GLENNFebruary 20, 2017

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

In 1970, the woman at the heart of Roe v. Wade — Norma McCorvey --- was a self-proclaimed confused 21-year-old mother who found herself pregnant. Three years later, she would take on the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” and become the prominent plaintiff in the history-making Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade. After the landmark Supreme Court decision, McCorvey dedicated her life to overturning it, and became a notable pro-life advocate.

On Saturday, McCorvey died as a pro-life advocate at the age of 69.

"So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often," Co-host Stu Burguiere said on The Glenn Beck Program.

Of her role in the landmark court case, McCorvery had this to say in 2012:

I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought "legal" child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie. Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

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

PAT: The reason we have abortion on demand today is because of someone named Norma McCorvey, just a young woman who had an unwanted pregnancy and she decided to have an abortion.

STU: Just 21 years old.

PAT: Yeah, just 21.

STU: She herself said she was very confused at the time.

PAT: Right.

STU: She had gone through sort of crazy relationship issues.

PAT: And she was only pushed toward abortion when she went for help. She was pushed toward abortion. And from just about the minute she had the abortion, she regretted it. Actually, did she have the abortion?

STU: No.

PAT: I don't think she even wound up having the abortion, now that I think of this. She didn't even have an abortion.

STU: Yeah. That's the interesting part of the story.

PAT: She actually wound up having her child.

STU: Because the court case took too long.

PAT: That's right.

STU: She had birthed before that. And it wasn't immediately after. She had a period where she was still on board.

PAT: Still okay with it. That's right. That's right. Took a few years.

STU: And advocated for abortion and eventually turned around. One of the interesting things about it is, in the abortion debate, you always hear this: Well, what? So if the life of the mother is in danger, you want there to be no abortion. That's what you want when you say you want Roe vs. Wade repealed.

PAT: And, by the way, first of all, thing one, that almost never happens.

STU: No. Almost --

PAT: If this were 1783, it would happen all the time.

STU: Yeah, yeah, very important in 1700s.

PAT: It isn't the 1700s anymore. Or even the 1800s or even the 1900s. It's 2017. And doctors will just tell you that just doesn't happen. I've talked to doctors who have delivered thousands, tens of thousands of babies. And they've told me it's never happened.

STU: I will say particularly with partial-birth abortion, they say it never happens. You know, a pregnancy can complicate a lot of different things, obviously. And so it's not -- you know, the earlier it is, the more common. But, still, the issue with this particular thing, which I find to be so interesting is that when row -- Jane row, also known as Norma McCorvey, went to the doctor back in the day -- at that time in Texas, abortion was legal in the case of the mother's life being endangered.

PAT: Hmm.

JEFFY: Wow.

STU: That was the only exception they had at the time. But they had that exception before Roe vs. Wade in the state where Roe went to get the abortion. That is how ridiculous this has been twisted.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: That has always been an exception. It is a pre Roe vs. Wade exception. And honestly like an understandable one in that at the very least you're making some decision -- it's at least justifiable in that you might make the decision based on -- you're essentially choosing one life over the other at that point.

PAT: Oh, if it's between my wife and the unborn baby --

STU: Of course.

PAT: -- you're choosing the mother of your children every time. The love of your life.

JEFFY: You have to, right? You have to.

STU: So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often.

She -- the case went on for a long time. It wasn't until the mid-'90s that she became a born-again Christian and was received by the Catholic Church. I think she was Catholic for a while. I think she converted from that too. But she remained Christian. She said that she became a real -- a real outspoken opponent of abortion. I mean, think about this. You know, think about -- like what if Rosa Parks was, "You know, I was wrong about those buses." This is a big change. You know what, we should be sitting in the back. I got to be wrong on that one.

That would be a story, I feel like.

PAT: Yes, it would be a story.

STU: I don't think that would have ever happened. But it's an interesting thing in that this is the case, the name that everyone knows, Roe, this is the woman who came out and advocated against this procedure for two decades.

PAT: If it was Wade, you wouldn't have minded as much.

STU: No.

PAT: Because Wade was the person trying to allow her to have the abortion, right?

STU: No.

PAT: Or actually Wade didn't want her to. She was fighting for --

STU: Roe was the one. Yeah.

PAT: But, I mean, it's never talked about that even the person who got this law overturned, all through America and legalized abortion, even she was a very staunch abortion opponent.

STU: So she went as far as to work for an abortion clinic. Okay? She was working at an abortion clinic. And she had an anti-abortion group move in next door to her. I mean, think about this. They always say, "Oh, you shouldn't be able to protest out in front of one of these clinics." Think of this story: They moved in next door. During smoke breaks -- during smoke breaks, someone from Operation Rescue, which is Reverend Philip Benham said she was completely pro-abortion.

They started talking. Slowly, they became friends. And that was kind of the genesis of her conversion. And, I mean, it's an incredible story.

If this was the opposite -- like, for example, you know, some terrible ruling that the person who was involved in it recanted and went the other way. And I say a terrible ruling as far as the left's perspective. This would be the ultimate movie. This woman's story would be an incredible movie telling this incredible conversion.

