Rabbi Daniel Lapin discusses Christianity and Christmas

December 18, 2015

Editor

Glenn's friend Rabbi Daniel Lapin joined the radio program to talk about Christianity from the perspective of an Orthodox Jew.

At one point in the conversation, Glenn pointed out many Christians don't really know about Judaism, and many people --- both Christian and Jewish --- don't know much about the Reformation. Lapin agreed and shared some of his own insight on the subject.

"Jews do not know that there has never been an instance of Protestants committing a pogrom against Jews. Never happened in history," Lapin said. "There have been fights between Protestants and Catholics, but most Jews are totally unaware that there's that enormous difference historically."

Later, Glenn brought up the apparently mistranslated verse from the Bible often quoted during the Christmas season.

"Most times at this holiday, people say, peace on earth and good will towards men. That's a mistranslation," Glenn said. "The actual phrase is peace on earth, to men of good will."

Lapin said, "that's very interesting," before sharing what he considers the most misunderstood scripture in the Torah.

Listen to the dialogue or read the transcript below.

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

Rabbi Daniel Lapin is with us. He's with the American Alliance of Jews and Christians. He is really, truly an amazing man. And I've learned from Rabbi Lapin than really -- well, more than Jeffy. Let's just leave it at that.

STU: Certainly more than Jeffy.

GLENN: You have to turn on -- push that red button up.

STU: There we go.

DANIEL: That good? We're on? Okay. Great. I was just going to say -- disclaim slightly. If I was wise, I wouldn't be able to feel particularly good about it because that would just mean that I won the ovarian lottery. That's all it is.

GLENN: Right. Right.

DANIEL: But, no, what I do have, I'm appropriately humble about it is that I have been taught a great deal of ancient Jewish wisdom.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DANIEL: And I do my best to be an accurate retransmitter of everything I was taught.

GLENN: You know what I love about you, Rabbi Lapin, is because you're so -- you're a rabbi. So you buy into the Judaism thing.

DANIEL: I do actually.

STU: Wow, that's great.

GLENN: Isn't that great? You know what --

DANIEL: I buy into it.

GLENN: What I hate to say is that there are a lot of Jews that don't.

STU: And a lot of Christians that don't.

GLENN: That don't. Yeah, and they go every Sunday. They go every Saturday. But, eh, I don't really buy into it.

STU: By the way, there's no Muslims who don't. We should point that out now. All Muslims are perfect and peaceful --

GLENN: Of course. Of course.

STU: We should just make that point.

GLENN: But what I love about you is you're so dedicated to your faith. But we were just joking off air. You said thanks for wishing me Merry Christmas. And I said, "Oh, my gosh, did I do that?" He's the like, "No, I didn't do that, but like it's an offensive thing." What I first want to start off with is Merry Christmas?

DANIEL: Thank you.

GLENN: We do a prayer at the end of the television show. And you were on with us, what, last week or so? And I asked you to say the prayer.

DANIEL: Yes.

GLENN: And what's amazing to me, if I have a preacher on or if I'm praying, I pray in Jesus' name. That's my culture, that's my religion.

DANIEL: Right.

GLENN: If you're on, I don't ask you to pray in Jesus' name. By the way, rabbi, a bunch of Christians in here. You have to pray in Jesus' name. But Christians -- I mean, Jews won't. Christians will write to me and say, "Glenn, you have a lot of Jewish friends and a lot of Jewish fans, you're offending them." I don't understand that, rabbi.

DANIEL: First of all, nice of you to say that. But I myself have been in several situations where Jews have exploded in fury because the person saying the prayer finished off in Jesus' name. So it's something that bothers many Jews.

GLENN: But it also bothers Christians when you don't pray --

DANIEL: Only because they're fearful of offending Jews -- oh, the other way around, yes, yeah.

GLENN: No, no -- I'm saying --

For instance, if I go to a Jewish organization and they haven't, but if they ask me to pray, I might say in the name of Jesus Christ, but I might say in your holy name. We're not throwing rocks at each other for the love of Pete. And God knows who I'm talking to.

