Unbelievable Netflix documentary exposes amateur porn industry

June 05, 2015

WRITER

Stu watches a ton of documentaries, but the last one he watched left him more than a little concerned as a father. A new documentary on Netflix called ‘Hot Girls Wanted’ exposes the twisted world of the amataeur porn industry. How does a teenager go from being a cheerleader in Texas to sex on the internet? It’s much easier than you expect. Stu and Glenn discuss the documentary and debate some of the more questionable scenes on Friday’s radio show.

Watch a trailer for the film below, and scroll down for Glenn and Stu's analysis:

Below is a transcript of this segment:

STU: There is a new documentary on Netflix. It's called Hot Girls Wanted. And I actually did know it was a documentary before I opened it, I promise.

JEFFY: I didn't.

STU: It was Rashida Jones, who was on The Office. She's Quincy Jones' daughter. She's involved in the project. And it kind of chronicles these 18, 19-year-old girls that answer Craigslist ads for modeling or a free ticket to Miami. They go on these trips and wind up after a couple of half steps in hard-core pornography on the internet. And they're -- their transition, it's so sad and depressing. You want to talk about a movie that will make you want to lock up all your children and never let them out, it's that one. You know, there's this girl. Captain of the cheerleading team. Sweet girl from Texas from right around where we are. And, you know, she -- a couple of bad decisions, and she's in dozens of movies that will never go away.

GLENN: Okay. What are the decisions that get you from sweet, stay-at-home, pure as the driven snow cheerleader. Give me the two steps that get you to hard-core porn.

STU: She's unsatisfied with her hometown. She feels like there's no adventure there. You know, she sees the glitz and the glam of Miami. She gets a free ticket there. Lots of money thrown at her. And she's around -- and then she gets down there. She's around these other girls who are already doing it, who have all made these decisions and can all justify them because they've gone through this process in their over and over again. And all of a sudden, there she is. And they show the interactions with this one particular girl from Texas with her mom, when she kind of finds out about it.

GLENN: Oh, jeez.

STU: And, you know, she kind of takes that approach of, you know, you can tell it's killing her. But she's trying not to never talk to her daughter again. You know, she's trying to not blow up in her face.

GLENN: She's trying not to say, you whore!

STU: She's trying.

JEFFY: Wait until I tell your father.

GLENN: He's going to say, you whore!

STU: The other side of it that is really tough, especially as a dad, is seeing this girl go with her dad out shooting. Their little activity they always did together.

GLENN: No, no, no, no, no. Don't. I don't want to hear it.

STU: She has to tell her dad.

GLENN: She tells her dad at a shooting range? What kind of sick movie is this? Yeah. And here's what you'll do. You'll tell your father while he has the shotgun in his hand.

STU: That is a really good point.

GLENN: It didn't occur to you?

STU: No, I didn't think of -- I guess the part of it that's --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, you don't want to tell me that sweetheart while I have a gun in my hand. Not that I want to shoot you, I just want to shoot somebody else.

STU: Maybe this explains what happened in this situation, that she never got the courage to tell her dad in that particular moment, which is probably smart.

GLENN: Of course not. Can you imagine dad -- you tell dad, and dad is standing there. And some stranger just goes, hey, I've seen your daughter before.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: At the --

[Gun goes off]

-- supermarket.

STU: One of the most depressing parts -- and there's lots of depressing parts of this movie. But one of the worst is, at the shooting range, he doesn't know. And she's supposed to tell him, but doesn't. And they're having these nice father/daughter moments where she's kind of trying to inch it into the conversation.

GLENN: Does she have cameras following her on this?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: This is cruel. Is she telling him like, oh, dad, I made a huge mistake, or is she like, hey, and I have to tell you about my new career?

STU: She goes through I would say the entire range of it. I think at times she thinks she thinks she'll become a celebrity and marry a rapper.

GLENN: That's another reason to shoot somebody.

STU: Well, it's -- it's like -- just to see though this -- hey, my daughter is away. I don't know. She's with her friends somewhere in Miami, I guess. And, hey, she's back for the weekend. We should go shooting. And he seems like this really nice guy. And he's just sitting there not having this knowledge that, of course, you know as a viewer. And it's just --

GLENN: Why would you watch this?

STU: It's a fascinating story. We should pull clips from it. You would be absolutely fascinated by it. And it's so depressing and scary that it's something that I think the audience would like too. There are times I warn you -- there are some scenes that are pretty rough, if you can't handle Jeffy explicit type material. There are a couple of moments. Not like a lot of nudity. But there are some moments in it that are really hard to take.

GLENN: Oh, so they made this almost impossible to watch now. A hot cheerleader having sex. You're going to have to try to get through that if you really want to see this. It's really -- oh, come on.

