Miss Puerto Rico vs. Michael Moore and Islam

Miss Puerto Rico was suspended from the Miss America organization after tweeting anti-Islamic statements in response to Michael Moore's "We Are All Muslim" campaign.

Among her numerous strongly-worded tweets, Destiny Vélez wrote, "There’s NO comparison between Jews, Christians and Muslims."

Buck Sexton shared the controversial story during Glenn's radio program Tuesday, asking listeners to consider what might have happened if she had attacked Christians rather than Muslims.

What would happen if she had said instead that Christians use our Constitution to terrorize the USA and attack Planned Parenthood centers? That Christians have terrorizing agendas in their books and look at what's said in Leviticus and look at what's in --- what would have happened if she had said that? Do you think she would have been suspended?

No. She wouldn't have been suspended. She would have been invited on the late night shows as a revered guest. She would be sitting there with Stephen Colbert, who apparently can't make a joke unless he's pretending to be a conservative, based on the ratings.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

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

BUCK: Some groups that are in a demographic minority, they need special protections, including for the First Amendment. From the First Amendment, really.

And we see time and again, some people get caught up in the machinery, some are punished, and some are not. And it's just based on the whim of the mob. These days, it's often the whim of the digital mob, meaning those on social media who scream the loudest for yet another head to roll, those on social media who demand someone be fired, that a career be ended.

There are others, of course, who will be forced to make the pole -- the groveling, knee bending, oh, I'm so sorry to share a thought that offended some delicate sensibilities, or even at the more extreme end, I'm sorry I said something that was rude, unfounded, and nasty. Please, please, forgive me. But what's interesting, when you go to that end of things, forgiveness tends not to be given, right? There's a spectrum here. There's only so much you can get away with.

So who gets a pass? Who does not? Miss Puerto Rico does not get a pass. Miss Puerto Rico 2015 has been suspended indefinitely for posting a series of, yes, anti-Muslim messages on Twitter. This coming via CNN. Her name is Destiny Velez. And she tweeted at filmmaker Michael Moore last week who, of course, when you want to talk about in-depth intellectual discourse, the true things in life. The truth about US foreign policy and American exceptionalism, who else comes to mind, but the vile propagandist Michael Moore, right? The communist who lives in mansions. It's wonderful stuff, isn't it? He would be right at home in the Politburo telling people waiting in line for bread that they've got it good because the smart people are in charge.

Of course, Michael wouldn't just be eating bread in the Politburo. He can have whatever he wanted. That's the way the true statists like it. So Michael started this little campaign on Twitter. And he's doing this, of course -- and part of me feels bad for even raising his name on this broadcast right now because that's what he wants. But it is part of the overall narrative that we're discussing. So I guess I just have to suck it up and accept it.

We'll talk about this very irritating man for a moment. He started this We Are All Muslim campaign. Holds up a sign. Stood in front of Trump Tower, of course, trying to ride on the Trump media coattails as much as he can. We Are All Muslim. And he wanted people to post photographs of themselves holding signs online. Now, first let me just say, this notion that we're all Muslim is bizarre, is nonsense. In the truest sense of that word, right? It doesn't make any sense. What does that mean, We're All Muslim? We're clearly not.

And this is part of our degradation of our basic ability to make differentiations in a society. See, in a mature, liberal society -- and I mean a true liberal society, not liberal in the sense of the word that has been hijacked by the left now. I mean a society based in liberty, we understand each other's differences. And as long as those differences stay within the confines of the Constitution and our laws, we respect and allow for them.

We don't pretend that they don't exist though. Because isn't it funny, on the one hand, the left will say, we are all this and we are all that. And then on the other, they will make sure you're part of a dominant patriarchy. You're at the top of the hierarchy. You have to make amendments, not for what you've done, but for who you are because of past injustices.

So sometimes we're all the same when it benefits their narrative. But most of the time, oh, no, it is our differences that are, in fact, essential. It is the Balkanization. The tribalization of the American people. Breaking us up into different groups by race, ethnicity, religion, sex -- anything. Whatever they can do to separate us is one of their best means of achieving power.

