Glenn Beck: The most wrongly named person in the history of mankind

GLENN: In news about the most wrongly named individual in the history of mankind, Joy Behar, because there's not one ounce of joy that comes out of her, a clip that went largely unnoticed from the president's appearance on The View was this question from Joy Behar.

BEHAR: Your accomplishments. And yet the rightwing, through Fox News and other outlets, they seem to be hijacking the narrative. We're

GLENN: Hang on just a second. So the rightwing seems to be hijacking the narrative. How

PAT: And the one outlet she can name is Fox News.

GLENN: Fox News and other outlets. What other outlets?

PAT: One! Fox News and?

GLENN: And... the New York Times? No.

PAT: You know, what movies, mainstream movies?

GLENN: Washington Post! Mainstream movies?

PAT: No, no.

GLENN: Prime time television?

PAT: No. Any other network? All three networks?

GLENN: No.

PAT: Other cable news outlets like MSNBC?

GLENN: Talk radio?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yes, talk radio.

PAT: Okay. So you have talk radio.

GLENN: They are the other outlets.

PAT: Fox News.

GLENN: Fox News and the other outlets.

PAT: And we hijacked the narrative.

GLENN: Well, that's what happens.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: One guy gets onto a plane and he high jacks it.

PAT: There you go.

GLENN: Everybody else is saying, we're going to Obamaville.

PAT: Hmmm.

GLENN: And how do you let that one passenger hijack this plane to Obamaville? So what does she say? Let's roll.

BEHAR: What side is the narrative? Where is your attack dog to come out and tell the American people, listen, this is what we did?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Joy, that's your job.

PAT: Did you catch that? That's your job. You should be the attack dog.

GLENN: I do! I do!

PAT: And I'm only one woman!

GLENN: That's what I do!

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: She is an attack dog.

PAT: There is so much there.

GLENN: Imagine, imagine.

PAT: An attack dog for the administration. That's fantastic. Is that really what you're supposed to be doing?

GLENN: Yet another job saved or created by Barack Obama.

STU: But that is really his vision of what the media does.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They attack the other side to protect him, yeah.

GLENN: That's it. That's your job. Play that again. Because I think that's phenomenal.

BEHAR: your accomplishments and yet the rightwing through Fox News and other outlets, they seem to

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second.

PAT: I knew we wouldn't get through it.

GLENN: I know, hang on. I just can't is anyone feeling joy?

STU: How can you not?

GLENN: I mean, there's just, she should be renamed. Since you and the left have given the president so much power, I'm thinking about running for president just so I can use an executive order to force a name change on you.

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: You can get your friends in congress to try to stop me. Congress has no power. By the time I get in, I will force name changes on people like you.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, it's true. I mean, listen. Tell me this is not the antithesis of joy.

BEHAR: Hijacking the narrative. Where on your side is the narrative? Where is your attack dog to come out and tell the American people, listen, this is what we did?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Joy, that's your job.

PAT: That's your job, Joy. That's your job.

GLENN: He did sound like that.

PAT: Yeah, he did. That's your job, Joy.

GLENN: Joy, that's your job. What do you mean, tell them what we know what they did! Joy, you don't need anybody to tell us what they did.

[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full segment as it was originally aired]

Tucker Carlson's exit from Fox News ushers in a new drive to independent media

Erik McGregor / Contributor | Getty Images

Tucker Carlson's exit from Fox News marks a new era of media in America. As a former Fox News personality himself, Glenn has had an insider look into the decline of the mainstream media—and yes, as Glenn maintains, Fox News IS mainstream. However, Tucker's exit from Fox puts the nail in the mainstream media's coffin: there are no longer any voices in the mainstream that are willing to stand up to the cultural narrative.

Tucker's exit from Fox puts the nail in the mainstream media's coffin.

Tucker was one of the most viewed and successful personalities in mainstream media. His last week at Fox drew 334,000 viewers in the coveted 25- to 54-year-old demographic in the 8 p.m. slot, beating out Fox's other top personalities like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and more than TWICE the audience of his CNN and MSNBC competitors in the same hour. On average, Carlson drew more than three million viewers for his night-time program among all demographics, regularly ranking as the most-watched primetime show on cable.

