Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
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

Author: Unsealing JFK Assassination Files Is a ‘Gift’ to Many Who Still Have Questions

October 24, 2017
Staff

WRITER

More than half a century after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the government is releasing a trove of files about his death. What will be in the unsealed files? Will they actually be released as promised? And most of all, is there a smoking gun?

Gerald Posner, an investigative journalist and the author of “Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK,” talked about what we should expect to find in the documents if they are released as scheduled this Thursday.

“The gift is every word and every document that the CIA and everybody fought for so many years to keep sealed,” he said of the release.

Don’t get too excited though – Posner scoffed at the idea that we’ll discover some huge government conspiracy in the files.

“If there had been a massive plot at the highest government levels, the last place you’re going to find evidence of it is … at the National Archives,” he said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So earlier, Donald Trump came out and said he is going to -- he's going to open up the JFK files, which I think is great.

I have not heard from Rafael Cruz. I believe he has -- he is either in Canada by now, or maybe Argentina, alluding police. Because once those files come out, that show that he was clearly involved in the assassination, I think then you'll know.

But he's -- they're going to release these files, which I think is fantastic and wildly interesting for no reason than fun.

Jared Posner is a friend. An author. Case close. Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of JFK.

I have been good friends with one of his good friends for a very, very long time. So when this story came up, I immediately thought, what does Gerald think is in these files?

Welcome to the program, Gerald Posner.

GERALD: Glenn, great to be on with you.

As a matter of fact, our mutual friend, Mike Opelka, said the other day in a tweet that this coming Thursday, the day for the JFK files release is Christmas for all JFK researchers. And I had never thought about it that way before, but I think he's absolutely right. President Trump is giving us all -- those of us who have followed this case, a gift. The gift is every word and every document that the CIA and everybody fought for so many years to keep sealed.

GLENN: So did you think that this would come through this early? Because I thought it was like 2025 or after the next generation had died or something like that.

GERALD: Well, yeah, that's what Oliver Stone -- Kevin Costner addressing the jury saying, 75 years. Your taxpayer money. They're -- you know, they're keeping these things sealed from you.

And so people had -- we never thought we would see it in our lifetime. But here we are, they passed this law back in '92, in response to Stone's film, to say, let's get the files out. They put a 25-year-limit on it, to force these agencies to take a quarter century to get their act together. And said, whoever is president on October 26th, 2017, that's the person who has the final say, if the FBI, the CIA, or anybody else still says we want to hold on to these because there's an identifiable harm to national security, law enforcement, foreign relations. They'll appeal to the president. The president gets the right to say, yay, or nay. Does the harm outweigh the public good? And they could have never have imagined, I assure you, as you know, 25 years ago, you took a poll of their top thousand people they thought would be president, they never thought it would be Donald Trump.

GLENN: No. Running against the guy whose dad was co-assassin.

GERALD: Right. So Trump raises the assassination in the campaign. Now he's sitting as the president.

GLENN: Right.

GERALD: And the interesting thing is, I think, that we will only get these files -- if they really come out Thursday. They don't come in, in the last minute, convince them to hold back a few. Because it is Trump. If this had been Obama, even Bush the younger, Clinton, they were sort of system people, who followed the roles of freedom of information. They would have listened to the agency saying, you can't disclose this name because it's going to embarrass somebody in Mexico. Help the CIA.

When Trump tweeted on Saturday that these files are coming out, it was a great sigh of relief. I think he's the only person who is president since Kennedy who would have actually released them all.

GLENN: So what do you think is in there? For the average person. I mean, don't care if there's somebody in Mexico that the CIA wants to protect that I've never heard of. I --

GERALD: Yeah. No, I get it.

GLENN: What's in there that we would care about?

GERALD: Okay.

So the first thing is. Is there a blockbuster -- to use a bad term for the Kennedy assassination. Is there a smoking gun? Is there some document that shows Jay Edgar Hoover, handwriting the escape route for Oswald? No.

The reason I say that adamantly or with such confidence is -- and you get this completely -- if there had been a massive plot at the highest government levels, the last place you're going to find evidence of it is 25 years later in the national archives.

GLENN: Right. I mean, what's his name, Sandy Berger took those out in his underpants long ago.

GERALD: Absolutely. I mean, it's just fantastic to think they pulled off the perfect crime in Dallas 54 years ago, but somebody who was responsible for burning the documents forgot and left them in the backyard.

GLENN: Right. Right.

GERALD: So we're not going to get that. But what we will find that I think will be of interest is Oswald visited Mexico City, only seven weeks before the assassination. And not just as a tourist to have -- you know, stop by and have some Mexican food. He visited to get to Cuba because he convinced that was where the real revolution was taking place. He was sick of America, sick of Russia, where he had defected. And he went to the Soviet mission twice. Pulled a gun. They threw him out at one point. They thought he was a little odd, to say the least. And he went to the Cuban mission.

Now, Mexico city was a nest of spies. This was the Cold War. '63. We had the missile standoff just the year before. So the CIA was spying heavily on the Cuban and Soviet missions.

