RADIOJuly 18, 2022

EXPLAINED: No, Thomas Jefferson did NOT support slavery

Monticello has gone full WOKE. According to the New York Post, visitors to Thomas Jefferson's former home now learn more about the ‘horrors of slavery’ than the Founding Father himself. In fact, the monument’s gift shop apparently sells several books written by Critical Race Theorists and just ONE Jefferson biography. But if the far-left successfully can change U.S. history — like they’ve been trying SO hard to do — we’ll never survive as a nation, Glenn says. We MUST preserve our history, so in this clip, Glenn clears the third president's name. Listen for the FACTS that prove Thomas Jefferson did NOT support slavery…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

VOICE: We are five days away, from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

VOICE: And Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices. We are going to have to change our conversation. We're going to have to change our traditions, our history. We're going to have to move into a different place.

GLENN: Wow. How alarming is that, when we first heard it. We didn't know exactly what she meant. Other than, transformation. Wait. I don't want to change our history.

But look at how well-coordinated everything has done. They did change our history. They're still changing our history. They're still changing our traditions.

It's remarkable how well-planned this was. Well, according to the New York Post, grievance has become the predominant theme at Monticello. They say from the ticket booth to the visitor's center, which is decorated with contemporary painting of Jefferson's weeping slaves, to its final gift shop display, it's no longer telling the story of Thomas Jefferson. In addition to the ticket booth, and the gift shop, which features works by Critical Race theorist, Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates. But only one biography about Jefferson himself. The estate reportedly discusses the Native Americans who lived on the land before Jefferson purchased it. It also offers an in-depth look at Sally Hemings, Jefferson's mistress.

We -- we do not know if Sally Hemings was a mistress or not. There was a book that came out in the '90s, that said it was true. It was retracted within two weeks. But nobody ever covered that.

There is evidence in newspaper coverage at the time. As a smear on Thomas Jefferson. That his brother was making it with Sally Hemings. So any DNA that says, Jefferson. Yeah, it might be Tom. But it might be his brother. And that's what they were saying at the time. My God. We are not going to survive unless we preserve our history.

Jefferson's mistress, who allegedly bore him six children. Makes repeated reference to the enslaved people who once lived and worked at Monticello, represents a nuanced version of Jefferson and focuses little on his accomplishments.

Jeffrey Tucker, the founder of the Libertarian Brownstone Institute, recently took a group of tour, to Monticello, noted a surly and dismissive tone from his tour guide. Someone asked if Jefferson had built a machine in the house. And the guide said, no. He never really built anything. He was a tinkerer. He was a tinkerer? Are you kidding me?

I mean, he designed Monticello. That's his design. The clock is his design. Oh, my gosh. I can't -- I can't take it. He also, you know, founded the university of Virginia. And the Declaration of Independence. However -- however, in a video posted on the Monticello Facebook page, tour guide Kyle Chattington -- Chattelton, oh, my gosh. Is that a pretentious name?

Hi, yes. I'm Kyle Chattelton, III. He claims, how is it that Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, and yet also held people as slaves?

It's one of the most common questions that visitors ask. I would like to know their answer. Stu, do you know the answer?

STU: I don't think that I do, Glenn. I don't think that I do.
(laughter)

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh. Just -- if you don't know the answer, would you Google first draft of the Declaration of Independence?

STU: First draft of the declaration --

GLENN: It is in his own handwriting. And he capitalizes a couple of words.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: He was vehemently opposed to slavery. He tried his whole life to stop it.

Why -- why did he write all men are created equal and he didn't realize slaves were men?

On the third page of the Declaration of Independence, that he wrote, and two states stopped, it says, the king is having men sold on the open market.

Hello.

STU: But the Christian king, of Great Britain, was -- is, by the way, capitalized in there. To show everybody. In a mocking tone. That he wasn't acting all that Christian. When he was saying, he wanted people to be owned. And used for the purposes of the crown. I mean, you know, this is in the -- of course, the -- the section, in which they're just lighting up Great Britain, and the king. And saying, hey. These are all the terrible things he they have done. And why we have to do this. Why we have to declare independence in the first place. Here's our list of grievances.

The longest one, it's the most prominent one.

GLENN: It's half a page.

STU: It's half a page. It goes on and on and on and on. Just complaining about slavery. How bad it is. And how it should stop immediately.

GLENN: And how many times the -- and how many times the king had thwarted them.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: In trying to stop it. That's why Thomas Jefferson had slaves. But was against slavery. It's not because he was an American sphinx, that we just can't figure out.

No. He fought in Virginia, to change the laws. He could not sell his slaves, or release them upon his death. Because he was in debt.

And you couldn't free slaves, if you were in debt. And he was millions in debt, on his death. So he -- the record is clear! Oh, my gosh.

I can't -- oh.

STU: You haven't even inherited -- this is another important point. This was inherited.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But he was making wild, passionate love to Sally Hemings. Or his brother was.

Here's a story, it comes out of Breitbart. Woke churches across the country have celebrated abortion, and even gone as far as labeling the pro-life movement, a quote, demonic agenda.

Now, that's quite a statement. We now have good being called evil. And evil being called good. By churches. Now, these are liberal churches.

But the churches are now calling the lack of abortions, forced childbirth. Hmm. Hmm.

Okay. Okay. So wait. Forced childbirth. So then you would admit, that it is a child. Right?

I'm just trying to figure out, how you're -- another sign of the times. Ted Cruz went on a rampage yesterday, talking about Clarence Thomas, and what's happening to Clarence Thomas and his wife. There is a -- a photo, that has been on social media. Of a protester sign that reads, Ginni Thomas is a 21st century slave owner. Ginni, who happens to be a friend of mine, is the wife of Clarence Thomas. You are not only denigrating her, by calling her a slave owner, you are also saying, that Clarence Thomas, one of the most clear-minded judges, we have had, is -- is somehow enslaved by this white woman?

I mean, I thought it was bad, when they said that he was an Uncle Tom for marrying a white woman. Now he's a slave being held in slavery by his wife. This is despicable.

The -- the Justice Department is doing nothing -- nothing to stop it. They'll label you a terrorist, but they'll do nothing to the people who are actually offering a bounty if you will disclose where any of these conservative justices are.

White House isn't say anything about it. Justice Department is doing nothing about it.

Can you imagine -- can you imagine -- I don't even need to finish that sentence. Let me switch to something else here.