JEFFY: Conversion.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to think of a good example of one. But there's been many of those stories, where the person comes out and at first advocates for the wrong side of the policy. And then history proves that they wound up being on the right side in the end because they converted in the middle and took a tough stand and couldn't believe what they previously had stood for. That's this story.

PAT: Right.

STU: It's just a policy they don't like, so almost no one knows it. And --

PAT: You're right. She would be celebrated. I mean, there would have been many, many major motion picture movies released about her.

JEFFY: What's interesting that too is that she began her conversion just by talking, you know, out back, smoking a graduate with the people that were against it next door. Didn't have anything to do with burning cars, throwing signs, hollering, dragging crosses across the street. It was just --

PAT: Killing abortion clinic doctors. None of that extremism.

JEFFY: Right. None of that. None of that.

PAT: How old was she?

STU: She was only 69. And she was in an assisted living facility.

JEFFY: At 69?

STU: Yeah, really -- really sad. Because, you know, was an important voice. The voice, really.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And an incredible thing -- an incredible turn of events. And I still think to this day -- and I've said it before on the air that I think this is going to be looked back in whatever -- 100, 200 years -- I don't know what the time line is, as the slavery of our day. The type of thing that people who believe and advocated for it will be trashed by future generations, the way they trashed the Founders for having slaves. And, again, a lot of that is unfair. And you have to view it in the period of the -- you know, you have to view it in the context of the time where it occurs. But it's the type of thing that will be so unthinkable, particularly as technology advances.

We're to the point now -- we showed a video on Pat and Stu the other day of a new type of ultrasound.

Thank you, Jeffy.

A new type of ultrasound where you can see the baby doing baby things. This is not like it's blurry and you can kind of see the face. They had the 3D ultrasounds that came out, you know, within the last, what? Fifteen years. And now they're kind of common. You can get them. They're more expensive.

But it's like to the point of basically you see the baby playing and turning around and doing all sorts of things that you'd recognize from a baby. And this is at 20 weeks.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: This technology is going to prove to people that this is a crazy process.

PAT: And you think, wow, that's an active piece of broccoli in there.

STU: No, it's not broccoli, Pat. No, it's going to be a baby. Yeah, it's a baby.

PAT: Wow.

JEFFY: My heart must be working on that carburetor for that Buick moving around.

STU: No, it's not a Buick. It's not a Buick. It's a baby.

PAT: Are you sure?

STU: And over time, technology is working against the, quote, unquote, pro-choice argument here. The more we see these little pieces of broccoli as babies, the harder it is for people to justify this decision.

PAT: Yeah. And it's interesting because Beyonce is being celebrated right now because she's so very, very pregnant. And she's not pregnant with tissue or a Buick. She's pregnant with twin babies. Babies. And they've said it. And she says it. And, well, okay. Then how is it that nobody else is pregnant with babies? They're pregnant with tissue or a fetus or you don't want to say the word.

JEFFY: It's really strange that she's --

PAT: It's a weird phenomenon.

JEFFY: I mean, Beyonce is celebrated for -- because, well, she's the queen. But, I mean, over the past few years, they've really celebrated several -- numbers of celebrities for having babies, that it's this wonderful thing.

Like, what are you talking about?

STU: Well, and that's, of course, because they all know it's true.

PAT: Sure they do.

STU: They all know it.

PAT: They do.

STU: They all realize.

PAT: And that's why I cut them no slack for the time period. Because the time period is 2017. They know what's growing inside the woman and it's a human baby. They know that.

STU: Understood. However, I will say, it's a legal process. Society has decided --

PAT: Still.

STU: And really, the courts have decided that this is a legal process. So it should be viewed within that context. I think there are a lot of people who look -- you know, I'm not thinking about the thinkers. I'm not talking about people who are involved in this debate. You know, the debate as currently constructed is debating about whether it should be allowed before -- or excuse me, only before 20 weeks. I mean, there's -- we're talking -- we're giving you a five-month window to figure out whether or not you're going to keep this thing or not. And that's still considered too restrictive. It's not considered too restrictive in Europe. But it's too restrictive here. So that's completely different.

I think a lot of people who go to an abortion clinic, who grow up in a family where this is approved of, they just don't go into deep thought about it. It's a legal thing. They have a problem. They eliminate the problem.

And that is what -- you know, why it's important for us to continue blabbing about it. I mean, there have been hosts that have banned abortion talk on the air. We didn't talk about it all that often for a decent amount of this show's history. And we've talked about that before. It is important to talk about. It needs to be thought about.

You don't get the pass of, well, I don't know, it's legal, and it would solve my current problem as is. It needs to be considered thoughtfully.

JEFFY: And being against abortion is not hating women.

STU: No.

PAT: It's just the opposite. Just slightly over half of the people born will be women.

STU: Yeah, 27, 28 million would be alive under our policy.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That would not be alive under the left's policy.

PAT: The hateful thing is to terminate all of those women, all of those females. That's the War on Women right there. You know, in Australia -- an Australian politician just said that -- because I guess in Queensland, Australia, they're -- it's still a criminal offense to have an abortion in some circumstances. And some MPs have said they won't support the legislation to decriminalize it. It's only lawful to prevent serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health.