STU: I'm warning our audience who does care about such things.

GLENN: I do care. I'm not going to watch that because of that.

STU: But it is a good title.

GLENN: You're trying to do good, you don't show her in that --

STU: I don't know if I buy that.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: Look, the idea of a good documentary --

GLENN: Jeffy, you have no place to talk here. Yes. You're right. He should show -- I wanted more of that.

JEFFY: I mean, you have to show what she's going through. Right?

GLENN: Shush.

STU: Look, a great documentary works that way well. You know, when you're drawn in by something, you might find it enticing. You might like porn. And you go on the site. You watch these girls go through this, and it's difficult at the end to like it. I'll tell you that.

GLENN: Let me ask you this: How does the producer of this film live with himself?

STU: What are you --

GLENN: Seriously. No, seriously. No, no, seriously. Stu, think of this.

STU: Wow. I don't understand this argument.

GLENN: Just this of this.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know that one of my daughters -- let's make up Hildegard. So we're not talking about any of my daughters. Hildegard is --

JEFFY: Frightening name for porn, actually.

GLENN: It is. Hildegard. She's witchy.

STU: Not very marketable.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. So Hildegard is in a porn, okay?

Do you in your wildest dreams, not because of any other reason other than I cannot do that to Glenn say, Hildegard, wait, let's get some cameras and let's capture this while on camera.

STU: Well, you're a friend of mine. I wouldn't do it to you.

GLENN: Okay. But as long as you don't know the person, you're fine.

STU: In a way, yeah.

JEFFY: That's the process.

STU: News cameras --

GLENN: Aren't we supposed to have a heart?

STU: That's ridiculous. So you can't have an interview with someone who is going through something you disagree with.

GLENN: Come on. You know -- you both know, there's something different about your daughter and your relationship with your daughter, and your daughter comes and tells you something like that. Is there a worse place in your life?

STU: No.

JEFFY: Why are you bringing my daughter into this?

STU: Your daughter Hildegard.

GLENN: Beatrice.

STU: But that's not your responsibility.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Seriously, is there anything worse than --

JEFFY: No.

STU: Terrible.

GLENN: -- other than your wife or one of your children has been raped or killed, that is up there with that.

STU: Sure. One of the worst experiences you can experience as a father.

JEFFY: No question.

GLENN: So you're sitting there, and you think you as a producer, I don't care how much good you think you're doing --

STU: Oh, I totally disagree with that.

JEFFY: I disagree with that.

GLENN: You really think so?

STU: I honestly straight-out think that the movie did something positive, which is you're informing people. As a parent, I am damn sure glad I know this stuff is going on. I -- I mean, obviously you imagine that this stuff does occur. Somebody is getting into those videos. Right?

These guys, they show clips of it. They post an ad on Craigslist. Hey, free flight to Miami. Next morning, wakes up, he has seven 18-year-old girls from all around the country in small towns wanting to come down and get into porn. Like, that's how crazy it is. One of the really crazy parts about the movie is they show -- you think, okay, you'll get into porn. You'll sacrifice whatever you're sacrificing to get into it. But at least you'll walk out of that rich. No. There's so much supply of 18-year-old girls from around small towns in America, that these girls aren't even making money out of it. They're walking out of it with almost nothing.

The girl from Texas goes through this. Does three months. She's only able to stay in it for three months. Three months of porn. Films a few dozen movies and makes $25,000. She's done all this for $25,000. Gets home after all expenses with two grand in her account. All of this for $2,000.

GLENN: When we come back, I want to hear what dad's response was.

[BREAK]

GLENN: So we were talking about this Netflix show that Stu wants to -- to not show me, but take me through next week. So maybe next we'll do it. It's a sad tragic story about these girls who are 18 years old. They get out of high school. They want to have an exciting life. Craigslist says, hey, free tickets to Miami. Two moves later, and they're in hard-core porn films. And we were talking about the dad, this documentary shows her coming back to her dad and telling her dad.

STU: Or trying to.

JEFFY: Trying to.

GLENN: So what is the dad's reaction?

STU: They actually don't show it. Which I assume means he was, of course, devastated.

GLENN: Of course, he was.

STU: And did not want to show it. To respect him.

GLENN: How would you react to it?

STU: If I didn't kill myself, I would probably just sob in the corner.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I would be hostile at the cameras first.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Get these cameras out of my face.

JEFFY: That's why these cameras are here. For that?

GLENN: Right? Are you kidding me? You thought this was a good idea?

STU: You would be pissed at your daughter for allowing it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. You would be so angry. And then I would just do nothing, but weep. Holy cow.

JEFFY: Hopefully in the end you would be able to embrace it.

STU: No. No, Jeffy.

GLENN: No. Jeffy. You're misunderstanding.

[BREAK]

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.