RADIONovember 14, 2022

The ‘DISTURBING’ way Republicans could STILL lose the House

Prediction markets estimate Republicans have a 95 percent chance to take back control of the House of Representatives after last week's midterm elections. BUT, Glenn and Stu aren’t so optimistic. In this clip, Stu lays out all the remaining House races, and he explains to Glenn why Republicans getting that magic number of House seats — 218 — still seems like an uphill battle…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: So, Glenn.

GLENN: So, Stu. Nothing ever good starts with so, Glenn.

STU: Yeah. Can I walk you through the House?

GLENN: You mean my house? The unfinished house? It will be finished in six weeks now.

STU: Oh, gosh. That's terrible. I thought it was only two.

GLENN: Two. But I know --

STU: Your house will never be finished.

GLENN: Go ahead. Not that house.

STU: Now, Glenn, we have a situation, where let me give you the good news. For example, prediction markets say the House should go Republican. Ninety-five percent chance.

GLENN: 95 percent chance.

STU: That's pretty good.

GLENN: That's really good. Although, I do remember those prediction markets being very, very confident in things like Kari Lake.

STU: They were pretty confident. Now they're not confident in Kari Lake. Now they're not.

GLENN: It's changed now.

STU: In fact, now there's a 95 percent chance that Kari Lake will lose according to the prediction markets.

GLENN: Really? Huh. I wonder what happened there.

STU: Now, that's different -- she probably had a 60-70 percent chance mid-to-late last week.

GLENN: Yeah. So I trust the prediction markets.

STU: Right. They could change. Right?

But that's what they think. They're confident. Almost everybody will tell you, and you've heard this non-stop, even in the mainstream media. The Republicans will likely win the House. But can I be a little pessimistic and walk you through what we have?

GLENN: Is it pessimism, or is it reality?

STU: I think it's reality. I think it's reality.

But it's not all bad news. But just, how confident do you feel in this scenario, that I'm about to walk you through?

GLENN: Okay. I'm guessing zero. But let me hear it.

STU: I went through all the outstanding races. Okay?

Looked at them. And I have -- I don't -- what I tend to find is a somewhat disturbing situation. Okay. So I've ranked all the races in the best chance for Republicans to win.

Okay?

So 212 are pretty much in the bag. 212. Got to get to 218 though.

GLENN: Wow. 218. That's a long way.

STU: That's easy. There's a lot of races. A couple dozen races.

GLENN: Really have to be over to 20, to even -- because you know there are a lot of weasels in there.

STU: Yes. For sure. But 218 is control. And at this point, I will take 218 control. Y, yes. I will too.

STU: All right. So I've ranked them in the old school grading system from -- you know your old high school days. A, B, C, E, F.

GLENN: Oh, that's harsh.

STU: Now, none of these are completely decided, but I came up with three A's. Three.

GLENN: Three. And that means really high, according to the grading scale. These are the best of the best.

STU: Yeah. Not sure things. Let me give you an example of a race that I put as an A.

Lauren Boebert's race in Colorado. That's an A. Now, as of right now, she leads by 0.4 percent with 90 percent of the vote in.

GLENN: How many votes is she actually -- not percentage.

STU: Not percentage.

That's a good question.

I could -- give me one moment, Glenn. Of course, I can pull that up for you. And I am completely prepared to give you any detail.

GLENN: Why are you stalling?

STU: And that's what's important about this particular coverage. I can always tell you at a moment's notice. And people need to understand this.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: I think we understand.

GLENN: I think we're very, very clear. We're looking at the number of votes --

STU: In that race?

Yeah, I've got it at --

GLENN: In that race.

STU: 1,122 thank you.

GLENN: Okay. 1,000 votes away. 99 percent in.

STU: 99 percent in.

And you would think, basically what about we're talking about there. The outstanding vote, couldn't overturn it. Only if there was a recount or something else.

GLENN: All right. I feel good.

STU: I feel good. That's the type of A race I'm talking about.

With three votes, that gets Republicans to 215.

GLENN: Wait, we have three of those. Three A races.

GLENN: That are that good?

STU: I think so. There's another race in New York. 0.4 --

GLENN: Oh, in New York. Okay.

STU: 0.4 percent.

GLENN: That's not Colorado. That's New York. Okay.

