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 It was retracted within two weeks.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.

DEBATE: Should AI Facial Recognition be Allowed in Court?

Is AI facial recognition software, like Clearview AI, reliable enough to be used as evidence in a court of law? Glenn, who is against Clearview, has a friendly debate with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who wants to expand Clearview’s use in court cases. So, how do we balance the good that Clearview can do and the bad that it is capable of doing in the wrong hands (for instance, a totalitarian government)? AG Yost gives his thoughts and also previews how he hopes the Supreme Court will rule on this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I am thrilled to have the Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost on with us. He served as the auditor of Ohio, for a long time. Like eight years.

And then he became attorney general. I think he's -- I think he won it with more votes than anybody else in the history of Ohio has. And he is defending and fighting for something called Clearview. Now, I like Dave.

But I'm against Clearview. And maybe he knows something that I don't know. So I want to have a conversation with him about what is happening in Ohio, and what's being heard now in the courts.

Dave, welcome to the program.

DAVE: It's good to hear your voice.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. By the way, thanks for everything you've done. You're really making a difference.

DAVE: You're very kind, thank you.

GLENN: Talk to me about the case now of Clearview. Which is an AI facial recognition, and it is a great tool for law enforcement. But it frightens me a great deal. Talk to me about the case.

DAVE: Sure. So let's -- let's start with the backs of crimes.

Fellows walking down the street. Minding his own business. Mind you, this guy has no criminal background. He's just -- he's a good guy.

Pays his taxes. Goes to work. He's walking down the street on February 14th, Valentine's Day. Day of love. And the bad guy, I'm not going to use his name comes up behind him, robs him on the street, shoots him twice in the back, and runs off. Now, surveillance cameras see him, that are just on the street. See him going into a particular apartment. Well, fast forward a week. Police doing their investigation, trying to figure out what happened.

And as a -- he goes to a convenience store, and the surveillance camera there, over at the cash register, picks up his face.

And he goes back, same kind of route, to the same apartment.

And so they go, hmm.

Wonder who lives there.

And they run the probation website, or the parole website from the Department of Corrections.

Lo and behold, then they run that guy against the -- excuse me, they grab a facial freeze frame, off of the convenience store footage, and run it through Clearview AI, and it's a match.

So they say, a-ha! They go in, and get a search warrant from the judge. During the search, they come up with the gun.

The murder weapon.

And so they arrest the guy. They've got a pretty good case at that point.

That guy goes to court and complains. And says, hey, that facial recognition tough is not reliable. They say right on there, that you can't rely on it.

And don't use it.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: And the judge tosses the results of the search. Which means, this guy is going to walk, if we don't have the murder weapon for evidence.

GLENN: Right. And he tosses that because the clear view evidence is what got you the warrant. So anything is fruit of a poison tree. Correct?

DAVE: Well, that's what the argument is.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right. Right.

DAVE: But the law says there's a long-standing, decades long good faith exception. And you're only supposed to use the fruit of the poisonous tree. If there's no other -- if there's bad faith. And there's no other option to do it.

There was no bad faith here.

And, in fact, there's other useful evidence, probative evidence, including seeing the guy go into that apartment, that is useful. And supporting probable cause for the search warrant.

GLENN: It also reminds me a little bit of the glove doesn't quit, you must acquit.

The use of DNA evidence during OJ Simpson. Everybody said the same thing. That's unreliable. We don't even know what that is. Could be one out of every 100 have the same kind of -- they made all kinds of crazy things.

And so that was tossed out. Because people didn't understand how accurate, that was. Pragmatism so I don't -- I don't disagree with you at all. This is a great thing to get the bad guys.

However, Clearview. What they have done, is they have scraped billions of images, without anybody's consent off of the internet.

And I believe it's very, very accurate. And the argument would be, well, I'm not doing anything bad or wrong. So I don't have to worry about it.

But I don't -- you know, in a time where we're headed for AI the way we are. And what's happening in China.

This is exactly the kind of technology that is used for governments to track everybody.

How do you balance that the crazy world that we live in, to make sure it doesn't become a tool like China?

DAVE: Well, you know, Glenn, I worry about that too. And I think that the solution is the regulation of the use of the thing.

For example, we do not permit here in Ohio, the use of -- of facial recognition, without anything more to support an arrest warrant. It can only be used as a lead.

