Michele Bachmann responds to attacks after she calls for investigation into Muslim Brotherhood

July 19, 2012

Writer

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann joined The Glenn Beck Radio Program on GBTV (soon to be known as TheBlaze) this morning to discuss the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Washington, DC and the attacks on her in the wake of her calls for an investigation. The full interview is available in the clip above.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: There are a few people in Washington D.C. that I trust and tell the truth. There are a few people that call me every time they turn on a water faucet from Washington D.C. and they say, "I just want you to know I'm holding a press conference today because I turned on a water faucet." You're like, oh. And after a while, I don't take those people's phone calls and after a while I stop reading their e‑mails. And there are a few people that are in it for the wrong reasons. And then there are a few people ‑‑ Jim DeMint is one of them, Michele Bachmann is one of them, Mike Lee is one of them ‑‑ that do it for the right reasons and are clean. I mean, we were talking about this with Jim DeMint the other day. Look what Jim DeMint has done. Jim DeMint just stopped the Law of the Sea Treaty. I mean, that's ‑‑ that's a pretty amazing thing to do. You can't take Jim DeMint out because he's clean. Does he make mistakes from time to time? Sure. Everybody does. But look at what this guy has done. Michele Bachmann is the same way. She's a good, decent person. May not agree with her all the time, but she's a good, decent woman. And she is standing and she's on the intelligence committee. Rarely do I get calls from Michele Bachmann. But when I do, they're always important. And she has called me a few times and lately it's been about the Muslim Brotherhood because I've been ‑‑ I've been talking to people in Washington D.C. and saying, "Hey, what's the deal with the Muslim Brotherhood thing? Are we looking into this?" Michele called me this morning and she said, "Glenn, there are decent people up on the Hill that are trying to expose the Muslim Brotherhood and it is spreading. This disease is spreading so rapidly, it is breathtaking." This goes to a documentary that we did about, what, four months ago, three months ago where we exposed what this president is doing with the Muslim Brotherhood and how it is infiltrating all levels. And we're at a place now that if we don't stop it, we're approaching a point of no return. And they are purging everything from our military, from our FBI. So we're not even teaching what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for. We're not teaching what radical Islam even is. So how are you ever going to find it? How are you ever going to recognize it? It's out of control.

The inspectors general were asked a few questions by a few members of congress. Michele Bachmann is here to talk about it and this is important. I beg you to listen because the elephant media and Drudge, Fox, have come out on the wrong side on this issue. They are following John McCain's lead. It's the wrong lead. And if you're not there to back these people up, they're going to be eaten by CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Michele Bachmann, welcome to the program.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Glenn, thank you so much. What an important topic, and I have to say that you and the people at The Blaze have been leading the pack on this. And thank you for the wonderful documentary that you've done because the influence today of the Muslim Brotherhood at the highest levels, from the White House, to the Pentagon, to the FBI, even to our United States military truly is breathless and people have to know about it.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what happened. You and who else wrote a letter to the inspectors general's office and said, "There are some questions here that need to be addressed."

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: That's right. It was three members of the intelligence committee: Myself, Lynn Westmoreland from Georgia, Tom Rooney from Florida and two members of the judiciary committee, Trent Franks of Arizona and Louie Gohmert of Texas all signed onto a letter. We asked numerous questions of the federal government because a letter was sent ‑‑ well, let me just back up. After the Fort Hood tragedy, a report was issued that said the real problem in our government is that we are not teaching FBI agents or our military to recognize radical Islam. So that's what we need to do. We need to teach about it.

Well, in response to that, 50 ‑‑ over 50 Muslim organizations wrote a letter requesting that the White House start a task force to stop that from happening. Five days after the White House got this letter, this October 19th letter ‑‑ and people can see it on my website, or maybe you have it on The Blaze ‑‑ five days after the White House got this letter from the 50 Muslim groups, they started the purge of the federal government. Let me tell you, the federal government doesn't do anything in five days. But they started the purge of the FBI. So now the FBI, who are supposed to be trained in radical Islam, elements have been purged off their training materials so they are no longer being taught about what radical Islam is in order to be able to truly identify it ahead of time. This is serious. This is also happening throughout our United States military, Department of Justice, and Homeland Security. And the word "purge" isn't my word. That's the word used by the 50 Muslim organizations. They demanded that the president purge the training materials and the trainers. And so already people have been fired who formerly were teaching what radical Islam is. They've been fired or they've been reassigned. And they ask that the library be purged. Americans don't purge libraries, but they demanded that the FBI's library be purged. All of this was happening and so we wrote a letter to the inspectors general asking the question: Don't you think you should look into the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and what it is they're seeking to do.

