Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Author: Unsealing JFK Assassination Files Is a ‘Gift’ to Many Who Still Have Questions

October 24, 2017
Staff

WRITER

More than half a century after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the government is releasing a trove of files about his death. What will be in the unsealed files? Will they actually be released as promised? And most of all, is there a smoking gun?

Gerald Posner, an investigative journalist and the author of “Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK,” talked about what we should expect to find in the documents if they are released as scheduled this Thursday.

“The gift is every word and every document that the CIA and everybody fought for so many years to keep sealed,” he said of the release.

Don’t get too excited though – Posner scoffed at the idea that we’ll discover some huge government conspiracy in the files.

“If there had been a massive plot at the highest government levels, the last place you’re going to find evidence of it is … at the National Archives,” he said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So earlier, Donald Trump came out and said he is going to -- he's going to open up the JFK files, which I think is great.

I have not heard from Rafael Cruz. I believe he has -- he is either in Canada by now, or maybe Argentina, alluding police. Because once those files come out, that show that he was clearly involved in the assassination, I think then you'll know.

But he's -- they're going to release these files, which I think is fantastic and wildly interesting for no reason than fun.

Jared Posner is a friend. An author. Case close. Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of JFK.

I have been good friends with one of his good friends for a very, very long time. So when this story came up, I immediately thought, what does Gerald think is in these files?

Welcome to the program, Gerald Posner.

GERALD: Glenn, great to be on with you.

As a matter of fact, our mutual friend, Mike Opelka, said the other day in a tweet that this coming Thursday, the day for the JFK files release is Christmas for all JFK researchers. And I had never thought about it that way before, but I think he's absolutely right. President Trump is giving us all -- those of us who have followed this case, a gift. The gift is every word and every document that the CIA and everybody fought for so many years to keep sealed.

GLENN: So did you think that this would come through this early? Because I thought it was like 2025 or after the next generation had died or something like that.

GERALD: Well, yeah, that's what Oliver Stone -- Kevin Costner addressing the jury saying, 75 years. Your taxpayer money. They're -- you know, they're keeping these things sealed from you.

And so people had -- we never thought we would see it in our lifetime. But here we are, they passed this law back in '92, in response to Stone's film, to say, let's get the files out. They put a 25-year-limit on it, to force these agencies to take a quarter century to get their act together. And said, whoever is president on October 26th, 2017, that's the person who has the final say, if the FBI, the CIA, or anybody else still says we want to hold on to these because there's an identifiable harm to national security, law enforcement, foreign relations. They'll appeal to the president. The president gets the right to say, yay, or nay. Does the harm outweigh the public good? And they could have never have imagined, I assure you, as you know, 25 years ago, you took a poll of their top thousand people they thought would be president, they never thought it would be Donald Trump.

GLENN: No. Running against the guy whose dad was co-assassin.

GERALD: Right. So Trump raises the assassination in the campaign. Now he's sitting as the president.

GLENN: Right.

GERALD: And the interesting thing is, I think, that we will only get these files -- if they really come out Thursday. They don't come in, in the last minute, convince them to hold back a few. Because it is Trump. If this had been Obama, even Bush the younger, Clinton, they were sort of system people, who followed the roles of freedom of information. They would have listened to the agency saying, you can't disclose this name because it's going to embarrass somebody in Mexico. Help the CIA.

When Trump tweeted on Saturday that these files are coming out, it was a great sigh of relief. I think he's the only person who is president since Kennedy who would have actually released them all.

GLENN: So what do you think is in there? For the average person. I mean, don't care if there's somebody in Mexico that the CIA wants to protect that I've never heard of. I --

GERALD: Yeah. No, I get it.

GLENN: What's in there that we would care about?

GERALD: Okay.

So the first thing is. Is there a blockbuster -- to use a bad term for the Kennedy assassination. Is there a smoking gun? Is there some document that shows Jay Edgar Hoover, handwriting the escape route for Oswald? No.

The reason I say that adamantly or with such confidence is -- and you get this completely -- if there had been a massive plot at the highest government levels, the last place you're going to find evidence of it is 25 years later in the national archives.

GLENN: Right. I mean, what's his name, Sandy Berger took those out in his underpants long ago.

GERALD: Absolutely. I mean, it's just fantastic to think they pulled off the perfect crime in Dallas 54 years ago, but somebody who was responsible for burning the documents forgot and left them in the backyard.

GLENN: Right. Right.

GERALD: So we're not going to get that. But what we will find that I think will be of interest is Oswald visited Mexico City, only seven weeks before the assassination. And not just as a tourist to have -- you know, stop by and have some Mexican food. He visited to get to Cuba because he convinced that was where the real revolution was taking place. He was sick of America, sick of Russia, where he had defected. And he went to the Soviet mission twice. Pulled a gun. They threw him out at one point. They thought he was a little odd, to say the least. And he went to the Cuban mission.

Now, Mexico city was a nest of spies. This was the Cold War. '63. We had the missile standoff just the year before. So the CIA was spying heavily on the Cuban and Soviet missions.