DANIEL: Yeah.

GLENN: But there are some Christians that would bash and say, "How dare you not say Jesus Christ."

DANIEL: Yes. Oh, I'm sure. It's vitally important to them. And I totally understand that.

But what's interesting is that, as you know, the Jewish community is hardly monolithic. I mean, there are one or two Jews in the country that don't agree with me on every point.

GLENN: Get out of here.

STU: Is that legal?

DANIEL: It shouldn't be. And when I'm in charge, it won't be.

GLENN: He is Orthodox Jew. And I'm telling you, he lives it and he's great. He's just moved to New York City. Which if we have time, I got to find out how that's working out for you.

DANIEL: Yeah.

GLENN: Because an orthodox Jewish person --

DANIEL: Well, as a matter of fact, so happens in New York City, the most recent Jewish study and survey showed something that most Jews in the country found profoundly disturbing, which is that the majority of Jews in New York City at the moment are, in fact, orthodox. Never happened before in the history of America.

GLENN: Wow.

DANIEL: That is really extraordinary. Our side is winning. I mean, as it is, by the way, elsewhere as well. The seriously committed evangelical community is growing by leaps and bounds. The old mainstream denominations that lean left are shrinking. Their churches are empty.

GLENN: Because they don't stand for anything.

DANIEL: Precisely.

GLENN: For instance, I have no problem -- somebody -- somebody says Happy Hanukkah to me. Thank you.

DANIEL: Happy Hanukkah, Glenn.

GLENN: Thank you. That's great.

DANIEL: I think of Hanukkah as the let's use more fossil fuels holiday. Yes.

STU: Really?

GLENN: This is what makes you more popular in New York.

DANIEL: There you go. I'm looking forward. But let's talk about the praying in the name of Jesus for a moment.

GLENN: All right.

DANIEL: You have a very large proportion of American Jews -- a majority of American Jews that have -- I mean, let's be frank, have forsaken and abandoned the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And they have adopted something else. I call it the sacred sacrament of secular fundamentalism. It's a religion. And I can explain why.

But for the moment, the point is that, it's just fascinating but I often pose this question to non-observant Jews who are very remote from their faith.

If an invisible private detective followed you around 24/7, how long would it take him to discover that you are Jewish, as opposed to a loyal member of the Democratic Party?

It's a tough question to answer. Because if you don't live and do Jewish, then what is it exactly?

And almost every Jew will tell you, I'm proud to be Jewish. Well, about what?

Like, you're proud of a racial accident? A genetic accident? What does that mean? And so what they'll usually answer is, "Well, I am Jewish. I don't believe in Jesus." And that's become now the moral and theological slogan.

GLENN: Well, there's a lot of people that don't believe in Jesus. It doesn't make them Jewish.

STU: Penn Jillette doesn't believe in Jesus.

DANIEL: Precisely.

GLENN: The Dalai Lama doesn't believe in Jesus.

DANIEL: He should be Jewish though. He should be Jewish.

STU: Oh, he should? Okay. We'll tell him know next time he's around.

DANIEL: By the way, I mean, you will remember what a stunning display of intellectual integrity Penn Jillette did when we were together on the show.

GLENN: I love him.

DANIEL: It was extraordinary.

GLENN: If you don't remember, yeah, Penn Jillette was on, along with Rabbi Lapin in. And it was an experiment. And I said to the rabbi and I said to Penn, let's get on. I'm Christian. He's Jewish. You're an atheist. Let's model for the American people that three people who have wildly different points of view on theology, that they can actually have a conversation. And at one point, the rabbi said --

DANIEL: I said if a billion -- what was happening was Penn was saying there's no difference between facts. Islam, Christianity, they're all the same. And suggesting that they're all equally bad. And I said if a billion Muslims converted became evangelical Christians tomorrow would the world be a better place or a worst place? He paused. And on television, that pause felt like a week.

