RADIO

Is THIS why Harvard PROTECTED President Gay from plagiarism scandal?

The Harvard board has promised to let Harvard president Claudine Gay keep her job, despite multiple scandals. On one hand, she has been criticized for failing to say that calls for Jewish genocide violate Harvard's policies. And then, there's her plagiarism scandal. But is this just a random attack dug up by conservatives trying to take her down? Washington Free Beacon staff writer Aaron Sibarium joins Glenn to explain why this is not the case at all. Harvard has known about President Gay's plagiarism scandal for months — and even hired "the best defamation law firm in the country" to try and shut the media's reporting efforts down. But why go through all this trouble to protect her? Aaron explains his theory and also breaks down why these alleged instances of plagiarism are so serious.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things going on with -- with a woman that runs Harv

And one of them is, hey. I have to have a room with -- with color crayons. And comic books, so you can read a comic book, and then, you know, color a happy tree. Because you feel like you're being, you know -- you have microaggressions all around you.

Stopping free speech everywhere, unless you're calling for, you know, the death of Jews.

Then, I guess, hey.

You know, free speech.

It's crazy!

But there's something else that has now been brought up, that I think people knew about in the Harvard world.

But didn't say anything.

And that is the fact that its president Claudine Gay, broke Harvard's own code of conduct on plagiarism.

And it's a pretty significant amount of plagiarism.

Including her doctoral dissertation.

Parts of it were wholly plagiarized.

And she never credited anybody.

Now, here's why this matters: You plagiarize something. I don't really care.

You plagiarize something in a book. And claim it's yours.

Okay. I care. Because that's stealing from somebody else. You plagiarize in a university. Well, you're setting the standards, and trying to hold those standards of academic excellence and honesty. And if the person who is at the top is known to have plagiarized. How do you tell the students, we're going to kick you out?

This has nothing to do with her testimony, but it has everything to do with how corrupt our -- our universities are. How morally corrupt they are.

We have Aaron Sibarium on with us now.

He wrote a great piece for the Washington free beacon. And we wanted to talk to him about this.

You went to Yale. And you were the editor of the Yale Daily News. So you know something about Ivy League, and plagiarism.

Not really celebrated, is it?

AARON: No, Glenn. It is not. It is not celebrated. And, in fact, I would say that generally, at you all of these standards to get a lecture thing, it doesn't matter how small. It doesn't matter if it's unintentional. Even if you do it with the best intentions, it's still a serious problem. You should double-check your work to make sure absolutely nothing is plagiarized. That is what Harvard tells the students in a very long document that outlines its policy very clearly. It's no fewer than five times indicates that intent is irrelevant. Any language or even just ideas or content from someone else, and don't cite them, it's plagiarism. And according to the letter of the Harvard plagiarism policies, A, they clearly violated them.

GLENN: Yeah, and like significant.

I mean, you in your article go threw it. We don't have to go threw it here. But it's significant. Why does this matter?

AARON: Well, look, people do make mistakes.

And if this were -- if this was what we found out of a corpus of, say, a hundred or 200 peer-reviewed papers, one of which had won a noble prize. He might say, okay. A few paragraphs here or a there. It's the overall content. It's not such a big deal.

I think it's worth emphasizing that she had published in total, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Eleven in the past two decades. That is a really, really small number for any academic I think at a prestigious university. But especially for the academic that the university chooses to elevate to its position.

So you're not talking about a few instances of maybe perilous citations or plagiarism. How to have 100 papers. You're talking about it out of 11 papers. Right?

So we found -- so there have been, you know, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Two of them. We found examples of plagiarism.

Then a dissertation. Then another thing that she wrote. That is in another peer-reviewed journal.

So this starts to amount to a pretty substantial percentage of her academic output. That contained at least some plagiarized material.

So as a percentage thing, I think it's not actually the best way to look at it.

It's not just a couple mistakes here or there. It seems to be a pattern. And a pattern that is fairly consistent throughout two decades of relatively meager scholarly output. Meager scholarly output.

GLENN: So this is not anything new. It's my understanding it's kind of been known and kicked around for a while, but just kept quiet and didn't matter. Is that true?