GLENN: Okay. So you write this, which is your job.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: That's our duty.

GLENN: Your duty to protect and defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: That's right.

GLENN: There is no question in any sane person's mind that the Muslim Brotherhood ‑‑ I mean, look at this ‑‑ look at this guy who ran and won the presidency in Egypt. He says, "Oh, I'm a moderate. I'm a moderate." As soon as he wins, it's Sharia law, we're going down, you know, death for Allah is our highest goal. It's the all the same crap. So ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: And they call for Jerusalem to become Egypt's capital, not Israel's capital. They call for the demise of Israel and the demise of the United States. They believe in civilization, jihad, which is to come into the United States and subvert the United States from within. I know it sounds like radical stuff, but all you have to do is look ‑‑ right, just look at the Muslim Brotherhood and who they say they are.

GLENN: Okay. So when you wrote this letter, then Keith Ellison comes out. And Keith Ellison is ‑‑ he has a record of being the Mafia hitman.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Well, he has a long record of being associated with CAIR and with the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR is an unindicted co‑conspirator, as stated in the large terrorist financing case that we've had in the United States of America and so he came out and essentially wanted to shut down the inspectors general from even looking into any of the questions that we were asking. So he wanted to shut it down. In response I wrote another letter back to Keith Ellison, a 16‑page letter which I would encourage all of your listeners to go and read this letter. It's what I call a bulletproof letter. I have 59 footnotes with one example after another of the penetration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the federal government. One of the most recent is so outrageous, it's hard to believe. Two weeks ago the State Department broke its own law, like I said, and let a foreign terrorist come into the United States, into the White House, meet with the National Security Council ‑‑

GLENN: Listen to this.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: ‑‑ and demand the release of the blind Sheik. This is absolutely outrageous.

GLENN: There's more to this story that I think is even more outrageous. Not only did they break their own laws, give this guy a special waiver, bring him into the White House. This is a guy who is a known ‑‑ part of a known terrorist organization. He then campaigns to have the blind sheikh released, but who pays for his airline ticket?

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: We do. The taxpayers. What I want to know is did we upgrade him to first class. I mean, this is ‑‑ this is outrageous what has happened. And so then now what's happened is the attack machine has been turned on myself and the other members of congress who have been asking the questions, that somehow we're the Muslim haters, we're the witch‑hunters, we're the new Joe McCarthyites because we're asking these questions. All the while two weeks ago the Obama administration breaks federal law to bring someone that we list on the State Department as a terrorist organization, a member of that terrorist organization, we bring him into the White House? You don't get any higher when it comes to intelligence secrets, you don't get any higher than the National Security Council. He sits down with the National Security Council in our White House and has the guts to demand that we release one of the worst, most violent terrorists that we have behind bars. He wants us to let him out of prison, to let him go free, the guy who was the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the blind sheikh.

GLENN: So let's ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: And you don't hear a peep about this.

GLENN: No, of course not. Let me ‑‑ let me take you here because one of the more controversial things is you say Anthony Weiner's wife will is ‑‑ has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, this is important because she works for Hillary Clinton.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: She is the chief aid for the ‑‑ to the Secretary of State, and we quoted from a document, and this has been well reported all across Arab media, that her father ‑‑ her late father who's now deceased was a part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Her brother was a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and her mother was a part of what's called the Muslim Sisterhood. It would be, we have requirements to get a high level security clearance. One thing that the government looks at are your associations, and in particular your family associations. And this applies to everyone. It would be the same that is true with me. If my family members were associated with Hamas, a terrorist organization, that alone could be sufficient to disqualify me from getting a security clearance. So all we did is ask, did the federal government look into her family associations before she got a high level security clearance.

GLENN: And it's not an unreasonable thing to ask seeing that this president and this administration has ‑‑ didn't know ‑‑ apparently didn't know that Van Jones was the founding ‑‑ one of the founding members of a radical revolutionary, anti‑American, Communist organization, and he's in the White House.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: That's right. That's right, and it's not ‑‑

GLENN: So something is ‑‑ somebody's dropping the ball some place, or somebody knows.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: That's right. And somebody has been dropping the ball since the beginning of the Obama administration. And this isn't intent to be partisan or out to get the president. I mean, quite honestly on the intelligence committee I'm happy to report we are the most bipartisan committee I've ever been a part of, and with all of these unprecedented leaks that have been coming out from our federal government, all of which, by the way, undermine Israel, and Israel's ability to defend herself against a nuclear Iran, we are with one voice, Democrat and Republican, outraged by these leaks that are coming out of the administration. Never before in the history of the country have we seen this level of leaks coming out, but at the same time there's also a parallel track of influence from the Muslim Brotherhood in the highest levels of the federal government, and we think that we need to get answers to these questions. And that's the purpose of our letters. We're asking that the inspectors general answer these questions, and Keith Ellison is trying to shut this, these questions down from getting addressed.

