Monica Crowley discusses 'anti-incumbent mood' with Milwaukee County Sheriff

December 23, 2015

Editor

Guest hosting while Glenn was off the airwaves Wednesday, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke took control of the microphone, sharing his views on the news of the day. He started his discussion by laying some ground rules.

"This is The Glenn Beck Program. My number one objective is to protect the brand," Clarke said.

Then, he quickly added, "Now, don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm at the helm here. You're going to hear my views. You're going to hear my take on things. It may compare with many of your views, Glenn Beck's views. It might not. But don't take that out on Glenn if it doesn't."

One of Clarke's guests was Monica Crowley, writer for The Washington Times, who joined the program to discuss how the presidential election process is playing out, particularly on the GOP side.

Clarke asked for Crowley's opinion on the "anti-incumbent mood" that has manifested itself among the American people.

"You know, it's interesting because we've not seen anything like this ever," Crowley said.

She continued.

We've certainly had outsiders run and win. You think of Andrew Jackson and some other candidates. And you've also seen impulses before, where voters are just so sick of the incumbents. Throw the bums out. That's been a tag line for American politics since the start.

What we have now is something completely different.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below for more.

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

DAVID: Monica Crowley. She's a writer for the Washington Times newspaper. A prolific writer, I might add. Great insight. And I want to talk to her a little bit about this whole presidential process, what's going on, this dynamic of the -- appears to be the year of the outsider. And why that might be.

Monica, thanks for joining me.

MONICA: Hi, Sheriff. And Merry Christmas to you too, my friend.

DAVID: Thank you, back at you.

Give me your thoughts on this whole process playing out, specifically on the G.O.P. side. This -- this anti-incumbent mood. It's not the first time we've seen it. But kind of not in a presidential sweepstakes. Go ahead.

MONICA: Yeah, you know, it's interesting because we've not seen anything like this ever. I mean, certainly not in our lifetimes, and I would argue maybe never in the history of the republic have we seen a dynamic play out the way it's playing out now. We've certainly had outsiders run and win. You think of Andrew Jackson and some other candidates. And you've also seen impulses before, where voters are just so sick of the incumbents. Throw the bums out. That's been a tag line for American politics since the start.

DAVID: Right.

MONICA: What we have now is something completely different. In that I think particularly on the Republican side, we have a base of voters who time and again have sent Republicans to Washington in waves. In particular, we have two recent wave elections, 2010 and 2014, where we flipped both houses of Congress to Republicans. We have sent Republicans and conservatives to DC with two missions over the last seven years. One, to stop Barack Obama's radical agenda. And two, to advance a conservative one. And in most cases, these Republicans/Republicans have gone there and done neither. There have been some very visible exceptions like Senator Ted Cruz and others. But they have gone there and once again, like those before them, sold out.

And so what you're seeing now is what I argue is the latest incarnation of the Tea Party movement. This is Tea Party 2.0, Sheriff. The initial Tea Party came out of Barack Obama's radicalism, of course. But it also came out of the fact that the Republican Party failed to stand by and fight for its principles: Limited government, fiscal responsibility. They just let all those things fall by the wayside and basically became Democrat-lite. There would have been no need for an original Tea Party movement if the G.O.P. had stuck to its founding principles. Okay? It didn't. So you needed a Tea Party to try to bring it back.

Well, that Tea Party, as we know was squashed by the Barack Obama administration through the IRS and other weapons that they use. And so what you're seeing now, this grassroots movement that is supporting Donald Trump, that's supporting Ted Cruz, that is supporting Carly Fiorina and some of the other outsiders, this is the American people standing up, Sheriff, and saying, you know what, we're done. We're done. We've tried the Republican way. We've sent you off to Washington time and again. You've constantly let us down. And so you know what, we want to try something and someone completely different, somebody who is promising to blow up the system and burn the establishment to the ground.

DAVID: But you know what I find interesting, Monica, first of all, I've always thought about the Tea Party, that was the fighting force. They should have been given a job to be that fighting force within Republican the Republican Party. Actually they face most of their opposition, not from the left, not from the DNC or Democrat Party, but from the G.O.P. I like that Tea Party 2.0. One of the things that I've complained about from the G.O.P. is they don't have an identity. I think that this civil war going on within the party is good. I think that it needs a shaking out, and right now, the fight is for the soul of this party. What are they going to be? What are they going to stand for? And I went through a little bit of a litmus test. I said, "Has this current G.O.P. Congress demonstrated that they're for less government? No. Lower taxes? No. Less spending? No. Military superiority? No." And on and on and on. And I think that's what this -- this frustration is, if you will. I think frustration is a useless emotion. But I think that's what is at the base of it.