STU: Yeah. I mean -- that we say it that way. You know it doesn't sound as good. You know, but --

GLENN: Right. Where is the third one?

STU: Third one.

Uh-oh. That one is in California.

GLENN: California. That one is not even New York.

That's California.

STU: All you have to do is depend on the fine people in New York and California. Again, these are close races.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: But I'm going to go ahead and give us those three. For the optimistic take here on the House.

GLENN: All right. And that gets us to.

STU: Fifteen.

GLENN: 215. Seeming even more cavernous in between 215 and 218.

STU: Right. It seemed really easy.

GLENN: Seemed pretty easy.

STU: With a couple dozen races out there. Why can't he we get -- all we need is six, right?

But now -- I only have three. So now we're at 215. You can say --

GLENN: A B is still passing. It's still a good grade.

STU: Right. It's still a good grade. How many races would you like to see in the B column to make yourself comfortable that Republicans would win?

GLENN: Twenty-seven.

STU: Twenty-seven that's a good number. That's how I would feel, because I always feel that these things will go against us.

GLENN: Sure. How many do we have?

STU: Two. Two races that are B. Just two.

GLENN: Two races. That would take us to -- to 217.

STU: Yes. And you'll be excited that here, in our B's, we have another California.

GLENN: Oh, good.

STU: You're going to be super confident. Because it's Arizona, is the other one.

GLENN: Oh, I hope it's Maricopa County. Because that one has done -- that one has done so well.

STU: Yes. Now, if we assume we have both of the A's and the B's. That gets us to not 218, which is what you need.

GLENN: No. Yeah.

STU: But 217.

GLENN: 217.

STU: Which is one less than what you need.

GLENN: So we don't have control there?

STU: Don't have control at 217.

GLENN: Now, may I ask, how much worse is a B from an A? Is it like 1100 votes?

STU: Okay. You want to go --

GLENN: Or it should be 900 votes.

STU: One race in Arizona. It's a 0.2 percent lead.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: With 94 percent of the voting. That's a B.

A B, a B, boys and girls. I'm not being unfair with these rankings. That's a B. And the only reason I say it's a B, is because it was expected to be a pretty easy -- not an easy win. But it's a purplish district. It was projected to be a Republican-leaning district this time.

Now, of course, we've seen that before.

GLENN: In what state?

STU: In Arizona.

GLENN: Good. Good. All right.

STU: And then we have a race in California, where there is a six--point lead currently for the Republican. However, only 52 percent of the vote in, that will shrink, as we get closer.

GLENN: That's B?

STU: That's B. But that was leaning Republican anyway.

They have the lead. I will give you a B. That gets you to 217. Now you go to C.

GLENN: You just need one of these.

STU: You just need one of them.

And you would like how many to be there? Just get one added.

GLENN: I would like -- this is a C. This is a C.

STU: So, again, you're in toss-up area.

GLENN: So I would like maybe -- maybe I'll shoot low. Five?

STU: Five. That's a nice guy. Unfortunately, you lose.

GLENN: I lose.

STU: Because I only have three. In the C's.

GLENN: You only have three!

STU: Now, if you're optimistic and you take those A's and B's and you're like, we can get these off, that's 217. One of these three.

GLENN: We still have the House. This kids, is going well. Is going well.

I think Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, I think they've done their job. I think they've done their job.

STU: They should be rewarded with more leadership. Don't you think?

GLENN: They should be rewarded with new positions.

STU: Now, here we have two California races, and a California in the C's.

GLENN: We have, what?

GLENN: Two California races. Please, tell me it's like in the farming area of California.

STU: Some of them are.

Again, California we make fun of. There are races that a lot of Republicans win in California.

Some of them are even favored in. But like, for example, this one, which is a -- a toss-up.

GLENN: It's a toss-up.

STU: A toss-up race, I would say right now. If you look at the projections.

Was a Biden-plus six district. So one that Biden won. But now in this environment, which is not necessarily -- it's only slightly better for Republicans. Maybe. We need the Republican to win. And, of course, we still have 30 percent of the vote to count.

We don't know at this point.

GLENN: Oh, 30.

STU: Then you get into the D's.

GLENN: Wait. That was it?

That was it?

STU: There's 3 C's.

I mean, you have -- I think there's -- there's one that is in Arizona, where the Republican leads by 0.6 percent with 89 percent of the vote in.

