Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn’s interview with David Barton

October 04, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Today on radio Glenn talked a little about the debate with David but also about what David calls his ‘most important’ project yet: The Founders Bible. David calls it the Bible that built America - check out the conversation in the clip above.

Full Transcript of story below:

GLENN: Let's go to David Barton. David, where were you? Where were you? Really, it was a night we'll all remember where we were when we saw Obama questioned and taken down for the first time. Where are you last night?

DAVID BARTON: Well, actually excuse me. Last night I was actually flying in from Columbus, Ohio at the time. So I got the replays. I didn't get the live.

GLENN: It was it was amazing. Romney was such a man of honor and clarity.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: There was just no I mean, it was remarkable, I thought.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. And everything I saw after I landed was exactly that. It was the calmness and it was the competency and the proficiency and, you know, I'm sorry. What you just did with Gore in Denver is great. I've got to say if that were true from a scientific standpoint, the Broncos would be undefeated, the Rockies would be undefeated, and the Nuggets would be undefeated because every team comes into town to play those guys and that would mean none of them could win. So that may be the most ridiculous story I've ever heard, ever.

GLENN: You're a historian, I'm not, but I think you should check on that before you make that bold claim.

DAVID BARTON: I'm sure Patrick Henry had something to say on that because he talked about a lot of stuff but I tell you that's one of the best concessions of defeat I've heard in a long time. That's amazing.

GLENN: David, what do you think, for somebody because there's a lot of Americans that are not on the Romney bandwagon.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: And I think a lot of Americans were like, we've got to lose a candidate or we have this and we have that and, you know, he's not going to be able to fight in the debate. This is the debate that everyone was afraid of.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: This was the RomneyCare debate and I mean, look. He just stomped.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: What do you think is going to happen now with people on our side? Do you think this energizes them and all of a sudden they find themselves going, "I am I am anxious to vote for this guy?"

DAVID BARTON: I think that there's going to be some energy added to the fire, but I think a whole lot of energy is created by Obama himself and by really the crisis in which he's placed on the nation. I don't think there's anyone that doesn't know all the different areas that he is so screwed up, religious liberties are at stake and, you know, that was one of the things that was hit last night was life and religious liberties. I don't think there's many people don't understand that and don't understand the economic side. I think this is going to give some people some more comfort in going forward and say, "Hey, this may be a whole lot better option than what I thought." But the energy level is still high.

GLENN: Anything, anything that you saw that stuck out at you?

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. You know, what I saw was the calmness and the not being shook. The competency. He really acted like a chief executive. He handled all the stuff. He really made a contrast. And there was times when you could see the president visibly shaken.

GLENN: Yeah.

DAVID BARTON: Just, his confidence was gone. And I think that that's the image you want. I mean, I go back to what Ann Romney did. I think one of the most significant parts of what she did at the convention actually was giggling. And I say that because we've always thought of the Romneys as ivory tower, way up there hifalutin New England people and she suddenly became just like a cheerleader, just like the girl next door and it was a really cool effect. I think that's the same kind of psychological effect that it had last night. People are really comfortable with his confidence and, wow, you know, he didn't struggle. He really made the president struggle. And I think that that's part of the takeaway is that they get a confidence, a feel of confidence in what he did last night.

GLENN: I don't know if any I don't know if they've posted it yet up on TheBlaze but I tweeted a picture out today of the Romneys making peanut butter/jelly sandwiches backstage.

DAVID BARTON: I love it. Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, they're real people.

DAVID BARTON: They are. And see, that's not the image that's come through.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

DAVID BARTON: And so all the benevolence he's done and all the stories we're finding out about him, that just changes the whole image of what we've all thought about him for the last four years.

GLENN: So David, let me switch gears. I tweeted last night after it was all said and done to remember to fall down on your knees in thanksgiving.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, I prayed yesterday like never before that the scales would fall from people's eyes, that you'd be able to see who he was.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: And who Obama was. And I mean, I you know, I think this was just, you know I believe in divine providence and divine protection.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: And I think we saw that last night, and we have to give thanks.

Let me let me switch gears here a little bit and talk about your Founders Bible. Because you said to me last week when we spoke off air about the Founders Bible. You said this is probably the most important thing you've ever done.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. No question in my mind. I think the best way I've heard it described is if you go back historically, the Geneva Bible is the Bible that built America, shaped a generation because it took the Bible but it made it very practical through commentaries.

GLENN: Explain. Explain what the Geneva Bible is. That's the Bible that our founders used. It wasn't the King James Version. They used the Geneva Bible. What was the difference?

DAVID BARTON: The Geneva Bible is what came out of the reformation and it was people saying, wait a minute, I know we've done it this way for 1400 years but look what the scripture says. This is wrong. We're not supposed to be electing kings. We're supposed to be electing leaders ourselves. So that's where we get Republican government. That's why we found out that we should be buying land from the Indians rather than taking it from the Indians.

