Hillary Wants You to Suspend Reality and Live in Her Alternate Universe

September 28, 2016

Writer

Conspiracy theorists came out swinging following the first presidential debate, accusing Hillary of wearing a robotic cough suppressor that also alleviated symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Unfortunately, it was a waste of time. Hillary's alternate reality provides more than enough fodder to prove she's completely unfit for the presidency.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these suppressed questions:

• What illogical reason did Hillary give to prove she has stamina?

• Does Glenn wear a robotic cough suppressor?

• Do women deserve equal pay if they do as good of a job as men?

• How long would it take a person devoid of corruption to testify before Congress?

• Does filing for bankruptcy make you a good businessperson?

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

GLENN: Holy cow. We have to -- can we start at the conspiracy theory of the day?

STU: Of course.

GLENN: Have you seen the conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton's robotic, anti- -- or her cough suppresser.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Her robotic cough suppresser.

STU: So stupid.

PAT: I haven't seen that.

STU: Isn't it just her microphone?

GLENN: Yeah, it's her microphone. Yeah, it's a -- a hidden device -- a hidden device on the back of Hillary Clinton's clothing.

PAT: What?

GLENN: It was an instrument that sends impulses to the brain to alleviate symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

You'll never guess who came up with this one. I like to call it a battery pack.

(laughter)

STU: For the microphone that she's wearing plainly.

GLENN: Right. Well, that's what it is: A battery pack and transmitter for the microphone. Which you can see, there's the battery pack, and then you can see underneath her like sweater thing is the microphone cable going up. And if you look at the picture of her standing the other direction, which I don't think I have, you see that her microphone is right there.

STU: Right. Which we are all aware of --

GLENN: And show me your battery pack.

STU: Oh, it's right here.

GLENN: Right here. There's your battery pack. Here's my battery pack. But if you're on television, it's always in the back.

STU: And they normally don't want you to see it.

GLENN: Right. And if you're wearing a dress with women, it is usually underneath their dress. And they look like they have a big huge bump right to the center of their back, where -- like, they clip it on the bra usually. Is that the way they do it? Underneath, yeah. So they clip it no their bra, so it looks like they have this big square box. That's why you never see Megyn Kelly from the back.

PAT: All women on television have Parkinson's disease, and that little device helps them control it.

GLENN: Well --

PAT: It's weird.

GLENN: -- it's not Parkinson's only, Pat. It's a cough suppresser.

PAT: Oh, what else is there? Okay.

JEFFY: I mean, if you're going to hide it, what a perfect place that is --

PAT: Cough suppresser. Is there such a thing? Does such a device exist?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Then you would think Michael J. Fox would have that at all times. Right?

GLENN: Yes, yes. And he would be fine. Yeah. Why take medicine? Why not just have the Parkinson's --

PAT: The little device that helps you suppress it. I mean, I'd wear that all the time if I had it.

GLENN: I'm wearing it now.

STU: If anything, it proves Hillary is nuts. It's, of course, her incredibly lengthy testimony in front of numerous corruption investigations, which is essentially her excuse.

Oh, yeah. You don't think I have stamina? Well, I sat in front of an investigation for 11 hours and answered questions about how corrupt I am. So that proves you're wrong.

That's not making a point you want to make, Hillary.

JEFFY: Made it pretty good though.

PAT: Yeah, she coughed her brains multiple times on that, if you remember that. She coughed her brains out several times.

JEFFY: Yeah, she did.

STU: That's not a --

GLENN: Her actual brains came out?

PAT: Her brains came out.

GLENN: Wow.

JEFFY: It was ugly.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that was an amazing moment in the debate that for some reason, Trump missed her excuse for saying how healthy she was, was to say she gets berated through lengthy questioning and testimony in front of Congress. That's not something you want to brag about: I was in front of Congress because people think I'm really corrupt, and I had to answer questions for 11 hours. They couldn't get me out of there in an hour because I'm so corrupt, they kept me 11 times that amount.

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second, his excuse on knowing how to run the country is because he's a good businessman. And to prove that, he's gone bankrupt, what, four or seven times?

PAT: Four times. Uh-huh.

GLENN: And that's just him knowing the laws and knowing how to use it. That's good business. And his defense of being a good businessman is, I go bankrupt. I know how to do it. Oh, and I don't pay taxes because I'm super smart.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: I mean, both of them were using these defenses, that were like, "What?"

PAT: So bad. So bad.

STU: It's sort of a bizarre missed opportunity though. It seems like it happened a lot in the debate.

JEFFY: It sure did.

PAT: Yeah, what was the other thing that we noticed about Hillary --

STU: I like this one. First of all, she said during the debate -- this is a quote -- because she's going through this litany of things that Trump has said that is bad about women. One he said -- Donald Trump said then women don't deserve equal pay, unless they do as good a job as men.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: If they don't do as good a job, they probably shouldn't make the same amount of money.

STU: That's exactly --

GLENN: But I think --

PAT: But when they do as good a job, they should.

GLENN: Right. And if men don't do as good a job as a woman would do, then we probably shouldn't have to pay the man the same that the woman is paid.

STU: Exactly. That is an exact quote: Women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Yeah! Is anyone standing up against that?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And in the same sort of litany, she said something to the effect of, you know, Donald Trump called pregnancy an inconvenience for a business. Now, Trump's response to that --

PAT: And?

STU: -- I never said that. Of course, he did say it. So, you know, typical -- like horrible response. However, what if he were to go down the road of, "Look, we can be honest here. It is an inconvenience for a business to lose some of its most valuable workers for an extended amount of time."

JEFFY: And that's what he said -- I mean, that's what he originally said.

STU: Right.

The point here though is that, who cares? We have decided, and I have decided that it's more important -- human life is more important than how it affects a business. We believe in people who come -- and this would be awesome if he would go down this road. But it's like, I'm not going to sit here and be lectured about the value of pregnancy from a person who worships at the altar of Margaret Sanger.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: I mean, what a ridiculous thing to bring up. Yet, I didn't say that, was his response.

GLENN: Well, here's the other thing. And it goes kind of in this, where she's asking you to deny reality. He can't defend. He's worthless and incapable of defending principles. Incapable.

That would have been a great answer. Great answer. But he's incapable of doing it.

Let me give you -- oh, shoot. Now I just lost it. There was another one that she brought up. You're going to have to go to something else. Because I can't remember now. It will come to me as soon as I stop talking.

STU: You know why? Because that Parkinson's device you're wearing is screwing with your brain. That's why.

GLENN: It is. (coughing).

STU: He's turned it off. He's turned it off.

PAT: Oh, no.

GLENN: There was something else that she said -- oh, oh, I remember what it was.

They are so disconnected -- they're asking you to -- to deny reality. And if he would have said that, it would have been great. Look, are you kidding me?

I think even a woman would say, having a baby is a pretty big inconvenience in my life.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Being pregnant for nine months is a pretty big inconvenience. So let's not argue about inconvenience. Look at what you're trying to do, Hillary. You're trying to take something and have us deny the very reality that we know is true.

You have done that with al-Qaeda and ISIS, denying the reality. Denying the reality of people who are bombing things here in the United States, blowing us up, going into Fort Hood and shooting people. Has nothing to do with Islam.

This is one of the problems. Here's another one, Hillary, that you just said: I just said one of the bravest and most true statements that has been uttered by an American politician on the plight of the African-American in inner cities, that has been spoken since possibly Booker T. Washington. And that is this: The African-Americans that is living in places like Chicago, where their kids and their relatives are being shot in the street, are living in hell.

And you responded with, "Oh, but you forget about all the great wonderful churches." Yes, and I've also left out that I'm sure there's a few cold stone creameries in Chicago as well. I'm sure I've left out there's some other really great things that happen. But it's also a living hell. And for you to ask the American people -- no, forget the American people. For you to ask African-Americans to deny the reality that they're living in some sort of hell -- and, quite honestly, Hillary, one you would never allow your children to live in. Never. You would never move in.

Well, I'm sorry. You moved into Harlem because you have presidential security.

PAT: Well, they -- she didn't.

GLENN: Yeah, she didn't.

PAT: He moved his office there.

GLENN: Yeah. And Harlem isn't the inner city of Philadelphia or the inner city of Chicago.

STU: It's actually pretty nice at this point.

GLENN: Yes. It's very nice.

STU: Many areas of it are very nice.

GLENN: So she just -- that was the craziest thing is both of them were asking us to deny reality. I've never seen it like this before. I've never seen it this obvious before.

PAT: Had he responded with those -- in that way, he would have destroyed her.

GLENN: Destroy her.

PAT: She would be absolutely destroyed. This thing would be over. It would be a runaway.

Featured Image: Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton speaks during the first presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York on September 26, 2016. (Photo Credit: JEWEL SAMAD/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

Hillary Wants You to Suspend Reality and Live in Her Alternate Universe

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?