What did they learn about Oswald? Castro later boasted to somebody for the American Communist Party, that Oswald said he was going to kill Kennedy. True? I don't know. But it might be in the files.

So I do think we will find out what the CIA had learned about Oswald in Mexico City, and then what they didn't share with anybody else. Their typical MO.

GLENN: Your -- Gerald, it's been years since I've seen your book. Your theory on Oswald was, what?

GERALD: My theory on Oswald is that he is the only shooter at Dealey Plaza that day who hits anybody. So if you had five other shooters, the forensics show that the only place that Kennedy got hit was from behind. I'm convinced that that's Oswald. The tougher question, Glenn, is always, did he do it for himself, or did he do it for part of a larger conspiracy?

GLENN: Okay. So wait a minute. I want to make sure I understand the first part first. You said he's the only one that fired a shot that hit somebody. So are you saying, I don't know if there was anybody there, but if there was, it didn't matter.

GERALD: That's right. It didn't matter. That's exactly right.

So when I say Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, that's what the evidence shows to me.

GLENN: That there's only -- he was the only shooter there?

GERALD: Yeah, that's right.

GLENN: Okay.

GERALD: Yeah. And, you know, people say -- they always say, oh, I saw somebody in the grassy knoll. And I go through all of that. Or, I saw somebody out in the text building or underneath the sewer, as Garrison, the new ordinance district attorney thought there were sewer shooters, until he went to Dallas and found out the sewer area was too small to fit somebody into the manhole cover. So, you know, the -- in the beginning, this -- the country has never believed under 50 percent, that it was a conspiracy. Meaning that even within a year of the assassination, within months of the assassination, the Gallup took a poll. I think 60 percent thought it was a conspiracy. It dropped to 50, at one point after the Warren commission. And then started to head up. It was at 90, 95 percent thought it was a conspiracy after the Stone film. And a last poll done in 2013 showed two-thirds of the American public still thought it was a conspiracy.

GLENN: So -- so I -- so we're alone? Because I don't think it was a conspiracy. Do you?

GERALD: I don't. But I do, Glenn, and I think you get this, why people believe it was -- two major factors: The first modern assassination with a rifle, from a long-distance. So people immediately conjure up Day of the Jackal.

Spy novels. You know, we're used to someone running up with a pistol, shooting at a site like with Wallace or later with -- you know who the shooter is at least.

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

GERALD: So you have a rifle assassination. The shooter gets away in the immediate aftermath. Then they pick him up. He's a 24-year-old kid who has been to Russia, trying to get to Cuba. He took a posh job at General Walker, this right-wing general who is running for the governorship of Texas. And he's killed two days later, by a guy out of Central Casting. The Dallas nightclub owner, Jack Ruby, who has potential ties to the mob, you're guaranteed you're never going to end the conspiracy theorizing on it.

GLENN: And do you expect to find anything in this about the mob?

GERALD: Yes. I do. There's as a matter of fact a file that's being held about an attorney for Carlos Marcello, who was the godfather of New Orleans. Many people think the mob was involved. Think that Marcello was kicked out of the country by Bobby Kennedy. He certainly wanted Jack Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy dead, no doubt. I just think that Oswald beat the mob to Kennedy, essentially. They would have patted him on the back and given him a medal, but he just wasn't their boy. And that attorney's file will be interesting.

You know this so well. The mob and the CIA were partners in the early '60s, trying to kill a head of state. But it was Castro. It wasn't Kennedy.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

GERALD: And they couldn't even wound Castro. They wanted him out. I mean, we didn't want a communist 90 miles from the American shores. And the mob wanted their casinos back. Seven times, they tried to get them. The poisoned swimsuit, the exploding cigar. They can't pull it off. And how these Keystone Cops who couldn't get rid of Castro supposedly pulled off the perfect crime in Dallas, I have my doubts.

GLENN: So these come out on Thursday, Gerald? Can we have you back on, on Friday, after you've looked at all of them and tell us what you found?

GERALD: Now, there could be -- Glenn, I would love that.

They believe that although there are 3100 files, it could add up to several hundred thousand pages. But, not only am I speed reader, but I will be able to go through these files and look for the names that I know are key. So on Friday, I will give you what I call the first brush look at what comes out, of the equivalent of Al Capone's safe.

GLENN: And, hopefully, it will be a little more interesting that Al Capone's safe.

GERALD: I hope so as well.

GLENN: Gerald Posner from GeraldPosner.com. He's an investigative journalist and author of Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and The Assassination of JFK. We'll talk to you Thursday, Gerald. Thanks a lot.

GERALD: Thank you so much. Bye.

STU: I don't know. The death of a president, maybe read the 100,000 pages in a day. Maybe just get it done. That's my recommendation.

GLENN: He thanks you for that.

STU: Am I asking too much? I mean, we're talking about presidential assassination.

GLENN: Easy for you to say.

STU: Get to work.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.