Something that makes you happy. Something that makes me happy. Starbucks has dropped its recently introduced chicken maple butter and egg sandwich from its menu. Because people complain of experiencing symptoms of illness, including diarrhea after consuming the product. And it's -- it's -- it's -- apparently, it's symptoms that customers and baristas claim to have experienced after eating the sandwich, included diarrhea, vomiting, and stomach pain. The worst diarrhea of my life. I've been living in my bathroom for two days now, one user complained on TikTok. Another user said that they contracted campylobacter, I guess? An infection that can be contracted after eating raw poultry items.

They -- they said, the Seattle-based Starbucks -- and I wish them all the best. They said, you know, the sandwich, in retrospect, just doesn't live up to our high quality standards. No? No? Uh-uh. No. Uh-uh.

I don't think your high quality standards are quite so high, or as high as you think they are, if, you know, putting people into the toilet for two days is, you know, maybe we should pull this sandwich. I'm just saying. I'm just saying.

But makes me want to run out and get one. And that makes me so happy.

For the giant Seattle-based corporation. Starbucks. All my best. Back in just a second.

Deborah wrote in about her experience with Relief Factor. She said, my wonderful husband ordered Relief Factor for me. When I was feeling pretty bad. I have rheumatoid arthritis. And Relief Factor helps me tremendously. I noticed around the second week, things began to get better. I have to admit, I was skeptical before. Now I swear by it. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. All the best, Deborah. Deborah, thank you for writing in and giving Relief Factor a try. Sounds like you had the same experience I had. I didn't think it would work either. Try their three-week Quick Start. Yes. It will cost you 19.95. But if it's not working for you in three weeks, stop. Because it probably will not work for you. 70 percent of the people who try the three-week Quick Start go on to order it month after month. Because they're getting relief. A dollar a day, it's a trial pack. Hundreds of thousands of people have ordered Relief Factor, and a lot. Seventy percent go on to order and take every single day. That says everything. Doesn't it?

ReliefFactor.com. 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. 19.95. Three-week Quick Start, developed for you. ReliefFactor.com, or call 800-4-Relief. Relief Factor. Feel the difference.
(OUT AT 10:48AM)

GLENN: Oh, yeah, dog. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

So now we've gone down a rabbit hole. I brought up Sally Hemings. And now Stu is on a Sally Hemings rabbit hole.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And what have you found?

STU: Well, Monticello said. They think it's likely that he fathered, maybe one, maybe more than one of these children. And I was thinking to myself. Did Jefferson do that? What's like the real backing on this? So I went into one of the big scholar's commissioned reports that Thomas Jefferson Heritage Organization. And they -- they summarize it this way. This is what their report was, after saying it was 300 pages long. In the end, after roughly one year of examining the issues, we find the question of whether Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by his slave Sally Hemings, to be one about which honorable people can and do disagree.

However, it is our unanimous view, that the allegation is by no means proven. And we find it regrettable that public confusion about the 1998 DNA testing and other evidence has misled many people into believing the issue was closed. With the exception of one member, whose views were set forth below. Our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge, to the conviction that it is almost certainly untrue. It goes through. All the scholars that were related to this, backed that opinion, with the exception of one.

GLENN: Wow!

STU: And this is what the -- the dissent wrote. With the report -- with the -- the report of the majority, I'm in general agreement. I dissent only in believing it's somewhat more likely than not. That Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings. One of the children.

Goes on to say, it also could have been -- others. It says, this suggests the possibility that Thomas Jefferson fathered all of her known children. But it does not prove that he fathered even one.

What it does establish is a strong probability, that her pregnancies during the period, when she appears to have resided at Monticello, were occasioned by (inaudible) there. So there are evidences, he seems to be there, at the same time she got pregnant.

GLENN: Do they mention at all -- do they mention at all, the smear on him in I think it was like, 1801, they started smearing him as president. And in the campaign. And they -- the smear was, his brother slept with slaves.

STU: Yes. No. It does.

It goes into the fact that it could be any of -- here, let's see. It is a fact, notwithstanding a mistake to jump to the conclusion that Jefferson must have been the father of Sally Hemings' children for there were other events that normally coincided with his visits there.

Among these, one is pertinent to this inquiry. The presence of visitors whose offspring are tolerably likely to have looked like Thomas Jefferson. Visitors such as Thomas Jefferson's younger brother, Randolph. Randolph's four or five sons. And Peter and Samuel Carr, sons of his sister. Goes through -- and it's 300 pages. It breaks down all of these things in incredible detail. But, I mean, you look at the summary, they're either very skeptical of it. Or completely disregarded with the exception of one guy, who is from Hillsdale, by the way. Not some crazy, liberal guy.

But said, look, I don't think -- I don't -- I think it's more likely than not, that one of the children was.

But that's not an open-and-shut case, by any means, and there's a lot of other possibilities there, which is interesting. That's not how the media covers that at all.

GLENN: And this is not being taught at Monticello. What's being taught at Monticello is that he fathered Sally Hemings children. There's the evidence. How does Monticello get away with it? Huge, liberal donations.

Inside Trump’s Mind: Sneak Peek of Glenn’s Explosive White House Interview

President Donald Trump has made more progress than any other president, or many presidents combined in the first 100 days. Glenn is sitting down with the President for an exclusive 100 day interview, and they have a lot to discuss. President Trump has the opportunity to turn this country around and fix the damage done by the previous administration, but the clock is ticking. Glenn gives a sneak peek into what he and the President will discuss in his exclusive interview at the White House, including the economy, the power grid, and how critical it is that his presidency is a success.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: You've got, of course, your interview with the president of the United States. Going to be airing tonight.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: On Blaze TV. BlazeTV.com/Glenn. By the way.

Promo code Glenn. If you would like to join Blaze TV, and save 20 bucks.

You have kind of an approach here? At this point? Do you know what you will ask him?

GLENN: Had to.

I mean, I do. I've got pages and pages of questions and notes.

But now I have to -- you know, it will take me an hour or two, just to whittle it down to the questions I think I can get in.

You know, I've got 45 minutes or an hour with the president. And that's from the moment he walks in, to the moment he leaves.

So you don't have a lot of time.

And, you know, every -- every single word counts. I know -- I want to start with this. I asked just for a list of the things that he had accomplished on the first 100 days.

And we got to page 89. I'll have all of them tonight.

This is the first I think 89 days.

Look at that.

STU: Hmm. A lot.

GLENN: That's just a list of the accomplishments of the first 89 days.

That's -- what did you say? 4 inches thick? I mean --

STU: Crazy.

GLENN: This guy has made more progress than any other president, or many presidents combined in the first 100 days. Nobody has done what -- what he's done.

But, you know, one of the things that I don't know how -- because I can't ask him directly. So I have to ask him several questions all the way through, that will kind of give you a sense of, are we looking for a reprieves? Is that what we're going to get, a four-year reprieve?