Then you have to go out and do the shoe leather. To prove that the guy you think it is, is the guy you're looking for.

GLENN: Which is what you did.

You used that. And you didn't arrest him because we had the AI. You arrested him because you had that, got you a warrant, you got in, you found the gun. Right?

DAVE: Well, it was a search warrant that got us --

GLENN: Right. Right. What I mean is, what you're saying you wanted to be used like, is exactly what you did. You didn't go get the guy because he was on Clearview.

DAVE: Exactly right. And here's the rubric. I know you're a fact guy. But you love -- you love, how do we think about this?

We have public spaces everywhere. So a cop can stand on the corner and observe all day long.

Ask sit there for an eight-hour shift. And just watch. And anything he sees is fair game. They're allowed to react right there. And that's not improper surveillance. Because it's a public place.

When does it stop becoming a public place? Or proper?

When it becomes a private place. If it's your home. If it's in some circumstances, your business.

You have to have probable cause, get a somewhere to sign off on that. I think when we're talking about these technological things, the question is: What is the government allowed to do with it? And what -- and did it occur in public or in private?

When we're talking about Facebook, you know, I'm sorry. It's electronic. But that's kind of a public place.

That's more like the cop standing on the street corner. On the other hand, the cop standing outside.

We just had a Supreme Court case about this a couple years ago. A cop standing on the street, but using sensitive ultraviolet thermal imaging to look for marijuana grows. They're looking at what's going on inside your private residence. That means, that's a Fourth Amendment violation.

So I think that this principle of public versus private fears. Goes a long way, to helping us think through this.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

So, Dave, I want you to know. I mean, I hope this hasn't felt like a hostile interview.

I want you to know. I'm a fan of yours. But I'm very, very concerned of this slippery. Almost straightdown slope to the cage that AI could build for people.

And we could have all of the best intentions. But it falls into the wrong hands.

You know, we lose several elections in a row.

And, you know, it could be -- it will be a prison. It will be a panopticon. Like it is, in China.

And so that's why I'm concerned about it.

So this is in front of the Supreme Court. Closing arguments haven't happened yet.

DAVE: Nope.

GLENN: How do you think this is -- the court will look at this. And what do you think will happen?

DAVE: Well, it's a case of first impression, right?

I mean, we haven't had a lot of cases, challenging the intersection of the Fourth Amendment, protecting our privacy, in our homes. And papers.

And this new technology. So we're arguing for a narrow reading of it.

But that it should be -- it should be an available tool.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: To your point earlier, I couldn't agree with you more. It scares me, what government can do about this.

If you think about, back to the Biden administration. And social media ask what they were doing.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DAVE: Multiple that. Make that geometrically larger. That's the potential. We've got to be vigilant.

GLENN: What is the difference between this, and, for instance, in Texas, you can't clock me speeding with a camera.

A cop has to be there, to stop me. And even they can take a picture of me, driving the car. Et cetera, et cetera.

They cannot ticket me for speeding. It has to be a physical police officer.

What is the difference between this, do you think?

DAVE: Well, and that's a great -- that's the same law we have in Ohio. And that's a great example of how the government can restrain technology. To prevent it from going too far.

That's not a constitutional issue. That's a statute that the general assembly passed. And said, we're not going to let you do this. Yes. You've got the technology. We're not going to let you do this. That's just too far.

GLENN: Okay. Dave, I mean, I appreciate that at least you and others are thinking deeply about this because we're on the verge of a whole Brave New World.

And I honestly don't know what the right answer is. I mean, the law -- you know, law-abiding citizen in me, is like the guy clearly -- you've got the gun in his house. He clearly did it.

But the person that is concerned about this new technology, and things like China.

I just don't know how to balance it yet. But I appreciate the conversation. Thank you so much.

DAVE: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. That's Dave Yost. He's the Ohio Attorney General, and that is happening in Ohio right now.

Sneak Peek: Glenn Beck Recreates the Lee Harvey Oswald JFK Shot

We still have plenty of questions after the JFK Files release. So, Glenn wanted to put one of them to the test: Could Lee Harvey Oswald have made the shots that assassinated Kennedy in the allotted time, as the Warren Commission said he did? Glenn recently put the theory to the test and tried to make the shots himself. The full recreation attempt will be available exclusively to BlazeTV subscribers on March 26, 2025. But first, Glenn gives a preview of the 2 incredible things he discovered ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yeah. Well, I went up to Oklahoma this weekend.