But there's a politician saying that he believes these politicians owe women an explanation. It's a real cop out. If you're voting no, then you're saying it's appropriate for it to remain in the criminal code. Well, yeah, murder should remain in the criminal code.

And they're trying to make a big issue out of this. Because they're acting as if the women are the criminals, when the ones that are charged are the doctors. If you perform -- just like in this country, when there was -- when there was a criminal act involved in the abortion, it was the doctors that were held accountable, not the women.

STU: I see what you're saying. You're saying women can't be doctors.

PAT: Well, okay. Women doctors sometimes could be involved here.

(chuckling)

STU: Unbelievable.

You played that trick on me a few weeks ago. But, yeah, I mean, obviously that's the way it's typically enforced.

But, I mean, really, it's not -- while the legality issue is incredibly crucial. And, you know, when you have something that is -- violates a central tenet of this country being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when you have something that so clearly violates that tenet, I can't -- it needs to be more than legal. Right? It's a situation where we wake up. We talked about this a while ago. In the 1950s, 45 percent of white people said, if a black person moved in next door to them, they'd move. Forty-five percent of white people in a poll said that.

JEFFY: What year was that?

STU: 1954. Mid-'50s.

Now that number -- well, and this is a number that's now 20 years old. I haven't seen an update for it because the poll I saw said only 1996 was the latest they did this. In 1996, it was 2 percent.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: From 45 to 2 percent. That's not because of law. That's not because they passed laws saying that black people must move next to white people.

It's because people -- white people over time realized how dumb their position was. Right? And they had a moral change of their heart, understanding the reality of the situation, which is that you shouldn't move out of your house if black people move in next door. It sounds silly.

JEFFY: It sure does.

STU: To say that now. Back then it was half of white people said that, almost. Forty-five -- and, you know, we know how difficult it is to deal with realtors and all the paperwork and all the craziness. This is not like I wouldn't go talk to my neighbor if he was black. This is, I would move. I would leave my home if a black person moved in next door. That number goes from 45 to 2 percent. Not because of law. Because people had a change of heart. Because people made convincing arguments over a long period of time. And right now, while it's a very split partisan issue, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that.

And, you know, a lot of people say, "Well, you know, you should be able to have it for X amount of time. And afterwards, you know, then it has to stop." The majority of the people say no to late terms. And that's good. But you need to be consistent here.

PAT: It's pretty close on abortion at all.

STU: Yeah, it's about split.

PAT: It's about split halfway down the country right now. It's almost 50/50. But I think it's 53/47. Something else. Right in there. So I think we have the momentum right now, and we just need to keep it.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: Good.

RADIO

WARNING: Digital slavery is HERE | Whitney Webb sounds the alarm

Artificial intelligence is being sold as the ultimate tool for progress and convenience, but at what cost? Glenn Beck sits down with investigative journalist Whitney Webb to uncover how Big Tech and government powers are quietly constructing a “digital prison” that feeds on human data, erodes individual freedom, and conditions society into passive dependence. Webb exposes how the seductive promise of comfort and automation masks a deeper agenda: cognitive manipulation, emotional engineering, and a move toward a post-human future.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

RADIO

Is AIPAC proof that Israel CONTROLS the US?

Glenn Beck was recently asked a question during his TPUSA speech at the University of North Dakota: Is the fact that AIPAC doesn’t have to register as a foreign agent under FARA evidence that Israel has unprecedented control over the United States? Glenn did his homework and presents his findings: It looks like the real issue is our own laws…

Watch Glenn's TPUSA speech HERE

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There is a -- a phrase that is carved into the marble at the Supreme Court, and it says "equal justice under the law." Equal justice under the law.

That is the one thing that we've really forgotten about here in America it seems. You want special justice. You want justice for this group or that group. But, no, I want equal justice. It's why justice is blindfolded. Justice should never see who is at the bench.

They should see, what are the facts of the case? And who is at the bench should not make a difference. I don't care if you're rich or you're poor, you're homeless, or you're Bill Gates. I don't really care. I want to know the facts. And then we judge that, not looking at the person.

That's the closest we can come to perfect justice. And the farther -- the more we take that blindfold off of justice, the more corrupt justice becomes, and we know this. Because that's why if you were black back in the day, you couldn't get a fair hearing. A fair trial. Because justice wasn't blindfolded, okay? That's why it's up on the Supreme Court.

Equal justice under the law. And it's not a suggestion. It's not a slogan. It is the beating heart of the American experiment. You know, no man. No movement. No institution. No creed stands above the law!

Now, the reason why I bring this up, is because last week I was in a turning point event in North Dakota, and I said all the way through, "I hate these question and answer things."

Because I don't believe -- hate conflict. And I also don't believe anybody is doing anything other than trying to win. When you're in a crowd, somebody is trying to win. I don't play that game. I don't like that game.

I like honest questioning. And you also have to have a debate, where you can talk about -- you can talk about subtle things. You know, you can -- you have to be able to look at things, not everything is black and white.

There is right and wrong, yes. But now, how do we get there?

For instance, last week -- yesterday, I talked to you about AI. Earlier, this seems like last week already. Earlier in hour number one, in the podcast. I was talking to you about AI.