If the economy doesn't turn around fast enough, because I believe the president can turn it around. But if it doesn't turn it around fast enough. Or if people don't understand that he is changing the entire structure of the world.

And he's trying to do it in two years. Really.

We're going to be left with a reprieve and not a -- not a fundamental change. And does he think that's really possible?

Especially, without Congress.

I will rail on Congress. I don't know if he will join me on that.

I really want to know why he isn't pounding Congress into the dirt.

I mean, Congress they're not helpful at all.

No matter what everyone says.

I talked to the people just the last few days here, to tell you that the Senate and the House leadership is on the president's side.

And they don't their butt from their elbow.

They have no idea what they're talking about. They are not on his side. They are not working with him. And that's obvious.

I mean, they should be passing.

You know, I know this is going to be -- you know, he said, I'm going to pass the largest tax cut.

Well, he's not.

What the Congress is doing, is he's actually -- he's thwarting the largest tax increase in American history. That would come next year.

Well, the country needs a tax cut. A tax plan, that will actually encourage spending on business.

Encourage, you know, spending on -- on creating jobs.

I also want to talk to him about energy.

I mean, what are you?

What do you think, Stu?

What are the questions that you want to know?

STU: I think the economy is a big one. And how he's going to kind of go forward with that.

We talked about having that sort of positive agenda. I think that will be helpful.

Seems like the markets are like that today. And there's a little bit of an approach change over the past couple of days, and that seems to be helping quite a bit. I think that's a big one. I think certainly energy is a big one. Department of Education is another one.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Those go back to the positive. Like we talked about energy.

Going in and saying, look, I'm going to build all these nuclear power plants in the next three years.

Because testimony on the hill. Yesterday. Take before yesterday. From the president, you know, former CEO of Google. Eric Schmitt was pretty clear.

We are going to -- right now, the cloud services, if you will.

The compute power. For all of the big, you know, computer cloud servers. They require currently 3 percent of all of the electricity that is used in the United States.

3 percent.

In three years, they will require 99 percent of our energy.

Well, there's no way that can happen without us having blackouts and brown Brownouts.

And the rest of the country, just starving itself from electricity.

That will just collapse everything.

So a positive way to deal with this, is to say, I am going to do the biggest energy push ever in American history.

And he's already done it for oil.

And coal.

Now he just needs to say, I'm cutting the red tape. I'm going to make sure that they're safe. But there's new technology now with -- are nuclear power plants. And we're going to drop them in city after city after city.

Where those cloud servers are going to be.

Because if Eric Smith is right. And I believe he is.

Each one of these cloud servers by 2030. Will need a nuclear. Full-sized nuclear power plant, themselves!

That's incredible!

STU: It's incomprehensible.

But, yeah, as you point out. Instead of saying, you know, like an alternate approach to that, would be, hey. We need to stop these AI companies from doing this. We need to make sure that they are not -- that's what I would say, the left would typically do in a situation like this.

They would try to stop the company from growing and innovating.

They would say, you need to do more with less.

And I think the conservative argument there, is to say, hey. No.

We will give you the tools that you need. We will make it easy for these companies to build nuclear power-plants in a safe way, of course.

But reliable energy that can -- that can fuel these things would be great.

I think the same thing. I think you look at Trump's economic plan. He wants to bring let's say manufacturing back to the United States.

Well, there's a couple of ways you can do that.

Both ways are completely consistent with what Trump wants to do. One of them are obviously tariffs. Has almost all the attention. I think there's a reason why the media focuses on that.

I think they would rather talk about the tariffs.

Because they're not as popular. The other side is incentivizing. It's cutting regulation. It's cutting taxes. It's making the United States into the greatest state to do business.

People will want to come here. And the Democrats have worked really hard to take that impression away from the world over the past 20 years.

And Trump, I think in his first term did a good job encouraging that sort of development here.

I think it went pretty well with the economy.

And I think that just -- I think he believes that.

Still, he just -- it hasn't been the focus of -- as much of the messaging. And I think that could help.

GLENN: This is -- this is the problem.

And I'm going to try to get him to explain this.

I can't ask him. I don't think I can ask him directly.

Because the president, if you say, look at how much trouble we're in.

And, you know, is this fixable?

Of course, he will say, yes. It's absolutely fixable.

But he needs to articulate. Or somebody needs to articulate how close to the edge of the abyss we are.

I mean, you know, Stu, you know I have -- I have talked about this economic stuff, over and over again.

I had a conversation with somebody, who I can't say who.

But they believe me, they absolutely know what's happening with our dollar and the economy and everything else.

Okay? An official in the government, that that's -- you know, that's pretty much what they do.
And I said, look, I'm trying to get my arms around this.

Because I'm thinking about, you know, why he called it Liberation Day. And I think it's because he's changing the whole system.

You know, that was set up after World War II.

And yada, yada, yada.

And I said, and I don't think people understand that, if we -- if he fails, this is it.

This is our last chance, to save America.

We're over!

And this individual put their hand on my shoulder, and said, no.

Listen.

We are over. So he said the same thing I did. He just wanted to make sure that I understood, exactly what I was saying. And I found that to be a little terrifying. And I don't think people truly understand, this is it! This is it.

If -- if you -- if you want to have a country left, we're going to go and experience tremendous pain.

I mean, Ronald Reagan talked about this.

You know, there's going to come a time when none of the choices are good. And everybody wants to eat around the edges, and not take the whole pie. You have to have the whole pie. You can't eat around the edges anymore. You've got to fix the entire thing.

And that is going to be really painful.

And dangerous. And I -- I don't know if I can get him to talk about that.

I mean, how would you ask him?

STU: Do you think that's the way he sees it?

Do you think -- because it does seem like the types of maneuvers, he's made, when it comes to foreign trade, for example.

He really does see.

Not just something we need to tweak. An absolute, monumental crisis.

Right?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because that is a big change, and I think maybe slightly different than the perception going in. And that's something he will kind of have to deal with, with the American people. That's why maybe he's having issues with some of the independents, losing support among independents. I don't think he's going to see. You know, I don't think he runs his operation. I don't think he looks at it and says, okay. This isn't polling well right now. So I don't want to do it.

GLENN: No. He doesn't. He sees himself. And thank God, he sees himself as, if I don't do it, no one will.

And I think that's true.

I don't know of -- Donald Trump is completely unique. You know, he's been forged in the fire, where he wasn't in 2016.

He is now.

I mean, what are you going to do to him?

You try to throw him in jail. You try to throw his family in jail. You try to destroy his business, his reputation. You try to call him every name under the sun. They tried to kill him not once, but twice. I mean, what are you going to do to this guy? He doesn't care.