GLENN: I'm really tight on time and I want to hit a couple of other things. Stu's got ‑‑ Stu's been going over all of this information, and he's got one question for you.

STU: Well, I see here that you did like, too, the actual military document that talks about what is a potentially disqualifying condition for security clearance. It says, quote: Contact with a foreign family member, if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion. Then goes on to say the subject's closest and most frequent contacts are the ones most likely to present a security risk. And you're talking about both her father, who's now deceased, her mother and her brother. So I think the media seems to be holding you to this standard that you have to have this case completely proven when it seems like what you're saying is, is there a legitimate process question: Are they actually asking these questions before handing out these clearances.

GLENN: Right. This has been ‑‑ I mean, your links and your footnotes ‑‑ and they're down, by the way. I don't know if you know that, Michele. But the Al‑Jazeera links that you put in and you said, here, go link ‑‑ go find the story on Al‑Jazeera. We can't get to them this morning.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Oh, really?

GLENN: Oh, yeah. We're going to need ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Gosh. Maybe we can go ‑‑ maybe we can go in the past and dig them up so that we can resurrect them.

GLENN: Yeah, we're going to have to get them because they've either been scrubbed or they're being hammered, you know, by so much traffic which I highly doubt.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Heavens.

GLENN: So that's ‑‑ I mean, you have links showing that in Al‑Jazeera's own coverage.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Well, these links were up as of last Friday.

GLENN: Yeah, well, they're not ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: I wrote the letter and we got it out by midnight last Friday night and the links were up last Friday. So they've taken them down. Gee.

GLENN: I will tell you that that's not unusual. As we've followed these stories like this, that's really not unusual anymore.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: That's even more reason why we should be looking into this.

GLENN: Yeah. Let me just say this to you and then one more quick question. I just wrote a letter to the president of my company for The Blaze and he's in charge of all content. He's kind of our news, you know, our uber news director, if you will, he's the president of content. And I just said we know the truth on this story. We've had this for a while. I do not want this company to sit down on this. So we are going to cover this and continue to cover this to make sure that people hear this story because, Michele, you guys are absolutely right and it is a matter of national survival.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: That's right.

GLENN: Let me ask you ‑‑

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: National security.

GLENN: Let me ask you one quick question. John McCain and all of the elephant media are falling right in line with the Muslim Brotherhood. Bullcrap. What did John McCain do yesterday?

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: He went on the Senate floor and he gave a spirited defense of Huma Abedin, who is a friend of his. And so that's what he did and I think ‑‑

GLENN: But you're not saying that she is compromised? You're saying have we looked into this, right?

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: That's right. That's all we're saying because we did not infer that she is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood or that she's working on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

GLENN: Right.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Our point was regarding the security clearance.

GLENN: Right.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: And did she have to go through the same sort of process that anyone else has to go to. Did they check the boxes. Because if the State Department breaks American law to bring a terrorist into the White House, a member of a terrorist organization, it certainly is conceivable that maybe they looked the other way on issuing the security clearance. That's all we're doing is asking a question.

GLENN: I have to tell you, we're at war. We're at war with people in the Middle East, and her ‑‑ she's compromised ‑‑ forget about the Muslim thing. She's compromised or could have been compromised. Her husband was sending dirty photos of himself. I mean, you know, in a wartime, you would never put that person in a delicate situation because the family has already been compromised. But I digress.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Well, and ‑‑

GLENN: Thank you very much. Go ahead.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: I was just going to say the Muslim Brotherhood elements have declared war against the United States.

GLENN: All right.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: ‑‑ and Israel. And we need to recognize that they are at war, even if we don't fully, are onto this. And we've got to, but I thank you and everyone at The Blaze for taking this on because the media has a completely different view of it. So thank you.

GLENN: Well, they're always ‑‑ they're almost always wrong, especially when it comes to these things. Michele, thank you very much and keep up the fight. Never sit down. We've got your back.

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