And I don't know the right answer on that yet. We have to have that debate.

But an honest debate on things. So last week, I started taking questions, and, boy, did they take these and selectively edit. Interesting.

But I was asked, you know, Glenn, how come AIPAC -- that's the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee -- how come they don't register as a foreign agent under FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act? Well, I know that Hunter Biden was supposed to register under that. Or was he?

Now, I said at the time, I don't know anything about it. I haven't looked into that. But I will do my homework on it. Because I want to know. And my guess is: If they don't, then there's something wrong with our law! Okay?

Either they're giving special favors that they shouldn't, or many people are getting special favors, and they shouldn't. Everyone should have to obey the law. And equal treatment.

Justice is blind. Okay. So let me tell you now.

I went home. I did my homework. Let me tell you what I found on AIPAC. First of all, it is bigger than AIPAC. Much bigger. It is a mirror held up to an uneven application of American law. Let me tell you what FARA is supposed to do. It was passed in 1948, to stop the Nazi propaganda. People were -- there were lots of Nazis here in America. And it requires anyone that is working on behalf of a foreign government, to register as a foreign agent.

Seems simple.

But is it?

It requires transparency and accountability. But here's where it gets murky in the law: AIPAC is an American lobbying organization, registered under the lobbying disclosure act, not FARA.

Because it's funded and run by American citizens, not a foreign government. Now, that's the legal line. Now, I don't agree with this. But that's the legal line.

But AIPAC is not the only one running this. So why are we only hearing about the Jews controlling the government, when -- and AIPAC doing it, when they're not the only one.

Did you know the National Iranian-American Council, the Armenian Assembly of America, the Turkish Heritage Organization, even Saudi Arabia's ARAMCO, their subsidiary, Motiva operate under exactly the same -- you want Saudi Arabia and ARAMCO?

Why are they not paying it? Why are they not registered under FARA? Now, some people will defend this. Because they say, these are groups of diaspora. They are US-based subsidiaries. They have domestic roots, et cetera. I don't buy any of that bullcrap. I mean, that's me. I mean, we can argue it, but I don't agree with that. Because I think it's a really dangerous loophole that allows quiet foreign money to come in and influence and hide behind a US address.

But here's where it gets serious. This is not just a legal issue. This is about truth.

When you and I or anyone else, begin selecting only the facts that make our point, while ignoring those that don't, we stop doing research, and we start doing propaganda.

If you've listened to voices that pick and choose data, to inflame your anger, you have to start asking yourself this question. Is my source being honest.

I ask you all the time, do your own homework.

I'm the guy who I think popularized that with the youth now.

Do your own homework.

Don't take my word for it. Do your own homework.

But that requires that you do homework on all fronts. You ask honest questions. Am I wrong?

Is this wrong?

I want to read the opposite side. And I want to see what's credible on both sides and bring it together.

Example, once you learn that the Iranians, Cubans, Saudis, Armenians, and Turks all have the same objection, yet it's only the Jewish organization that is accused of secretly controlling Washington, do you see -- a disturbing pattern here.

Because the -- the argument starts to sound less like a legal concern, and more like something far older and darker. And that was my point. I said, look, you don't to have agree with Israel.

I don't want to fight their wars. I don't want to do anything. I support them in their right to defend themselves as they see fit.

I don't support anything like genocide. I don't believe they're doing genocide.

I do believe Hamas is. And I do believe you can make a very, very clear case, that Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran are evil.

And I said, look, you don't have to accept Israel. And you don't -- you don't have to accept Hamas. You can say nobody is a good guy in this. But when you look at things like AIPAC. If there's more, and this is what I said, if it's about something legal, then we have to correct that. And the argument would be over.

I could say what I'm saying today, and say, look, we should have listened to Tom Cotton. He introduced legislation on this. All of this has to stop.

So let's do that. Why are we dividing ourself on an ancient Jews control the world thing, when that's not even true about AIPAC, okay?

Because everybody else is doing that too. The problem isn't Judaism. It's not Islam. It's not any one nation. Quite honestly, if you want to be honest, the problem is our laws and our politicians.

Equal justice under the law. It must be our demand every day. Jew, Muslim. Gentile.

Hunter Biden. Everyone -- everyone should be the same under the law. What's happened instead, is that this loophole has become a weapon.

And people twist it, to their own, you know. Their own the light.

To suggest that AIPAC, you know, runs the US government and the Pentagon and the president, which is laughable, especially this week. That is laughable.

Just look at the events of the last few days. Do you really think that Donald Trump is being controlled by Israel?

Have you heard what he has said to Benjamin Netanyahu?

Have you seen all of the Egyptians and the Saudis and everybody else and the Arab world, all now lining up for this peace?

When he bombed -- when he bombed Iran, he's not fighting Israel's war.

When he bombed Iran, it wasn't for Israel. Any more than it was for I didn't want and Saudi Arabia. You found out yesterday, that the one thing they all unite on, is that Iran is the real problem there.

And what he did was a -- a show of peace through strength. The same principle, that ended the decades of stalemate between Arab nations, and Israel.

And here's another thing. When you stop sending pallets of cash, to your enemies, and you start saying, don't do that anymore!