MONICA: Yeah, I think that's exactly right. I think, look, if you go in to weed out your garden and you remove half of the weeds, well, then the other weeds continue to grow and they take the garden over again. And I think what voters are saying is, look, we need somebody who is going to uproot this thing. Root and branch, so we can start over again. That's what somebody like Donald Trump is promising to do. They want to start fresh. It's sort of like a scorched-earth policy in their approach to the party and to the conservative movement. And Trump, you can argue whether he's a conservative or not a conservative, but the thing he's projecting is that he's on the outside. He's a successful businessman who will bring executive experience. But more importantly, he's saying to the American voter, look, you don't have to be an enemy in your own country anymore. And you know this better than anybody, Sheriff, because you bore the brunt of this too. The American people have been turned into the enemy in their own nation.

DAVID: That's amazing.

MONICA: If you oppose Barack Obama and the leftist agenda, you're a racist. You're a bigot. You're a homophobe. You're an Islamophobe. You're a sexist. You name it.

And the American people are going, "Wait a minute. Whose country is this?" Trump comes in and says, "We're going to give you your country back. We're going to restore America to its exceptional nature and its greatness. And here's how we're going to do it. We're not going to pay attention to the Republican establishment. Who, by the way, just sold you down the river again with a $1.2 trillion budget that funds everything Obama wanted. What is the point of voting Republican if you send these people to DC and they do what Obama and Pelosi and Reid want? What is the point?"

DAVID: You know what is interesting in this -- and let's just spend a minute on Trump. You know, he's probably the true outsider. You know what you hear. He's not a Republican. He's not a conservative. I'll leave people to argue that.

But one of the other enemies of this Republican establishment is one of their own. It's Ted Cruz.

MONICA: Yeah. I mean, they really don't like Ted Cruz either. And I'll tell you something, Cruz has run a brilliant campaign. Because he was the only one early on, Sheriff, who understood Trump and got what he was doing and got what he was tapping into. Because Trump was tapping into it years ago. Cruz very smartly established something of an alliance with Donald Trump. And the two of them are very helpful with each other with evangelical voters in Iowa, for example. And national security voters on the Cruz side for Trump. They've been implementing each other politically now for seven months. And it has been brilliant on both of their parts. But, look, the establishment is scared to death of these two guys because they will lose total control, not just of the White House, but of the party. The head of the RNC. I mean if you get one of these guys elected president, they control everything. And the establishment knows it will be out. That's why the important thing for everybody to understand here, and I think the American voter gets this on an instinctual level, is that the split in the country is less right/left, blue/red, and more elites versus the rest of us. And what Trump and Cruz are tapping into is, hey, we're one of you. We're with you. We want to protect you and defend this country against the elites on both sides who are destroying it.

DAVID: Right. A finger on the pulse of the American public. The, we, the people. And Trump is really one of the only ones who has established a vision for America, a vision defined as a plan for the future with imagination and wisdom. You know, when he talks about, we're going to make America great again, everybody likes to criticize -- you know, and I don't have a dog in this fight yet. I want to make that clear. I got a couple favorites, but, you know, other than -- other than Trump making America great again, everybody says, "Well, we don't know about his policies. We want to hear about this. We want to hear about his tax policies." Those are policies. It's not vision. All right.

The people in this country right now want to hear about vision. And we're not hearing that from really too many of these candidates.

MONICA: That's exactly right. They want a vision of leadership. Not just who you'll be as a leader, but how you will -- where you'll take the country and what you see for American superpower and our place in the world and how we should exercise that power.

Look, a lot of people, as you say, are critical of Trump because he's put out a specific tax plan and a specific immigration plan. But other than that, you know, the details are pretty sparse. And, you know what, Sheriff, no one cares.

DAVID: Right.

MONICA: I mean, people care. But no one cares because they want the bigger picture, which is what you're saying. They want the vision. And that one slogan he came up with, make America great again. Boom. That is the compelling reason to elect him. Whether he's your choice or not, he has set out a compelling vision and a compelling reason to vote for him. Mrs. Clinton has been on the national scene for 25 years, Sheriff. She still doesn't have a compelling reason for why people should elect her as president beyond I'm a woman and it's my turn. Well, that doesn't -- that doesn't ring out the way make America great again. And that's one of the big reasons why Trump has traction.

DAVID: It's just a power grab by her. Monica, I have to let you go. I want to thank you for joining me.

Merry Christmas, really.

MONICA: It's always a pleasure, Sheriff. Thank you so much, my friend. Merry Christmas to you too.

DAVID: Thank you.

Featured Image: Monica Crowley attends the The Hill, Extra And The Embassy Of Canada Celebrate The White House Correspondents' Dinner Weekend at Embassy of Canada on April 24, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Dave Kotinsky/Getty Images)

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