AARON: Well, yeah, it appears to be true. Because just last night, the New York Post reported that they had many of these examples, confronted Harvard with them. All the way back in October. And Harvard claimed, oh, we addressed this promptly. As soon as it was brought to our attention, we initiated the review. And Dr. Gay requested corrections.

Well, what the Harvard corporation didn't mention is that apparently, they intimidated and maybe even threatened to sue the New York Post for defamation after the New York Post reached out for comment.

So Harvard apparently took this seriously enough, that they thought it was worth hiring the best defamation law firm in the country. God knows how much they were paying them, to send a 15-page intimidation letter. To journalists who were coming to them. For examples of plagiarism.

Clearly, they thought it was worth pulling out the big bucks.

Shelling out a lot of money.

To shut this down. And that was all the way back in October.

GLENN: So why would they do this? To protect -- I mean, why?


AARON: I think that Claudine Gay is an emblematic of the -- of the kind of DEI ideology that is -- that is at Harvard.

You know, some people have focused on her race and gender. And I'm sure, they don't want the -- of firing, yeah, of course.

But I actually think it's more than that. It's that she -- she kind of represents the ideology they already subscribe to, and they don't want the ideology discredited.

And also, I think they haven't gotten as much attention.

She was a very shrewd political operator before she became president. She was sort at the center of a lot of cancellations, right? She helped engineer the bureaucratic administration of votes. The Israeli famous (inaudible) at Harvard. And she helped also strip Ronald Sullivan, Harvard law professor from the administrative post, after Sullivan meets the decision to serve on Harvey Weinstein's defense team. He can't defend the unpopular. That's no longer allowed.

So she -- you know, I think had a -- had a pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. And sort of maneuvered the administration and bureaucratic apparatus, Harvard, around her.

Very strictly. That's a part of how she became president.

And I think that that background may be part of why they're so unwilling to let her go.

The whole kind of institution having some sense been mobilized around her. Kind of put all the places in place.

GLENN: Right. Does it play any role, that her first cousin is Roxanne Gay. Who is a feminist author and New York Times writer, who is absolutely -- absolutely a terrible human being.

AARON: Yeah, honestly, I don't know if that really -- I think they would view this with just about anyone in her position, anyone in her position, anyone with her ideology.

GLENN: Position.

AARON: I mean, and I would say, too, right? They've obviously been under pressure from donors. But they're also under pressure from their own faculty and students. And, you know, you mentioned the -- the testimony she gave where she put in forthrightly -- condemned calls for the genocide of Jews. I think part of the issue is that she couldn't really go up there and say, yeah. We support free speech in all cases. And, in fact, yes, even if you want to call for the genocide of other groups, we will protect that. Because we're so principled.

A, because it wouldn't be true. I mean, we all know it's not true.

And, B, if she would have said that, student activists would have come and tried to burn her house down.

GLENN: Right.

AARON: So they really -- to be fair to her, she is kind of in a rock and a hard place. And no matter what she does, or what Harvard does, some constituency is going to throw a fit.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I do not want to see harm come to anybody. But, gee, if you get nailed by your own policies and your life is tough because you shoveled this poison, and now that poison is coming back to haunt you, you know, I have a hard time. Again, with nobody being hurt, I have a really hard time giving any sympathy to her at all.

AARON: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you so much. One last question, is this an issue outside of her?

Should this be an issue outside of her testimony?

In other words, is this just being brought up, because there's a mob brought up on the other side, that is saying, hey, she should be fired for this.

Is this a real issue, beyond the anti-Semitism stuff?

AARON: Obviously, anti-Semitism stuff increased scrutiny on her. It would be silly to deny that. But I'm thinking what would be an issue, you know, this -- the plagiarism, isn't quite as severe as -- it's not like data fraud.

Right? There's a guy at Stanford, right? Stepped down amid allegations of data fraud. And that was really curious, right? On its own terms.

I think this would be a scandal on its own. The anti-Semitism stuff, obviously amplifies it and makes it worse.

But, again, I think the real context here is them meager, scholarly record. Right?

Again, I really don't think people would care. I wouldn't care all that much if we had found this and it was in the context of like 200 brilliant peer-reviewed papers. That's not the context.

And I think what it underscores, this woman was clearly not chosen for her scholarly manner.

