hundreds of years ago. And every other country on earth, has switched numerous times.

This is an important part of our culture. And our foundation. And we need to keep it.

GLENN: Yeah. I just don't -- I just don't understand other than, they are trying to disarm you.

The only reason why we haven't fallen into real tyranny, is because the government still kind of fears you. Okay?

Used to fear you at the election. You know, at the ballot. I'm not sure that really is -- is there anymore.

They used to fear you. Giant corporations used to fear you, because you could stop buying stuff.

I'm not sure. Because now the government will just partner with them. And they will buy the stuff.

They are trying to take away everything that gives you at least a chance to give them pause.

That's all it is.

And that's why the Second Amendment is there.

And that should never be infringed.

My question is: If you have one of these guns, what are you going to do?

Back in a minute.
(music)

Good Ranchers. Where is the meat, that you put on the table, for your family, come from. I don't mean which store. I mean which farm?

Where does it actually come from?

Does it even come from America?

If buying meat that's sourced from local farms right here in America is something that matters to you, then you really, really need to try out Good Ranchers.

Not only is all of their meat grown here in the US, but it's of amazing quality.

Right now, you can get over 2 pounds of chicken free in every box for an entire year, when you subscribe.

You can get a year's worth of chicken for free, when you subscribe to any Good Ranchers box at GoodRanchers.com. Change the way you buy meat. Switching to Good Ranchers is a great idea. Make sure you subscribe today.

Use the promo code G-L-E-N-N. And claim your free chicken for a year. And $20 off your first box. New year. New you. More like the new year, we need new ideas, and new meat, with Good Ranchers. Good Ranchers. American meat delivered. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: I want to tell you a great story, we were just talking about ranchers. And farmers. There was a farmer. His name was Jodi Childress (phonetic), and he lived in a small little town called Geraldine, Alabama. And he had, you know, his life savings, retirement savings. He was not living high on the hog, so to speak.

About ten years ago, he walked into his local drugstore, and pulled the owner aside, and said, are there people here in town, that just can't afford to pay for their medications? And the pharmacist said, yeah. Unfortunately, a lot.

That farmer said, you're not allowed to tell anyone. And he gave $100 a month to that pharmacist, so he could help people in his community, without ever being owed.

He died last week, and the pharmacist thought, his town should know.

This guy do a lot and never took any credit at all. There are really good people, still among us. And -- and we don't know them, but they're everywhere.
(music)
When most of your time is spent in pain, the thing that you're constantly looking for is pure and simple hope, that's it. It's hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel when you are down. But there is light. There is hope. I know. I've been there. Relief Factor. Relief Factor helped me get my life back.

If you or someone you love are dealing with pain. Please, give Relief Factor a try. It's not a drug.

It's developed by doctors. It has four key ingredients to work with your body. To fight inflammation, which causes most of our pain and, quite honestly, most of our disease. The three-week Quick Start is only 19.95. Right now, it's a trial pack, and hundreds of thousands of people have ordered Relief Factor. And about 70 percent of them go on to order more.

So call Relief Factor at 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. Get the 19.95 three-week Quick Start now. ReliefFactor.com. 800-4-Relief.

Relief Factor. Feel the difference.
(music)

STU: Head over to BlazeTV.com/Glenn. And use the promo code Glenn. Save ten bucks off your subscription to Blaze TV today.
(music)
(OUT AT 9:28AM)

GLENN: We have an expert on what's happening with these firearms. The -- what do they call? They're called now, short-barreled rifles. Because the -- the government has changed that.

But they're -- you know, they're these -- these little like, they are AR-15s. But they have a collapsible stock.

So it comes out, pulls out. And it just makes it smaller, easier to carry. Everything else.

But I -- I don't even understand this. I don't even understand this. The ATF, have they passed this, or not?

I mean, decided. I have read this two ways. That they have already decided. And 120 days is starting soon, if not now. And then the other is, well, they haven't officially decided. But they -- but they're -- they're saying at the same time, if you want to avoid 10 years in jail, and have a potential 10,000-dollar fine, you must reclassify your legally obtained weapon as short-barreled rifles. And you have to do that through the tax stamp system, which is the worst.

It will take you months. With this administration --

STU: It sounds like something out of the revolutionary times. The tax stamp system? It seems like something with powdered wigs discussed.