To a friends house. Or a friends ranch.

He's got a shooting range. And we went up, because we were shooting something that is for Wednesday's special.

Last week, we shot what's his name?

Oswald's gun. The exact copy with the exact ammunition.

And the ammunition itself leads to you conspiracy theories like crazy.

I mean, the more -- the more we do things on this.

Like, we will just disprove that.

Then you're like. Eh.

I mean, one of them is the ammunition.

This gun is -- was for Greek fighters in World War II!

It's a really crappy gun. The -- the scope today, the same exact scope, if you can get it, very rare.

If you can get it. It is so crappy. That it's a 10-dollar scope, today. Okay?

Back then, it was -- and it's really -- this gun is -- has everything going against it. Okay?

And the ammunition, there wasn't ammunition for this gun. The CIA after the war said to the DOD, you've got to make a bunch of ammunition over to this gun. And send it over to Greece. Okay?

So it was all CIA-ordered ammunition. It didn't sell. It was there. So they shipped it back, later.

Now, how did Oswald get the ammunition that was -- was ordered by the CIA, brought back by the CIA, and the DOJ.

How did he -- we have those shells. They are $40 a piece. So we were using the shell.

We used absolutely everything. And last week, the gun jammed on us. Actually, the firing pin went out, and we couldn't get it fixed fast enough for what I did yesterday.

So I went out last week, and I shot.

And it was just stationery, at the exact stance. Can we -- can I hit those things, using this gun?

Yes. Then we decided, we have to do it though, moving. And the exact angles, and as high up to six stories as we can get.

So yesterday, I go to -- go to Oklahoma. To this great side by side ranch. Where, you know, it's for hunters.

And the guy who runs it, is a guy who is a Beretta sharpshooter, if you will. The kind of guy that he will go to gun shows and stuff.

He will throw up a quarter, and he will shoot a hole through the quarter. He's that kind of guy. Really good shot. And he said, this is difficult.

I'm like, eh, is it? And he's like, yes. Glenn. This is a difficult shot. We're going to be here all day. Let me just say, my day lasted -- I expected maybe 20 minutes. It was an eight-hour day to do this. Okay?

STU: Wow.

GLENN: So we take the shot. I don't want to reveal what we found. We found two things that I did not expect. I thought for sure it would go a certain way, and it didn't.

And then on top of that, he comes back, and he's -- because we had it in the back of a car.

Shoot through the back of the car.

And we did!

And so it was the same angle.

Absolutely everything.

And he comes out, after the shoot, and he said, I want you to look at this.

And he shows us something on the car.

And I said, wait a minute.

Wait. Explain this.

Because it seemed odd. Once he pointed it out. I said, wait a minute.

And he said, yeah. We started talking about it. The whole crew came around.

We're doing research today.

Because if the Warren commission did not talk about this. And they had to have.

STU: Right.

GLENN: If they didn't talk about this, it was -- because there's no way around it, and we'll show it to you on Wednesday's show.

It's fascinating!

It is absolutely fascinating.

STU: Sounds it!

GLENN: Yeah. It's really great.

STU: What was it like, going through the process of re-creating that?

GLENN: It was weird, because we had put balloons.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Where everybody was. And so we put balloons there.

And the idea of -- I could relate to him on nerves.

Because I was thinking, okay. So what other elements did he have to deal with? And the only one that I couldn't re-create is, I'm shooting the president.

And I'm probably going to walk away dead.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: So, you know, that's the only thing. That would slow you down. Make you a sloppier shot. Or anything else.

And we couldn't re-create that.

STU: That's a big one.

GLENN: Yeah. The other thing is, he was in a Lincoln continental. Even moving, it's 11 miles an hour.

That thing is not bouncing around. We had it in the back of a truck.

And the truck was being dragged through this field.

And it -- it kept losing -- you know, the field is bumpy.

STU: Not paved.

GLENN: Yeah. Not paved at all. Not even smooth.

So I think that kind of made up for him being was this. Because that -- that's what Scott was saying.

He was like, this is a difficult shot.

Because of that!

So I think we kind of balanced it out.

But it's really amazing.