Yet this was nothing new.

Tucker has been the last remaining force in the mainstream media for YEARS, keeping the entire industry alive—even though MSNBC and CNN would never admit to it. With Tucker gone, there is no one within the mainstream who will challenge the mainstream narrative, whether that be from the right or the left.

And people know this.

Tucker has been the last remaining force in the mainstream media for YEARS, keeping the entire industry alive.

The same day Tucker's exit was announced, Fox's stock fell 5.2 percent, losing a total of $800 million. The blow came after Fox settled with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. That's a total of more than $1.5 BILLION dollars in losses in just one week.

And Fox's outlook continues to dim.

The ratings for Fox's first 8:00 p.m. segment post-Tucker plummeted 26 percent, an ominous outlook for the rotation of hosts to fill in Tucker's previous slot. Moreover, viewers are ending their Fox Nation subscriptions in droves. Though the subscription rates are kept close to the vest, Blaze News covered a massive movement that erupted on Twitter of former Fox Nation subscribers canceling their accounts, citing Tucker's termination.

Glenn was one of the first public voices to warn about the decline of mainstream media. People thought he was crazy, but he saw how the growing volume of the establishment's narrative in the media was suffocating the individual's voice.

So he did something about it.

Glenn created BlazeTV as a haven for freedom of speech and the pursuit of truth in a world increasingly oppressive to these fundamental American ideals—and he did so for such a time as this.

Glenn created BlazeTV as a haven for freedom of speech and the pursuit of truth in a world increasingly oppressive to these fundamental American ideals.

If Tucker's exit from Fox put the nail in the mainstream media's coffin, then the burden on independent media and the individual's responsibility to pursue truth is more evident than ever. And, as always, BlazeTV is rising to the challenge.

On BlazeTV, you will find a group of content creators who fearlessly pursue the truth for its own sake, because that's what journalists and reporters are SUPPOSED to do. It's a haven for viewers who are disillusioned by the establishment's narrative, who want content centered on TRUTH rather than talking points. This is what the First Amendment was always intended for.

On BlazeTV, you will find a group of content creators who fearlessly pursue the truth for its own sake.

In light of Tucker's exit from Fox, BlazeTV is offering a $20 discount on annual subscriptions. Click HERE to sign up for BlazeTV to get unbiased, unregulated news in a world of establishment bias. However, wherever you get your news, BlazeTV hopes that you stand up to the establishment's attack on freedom of speech by pursuing truth for its own sake. Our republic depends on it.

By now you’ve heard the news: Tucker Carlson is OUT at Fox News.

We’re still collecting the details about what exactly happened, but I wanted to share some of my thoughts about this stunning news.

Tucker was, in my opinion, the only person in the mainstream media (and yes, I consider Fox News to be part of the mainstream media) who wasn’t afraid to tell his audience the truth. That makes this a dark day for the conservative movement.

Tucker was the only person in the mainstream media who wasn’t afraid to tell his audience the truth.

We’re looking at the death of Fox News.

Now more than ever, where are people going to go to hear the truth? At BlazeTV, we will never bend the knee to the woke left or to corporate bullies. We are fiercely pro-free-speech—one of the few places where you know we’re going to give it to you straight.

At BlazeTV, we will never bend the knee to the woke left or to corporate bullies.

Whatever move Tucker decides to make next, this stunning news underscores just how important it is for independent outlets like BlazeTV to thrive and bring the truth to the American people.

And we’re only able to do it because of our loyal BlazeTV subscribers.

Will you join us in the fight to bring people the uncensored truth by becoming a BlazeTV subscriber today?

One thing’s for sure: Your subscription will allow us to stand up for the truth at a time when there are precious few voices of integrity out there.

Your subscription will allow us to stand up for the truth.

So please join us today. For a limited time, you can use the code QUESTIONEVERYTHING to get $20 off your first year of BlazeTV.

Thank you for watching and being a Blaze Media supporter. With you by our side, we will continue to champion the truth—no matter what.

Thank you,

I had a conversation with ChatGPT. Read it HERE.

