Will the Passing of Scalia Wake Up America?

February 16, 2016

Writer

The Context

The unexpected and shocking news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing was received with sadness and, frankly, fear. His departure leaves a massive void of true conservatism on the bench. Without his stalwart adherence to the Constitution, the court is now solidly moderate. Should Obama actually succeed in appointing a liberal replacement, the chance of winning any votes on conservative, constitutional principles is gone --- and along with it, our liberty.

Critical Mass

Rumors are swirling that Obama may be considering current Attorney General Loretta Lynch as a potential replacement for Justice Scalia. Additionally, there is speculation that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been waiting to retire so Obama can appoint her replacement. Filling in for Glenn Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program, Pat voiced his concern should even one justice be chosen by Obama.

"This is critical," Pat said. "If Obama appoints another person here, we're in real trouble."

Now more than ever, the Senate must play its role to impede the president and block any Obama nomination at all costs.

"They're there to specifically slow down the president or impede his progress if he starts to do things that are irrational," said Stu, also filling in Tuesday. "That's what they're there for."

Why Now, God?

"I don't know the bigger plan, you know, that the Lord has in mind," Pat said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "But I couldn't help, but wonder, why? Why now? Why did you have to take Antonin now? Couldn't you have waited just until November? Couldn't you have waited just a little longer? Did he have to come home this soon?"

Evidently, Glenn had been wondering the same thing when he called in from Boston.

"Sitting here looking right now at the Old North Church in Boston," Glenn said. "You know, I was listening to you guys, and I just want to say, Pat, I think I have an answer for you on that."

What was Glenn's answer as to why God took Justice Scalia home at this time, just months before a critical presidential election?

Wake Up, America

"I just woke the American people up," Glenn said, speaking about his thoughts on God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, 'Look how close your liberty is to being lost.'

"You replace one guy, and you now have a 5-4 decision in the other direction," Glenn continued. "The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut. And the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist [as president]."

Glenn also relayed a recent conversation with historian David Barton, who explained the cycle we're in --- from slavery to enlightenment to freedom to abundance to apathy to slavery again. Barton believes we're in the second stage of apathy, on the brink of becoming enslaved by the government. He also believes Scalia's passing and the potential consequences to the Supreme Court could be the catalyst to wake up enough Americans and change our course.

"In Iowa, the exit polls showed that the church did wake up, and the church did come out," Barton told Glenn. "There's still a lot of Christians sitting at home, but Iowa shows that they did wake up. If they wake up in South Carolina, if they wake up in Nevada, if they wake up across the South, then we're not in apathy, and we don't go back in slavery."

Common Sense Bottom Line

Justice Antonin Scalia served his country with honor and dignity, abiding by the Constitution and refusing to legislate from the bench. Filling is larger-than-life position with anything but a stalwart constitutionalist spells the end of the Republic.

Glenn once asked presidential candidate and constitutionalist Ted Cruz how he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Here's the answer he gave:

"I will spend every dime [of my political capital]," Cruz said. "There's nothing more important than this. If we don't get the Supreme Court right, we lose the entire country."

Time to wake up, America.

Listen to this segment at mark 8:45 from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

STU: The idea that we would not expect our candidate to name a justice and try to get somebody through in this situation is ridiculous. Of course, we would. I would be furious with my president if he didn't name somebody and try to push this through. This is the way the court operates.

PAT: Conversely, you would also expect your party who has the majority in the Senate to block that nomination at all costs.

STU: Yes. Pat, you're the constitutional expert around here. My understanding is the Senate has responsibilities in the Constitution as well.

PAT: Pretty good understanding, Stu.

STU: That was what I heard at least at one time. It's funny, the Democrats now only the Constitution has to do with the president. The president can do whatever he wants, and the Senate has to go along with that.

PAT: No. It doesn't work that way.

STU: They're there to specifically slow down the president or impede his progress if he starts to do things that are irrational. That's what they're there for.

PAT: But they'll remember that when we have a Republican. That's when they'll remember that.

