Do Your Research HuffPo: Washington Had Three Copies of Don Quixote

February 24, 2016

Writer

Unlike Glenn, the Huffington Post is evidently not a student of history --- nor fond of research, for that matter.

Rather than publish with journalistic integrity, HuffPo decided to throw caution to the wind and publish an unsubstantiated hit piece questioning the authenticity of a book Glenn owns and has taken along on the campaign trail. The book in question is George Washington's volume of Don Quixote. The hit piece, titled "Mount Vernon Says It Owns George Washington's Copy Of Don Quixote, Not Glenn Beck," was published yesterday.

"The Huffington Post wrote a story, and it says, you know, Glenn Beck's people didn't respond for comment. Well, we weren't given a chance to comment on a story. They put a phone call in and then pushed print. And they went to press on this story, as they called us. We had no time to respond. And it is the sloppiest journalism I have ever seen," Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program.

So let's fill in the blanks and do HuffPo's work for them.

George Washington owned three copies of Don Quixote --- two in English, one in Spanish. The first English copy and the Spanish version are owned by Mount Vernon. The second English copy is owned by Glenn. That copy was given to Tobias Lear, George Washington's personal secretary, who was at Washington's bedside when he died. He then gave it to his son, Benjamin Lincoln Lear.

"Mount Vernon will not deny that George Washington had three copies, and he gave one to Tobias Lear," Glenn said. "How do I know they won't deny it? Because there are records at Mount Vernon that show it. He was a record keeper."

The Don Quixote copy that Glenn now owns came from the Lear family through an auction in Maine. It first went to the James D. Julia Auction House, a highly respected auction house, and was bought by Bauman Books in New York. Glenn purchased Lear's copy of Don Quixote (that was gifted to him by George Washington) from Bauman Books in New York --- and it's all documented.

"Now, I don't think you care at all about rare book dealers. ...But you know who does care? Me," Glenn said. "And here's why: Because people are now saying I'm dragging out a fake Washington book all around the country. And now they're starting to question the Washington compass, which also has documentation."

When Glenn acquired Washington's compass he was bidding against none other than Mount Vernon. Their response upon losing it to another bidder: "It doesn't matter. Some day we'll get it anyway."

Both relics of Washington's that Glenn has taken on the campaign trail --- the copy of Don Quixote and the compass --- were acquired through the highest ethical standards and from the most reputable antiquities dealers. And there's documentation to prove it.

"If it's fake, I'm going to file a gigantic lawsuit," Glenn said. "It will be a "uge" lawsuit. It will be the most magnificent lawsuit you've ever seen."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: But while we're here kind of talking about history this half-hour, I just want to address something that came out from the Huffington Post yesterday. And I think outrageous.

The Huffington Post wrote a story, and it says, you know, Glenn Beck's people didn't respond for comment. Well, we weren't given a chance to comment on a story. They put a phone call in and then pushed print. And they went to press on this story, as they called us. We had no time to respond.

And it is the sloppiest journalism I have ever seen. They ran a story. And it's all over Twitter this morning. They ran a story that I have this copy of George Washington's Don Quixote, which I've been taking around and talking about in all of my speeches. And they claim -- they called Mount Vernon to find out if that's George Washington's copy of Don Quixote. And they said -- and Mount Vernon said, "We have George Washington's copy of Don Quixote." So Glenn Beck must be a liar.

Here's the thing, George Washington owned three copies of Don Quixote. An English -- I'm sorry -- two English and one in Spanish. I have the second English version that he bought. In his library, it has his writing in it, it has his book plate in it. My copy was given to Tobias -- what was his name? Tobias Lear. Tobias Lear was the personal secretary that was at the bedside of George Washington when he died. He then gave it to his son, Benjamin Lincoln Lear. This book has -- from the personal library of George Washington book plate over it. Over that book plate is a book plate that says Benjamin Lincoln Lear. It also has George Washington's handwriting in it.

Mount Vernon will not deny that George Washington had three copies, and he gave one to Benjamin -- or, he gave one to Tobias Lear. How -- how do I know they won't deny it? Because there are records at Mount Vernon that show it. He was a record keeper.

This book came from the Lear family, through an auction in Maine. They finally let it go. It went to an auction house called the James D. Julia Auction House. Highly respected. It was bought by Bauman Books in New York. Bauman Books, the reason you would ever pay the price that Bauman pays -- because you're not getting a deal when you go to Bauman, is because you know the provenance. You know that this is -- is impeccably recorded on exactly -- when they say this is what it is, that is exactly what it is. Somebody brought it from Bauman Books, and I bought it from them.