We're doing a show from the Oval. Wednesday. And we have got -- we've got somebody on that has a tape. He's bringing it. Would not release it. To us. So he's coming in, and he's bringing the tape of a conversation that he says, two people talking about Johnson.

And Johnson's involvement.

We also have Roger Stone on the program.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. Talking about that.

Because I also want to go in with Nixon.

And he's part of the Nixon thing. Because the more you find out about what our CIA was doing.

The things we'll show you on Wednesday, that we've now confirmed.

And we didn't even know we were looking for this.

But the things that came out of those JFK files now that we confirmed, shows that the CIA is absolutely out of control then, and it will make you question everything else that you know in history.
Was that real, or was that not real?

And so that's Wednesday night.

9 o'clock. Blaze TV.

Join me. BlazeTV.com/Glenn.

Just use the promo code Glenn, and you will save.

STU: Doesn't Roger Stone have a Nixon tattoo? So he was definitely -- he was there for that.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: A big fan.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

But I don't know how I feel about Nixon thousand.

I mean, I know how I feel about Nixon.

I don't think he was a good guy.

I don't know how I feel about -- what I know said. My dad said, he's just like everybody else. He just got caught.

I think he's bare minimum.

Right about that.

It may have been, he's just like everybody else. But they set him up.

STU: Hmm. This is interesting. This is interesting. Because we have all these documents. And as usual, they've calmed no one, it seems.

GLENN: But this has only made it worse. I think. This has only made it worse. And we're trying to disprove things. When you see what happens in the field, I think you'll -- I think you'll really be surprised.

You'll really be surprised. At what we found. And what happened.

STU: That's interesting. I can't wait to see this. This is Wednesday night. On your normal show.

Your normal special.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: By the way, you can subscribe to Blaze TV. BlazeTV.com/Glenn. The promo code is Glenn. You can save 30 bucks off your subscription.

Nerdrotic: Everything Disney RUINED in "Snow White" Remake

After years of controversy, Disney’s “Snow White” remake, starring Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot, is officially a flop. ‪@nerdrotic‬ joins Glenn Beck to discuss the many, many places Disney went wrong and why he’s “ecstatic at this failure.” The film, which was made at the height of the woke movement, now feels “dated” and is chock full of “communist propaganda.” The seven dwarves, he says, “are the stuff of nightmares.” And it’s clear that Disney “doesn’t know what a Disney Princess is anymore.” Nerdrotic also reviews some of the other shocking changes Disney made to the 1937 classic, including who they replaced the “prince” with and what became of those “7 magical creatures” that Disney reportedly wanted to replace the dwarves with.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: And I want to talk to you because you might be as happy as I am at the failure of Snow White.

And I wanted to talk to you about what you're seeing with Snow White.

GARY: I'm ecstatic at this failure. It's been two years, and it's been one of many now, predictable Disney failures.

And it -- it's really built up to a head and been hit with the cultural zeitgeist. And it's more than just a movie at this point. Because normally I wouldn't even watch a princess movie, but it became such a punching bag in the culture war, and a symbol.

And Rachel Ziegler has become the symbol of everything that's wrong with modern Hollywood right now. And seeing it just crumble, does my heart good.

Because the universe tends to unfold as it should, Glenn.

This is the balancing act. This was a movie that was made before the cultural shift. Or during it, actually.

And now it just feels dated. And the audience has spoken. They were -- honestly, Glenn, every trailer that hit YouTube was getting ratioed into oblivion.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

GARY: Yeah. So Disney was telling you exactly what this movie was going to be. And the audience was telling them exactly what they thought of it. And now unsurprisingly, it's flopping.

GLENN: So, you know, you say this was made at the height of it.

And I think this is also, this movie, her reaction, the way they did all of it. I think this is part of the undoing of that era, as well.

GARY: Absolutely, and we've seen that play out in the last year. If we want to even go back to the Acolyte, or go back before that with the Marvels. These were movies made with the mindset of identity politics, intersectional feminism, which really goes against what Hollywood has done for hundreds of years, or 100 years.

Hundreds of years, sorry.

Which is, you know, tell good stories that are authentic.

And a lot of that is either the hero's journey.

Or just the good old-fashioned fairytale with some romance.

And Hollywood doesn't know how to be good, anymore.

They are so -- they are so black pilled. They are so dystopian. They are so nihilistic at this point.

That when you see something that is just good, that it -- it disgusts them.