GLENN: Oh, it's horrible. It's horrible. Right. You will only have 120 days to bring your firearms into compliance. ATF warns Americans with pistol braces are likely already violating the national firearms act, by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches. So they're saying, you have to register it. But even if you're doing that, you are most likely already violation -- in violation of the firearms act.

Which is a felony.

STU: Oh. Just that.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: This does -- now, Glenn. This feels like the type of thing the courts will get a hold of and say, no. Of course, you can't do that. Obviously, you can't do that. Now, I hate depending on that, because it seems like it's the bast barrier between us and insanity over and over again. And eventually, it will not work.

GLENN: All right. So here's the thing: If this stands. If this stands. What's to stop them from saying. Because Joe Biden has already said it. There's no reason for semi automatically handguns.

Almost every handgun in America is a semiautomatic. All that means is that it's not a revolver.

Okay?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We used to have like the cowboys. 6 barrels and a revolver. Just, back in the 1900. 1800s period, they redesigned the revolver.

And you got the 9/11 handgun. Which just loads, instead of a circle, in a line underneath. He's now saying --

STU: It's every gun. For people who don't know guns. It's basically every gun you buy. What is it? Eighty-five percent, 95 percent of guns?

GLENN: Every gun. At least. I think you have to buy old-timey guns.

STU: Shotguns, I guess. I mean, there's a couple of them.

GLENN: My shotgun is semiautomatic.

STU: That's true.

But a typical shotgun you wouldn't describe that way, but there's a few. But it's very rare.

What's to stop them from saying, well, by the way, you have to register all your semiautomatics. And if you don't -- if you don't get the tax stamp, then you're -- you're committing a felony. This is -- this cannot happen. This cannot happen.

STU: Nixon looked at this closely. To try to make all handguns illegal. Back when he was president. Again, this is not all of Democrats.

This is a progressivism problem. And it goes back to even the Nixon administration, where he -- on the Nixon tapes, used about highway he wanted to get rid of all handguns. How did he get rid of all of them?

You think these guys aren't doing the same thing?

If Nixon was doing it. You don't think these guys have updated this approach. This is obviously a first step in this direction. Clearly, if they get away with this, they'll do it with other models.

GLENN: So here's the ATF director. He said last week, the rule prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago.

Now, people are saying, he's redefining rifle. You can't redefine, you know, what a rifle is.

He says, almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements.

Today's rule makes clear firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections, simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles. But the same FDA -- ATF, determines determined in 2012, that pistol braces do not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm.

So what -- do we listen to the ATF then, or listen to the ATF now?

That was 2012. That wasn't under Trump. That was under Obama. So which one was right?

Do we follow the science? Is the new science the right science? Don't eat butter. Eat butter. Don't eat butter. Eat butter. This is -- this is insanity. This is insanity.

Zuckerberg Wants to Give You AI “Friends” … To CONTROL You?

Meta and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has a new goal: to give lonely Americans AI “friends.” But Glenn sounds the alarm: this must NEVER happen! Glenn explains the hidden danger in Zuckerberg’s seemingly kindhearted plan: “AI cannot, must not, and will never be your friend.” Opening that door will only give Meta insane levels of potential for manipulation and control over you.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's start with this: Mark Zuckerberg. Good guy. I mean, he brought us Facebook.

And, you know, that is the thing that brought all of us together.

Brought out families together. All the people that we lost touch with.

Oh, the world is so much better now that we have Facebook.

So now, he's got another idea. Could we play the clip of Mark Zuckerberg?

VOICE: There's a stat that I honestly think is crazy. The average American has I think it's fewer than three friends. Three people they consider friends. And the average person has demand for meaningfully more. I think it's 15 friends or something.

I guess there's probably at some point, I'm too busy. I can't deal with more people. But the average person wants more connectivity, connection than they have. So, you know, there's a lot of questions that people ask.

Of stuff like, okay. Is this going to replace kind of in person connections or real life connections?

And my default is that the answer to that is probably no.

I think it -- it -- I think that there are all these things that are better kind of about physical connections, when you can have them.

But the reality is that people just don't have the connection when they feel more alone, a lot of the time, than they would like.

GLENN: Hmm. True.

Now, let me ask you. Is there a time when you don't remember feeling so isolated? When you didn't really feel like I don't have any real friends?

When you didn't -- you had real connections with people, instead of a million connections with people that are your friends, but not really your friends?