Which my A's, I put, if you're over 95 percent in and you're winning, put that as an A. This was at 89 percent in winning. So a chance. Certainly a chance.

And it was a likely Republican district going in. So you would think, maybe there's a chance that some of the -- some of the votes will be -- again, you see me. I'm reaching for some of these. Again, it's close.

0.6 percent lead.

GLENN: But if we won all the C's.

STU: C's, right?

That would give you to 20. Which, again, isn't great.

In fact, a lot of these mainstream people, looking at this, are like, well, we project 221 for Republicans. Plus or minus four.

GLENN: Well, that's -- that's a big plus or minus.

STU: Yes. 225 at this point, would be like, wow. That's fantastic.

217, would be bad. Bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

STU: Then you have 3D's. Then I have the rest of them are F's. They're not going to win.

GLENN: They're not going to win.

STU: Again, they're all in California, mostly in California. These are all districts that lean Democrat. And the Democrat even had the lead in a bunch of them.

GLENN: May I just ask a quick question.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Why is it that it just seems to be in the sketchy states, where they can't really count everything?

STU: That might be why we picture them as sketchy.

GLENN: It might be. It might be.

STU: That might be why. It might be something in theory, if as a lawmaker in one of these states, you would be incentivized to correct your terrible practices. Because no one believes your voting anymore.

GLENN: Correct. Or you might not be incentivized.

STU: Yeah. Exactly. So, again, you can see why, right? You would say, hey, Republicans are favored in this race. And I would say, you're probably -- maybe right.

GLENN: No. No. Uh-uh.

STU: But like 95 percent confidence. Do you have 95 percent confidence in that scenario, I just mapped out for you?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Are Republicans involved?

STU: They are.

GLENN: No. I don't have any confidence in it then.

STU: You remember us saying over and over again, Republicans should win this election. Unless they screw it up.

GLENN: Which they always do.

STU: They always do.

GLENN: I believe was the rest of that prediction.

STU: They're very good at that. You know, you have a couple of rank choice voting.

GLENN: Now, who would you say -- I'm going to give you time. I'm going to give you time.

Who would you say, are most responsible for that loss. Now, don't answer right away.

I want you to think. Is there anyone that might be responsible, that maybe we should reassign.

And I don't mean reassign their sex.

I mean reassign them to, I don't know.

Basement duty. Instead of running the show.

I just day think about it. I'll give you a minute. It's up to you and me to make a difference. To help our country become free again.

It starts with us. And our children. Look what's going on in our country today. There's a bigger need than ever before, for young people to rise up and say no to big government. But that's not happening. Did you see -- did you see, it was an ASU. Maybe it was ASU, that had the -- the voter polls. 94 percent towards the Democrats.

STU: Yeah. It was good.

GLENN: It was good. No, no, no. Seriously.

STU: Luckily, all those parents paid for the education.

GLENN: Yeah. So that's good.

Anyway, here's what you need to do: I want you to go to TuttleTwinsBeck.com. They're offering three activity workbooks. 35 percent off all their kid's books. These things will teach your kids about freedom. It will also teach your kids about socialism. And why socialism is a siren song.

It is very strong right now, and we shan't listen to it anymore. Please, get these books from the Tuttle Twins. TuttleTwinsBeck.com. TuttleTwinsBeck.com. Keep your kids safe and sane, in a crazy, socialist world. With the TuttleTwinsBeck.com.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: Who do you think is responsible for this?

STU: Based on your lead, I believe --

GLENN: No, no, don't base it on my lead --

STU: I'm trying to analyze this. I believe -- I'm talking it through like I'm on a game show. Based on your question.

GLENN: Based on my question, yes.

STU: Do we have game show music. Based on your question. I think what you want me to say.

GLENN: No. This is not -- no, this is not high school. This is not high school. I'm not a progressive teacher.

STU: I think you would have an opinion on this. And you would say, I guess I would generalize this, as Republican leadership.

GLENN: Mitch McConnell.

STU: Mitch McConnell doesn't have anything to do with the House.

GLENN: No. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. Both of them. Both of them should about it. Both of them should go. These guys were the same guys that were in those positions, under Donald Trump.

You know when they got rid of Obamacare.

STU: Glenn, they didn't get rid of --

GLENN: Oh, they didn't get rid of that. Wow. Well, these guys have done an awful lot. And Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy have got to go.