And now, they -- while they're trying to fix stuff, they don't even know how to do it. They don't know what a hero is. Disney doesn't know what a Disney princess is anymore, which is crazy.

GLENN: Yeah, you know, it's funny. When I was working at CNN.

Stu, do you remember this with Hal? He was a great writer. I was working at CNN.

And I don't remember, maybe the funeral of Ronald Reagan was happening, or there was -- something was happening, an anniversary. And I was going out West for a week of shows, and I said to Hal before I left, I said, hey, next week, this is coming up. Can you write a really good piece on Ronald Reagan and America? He said, sure. I get this piece of garbage back. I mean, it was like, come on.

And I call Hal up. And I said, Hal, you're a good writer. What the heck happened? He said, Glenn, I've tried. I worked harder on that than I've ever worked on anything. But I have to tell you, I hated Ronald Reagan.

He said, so I didn't -- I don't know what people like about Ronald Reagan. And I understood then, you know, you can't fake it.

You cannot write -- these guys in Hollywood, they cannot reflect, you know, the right direction. Because they don't -- they hate it. And they don't understand it!

GARY: No. And it reviles them. The whole concept of a male hero, in particular.

We've seen -- what happens is masculinity has been drained out of Hollywood.

And it turns out, they needed it. That's what it was built on.

Now, it doesn't mean -- and so is femininity.

Which, you know, Snow White is essentially feminism versus femininity. And sure, yes. It's made in 1937.

But it boggles my mind that Disney took the film that built their empire.

GLENN: Yes.

GARY: That is a paradigm shift movie. That is sacred text in Hollywood.

And just threw away the original script and gave us -- and I'm not kidding. Communist propaganda.

GLENN: Why do you say that?

GARY: In Snow White.

Oh. It's filled with it. Throughout -- you get it in the second or third line of the film. They're introducing Snow White's parents, which was new. It's not from the original.

And they somehow run a socialist kingdom, where they run everything, but everybody has to share everything and everybody has to share in the bounty. Right?

And then, instead of Snow White meeting a prince, they replace the prince with a thief. And her desire is not to find a good man. It's to lead.

So, of course, we want to give her a career over maybe a fulfilling life, and it really does feel like -- well, they did. They did massive reshoots during the strike. So they tried to fix some of it, so it's kind of half a fairytale and half -- as the BBC says, Glenn, a Marxist call to arms. Even the BBC calls it out for its Communist propaganda, which is saying something.

GLENN: Jeez. So somebody said -- here's my favorite line from a review: Rachel Ziegler only gave -- only became a princess, and looked like a princess in the same -- in the same way, she looked like a product of incest.

So... anyways. Anyway.

Stu is telling me. He read a review.

Somebody said, even the background. It just looks. Everything looks fake.

I would imagine, that's because, didn't they have to strip all of the other people out of it, to replace all of the not-dwarf-style people out? And replace them with animation?

GARY: I think the dwarves were going to be in it all along. I think they were going back and forth on -- because they initially were going to cast them, and then they didn't. And then they -- the Peter Dinklage controversy happened. And I think they thought a good compromise would be to make them CGI, which makes them look like demons. They're the stuff of nightmares, but the bandits were always going to be in there. But their roles were greatly reduced.

GLENN: Hang on just a -- Stu, didn't we see pictures of like this tall guy out in the woods?

GARY: Yeah, those were the bandits. They were going to be part of it. And instead of a prince, Jonathan leads the bandits. And the bandits are just there, because they feel like all the food should be shared. And the bounty of the land belongs to everybody, who tends to it.

And it's such a clash of messages, where it's, again -- it's supposed to be some kind of socialist utopia. But except Rachel Ziegler's snow white is the boss. So we're not going to question that.

GLENN: So did they leave the evil queen? Is she evil? Well, she has to be, because she's a Jew.

GARY: Yes. She is. And Gal Gadot. And bless her heart, she does her best. She's not a very good actress. And it turns out, she's not a very good singer either.

But she's pretty.

But yeah. And some of the most iconic scenes from the original, because I rewatched the original before I saw this -- are gone. They're missing the I Am wishing song. And Some Day My Prince Will Come song. And they turn them into songs about leading. And her end, sorry to spoil it for everybody. The witch falls off -- lightning strikes. Nah, and she falls off.