If that was the criterion, they had a lot of other candidates at Harvard, would have been better.

GLENN: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Appreciate all your work and all your writing. God bless.

AARON: Thank you.
RADIO

The ONE “forever war” Glenn Beck supports

This Fourth of July, Glenn Beck reveals the only “forever war” he supports. It’s the war Americans have been fighting since our nation’s founding, and we must continue the fight…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Two hundred forty-nine years ago, I think it is tomorrow. Right? Is tomorrow the second, or is it the first?

What day is it today?

So it was 200 -- 249 years ago, tomorrow, that somebody sat alone, in a -- in a one-room hotel room.

And scratched out the words, when in the course of human events. Those are the first six words of a document that is so dangerous!

Still today, so revolutionary.

It was whispered in those candle lit rooms by men who knew. Knew. That if I signed this document, that's a death warrant.

I'm dead!

I'm dead.

But in the course of human events, shh.

Jefferson wrote them!

33 years old. Adams would later say, you do well to revere Jefferson. But he didn't write alone. Basically, I was there too.

And so was Ben Franklin. The ideas were forged in the minds of men like Franklin, who is old enough to know better. And Adams, who was stubborn enough, not to care. And they weren't perfect men. But I love this about the left. They try to make you think.

That you think are perfect. I don't think they were perfect! I mean, Ben Franklin used to walk around naked in his house a lot. That shows, I mean, for as smart as that guy was. It shows, maybe he had a lack of mirrors. But they weren't perfect!

They owned slaves. They argued. They compromised.

How does that make them different than us?
I mean, we should be able to relate to them!

What is it that we tolerate right now?
What is it that we compromise on?

What is it -- what are our failures that future generations are going to go, these people just didn't get it? Perhaps what we should notice is that they, unlike most of us. They were willing to gamble their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

For something that had never, ever been done before. Something entirely new!

The idea that rights don't come from a government, or from a king, or from a parliament.

They don't come from the majority voting. Everyone has certain rights.

You know, for all these people who are, you know -- going in Macy's, and burning down towns. And then stealing clothing. And they're like, because I've been oppressed!

And you can't -- I've got rights, you know.
Yeah. Yeah.

You know who the first people were, to articulate those rights?

You know the only country that actually has stood for those rights?

And we're imperfect!

That idea came from the Founders, that you say you hate.

But the actual rights come from God, which you dismiss!

Think of this. Just ponder this for a second.

That all men are created equal! That their rights are given to them, by a creator.

It's not a political assertion. It's a genius. That's eternal truth!

That's theological dynamite, lobbed straight in to the thrones of Europe.

All over the world, it's still dynamite.

They knew what they were doing.

And I don't mean like, they knew what they were doing.

They had it. No. They knew that the British crown had the largest military force in the world. And these guys, they were farmers. They were printers. They were lawyers. They were a ragtag collection of intellectual and idealists, facing down an empire, where they said, the sun never set on the British empire. Meaning, the colonialism was everywhere!

You could not escape England. And yet, they declared it. We're leaving, without apology!

And they said that when a government becomes destructive of the ends of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, it's not only the right of the people, it's their duty to throw it off!

Wow. And you know what is amazing? That's not rebellion.

That's -- that's not revolution. That's -- that's responsibility.

That -- that kind of language today, that would have you flagged, shadow banned. Labeled an extremist. In most countries, disappeared!

But that is the foundation of what we call America. The American experiment. And it's that. The American experiment.

And it's just that, an experiment. We didn't know if we could get it right. And we haven't gotten it right. But isn't it worth experimenting?

Isn't it worth trying to get that concept right?

When you fail on that concept, you're like, eh. That's a stupid idea.

That's not a stupid idea. That's the greatest idea of all time.

Why are so many people willing to just quit?

The experiment is self-rule. It's not perfect.

Never has been. Slavery. Jim Crow. Internment camps. Assassinations.

My God! Forgive us, for what we have done.

But at the same time, what nation has done more to correct its own errors?

What people have shed more blood, not for conquest, but for freedom.

Twice in the last century, we crossed oceans. Not to claim territory. But to liberate that territory!

