Are the American people 'sick of the games and lies' in politics?

April 23, 2015

WRITER

The 2016 Presidential election is coming up, and candidates are already making their way across the country schmoozing and persuading citizens that they are the right candidate for this country. Last night on the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn took the opportunity to discuss how American's are "sick of the games and of the lies" within both political parties. Are American's finally done listening to power hungry politicians? See what Glenn had to say about it.

Glenn: I think people on both sides of the aisle, both left and right, are really sick of the games and the lies, and most of people are tuning out. That’s a really bad idea. No, it’s shame on me once, or no, it’s fool me once, and shame on me, right? Fool me twice, and I don’t know how this works, but shame on all of us. We’re fed up, and that’s the point. And we’re tired of being fooled and played for fools.

That brings me to Hillary Clinton. Here she is, the least-relatable human being since perhaps Al Gore, trying to go around the country looking like the average person. Saturday Night Live is having a field day with the blatant contradiction. SNL mocks every candidate, but they are going after Hillary with the same zeal they attacked Sarah Palin with. They’re out for blood.

I think she is going to pay for the sins of Obama, quite honestly. No one is falling for the shtick anymore, and I think they’re saying things that they wanted to say about the Obamas but couldn’t. Clinton has made hundreds of millions of dollars since leaving the White House, and by far are the richest presidents of all time, so them being the champion for the little guy is kind of laughable, and everybody knows that they’re out for power and they’re out for money.

You know, they might be people good people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but when you put them in the Scooby Doo van, you know, riding around for a couple of days in the Scooby Doo van and then returning first class on a nice jet, hardly winning anybody over. I don’t know if you’ve seen any of the actual footage of her, you know, on her listening tour. Do you think she’s really listening? Really?

The Washington Free Beacon put together a little clip and counted the “um-hum,” counted them. See if you’re feeling the passion here with the 88 um-hums.

VIDEO

Glenn Right now, she’s thinking, “Oh, dear God, when are these people going to stop talking? How much longer do I have to suffer through this? I can’t stand being around these peasants anymore.” Somebody could have said America’s dependence on fluffernutter must stop— um-hum. She wasn’t listening to them at all, not at all.

The Clintons will be making the rounds looking to cash in on every political past favor, but it looks like some may not be all that ready for Hillary after all. The Miami Herald reported today that the former mayor of Miami, Manny Diaz, is hosting an event for Gov. Martin O’Malley. I don’t know about you, but I think people are beating down the doors to get O’Malley to run. That’s one everybody’s been clamoring for. Where is Officer O’Malley?

Who is this guy? I mean, that’s how weak their bench is. There’s nobody lined up to be up next for this one. We’ve got Hillary Clinton, who we all know and deeply love or some guy named O’Malley. Are we witnessing a pivot point in America? Um-hum, um-hum, um-hum. I think we are. Um-hum, um-hum. Is it finally the time that we reject the political family empires in America—you know, the Kennedys and the Bushes and the Clintons? Um-hum, um-hum, um-hum.

It appears the backlash against Hillary is very real and very, very palpable, and I believe the same will hold true when Jeb Bush enters the race. Um-hum, um-hum, I think it will. The entire reason Jeb is waiting so long to run, I think, is because as long as he’s not a declared candidate, he can raise unlimited amounts of funds, so that’s what he’s doing, going around and oil my arms, oil my wallet. Oh, yes. That’s what’s happening. He’s greasing all of the establishment wheels to fill the coffers and then let the machine churn out yet another Dynasty candidate.

Eventually Dynasty was canceled. The Karl Roves of the world say that’s the only way to win. That’s nuts. I think that’s an outright lie and the type of thinking that has done more damage to the Constitution, to the republic, and to the political parties in the past 25 years than in the entire previous 200 years. The truth is if somebody has something legitimate to say and they are authentic, it will connect with the American people, and they will win.

You don’t even have to be authentic. Everybody talks about the brilliance of the Obama campaign. It really wasn’t that smart really. They definitely had a machine of their own, but the real reason he won is because he tapped into something, an idea. He got people to come out to the polls in droves. It wasn’t just money; it was a movement. It was a couple things: One, people on both sides of the aisle really were excited to hey, let’s break a barrier here, let’s have a black guy be president. For as shallow as that seems, it was kind of a cool thing. Okay, I wish there was more than just the color of his skin, but that was a big deal for people on both sides of the aisle.

That was a movement, but people also thought that he would be a uniter who would heal the divisions, stop the nonsense in Washington. They thought he would be transparent; he would end the wars. It was an idea, and here’s the idea, we can be better than we are. As it turns out, he didn’t buy any of that. Um-hum, um-hum, um-hum, none of it.

People are looking for it again, and that’s why people like Ted Cruz, like Rand Paul, because they’re saying something different, and we’re actually looking for somebody to actually say what they believe. I contend we don’t even have to like more than 50% or 60%. I think if you like somebody 50% of what they say, 60% you agree with, you overlook the other 40% because you’re just like they really believe that. If they’re authentic and they believe it, I’m willing to go with that because I’m tired of the um-hum, um-hum. You’re such a peasant. We’re done.

Clinton and Bush represent everything that is wrong with Washington. A new book details how Bill Clinton has raked in over $100 million in speaking fees and appearances. I mean, how many ribbons do you have to cut at the opening of Walmarts to get that kind of money? That’s since he left office, and most of that money—total coincidence—came while Hillary was Secretary of State.

Between 2001 and 2013, the president earned $105 million. Now, during Hillary’s four-year stint as Secretary of State, four years, the ex-president earned $48 million of the $105. Wait a minute, he earned $105 between 2001 and 2013, but for four years he earned $48, and it took double the amount of time to earn the remaining $57 million. So, she has power, and he gets huge speaking fees. She doesn’t have power, and it takes twice the amount of time.

I’m sure nothing nefarious is going on there. And I’m not a monitoring laundering expert or anything like that, but I am a thinker, and it sure seems possible that something kind of nefarious might be going on. Um-hum, um-hum, um-hum. Hillary only deletes her emails about yoga classes. I know, I know. She’s totally on the up and up about everything else.

Here’s the thing, I think America is finally ready to move past the American Dynasty, maybe. It has been boiling beneath the surface for a while. The Tea Party was the first to tap into it, but the other side also had, what was it, the people who were peeing their pants in the park? Operation wall—whatever that was. That was beautiful. There were some real authentic people there too that were sick of this.

The election of Barack Obama was largely based on the belief that he would help reduce or end the partisan bickering, be transparent, clean it up. Real, actual, nonestablishment candidates are now rising to the top, but will they be able to break through that glass ceiling? Will they be able to do that?

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