GLENN: And it was it was the commentary on the side.

DAVID BARTON: It was the commentaries that did it and that's what drove King James crazy. That's why he came out with the King James Bible. It was essentially the same language but he would not allow commentaries in the Bible. And so the commentaries is what was used to build our judicial system, our legal system, our government system, our education system, our economic system. And so the same commentaries the founders made 250 years ago, that's what we've taken to the Founders Bible.

GLENN: Okay. Now, explain this a bit when you say you've taken it from the commentaries. Because you and I have had this conversation that the language of our founders is so riddled with biblical verse that most people don't even know. If you don't know the Bible inside and out, you don't know that that's a quote from the Bible.

DAVID BARTON: That's exactly right.

GLENN: And so you took their writings.

DAVID BARTON: We took the writings. For 25 years we've been collecting their documents and writings. We have 100,000 of their writings. And what we found is they are loaded up with Bible references and Bible verses. And we've been collecting that. And then last year a Bible publisher came and said, "Hey, let's do a commentary on the Bible." And I thought, hey, this is a great time to let the Founders comment on the Bible. And for example, three times John Adams cites Jeremiah 17:9 as why they did separation of powers in the Constitution. Now, I don't think anybody today would choose that verse that they were doing separation of powers, but there's a reason they did that. The same with economic system.

GLENN: Wait, wait. Let's pretend that John Jeremiah, the one you quoted.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah, Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it." And from that they get, you know, that's the depravity of man. Man's going to do the wrong time every time he gets a chance unless there's some type of divine intervention to change his heart and so if that's the case, we better figure on government doing the wrong thing every time. So we need to divide the powers up so that maybe one branch will be righteous while the other two are wicked and maybe there's a way for one to check the others. And so they go into extensive, extensive presentation of why that verse is what drives their idea of separating the powers. And George Washington jumps on that, as does Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and others. So that becomes a very significant verse in shaping their thinking on why do separation of powers.

GLENN: What is the what is the thing as you were putting this together? What is the one place or one area or topic that you think, "Oh, my gosh, if people just knew this today"?

DAVID BARTON: You know, I don't know that there was one. The one area that got me was how applicable all the stuff is to today. When they started talking about types of taxes that are good and types of taxes that are bad, man, I saw our tax code and said we've really screwed this thing up. When I saw what they said about how to help the poor and social programs, I looked and said, man, we've really goofed this thing up. And what was profound most to me was how relevant all of that stuff 250 years ago was to exactly the stuff we're facing today. And quite frankly I may have been most shocked over all the things they had to say about abortion. Because I just didn't realize it was an issue back then. And all of the biblical references on why abortion is wrong, and I

GLENN: How did they wait. How was there abortion? I didn't know that, either.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah, I actually have an 1808 book on abortions in America. Jefferson and the other guys, and their legal codes made abortion illegal because they said it's a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's god. There's nothing in nature that kills its young while still in the womb. And as it turns out abortion was a big issue back then. But the difference was they said it's illegal as opposed to Roe V. Wade saying it's legal. So that's the kind of stuff that shocked me

GLENN: I've never

DAVID BARTON: was how applicable it was to what's going on today.

GLENN: Wow, had absolutely no idea.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: David, the you came under an awful lot attack, huge attack like I've never seen before. I talked to a preacher the other day and I said, have you read David's Bible yet? And he said, I just got a copy of it. And I said, you know, I just thumbed through it and just, you know, start reading some of the stuff in it. It's remarkable.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: He said, I think this Bible is the reason David came under attack. He said, I think that you know, I think this is so important that that's why people tried to discredit you. Not saying that they knew that. But that's why you are you've been just ravaged in the last year.

DAVID BARTON: Well, I really think that this is a new Geneva Bible. This is what will shape this generation or can shape this generation's thinking, and this will last for generations to come because it's timeless truth, of guys that did it 250 years ago. And I do think that that's probably why all of the attacks came is to try to minimize this and discredit this and bring this down before it even happened. And I didn't realize that at the time and I don't think the guys making the attacks realized that at the time, but I think, you know, in a way that both God and Satan had debates back over Job, I think that's probably what was going on at the time was, hey, this is coming out; I've got to do something to knock this down before people start reading it. And I really, I think he's right. I think

GLENN: You and I have been you and I have been ridiculed in the last couple of days because we've talked about divine providence and that, you know, the Lord's will will be done.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: If we stand, if we stand at guard.

DAVID BARTON: Yep.

GLENN: I thank you for standing guard for so long and thank you for your work. If you want to get this, you can get it at WallBuilders.com. It's the Founders Bible, the original dream of freedom, the Founders Bible. Get it at WallBuilders.com. Do it now. Every American should own a copy of this. David, we'll talk again. Thanks so much.

DAVID BARTON: Thanks, Glenn. Bless you, bro.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?