Obama Gives ISIS Street Cred by Calling Them ISIL—And He Knows It

January 13, 2016

Writer

Why is it that most of us refer to the Islamic State as ISIS while the president and his administration use ISIL? It's no accident. In fact, it's very intentional and meaningful.

"I-S-I-S is Islamic State of Iraq and Syria," Glenn explained. "I-S-I-L goes beyond Iraq and Syria, and it goes into the Levant."

So just what is the Levant? It's a group of regions that includes Israel. While ISIS is controlling great portions of Iraq and Syria, they have not yet conquered Israel, a key part of the Levant. So when Obama uses "ISIL" he is intentionally giving a nod of respect to ISIS, recognizing their place in Islamic prophecy.

"[As] part of their [stated] prophecy, they're going to cobble together an army in Iraq and Syria, and they're going to take over the Levant," Glenn further explained. "Well, they haven't taken over the Levant yet, but our president is recognizing basically their prophecy and saying, 'Yep, that's you. You're the ones. You're the ones that the Prophet Muhammad has been talking about.'"

Glenn also revealed chilling details in recent ISIS propaganda---ISIS Safety and Security Guidelines for Lone Wolf Mujahideen---that specifically instructs radicals how to blend into Western societies and avoid being detected before carrying out a terrorist attack.

"I want to show you the ISIS Terror Manual," Glenn shared. "I found it on Truth Revolt today. The instructions include avoiding mosques, shaving your beard and wearing Christian crosses [so as] not to appear Muslim."

The how-to guide relies heavily on the "importance of surprise when launching an attack to cause maximum impact."

What does the president say every time we have a lone gunman? That it's not part of ISIS. It's not part of jihad. It's not part of Islam. Why? Because they're a lone wolf.

"If this president says this is definitely not happening and you're a fool or conspiracy theorist that needs to be mocked and ridiculed if you believe it is," said Glenn, "take that to the bank that the opposite is true.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Did anybody have a problem that the president is still calling ISIS ISIL?

STU: I don't. I mean, they committed to it a long time ago. They've been consistent -- the one thing they've been consistent here --

GLENN: Is their trashing of Israel?

STU: Well, okay, that. But also their hatred for individual rights, but other than that.

GLENN: The one thing he is really consistent on is his trampling of the Constitution and his hatred of Israel.

STU: Okay. Certain things, consistency has not been an issue for this president, I will grant you.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: But ISIL, they have been -- from the beginning, they've picked ISIL instead of ISIS and have stood by it the entire time.

GLENN: Well, the reason why you would pick ISIL is because you want to include the Levant. And the Levant includes Israel.

STU: That's the L, in case you don't know. It's been a while since we covered that.

GLENN: Yeah. I-S-I-L is HEP Levant. I-S-I-S is Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. I-S-I-L goes beyond Iraq and Syria, and it goes into the Levant. It also speaks that the Levant is Israel. It also speaks to their prophecy.

And here's the one thing -- I don't care if you believe in their prophecy or not. I don't. In fact -- well, I kind of do. I actually believe their prophecy is from the gates of hell. I do believe that their philosophy because I've studied what they believe the end times to be, and then I know what we believe the end times to be, and the stories match. It is almost as if you took the Book of Revelation and said, "This is going to freak them out. I'm going to make their bad guy, our good guy, and their good guy, our bad guy." It's literally like that.

It is, their good guy comes up out of nowhere, gathers an army, the world begins to bow to him, those who don't bow to him are beheaded and killed and rounded up. And the world is washed in blood. This is their good guy. And he washes the world in blood. And anyone who won't bow and declare that Allah is God and Muhammad is his prophet is beheaded and killed.

Well, that pretty much is the Book of Revelation. It doesn't say it's Allah. But that's the Book of Revelation. Then the Messiah comes. They agree, Jesus comes. They actually agree with that. Jesus does come.

But when Jesus comes, he testifies to the Christian world that they're wrong and that Allah is God and the prophet is Muhammad. And then Jesus grabs the sword and he starts beheading anybody who doesn't agree. That's the way their story ends.

Our story is, okay. There's a guy. He kind of comes out of nowhere. He starts to cobble together an army. He gets all of the world to fall in with him. Anybody who doesn't fall in with him, he starts to kill and behead and crucify. And then Jesus comes. And Jesus says, "You're wrong, and I'm going to bind you up for 1,000 years. But you're wrong." That's the way -- so the same story, except their guy is the good guy, and their guy to them is the good guy. And he's our bad guy.

So that's what they believe. Now, I don't have to believe that Jesus is coming back right now. I don't have to believe that these are the end times. I don't have to believe any of these things. I won't be have to believe that they believe it. Because they're saying it. And part of their prophecy is, they're going to cobble together an army in Iraq and Syria, and they're going to take over the Levant.

Well, they haven't taken over the Levant yet. But our president is recognizing basically their prophecy and saying, "Yep. That's you. You're the ones. You're the ones that the Prophet Muhammad have been talking about. Yep. That's you. Because even though you don't have the Levant yet, you're going to get it. Because that's what the prophecy says."