And I'm serious. They tend to listen.

And what was the result?

You could speculate, and I worried at the time.

I said it, on the air. I'm worried that this could slate things.

But it didn't. So what is the result?

The result was not an endless war where we're over fighting in the Middle East. I don't want that. And neither do you.

The result was true Arab Israeli peace. The first chance of true peace in -- in a millennia.

And now, he's taken that credibility of saying, look, I'll be tough on the Arabs. I'll be tough on the Iranians. I'll be tough on the Jews. I'll be tough on Hamas.

However, I will say, Hamas, you do these things.

And I'm with you. He yesterday invited Iran into the League of Nations.

Look, just because we bombed you, it doesn't mean we hate you. We want you to have peace.

So come on in. Now he's taken that same credibility, and now he's turning it towards Russia and Ukraine. And he's doing that.

He's meeting with the leadership of Ukraine, on Friday.

And he's going to apply the same exact principle.

And here's what's going to happen.

The same people who said he was once a Russian puppet, will now accuse him of getting us into a war with Russia, and do Ukraine's bidding.

Which one is it?

Which one is it?

May I suggest a third reason? Maybe, just maybe, for the first time I believe in my lifetime, we are seeing America -- an American president doing America's bidding.

Trying to broker peace. Trying to keep us out of these endless wars.

Because honestly, isn't that what all of us want. I don't care who you voted for. Do you want more foreign wars?

Because I don't.

I'm tired of it.

Do you want to see more blood and treasure spilled in some unknown country?

Wants that -- isn't that what we all want is an end to these wars. No more young Americans spilling their blood in distant deserts or frozen tundras, for somebody else's freedom, who I don't even know if they really want freedom?

I want freedom here.

I want to -- I want to able to show the world, what people who actually understand what freedom is.

Know what the high price is, that we have to pay for our own freedom. Not your freedom.

Our freedom. What we can do in that freedom.

We want to be a shining city on the hill.

That everyone can look at, and go, look at those guys. I want to be more like them.
Not going over to other countries and jamming it down their throat. I want peace, but peace grounded in strength and honesty.

And the unbreakable, carved in stone, promise of equal justice under the law.

That's what we have to do, to restore faith in the republic.

We have to stop taking little bits and pieces. Look at the whole thing and say, what's corrupt? Well, what's corrupt here might have started as a good thing. But it's no longer a good thing.

We have to change the law. Equal justice under the law.

I'm sorry. If you are doing the bidding, Hunter Biden or AIPAC. Or the Iranian Council or Armenian Council, or whatever. I'm sorry.

We have to tighten this down. Because money has changed. It's changed!

Things that were happening in 1945, 1955. '85. '95. So that I have.

It's changed, and I don't want any foreign influence coming into this country, unless we know exactly you're -- you're influencing for a foreign country.

Because this is what makes us different than every other country that has come before. And that's not ideology. That's not party. That's not tribe.

That's how we have to define America again. If we're going to survive.

So you may not like it. I'm sorry.

But you asked me to do my own homework on AIPAC. There it is!

RADIO

China vs. US: The battle for rare earth minerals and AI dominance

There is a quiet war brewing between China and the US over rare earth minerals and AI. We CANNOT lose this war, Glenn Beck warns. But can we win it without destroying ourselves in the process? Glenn Beck explains why we must have this conversation and connects 4 stories from around the world that reveal what’s coming…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I told you about gold here. Record highs.

And it is telling us something. Usually, it would tell us if the dollar is in real, real trouble. I think, and I am guessing at this now.

But I think what this is telling us, is that the whole world, the system is in trouble. And let me give you an example. I'm going to talk to you about something to try to make sense of it here. But I do have a good answer. Because we're not having these conversations. I have told you for almost 20 years, when it comes to AI. We must have these conversations now, because the world is going to change overnight. And we are at that point! We are at the point of singularity. Where there is no turning back. And we haven't had these conversations. Do you want to win the AI war?

I will tell you, we cannot lose it. But to win it, we may have to sacrifice so much on the altar of liberty, that I don't want to fight it!

So what do we do?

Let me explain. Something has shifted in the world. And most people cannot feel it yet.

But if you're paying attention, you understand, there is something on the horizon. One day soon, we're going to wake up, and we're going to realize, uh-oh. I think we crossed the line here. Quietly, silently. While no one was paying attention, everything changed.

Over the past few days, while the world was paying attention on what's going on in Israel and the Middle East. There's a couple of other really important headlines that caught my attention.

And at first, they all seemed unrelated. Just random stories from around the world. But when you look closer. And this is what I think I do best.

I take things that are seemingly unrelated. And say, wait a minute. Wait a minute.

I think they all fit into this category.

So let me give you some threads here.

First thread is China. Beijing just tightened its grip on rare earth elements. These are the minerals that make absolutely everything possible. Your smartphone. Your electric car. Your missile defense system. Your refrigerator. Everything depends on these rare earth minerals. China, because of our inaction and stupid policies over the last couple of decades, control now, 80 percent of the world's supply chain. That cannot stand. Now, what they're doing, is they're choking it off! They're now closing it up, and they are threatening the West. No more rare earth -- rare earth minerals. If that happens, we cannot defend ourself.