And so I really believe that this is so far beyond him. He knows, look, I am here, that the time for a reason. And it's to save the country, in the way I believe it needs to be saved. And so it is a complete departure from The Great Reset, but it is a Great Reset. The world has been shaping us for this reset.

I've been talking about this since 2008. They shaped us for this reset to where they would -- they would manage the decline to a certain point.

And then it would kind of fall apart and then collapse into this new system that they had built. Well, he's dismantling that, at the same time trying to put the system back into place they can't be they had taken apart.

It's -- I mean, it's -- if he can pull this off. It's going to be a miracle. We will be the first people in the history of the world, to pull this off.

And it's -- it's an interesting -- going to be interesting to see how all of this works out. All right. More in just a second.

GLENN: You know, I'm talking about the Great Reset. Have you seen that Klaus Schwab has resigned?

STU: Hmm. Sad to see him go, Glenn. He's done such good work at the World Economic Forum. He's been able to usher us into this new world that we've all been asking for and demanding. Sad to see.

GLENN: Well, especially, he's done some really good work apparently on the buttocks of several women. Which, you know, I don't know -- I don't know, let's just say they were nice little polite pats on the butt, you know, as they passed by. Hey, sweetheart, how are you doing? Apparently, he's created a very obscene culture at the World Economic Forum. Now, who would have thunk it.

Every time he comes to town, the prostitutes go through the roof, because they're shipped from all over the world. But, no, I'm sure it's a very pro-woman, you know. He really cares. He really cares deeply. But apparently, he's in trouble for sexual harassment. And also -- yeah. Also, problems with some funds. Apparently, he used some funds to buy big houses. But it's no big deal, right?

I mean, eh. He can get away with it. He's Klaus Schwab. I hate these people so much. I hate these people so much.

And the -- the -- the hypocrisy of these people just kills me.

Kills me. One of the other things I want to ask him about is The Great Reset. And how, I mean, six years ago, you remember when we started talking about The Great Reset.

And everybody said, that's -- and now look at it!

Everybody knows about DEI and CRT and everything else.

Everything they said, you have the court system, now defending.

Saying, you can't come back. Wait a minute. I thought it was a conspiracy theory.

I'm just counting conspiracies.

Isn't that what you want?

It's incredible.

I mean, want to know, if you will stand up to the courts.

STU: Yeah. What does that mean exactly too?

I don't know. Obviously, right now, we have six Supreme Court justices that were -- that were actually named by Republicans. Right?

Three of them by President Trump himself.

What does that mean as far as -- I know they took a stance against him, deporting certain people.

And they'll --

GLENN: I can't believe it.

STU: That sort of battle has been fascinating.

GLENN: These people.

When we were saying, we should vet people.

When they're coming in. Ask them. Hey, here's an idea.

COVID. Can we see if they've had their vaccine?

No. You can't do that!

Now, we're trying to ship them back home. Oh, we have to have a sit down with them.

We have to have a formal interview. You know, before we get rid of them. We have to really sit down and talk to them.

No problem bringing them in. None!

Riddled with disease. Not a problem. Hang on just a second. I think you left a few of your fingers behind. They just fell off.

You want to just take them with you, as you enter the United States? No problem coming in, all kinds of problems leaving.

STU: Well.

GLENN: How does this make sense?

STU: A lot of this has to do with your hatred of Maryland fathers. You have always been against people who are just fathers in Maryland.

GLENN: I was a father in Maryland for a while. My daughter was born in Maryland. And I was the dad. So I was a Maryland father.

STU: Wow. You can't be deported. That's apparently the rule.

Did you see the explanation?

I love this. Of the domestic violence thing.

Where she filed a restraining order against him for domestic violence.

Everybody is like, hey. He beat his wife.

She says now, no. That was not true.

She filed a domestic violence restraining order against her husband. Quote, in case things escalated, end quote.

GLENN: Oh, that happened.

Tania did that to me, last week.

STU: It's a case.

GLENN: I need a restraining order. He might kill me.

He was not threatening to kill me. But in case he does. Gosh, this is terrible!

Shocking Surge: Why Young People Are Flocking to GOD in Droves

According to multiple reports, young people have flocked to the Catholic Church, especially the past year. Glenn believes it’s because of rituals. While progressives tried to change our shared traditions, some institutions are holding tight, and our young people are noticing. “Those rituals you do as a family are very important,” Glenn says. “They’re very human. And they’re not just Catholic traditions…a bride walking down the aisle, a soldier saluted at a ceremony, even the way we light candles to honor the dead. They mark moments that matter in our lives and they help organize things in our mind.” And in the religious sense, they create clarity, something that our younger generations have very little of as the world tells them nothing really matters.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: It's Good Friday. One last story on faith. I was reading an article about Tammy Peterson. The wife of Jordan Peterson.

Last year, she walked into a Catholic Church and embraced a new faith. She was a survivor of cancer. And she found, you know, solace in the rosary's ritual. You know, beads and their rhythmic prayers and all of that. And it gave her peace through all of the fear that she had. She shared this last year with the Catholic Herald interview.

And she's not alone.

A New York Post article, this week, reports a surge in young people converting to Catholicism, with year-over-year converts increasing from 30 to 70 percent.

The archdiocese of Fort Worth says, there was a 72 percent jump in converts in the last year!
Something is happening. And I think it's rituals.

You know, Barack Obama knows, said his wife. That we're going to have to change everything. We're going to have to change our traditions. Our language. Our history.

Rituals bring things back together. At a time when we are told, you know, if you disagree with your family. Don't get together with your family. Those rituals that you do as a family, are very important.

They're deeply human.

And they're not just Catholic traditions or relics of the past. They're everywhere. A bride walking down the aisle. A soldier saluted at a ceremony. Even the way we light candles in honor to -- to honor the dead. They mark moments that matter in our lives, and they help organize things in our mind.

And rituals, in Catholicism, the Eucharist, or the confession, elevate this instinct. This need to the sacred. So it's not just -- it's not just a routine.

It is a bridge to meaning. And that matters.

Because when you have meaning, and there's a storm in your life, it gives structure, so it doesn't feel like the storm is just going to wipe you out entirely.

There was a study in 2013, in Scientific American. An article by a psychologist.

That explained that rituals, religious or not. Reduce anxiety. Steady us after loss.

And boost confidence before big moments.

And you can look at this. I mean, it's not faith-based. But think of athletes with a pre-game routine.

Or just a child calmed by a bedtime story.

Rituals amplify this.