Their prophecy also says that we all have to gather at a place called Dabiq, and that is where Armageddon happens. And they are going to deliver a massive blow to us in Dabiq. All of the world's nations will gather together, and we will come to this -- what is only just a little small farming town, and we will gather there and they will have a massive battle with us. And as the Prophet Muhammad says, "They will win."

PAT: It's not far from Des Moines, is it?

GLENN: No, you're thinking of HEP Dabuke.

PAT: Oh.

GLENN: Yeah, it's a little different. This one is in the Middle East.

PAT: Okay. All right. So it's a different farming town.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. But a farming town, nonetheless.

PAT: I was confused for a second.

And you talk about adding legitimacy, which he continually does. Because if we say that they're Islamic terrorists, that gives them the legitimacy they seek. You're telling me that calling them ISIL and adding Levant to it doesn't give them the legitimacy they want?

GLENN: And every nation that joins gives them the legitimacy. And by us not wiping them out, they say, "See. The world is afraid of us because they know our prophecy and they know that Allah is on our side and we're going to sweep." So by not wiping them out, by not hitting them really hard, by not breaking the chain of their prophecy, we're fulfilling their prophecy.

And it doesn't matter if it's real or not. That's the way -- you know, he always talks about. That's just a recruiting tool. That's just a recruiting tool. The biggest recruiting tool in the Middle East is, "This is the time the prophet foretold, where we take over the entire world." This is the time -- this is why they call themselves the army HEP of Armageddon. This is the time of Armageddon.

STU: Continued success, essentially, is their greatest recruiting tool.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: The longer you let them hang out and control this area --

GLENN: The longer you don't go in with with guns a blazing -- and we can do it all from the air. You can do it from the air.

JEFFY: I mean, we have. He told us last night. With our 65 other partners, we've been bombing the bad guy.

GLENN: And the secret number for them is 80. Got to be 80 partners. That's the secret -- so we want to build this coalition, good, they want us to. They want 80 flags coming against them in Dabiq.

And so the more we talk about, "Hey, well, we've got this coalition," the more they're saying, "Of course, you have this coalition. That's what the prophet said you would."

STU: Now, to hear the president tell the story last night though, the problem with us not being able to defeat ISIS is because Congress will not legitimize this effort.

GLENN: Since when?

STU: So he wants to be super tough on ISIL, but Republicans are getting in the way. That's the problem. That was a new wrinkle on this conversation.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

STU: His hands are tied. Because he just cares so much about congressional approval over the things he does, he can't possibly -- can't possibly do this!

GLENN: So the other thing he always says is that it's always a lone wolf. Right? Always a lone wolf. There's nothing to worry about. This is just one guy. It's just this one guy.

These guys are just nothing but a bunch of guys in the back of a truck. Back of a truck. No big deal. And that shooter, he has nothing to do with Islam. It's just one guy. He's a lone wolf. How many times have you heard that? This is just a lone wolf.

I want to show you the ISIS Terror Manual. The ISIS Terror Manual. We now have it from sources at Great Britain. I found it on True Revolt today.

The terror manual that is now circulating among the refugees in Europe instructs jihadists on how to blend in with the West and avoid being detected before carrying out a terrorist attack.

The instructions include avoiding mosques, shaving your beard, and wearing Christian crosses not to appear Muslim. The how-to guide -- I'll give you the name here in a second -- relies heavily on the, quote, importance of surprise when launching an attack to cause maximum impact.

It has now been translated into English. It explains how to go to nightclubs because they are full of loud music and drunk people and they are the perfect place to discuss terror plans without being recorded or spied on.

If you can avoid having a beard -- I'm quoting now the terror manual -- if you can avoid having a beard, wearing, is it kwamas? HEP Kwamas? Using -- using HEP Miswhack. I don't even know what that is. Or having a booklet with you, it's better.

It is permissible for you to wear a necklace showing a Christian cross. As you know, Christians or even atheist westerners with Christian background, wear crosses on their necklaces. But don't wear a cross necklace if you have a Muslim name on your passport, as that will look strange.

If you want to use perfume, don't use the oily nonalcoholic perfume that Muslims use. Instead, use generic alcohol perfume as everyone else does. If you're a man, use perfume for men.

If you're wearing a watch, do not wear it on your right hand, as this is a sign that you're religious. If you have an engagement ring or something like that, it's better to wear one in gold or better yet, not wear anything at all. A silver ring tells people that you are religious as Islam forbids the wearing of gold rings for men.

In all, the booklet with burning buildings illustrated on the cover is intended for operatives already in the West, those that know their surroundings and how to behave normally day by day as a European.

What does the president say every time we have a lone gunman? That it's not part of ISIS. It's not part of jihad. It's not part of Islam. Why? Because they're a lone wolf.

The name of the terror manual from ISIS Safety and Security Guidelines for Lone Wolf HEP Mujahadines.

If this president says this is definitely not happening and you're a fool or conspiracy theorist that needs to be mocked and ridiculed if you believe it is, take that to the bank that the opposite is true.

Featured Image: Pat, Glenn, Stu and Jeffy settle in for a long night of Political Science Theater 3000 to watch President Obama’s final State of the Union address on Tuesday, January 13, 2016. (Photo Credit: TheBlaze)

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