Do we have rare earth minerals? Yeah. We have lots of them. But we're not mining them.

It will take a decade to start mining them, up in Alaska. Where they mainly are.

That's why Donald Trump was saying, we need Greenland!

That's what he was saying. Rare earth minerals. Because they're already mining them there. And we cannot lose them!

Now, they're choking it off, and rare earth stocks exploded overnight.

Because whoever controls those minerals, controls the future. Now, here's the second threat, the Pentagon.

Out of nowhere, they made a billion dollar emergency order for those same rare earth minerals. That's not normal. That's not paperwork. That is the sound of the military quietly preparing for something, a shortage. Possibly in a storm. Like I said, we are -- because of what Biden did in Ukraine, we are -- are wholly unprepared for any kind of military action. We don't have the materials.

And at the same time, everything is changing to high-tech. We don't have the rare earth minerals, and the chips now, to make our guided missile systems.

The third threat, JP Morgan Chase. One of the most powerful institutions on the planet, just announced this week, a $1.5 trillion investment plan. In what they call security and resilience.

That's not going to mom and pop shops. That's not going to community loans. That money is being funneled straight into AI, defense manufacturing, and critical minerals.

It's as if the Pentagon and Wall Street just linked arms and decided to build a fortress economy together.

Then came the fourth threat. Nobody paid attention to this one. In Europe, the Dutch government just seized control of the Chinese-owned chip maker on their own soil.

They invoked emergency powers and nationalized the company to stop the Chinese influence over the semiconductor industry. That's not good. Four stories, four continents, four quiet tremors in the ground. When you weave them all together, that's when you begin to understand what all of this means. So let me try to do that.

The old world, as we know it is dying! Pragmatism the world of free markets. The world of open trade. Individual enterprise.

The world that lifted billions out of poverty, is being replaced now, slowly, but surely by something new.

And this one is being done in the name of security.

And I don't have an answer for this. This is why we must pay attention, and talk about it now!

Corporations now are aligning with state power. Before, we had the tech industry, aligning itself with the government to control speech.

This is the government aligning themselves with tech rare earth minerals, et cetera, et cetera. To be able to win the AI war.

This -- this -- all of this is a single unspoken motive. And that is, the race to dominate artificial intelligence. This is the new arms race. This is the nigh Manhattan Project. The new nuclear weapon. Except, this is a million the times more enslaving than nuclear weapons could ever hope to be.

Whoever masters this first, whoever gets to AI and AGI first will control the economies, the information, even your thought itself.

Every rare earth mineral, every chip, every line of code, they're all ingredients in that same contest. And the nations are moving fast. They're hoarding materials now.

They're beginning to seize companies.

They're building walled off supply chains. This is happening on their side. And on our side.

And the free market in this particular place, is no longer free. It's being drafted into a digital Cold War. Now, that sounds bad, but now let me tell you the danger that nobody seems to get.

When nations go to war, even an economic war, freedom always becomes a casualty. We tell -- we tell ourselves, we're fighting for liberty. And we are!

Because we don't want to live if had a society like China, right?

I don't!

But when survival is on the line, governments tighten control for our own good. They regulate. They ration. They censor. And one day, you look up, and you realize, the line between democracy and technocracy is gone. If the -- if the West wants to win this AI war and we must, then we have to have a conversation.

Why are we even fighting this war?

Because if in winning it, we become China. Why not let China just win?

If we adopt the same top-down control. The same surveillance. The same emergence of government and corporate power. Then what did we actually win?

Didn't we just trade one master for another?

The old global system, free enterprise, open markets, individual liberty.

It is being rewritten in real time.

And the threads are now all coming together. And they are -- they are weaving a new tapestry.

I don't know what the tapestry looks like. I can guess what that tapestry looks like.

And I don't like it.

Will it be woven, from freedom, or will it be woven from fear?

If we lose sight of who we are -- look, our global leadership, it's already lost sight for who we are. They don't care. They don't care.

None of them care. They'll get to this global dominance over the individual, one way or another, in their book. You must care. You must stand for freedom. You must be at the head of having this conversation. Because if we lose sight of who we are, it -- this tapestry is going to be strong, efficient, and unbreakable.

But it will not be free. Some take can, historians will look back at this moment, and they will go, what happened?

They're going to see these quiet headlines. These invisible decisions that are being made right now. And they will realize, this is when the new world began. They will be able to look at this point and say, this was it!

Why didn't people see it?

Hmm.

The answer to that is office.

We have -- we're overwhelmed with everything that we have to do. Everything we're looking at.

This has been a very well-planned takeover of freedom.

You have to ask yourself: When the weaving is done, whose pattern will we be living in? Because that is what is coming.

There's a story in the show prep today, that I really want I to live. I will talk to you about it in a second. Western executives who visit China are coming back terrified. You don't have any idea how far China is ahead of us.

And you can say, well, I don't want to be China. Well, you will be China, and China will be controlling you, if we don't push back.

But how do we push back, without becoming China.

Listen to this next story.

You can find it in our headlines. If you just go get the free email newsletter, at GlennBeck.com.

Western executives are visit China are coming back terrified.