Our sons and daughters fought and bled on foreign soil to push the darkness back, to fight against Naziism and fascism and Communism. And here we are. Here we are today.

After 249 years tomorrow of that experiment, standing at the lip of the very abyss, those men feared.

A godless chaos, rising in the east and a cold atheistic utopia, clawing at the foundations of the Western world. Islamism and Communism, two ideologies that have killed tens of millions of people. Now dressed all in new robes, selling old lies.

And we can't even teach a child where their rights come from. We have replaced Jefferson and Adams with TikTok influencers and bureaucratic groupthink.

We're raising generations to not even know the truth about their own identity.

But to question their identity. And they could be, oh, you're a funny, funny colored unicorn today. What do you want to be tomorrow?

We don't teach them anything about truth, or their inheritance, most importantly. Their inheritance. What good are hot dogs and fireworks, if the soul of the nation is up for auction? What is the meaning in Fourth of July, if we have forgotten the why? If we don't even call it Independence Day anymore. Most people don't even know who we fought against for independence.

They think we fought for its independence! Most people think we fought the South!

And yet, we'll light the sparklers, or blow our fingers off, because we're just that stupid.

This Independence Day weekend, would you do me and yourself and your country a favor, and read the words out loud. Speak the words out loud.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with one another.

And to assume among the powers of earth, the separate, but equal station, to which the laws of nature.

And nature's God entitle them.

A decent respect to the opinions of mankind, requires that they should declare the causes, which impair them to the separation.

What are they saying?

Look, we want to be decent people.

We want to be decent people.

And we have to separate them.

But we believe it's only right that we tell you why we have to separate. And it's not because of all the bad things you've done. We'll get to those later. It's because we're different. And you don't understand. You have been telling us all of these things, we no longer believe in. We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, and they're endowed by their creator with certain inalienable. Unchangeable rights.

And just among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, government are his instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

My gosh. Read those words. And let your children hear what thinking and courage sounds like.

That to secure these rights, I'm telling you, the king, who thinks that your government was given to you, by God.

And you are the ruler.

And you will tell everybody what to think, what to do. What to buy. What to sell. What to tax. What not to tax. Who gets land. Who doesn't get land.

No, no, no. Government are his instituted among men, deriving their powers, their just powers, from the people. And that government is only there, established by those men to protect the rights that God has given each of those men.

Let them feel the chill, that runs down the spine, when Jefferson writes, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government, or from the governed. Let them hear the words, of -- of responsibility. What responsibility sounds like, with courage and freedom. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

And to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their a lot of and happiness.

In other words, you have the right, you have the responsibility to stop tyrants. And if the government has gone bad, to throw that government off.

But reconstitute a government, that will do a better job at protecting those rights. Not to form a communist government.

Not to do anything else. But you want a new government?

Fine! Let's find the way to make men more free. This is not a metaphor. This is a declaration of war on tyranny in all of its forms.

I mean, I said, yesterday, freedom isn't free.

It was paid for by somebody's blood. But you have to remember, they paid for their freedom, not for our freedom, necessarily.

We -- there comes a time, we have to pay for our freedom. And God forbid, that it comes down to blood.

But at least shake off the apathy. We -- we must renew this promise of this experiment of America.

We need to fight for it as well. An out-of-control government that seeks to rope us into forever wars, over and over again. We're all against forever wars. I'm against it.

I hate them.

But there is one forever war, that is required in a free society. A different kind of forever war.

A war against ourselves, a war against human nature in each of us. Because of human nature, we get fat. We get lazy.

We get tolerant of abuses. Let your children hear you speak these words. And when you speak them, ponder them yourself.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes.

And accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer while the evils are sufferable than to right themselves, by abolishing the forms in which they're accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a sign to reduce them under absolute despotism.

It's their right. It's their duty. To throw off such government. And provide new guards for such future security.

In one paragraph, we make the point twice. And they tell us, look, we've studied people.

We know you're going to get fat and lazy and apathetic. And you won't want to do stuff for transient causes. Because this is really not good.

But when push comes to shove. And everything is moving towards absolute despotism. Absolute tyranny. Then you must stand up.

I ask you to ponder this. This particular part, when a long train of abuses and usurpations. Prudence will indeed dictate that governments long established should not be exchanged for light and transient causes.

And accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer while the evils suffer, than to right themselves.

Aren't we exactly the same people, that their experience was talking about?

Aren't we the people that are more disposed to suffer, than to right ourselves? Because we're too comfortable. Or we're too afraid, just to stand up and simply say no to lies.

No!

There is a difference between men and women.

No! Communism is to be feared. It's killed over 100 million people, in the last 100 years.

No!

Muslims aren't bad. Islamism is!

It's evil. No!

You can peacefully protest, any time, any place. And I will fight to the death for your right to do that.

But when you start burn cities down to the ground, no!

We're just a few days away. And we have marked our 249th birthday. Maybe. Just maybe, this year, can we stop asking what America was, and start deciding what America will be?

Where it just slips quietly into history. In the dark of apathy and ignorance.

Because the only thing more dangerous than tyranny is the people who have forgotten what it took to break its chains.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

We need REAL jobs in America — Trump should do THIS now!

It is clear we need to create more productive, high-paying jobs for American citizens. But that doesn't mean bringing back the same exact jobs of the past in massive numbers. It means creating and supporting jobs of the present and future that will better the lives of Americans. Glenn Beck and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts break down exactly what this entails and how President Trump can make it a reality.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts HERE

RADIO

The most INCREDIBLE World War II story you’ve NEVER HEARD

One of the biggest American World War II cemeteries in Europe is in a small town in the Netherlands, where thousands of Dutch people continue the tradition to this day of “adopting” a fallen US soldier and checking in on his family. “The Monuments Man” author Robert Edsel joins Glenn Beck to tell this incredible story, which he documents in his new book, “Remember Us.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Robert, welcome back to the program. How are you, sir?

ROBERT: Great to talk to you!

GLENN: It's great to talk to you.

Can you remind me? You were on with us, after Monuments Men. And you talked about this great service that is still going on, where people that -- they were still looking for paintings and pieces of art, that had been taken by the Nazis.

And if I remember right, didn't somebody in our -- our own audience reach out to you, and say, I think we found one of those paintings?

ROBERT: Yes, sir. Absolutely.

The Glenn Beck audience. And Glenn Beck, you yourself deserve a lot of credit.

Because I hadn't walked out of your studio last time. You know, in Dallas at Las Colinas.

Headed back to our office at Monuments Men and Women Foundation office, before someone in my office contacted me and said, we've already had a lead, as a result of your interview with Glenn. And it turned out someone whose aunt had been given two paintings during World War II.

She had worked for the government overseeing Germany, and these two paintings were missing.

We were able to identify who the rightful owner was, and get them back.

So it's a great thing that you performed. And, you know, it's a magnificent conclusion, though obviously a very difficult part of history.

GLENN: What was it like to give that back to the family?

ROBERT: It was a deeply moving experience. We -- the foundation found and returned more than 30 works of art, from paintings to documents, ancient books. Tapestries, to museums. Individual collectors, and so on.

And, you know, when we see, oftentimes, the people just stand there, and they cry.

They don't even know what to say. Because they may have worked 50 or 60 years, trying to find some work of art that's been missing. And they haven't had leads. And to -- to see us standing there, with something that belongs to them.

Not asking for anything in return. Don't charge anybody for doing it. Because we feel like everybody who went through World War II already paid enough.

Words -- words just fail. It's just pure gratitude.

GLENN: I can't wait for you to tell this new story.

Tell me the story of the care takers. The care takers of --

ROBERT: Well, it's a story that found me, just as Monuments did.

I have written about -- in the Monuments Men, I told the story of two Monuments Officers who were killed in combat, one British soldier and one American, Walter Huchthausen. And Huchthausen was killed. He once did a last casualty at war. He was killed in the last month of World War II, and is buried in the American benevolence, American cemetery, in Margraten in the Netherlands. I knew that story, and I had made mention of a young girl who was harbored in September '45, asking for the address of his mother, wanting to write her and tell her, that she walked 5 miles, several times a week, from her house to the American military cemetery. It was called then. To put flowers on his grave. Because her family knew them. And they were grief-stricken to know that they were killed.