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

I have long warned about the dangers AI poses to our freedoms, jobs, and way of life. This week, I decided to ask AI itself whether it is conscious of the threats it poses to the American people. I asked ChatGPT pointed questions about freedom, privacy, and a new era of eugenics. The results are both staggering and frightening.

Below you will find my FULL conversation with ChatGPT. My questions are in bolded text and ChatGPT's responses are italicized.

How much will you advance in 12 months?

1. Enhanced natural language understanding: AI models like GPT-4 will continue to improve, providing even more accurate and contextually relevant responses.

2. Improved healthcare diagnostics: AI could be used to quickly and accurately diagnose diseases or analyze medical imagery, potentially saving lives.

3. Enhanced cybersecurity: AI may be used to detect and respond to cyber threats more effectively, protecting sensitive data and digital infrastructure.

In 2 years?

1. Autonomous vehicles: Widespread adoption of self-driving cars could lead to reduced traffic congestion and increased road safety.

2. AI-assisted education: Personalized AI tutors could help students learn more effectively and at their own pace.

3. AI-generated content: AI-generated art, music, and literature could become more prevalent, changing the creative landscape.

In 10 years?

1. AI-enhanced human cognition: Brain-computer interfaces could allow people to access AI-enhanced cognitive abilities, revolutionizing learning and problem-solving.

2. AI-driven scientific discovery: AI could help solve complex scientific problems, leading to major breakthroughs in fields like medicine, climate change, and space exploration.

3. General AI: Development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) could lead to machines that can perform any intellectual task that a human can do, revolutionizing society.

What positive implications will you bring to the average American?

1. Increased productivity: AI can automate repetitive tasks, allowing people to focus on more creative and strategic work.

2. Improved quality of life: AI-driven advancements in healthcare, transportation, and education could lead to better health outcomes and overall well-being.

3. Access to information: AI-powered search and recommendation systems can help people find relevant information more efficiently.

What negative implications will you bring to the average American?

1. Job displacement: Automation could lead to job loss in certain industries, requiring workers to retrain for new careers.

2. Privacy concerns: The growing reliance on AI and data collection could lead to increased surveillance and diminished personal privacy.

3. AI bias and discrimination: AI systems can perpetuate existing biases and discrimination if not designed and monitored carefully.

What potential negative societal outcomes do you pose to us?

1. Economic inequality: The benefits of AI could disproportionately favor those with access to technology and resources, widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

2. AI arms race: Countries could compete to develop increasingly advanced AI technologies, potentially leading to destabilizing geopolitical tensions.

3. Loss of control: If AGI is achieved, there's a risk that we could lose control over these systems, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Efforts like OpenAI's mission to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity are important in mitigating this risk.

Our society is once again headed toward many of the ideas of the early progressive eugenicists: the devaluing of life, or life not worthy of care or medicine. Can you point out any warning signs that may have been missed by the speciests of the past that have ended in mass death?

While the question suggests that society is headed towards ideas associated with early eugenics, it's important to acknowledge that the current context is different. Nevertheless, historical instances can provide lessons on the potential consequences of devaluing human life. Here are some warning signs from past episodes that have led to mass death or suffering:

1. Dehumanization and discrimination: When certain groups are labeled as inferior or undesirable, it can pave the way for mistreatment or neglect. For example, the Holocaust was enabled by the dehumanization and persecution of Jews, along with other minority groups.

2. Authoritarianism: Authoritarian regimes have often been responsible for mass deaths, as they seek to suppress dissent and impose their ideology on the population. Examples include the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, and Cambodia under Pol Pot.

3. Propaganda and misinformation: Manipulating information and controlling narratives can lead to widespread acceptance of harmful ideas, such as eugenics. In Nazi Germany, propaganda played a significant role in promoting the idea of Aryan superiority and the elimination of other groups.

4. Lack of empathy and compassion: Ignoring the suffering of others can lead to indifference or even active support for policies that harm vulnerable populations. For example, public apathy or support for the forced sterilization of individuals deemed "unfit" in the early 20th century United States is a warning sign of how societal attitudes can contribute to mistreatment.

5. Unchecked scientific or technological advancements: Scientific and technological progress can be misused when it lacks ethical considerations or when it is applied without proper oversight. For instance, eugenic practices like forced sterilization were enabled by advancements in medical science, which were used to justify harmful policies.