Oh, wait a minute. The president doesn't have all the power. Just because you nominated somebody doesn't mean we have to confirm them. That's what you'll hear in four years or whenever the next time this rolls around. And, you know, this would be really bad if the Senate doesn't find its courage to stop Obama in his tracks this time. They cannot allow Scalia to be replaced by yet another radical extremist.

STU: Even if you get a moderate --

PAT: Can't do it. Can't do it.

STU: Antonin Scalia was so good.

PAT: We have two reliable guys left on that bench: Thomas and Alito. That's it.

STU: Two.

PAT: That's it. Sometimes we can rely on John Roberts. And occasionally you can rely on Anthony Kennedy. That's it. We can maybe get to four. There's no way we win any close decision if Obama appoints somebody.

STU: Yeah. And if you want to look back and think of how important this stuff is, go back to -- back when the last -- I mean, not the last one, but one of the biggest examples of the really contentious nomination process was Robert Bork. Bork goes in there and he gets rejected, right? Then they name Kennedy. Reagan names Kennedy as his replacement. You go from a real conservative, you get a moderate. Okay? The next justice that comes up is Souter. So you go from two Republicans, you get a moderate and a liberal. If they had actually come up with two Scalias there and were able to get those two, the entire history of the country is changed.

PAT: Right.

STU: That's how important it is. So if you're one of those people thinking, "Oh, well, look, you vote and you let -- eh, they had Sotomayor and they had Kagan -- like Lindsey Graham voted for both of them, I believe both of them, and approved all of -- just go along with it. Oh well, they get a little leeway with their nominees. We should let this one through.

No. It's too important. It's too vital for the country.

PAT: No. This is critical. And this is critical. We're toast. If Obama appoints another person here, we're in real trouble. And there is speculation now that Ginsburg has been waiting until now to retire so that Obama can appoint somebody in her place too. So then you would have that one that we're also counting on for the future, you'll also have that one solidified with a younger radical, living, breathing constitutionalist. So it would just be a disaster. A disaster.

JEFFY: They're talking about Obama appointing someone so far left that there's no way they get appointed, and that that solidifies the presidential run.

STU: You're totally right, Jeffy. That's what they're going to do here. They know they won't get a crazy leftist through. But you know who they're talking about is Loretta Lynch. Loretta Lynch has already been out there. She's already been vetted in public. She's a black woman. So they'll use this as identity politics to try to make it look like Republicans are trying to stop all the progress. They'll make it into a political point, knowing they won't necessarily get their justice in there. But if Hillary Clinton gets elected, eventually they'll get somebody.

PAT: It's really bad. Yeah. I don't know the bigger plan, you know, that the Lord has in mind. But I couldn't help, but wonder, why? Why now? Why did you have to take Antonin now? Couldn't you have waited just until November? Couldn't you have waited just a little longer? Did he have to come home this soon?

STU: He's great. And I know you want to spend time with the guy. He's great. Could you have just held out a couple more months?

PAT: And, again, I don't know the full picture. He does. So the answer is no. But, man, I couldn't help, but wonder. 877-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program with Pat and Stu coming up.

(OUT AT 8:20AM)

PAT: 877-727-BECK. Pat and Stu in for Glenn. And also for Glenn is Glenn. Joining us from I guess South Carolina, on the road with Ted Cruz?

GLENN: No, I'm in Boston. I'm doing some research in some business. Sitting here looking right now at the Old Goth HEP Church in Boston. I'll be up here for a couple days and then back on the radio. You know, I was listening to you guys. And I just want to say, Pat, I have I think an answer for you on that. Because I did the same thing. I first thought, "Okay. God, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that."

PAT: Right?

GLENN: And then I said the same thing -- I remember it was exactly the same thing that I felt when Sandy hit. And I remember -- remember, we were trying to go up and help campaign --

PAT: And we thought the same thing then.

GLENN: For Mitt Romney. Remember that?

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: And Sandy hit. And we couldn't go up. We couldn't get any flights up. Then they were walking down the beach like two lovers. I thought, "Thank you. Thank you, Lord. I appreciate that. What is your plan?" So I don't want to assume that I know his plan, but I will tell you this, I thought when this happened, after I got past the thank you, I thought, you're welcome. I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, "Look at what -- how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy, and you now have a 5-4 decision in the other direction."

