The Fifth Assassin: Brad Meltzer details his research into presidential assassinations

January 15, 2013

Writer

Today on radio, Glenn invited author Brad Meltzer onto the program to discuss his new book The Fifth Assassin. While the book is fictional, Meltzer did extensive research into the history of assassinations and assassination attempts throughout history and found some startling connections between them. He also spoke with former President George H.W. Bush about what it was like to live knowing that there were people out there who want to see you dead. Listen to the revealing conversation HERE and check out The Fifth Assassin HERE.

Rough transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Brad Meltzer is a good friend of the program. He's a "New York Times" best-selling author. He's the host of the show on The History Channel decoded. He has numerous best-selling books. His new book is called "The Fifth Assassin" and he actually picks up something that I'm really intrigued about and that is and I wish more people knew. The assassins of presidents in the past have a lot in common a lot in common. And his new book is what if they not had a lot in common, what if they were all working towards sort of the same goal. Brad is here to explain, and tell us about his new book.

VOICE: Thank you pal.

GLENN: Tell me the theory of your new book.

VOICE: You hit it on the head. I started with a guy coming to me, and he said Brad, I work at a museum in Washington D.C. that almost nobody knows about, and you've got to see what we have here. I get all these crazy letters from people all the time from people who see the TV program and just tell me what you have. And I have pieces of Abraham Lincoln's skull, and I have the bone of the John Wickes booth and I have actually the bullet that killed Abraham Lincoln. Would you like to see it? And the government has these things. He didn't have artifacts from the Lincoln assassinations. He had the other assassinations as well. And it got me to thinking what do these assassins have in common and that's the topic it's a serial killer is meticulously re-creating all of the assassinations of all of the past presidents from John Wickes booth to Lee Harvey Oswald and wants to be "The Fifth Assassin". That's the plot but the theory is what they do have in common, when you look at the assassins. The Secret Service did a study, if you look at all of the assassins who have killed a President they basically have nothing in common. They basically have every social economic background. They're young and old. If you look at the four that did kill a President it's amazing. None of them did drugs. They weren't big drinkers. All four were surprisingly and outrageously neat and none of them except when they pulled that trigger was identified as a troublemaker. And what's interesting to me three out of the four of them were in their 20s. But beyond that they were all kind -- these are the two things I couldn't shake is one thing they had in common they were all for men with a cause. And we all know the power of that. But when it comes to assassins they can be divided into two categories. Howlers and hunters. And the howlers will send scary notes and there's a bomb threat but the good news is they rarely follow through. They just want attention so howling enough noise is enough for them. It's different with hunters though. Hunters actually research and prepare, and plot and follow that path to a goal. Howlers though, aren't interested in hunting and hunters aren't interested howling. And needless to say from John Wilkes Booth to Lee Harvey Oswald all four assassins were hunters.

GLENN: There's also the one thing they had in common too is a Socialist with the exception of Boothe, a Socialist or Communist agenda.

VOICE: Yes. It's very interesting. You know -- when you look at the background it's amazing. Sometimes -- listen I write these novels I make it up. We know that's half of the fun of it. But I'm researching these things and I'm going wait a minute, at the time when you look at McKinley there was a plot to murder the top seven leaders around the world, and then oh wait this is also true anarchists are also running around when you see not just McKinley's time but Garfield's time, and then you also see it with Lee Harvey Oswald. And wait a minute am I making this plot up for this book or is the plot already there and of course, you know it is amazing when you see those things in common.

GLENN: So George H. W. Bush helped you with this.

VOICE: He did. A couple of years ago HW 41 the dad who just got out of hospital wrote me best fan letters I ever got saying he loved my novels and would I sign a copy for him. And listen you're the President I'll send you a free book. You get a free book out of me.

GLENN: Wait wait wait. Not this President. Some presidents double, triple, quadruple.

VOICE: Yes. I see I cued that up for you. And he's helped me with three books now, and listen I can make whatever I want, and we all know there are a few people that really know what it's like to sit in the White House and know for sure that someone is out there that wants to kill you. I went to Bush, and I said to him what's it's like. And were you scared for those moments. And he said I wasn't really scared. And I kept going back to him, and saying were you scared when this happened? And he's always pretty forthright. He's at the age of 88 years old there's no bravado. He's like Brad I'm drawing a blank. I've been tense. Scared is easy. And it made me think that when you think of a construction worker out on the edge of a girder, you know the fear of heights on the skyscraper is not part of the job. I think that's how it is for many U.S. presidents. Even though that fear is there it's not part of the job. Those details that Bush gave me I put in my book. When you read it you think wait, that seems real. And that's why. Because I like to have that source there.

GLENN: In today's world where they're talking about gun control and everything else. Does it make you tense to write a book where you're talking about "The Fifth Assassin". I know that the President isn't the President in the book. You know what people will say.

VOICE: I've been working on this book for two years. Little did I know. For me it's amazing. When I heard about the shooting in aurora your Newton, Connecticut so many of Ussery act what does this world come to. When I looked at it I saw this part of animal that's been part of the American experience. But a quiet 20-year-old sociopath who keeps to themselves and almost delusional in their approach. Their profile has been haunting us for more than a century. We've been here for a century and a half.

GLENN: Tell me what you think. I think that the best fiction writers which I would put that in the category. The best ones that are ones that will tell you the truth what is possible. You're a fiction writer what do you care. You look at all these scenarios. What's feasible. I could tell a book about and people will by buy. What do you think happens next if the President does massive executive orders and starts to remove guns from our society? What do you think happens?

VOICE: What I worry putting aside the guns for a minute. I've spent two years how the Secret Service keeps the President safe. One of the persons said this flat out they do penetration testing. What they do there's people in the government who're hired to break into the Pentagon or doing it since World War II, and now we've taken to a new level. And he broke into the inauguration, and got underneath the President's seat where the President sits where the parade is. Forget about the guns issue right now. Think about how many hunters are out there. If it's that easy that it's happening. To be completely honest with you it scares me how easy it is. If you use history as your guide we have to learn something from these assassinations. It was until until Garfield went down that the Secret Service realized we;ve got to protect him. In the case of JFK every time you're trying to imagine a circle that's getting smaller, and smaller trying to protect him.

GLENN: Brad Meltzer called "The Fifth Assassin". You're in a real treat.

VOICE: I want to mention one thing to you. You and I talked about Camp David a while back. I loved this detail. Camp David is a real life service. Is that people know Camp David from accords and what they are. Camp David is a President's playground. They can go there and play golf, and skeet shoot and what they have there most important thing is no press, and so when Bill Clinton said his allergies prevented him from going there. But when he learned that the press was barred from there his allergies disappeared.

GLENN: I will tell you that with this President his hand in our pocket is preventing him from going to Camp David. It allows him to go to Hawaii.

VOICE: I know. It's a little more expensive than a helicopter ride to Camp David. I love Camp David, and finding out things. There are real secrets on the estates. I know you love the insider stuff. They go from where the Secret Service compound and go underneath. And I won't tell you where it comes out. In those details it's amazing when you think about the security.

GLENN: I would hope you change some of these details.

VOICE: I did change the change of security point.

GLENN: Let's not make this a how to book.

VOICE: I always try to change the security protocols. And the that the and that you people to read your book but not at the cost of our security. We always change the security protocol.

GLENN: Thank you Brad.

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