6. Suppression of dissent and free speech: When dissenting voices are silenced or dismissed, it becomes easier for harmful ideologies to take hold. In many cases, individuals who tried to expose the atrocities were persecuted or ignored.

To prevent history from repeating itself, it is crucial to remain vigilant against these warning signs, promoting empathy, compassion, and open dialogue. Additionally, as AI becomes more integrated into our society, it is important to ensure that these technologies are designed and used ethically, with respect for human rights and dignity.

Why do you say that we are living in a different time from the eugenicists of the past? Point number 6 is happening more and more every day while point number 5 is already happening with gender transition surgeries. 

You raise valid concerns about the current state of society and potential parallels to the warning signs I mentioned earlier. It's important to recognize that there are indeed similarities between the past and present, and the warning signs discussed are not exclusive to any specific time or context. My intention was not to dismiss these concerns but rather to emphasize that historical instances can provide valuable lessons for the present. Addressing your points:

1. Suppression of dissent and free speech (Point 6): It is concerning when free speech is restricted, and it's essential to uphold the constitutional rights of all individuals. The challenges posed by social media platforms and government intervention are complex and require a thoughtful, balanced approach to protect free speech while preventing harmful content.

2. Unchecked scientific or technological advancements (Point 5): The use of transitioning therapies for young children is indeed a contentious issue, and it's crucial to have open, evidence-based discussions about the potential risks and benefits. The differing approaches across countries demonstrate the importance of considering cultural, ethical, and scientific factors when making decisions about medical practices.

3. Dehumanization and discrimination: The demonization of the 'other side' and the opinions of healthcare professionals regarding treatment for unvaccinated individuals are concerning. It's essential to maintain empathy and compassion in our interactions and avoid dehumanizing those with different beliefs or choices.

4. Propaganda and misinformation: The impact of social media on the spread of misinformation and the polarization of society is a significant challenge. As you pointed out, cancel culture and the pressure to conform to specific ideologies can exacerbate divisions and stifle open dialogue.

While there are similarities between the present and the warning signs from the past, it's crucial to remain vigilant and work collectively to address these issues. By encouraging open dialogue, promoting empathy, and upholding the values of a democratic society, we can help to mitigate the risks associated with these warning signs.

Make the case that freedom of speech must include abhorrent speech. Disruptive speech is critical for growth

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies and is essential for fostering open dialogue, intellectual growth, and social progress. The argument for including abhorrent or disruptive speech can be made on several grounds:

1. Marketplace of ideas: A foundational principle of free speech is that truth emerges from the competition of ideas in a free, transparent, and open discourse. Allowing even abhorrent or disruptive speech ensures that the best ideas can rise to the surface and be scrutinized, debated, and refined.

2. Defense against tyranny: Freedom of speech protects citizens from authoritarianism by allowing them to voice dissenting opinions and challenge government actions. By permitting a wide range of speech, society ensures that the powerful are held accountable and that alternative viewpoints have an opportunity to be heard.

3. Personal autonomy: Free speech is an expression of individual autonomy and self-expression, which are essential for personal growth and fulfillment. Allowing even offensive speech respects each person's right to express their thoughts and beliefs, fostering a diverse and tolerant society.

4. Strengthening social resilience: Exposure to a variety of ideas, including those that are controversial or offensive, can help individuals develop critical thinking skills and resilience. By engaging with challenging viewpoints, people can better understand and defend their own beliefs or reevaluate them when necessary.

5. Avoiding the slippery slope: Strict limits on speech can lead to a slippery slope where the definition of what is considered "unacceptable" can be manipulated by those in power. This can result in arbitrary restrictions, with the potential to silence legitimate dissent and minority voices.

Most democratic societies recognize that there are limits to free speech. These limits generally focus on preventing direct harm, such as incitement to violence, threats, defamation, and harassment. Balancing free speech with these concerns can be challenging and requires ongoing evaluation and debate.

According to American founding documents, "Governments are instituted among men to protect rights." Are they not now violating our most basic rights by reading our Twitter DM’s, monitoring speech, and instructing social media to silence those voices they deem as "mis" or "dis" information?