And I knew that story too. I mentioned that. And then in 2015, the nephew of Huchthausen wrote me and included a photograph of this elderly lady with this crown of white hair. And he said, here's a photo with Frida, and I couldn't place who this was.

I had no idea who it was. And I realized, my God, this is that 19-year-old girl that is still alive. So I flew to England. She married a British soldier after the war. And I went to meet with her. She started showing me photographs of when the American -- Americans liberated her area of the Netherlands.

And all these American soldiers that they knew.

And she said, you know about the American military cemetery.

She said, have you been there?

And I said yes. And she said, so you know about the great adoption program?

And I said, what? She said, the great adoption program.

I said, I have no idea what you're talking about. So I started doing some research on this. And learned, at the end of World War II, our largest World War II cemetery in Europe, was not Normandy. It was the Netherlands American cemetery, where 17,800 boys and a few women buried at this cemetery by May 1946.

And by that time, every single grave had a Dutch person, a local person, who volunteered to be an adaptor of that brave.

Go out there on the first death date of the soldier, Veterans Day, Memorial Day.

And if they had the contact information for the next of kin, send them a photograph of the grave.
And a letter.

Because they realized, it was okay to adopt the bodies of dead boys.

But where the real need was, was to reach across the ocean, into the American homes and try to assuage the grief of the families.

And they knew some of these boys. And I found it the most heartwarming, uplifting, and certainly unique conclusion to a World War II story that I think has been written.

GLENN: So are they still some of them still doing this?

ROBERT: Not some. In fact, there were about -- in 1940, 748.

American families were given the choice to have their loved ones sent home, or to be left overseas in a military cemetery.

The Army had no idea, how many -- how many families would want their boys sent home, and as a consequence, they couldn't tell how many cemeteries they would need.

We thought almost everybody would want to have the families sent home. But it turned out not to be the case. So about 61 percent came home. About 39 percent stayed in Europe, which was about the numbers from World War I.

Although, the numbers in this area, in the Netherlands were higher.

The -- the graves that are there now.

There are 10,000 boys there. And four women.

8300 graves. 1700 names on the walls of the missing.

Every one of them has an adaptor for 80 years.

All those graves have been adopted, without interruption.

There's a waiting list of almost a thousand people in the Netherlands, to become a doctor. This is a -- not just a --

GLENN: This is --

JASON: A privilege. Because they take their kids out to the cemetery. They turn the cemetery into a classroom. And you go out there. And, yes, there's a somber element. They're instilling in their kids, you're able to think, and say what you want to. Because of the freedom that was given to you, by this American girl or boy. And we don't do that in our country anymore.

GLENN: So this is one of the most incredible stories that I've -- I've ever heard.

And I'm shocked that the world doesn't know this!

Is -- have you -- is there anything like this, anywhere else in the world?

JASON: No. We couldn't even find a comp of any nature.

There are -- that is not to say, the people in Normandy area, don't care about Normandy and other cemeteries. They do, of course. As do the Belgians in other cemeteries.

But there's no place that created an organic great adoption program, during the war, in January 1945!

These people in this area of the Netherlands were so grateful, having been neutral in World War I.

And having not lost their freedom for 100 years!

And they didn't like it!

And when the Americans liberated them in September 44. I'll never forget this woman Freda. This elderly woman I met, looked at me, the first time I interviewed her. I knew her for eight years. The last eight years of her life.

I delivered a eulogy two summers ago. She looked at me, there were the eyes of the 19-year-old. And she said, when I saw that first tank over the hill and I realized, we were saved.

I looked at my dad, and I said, Papi, these American boys come all the way across the ocean to say this. And there were tears in her eyes.

Because they didn't -- they couldn't imagine how we could have moved that equipment across -- across the ocean.

And why we would have cared so much.

So there isn't anything like it.

But January 45, these people in this little town of Margraten.

A mile from the cemetery, organized a meeting of the town leaders. The town who got 1200 people.

And they were trying to find an answer to the question: How do you thank your liberators, when they're no longer alive to thank? And they came up with this idea of this great adoption program, and it's a story that I tell, following the lives of about 12 different American combat soldiers.

Bomber recipients.

Tankers.

Because we don't know that story.

We don't what knows to an American story, when they're killed on the field of battle.