I will explain it to you, coming up in a second. First, our sponsor this half-hour, it's JASE Medical. Headlines, this week. Have been a mix of relief and reality. Good news, in some places, in chaos and uncertainty, still just one turn away.

If there's one thing the past few years have taught us.

It's that supply chain systems and stability can change overnight.

And when that happens, the most fragile link are the ones we take for granted. Our access to the medications our family needs.

JASE Medical was created exactly for that reason. They put emergency antibiotics and essential medications into your hands, before you need them. You just fill out a simple online form. A licensed doctor will review it.

And your JASE case will arrive. Filled with real prescription-grade medicines. For life's what I forget moments. It's not fear. It's responsibility.

Because being prepared is not paranoia. It's what keeps small problems from becoming emergencies.

Whether that's a storm or delay or crisis halfway around the world, your family deserves the peace of mind that comes with JASE Medical and their JASE Case. Be ready for before the world reminds you why you need to be ready.

When you order your JASE Case today, use the promo code Beck. B-E-C-K. You'll get a discount on it. Go to JASE. J-A-S-E.com. Get a discount, at JASE.com. Promo code Beck.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
I am in Washington, DC. I'm actually at the Rush Limbaugh studios at the Heritage Foundation. I can't help them enough for the short notice, I was invited at the White House, over the weekend, to join the president and -- in honoring Charlie Kirk on his 32nd birthday today.

My receiving the freedom medal, and I'll be there along with a lot of other people. And I really can't wait to experience that. And hope to have some time with the president later today, and talk about some other things.

There's a lot of things going on. By the way, you can watch this ceremony, at TP USA. Turning Point USA YouTube. And the channels at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time.

And I hope to see you there. And I'll be back in the studios in Dallas tomorrow, to give you more about that, as we -- as we continue.

Okay. So let me give you this story. Western executive visit China, who are coming back. Quote, it's the most humbling thing I've ever seen, said Ford's chief executive about his recent trip to China. After visiting a string of factories, Jim Farley was left astonished by technical innovations being packed into Chinese cars from self-driving software to facial recognition.

The cost and quality of their vehicles is far superior to that on which I see in the West. We are in a global competition with China, and it's not just EVs. If we lose this, listen carefully, there is no future at Ford! If we lose this, there is no future at Ford.

Another executive: This one from the EU says, I can take you to factories in China now, where you'll basically be alongside a big conveyor belt, and the machines come out on the floor and begin to assemble parts. You're walking alongside this conveyor, and after about 800 meters, a truck drives out, and there are no people involved.

Other executives describe a vast dark factory, where robots do so much of the work alone, that there's no need to even turn on lights for humans.

We visited a dark factory, producing some astronomical numbers of cell phones.

The process is so heavily automated, that there were no workers on the manufacturing side, just a small number who are there to make sure a plant was working.

You get this sense of change, where China's competitive has gone from government subsidies and low wages, to a tremendous number of highly skilled, educated engineers, who are innovating like mad. Between 2014 and 2024, the number of industrial robots deployed in the country, rocketed from 189,000 to more than 2 million. It is -- just give you -- just let me give you this. Last year, China added 295,000 robots. Germany added 27,000.

The US 34,000. The UK, 2500.

The UK is over. I mean, it's just absolutely over. It boasts 567 robots for every 10,000 manufacturing workers. 449 in Germany for every 10,000. And 307 for the US.

So this is not -- this is -- I'm not preaching this because this is, you know, good for the country. It's bad for workers. It's bad for workers.

But China is doing it for a couple of -- a couple of things. First of all, their policy is known. I can't pronounce it in Chinese. But it translates to replacing humans with machines.

In China, they don't need to have a Patriot Act.

A really, super great thing for auto workers. No.

Replacing humans with machines, is the name of the policy.

Okay.

And it is -- it's happening everywhere. Everywhere. They can develop and execute models in probably half the time, that most European car makers can make.

And they're doing it, partially because they're seeing the decline in their birthrates. And they know, we're not going to have the workers to be able to do this.

But what's disturbing is. All of these robotics, are needing power.

They also need AI.

So they are building these gigantic server farms, which we are still breaking ground on. They're building them. They're building new power plants. One power plant, coal-fired power plant every week. And I think 40 -- can you look this up, Stu?

I think it's 40 nuclear power plants a year.

We're not building anything!

We're not building anything.

We're breaking ground on it.

Trump has already said, he's cutting all of the regulations.

But we're still far, far behind.

And we are getting close to the point where they win, we lose.

Again, I don't know what to do about it. Except, have a conversation about it. Because I've read the conversations from the left. I've read the conversations from World Economic Forum. And they don't care. They will take you and literally put you in a drug -- a drugged state, and put you online, and you're just going to play video games, your whole life. That is honestly their plan for a large number of people in the West, that will be just no longer usable. Undesirables. Well, I don't like those labels.

RADIO

FBI investigates Glenn's expose on Antifa network

The FBI showed up to Glenn's house to discuss his TV show exposing Antifa's network. Glenn shares what he learned from his "surreal" meeting and warns any member or funder of Antifa: you should be a little concerned because the FBI is SERIOUS about investigating you.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me tell you something else that's changed.