GLENN: Yeah, it was amazing. And what went through my mind was, oh, my gosh. This guy might answer this question.

DANIEL: And you know what went through my mind. My mind -- I said to myself. You know, I straight away I can think of three ways to put me down, get a lot, and move on to the next topic. And if I can think of three ways to sort of put me away, Penn probably thought of five.

GLENN: What would have you have said to that, if you were him?

DANIEL: Well, I would like to think I would have said what he would have said, but I'm not sure. I know most people would have come back with something like, "Oh, yeah, right, a million Muslims are going to turn into evangelical Christians. They may as well turn into Jews --

GLENN: Right. Right. He would have said, "I don't deal in hypotheticals. That's ridiculous."

DANIEL: Yeah, he would blow it away.

STU: What did he say?

DANIEL: He thought about it. And he came back and he said, "All things being equal, I would have to say, yes, it would be a better place." That's extraordinary.

GLENN: That's amazing.

DANIEL: And he paid a price for that because many of his atheist followers were terribly upset. Anyway, I just recalled that.

So Jews who don't believe in Jesus, at that point, their entire identity is I'm Jewish because I believe this. I'm Jewish because I don't believe in Jesus. And, therefore, Jesus becomes this -- this cross to the vampire. This frightening thing which has to be kept out of my sight. Because if I allowed it in my sight, it is violating my last lingering remnant of connection to the Jewish faith.

STU: You see this in politics too. It's always a danger when you belong in something because you don't believe in something.

DANIEL: Yes, that's right.

STU: You know, I think that's happened a lot in politics and so many other things.

GLENN: Can I tell you, when I was sitting in the great synagogue in Jerusalem, sitting in the great synagogue in Jerusalem. I've gone to a couple of synagogues, but I've never been -- they had the choir and everything. It was really amazing.

DANIEL: We call that high church. Yes.

GLENN: Okay. And it was beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. And my wife was sitting upstairs, and I was sitting downstairs. And I'm just observing. And I don't understand anything -- I don't understand they're saying. And I had just been over in Europe, so I had just been over at the Vatican. And I hear the music start. And I'm thinking to myself, "This is Gregorian chant."

DANIEL: All that music is derived indirectly from the music we have on tradition that was played by the Levites in the temple.

GLENN: So let me just speak as someone who is observant. I love and going and observing other religions. And I love -- because I'm not -- a celebrate other religions. I really love it.

And I love people who are really, deeply into their traditions. And you can learn so much. And you can also -- my father taught me, he said, "Glenn, you look -- you search everything and you look for the intersection points. There's a line of theology and a line of theology and a line of theology, but where they intersect, that's where you know there's truth. There's something there that's truth."

And so I love that. And I'm sitting there in the great synagogue. And I'm hearing this music. Now I'm hearing Gregorian chant. I'm hearing the essence of Gregorian chant. And I'm looking at the way they're dressed. That's a kassik (phonetic). The Catholics have taken the kassik. And now I'm starting to think, if I'm a Jew, and I put myself back in time, you know, you know, declare your support for Jesus Christ or you're dead and I would think to myself, my gosh, they have taken all of our rituals. They have taken all of our most sacred stuff. And I don't mean it this way. Back in the time, maybe they were doing it. But then they perverted it and declared it them and theirs and said, "If you don't accept it now," so it becomes more of a mockery if you hold on to that anger, it becomes almost a mockery.

And I thought to myself, "If I was Jewish, I would have a very hard time -- if I knew my culture, I loved my culture, and I loved my faith, I would have a very hard time letting go of the past because most Christians don't know. Most Christians don't look at the history of what Christians did to Jews." And I don't -- past is past. We can't correct that. But we can recognize the strife that has been there and open our hearts to one another and go, "Wow, I see -- and maybe you don't even see -- where that rub comes from now." You know?

DANIEL: Yes. You know, it's dangerous to drive with your eyes only on the rearview mirror. And it's equally dangerous to run affairs, whether it's a family or a society or a culture or a faith with an eye only on the past and what happened back then.