New York Post. Noted that young converts now especially Gen Z crave, quoting, the clarity and certainty rejecting the, quote, last week alternatives of modern worship. Why? Because modern worship tells you, you can believe anything. There are no real rules. God will always just take you as you are.

And, I mean, he will. Warts and all. But you've got to do a little something. Try this on for size. How alive is the church over in England?

Has it ever been alive?

Church attendance among 18 to 24-year-olds has jumped from 4 percent to 2018 to 16 percent in 2024.

I would say there's something going on here.

And experts are saying, it is a hunger for substance. And for Tammy Peterson, it was the rosary. That was her lifeline.

And, you know, whatever it is, but whatever the ritual is. You don't have to be a Catholic or anything.

Whatever you are. But what if we all leaned into our rituals a little bit more?

Because they're universal.

I mean, think of the -- think of the little things that we do every day. The morning coffee poured in the same way, the same cup every day. A family holiday tradition. A quiet moment of prayer every day.

Rituals build communities. Like a congregation singing together. In unison.

Or a neighborhood block party. They mark time! They give us mile tones. Baptisms. Graduations. Funerals.

We now live in a world of screen and rush and rituals slow us down.

I don't have time!

Yeah. You do. That's exactly what you need. Rituals. It will slow you down. Make you present in the moment. They're not about rules.

They're all about meaning, if you do it right. This isn't about recognizing, you know, one faith over another. This is about recognizing what rituals do for us. The New York Post highlights how young people facing permaconflict.

Permaconflict. And secular individualism, are seeing traditional Catholicism as cultural defiance.

And you don't have to be a Catholic to find this. Maybe your ritual is, I don't know what it is.

But whatever it is, it can shape your heart and your day. And as we head to Easter this weekend, as we head to our hopefully -- you're attending your Easter service this weekend.

Take time to find your family's ritual. And I say that, my kids are scattered everywhere. And I'm having to go to Washington on Sunday.

And for the first time, I think in my life, I'm not together with my whole family on Easter. And I hate that!

Hate that. You know, things happen in life.

But no matter what faith you are, I mean, we can all learn from each other.

We are all part of one big body. And one big effort.

Because I believe the other side, as we started this show.

We started talking about this really evil editorial. This op-ed. On Substack. That started talking about. You know. When do we start killing people?

Hello?

There is evil. We are witnessing the growth of evil.

But I just gave you some status that show, yeah. But good stuff is happening too.

Generation Z is the hero generation. You watch. You watch.

They will put this back together. Just no matter where you are. No matter what you're doing this weekend, if you're a believer, just say it out loud this weekend, to somebody.

He has risen. Just share it with somebody. Just share the peace.

Live your ritual, whatever it is. Live your ritual.

It's so important.

The Future of AI: Who Will Hold Power Over the Army of Geniuses?

AI development companies like OpenAI and Google DeepMind are in a “reckless race” to build smarter AIs that may soon become an “army of geniuses.” But is that a good idea? And who would control this “army?” Glenn speaks with former OpenAI researcher and AI Futures Project Executive Director, Daniel Kokotajlo, who warns that the future is coming fast! He predicts who will likely hold power over AI and what this tech will look like in the near future. Plus, he explains why developers with ethical concerns, like himself, have been leaving these Silicon Valley giants in droves.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So we have Daniel Kokotajlo, and he's a former OpenAI researcher. Daniel, have you been on the program before? I don't think you have, have you?

DANIEL: No, I haven't.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, welcome, I'm glad you're here. Really appreciate it. Wanted to have you on, because I am a guy. I've been talking about AI forever.

And it is both just thrilling, and one of the scariest things I've ever seen, at the same time.

And it's kind of like, not really sure which way it's going.

Are -- how confident are you that -- what did you say?

DANIEL: It can go both ways. It's going to be very thrilling. And also very scary.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

Good. Good. Good.

Well, thanks for starting my Monday off with that. So can you tell me, first of all, some of the things, that you think are coming, and right around the corner that people just don't understand.

Because I don't think anybody. The average person, they hear this. They think, oh, it's like social media. It's going to be like the cell phone.
It's going to change everything. And they don't know that yet.

DANIEL: Yeah. Well, where to begin. I think so people are probably familiar with systems like ChatGPT now, which are large language models, that you can go have an actual normal conversation with, unlike ordinary software programs.

They're getting better at everything. In particular, right now, and in the next few years, the companies are working on turning them into autonomous agents stop instead of simply responding to some message that you send them, and then, you know, turning off. They would be continuously operating, roaming around, browsing the internet. Working on their own projects. On their own computers.

Checking in with you, sending messages. Like a human employee, basically.

GLENN: Right.

DANIEL: That's what the companies are working on now. And it's the stated intention of the CEOs of these companies, to build eventually superintelligence.

What is superintelligence? Super intelligence is fully eponymous AI systems, that are better at humans at absolutely everything.

GLENN: So on the surface -- that sounds -- that sounds like a movie, that we've all seen.

And you kind of -- you know, you say that, and you're like, anybody who is working on these.

Have they seen the same movies that I have seen?

I mean, what the heck? Let's bring -- let's just go see Jurassic park. I mean, ex-Machina. I don't -- I mean, is it just me? Or do people in the industry just go, you know, this could be really bad?

DANIEL: Yeah. It's a great question. And the answer is, they totally have seen those movies, and they totally think, yes, they can get rid of that. In fact, that's part of the founding story, of some of these companies.

GLENN: What? What do you mean? What do you mean?

DANIEL: So Shane Legg, who is I guess I'll give you the technical founder of Deep Minds, which is now part of Google Deep Minds. Which is one of the big three companies, building towards super intelligence.

I believe in his Ph.D. thesis, he discusses the possibility of superhuman AI systems, and how if they're not correctly aligned to the right values, if they're not correctly instilled with the appropriate ethics, that they could kill everyone.

And become a -- a superior competitor species to humans.

GLENN: Hmm.

DANIEL: Not just them. Lots of these people at these companies, especially early on. Basically had similar thoughts of, wow. This is going to be the biggest thing ever.

If it goes well, it could be the best thing that ever happens. If it goes poorly, it could literally kill everyone, or do something similarly catastrophic, like a permanent dystopia. People react to that in different ways. So some people voted to stay in academia.

Some people stayed in other jobs that they had, or funded nonprofit to do research about this other thing. Some people, decided, well, this is going to happen, then it's better good people like me and my friends are in charge, when it happens.

And so that's basically the founding story of a lot of these companies. That is sort of part of why Deep Minds was created, and part of why OpenAI was created.

I highly recommend going and reading some of the emails that surfaced in court documents, related to the lawsuits against OpenAI.