No. She just gets sucked into a mirror at the end.

They extended role. But that's not good. I would have reduced the role.

GLENN: But there is a magic mirror.

GARY: Yes.

GLENN: And does the magic mirror tell you, you can be pregnant if you're a boy?

GARY: No. But maybe that was left on the cutting room floor. But they definitely left out the description of Snow White, where they said "her skin is white as snow." They left that out. I wonder why.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Thank you so much, man. I just had to talk to you today. Because I knew you would just be joyful.

As I was.

I was actually a little disappointed in the numbers. I was hoping it would do worse.

GARY: It will. It will.

The international numbers. These films do better internationally.

And they're doing terrible. So this is not going to have the life they want. And it's going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. The budget was 215, before marketing.

GLENN: What happens to Ziegler?

GARY: Oh, she goes to Broadway. That would be my guess. Her movie career is over. They're never going to put her on a red carpet again. She has -- that has been the well-documented, worst PR disaster in Hollywood history without a doubt.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Gary, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

GARY: Thanks for having me on, Glenn. You bet.

GLENN: You bet. That's Gary Buechler. He's from Nerdrotic. If you follow him. Nerdrotic. Nerdrotics. @Nerdrotics on Twitter, if you want to follow him. He's got some good stuff over at YouTube, maybe you should check out.

I enjoy his disdain for Walt Disney and the Walt Disney studios, because it's new to me. And it's kind of fun.

It's kind of fun to see them just kind of crash and burn on this.

I guarantee you, it won't change anything.

And I couldn't know?

Just like the democratic party. They let the rebels inside.

They let the revolutionaries inside. Thinking that, okay. Well, it's -- you know, we can control it. We're Disney. We can control it.

No. And now you've lost complete control of the company.

Just like the Democrats have lost -- well, there's a good, regular old Democrats. They disagree with all of the -- no, no, you don't. No, you don't.

Chuck Schumer is running like a scared little girl, you know, trying to look like he's tough. Like I'm a revolutionary, just like you.

And it's just so ridiculous to see. But they can't put that genie back in the bottle. And, I mean, I hate to use that metaphor with Disney, but it's true. They can't put that genie back in the bottle. It's over. It's over. How are you going to clean that place up, and get rid of all the revolutionaries? You can't. That's all that's there now.

Are Leftists Swatting Conservatives? What to Do if You're Targeted

Are conservative influencers being targeted by leftists who are calling in fake 911 emergencies? A disturbing number of prominent conservatives have been falsely swatted in recent days. So, Glenn sits down with his local sheriff, Bill Waybourn of Tarrant County, and he urges you to do the same. Sheriff Waybourn gives an update on how common these false flag calls have become and also says that Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi is "absolutely on board" with prosecuting people. He also weighs in on how "the Cartel is being shut down" by Trump.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, if you have any doubt on which side in the country is dangerous. Both sides could be dangerous. But there is one side of the political debate. That has an actual active revolutionary army. And that is the left.

And we are seeing it. The earlier I played in the podcast. That the words of -- of Chuck Schumer. Who I guess he's trying to prove that he's manly or something.

But he is talking about. We are targeting Republicans in their own areas.

Which goes to some. He might just mean, like Sarah Palin meant, we're targeting, you know, through political process.

But there's too many people on the left, that are actually targeting. And let me give you this. A website called DOGE quest has published the personal information of Tesla owners, nationwide in -- in an apparent bid to shame and also intimidate them.

Because they're saying, you're a supporter of DOGE. And because you bought -- because you bought a car. Maybe you bought it because you believed in global warming.

I don't think you were probably on the Trump train, but okay. The site called DOGE Quest, reveals all of this information.

The operators who also posted the exact locations of Tesla dealerships said they will remove identifying information about Tesla drivers, only if they provide proof, that they sold their electric vehicles. Now, I don't know about you. But that sounds like the very definition of terrorism.

People have been doxxed. And there is something else that is happening.

And that is, people sending in S.W.A.T. teams. It's called swatting.

Let me just show you a montage here of some of the people that are being swatted. Look.

VOICE: Swatting against conservatives. We told you yesterday about Texas radio host Joe Pags being swatted.

VOICE: This morning, a growing number of conservative influencers are getting targeted by Schwartz.