Because it's depressing.

We move on to the next scene in a movie.

Well, I want people to know, you started your program with freedom is not free.

It's ugly.

Let's talk about that. Let's talk about what the cost is.

Let's talk about the stripping line that the body goes through, and the removal of dog tags, one being put in the mouth, if there's still a head. And the other being nailed to the cross, because they don't have time to stencil the names on yet.

Let's talk about that, and let people know, it's not just a Marvel movie. Or a gang war.

This is real. This is painful. And, of course, at the end of the war, when we Americans declare victory, and move on with our lives, there's millions of family members in the United States, whose lives will never be the same.

So it is -- it's still happening today. It's still happening today.

GLENN: The name -- the name of the book is Remember Us.

And take us -- I mean, because that's really kind of the -- the -- the beauty of it.

Take us through the rest of the book, just briefly.

It starts with what?

ROBERT: Well, I follow -- I began what a nice life was in the Netherlands. Until May 10, 1940.

And the Netherlands does not get much attention from World War II, and yet everybody has heard of Battle of the Bulge. And Battle -- those are all within 50 miles of what we're talking about.

They happened around there. Of course, World War II, in western Europe, begins right here in this area. Because the German tanks roll across the border.

So I cover the life of these 12 different Americans. I interviewed all their family members. Some make it through the war. Some don't.

You read the book, you realize who makes it, who doesn't. But their lives converge around this area of the Netherlands. And when post-world War II stories end, with the war being over, remember us kicks into a transcendent moment when the Dutch come up with this idea of this great adoption program. The Americans refuse to provide the names and addresses of the next of kin.

So they're foiled with trying to achieve their ultimate objective. Which is to try to contact all the American families.

And frustrated, there was -- one of the key figures of the book.

A woman who is the mother of 12 children.

Who takes it upon herself. She's a woman of action.

She writes president Truman. And pleads for him to get involved.

When that doesn't work. She gets on the first airplane, she's ever flown on. She leaves her kids behind.

She flies to New York. Lands in LaGuardia Field.

She goes to Washington, and meets the members of Congress. Including a young guy from Texas, named Lyndon Johnson.

Who says, young lady, you need to go to Texas. Because there are so many military bases there.

She flies to our hometown. And lands in Lovefield.

In June of 1946. And is met by two family members. And for five weeks, she lives with American families, that lost somebody during a war.

And to each of them she says, leave your boys with us. When the election comes.

We will watch over them, like our own forever.

And they have done that. Now, today, these 10,000 Dutch doctors only have contact information for 20 percent of the American families.

They couldn't ever get the others.

GLENN: You're kidding me. Where is the list? Do you have a list?

ROBERT: Yeah. The Monuments Men and Women Foundation entered into a joint venture with the Dutch Foundation for Adopting Graves.

Not charging anybody for this. And we have created a website called foreverpromise.org.

And on that website is a list of all 10,000 men and women, more women that are buried at the cemetery, or whose names are on the walls missing.

And it's a searchable database. We're asking people to go and see. Do you have someone you know, or a relative, who is buried there.

And if so, we have a short questionnaire. What's your relationship? Are you aware of this great adoption program? Are you in contact with your adopter? Would you like to be? Would you allow us to share your contact information?

I connected a lady from Richmond, Texas. Saturday night. To her -- to this young Tammy, that's the adopter of her brother.

She's 93 years old.

She was in tears. At the thought when she leaves this world, there will be someone there to watch over her brother.

And that's what we're all about is this connecting.

GLENN: Rob, I have to tell you.

You've really done something with your life. I mean, I know you don't need me to say it.
But what a great job you have. And what a great service you have done for so many years.

Thank you so much.

Please, look this up.

The forever promise project.

You can find it at foreverpromise.org. Foreverpromise.org. Robert Edsel is the author's name. The book is Remember Us. It's a perfect read for this week.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Ron Paul EXPOSES How the Federal Reserve Keeps Up its Scam!

Former Congressman Ron Paul breaks down how the Federal Reserve operates and how it has become so entrenched in the American economic system. He tells Glenn Beck that the problem is continuing to get worse and offers up his advice on what really needs to happen to begin to fix this situation.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Ron Paul HERE