Even if they're a minority, maybe especially since they're the minority leaders.

STU: I mean, after a poor showing, usually, what you see are repercussions for the people who led the charge to the poor showing. That's usually how things work in the world. Right?

GLENN: Yes. But not here.

STU: You're a football coach. Your team is three-nine. And you're not going to make the playoffs. And you have a big payroll. Usually, you get fired.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Usually, what happens?

GLENN: Right.

STU: But that doesn't seem to be the way that these things go in Washington.

GLENN: No. No. Okay. Here are the people that can make Mitch McConnell a thing of the past. Mitt Romney, call his office.

STU: Now, Mitt Romney, is he really going to do a thing about -- he loves it. He's responsible for the red wave. Remember?

GLENN: I know. But this is what he should know.

He should know that I'm going to remember what you said about -- about Mitch McConnell being responsible.

And since you were wrong about that, I'm sure you're going to evict him. And if not, don't worry about it. Because we have a very long memory. And next election, you are out.

Remember, it's only two years.

Deb Fisher from Nebraska. Roger Whittaker from Mississippi. Rick Scott, Florida. Ted Cruz, Texas. Mike Brawn from Indianapolis. From Indiana. Josh Hawley from Missouri. John Barrasso from Wyoming.

Marsha Blackburn. All of these people need to be reminded that when you lose and you have put your money into an Alaska race, that was going to go to the Republican, no matter what. And you doubled down there.

STU: Really egregious.

GLENN: It's really egregious.

He cut money from Arizona. Could have won.

STU: New Hampshire.

GLENN: Could have won.

STU: Took the money from there. Put it into a race, where two Republicans were going against each other. Because he wanted to rescue Lisa Murkowski.

GLENN: Why? And why did he want to do that? Because the candidate running against Lisa Murkowski said, she will not vote for Mitch McConnell as leadership.

All of these senators, all of these senators, know what their constituents are saying about Mitch McConnell. But Mitch McConnell has a very heavy hammer. And he is trying to rush this thing through. You've got to call them today.

The government switchboard at the Capitol is (202)224-3121. Get on the phone. Mitch McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy. Let's start first with the Senate.

Because they're going to be meeting tomorrow. And then I guess voting on Wednesday.

We have a very short time period. Mitch McConnell must not be the majority leader.STU: So, Glenn.

GLENN: So, Stu. Nothing ever good starts with so, Glenn.

STU: Yeah. Can I walk you through the House?

GLENN: You mean my house? The unfinished house? It will be finished in six weeks now.

STU: Oh, gosh. That's terrible. I thought it was only two.

GLENN: Two. But I know --

STU: Your house will never be finished.

GLENN: Go ahead. Not that house.

STU: Now, Glenn, we have a situation, where let me give you the good news. For example, prediction markets say the House should go Republican. Ninety-five percent chance.

GLENN: 95 percent chance.

STU: That's pretty good.

GLENN: That's really good. Although, I do remember those prediction markets being very, very confident in things like Kari Lake.

STU: They were pretty confident. Now they're not confident in Kari Lake. Now they're not.

GLENN: It's changed now.

STU: In fact, now there's a 95 percent chance that Kari Lake will lose according to the prediction markets.

GLENN: Really? Huh. I wonder what happened there.

STU: Now, that's different -- she probably had a 60-70 percent chance mid-to-late last week.

GLENN: Yeah. So I trust the prediction markets.

STU: Right. They could change. Right?

But that's what they think. They're confident. Almost everybody will tell you, and you've heard this non-stop, even in the mainstream media. The Republicans will likely win the House. But can I be a little pessimistic and walk you through what we have?

GLENN: Is it pessimism, or is it reality?

STU: I think it's reality. I think it's reality.

But it's not all bad news. But just, how confident do you feel in this scenario, that I'm about to walk you through?

GLENN: Okay. I'm guessing zero. But let me hear it.

STU: I went through all the outstanding races. Okay?

Looked at them. And I have -- I don't -- what I tend to find is a somewhat disturbing situation. Okay. So I've ranked all the races in the best chance for Republicans to win.

Okay?

So 212 are pretty much in the bag. 212. Got to get to 218 though.

GLENN: Wow. 218. That's a long way.

STU: That's easy. There's a lot of races. A couple dozen races.