Let me start with this. Cut five here.

Here are the new talking points for the media on Antifa.

Listen to this.

VOICE: This is an entirely imaginary organization. There's not an Antifa.

VOICE: Look, I don't even know what Antifa is.
VOICE: There is no growth.

VOICE: It's not even like far right groups, like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, compared to right-wing extremists, Antifa-linked violence is rare and limited.

VOICE: It is an organization.
It is -- it is in many ways mythology.

VOICE: It's not like the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers. You know, they're defined terrorist organizations, the leadership that led -- that, you know, leads violence.

VOICE: It's not a highly organized movement. It's a moniker. It's not even a group like the Proud Boys are.

Things like Antifa are things that are thought up.

VOICE: These guys are going after Antifa, which is nothing. There's no organization called Antifa.

VOICE: Nobody is a member of Antifa because it doesn't exist! They are just claiming existence to something that doesn't exist.

VOICE: There is no Antifa organization, so maybe that's good for social media.

But it really has -- is nonexistent.

VOICE: They exist on the internet and chat rooms.

And in 4chan.

GLENN: Okay.

VOICE: And places like that. Where they run discussion boards. Trade tactics.

Documents. Things like that.

But none of them are called Antifa.

STU: What!

GLENN: I don't even know what they're talking about.

You want to talk about living in a different world.

But that's what's going around.

Now, let me just tell you this: Last week, I did a TV show that apparently got the FBI's attention.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: The topic was -- was initial investigation. A jumping off point, shattering the myth that Antifa just -- oh, it's -- it's just leaderless. And decentralized. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

We thought, no. It's really not. So we dove in. Head first.

And we analyzed the Antifa network. And we went from the street thugs, to the support groups, eventually, to the funding.

Okay?

To say the FBI was interested in this might be an understatement.

Let's just say, the FBI is turning over every single stone.

It is so clear to me, that they are exploring all angles of this. And they are talking to anyone and everyone that can give them think kind of information.

How do I know?

Saturday, I get a phone call.

The director would like to send over some agents to speak to you, Glenn.

And I'm like, the director?

The FBI agents?

Yes, you said, some things that they need to talk to you about.

Well, good things or bad things? "They'll be over."

Three agents sat in my living room on Saturday afternoon for almost two hours. And I immediately called Jason. I'm like, Jason, you're the researcher. It's your fault. I'm going to throw you under the bus. You better get your butt over here.

So Jason was there. My wife and I sat there, and it was surreal at one point. I talked to them for about 15 minutes just going over the Tides Foundation. And saying, if you understand Tides, you'll understand how difficult your job is going to be. And this is information that I first gave on Fox years ago.

Let me just say this: Finally, we have an administration and an FBI director, that is willing to go in deep. Not surface. But deep!

I could only imagine what we could have avoided, if anyone in an administration, would have done this, in 2011.

But if I were in that, imaginary group, of Antifa, which, by the way, has imaginary leaders. Leaving the country to go maybe to imaginary countries outside of the US right now. I would be very concerned. If I were a part of anything that was sending money their way or assistance their way.

I don't know!

I might be a little concerned, because the FBI is deadass serious.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Donald Trump, Kash Patel, and all of the agents at the FBI.

GLENN: We're covering from Allie Beth Stucky's big event, six or 7,000 women showed up this weekend for a weekend conference. It was -- it was unbelievable.

STU: Really, I saw the crowds. It was incredible.

GLENN: Yeah. She did a great, great job. I'm so proud of her. She's just killing it. But we will try to get to some of those clips because they're really, really good. We'll get to those later on in the program. You know, Stu and I were talking about how Antifa doesn't exist. And, you know, that's like saying -- it's like saying Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. Well, you're right.

There is no way, you know, 501 Broadway, you know, where you go to al-Qaeda's office. That doesn't happen, but it does exist, and it's an ideology.

And while they may not -- they may not take their direction from the same person at the office, I don't know. There's no HR. So they don't exist. They exist!

They exist. And they're loosely affiliated. And sometimes, they are getting money. You know.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And for the press and everybody else to say -- when you're watching them all over the country, and they're doing exactly the same thing, same tactics. Every -- everywhere.

You know, to say, they don't exist is just infantile.

STU: Yeah. It's like a -- it's -- I don't know what the word -- there should be a word for this, if there isn't.

But there's a real point used in an intentionally dumb way to mislead.

Is that malinformation? Is that what that is?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: It really is. There's a real point to it. They're disengaged from a centralized thing. This makes them more dangerous. This is how you had to deal with terrorist cells back in the day. However, they're using it in a way that makes it seem like it's not a threat, which is not accurate. And they know it's not accurate. And they're trying to mislead people with a piece of --

GLENN: Why would you -- why would you support -- why would you try to brush Antifa under the rug? I mean, it's just perplexing.

Glenn's Show Prep

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

WARNING: Digital slavery is HERE | Whitney Webb sounds the alarm

Is AIPAC proof that Israel CONTROLS the US?

Transcript

China vs. US: The battle for rare earth minerals and AI dominance

Transcript

FBI investigates Glenn's expose on Antifa network

Transcript