What did they learn about Oswald? Castro later boasted to somebody for the American Communist Party, that Oswald said he was going to kill Kennedy. True? I don't know. But it might be in the files.

So I do think we will find out what the CIA had learned about Oswald in Mexico City, and then what they didn't share with anybody else. Their typical MO.

GLENN: Your -- Gerald, it's been years since I've seen your book. Your theory on Oswald was, what?

GERALD: My theory on Oswald is that he is the only shooter at Dealey Plaza that day who hits anybody. So if you had five other shooters, the forensics show that the only place that Kennedy got hit was from behind. I'm convinced that that's Oswald. The tougher question, Glenn, is always, did he do it for himself, or did he do it for part of a larger conspiracy?

GLENN: Okay. So wait a minute. I want to make sure I understand the first part first. You said he's the only one that fired a shot that hit somebody. So are you saying, I don't know if there was anybody there, but if there was, it didn't matter.

GERALD: That's right. It didn't matter. That's exactly right.

So when I say Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, that's what the evidence shows to me.

GLENN: That there's only -- he was the only shooter there?

GERALD: Yeah, that's right.

GLENN: Okay.

GERALD: Yeah. And, you know, people say -- they always say, oh, I saw somebody in the grassy knoll. And I go through all of that. Or, I saw somebody out in the text building or underneath the sewer, as Garrison, the new ordinance district attorney thought there were sewer shooters, until he went to Dallas and found out the sewer area was too small to fit somebody into the manhole cover. So, you know, the -- in the beginning, this -- the country has never believed under 50 percent, that it was a conspiracy. Meaning that even within a year of the assassination, within months of the assassination, the Gallup took a poll. I think 60 percent thought it was a conspiracy. It dropped to 50, at one point after the Warren commission. And then started to head up. It was at 90, 95 percent thought it was a conspiracy after the Stone film. And a last poll done in 2013 showed two-thirds of the American public still thought it was a conspiracy.

GLENN: So -- so I -- so we're alone? Because I don't think it was a conspiracy. Do you?

GERALD: I don't. But I do, Glenn, and I think you get this, why people believe it was -- two major factors: The first modern assassination with a rifle, from a long-distance. So people immediately conjure up Day of the Jackal.

Spy novels. You know, we're used to someone running up with a pistol, shooting at a site like with Wallace or later with -- you know who the shooter is at least.

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

GERALD: So you have a rifle assassination. The shooter gets away in the immediate aftermath. Then they pick him up. He's a 24-year-old kid who has been to Russia, trying to get to Cuba. He took a posh job at General Walker, this right-wing general who is running for the governorship of Texas. And he's killed two days later, by a guy out of Central Casting. The Dallas nightclub owner, Jack Ruby, who has potential ties to the mob, you're guaranteed you're never going to end the conspiracy theorizing on it.

GLENN: And do you expect to find anything in this about the mob?

GERALD: Yes. I do. There's as a matter of fact a file that's being held about an attorney for Carlos Marcello, who was the godfather of New Orleans. Many people think the mob was involved. Think that Marcello was kicked out of the country by Bobby Kennedy. He certainly wanted Jack Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy dead, no doubt. I just think that Oswald beat the mob to Kennedy, essentially. They would have patted him on the back and given him a medal, but he just wasn't their boy. And that attorney's file will be interesting.

You know this so well. The mob and the CIA were partners in the early '60s, trying to kill a head of state. But it was Castro. It wasn't Kennedy.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

GERALD: And they couldn't even wound Castro. They wanted him out. I mean, we didn't want a communist 90 miles from the American shores. And the mob wanted their casinos back. Seven times, they tried to get them. The poisoned swimsuit, the exploding cigar. They can't pull it off. And how these Keystone Cops who couldn't get rid of Castro supposedly pulled off the perfect crime in Dallas, I have my doubts.

GLENN: So these come out on Thursday, Gerald? Can we have you back on, on Friday, after you've looked at all of them and tell us what you found?

GERALD: Now, there could be -- Glenn, I would love that.

They believe that although there are 3100 files, it could add up to several hundred thousand pages. But, not only am I speed reader, but I will be able to go through these files and look for the names that I know are key. So on Friday, I will give you what I call the first brush look at what comes out, of the equivalent of Al Capone's safe.

GLENN: And, hopefully, it will be a little more interesting that Al Capone's safe.

GERALD: I hope so as well.

GLENN: Gerald Posner from GeraldPosner.com. He's an investigative journalist and author of Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and The Assassination of JFK. We'll talk to you Thursday, Gerald. Thanks a lot.

GERALD: Thank you so much. Bye.

STU: I don't know. The death of a president, maybe read the 100,000 pages in a day. Maybe just get it done. That's my recommendation.

GLENN: He thanks you for that.

STU: Am I asking too much? I mean, we're talking about presidential assassination.

GLENN: Easy for you to say.

STU: Get to work.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.