GLENN: Really have to be over to 20, to even -- because you know there are a lot of weasels in there.

STU: Yes. For sure. But 218 is control. And at this point, I will take 218 control. Y, yes. I will too.

STU: All right. So I've ranked them in the old school grading system from -- you know your old high school days. A, B, C, E, F.

GLENN: Oh, that's harsh.

STU: Now, none of these are completely decided, but I came up with three A's. Three.

GLENN: Three. And that means really high, according to the grading scale. These are the best of the best.

STU: Yeah. Not sure things. Let me give you an example of a race that I put as an A.

Lauren Boebert's race in Colorado. That's an A. Now, as of right now, she leads by 0.4 percent with 90 percent of the vote in.

GLENN: How many votes is she actually -- not percentage.

STU: Not percentage.

That's a good question.

I could -- give me one moment, Glenn. Of course, I can pull that up for you. And I am completely prepared to give you any detail.

GLENN: Why are you stalling?

STU: And that's what's important about this particular coverage. I can always tell you at a moment's notice. And people need to understand this.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: I think we understand.

GLENN: I think we're very, very clear. We're looking at the number of votes --

STU: In that race?

Yeah, I've got it at --

GLENN: In that race.

STU: 1,122 thank you.

GLENN: Okay. 1,000 votes away. 99 percent in.

STU: 99 percent in.

And you would think, basically what about we're talking about there. The outstanding vote, couldn't overturn it. Only if there was a recount or something else.

GLENN: All right. I feel good.

STU: I feel good. That's the type of A race I'm talking about.

With three votes, that gets Republicans to 215.

GLENN: Wait, we have three of those. Three A races.

GLENN: That are that good?

STU: I think so. There's another race in New York. 0.4 --

GLENN: Oh, in New York. Okay.

STU: 0.4 percent.

GLENN: That's not Colorado. That's New York. Okay.

STU: Yeah. I mean -- that we say it that way. You know it doesn't sound as good. You know, but --

GLENN: Right. Where is the third one?

STU: Third one.

Uh-oh. That one is in California.

GLENN: California. That one is not even New York.

That's California.

STU: All you have to do is depend on the fine people in New York and California. Again, these are close races.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: But I'm going to go ahead and give us those three. For the optimistic take here on the House.

GLENN: All right. And that gets us to.

STU: Fifteen.

GLENN: 215. Seeming even more cavernous in between 215 and 218.

STU: Right. It seemed really easy.

GLENN: Seemed pretty easy.

STU: With a couple dozen races out there. Why can't he we get -- all we need is six, right?

But now -- I only have three. So now we're at 215. You can say --

GLENN: A B is still passing. It's still a good grade.

STU: Right. It's still a good grade. How many races would you like to see in the B column to make yourself comfortable that Republicans would win?

GLENN: Twenty-seven.

STU: Twenty-seven that's a good number. That's how I would feel, because I always feel that these things will go against us.

GLENN: Sure. How many do we have?

STU: Two. Two races that are B. Just two.

GLENN: Two races. That would take us to -- to 217.

STU: Yes. And you'll be excited that here, in our B's, we have another California.

GLENN: Oh, good.

STU: You're going to be super confident. Because it's Arizona, is the other one.

GLENN: Oh, I hope it's Maricopa County. Because that one has done -- that one has done so well.

STU: Yes. Now, if we assume we have both of the A's and the B's. That gets us to not 218, which is what you need.

GLENN: No. Yeah.

STU: But 217.

GLENN: 217.

STU: Which is one less than what you need.

GLENN: So we don't have control there?

STU: Don't have control at 217.

GLENN: Now, may I ask, how much worse is a B from an A? Is it like 1100 votes?

STU: Okay. You want to go --

GLENN: Or it should be 900 votes.

STU: One race in Arizona. It's a 0.2 percent lead.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: With 94 percent of the voting. That's a B.

A B, a B, boys and girls. I'm not being unfair with these rankings. That's a B. And the only reason I say it's a B, is because it was expected to be a pretty easy -- not an easy win. But it's a purplish district. It was projected to be a Republican-leaning district this time.

Now, of course, we've seen that before.

GLENN: In what state?

STU: In Arizona.

GLENN: Good. Good. All right.

STU: And then we have a race in California, where there is a six--point lead currently for the Republican. However, only 52 percent of the vote in, that will shrink, as we get closer.

