CNN Defuses Clinton's Response After Weekend Terror Attacks

September 19, 2016

Writer

In the wake of this weekend's terror attacks, both major presidential candidates made comments. Naturally, the MSM couldn't wait to compare their responses.

Here's what the candidates said:

Clinton: "I have been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously we need to do everything we can to support our first responders, also to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We have been in touch with various officials, including the mayor's office in New York, to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I will have more to say about it when we have some facts."

Trump: "Just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what's going on."

While both candidates used a variation of the word "bomb," Trump was lambasted while Hillary was praised for showing reserve. CNN reported that "Trump immediately said a bomb went off while Clinton called for support of first responders and letting the investigation unfold.

CNN went the extra mile by removing from audio the first sentence in Hillary's statement that used the word "bombings."

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

You know, I will tell you that CNN played a really interesting game over the weekend. Donald Trump came out right away and said it was a bombing. You know, the bombing in New York, instead of an explosion.

And the press immediately said, "Oh, what do you mean bombing? Bombing, you can't say bombing."

PAT: Controversy. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Stupid controversy. But what happened was Hillary Clinton was asked about Donald Trump's comments. How do you have this? You have the CNN or do you have the raw?

PAT: I have the raw.

GLENN: Okay. So I want you to hear this in its entirety. This is the raw comments Hillary Clinton made on her plane at about a quarter to midnight on Saturday.

HILLARY: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota.

Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders. Also, to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We've been in touch with various officials, including the mayor's office in New York to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I'll have more to say about it when we actually know the facts.

VOICE: Secretary Clinton, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately upon taking the statement tonight called the explosion in New York a "bomb"?

GLENN: Okay. Stop. First question: Do you have any comment that Donald Trump called this a "bomb"?

STU: It's unbelievable.

PAT: By the way, 30 seconds after she called it "bombings."

STU: Bombings.

PAT: She did use the -ing though -- -ings. So...

GLENN: Yes. Okay. So you have that. Now, let me show you what CNN cut out.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Stop it when -- go ahead.

PAT: Okay.

HILLARY: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota.

GLENN: Stop. That's what they edited out.

(laughter)

GLENN: But there's -- what?

PAT: So they took out the fact that she called them "bombings."

GLENN: They took out the fact that she called them "bombings."

PAT: And then she can bash Trump for calling them "bombings."

GLENN: Right.

JEFFY: Huh.

STU: Now, how is that the fascinating part of this story?

GLENN: Well, the other fascinating part of the story is that she also said we have to support our first responders, you know, the woman who is standing with Black Lives Matter.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: Meeting with the heads of Black Lives Matter. That's different than saying, "Hey -- because I know what's coming my way -- hey, let's listen to the people, not the leaders. We know what the leaders want. We disagree with the leaders. But the people who might be caught up in it, let's listen to them."

She's meeting with the leaders of Black Lives Matter. We know what they want. Death to the police.

PAT: The leaders -- and Marxism.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: Communism. Their whole manifesto is about that.

GLENN: Yes.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: Yes. I mean, it is straight-out communist.

GLENN: So what is your interesting part of this?

STU: Well, I mean, first of all, it's a terrorist -- ongoing terrorist event. And what does the news do but take it -- I mean, we just addressed this. It's not the most important thing here, the election results. But, again, to try to capture Donald Trump in some misstatement, they'd rather focus on that than focus on the actual attack.

GLENN: They have to. They have to.

STU: No, they don't. I promise they don't.

GLENN: No, no. No, no. And I don't mean it that way. I mean, they are playing for a team. So they have to.

STU: Yeah, I guess.

GLENN: You know, if we're -- by the way, anybody who thinks we're for Clinton, we wouldn't be bringing this up if we were playing for a team. We will do the same thing to Donald Trump that we'll do to her. When they're wrong, we'll point it out.

STU: What a crazy new approach to radio.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Wow, we're inventing a whole new format here.

GLENN: I know. They have to do this because they're playing for a team, and terror is going to work to Donald Trump's strange.

STU: You're right. So as a team member, they go and try to say, "Well, this is an example of Donald Trump being erratic. This is him acting without information. What a crazy person this guy is." Instead of talking about the fact that -- I mean, this is -- you know, terrorism in and of itself shouldn't help one or the other candidates. It's about how they react to it. And, you know, the idea that one of the main divisions in this election has been, "Should we let more people into the country from terrorism-ridden areas, like, I don't know, Afghanistan?" And Trump's position the entire time -- well, the entire time, Trump's position has covered people who would be born in areas such as Afghanistan. We all know it's morphed a few times. But the entire time, it would restrict immigration from those areas.

So I mean it's a pretty clear example of something that should work in Trump's favor. And you see the way the media is handling it. It's ridiculous.

GLENN: Oh, it's going to help Trump, the way the media is handling it. Because look, everybody knows -- everybody knows -- left and right, everybody knows, not all Muslims are terrorist. But almost all Muslims are terrorist. Currently, the way -- what we're fighting right now. That doesn't mean that there's not a terrorist from time to time at an abortion clinic that has been a Christian. Although, give me the number of those, Stu.

STU: Off the top of my head, I don't remember. But I think --

PAT: I think the number this year is zero.

STU: This year, it's zero.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Yeah. But since Roe vs. Wade, it's like six.

PAT: Yeah, literally.

GLENN: Yeah. So -- so occasionally, there are others that are terrorist. But it is wildly rare in comparison to what we're dealing with, coming from the Muslim community. And everybody knows that. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But almost all terrorists are Muslim currently. And to, A -- for the media to continue to deny that things are linked -- ISIS came out with the mall and immediately claimed responsibility for that. This is a soldier for ISIS.

We won't claim that it's even terror-related. Well, they're claiming it. And every time this happens -- and this is why this hurts Hillary Clinton. If they're trying to help, they're hurting her.

You know, fine with me. Do what you want. But the American people are not with the press. The American people both left and right know, "The country is in trouble because we are denying reality."

STU: Right. Because what did de Blasio call it? An intentional incident. Not terrorism, but an intentional incident, which is really a scary way to --

PAT: An intentional incident.

STU: Yes. It was intentional. It was an incident. I will give him both of those things.

GLENN: And I contend that nobody on the left -- very few on the left, except the political players and the media, actually say those kinds of things, believe those kinds of things. They know how bad ISIS is. They know we have terrorists in our own country. They know that not all mosques are bad, but there are bad mosques. Not all Muslims are bad, but there are bad Muslims. They know these things. And to continually deny them is what takes common sense people and pushes them over to somebody who will say, "Ban all Muslims."

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: Well, no. No, that's not a good idea either. But if you have to choose between the two, most people will start to go, "You know what -- because they're afraid. And there's nobody that knows better than progressives what fear does.

STU: If there's a book written about that, that would be interesting.

GLENN: Oh, man. One that would show the lies that are based in fear.

STU: Right. Well, focusing on the people who make the lies, like, you know, the Liars.

PAT: Too bad there's nothing like that. Nobody would ever --

GLENN: No, wait. Guys, I wrote one. It's called Liars.

STU: Oh, really?

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Wow.

PAT: What a happy coincidence.

JEFFY: What, like 100 years ago?

GLENN: It is. It's amazing. It's almost like that was thought out in advance.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton arrives to board her plane at Tampa International Airport September 6, 2016 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/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