Because in some of those emails. You see some of the founders of OpenAI, talking to each other about why they founded OpenAI.

And basically, it was because they didn't trust Deep Mind to handle this responsibly. Anyway how --

GLENN: And did they go on to come up with -- did they go on to say, you know, and that's why we've developed this? And it's going to protect us from it? Or did they just lose their way.

What happens?

DANIEL: Well, it's an interesting sociological question.

My take on it is that institutions tend to be -- tend to conform to their incentives over time.

So it's been a sort of like -- there's been a sort of evaporating growing effect.

Where the people who are most concerned about where all this is headed, tend to not be the one to get promoted.

And end up running the companies.

And they tend to be the ones who, for example, be the ones who quit like me.

GLENN: Let's stop it for a second.

Let's stop it there for a second.

You were a governance researcher on OpenAI on scenario planning.

What does that mean?

DANIEL: I was a researcher on the government's team. Scenario funding is just one of several things that I did.

So basically, I mean, I did a couple of different things at OpenAI. One of the things that I did was try to see what the future will look like. So 2027 is a much bigger, more elaborate, more rigorous version of some smaller projects, that I sort of did when I was at OpenAI.

Like I think back in 2022, I wrote my own -- figuring out what the next couple of years were going to look like. Right? Internal scenario, right?

GLENN: How close are you?

DANIEL: I did some things right. I did some things wrong. The basic trends are (cut out), et cetera.

For how close I was overall, I actually did a similar scenario back in 2021, before I joined OpenAI.

And so you can go read that, and judge what I got right and what I got wrong.

I would say, that is about par for the course for me when I went to do these sorts of things. And I'm hoping that AI 27 will also be, you know, about that level of right and wrong.

GLENN: So you left.

DANIEL: The thing that I wrote in 2021 was what 2026 looks like, in case you want to look it up.

GLENN: Okay. I'll look it up. You walked away from millions of equity in OpenAI. What made you walk away? What were they doing that made you go, hmm, I don't think it's worth the money?

DANIEL: So -- so back to the bigger picture, I think. Remember, the companies are trying to build super intelligence.

It's going to be better than humans, better that night best humans at everything. While also being faster and cheaper. And you can just make many, many copies of them.

The CEO of anthropic. He uses this term. The country of geniuses. To try to visualize what it would look like.

Quantitatively we're talking about millions of copies.

Each one of which is smarter than the smartest geniuses.

While also being more charismatic. Than the most charismatic celebrities and politicians.

Everything, right?

So that's what they're building towards.

And that races a bunch of questions.

Is that a good idea for us to build, for example?

Like, how are we going to do that?
(laughter)
And who gets to control the army of geniuses.

GLENN: Right. Right.

DANIEL: And what orders are going to be give up?

GLENN: Right. Right.

DANIEL: They have some extremely important questions. And there's a huge -- actually, that's not even all the questions. There's a long list of other very important questions too. I was just barely scratching the surface.

And what I was hoping would happen, on OpenAI. And these other companies, is that as the creation of these AI systems get closer and closer, you know, it started out being far in the future. As time goes on, and progress is made. It starts to feel like something that could happen in the next few years. Right?

GLENN: Yes, right.

DANIEL: As we get closer and closer, there needs to be a lot more waking up and paying attention. And asking these hard questions.

And a lot more effort in order to prepare, to deal with these issues. So, for example, OpenAI created the super alignment team, which was a -- a team of technical researchers and engineers, specifically focused on the question of how do we make sure that we can put any values into these -- how do we make sure we can control them at all?

Even when they're smarter than us.

So they started that team.

And they said that they were going to give 20 percent of their compute to -- towards me on this problem, basically.

GLENN: How much -- how much percentage. Go ahead.

DANIEL: Well, I don't know. And I can't say. But as much as 20 percent.

So, yeah. 20 percent was huge at the time.

Because it was way more than the company, than any company was devoting to that technical question at the time. So at the time, it was sort of a leap forward.

It didn't pan out. As far as I know, they're still not anywhere near 20 percent. That's just an example of the sort of thing that made me quit. That we're just not ready. And we're not even taking the steps to get ready.

And so we are -- we're going to do this anyway, even though we don't understand it. Don't know how to control it. And, you know, it will be a disaster. That's basically what got me delayed.

GLENN: So hang on just a second. Give me a minute.

I want to come back and I want to ask you, do you have an opinion on who should run this? Because I don't like OpenAI.

I like X better than anybody, only because Elon Musk has just opened to free speech on everything. But I don't even trust him. I don't trust any of these people, and I certainly don't trust the government.

So who will end up with all of this compute, and do we get the compute?

And enough to be able to stop it, or enough to be able to be dangerous?

I mean, oh. It just makes your head hurt.

We'll go into that when we come back.

Hang on just a second. First, let me tell you about our sponsor this half-hour.

It's Preborn. Every day, across the country, there's a moment that happens behind closed doors. A woman, usually young, scared, unsure, walks into a clinic. With a choice in front of her. A world that seems like it's pressing in at all size.

And she just doesn't know what to do.

This is the way. You know, I hate the abortion truck thing. Where everyone is screaming at each other.

Can we just look at this mom for just a second? And see that in most cases, it's somebody who has nobody on their side.

That doesn't have any way to afford the baby.

And is scared out of their mind. And so they just don't know what to do. She had been told 100 times, you know, it's easy. This is just normal.

But when she goes to a Preborn clinic, if she happens to go there, she'll hear the baby's heartbeat.

And for the first time, that changes everything. That increases the odds that mom does not go through with an abortion at 50 percent.

Now, the rest of it is all in. But I don't have anybody to help me.

Sheets other thing that Preborn does. Because they care about mom, rather than the baby. That's what is always lost in this message. Mom is really important as well.

So they not only offer the free ultrasound. But they are there for the first two years. They help pay for what ever the mom needs.

All the checkups. All the visits. And the doctor. Even clothing. And everything. Really, honestly.

It's amazing. Twenty-eight dollars provides a woman with a free ultrasound.

And another moment. Another miracle. And possibly another life.

And it just saves two people not only the baby, but also a mom. Please dial #250. Say the key word baby.

#250. Key word baby or visit Preborn.com/Beck.

It's Preborn.com/Beck. It's sponsored by Preborn. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Daniel Kokotajlo.

He's former OpenAI researcher. AI futures project executive director. And talking about the reckless race, to use his words, to build AGI.

You can find his work at AI-2027.com.

So, Daniel, who is going to end up with control of this thing?

DANIEL: Great question.

Well, probably no one.

And if not no one, probably some CEO or president would be my guess.
GLENN: Oh, that's comforting.

