The complete hypocrisy in the media's coverage of Hillary vs Republicans

July 28, 2015

WRITER

How the media reacts to a story reveals a lot. When they don’t react, it speaks even louder. The day the Planned Parenthood video broke, no mainstream media outlet bothered to cover the story. It wasn’t until an entire day later that they begrudgingly began reporting on it. Now, from a media perspective, you’ve got shocking video. It’s undercover. There’s corruption. There’s murder. There’s no question that this has to be a must-cover story, but protecting the unborn isn’t high on the media’s priority list, so they ignored it.

But they wasted no my time leaping into action when Sandra Bland died in police custody after a routine traffic stop. That was labeled a suicide from the get-go, but the media refuse to accept that answer. Slate wrote about the history of the sheriff. USA Today wrote, “Sandra Bland laid to rest as questions arise.” Hillary Clinton blamed hard truths about race and justice. Listen.

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton: It’s heartbreaking to read about another death of a young woman, Sandra Bland, in Texas, another young African-American life cut short, and that’s why I think it is essential that we all stand up and say loudly and clearly yes, black lives matter. We all have a responsibility to face these hard truths about race injustice honestly and directly.

Oh yes, that’s what she’s all about, honestly and directly, whether it’s race injustice or her email or anything else. You know, the New York Times went deep into the history to try and prove a race narrative in the Sandra Bland case, “Texas County’s racial past is seen as a prelude to Sandra Bland’s death.” The research done here is notable. Significant staff and resources were assigned to the story. They had to further the media narrative that police are gunning down African-Americans for sport.

Immediately after the theater shooting in Louisiana, the media went into anti-Second Amendment mode right away. “Movie theater shooter’s mental problems didn’t stop gun buy.” NPR’s story, “Theater shooting highlights high rate of gun deaths in Louisiana.” Now, they wondered if a high rate of gun ownership was indeed the problem in the state. Oh yeah.

The next thing you know, the national media conversation morphed into a juvenile debate on should we have guns or not. I thought that debate had been settled since 1791, but these statists don’t want an armed citizenry, so naturally this is where the media angle veers towards after any shooting, even when there’s a much more compelling, significant storyline, like the tragic shooting in Chattanooga where four Marines and a sailor were senselessly murdered.

When the killer’s name was released, Mohammed Yousef Abdul Aziz, the media suddenly didn’t seem so vigorous in its research. There were no teams deployed, no extra staff digging into Mohammed’s life. There was a sort of aversion to labeling this a terrorist attack, an aversion that stretched all the way up to the White House.

The media found every opportunity to label him just a normal kid. The Washington Post said this wasn’t part of jihad but rather the work of an “aimless young man who came from a troubled home and struggled to hold down a job after college,” as if that isn’t the experience of millions of other American young American men who don’t shoot up military recruiting stations.

Federal investigators have dismissed the possibility of terrorism despite the fact that according to the New York Post, yep, not the Times or NPR, property records show the mosque Mohammed attended was affiliated with the same Islamic group as the mosques the Boston Marathon bombers went to and the hijackers who hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

The common link is the American Islamic Trust, who the DOJ named as a co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial. That led to several convictions of US-based Hamas terrorist leaders. Basically they were funneling money to terrorists in Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and radicalizing people here in the states. The evidence is ample. We’ll get into the details coming up in a few minutes.

They make media’s rush to settle for the troubled teen angle all the more head scratching. Equally head scratching is the media’s desire to coddle and protect Hillary Clinton. I mean, this is a woman who just roped off the media like cattle. You’d think they’d have an ax to grind. Apparently not. The media says Hillary’s email saga is too complex, and it’s really hard to understand. So, it’s basically not a scandal at all. For it to be a scandal, we need to make up catchy banners for it, and besides, we’re busy finding ways to get Donald Trump into the news cycle.

Then out of nowhere, the New York Times dropped a bombshell. They wandered, they strayed from the approved statist line and published an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary’s email account. They claim that two inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation into whether Hillary mishandled sensitive government information, and yes, emailing classifying info over your Yahoo or Gmail is definitely mishandling top-secret information.

So, it looked bad, and then Hillary Clinton’s team called up the New York Times and complained. And would you believe it, they gave in to every complaint and rewrote the article. Look, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that the only possible reason to have a private email account as Secretary of State on which you are conducting your Secretary of State business is to do exactly what Hillary is doing right now, avoid and stave off any inquiries or investigations into wrongdoing. I mean, it’s so blatant even Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC conceded as much.

VIDEO

W: Is it possible Andrea, that the media analysts and others have underestimated the impact of this email situation on Hillary Clinton’s campaign?

Andrea Mitchell: I think so. Look, you have two inspectors general, and they are referring this to the Justice Department. Now, you can try to confuse it, and there’s been a lot of misdirection. There’s been inaccurate reporting significantly on Thursday night by the New York Times. It’s not a criminal referral, not at this stage. It could become, and it could become nothing. What they are suggesting is that there were classified—four out of the forty randomly selected had classified information, and it was not information that was later upgraded to be classified. It was information that was classified as “secret,” which is a level of classification at the time.

She admitted it but is still sort of meh about the whole thing. No one seems to be pointing out the gravity of the situation. I mean, here you have highly sensitive information being put at risk. Four out of forty randomly selected emails from Hillary’s private account had classified information—10%. Imagine what’s in the rest of the tens of thousands of emails, including all the ones she deleted, by the way.

During my time in the CIA, we were constantly reminded over and over again about what’s at stake with the protection of this sort of information, and we knew that there were very serious sanctions if you failed to protect classified. But Hillary’s flippantly out there on GChat or whatever spilling this stuff on unsecured networks. The media should be incensed, but Hillary Clinton herself in March said this:

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material, so I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.

Yes, that’s not true of, of course. That’s not true based on what we already know, but you see, if it’s not classified, it doesn’t mean that information is not classified. Classification is a process. The information has a sensitivity level, and that sensitivity level determines what the classification would be. So, if Hillary emails a pal what the nuclear codes are, even if she doesn’t write classified on it, it’s still classified. So, if she’s using her Gmail account to send all this stuff to people and not using any operational security whatsoever, just putting this out there on the open web, guess what, that information is still classified even if it doesn’t have a stamp that says top-secret at the top of it.

These are the sorts of inconsistencies that you would think would fuel the media skepticism on a story, and it might actually cause them to investigate it a little further. Look at the vigor with which the media went after other scandals involving very high-profile politicians. Chris Christie, how long have we had to deal with bridgegate? Scott Walker has a long-term investigation into those around him because of a convoluted series of allegations about how he’s moved money around and campaign coordination. Oh, they’ve got a name for this too, by the way, “Scott Walker’s dark money problem.” Ooh, spooky.

Rick Perry, of course, they opened an abuse of power investigation into him, but Hillary, when it comes to her, it’s complicated, depends on what your definition of classified is.

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

The complete hypocrisy in the media's coverage of Hillary vs Republicans

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

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

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

Where did all the water go?

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

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

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

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

The cost of secrecy

Transparency is an imperative

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

Or is it about self-preservation?

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

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement?

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?