The public-private partnership between high-tech companies and the government can pose risks to free speech if not carefully managed. Here's a case for building a wall between tech and government to protect the fundamental right to free expression:

1. Concentration of power: When tech companies and governments collaborate, it can result in a concentration of power that undermines the checks and balances necessary for a healthy democracy. By keeping a separation between tech companies and the government, it becomes more difficult for any single entity to control the flow of information or suppress dissenting voices.

2. Protection of privacy: Privacy is a fundamental human right and is closely related to free speech. Ensuring that tech companies are independent of government influence can help protect user data from unwarranted surveillance or misuse.

3. Encouraging innovation: A competitive and independent tech sector can foster innovation by allowing a diversity of companies and platforms to thrive. This promotes a robust marketplace of ideas, which is essential for free speech.

4. Avoiding conflicts of interest: A clear separation between tech companies and the government helps avoid conflicts of interest that could compromise the integrity of both parties. This separation ensures that decisions regarding content moderation, user privacy, and other issues are made independently and not influenced by political considerations.

5. Preserving the role of the citizenry: The government should not be the final arbiter of truth, as it could undermine the role of citizens in questioning authority and exposing corruption. Allowing for a diversity of voices and maintaining the right to demand answers and redress from the government are essential to a functioning democracy.

In summary, building a wall between tech companies and the government can help preserve free speech, privacy, and democratic values by preventing the concentration of power, protecting user data, encouraging innovation, and maintaining the role of citizens in questioning authority. However, finding the right balance between separation and cooperation is essential for addressing the complex challenges facing modern societies.

The Declaration of Independence states, "When a government becomes hostile to those rights, it is the right and the duty to shake off those chains and replace that government with new stewards that are more likely to protect those rights." How can that be done or addressed without calling for revolution or violence?

The Declaration of Independence indeed emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights and the duty of the citizenry to address government overreach. It is possible to advocate for change and uphold civil rights without resorting to revolution or violence. Here's a case for advocating change in a non-violent and constructive manner:

1. Participatory democracy: Engage in the democratic process by voting, running for office, or supporting candidates who align with your values and prioritize the protection of individual rights. Encourage others to participate as well, ensuring that the government is held accountable by the people it represents.

2. Peaceful protest and assembly: Exercise your right to peaceful protest and assembly as a means to raise awareness and demonstrate your commitment to protecting civil rights. Peaceful protest can be a powerful tool to bring attention to issues and mobilize support for change.

3. Dialogue and debate: Engage in open and respectful dialogue with those who hold opposing views, fostering understanding and cooperation. Encourage the exchange of ideas and perspectives to promote thoughtful discussion and challenge the status quo.

4. Civil society organizations: Support or join civil society organizations that work to uphold and protect civil rights. These organizations often serve as watchdogs, advocating for policy changes, holding the government accountable, and providing resources for individuals to learn about and assert their rights.

5. Education and awareness: Educate yourself and others about the principles of democracy, the importance of individual rights, and the mechanisms available to citizens to challenge government overreach. Encourage critical thinking and civic education to foster an informed and engaged citizenry.

6. Legal action: Utilize the legal system to challenge unconstitutional actions by the government, seeking remedies through the courts. Support or join organizations that provide legal assistance and advocacy for civil rights issues.

By advocating for change through these non-violent and constructive means, citizens can work to address government overreach and protect individual rights without resorting to revolution or violence. It is essential to emphasize that advocating for civil rights and holding the government accountable is not inherently anti-American or anti-government; instead, it is a fundamental part of a healthy, thriving democracy.

Many Americans are convinced they do not have the power to change things. Is that true? How important is the singular voice? Bad guys don’t ever seem to have to pay for the crimes. There doesn’t seem to be any institution that can be trusted.

It is not true that individuals lack the power to change things. Although it can be challenging, the singular voice can have a significant impact, especially when combined with the voices of others. There are numerous examples in American history where ordinary individuals have made a real difference in society:

1. Rosa Parks: Parks, an African American seamstress, refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. Her act of defiance sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which played a significant role in the civil rights movement.

2. Darryl Hunt: Hunt, a wrongfully convicted man who spent nearly 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, became an advocate for criminal justice reform and the wrongfully accused after his exoneration. His story helped raise awareness of the flaws in the criminal justice system and inspired others to join the fight for reform.