DANIEL: Like in general, if you wanted them to understand, like, you know, my views, the views of my team at the Future Project. And sort of how it all fits together. And why we came to these conclusions. You can go read our website, which has all of this stuff on it.

Which is basically our best guest attempt after predicting their future.

Obviously, you know, the future is very difficult to predict.

We will probably get a bunch of things wrong.

This is our best guess. That's AI-2027.com.

GLENN: Yes.

DANIEL: Yeah. So as you were saying, if one of these companies succeed in getting to this army of geniuses on the data centers. Super intelligence AIs. There's a question of, who controls them?

There's a technical question, of can -- does humanity even have the tools it needs to control super intelligence AIs?

Does anyone control them?

GLENN: I mean, it seems to me --

DANIEL: That's an unsolved question.

GLENN: I think anyone who understands this.

It's like, we get Bill Gates. But it's like a baby gate.

Imagine a baby trying to outsmart the parent.

You won't be able to do it.

You will just step over that gate.

And I don't understand why a super intelligence wouldn't just go, oh, that's cute.

Not doing that. You know what I mean?

DANIEL: Totally. And getting a little bit into the literature here.

So there's a division of strategies into AI's control techniques, and AI's alignment techniques.

So the control techniques are designed to allow you to control the super intelligence AI. Or the AGI, or whatever it is that you are trying to control.

Despite the fact that it might be at odds with you. And it might have different goals than you have.

Different opinions about how the future should be. Right?

So that's it sort of adversarial technique, where you, for example, restrict its access to stuff.

And you monitor it closely.

And you -- you use other copies of the AI, as watchers.

To play them off against each other.

But there's all these sort of control techniques. That are designed to work even if you can't trust the AIs.

And then there's a technique, which are designed to make the case that you don't need the control techniques, because the AIs are virtuous and loyal and obedient. And trustworthy, you know, et cetera.

Right? And so a lot of techniques are trying to sort of continue the specified values, deeply into the AIs, in robust ways, so that you never need the control techniques. Because they were never -- so there's lots of techniques. There's control techniques. Both are important fields of research. Maybe a couple hundred people working on -- on these fields right now.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

Hold on. Because both of them sound like they won't work.

Trump Exposes COVID-19 Cover Up, But Will ANYONE Go to Jail?!

The White House now fully backs the COVID-19 lab leak theory after years of calling it a conspiracy theory. Glenn reads from the new website, which explains why the evidence points to a man-made virus and highlights the roles of China, EcoHealth Alliance, Andrew Cuomo, Dr. Fauci, and others in the cover-up. But Glenn has known about most of this evidence for years. So, he asks, will anybody be held accountable for this? Will anybody go to jail? But it’s not just government officials who covered this up. It was the Legacy Media, which is STILL lying to you, and yet, millions of Americans still trust it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This morning, there was a story. Stu, can you check this out for me? See what gold is at right now.

Early this morning, when I got up around 5:00 a.m. Eastern, gold was spiking again. The highest place it's ever been.

Gold -- I mean, the dollar was starting to fall. Not good. It was today. I think it was three -- 3,300 -- I don't know. Sixty. Something like that. Do you have the number, Stu?

STU: Yeah. 3,435, currently.

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: Up another 3 percent.

GLENN: 3500!

Almost 3500. That is -- this is not good!

This is not good. The gold going up is a sign of confidence, and the rest of the world -- central banks are buying gold up. And, you know, again, what do rich people know, that maybe you don't know?

Hmm. That things are shaky with the dollar. And things are shaky with gold. So you might want to consider that. I mean, I'm not a financial adviser. This is not a commercial. But I'm just telling you, that this is a big warning sign. Big, big, big warning sign. We're -- we're -- 3500, approaching $3,500 an ounce.

It was -- what was it? You said this just this last week. I had to look it up, Stu. It was at the beginning of the year that it was 2500? Almost came a thousand dollars?

STU: Yeah. I mean -- let's see. No. You're right on there.

It was, yeah. 2024, we were still at around $2,000 an ounce. Early 2024.

GLENN: Two.

Unbelievable!

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

STU: Five --

GLENN: We're not even halfway through.

STU: Yeah. Five. Pretty flat years for gold. Between 2020 and 2024. And then it started going up, in, you know, early to mid-2024.

Kind of like a rollercoaster story.

You're just climbing. Up at about 100 percent in the past five years.

But in -- in the past year, most of that gain has happened.

And, again, you've mentioned this for a long time.

Obviously, we talk about gold being a good hedge kind of against insanity. And a good piece of your portfolio.

However, you kind of almost don't want it to be this high. Because it's just in case. Such scary times.

GLENN: No. No. No. Bring lost my gold in that horrible boating accident.

STU: Terrible.

GLENN: You know, you would like -- gold is an investment. You would like it to go up. I don't want it to go up. I don't want it to go up anymore.

I would like it to come back down. This is a very, very bad sign.

All right. So the media over the weekend, they were like, oh.

Do you see what Donald Trump did to COVID.com?

Or .gov website. You put it on the White House dot-gov website. All the lies about COVID!

You mean all the corrections on COVID?

This is -- this is an amazing thing. And I would love to hear your just on this, Stu. About what they -- what they published at WhiteHouse.gov.

The origin, according to public health officials and the media, to discredit the lab leak theory, was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally.

Point-one, the virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature. Number two, data shows that all COVID-19 cases come from a single introduction in to humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics, where there were multiple spillover events. Three, Wuhan is home to China's four most SARS research lab. Which has a history of conducting gain of function research. Gene-altering and organisms super charging in an inadequate biosafety level.

Number four, Wuhan Institute of Virology, researchers were sick with COVID, with symptoms in the fall of 2019 months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market. We talked about that.

I mean, probably within a couple of months of COVID happening. We had that information.

We were like, let's look back. Why were they redoing all of that -- that institute?

You know, they completely gutted all of the air ducts. Everything else. They've completely upgraded it, around November.

And then lo and behold, in September, we start to find out, that whoa. Something in the wet market happened. By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced. But it hasn't. This is from the White House now. And it goes through all of it.

And then it goes through Fauci's pardon. And his obstruction. And EcoHealth's obstruction, and Dr. David. And, you know, the obstruction of your favorite person.

I think you'll -- I think you'll really like what they say about Andrew Cuomo on the website.

STU: Yeah, this is the best place on the entire internet for that reason.

GLENN: Cuomo's failures.

STU: Just says Andrew Cuomo's failure. And it's a great summary of his entire life, not just this particular issue.

But, you know, it's -- I've done a lot of it. If you followed this stuff closely, it was not new information. Right? It was a good summary.