VOICE: They were so urgent in getting the police to break down my door, and possibly kill me. In my doorway, they told them, I heard them on the scanner traffic, that he's bleeding out upstairs. Please hurry, and get inside.

VOICE: When I walked up to the door, he was pointing a gun at me. You know.

VOICE: We did just get swatted. The officer said they received a phone call that -- that somebody murdered somebody in the house and was planning a suicide by cop.

VOICE: And podcaster Nick Sortor also posted, both my dad and my sister were swatted tonight. A dozen cops attempting to kick my dad's door in at gun point.

VOICE: Yes, sir!

VOICE: Just a few hours ago, Infowars reporter and anchor Owen Shroyer was swatted at his home.

VOICE: And then most recently, Juanita Broaddrick posted, well, I just got swatted. About ten police and S.W.A.T. team showed up. They said the caller said there were two masked men and people said that had been shot.

GLENN: This is -- this is terrorism.

And those people who are making these calls, should go to prison for a very, very, very long time. Luckily, I know my sheriff in Fort Worth County.

I know, the guy who is protecting me and my neighbors. I know who he is. And he knows who I am, which, Sheriff Waybourn, welcome to the program.

That is the first key, is it not?

BILL: That is the first key, relationships are very, very helpful in these situations.

GLENN: So as we are sitting here, and I didn't mean Fort Worth, Tarrant County.

When we are sitting here, and you're seeing things like this happening, what -- what does that mean to you? And how you have to behave. And what you're walking into.

BILL: Right. When they get these urgent calls. They have got to respond. They have to be ready to go for law enforcement. In case it is real.

I will tell you, especially in the greater Fort Worth area. And the surrounding areas. They are very well aware of it.

There have been several of these. In this area, over the last year. There's probably been 15 or 16 cases.

GLENN: You're kidding me.

BILL: No. And I will tell you, they all turned out good. As far as law enforcement's reaction. Nothing went wrong or somebody got hurt. Because I think we've got some great law enforcement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: But when they're rolling towards that. I mean, the Intel starts at the moment that the 911 phone is listening and the dispatchers are trying to listen for different clues about what might be going on there. And they're passing it on.

And then we have other intelligence which I won't make public.

GLENN: Yeah, sure.

BILL: But we're trying to do that. Now, we're -- there's some preventive things that we need help from the homeowner.

GLENN: Okay. Like?

BILL: Well, one is, let's hide your information. Because a lot of this is coming over the gaming systems. It's really big. That's like 95 percent of the gaming systems, where you don't know who you're gaming with. But they know who you are. So we've got to protect your identity. We've got to protect your privacy. And try to block all things that show who you are.

And maybe some double stuff, where you -- you have code words. Or stuff. So you know who you are dealing with.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

I tell you, the gaming systems are terrifying. My son, he was being groomed for this pedophile.

And luckily, we found out about it. And the FBI came into the house, and they took the gaming system. And they said, it's all happening through the gaming system.

Luckily, the gaming system has a record. And so, it's recording everything.

Can you -- have you found. Or can we find these people?

How come we can't find -- does it -- does it triangulate the phone, if you're on a cell phone, and you're someplace? And you're calling it into 911.

Can we find these people?

LIZ: Sometimes, we can find these people. Some of these people are oversees. They're not even here in the United States, but we go after them.

If you will pardon the term, with the gust of a hound dog, using all resources, both federal, state, and local resources, to try to locate them.
And find out who they are. And when we get our hands on them, we will prosecute them for the felony that they've committed.

GLENN: And what are you hearing from Pam Bondi and the federal?

LIZ: Well, ironically, I talked to her this morning, but we didn't get to discuss this. But she is absolutely on board, prosecuting people federally, if at all possible.

That's just the temperament of who our attorney general is.

GLENN: Yeah. I want to ask you. Because I don't know -- I met Pam. But I don't know her.

And I'm a little concerned that, you know, the Epstein thing.

I'm hoping, and maybe you can help me on this. I'm hoping that she said, wait.

We're not releasing these things right now. Because we have internal cleanup to do.

And we are also building cases, against these people.

And we want to release it, when we can say, and we're prosecuting. Do you think that's her approach?

BILL: I think that's absolutely probably her approach. She is a very, very smart woman.

And a great prosecutor.

And so she's doing the cleanup, as you say.

And I think that she is watching very carefully, what she can and can't do.