Can you think of a time, way back in history?

I mean, probably have to go back to the cavemen, to find a time.

Oh. Before Facebook, and social media!

When we weren't all killing ourself, because we have no meaning.

Now, from the people who brought you kill yourself, because you've been on Facebook too much.

Brings you new AI friends. Oh, this is going to be good.

By the way, you know, that's a crazy stat, I think the average American has, what? Three friends. And they have a capacity for, I don't know. Fifteen or 20. I don't know.

Really think about it right now.

How many true friends, do you have?

How many true friends?

People that when you are down and out, there is nothing -- the whole world is against you!

That that person will actually stand by your side. And go, yeah.

I'm their friend.

And I don't care what you say.

How many? How many do you have?

I think I would count myself lucky if I have three.

Now, I have a lot of consequences.

I have a lot of people who we all think are friends. But as a recovering alcoholic, I've been there.

I've done that. As a recovering alcoholic,
who then also is a conservative and spoke out about the Obama administration, I know who my friends are.
I know who my friends are not.

And I think there's a lot of people that have counterfeit friends.

If you've got. Oh, I've got ten or 15 friends.

Eh.

No, you don't. No, you don't.

I've always grown up thinking, you're lucky, you're lucky, to have three, five, really good friends.

That will walk through anything with you. Do you agree with that, Stu?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You've never been there.

STU: For you? Oh, God no. But I'm just saying, generally speaking. No. I think -- I mean, you're describing a great friend. You're describing a really --

GLENN: A real friend.

STU: Yeah. Like someone you know and stick around for multiple decades.

GLENN: Yeah, I have lots of friends. You know what I mean? I have millions of Facebook friends.

STU: Right. Those aren't real.

GLENN: Right. And I have lots of friends. But the ones that are there for you always, no matter what, I have family.

And I have family.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And I have a handful of friends. I would consider you one of those.

STU: Thank you. I would as well.

GLENN: Why?

Remember, I have a drinking problem.

STU: Yeah. A lot of brain cells killed to make that decision.

But I think that you -- yes. I think the only thing that I think I'm drilling down a little bit on to try to understand. When you say, well, I have a lot of friends.

In a way, I think that's what Zuckerberg is talking about.

It's not even necessarily a great friend that you have for multiple decades. And can count on at any time.

Just the mid-level consequences, are drying up for a lot of people.

GLENN: Yeah. And why is that?

Why is that?

Because we don't talk to each other anymore.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Because of social media.

You know, when this generation says, I don't know.

I just think it's weird. I'm just now in a bar someplace.

And some stranger comes up to me and wants to strike up a conversation. I'm like, hello, weirdo. I don't know!

You think it's less weird to go online?
When people can fake everything!

Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg.

But no thanks. Okay.

STU: And they're just -- to build up on this point for one second.

There's a study that came out, the last 20 years, of how much time do you spend socializing with the people.

Again, that's not with your best friends.

This is just socializing with anyone, a human.

Every single group. Every single group has massive drops.

GLENN: Massive.

STU: Massive drops. Just give you some examples.

Ages. Fifteen to 24-year-olds. Thirty-five-point down.

In 20 years. 35 percent. So a typical 15-year-old, as compared to what they are, in 2003 and 2025, where were the two measurement years?

They're spending 35 percent less time, with other human beings.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. Can you please stop distracting me? Because I'm trying to figure out why our kids are killing themselves.

STU: No, it's really hard.

GLENN: It's very hard to figure out.

STU: To understand.

And this is the coup de grâce of this entire study, which is, the typical female pet owner spends more time actively engaged with her pet, than she spends face-to-face contact with her friends of her own species.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That is unbelievable -- not like you're in the same house as your cat.

Right? No. More face-to-face time with your cat!

GLENN: And I've got news for you. If you think your cat is your friend, wait until you die, and your cat is trapped in the house with you and you have no friends to check. They will eat your face.

STU: They will still have a use for you.

GLENN: Yeah. They will have a use foy.

STU: Not the other way around.

GLENN: Okay. Here's why I'm bringing this up today.

This is a lie, that is going to be sold to you, like crazy. And it's going to be wrapped in a beautiful, shiny package. And it's going to have from Mark Zuckerberg and others like him, on the tag.

They want you to believe, that AI and bots can be your friends.

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:

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!

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.