The sad truth is that -- and we had at our Sabbath table a couple years ago, a judge sitting on the bench in New York, a very sophisticated and educated woman. And she said to me, these were her words. She said, I -- and she spat these words out with fury after eating my food, if you don't mind, as she said, "How can you be friends with Pat Robinson? If he has his way, the pope will be in charge of America."

GLENN: Pat Robinson. But he's not a Catholic.

DANIEL: So I said to her -- no. I said to her, "What does the words 'Protestant reformation' mean to you?" And she had no idea. Little by little, it became apparent that this was a woman who grew up as a child and a young girl and then went to college. All in New York. In New York, there are only two kinds of people: Jews and Catholics. You go to Brooklyn, you got Italians and Jews. And she never knew. To this day, she never knew anything else.

GLENN: Here's the amazing thing. And I didn't know this. So many -- just like Christians don't know about Judaism. So many Christians -- so many Jews really don't know about the reformation. They really don't -- they don't understand.

DANIEL: Jews do not know that there has never been an instance of Protestants committing a pogrom against Jews. Never happened in history. Now, Martin Luther King certainly wrote some unpleasant things about Jews. Nobody ever acted on that. There are no record anywhere of Protestants killing Jews. There have been fights between Protestants and Catholics, but most Jews are totally unaware that there's that enormous difference historically. And one of the reasons -- one of the things that brought about the reformation, of course, was the popularization of the Bible that came about because finally translating it became acceptable. Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1415. Fifty years later, you have a Protestant Reformation. People are saying, you know what, we need to go back to the roots. We need to go back to the Bible.

GLENN: Can we -- let me just jump off here in a bit. Because as I'm listening to you saying, you know, mistranslation. We have to go back to the Bible. People were kept away from things. As I'm looking at you, I see just behind you is a chalkboard with a wreath on it. It says, peace on earth to men of good will. Most times at this holiday, people say, peace on earth and good will towards men. That's a mistranslation. The actual phrase is peace on earth, to men of good will.

DANIEL: Oh, that's very interesting.

GLENN: That's totally different. Totally different.

DANIEL: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: What do you think the most mistranslated or misunderstood phrase in the Scriptures or the in Torah that jumps out to you. If people just understood -- maybe it's not just mistranslated. It's just misunderstood.

STU: What's the most misunderstood Scripture. We have one minute. Go ahead.

GLENN: Go.

DANIEL: You know, just put on the spot. I mean, I wish we did more rehearsal or something for these --

GLENN: Let me tell you --

DANIEL: The answer is very simple. It's something called Tikkun Olam. I don't know if you've heard that phrase. Tikkun Olam is improving the world. I wish people wouldn't improve the world. Just don't wreck it at all. Stop improving it. That's all.

And it's interesting that that is the spirit of the socialist revolutionary. We're improving it. Just stop improving it. That phrase Tikkun Olam doesn't appear in that way. The correct Hebrew phrase is to improve the world in accordance with God's blueprint.

GLENN: I want to pick it up there and talk about the actual word "Torah" when we come back. Something I learned from a friend the other day that I never heard before. Back with Rabbi Lapin in just a second.

GLENN: Nobody does Christmas like Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

DANIEL: What are you trying to do? Wreck me?

(laughter)

STU: Quick question for you, rabbi. Before we get more in-depth.

GLENN: I have a serious question in a second.

STU: Well, this is a very serious question. It's just not as in-depth. As a rabbi, can you sense the evil emanating from Jeffy from across the room? Is that something that's built in, like when you finish up and you become an official rabbi, can you sense people like Jeffy as they're near and they're pure evil?

DANIEL: Not only that, I can even read your thoughts at this very moment.

STU: Wow. What am I thinking?

DANIEL: Well, I wouldn't want to turn this into a carnival.

GLENN: Yeah. And do cheap parlor tricks.

DANIEL: I don't want to do that.

GLENN: He's a serious rabbi. He only mind reads for serious things.

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