But here we have Michael Moore saying we are all Muslim. And some people reacted to this in the way that you would expect. Some people were pointing out that it was nonsense, that it was stupid, not helpful. And also, of course, very self--- very self-serving for Michael Moore who has a movie coming out next week about which country are we going to bomb again. Because, again, this is someone who is really into serious discourse about American foreign policy and trying to raise the level of our national -- keep in mind, this was a person that was seated in a place of honor at I forget which Democratic Convention. Sort of a hollowed figure on the left. And not just on the left in a generic sense. Within the Democratic Party. There are people that still think that some of his documentaries are masterpieces, of truth telling. Not of propaganda. Not of omission of necessary facts and context so we can understand the very basics of some of the subject matter he tackles. No, he's a vile propagandist, posing as a documentarian. But, of course, as we know, in the modern sense, in recent years, in recent decades, "documentary" has just become a long form, video editorial for the left, for the most part. There are some exceptions. I know some of you would know them.

But he's tweeting out, We Are All Muslim. Ms. Velez, Miss Puerto Rico tweeted out some things that were in poor taste, tweeted out some things that she probably should have known would get her into trouble. And in one case, I'm not even particularly clear what she was trying to say.

She tweeted, according to CNN here, Muslims use our Constitution to terrorize USA and plant gas stations. There's no comparison between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Jews nor Christians have terrorizing agendas in their sacred books. All what Muslims have done is provided oil and terrorize this country and many others.

I don't know what she meant about plant gas stations. But nonetheless, she's essentially saying that Islam is not comparable to other religions. Now, the way in which she said it is too sweeping. And some of you would agree with me, this was not the way that this sort of discussion should have been said -- some of you would disagree and say that, you know what, sometimes you just to have start the conversation and you have to start with some haymakers and that's the way it's got to be. And if people are offended, so what. That's another approach.

But she, of course, was immediately disciplined. She is indefinitely suspended. The Miss Puerto Rico organization has issued a statement over the weekend distancing itself from her comments. Well, that's -- there's no surprise there. I would just, as a thought experiment for you though, I would offer up, what would happen if she had said instead that Christians use our Constitution to terrorize the USA and attack Planned Parenthood centers? That Christians have terrorizing agendas in their books and look at what's said in Leviticus and look at what's in -- what would have happened if she had said that? Do you think she would have been suspended? No. She wouldn't have been suspended. She would have been invited on the late night shows as a revered guest. She would be sitting there with Stephen Colbert, who apparently can't make a joke unless he's pretending to be a conservative, based on the ratings.

No, no, she would have received a hero's welcome for that. Or you could put in Republicans. Republicans use our Constitution to terrorize the USA and destroy Muslim countries. Or whatever the case. They're war criminals. Just sit there and think this through yourself. Come up with -- it's like politically correct mad libs. Just come up with different ways of insulting groups that you're allowed to insult. You see, there are some groups you're allowed to insult: Christians. White Christian males, of course, being the top tier of target for whatever insult you feel like throwing out there.

In fact, if they don't accept as a matter of leftist orthodoxy. Now, if you don't accept that white Christian males have some form of guilt on their hands for any number of things around the world, imperialism, oppression, male patriarchy, colonialism, racism, slavery. I mean, you just go down the list. You'll have to constantly bow your head and beg for forgiveness. From who? Well, from the Michael Moores of the world. Because if you don't, you'll get suspended. Maybe fired. Pretty much the same thing. Depends on your job.

You'll be run out of the public square. You'll be called all kinds of names. People might threaten you, your family. Some people don't get a pass. They don't get -- they don't get the opportunity to even make amends, which in this case she did not.

But I think we are all really tired of this culture of political correctness because it's not just some -- it's not just some sideshow now. It's not just something that you occasionally run into. It is becoming a dominant force in our everyday conversations, in our politics, and in our lives. And it is time for it to stop.

Featured Image: Filmmaker Michael Moore speaks at the after party for the Centerpiece Gala Premiere of Dog Eat Dog Films' 'Where to Invade Next' during AFI FEST 2015 presented by Audi at the Egyptian Theatre on November 7, 2015 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images For AFI)

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.

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:

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?