GLENN: That's B?

STU: That's B. But that was leaning Republican anyway.

They have the lead. I will give you a B. That gets you to 217. Now you go to C.

GLENN: You just need one of these.

STU: You just need one of them.

And you would like how many to be there? Just get one added.

GLENN: I would like -- this is a C. This is a C.

STU: So, again, you're in toss-up area.

GLENN: So I would like maybe -- maybe I'll shoot low. Five?

STU: Five. That's a nice guy. Unfortunately, you lose.

GLENN: I lose.

STU: Because I only have three. In the C's.

GLENN: You only have three!

STU: Now, if you're optimistic and you take those A's and B's and you're like, we can get these off, that's 217. One of these three.

GLENN: We still have the House. This kids, is going well. Is going well.

I think Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, I think they've done their job. I think they've done their job.

STU: They should be rewarded with more leadership. Don't you think?

GLENN: They should be rewarded with new positions.

STU: Now, here we have two California races, and a California in the C's.

GLENN: We have, what?

GLENN: Two California races. Please, tell me it's like in the farming area of California.

STU: Some of them are.

Again, California we make fun of. There are races that a lot of Republicans win in California.

Some of them are even favored in. But like, for example, this one, which is a -- a toss-up.

GLENN: It's a toss-up.

STU: A toss-up race, I would say right now. If you look at the projections.

Was a Biden-plus six district. So one that Biden won. But now in this environment, which is not necessarily -- it's only slightly better for Republicans. Maybe. We need the Republican to win. And, of course, we still have 30 percent of the vote to count.

We don't know at this point.

GLENN: Oh, 30.

STU: Then you get into the D's.

GLENN: Wait. That was it?

That was it?

STU: There's 3 C's.

I mean, you have -- I think there's -- there's one that is in Arizona, where the Republican leads by 0.6 percent with 89 percent of the vote in.

Which my A's, I put, if you're over 95 percent in and you're winning, put that as an A. This was at 89 percent in winning. So a chance. Certainly a chance.

And it was a likely Republican district going in. So you would think, maybe there's a chance that some of the -- some of the votes will be -- again, you see me. I'm reaching for some of these. Again, it's close.

0.6 percent lead.

GLENN: But if we won all the C's.

STU: C's, right?

That would give you to 20. Which, again, isn't great.

In fact, a lot of these mainstream people, looking at this, are like, well, we project 221 for Republicans. Plus or minus four.

GLENN: Well, that's -- that's a big plus or minus.

STU: Yes. 225 at this point, would be like, wow. That's fantastic.

217, would be bad. Bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

STU: Then you have 3D's. Then I have the rest of them are F's. They're not going to win.

GLENN: They're not going to win.

STU: Again, they're all in California, mostly in California. These are all districts that lean Democrat. And the Democrat even had the lead in a bunch of them.

GLENN: May I just ask a quick question.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Why is it that it just seems to be in the sketchy states, where they can't really count everything?

STU: That might be why we picture them as sketchy.

GLENN: It might be. It might be.

STU: That might be why. It might be something in theory, if as a lawmaker in one of these states, you would be incentivized to correct your terrible practices. Because no one believes your voting anymore.

GLENN: Correct. Or you might not be incentivized.

STU: Yeah. Exactly. So, again, you can see why, right? You would say, hey, Republicans are favored in this race. And I would say, you're probably -- maybe right.

GLENN: No. No. Uh-uh.

STU: But like 95 percent confidence. Do you have 95 percent confidence in that scenario, I just mapped out for you?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Are Republicans involved?

STU: They are.

GLENN: No. I don't have any confidence in it then.

STU: You remember us saying over and over again, Republicans should win this election. Unless they screw it up.

GLENN: Which they always do.

STU: They always do.

GLENN: I believe was the rest of that prediction.

STU: They're very good at that. You know, you have a couple of rank choice voting.

GLENN: Now, who would you say -- I'm going to give you time. I'm going to give you time.

Who would you say, are most responsible for that loss. Now, don't answer right away.

I want you to think. Is there anyone that might be responsible, that maybe we should reassign.

And I don't mean reassign their sex.

I mean reassign them to, I don't know.

Basement duty. Instead of running the show.

I just day think about it. I'll give you a minute. It's up to you and me to make a difference. To help our country become free again.