GLENN: What is the difference between the last administration and the recent administration?

In your position.

BILL: In my position, it's that the cartel is being shut down.

And, you know, I visited with the Director of DPS last week, and they're averaging a little less than 200 crossings a day on the entire Texas border.

You know, last year, at this time. We're talking 15,000 a day. So that's absolutely the first thing that I would say, is that is happening.

But also, that the administration is coming alongside of us.

And some other areas. Like, THC. The THC products that are such a threat to our kids these days did I see.

They're coming alongside of us. As Texas is trying to pass laws. And we're trying to absolutely curb that issue.

GLENN: You know, I look at what's happening in Mexico.

With these cartels.

And I would -- I would think, putting myself in the shoes of a Mexican.

I would think to myself, I can't say anything about these cartels.

I know people who have run against. And said, they will clean it up. And they're dead. And their family is dead.

I want this to happen, but I can't really say anything, and my government is in bed with it.

I think the Mexican people, the average Mexican person. If we go in and say, okay. Mexico, you didn't do anything about it. And we're killing them all.

I think they will turn and say, you know what, let's go concentrate on some other market. Not in America.

Because they're serious about it. And I think the Mexican people would be happy.

I know I would be.

I would be thrilled. Is that your take?

LIZ: That is absolutely my take.

And I know just last week, unfortunately, they lost five Mexican National Guardsmen who were ambushed and killed bit cartel just a few days ago.

So they're fighting back. And they're trying to do some things.

But as we know, that government -- you know, I've said this publicly.

Is I don't trust them.

GLENN: You shouldn't.

LIZ: You know, we need to see what they're trying to do. And hopefully, they will stand you up. The cartel has --

GLENN: Are they capable?

Are they capable? Every time somebody stands up, they're dead.

BILL: They're dead.

GLENN: So are they capable of standing up, as -- as, you know, politicians, or even a group of politicians? Because, oh, that's a death sentence for them.

BILL: That is a death sentence.

I agree with you. I've said over a year ago.

I said, what would you like to happen? When the conservative president comes in.

I said, on or about Day 15 or 20, that the cartel is woken up by the 82nd Airborne.

And that I think we go in and clean them out, would be best for everybody.

GLENN: You think that's coming?

BILL: I don't know, because our president is unpredictable.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

BILL: But he has labeled them terrorists. So they are on notice, and I think anything is possible. And if I was a cartel leader, I might say, okay. Guys, we're closing shop.

And we're moving. And where are we going? That's what --

GLENN: Yeah. I think -- you know, the pushback on sending somebody in, is that, well, they're just going to retaliate in our cities.

You retaliate in our cities, and then it gets much worse for you.

I think if we just take out a few families, the kingpins.

BILL: That's right.

GLENN: And it all happens overnight, so fast. Everybody wakes up and says, oh, my gosh.

I really think. They won't retaliate. They will turn their attention someplace else.

Why risk that?

America is serious.

BILL: I agree with you, 100 percent. Because cartel ain't in business to be at war with America. They're in business to sell things.

GLENN: Right. Right.

BILL: And if it's not working out, you go to a different place. So I agree with you. I think that if we take out a few of the kingpins. A few of the leadership. I think that would do it.

GLENN: Are you concerned -- we just talked about swatting. Have we had any Tesla attacks or anything?

BILL: We have none, that I know of, in Tarrant County.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, that's -- used to be the conservative county. In -- in Texas.

But it certainly isn't anymore. Boy, we're on a razor's edge. I'm really, truly worried especially well Hollywood coming in. I'm very worried that we could lose Texas. People in Texas, that grew up in Texas, spent their whole life in Texas. And are not paying attention.

They think Texas will always be Texas.

It's -- it's on a knife's edge.

BILL: We need to always be on our game.

We need to always be working in -- and spreading our conservative values. And educating the public as best we can.

GLENN: Sheriff, always good to see you. Best to your family.

You bet. Sheriff. Bill Waybourn.

A -- a sheriff that if you don't have one like him, you should get one. You know exactly -- if you don't mind me sharing, sheriff. Before you leave.

I asked him at one point. What happens if the federal government comes in and starts taking citizen's guns.

And he said, well, if I may quote you.

The -- all my deputies need guns.

And I just have to deputize everybody in the county.

I just love that. I love that.

Thank you, Bill.

I appreciate it.