THIS is one of the best Glenn monologues of the year!

November 06, 2013

Writer

Check out behind-the-scenes photos from the show HERE.

I’m telling you, we’re living in an America that I’ve never seen before. It’s an upside-down world. Remember, somebody said that a few years back, you won’t understand the world. One day, you’ll wake up, and the whole country has changed.

That’s it. It’s almost like we’re in a movie, and I just want to go home. Don’t you wish we had like little ruby slippers we could like there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home? I’m telling you, the flying monkeys are coming.

I was thinking about, because this is what I do, this is what I do for a living, I think about things like The Wizard of Oz. That’s the way I roll. And I was thinking about Dorothy. Wasn’t she just glam? And I was thinking, you know, Dorothy has this little problem of this little yappy dog. I hate these dogs, the kinds that are always like yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, and they’re as big as your foot, and yet you can’t kick them. That would be wrong.

Well, the old lady down the street wants to take the little yappy dog because it bit her, and the woman deserved to be bitten. It’s the only time I look at the little yappy dog, and I’m like, “Good dog, good dog.” You’re plastic. What’s wrong? What’s up with that?

Anyway, so the lady wants to take, and so Dorothy, what does Dorothy do? She puts it in the little basket where I keep all my little yappy dogs, and she’s like I’ve got to run away to the circus. And so she runs into the circus trying to find somebody who will give her hope and change, but then the storm comes – oh, there’s a storm in this one too and it’s really bad? Let’s sing about it – somewhere over the rainbow.

Okay? In the end, we find out that the whole thing’s a total sham, okay? When she goes, because I think like she gets in a house, and then a house falls on her or the house falls on a witch or her sister. Here, the house falls on like two little feet. It’s like the ruby slippers, the ruby slippers, get the ruby slippers, and then she comes over and she’s like I’ve got to put the ruby slippers on.

Oh, I don’t know why I’m doing it, except it’ll be really agonizing to run down the stupid brick road with these ruby slippers. I mean, who wears heels in a place like this? Anyway, can’t we have some comfortable shoes.

So what happens? The witch comes – I’ll get you, my pretty. But just in time, this one comes, and you think wait a minute, she’s a witch? She can’t be a witch. She’s too beautiful. Yeah, this is what a witch is supposed to look like. And so what does she do? Remember, she takes Dorothy and her little dog – and your little dog too – and she goes into the castle, and she’s sitting there at one point with that big huge, you know the big huge globe, and she’s like puppies, puppies, puppies.

And she’s in the zzzzzzzz and even Toto’s zzzzzzzz – yeah, sleep, sleep. What’s she doing? She’s watching everything, right? She’s monitoring. She’s harassing. Ooh, she’s scary. Meanwhile, I just want to go home. I’m so sleepy. I forgot to tell you some of the people that she meets along the way, people that keep promising I’m going to help you, some of them are well-intentioned, but they’re all deeply flawed, even this one, the “good witch.” Really?

What is the good which doing to Dorothy? Oh Dorothy, all you have to do is wear the ruby slippers and then just go for a long, long, long, long walk. Somebody’s going to set you on fire. Dorothy just wants to go home. She can help her, but she wants her enemies defeated, and she knows she can do it. She can’t, but she can. Got it?

Go see the Wizard. Who’s the Wizard? He’s the answer? When you get there, you’re like this guy is a loser. He’s corrupt. He presents himself as a loving and kind man just wanting to help, but he’s a complete phony in the end who actually sends Dorothy out into danger. Why? Because he too wants to kill her.

All you have to do, come back! All you have to do is bring me the broomstick. What? Why don’t you do it? He doesn’t care about Dorothy. He’s being selfish and ruthless. The only difference between the two is eventually the Wizard admits it. In the end, the Wizard says I don’t really have any power. I’ve got a bunch of crap in a closet. That’s all I’ve got.

And he says I can’t take you home. Oh, that’s when she reveals in the end oh, you know what, you actually had the power the whole time. That’s when if I were Dorothy, I would have – but she doesn’t. She’s like really, what do I have to do? Oh, just bear down, focus for a minute, and will yourself there – there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home. And you and you and you were there. The end.

Now, why am I telling you the story of The Wizard of Oz? Well, let me take you through some of the characters again. Who’s Dorothy? Dorothy is us, the American people. Dorothy is the one who has a little problem, got a little yappy dog, but I love the yappy dog. I love her. But you’re not taking care of him. You’re not paying attention, something else as it’s biting people. Oh yeah, but I love it.

So what we do because somebody’s like hey, there are some things you have to do? What do you do? You run, you run away, and you run to somebody offering hope and change at a carnival. That’s not going to work out well. And then when we run home, it’s too late because the house is about to be sucked up with you in it, a little too late.

So once it gets too late, then you have somebody up here going ah, puppies, watching you the whole time. Who’s this? NSA, is that you? Government regulators, is that you? The IRS, ObamaCare, is that you? Ah, puppies, puppies, yes, it is.

Gee, if Dorothy would’ve paid attention a little earlier, maybe this one wouldn’t have had happened.

So what does she do? She gets advice from this one.

But why won’t this one actually take care of the problem? Why won’t this one just tell her hey, you know what, you could go home. I am a bad witch in the end because you could go home right now, but I’m going to send you on this really, really nasty, nasty adventure.

She could’ve done it, but she didn’t, because she wanted her enemies defeated. Gee, is there anybody that’s like that that could stop things but really doesn’t because he’s got some people he wants taken out? Bingo, Mitch McConnell. Now, who’s the Wizard? Well, we keep going to the Wizard right? Everybody says go to the Wizard because he has all of the answers. Boom, Karl Rove, is that you. Uh huh.

Now, along the way we meet a couple of other dopes, somebody who’s like I don’t know which way to go, I’m Lindsey Graham, I have no idea which way to go, the Scarecrow. Then, of course, you have the Tin Man, the old broken-down rusty machine, John McCain. And if you don’t think John McCain will take an axe to you if somebody oils him up, you can’t see John McCain going oh, oil my arms, oil my arms?

Yeah, he would, and then he’d cut you up into little pieces with his axe. And he’s an old rusted piece of crap from the last century left in the woods. Don’t oil him. Oil my arms – don’t do it.

And the Cowardly Lion, somebody who says I’m going to help you, yeah, I’m going to help you lots, and then soon as trouble starts up – John Boehner? – doesn’t do jack. I was afraid. I was afraid. Look, here’s the thing, puppies, this is real – puppies, puppies. May I suggest you get your little dog too and your little ruby slippers, okay?

I mean, I would like to wake up from this dream. I’d like to be able to say I had a crazy dream, and there was this guy who was the president and the NSA and the drones and then all that stuff. I’d like to be able to say and you were there and you and you and you. Sure, when we wake up, our world won’t be quite as colorful. It’ll be black and white and more of a sepia tone.

It won’t be as exciting, of course, but at least it will make sense. At least it’ll have everything in it that is meaningful. In the end, all of these things that you were looking for, all these people that you were saying oh gee, they’re going to have the answers, remember, they’re only circus people or hired hands. You have to dig deep and just say there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home.

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