It starts with us. And our children. Look what's going on in our country today. There's a bigger need than ever before, for young people to rise up and say no to big government. But that's not happening. Did you see -- did you see, it was an ASU. Maybe it was ASU, that had the -- the voter polls. 94 percent towards the Democrats.

STU: Yeah. It was good.

GLENN: It was good. No, no, no. Seriously.

STU: Luckily, all those parents paid for the education.

GLENN: Yeah. So that's good.

Anyway, here's what you need to do: I want you to go to TuttleTwinsBeck.com. They're offering three activity workbooks. 35 percent off all their kid's books. These things will teach your kids about freedom. It will also teach your kids about socialism. And why socialism is a siren song.

It is very strong right now, and we shan't listen to it anymore. Please, get these books from the Tuttle Twins. TuttleTwinsBeck.com. TuttleTwinsBeck.com. Keep your kids safe and sane, in a crazy, socialist world. With the TuttleTwinsBeck.com.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: Who do you think is responsible for this?

STU: Based on your lead, I believe --

GLENN: No, no, don't base it on my lead --

STU: I'm trying to analyze this. I believe -- I'm talking it through like I'm on a game show. Based on your question.

GLENN: Based on my question, yes.

STU: Do we have game show music. Based on your question. I think what you want me to say.

GLENN: No. This is not -- no, this is not high school. This is not high school. I'm not a progressive teacher.

STU: I think you would have an opinion on this. And you would say, I guess I would generalize this, as Republican leadership.

GLENN: Mitch McConnell.

STU: Mitch McConnell doesn't have anything to do with the House.

GLENN: No. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. Both of them. Both of them should about it. Both of them should go. These guys were the same guys that were in those positions, under Donald Trump.

You know when they got rid of Obamacare.

STU: Glenn, they didn't get rid of --

GLENN: Oh, they didn't get rid of that. Wow. Well, these guys have done an awful lot. And Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy have got to go.

Even if they're a minority, maybe especially since they're the minority leaders.

STU: I mean, after a poor showing, usually, what you see are repercussions for the people who led the charge to the poor showing. That's usually how things work in the world. Right?

GLENN: Yes. But not here.

STU: You're a football coach. Your team is three-nine. And you're not going to make the playoffs. And you have a big payroll. Usually, you get fired.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Usually, what happens?

GLENN: Right.

STU: But that doesn't seem to be the way that these things go in Washington.

GLENN: No. No. Okay. Here are the people that can make Mitch McConnell a thing of the past. Mitt Romney, call his office.

STU: Now, Mitt Romney, is he really going to do a thing about -- he loves it. He's responsible for the red wave. Remember?

GLENN: I know. But this is what he should know.

He should know that I'm going to remember what you said about -- about Mitch McConnell being responsible.

And since you were wrong about that, I'm sure you're going to evict him. And if not, don't worry about it. Because we have a very long memory. And next election, you are out.

Remember, it's only two years.

Deb Fisher from Nebraska. Roger Whittaker from Mississippi. Rick Scott, Florida. Ted Cruz, Texas. Mike Brawn from Indianapolis. From Indiana. Josh Hawley from Missouri. John Barrasso from Wyoming.

Marsha Blackburn. All of these people need to be reminded that when you lose and you have put your money into an Alaska race, that was going to go to the Republican, no matter what. And you doubled down there.

STU: Really egregious.

GLENN: It's really egregious.

He cut money from Arizona. Could have won.

STU: New Hampshire.

GLENN: Could have won.

STU: Took the money from there. Put it into a race, where two Republicans were going against each other. Because he wanted to rescue Lisa Murkowski.

GLENN: Why? And why did he want to do that? Because the candidate running against Lisa Murkowski said, she will not vote for Mitch McConnell as leadership.

All of these senators, all of these senators, know what their constituents are saying about Mitch McConnell. But Mitch McConnell has a very heavy hammer. And he is trying to rush this thing through. You've got to call them today.

The government switchboard at the Capitol is (202)224-3121. Get on the phone. Mitch McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy. Let's start first with the Senate.

Because they're going to be meeting tomorrow. And then I guess voting on Wednesday.

We have a very short time period. Mitch McConnell must not be the majority leader.

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:

Did the New York Times Just Admit It Curates Your Truth?

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.