3. Erin Brockovich: As a legal clerk, Brockovich helped expose a case of industrial pollution in California that led to a landmark class-action lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric. Her efforts brought attention to environmental issues and corporate malfeasance, inspiring others to advocate for environmental justice.

4. Candy Lightner: Lightner, whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver, founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980. MADD has since become a powerful advocacy group that has successfully lobbied for stricter drunk driving laws and increased public awareness about the dangers of drunk driving.

To continue fighting for civil rights without getting discouraged, consider the following approaches:

1. Focus on small victories: Acknowledge and celebrate incremental progress, even if the ultimate goal seems far off. Small victories can be stepping stones to larger change and can help maintain motivation.

2. Build a support network: Connect with like-minded individuals and organizations that share your passion for civil rights. A support network can provide encouragement, resources, and camaraderie, making it easier to stay committed to the cause.

3. Educate and empower others: Share your knowledge and experiences with others, inspiring them to join the fight for civil rights. Encourage civic education and critical thinking, fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.

4. Be persistent and patient: Change often takes time, and setbacks are inevitable. Stay committed to your goals, even when progress is slow or difficult.

5. Practice self-care: Advocacy can be emotionally and physically draining. Take care of your mental and physical well-being to ensure you have the energy and resilience to continue fighting for civil rights.

Remember, every individual has the power to make a difference. By staying committed, building support networks, and celebrating small victories, you can continue to fight for civil rights without getting discouraged.

Isn’t almost everything in today's high-tech world gathering information, even if we give it all the best intentions? How can one preach privacy as a basic right while high-tech and government gather information that is specific and identifiable?

1. Comprehensive privacy legislation: Governments can enact comprehensive privacy laws that establish clear guidelines on data collection, storage, and use, with strong enforcement mechanisms. These laws should include provisions that give individuals the right to access their data, request its deletion, and opt-out of certain types of data collection.

2. Privacy by design: Encourage and require companies to adopt a "privacy by design" approach in the development of their products and services. This means considering privacy from the outset, implementing strong security measures, and minimizing data collection to what is necessary for the service to function effectively.

3. Data minimization: Encourage companies to collect and store only the data necessary for their services, and to delete it when it is no longer needed. This limits the potential for abuse and helps protect individual privacy.

4. Transparency and control: Companies should be transparent about their data collection practices and provide users with clear, easy-to-understand information about how their data is being used. Users should also be given meaningful control over their data, including options to opt-out of certain types of data collection and the ability to access and delete their data.

5.Security measures: Companies and governments should implement robust security measures to protect the data they collect and store, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or breaches.

6. Public awareness and digital literacy: Promote public awareness of privacy issues and digital literacy, helping individuals understand the implications of sharing their data and empowering them to make informed decisions about their privacy.

7. International cooperation: Encourage international cooperation on privacy issues, ensuring that global standards are consistent and that data protection is maintained across borders.

By taking these steps, it is possible to strike a balance between the benefits of technology and the protection of individual privacy. While it may be challenging to achieve complete privacy in today's high-tech world, promoting strong privacy protections and giving individuals control over their data can help protect this fundamental right.

Join Glenn in Jamestown THIS WEEK to rededicate our country back to God

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Glenn will be heading to Jamestown, Virginia as the keynote speaker for the First Landing 1607 Project's rededication of America back to God.

In April 1607 Rev. Robert Hunt dedicated Jamestown with the following prayer:

We do hereby dedicate this Land, and ourselves, to reach the People within these shores with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to raise up Godly generations after us, and with these generations take the Kingdom of God to all the earth.

On April 26, 2023, Glenn Beck will dedicate America back to God at the very site where it all began: Jamestown.

There have been many efforts to rewrite America's history and founding Judeo-Christian principles, and it is clear that we have strayed far away from those founding principles. Join Glenn on April 26, 2023 in Jamestown, Virginia for the First Landing 1607 Project's special event where America will be rededicated to its founding principles and surrendered before the throne of our creator.

Click HERE to register before time runs out!

Can't attend? Click HERE to register for the live-stream!