Now, I don't think you care at all about rare book dealers, you know, previously had a book from George Washington. But you know who does care? Me. And here's why: Because people are now saying I'm dragging out a fake Washington book all around the country. And now they're starting to question the Washington compass, which also has documentation.

And, you know what, let me tell you something. I paid a fortune for these things. And these people who are printing these things are hurting the monetary value of those items. And they're only trying to do it because it's the same group of people that try to discredit any kind of history that is coming from a conservative. They have their own political motives for doing it.

HuffPo. When we called the HuffPo and said, "Hey, what's the deal?" Guy said everybody else was going to run with it, so I just had to run with it. You didn't even talk to us. So that excuses you for sloppy journalism? I paid a fortune for this. I have all of the documentation. It's solid documentation. And documentation that Mount Vernon will back.

And you know who was bidding against me for the compass? Mount Vernon. You know what they said when they lost, "It doesn't matter. Some day we'll get it anyway."

So if it's fake, I'm going to file a gigantic lawsuit -- it will be a uge lawsuit. It will be the most magnificent lawsuit you've ever seen.

PAT: And how long --

GLENN: The documentation is there. Hang on just a second.

And if these people are right, then I'm suing for enough money to put my name in gold on every building in New York and then maybe I'll be angry enough to run for president.

(chuckling)

PAT: And it took you a long time with that compass to scrape off the Made in China stamp on the back of it.

GLENN: Yes, it did.

JEFFY: It doesn't just come off.

GLENN: No.

PAT: So it just pisses me that they're doing this to you now. Because that wasn't easy.

GLENN: Yeah. I know it was very difficult to get the Made in China off. Just amazing.

PAT: You literally paid a fortune for that compass. And wasn't that part two of their investigative series --

GLENN: Yes. Tomorrow. Tomorrow, we question the compass.

PAT: Yeah. So, I mean --

GLENN: Jeez. If I need to drag around the documentation for everything -- so when I was on the road and said, "This is George Washington's." And we went back and checked the tape. There were times that I said, this is the one that he got on that day, and that wasn't the one he got on that day. He had three copies.

So that wasn't the one that he got on that day. But usually I said, "This was George Washington's copy of Don Quixote." And they're questioning that this was George washington's copy. And the only reason why they said that it wasn't was because they went on record because people were calling Mount Vernon saying, "Glenn Beck is lying, isn't he?"

And they said, "No, we have George Washington's copy of Don Quixote."

Yes, you have two of two them. He had three of them. I have the other one. But nobody cares to listen to that.

And so it's just sloppy journalism, at best.

STU: Obviously, no one -- they don't care --

GLENN: Nobody cares about that. Nobody cares about this.

STU: What's the reason they're doing this? The point you're making with the book, is that what they're attacking?

GLENN: No. No. The reason I brought the book out was how was it George Washington -- on the day they signed the Constitution, what he said was, in his diary, "Signed the Constitution today. I pick up my copy of Don Quixote."

So how -- that book has always bothered me. I look at it, and I'm like, "Okay. What was he trying to say? What was Don Quixote speaking to him about? Why was this book so important?"

It really isn't that. Because to me that's like somebody saying, "I save the world today, and I'm going to Barnes & Noble." What is that? And so what it was, was he finished the Constitution with purity, with exactness. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. And as he said at the end of the Constitutional Convention, the event is in the hand of God.

So he did exactly what he was supposed to do. He knew that that a future generation would see the Constitution. They would be faced with -- he didn't know what it would be, but totalitarian, socialism, you know, or the status quo. And people wouldn't know which way to run. And they -- because they did the right thing, in his words, they raised the standard to which the wise and the honest would run to. And so that allowed him to, when he finished say, "Yeah. And I get to go read a good book. I've heard these great things from this ambassador about this story. I've got that book coming in. I can sit under my tree on my farm and read."

The point I'm trying to make with the book is: When you do the right thing, you can sleep at night.

And George Washington saw this time, and he gave us the -- he gave us where we should be going. We shouldn't be going to socialism. We shouldn't be going to a strongman. We shouldn't be looking for the status quo. We should run to the Constitution. Because it was done with exactness and they could sleep at night, and we'll be able to sleep at night because our answers are all contained there. Our problems are because we didn't adhere to the Constitution. America, run to the Constitution. The event is in the hand of God.

Featured Image: American television personality and radio host Glenn Beck holds a copy of a Don Quixote book as he talks about Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz during a campaign event at the Johnson County Fairgrounds January 31, 2016 inIowa City, Iowa. Cruz is campaigning across the state on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. (Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images)

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep