Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

'How the Right Lost Its Mind': Charlie Sykes Asks Conservatives What They Truly Care About

October 30, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What happened to the conservative movement?

That’s the question asked in Charlie Sykes’ new book, “How the Right Lost Its Mind,” an exploration of the conservative movement’s descent into alt-right insanity and Trumpian demagoguery. On today’s show, he and Glenn talked about the real values that conservatives should return to and the questions we should be asking.

“What is it that we care about?” Sykes asked rhetorically. “It’s freedom, limited government, constitutionalism, personal responsibility, respect for the truth. … Rather than be locked into some sort of a zombie-like dogma, you know, ask, ‘What kind of a society do we want to be?’”

Listen to the full segment (above) to hear Sykes explain why we need to break out of our “tribes” to reconnect as people.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: There's a lot going on in the news today. Robert Mueller has issued an indictment. It's not a surprise at all. It is for Paul Manafort and his -- and his business partner. Bad guy.

We've told you that for a long time. This is putting Donald Trump in a very bad position, and we'll get more on that, coming up.

We also have Charlie Sykes. Charles Sykes is the author of the book, How the Right Lost Its Mind. Up until a few years ago, he was the most powerful talk show host in Wisconsin. And he just had to walk away from it because he didn't understand the conservatives anymore.

I think now, wrongfully, he is being labeled as, you know, somebody who has just run over to the left because he's seen on NBC and he's read in the New York Times and everything else.

But that's not who he is. At least that's not who I think he is. And we welcome him now, Charlie Sykes.

Hi, Charlie, how are you?

CHARLIE: Good morning. Thank you for that, by the way, Glenn. I appreciate that.

GLENN: You're welcome.

So are we some of those right who have lost their minds?

CHARLIE: You mean you and me?

GLENN: Yeah.

CHARLIE: Well, I don't know. I think there are some -- some oasis of sanity. But I think we all need to look in the mirror and go, okay. Did we contribute to this? Did we help create this monster? And I know that you go to this introspection.

And part of what I did after I left my radio show was to sit back and just sort of sit for a little while, and go, how did that happen? What did we miss?

Were there things that were stewing out there that we didn't understand? Were our allies not exactly who they were?

You mentioned the people saying, well, you obviously have defending -- no. I'm actually saying exactly the same things I have been saying for a very, very long time.

GLENN: Yeah.

CHARLIE: And I'm watching a lot of people that I I thought I understood -- do 180 flips. And you really have to watch, what's going on sneer.

GLENN: So, Charlie, it's really difficult. Because we feel the same way, that there's a lot of people who say, we've defected. Blah, blah, blah. No, we've stood in place. We're not going over the cliff with the rest of the party and the rest of humanity.

And I'm more concerned -- Jimmy Kimmel said this weekend, which I was glad to hear him say -- I don't know if he's tying it to the right alone, but I said, under Barack Obama, you can't let this kind of stuff fester, because who is going to come into office next time? And we have an answer to that.

Now, who follows Donald Trump? Now is the time to get a hold of ourselves and our principles. Or we're in real trouble. From both sides.

CHARLIE: Oh, I completely agree. And, you know, Donald Trump -- please, don't misunderstand me when I say this, that Donald Trump doesn't shock me or bother me. Because he is what he is. You know, he's always been the same thing. He's not going to change. What's really bothering me is what's happening to the rest of us. The damage to the culture. I think that his legacy won't be measured simply in policy decisions, you know, including some that I would agree with.

It's going to be measured in the coarsening of our culture, in what we Americans have decided that we are willing to accept, look the other way.

I was actually on a show yesterday morning with somebody that I had deeply admired for more than a decade. And he was suggesting that, you know, once we get tax reform through, we will no longer have to worry about the character of the president.

And I will tell you, Glenn, I was actually shocked. Because I said, you know, I'm old enough to remember when conservatives actually thought things like character and truth and decency, honestly, all of those things actually did fundamentally matter. And maybe were even more important than politics.

GLENN: Policies. Yeah. It was. To me, it still is. Character -- if you don't have character, you don't have anything. You don't have a chance at survival without character.

So, Charlie, how do you -- how do you repair this?

CHARLIE: I don't honestly know. That's a really, really good question. I think it is going back to these first principles. And, you know, the -- there was a time where you realized, okay. We're going to be in the wilderness for a while.

It turns out, that the wilderness is a little bit -- there are fewer of us in the wilderness than I was perhaps expecting, but the wilderness is a good place to begin rethinking these things. What is really important? What is really valuable?

I've lived a life, like a lot of conservative talk show hosts, where you go from one election to another. And every single election is the apocalypse. Every single election, everything is at stake. And maybe you need to step back and you realize, okay. Elections are important. There's no question about that.

But there are some things that are more important. So let's go back. What is it that we -- that we care about? Is it -- it's freedom. Limited government. Constitutionalism. Personal responsibility.

Respect for the truth. All of those things. And also, understand that maybe we ought to look around to our fellow Americans. And rather than be locked into some sort of zombie-like dogma. You know, ask, what kind of a society do we want to be? What makes for the good life? Are we actually treating one another the way that we ought to be treating one another?

Now, in order to get back to it, I think we kind of have to break out of the chrysalis of our tribe, which may be mixing the metaphor. And maybe if you look around and go, "Okay. We've been engaging in these tribal politics. But look at where it led us. Look at what it's done to us. And is this really who we want to be?

GLENN: So, Charlie, you are somebody who -- I mean, I have been out to Silicon Valley and Hollywood. I have not gone to Washington and New York.

And I find at the upper echelon of both of those, I find people who are Democrats and who are now saying, I'm just afraid of my side as your side. There's something bad happening. And we have to solve this. And they fight -- I think like all people do, they fight against this feeling of ugh, you know, the other side is getting away with X, Y, and Z. But they have realized, this is what has caused the problem, is just looking at the -- at the splinter in someone else's eye. They've missed the beam in their own side. However, when I do talk to people in the media -- and you're probably closer to people in the media than I am, I don't see that from them. I don't -- I don't see a willingness to look at the -- the beam in their own eye.

Do you?

CHARLIE: No. But let me -- let me get to a point that you made before. You know, one of the great shocks for me, has been this -- this adoption of -- this moral relativism, across -- across the lines of American politics. That winning is so important, that, you know, if they did it, we can do it as well.

And to see conservatives adopt that, that sort of relativistic approach has been really appalling. But your point on the media is right on. One of the things that have happened -- and I talk about it in my book. Is, I've been a long-time media critic, talking about the bias, the double standards. I think at some point, we have perhaps succeeded at delegitimizing the media in the eyes of a lot of folks, which broke down our immunity to fake information and propaganda. But having said that, I do think that everybody in American politics and the media does need to step back and have this moment of introspection. You know, the -- I do have a lot of context in the media. And I don't sense that kind of introspection, that I think is necessary. Do you understand why so many people believe that you are biased, that you do have the double standards?

Do you understand how you manage to blow all of that credibility? You created the space for, you know, the demagogues. You know, the folks like Breitbart. And Infowars. And all of those folks.

But I don't sense that there is that sort of looking in the mirror and going on.

GLENN: Do you have time to stay with us for a little longer?

CHARLIE: Sure. Absolutely.

GLENN: Okay. Charlie Sykes. The author of How the Right Lost Its Mind. And I think -- I can count them -- I can count them on three fingers, I think. I think I can count them on three fingers, the people who actually stood. And Charlie was one of them. In fact, Charlie -- Charlie kind of just disappeared for a while and said, "I can't do this anymore."

And I have profound respect for him. And I have -- I have not read the book cover to cover, but I have read enough of the book to tell you that he's right about how we -- how we went awry and how we each of us have to look, on both sides of the aisle, at our own role and say, "What did I propagate?" But also, what did I accept in my own life?

And we'll continue our conversation. And talk a little bit about Mueller and what's going to happen next, with Charlie Sykes.

GLENN: At that point in time get Paul Manafort for here with Charlie Sykes in just a second.

STU: Charlie, Glenn and I have been talking about this for a while. And I'm sure you've been doing a lot of thinking of this, writing the book. I think a lot of the people in the talk radio audience want that perfect world, they want a world where there is about principles, they want a world where this is about real foundations.

But they see, with the media landscape, that if they don't push back against every single thing and fight super hard, nobody is going to do it for them. And they're just going to get rolled over. Do you think that's where the audience is, and why sometimes they might embrace some of the way the media is run now?

CHARLIE: Oh, yes, I do. In fact, that was me. I felt, okay. I'm on the rampart. And my job is to push back on this. If I don't push back on this, who will? And I do think that that contributed to it. And I think over the years, it ramped up. It ramped up in intensity, to the point where you look around you, like, okay. How did I get here? How did I come all the way this far?

GLENN: So, Charlie, I've never shared this on the air, but you would have the brain that could get your arms around this one, to see if you think this is valid. I think what Rush Limbaugh did was absolutely valid and accurate for 1990. What he did was say a point of view that nobody heard. And nobody had articulated. And he taught us how to articulate an argument. But then a couple of things happened.

Our friends stopped listening, as soon as they said, where did you get that? Rush Limbaugh? Well, yeah. So they stopped listening. But Rush kept giving us the argument for our friends. The friends over time disappeared. And then people like us populated radio. And we did the Rush Limbaugh model. And we weren't saying how to talk to your friends. We were saying, this is what is right. This is where you go. And we just grew further and further apart, into our own echo chambers. And we didn't listen to one another. We were no longer trying to make the argument to our friends, who we thought were rational, because we were really being told that our friends aren't rational. And they became irrational, as we became irrational.

CHARLIE: I certainly was think that you followed that trajectory. And then I started in the early 1990s on radio as well. When -- you know, there was a time when actually we had to formulate these arguments. When, in fact, our job was to persuade.

But I think you're absolutely right, that as time went on. We really did separate ourselves into what I began calling the alternative reality silos, where, you know, really, we didn't wall ourselves off.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. I don't think we did. I mean, I think in some ways we did because we didn't recognize it.

CHARLIE: Right.

GLENN: But we were walled off. The left did its number on us to wall us off. Yeah.

CHARLIE: They stopped. Oh, no, no. This goes both ways. There's no question about it. Somebody has got to write multiple volumes of how the left lost its mind. By the way, your story about the George Washington plaque would be chapter one on that. That's somebody else's --

GLENN: Yeah.

CHARLIE: But we were walled off. And part of the problem that I think folks in the left and the media ought to recognize is to realize they have no idea what conservatives were thinking for many, many years. They simply -- they didn't read conservative books. They didn't listen to conservative talk radio. They had a caricature out there. And as a result, they did not understand how they looked and how they sounded to conservatives. And they certainly do not understand what happened over the last several years.

GLENN: So let me go to Paul Manafort. What is this going to do?

CHARLIE: Well, it's going to put a heck of a lot of pressure on the White House. I see already that there are some people trying to spin this as, this is a nothing burger because it does not relate directly to the Trump campaign and collusion.

GLENN: This is huge.

CHARLIE: But, look, let's just take a step back here. This investigation is very much the real deal. This is just the beginning. It's a rolling investigation. And I think the Paul Manafort -- the whole Paul Manafort story for me sort of represents the worst people in the world phenomenon, which is that whatever Donald Trump's personal flaws are, he also at various points in his campaign and administration empowered, the people have called, the worst people in the world. Drowned himself with some really skeezy folks, whether it's Roger Stone or Paul Manafort.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

CHARLIE: Here's my other point for conservatives: Look, it is one thing to agree with the administration, support them on issues where you share their values. The right to life. Conservative judges. Small government. Regulatory reform.

But that doesn't mean that you need to defend every single aspect, including if, in fact, the Russians did interfere in our elections, tried to hack our democracy. This is not something that we should rationalize or look the other way.

GLENN: Charlie, thank you very much. Author of the book: How the Right Lost Its Mind. Worth a read.

Big Pharma’s role in rising neurological disorders: Will RFK Jr. uncover the truth?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Our children are sick, and Big Pharma claims to be the cure, but is RFK Jr. closer to proving they are the disease?

For years, neurological disorders in our children have been on the rise. One in nine children in the U.S. has been diagnosed with ADHD, and between 2016 and 2022, more than one million kids were told they suffer from the disorder. Similarly, autism diagnoses have increased by 175 percent over the past decade. RFK Jr. pledged to investigate the rising rates of neurological disorders as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and this week, he announced a major initiative.

Earlier this week, RFK Jr. announced that the HHS has embarked on a massive testing and research effort to uncover the root causes of autism and the sharp spike in recent diagnoses. The HHS Secretary vowed that the results will be available by September of this year, leaving many skeptical about the study's rigor. Conversely, some speculate that the HHS may have unpublished studies revealing critical insights into these disorders, just waiting to see the light of day.

Glenn brought up a recent article by the Daily Wire referencing a New York Times piece in which experts questioned the legitimacy of ADHD diagnoses. Glenn agreed and suggested that people are just wired differently; they learn, work, and study differently, and the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all school system simply fails to accommodate everyone.

New York Times' ADHD Admission

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, the New York Times published an article that made a shocking admission: there are no concrete biological markers for ADHD. The clinical definition of ADHD is no longer supported by the evidence, and there are no physical, genetic, or chemical identifiers for the disorder, nor is there any real way to test for it. The paper also admitted that people diagnosed with ADHD would suddenly find that they no longer had any symptoms after a change of environment, profession, or field of study. This suggests that "ADHD" might simply be a matter of interests and skills, not a chronic brain sickness.

The most horrifying implication of this admission is that millions of people, including children, have been prescribed heavy mind-altering drugs for years for a disorder that lacks real evidence of its very existence. These drugs are serious business and include products such as Adderall, Ritalin, and Desoxyn. All of these drugs are considered "Schedule II," which is a drug classification that puts them on the same level as cocaine, PCP, and fentanyl. Notably, Desoxyn is chemically identical to methamphetamine, differing only in its production in regulated laboratories rather than illegal settings.

Worse yet, studies show that these medications, like Desoxyn, often provide no long-term benefits. Testing demonstrated that in the short term, there were some positive effects, but after 36 months, there was no discernible difference in symptoms between people who were medicated and those who were not. For decades, we have been giving our children hardcore drugs with no evidence of them working or even that the disorder exists.

RFK Jr's Autism Study

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

Autism rates are on the rise, and RFK Jr. is going to get to the bottom of it. In the year 2000, approximately one in 150 children was diagnosed with autism, but only 20 years later, the rate had increased to one in 36. While some claim that this is simply due to more accurate testing, RFK Jr. doesn't buy it and is determined to discover what is the underlying cause. He is an outspoken critic of vaccines, asserting that the true scope of their side effects has been buried by greed and corruption to sell more vaccines.

RFK Jr. doesn't plan on stopping at vaccines. Similar to ADHD, RFK Jr. suspects other environmental factors could increase of autism or exacerbate symptoms. Factors like diet, water quality, air pollution, and parenting approaches are all under investigation. It's time to bring clarity to the neurological disorders that plague our nation, cut through the corruption, and reveal the healing truth.

Neurological Intervention

WIN MCNAMEE / Contributor | Getty Images

Big Pharma has been all too happy to sit back and watch as the rate of neurological disorders climbs, adding to the ever-growing list of permanent patients who are led to believe that their only choice is to shell out endless money for treatments, prescriptions, and doctor visits. Rather than encouraging lifestyle changes to improve our well-being, they push ongoing medication and costly treatments.

All RFK Jr. is doing is asking questions, and yet the backlash from the "experts" is so immense that one can't help but wonder what they could be hiding. Both Glenn and RFK Jr. have their suspicions of Big Pharma, and the upcoming HHS study might be one of the most important steps to making America healthy again.

Why do planes keep crashing?

STR / Contributor | Getty Images

Last week, two more serious air travel incidents occurred, adding to the mounting number of aviation disasters this year. Is flying safe?

Over the past year, the number of aviation disasters that have been blasted across the media has been steadily rising, with February alone having a half dozen incidents. It begs the question: Is air travel becoming more dangerous? Or has the media just increased its coverage of a "normal" amount of crashes?

If you look at the data, it suggests that flying has been—and remains—safe. The number of accidents and fatalities has been steadily decreasing year over year and remains a small percentage of total flights. In 2024, out of the approximate 16 million flights recorded by the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S. every year, there were 1,150 accidents resulting in 304 fatalities, meaning that the average flight in America has a 0.007% chance of an accident. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board records a decrease in both fatal and non-fatal aviation accidents when compared to 2024. By this time last year, there were already 399 crashes and accidents, while this year has only clocked in 271.

That being said, Sean Duffy, Trump's new transportation secretary, admitted that America's air traffic control system needs an overhaul. Duffy pointed toward dated air traffic control equipment, overregulation, and radical DEI as the culprits behind many recent aviation accidents.

But what do the crashes suggest? We've gathered details about the major aviation accidents this year so you can decide for yourself why planes keep crashing:

American Airlines Blackhawk collision over D.C.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

In one of the deadliest U.S. aviation accidents in the last decade, an American Airlines plane collided with a Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. The American Airlines flight was approaching Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport carrying 60 passengers and four crew when it collided midair with the Army helicopter, crewed by three, killing all 67 people involved.

The exact cause behind the mid-air collision is still under investigation, but it is believed that the Black Hawk was up too high and outside of its designated flight path. A report from the New York Times suggests that the air control tower at the Ronald Regan Washington Airport has suffered years of understaffing, which seems to be a result of DEI hiring practices. Investigators are piecing through the wreckage, and the exact cause of the crash is still unknown.

Medevac explosion in Philadelphia

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On the night of Friday, March 31st, a medevac plane with six people on board crashed into a Philadelphia neighborhood, killing everyone on board, along with one man on the ground. The small jet departed from Northeast Philadelphia Airport at 6 pm, and according to the FAA, it crashed less than a minute later after reaching an elevation of 1,650 feet. The ensuing explosion cast a massive fireball into the sky and wounded 19 people on the ground, killing one.

The six people on board the jet were Mexican nationals, including a mother and her sick daughter who was receiving treatment from Shriners Children’s Hospital in northeast Philadelphia. As of now, there is no official cause of the crash, but much of the plane has been recovered, and the incident is being investigated.

Alaskan flight disappearance outside of Nome

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At approximately 3:16 pm, on Thursday, February 6th, a small commuter plane working for Bering Air, carrying 10 passengers, took off from the town of Unalakeet, Alaska, destined for the nearby town of Nome. After a few hours, Nome lost contact with the small plane as weather conditions worsened. The following day, the Coast Guard discovered the remains of the plane, all 10 occupants were dead.

The wreckage of the aircraft, along with the remains of the passengers and crew, have been recovered and are under investigation. While there has been no official explanation given for the crash, the poor weather is believed to be a major contributing factor.

Small jet collision in Scottsdale

Gabe Ginsberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The pilot of a small jet died after the aircraft crashed into a larger plane in Scottsdale, Arizona, on Monday, February 10th. The owner of the jet that crashed was Vince Neil, the frontman of the heavy metal band Mötley Crüe, but Neil was not on board at the time of the accident. The jet had just landed in Scottsdale, where it appeared to veer out of control and smash into a parked Gulfstream at high speed. The plane was carrying four people: two pilots and two passengers. One of the pilots was killed, and the other three were seriously injured. There was only one person aboard the Gulfstream at the time of the crash, they suffered injuries but refused treatment.

It is believed that the landing gear failed upon landing, which caused the jet to skitter out of control and smash into the parked plane.

Delta crash in Toronto

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Monday, February 17th, a Delta aircraft flipped while landing and slid upside down across the runway while ablaze at Toronto Pearson International Airport. Fortunately, all 80 people aboard survived, and only three people suffered critical (though not life-threatening) injuries. First responders were quickly on the scene, extinguishing the fires and assisting the grateful survivors out of the wreckage.

The crash is believed to have been caused in part by the extreme weather in Toronto, which included a powerful crosswind and potential ice on the runway. It is also suspected that the landing gear failed to deploy properly, causing the plane to flip in the severe wind.

Small plane collision north of Tucson

aviation-images.com / Contributor | Getty Images

On Wednesday, February 19th, yet another small plane crash occurred in the skies above Arizona. Two small aircraft collided midair near Tusosn, Arizona at Marana Regional Airport. There were two people in each of the small planes, two of which from the same aircraft died, while the other two managed to walk away with little injury.

Marana Regional Airport is an uncontrolled field, which means there is no active air traffic control present on site. Instead, pilots rely on communication with each other through a "Common Traffic Advisory Frequency" (CTAF) to safely take off and land.

Hudson helicopter crash

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A helicopter tour out of New York City took a tragic turn on Thursday, April 10th, when the Bell 206 broke apart mid-flight and plunged into the Hudson River. All six people aboard perished in the crash, which included the pilot and a tourist family of five.

New York Helicopter Tours, the operator of the flight, announced it would cease operations following the accident. The decision comes amid scrutiny of the company’s safety record, which includes a prior emergency water landing and another incident where a helicopter was forced to land shortly after takeoff due to mechanical issues. The cause of the crash remains under investigation.

Upstate New York family tragedy

Billie Weiss/Boston Red Sox / Contributor | Getty Images

Days after the tragic Hudson crash, a small private plane carrying an NCAA athlete crashed in upstate New York, killing all six passengers. On Saturday, April 12, 2025, Karenna Groff, a former MIT soccer player and 2022 Woman of the Year, was aboard her father's Mitsubishi MU-2B with her parents, boyfriend, brother, and his partner when the plane went down in a muddy field in Copake, New York.

The aircraft was reportedly in good condition, and Michael Groff, Karenna's father, was an experienced pilot. While the official cause of the crash has not been determined, low visibility at the time of the incident is suspected to have been a contributing factor.

The recent string of aviation incidents underscores a troubling trend in air travel safety, raising urgent questions about the systems and policies governing the industry. While data suggests flying remains statistically safe, the alarming frequency of crashes, near misses, and systemic issues like outdated technology and questionable hiring practices cannot be ignored. BlazeTV's own Stu Burguiere did a deep dive into the recent crashes in the Blaze Originals documentary, Countdown to the Next Aviation Disaster, uncovering the truth behind the FAA’s shift toward DEI hiring and its impact on aviation safety. Featuring exclusive interviews with former air traffic controllers, lawyers, and Robert Poole—the inventor of TSA PreCheck—this documentary exposes how the Biden-Harris administration’s policies, under Pete Buttigieg’s leadership, have contributed to making air travel more dangerous than ever.

Did Democrats just betray fair elections? The SAVE Act controversy explained

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

Glenn unveils CIA’s grim Dire Wolf conspiracy

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.