GLENN: No.

STU: A breakdown of the stuff that we have learned over the past years on this. On this topic. I think the key thing maybe --

GLENN: You know what, I still don't think that it is recognized as the official thing.
I mean, this has been out now for a long time.

You know, we started doing most of this stuff we had in, what?

Six or eight months of the actual outbreak. We knew by the summer.

And we were broadcasting all of this. And we didn't have all of the documents. But we had everything that led up to the document. That said, hey. We have to change all of this.

We had the document before going, hey. I think you guys are wrong. Then a document that said, we should probably talk offline.

Then the next document we had, was no. Everything we were saying, is the complete opposite now!

We didn't have the middle document there. And that's been released now.

So we had all of this stuff, just not the smoking guns. All the smoking guns are there.

And I still don't think -- I mean, and it's partially because, who is going to jail over this?

Millions of people die. Millions.

Is anyone going to be held responsible for this?

STU: That's a great question.

I hope that's a high priority of the administration. There's several things of this level. I will also throw something like Joe Biden is mentally incapable to be president of the United States. And everybody was hiding it.

I put that in the same category.

But I think the key thing from this. Which I don't think enough people know, is the cover-up.

You know, I think -- yeah, that's the real -- it always is.

STU: You're right. We said a lot of these things in the months after COVID came out.

And A lot of it really early, frankly. But part of the problem as to why it didn't become, I think, the consensus at the time. Was all of these institutional mainstream sources, disagreeing with it. Right?

GLENN: Correct.

STU: And no offense --

GLENN: No offense. And the fact, Stu, we couldn't say anything about COVID and not get banned and demonetized.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: You know, all the shows that we did, unless you were a member of TheBlaze. See them.

We put them online. And you didn't see them.

STU: The solution of that problem was to say it anyway, and get banned and demonetized.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: What else are you going to do?

I don't know why else you would have this job, if you aren't going to go for that.

But there was that situation where, sure, we were saying it. And, sure, people in this audience, heard it.

And, yes. Some people on the right were familiar with the skepticism and the pushback on this stuff.

But because none of these mainstream outlets really adopted any of those positions, or took them seriously. Or even gave them a fair hearing. A lot of people just -- you know, understandably. If you're on the left. You look at this stuff, and you say, okay. Well, Glenn Beck is saying it.

I'm not going to believe it. The New York Times is saying it's a conspiracy theory.

I'm not surprised that they just believed that.

That cover-up, where people right under Fauci, are on record, saying they want to delete the emails, so that they can't -- so no one finds out what they're talking about.

That sort of stuff. While I think the lab leak theory. And some of those other pieces of skepticism. That the conservative side had early on.

Had been very much vindicated.

The cover-up as to why it needed to be vindicated. Has not really had the attention it deserves yet.

GLENN: 100 percent try.

Now, why?

Why?

STU: I mean, it's the same people. I will say, some of these -- some of these places have written about this now.

Some of these places have talked about -- talked about it. But it hasn't been -- you know, the, hey, did you know Donald Trump is Hitler sort of march?

And you would think, it would be. As you point out, millions of people have died here.

You would think it would be something that they would focus on, and draw a lot of attention to.
And continue to kind of beat the drum, until someone is held responsible.

And they don't seem to have any interest in that whatsoever. They kind of like -- it seems like, they're now under that stage.

Where they say, look, we have this op-ed.

We've talked about it. Like, and most of them have run an op-ed by now. Right? Like they've run.

But it's not been this constant thing. It's not this deep dive, constantly sending reporter after reporter after reporter to find out, what actually happened. That stuff doesn't seem to be of interest at all.

GLENN: If we make a mistake, we correct it.

Because it drives us crazy that we made the mistake.

And I don't -- I don't want anybody to believe that I'm standing behind something, that we found out was wrong and a lie.

I mean, we might be wrong from time to time.

But we have never knowingly lied.

I think some of won't groups.

They knowingly lied.

The New York Times, they were knowingly lying about Joe Biden and his senility. Knowingly lying. They knew. People in the media, knew. They just didn't want to hurt. Or I should say it this way. They just didn't want to help Donald Trump. They thought a senile old man with the buttons is much better than a Donald Trump.

They thought, not knowing who the president of the United States actually is. You know, they say they're defending the Constitution now.

Because if we don't have a Constitution. If we don't have rule of law. We have no country

Where is your rule of law with Joe Biden?

Who actually was running the White House?

Who was running it?

You don't want the rule of law. You want control.

That's what you want.

And, you know, I would be horrified, if I had been a part of any of that.

Horrified. They're not.

And, you know what, there's no -- there's no consequence.

They're not going to lose any advertisers. The New York Times hasn't lost any real money because of this.

They're just people continuing to watch.

I mean, if we were this wrong about things, I would hope that we would have seen a lot of cancellations.

I would hope that people were like, I don't know if we can trust you anymore, Glenn.

Because we would earn that.

Especially after a couple of years, by the way, all of that stuff we said was wrong.

Hey, in other news!

And that's what they're doing. They just run one little story.

And then they go on, but Donald Trump is Hitler!

Why should I -- that's the thing I just don't understand.

How do people continue to believe the people, who have been so wrong, about stuff that is this important.

They lied to you. They knowingly lied to you.

How? Donald Trump appointed someone to do DOGE.

Yeah. Well, he wasn't elected. Who was the president of the United States?

Because the guy we elected, he wasn't the president.

Why does it matter now, that DOGE, which the president has every right to do.

He's not the president. He's not making these calls on his own. He's reporting the president.

Why is DOGE such a problem, but, you know, Joe Biden crapping his pants and looking, trying to find old jellybeans in the couch from old Ronald Reagan days.

That's totally fine.

I mean, I don't know.

I don't know how people live with themselves. But they do, strangely.

STU: At the very least. Wouldn't it give you a sense of fallibility.

That like, hey. I can get sucked into something like this and be totally wrong, and I should really watch myself next time I decide, I want to write story number 9,345 that Trump is Hitler.

Maybe question whether my certainty is warranted. And I think that's the -- something they just never have that moment of self-reflection.

GLENN: I know. None. None.

It's come out.

Everything about the Russia gate.

Came out now in court documents.

That Hillary Clinton was the one that approved all of that.

And she knew it wasn't accurate. But she approved it.

Why? Why doesn't anybody know about that?

Why doesn't anybody care? Because no one in the media cares. Ends justice means. They just hate Donald Trump so much.

They'll do anything.

Anybody.

They will sleep with.

They will sharpen the knives of anyone that says they'll put it in the back of Donald Trump.