PAT: Every time.

GLENN: And just with one guy, you've lost your liberty. So you better elect somebody that is going to put somebody on. Because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it -- Pat, you and I have said this for a long time. The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: And the only way that we survive now is -- is if we have a true constitutionalist.

PAT: That's exactly right. And you're probably right. That might be -- I mean, we -- it's just up to us now to wake up. It's up to us to get that signal --

GLENN: You know, I was having a conversation with somebody over the week. It was David Barton. And I said, "David, have you ever seen, you know -- have you ever seen this in American history?" He said, "No. This is the cycle that we've always talked about." You know, you go from slavery to enlightenment to freedom to abundance to apathy to slavery again. And he said, "If we're -- if we're in apathy, we're over." He said, "I don't think we're there." He said, "All indications show that we're in apathy." He said, "But this could wake enough people up." He said, "The ones who are apathetic are the church." And he said, "In Iowa, the exit poll showed that the church did wake up, and the church did come out. Not as many as are, you know, claiming to be Christians. There's still a lot of Christians sitting at home, but Iowa shows that they did wake up. If they wake up in South Carolina, if they wake up in Nevada, if they wake up across the South, then we're not in apathy, and we don't go back in slavery." But if the country is lost, it will be lost because of the Christians. There will be no one else to blame. You can't blame the progressives. You can't blame the left. You can't blame Hillary Clinton. You can't blame anyone else but the Christians who are not living and voting their principles.

STU: And quick reminder here that we have been losing all of these Supreme Court cases, anyway, when Scalia was there.

PAT: Right.

STU: So without him, there's not even a remote chance --

PAT: Not even a chance.

STU: Unless people do as you say, Glenn, wake up and maybe choose somebody who knows the Supreme Court who has maybe argued in front of the Supreme Court, if I could be more specific.

GLENN: Well, here's the most important thing, and I don't want to bring this to Cruz, but we're obviously there now.

STU: You're welcome.

GLENN: But, you know, I asked Ted before Scalia died, I said, "Ted, what was the problem?" And he said, "We did Justice Roberts because Bush was not willing to spend the political capital." He said, "I have too many things going on. I can't spend the political capital." I said, "How about you?" He said, "I will spend every dime. There's nothing more important than this. If we don't get the Supreme Court right, we lose the entire country." So he not only knows it, he knows how to pick the guys. He knows who they are. And more importantly, he's not going to sit down. He's not going to say let's comprise. He's going to pick the ones that are right, and he'll spend every dime on that.

PAT: And, by the way, it wasn't supposed to be this way where the Supreme Court was this stinking important.

GLENN: Yes, I know.

PAT: They're supposed to be an equal branch. In fact, when our Founders built the buildings in D.C. they forgot about the judicial building. They forgot about the Supreme Court. They only built that later. They were like, oh, yeah, we forgot the Supreme Court.

GLENN: No, no, it's bad. The best part is, when they built the building, they did forget. And so where were they, Pat? They were in the basement.

PAT: Yeah, right.

GLENN: The court was in the basement.

PAT: Initially they were in the basement.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So then they finally built them this amazingly beautiful building.

GLENN: Palace.

PAT: And took care of that. But look at what they've become since: They've become the be-all and end-all of our republic. And it's not supposed to be that way.

GLENN: When was that building built?

PAT: I don't remember the exact date.

GLENN: Look it up.

PAT: But we'll check on that.

GLENN: Look it up.

PAT: Yeah, we will.

GLENN: Okay. Boys.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Carry on my wayward sons.

Featured Image: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia listens to remarks after participating in the swearing in of new Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on the South Lawn of the White House June 7, 2006 in Washington, DC. Kempthorne succeeds Gale Norton, who stepped down in March. Kempthorne faces some opposition from Senate Democrats after saying he supports an expansion of oil and gas drilling in public lands and waters. He swore his oath of office on his great-grandfather's Bible. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep