'Globalist': You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

September 22, 2016

Writer

Redefining words is a very dangerous thing. It's happened on the radical left for years through political correctness, impacting both society and politics. Old school Blue Dog Democrats didn't see it coming until it was too late, and the entire Democratic Party was taken over by radicals.

The same thing is now happening on the conservative side, with words like "nationalism" and "globalism" being morphed into new meanings.

"I want to show you the first example of me finding it on my own social media," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program. "I contend so many people will agree with a quick reading of this that it seems harmless, but it is absolutely the alt-right. This is the earmark of everything changing in language, and so suddenly that you will not even notice you've been sold into slavery."

It's time to pay attention and read between the lines.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these definitive questions:

• Is "nationalism" tied to improving the lives of Americans or neo-Nazis and racism?

• What does Bob in Pocatello say about the rejection of the virus that is globalization?

• Are iDentists online practitioners of dentistry?

• Do you think the alt-right should produce films on faith for your church?

• Would Thomas Jefferson have been for or against tariffs?

• Is American exceptionalism the same thing as American nationalism?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 1:20:50, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to show you a post on my social media. And let me just -- let me read it to you. And don't overthink it. Just tell me if you are kind of comfortable with it.

We/me is a crackpot theory, saying the we generation and the me generation. It's clearly not a crackpot theory. It is very well researched. But this is somebody who happened to be watching the show from The Vault last night, where I mentioned it.

And the we/me is a crackpot theory. Don't accept a binary choice, America.

STU: Hmm. I thought we were supposed to -- isn't that we've been told for months?

GLENN: Listen to this: American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic-oriented, nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism. Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them. Modern nationalism and populism in America is a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

(chuckling)

American nationalism and populism is a wholesale rejection of the virus that is globalization.

PAT: This is just written by Bob in Pocatello. Right?

JEFFY: Right.

(chuckling)

PAT: Bob just happened to be watching, and he thought, "You know what, I'm going to pop off something to Glenn."

GLENN: With no followers. No pictures. No friends.

STU: He wanted to sign up to social networks, just to post that particular paragraph and then never post again.

GLENN: And then never post again.

PAT: It's interesting though because you can be okay with all of that, mostly. Almost all of it, you can say, yeah --

JEFFY: Oh, on the surface, absolutely.

GLENN: On the surface.

PAT: I agree with that. On the surface, I agree with that.

GLENN: If you read it again, you're like, "Okay. Wait a minute. American nationalism. No, I'm not for nationalism. That's not good."

STU: Right. But patriotism. People conflate those two terms. Those are very different.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. They're very different.

STU: And we've seen nationalism rise and what it does. But this is trying to save that term, right?

GLENN: Yes. To reintroduce this term.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay? To reintroduce it.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: Listen to this again.

American nationalism -- it's not racial or ethnic-oriented. Why would you say that? Because nationalism is tied directly to neo-Nazis.

PAT: And racism.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And also, by the way, very specifically the people who are the intellectual heads of this particular movement have very specifically talked in overt terms about race and ethnicity being vitally important to this. I mean, this is --

GLENN: No, they're not racists. No, no. They're identists.

STU: Right. But, I mean, they've said, "We need an ethno-nationalist --

PAT: They're dentists on the internet?

GLENN: No, they're identists. They're identists --

JEFFY: ID.

GLENN: No -- yes, they recognize the identity of people, but that's not judging people on race. It is looking at the identity of people.

PAT: I see.

GLENN: So if you want to call it racist, that's an old term. That's -- that describes old things. I do believe that we all have an identity that is unique from where all of us originally came from. And there's nothing wrong with pointing out someone's identity. You're black. I'm white. But I do believe there are specific things that are different in each culture. And perhaps we shouldn't live together.

STU: This is --

PAT: Perhaps we shouldn't live together.

(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. Did you hear what I just said?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: And if you're hearing this from a friend and somebody who you think is a conservative -- and you will. I'm telling you, this is coming. You're going to start hearing this from your church friends, people you trusted, and they're going to make a great case because they're changing the language.

STU: This is Candle In the Wind and Candle In the Wind 1997, where like Princess Diana died, and we're going to release the same exact song with like three different lyrics.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: That is what this is. It's the same pitch. It's the same thing that you think it is.

GLENN: Same song.

STU: It's just using new terms and trying to overtake old ones.

GLENN: And using emotions to push it to the top of the chart.

STU: Yeah, yeah, yeah. One of the terms that is attempting -- and it's an interesting, somewhat subtle thing that's happened over the past year or two, which is the term globalist -- now, the term --

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: I would not consider myself a globalist at all. I mean, for example, we've been doing this show for how long.

PAT: Why are we globalists?

STU: Right.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Hang on. Before you get into this, I just want to set this up. Globalism is a tripwire of nationalism. Okay?

Once you hear your friend, who -- why are you hearing the word "globalist" all the time now about people? Where is that coming from?

STU: Yeah, all the time.

GLENN: That's coming from people like Breitbart, who are into the alt-right, and they are poisoning the well. And globalist is your first sign of warning. Hang on just a second. What do you mean by globalist, exactly? And I'll bet that's what you were going to make the point on.

STU: That's exactly what I want to go into because we've been doing this show for a long time. There's been things that have, you know, leaned towards globalism, that the talk radio audience, generally speaking, rejects, as do I. Things like the United Nations making our decisions on our military.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And, you know, global climate treaties that --

GLENN: IPCC. Yeah. The IPP --

STU: The Kyoto treaties -- yeah, Protocol.

PAT: Nobody has been more anti-globalist than we have.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Exactly. Having global entities control what we do in our country.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Even some global trade agreements. We need to have trade agreements. But are they about -- for instance, the T- -- what is it? The TPP?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The TPP is an Asian global look at things. And it is an Asian pact that supersedes our law.

STU: And there's elements of many of these agreements that we've fought against.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And so the idea that we would look towards global entities to influence our policy and the way we deal with our things here, we reject and have rejected for a long time. And the talk radio audience, with that definition of globalist, has always been against that.

PAT: But they've changed it now. Right?

STU: But now you notice -- and you say Breitbart. But really, Alex Jones. Breitbart and Alex Jones are one and the same at this point.

GLENN: Absolutely. Alex Jones is who he is, and everybody knew it. And now one step closer to the media is Breitbart. So one step closer to the average person as --

PAT: And Drudge.

GLENN: And Drudge. Anyone want to talk about the new movie Torch Bearer? Torch Bearer is a new movie, when man stops believing in God, he'll believe in anything. Sounds really good. Phil Robertson is in it, everything else. You know who the producer is? You know who the executive producer of this film is?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Who?

PAT: It's Bannon.

GLENN: Bannon.

PAT: Bannon. What's-his-face, Bannon.

GLENN: So Bannon, who is Trump's campaign manager, who is, yes, we're providing a platform for the alt-right --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is now producing films on faith for your church.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: Congratulations, America. Congratulations.

PAT: Wow. Unbelievable.

GLENN: You are sliding into a cesspool that you have no idea what is coming your way.

STU: On the globalist thing, to finish that, the old definition was, you know, international agreements and things that we were skeptical of. We don't want to be controlled by international bureaucracy.

PAT: Anything. We want our sovereignty.

STU: We want our sovereignty.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And a lot of times that has gone along with having borders and border security.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And we are for Brexit. I'm for Brexit.

STU: Yeah. I believe in sovereignty. I don't like the European Union.

GLENN: Yep. Don't like it.

STU: What it's now turning into is, do you believe in free trade? Are you against tariffs? Are you for or against legal immigration? Do you think we should have any interaction with -- with our allies? Do we have any role in the rest of the world?

If you believe any of those things, all of a sudden now you're a globalist.

PAT: Globalist.

GLENN: If you don't believe in tariffs -- tariffs are the most destructive thing to the free market, which is what we are based on as conservatives --

STU: Right.

GLENN: If you're against tariffs, you're now a globalist. Well, tell that to our Founders.

PAT: If you're against Donald Trump, you're supposedly now a globalist.

STU: Right. And that's certainly where a lot of this comes from.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And a lot of the passion behind it, obviously, because we're in the middle of an election season.

GLENN: It goes way beyond him.

STU: But, I mean, look at -- I can't remember -- was it Cruz or maybe Pat Toomey, when they were running, they were running ads against them, saying, "Hey, did you know that -- I can't remember which one it was. But they were talking about free trade and how it's helped us. But it's also helped lift billions of people out of poverty.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And the fact that we've lifted Chinese people, for example -- a billion Chinese have come out of poverty because they've started to embrace a little bit of capitalism and free trade.

GLENN: Bono just said this.

STU: It's a great commercial for what we believe. Rooting for the success of people in other nations, wanting people to not starve to death all of a sudden is some weird definition of globalist. I mean, these things do help the rest of the world. I think free trade has been one of the most positive things that has ever happened to this planet, but it's also helped us.

GLENN: Here's why nationalism is so wrong, and here's why saying that we are a unique country is right, but it is not the people. American exceptionalism is not the people. We're no different than anybody else.

Yes, do we have different work ethics? Did we have different ethics than other countries? Yes.

Do we now? Not so much. Do the Chinese or do the Saudis understand American exceptionalism? No. Does that make them different people? No. It means they don't buy into the idea of America.

America is not a country. It's an idea. It is also a country. And nationalism glorifies the country and its people. What patriotism should be is the -- the glorification of the idea that we aspire to. The idea that we all men could be free, that all -- that all men can pursue their own happiness. And it's a very subtle difference. But if you don't get it, you are on the train to hell in these times.

I want to end this segment real quick just by reading this again, and I want to you listen because this is going to become -- I don't know how many people in this audience -- but I am still convinced that this audience is going to be the audience that will be remembered for pulling the republic out of the fire. I'm convinced of it. And I don't know when that happens. And I don't even know if it's because of what you do, other than teaching your children these things. Maybe it is because of what we do collectively that teaches our children and our children save the nation or bring it back. I don't know.

But for those with eyes and ears, please hear me. Let me read this again. American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic oriented.

Yes, it is.

Nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.

That is true. That goes to the point on globalists.

Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.

So what they're saying is: We can keep foreigners out of here, and that's better than -- well, you're giving a binary choice here.

Modern nationalism -- modern nationalism, let me tell you, is exactly the same as old-timey nationalism. Modern nationalism and populism.

What is populism? Populism is nothing but tyranny of the majority.

Modern nationalism and populism in America is just a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

Oh, my gosh. Hello, Germany, 1930.

American nationalism and populism is a whole scale (sic) rejection of the virus -- hello, Goebbels -- of globalism.

Please, please, know the tripwires. Please know, national -- nationalism is suicide. Populism is suicide. That the tripwire of globalism doesn't mean what you think it means. To them, it means anything other than America, first and foremost, and nothing else.

STU: It's okay to prioritize America.

GLENN: Right. It's fine to prioritize.

STU: That's what you should do. But it does not mean --

GLENN: It means a complete withdrawal and enemy outside -- it is complete isolationist, protectionist, and no trade deals. Even our Founders made trade deals. And we protested tariffs. What do you think the Tea Party was about? It was a rejection of tariffs. And that's what nationalism is doing. And it is coming. And it is coming beyond this election. And it will only gain strength after this election, no matter who wins, because this is not about Donald Trump.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Inigo Montoya (played by Mandy Patinkin) from The Princess Bride.

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

'Globalist': You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

Where did all the water go?

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

The cost of secrecy

Transparency is an imperative

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

Or is it about self-preservation?

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

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?