Al Gore down with eugenics?

January 31, 2013

Writer

Al Gore has been making the media rounds to promote his latest exciting book about the future or something - but his vision reeks of the disturbing science of eugenics. Yes, the ‘science’ progressives of the early 20th century promoted that featured breeding ‘undesirables’ out of existence - Al Gore is bringing it back!

On Morning Joe, Gore told the MSNBC hosts:

The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, wait a minute, not too fast.

"Do you know what this is? Do you know where this philosophy comes from?" Glenn said. "I can take out the books. You know what? I wonder if I have them here or at the library at home. I can take out the eugenics books that he is quoting, he is quoting from right now. Whether he knows it or not. This is genetics. This is eugenics nonsense that was discredited in World War II. This stuff, this stuff is extraordinarily dangerous."

"This is extraordinarily dangerous. This is the most dangerous ‑‑ look, we've been talking about abortion, we've been talking about the sanctity of life, we've been talking about all these things. But I'm telling you this is a gigantic warning sign. Because now you're ‑‑ now you're taking it on political philosophy. And now you're saying that that is now genetic, and we all know ‑‑ and what he's saying is that if you are a liberal, you want to ‑‑ you want to push forward. But you're an Neander ‑‑ you are born and termed at birth to be a Neanderthal and be a conservative and say you want to harm progress."

"Listen what they're doing. They are devaluing life, they are devaluing all life. You just had last week saying all life isn't equal, all people are not created equal. Already have that. Some people are worth killing. This is all the same eugenics stuff. And now you're born as either somebody who moves us forward or somebody who moves us back. When you know eugenics, when you know the history, you know that that's exactly how it started with Margaret Sanger."

Watch the video of Gore's comments below:

Glenn went into further detail on this story when he came back at the start of the second hour of radio. Below is the transcript of that segment:

GLENN: I would like to be less definitive and more exploratory on this Al Gore statement that I find unbelievably shocking. He was on MSNBC and he's talking about the human makeup, and I'm sorry but I have heard this language before. This is the language of eugenics.
PAT: Margaret Sanger.
GLENN: Margaret Sanger.
PAT: This is ‑‑ and what's‑his‑face, George Bernard Shaw.
GLENN: Get the George Bernard Shaw audio too ready, will you?
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: If you don't know, the progressives are the ones who came up with eugenics, and you have to excuse some of them in the early 1900s because science had just ‑‑ you know, in 1870, 1880, you had people like Edison saying there's no reason to wire everybody's houses with anything but DC battery power, you know, DC electricity because you'll never have anything in your house that is electric really except for lights. I mean, even Edison didn't see what was coming. Within ten or fifteen years, the whole world had begun to change and now there was science and that's where electric shocks came in: Let's do electric shock therapy. And you had Darwin and all these things were happening all the same time. And Marx. So you had Nietzsche, Marx, electricity, technology. Everything was changing and converging into one. So you had a bright, beautiful tomorrow. You had a beautiful better living through eugenics.
I have the books. Tomorrow ‑‑ or I mean, next week we'll do a special show on this because I ‑‑ you have to know this history. And in one of them by the guy who, I'm trying to remember his name. Shoot. It's a phantom, the Phantom Public is the name of the book by Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann is extraordinarily loved by the media. He is the father of modern media. He was one of the fathers of CBS and CBS News. He was part of the Wilson administration. Really dangerous guy. He helped put together the Council on Foreign Relations. And in his book called the Phantom Public, he talks about people who are just too stupid and they'll never get it and they will never ‑‑ they vote and they think they're doing the right thing but they just don't know and it's because ‑‑ because of genetics. Genetics just show that they'll just never get it, and they'll continue to push us into the background.
But he's ‑‑ he talks about how eugenics and scientists are now looking to ways to build the perfect voter, and someday we'll be able to weed out these genetic flaws in people and we'll have people who are all progressives. But in the meantime what we're going to have to do is brainwash and trick some of these people.
This was the great hope of the progressives during the Wilson administration and the Theodore Roosevelt administration from the turn of the century up until it was wildly discredited by the Germans.
We also, I'll bring in next week, letters from the Nazis to the progressives in California saying, "You brought all this progressive stuff over, you brought all this eugenics stuff; you guys, we can't thank you enough. May you never forget what you've done in Germany because you have now put the state on this track, and the things that we're going to be able to do because of what you taught us scientifically will never be forgotten." Oh, that's true. I mean, we even have ‑‑ we even have signs that say "Never forget."
They were responsible. It came. These ideas that happened in Nazi Germany came from the progressive movement in the United States of America, secondarily from the Fabian Socialists in England. It was a poison from the West that went east. And there are those who still believe it.
We had a ‑‑ we told you a story of a big lefty in Salon that wrote just last week that all, all men are not created equal. All life is not equal. She said, "Let's be honest. We all know that a baby is..." she said, "When I was carrying my children, I always knew that was a baby in there. So let's stop this bogus argument. We all know it's a baby. Let's just be up front and let's use the real argument: All life is not equal." That goes against everything that Americans used to stand for. But David Barton gave me an extraordinarily wild fact. Does anybody remember last night? I think it was 60% of the American people that voted didn't know that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, this last November. In exit polls, 60% didn't know. I mean, how do you win? How does America survive if you don't even know, not know the Constitution; not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is terrifying. So not all people are created equal.
You now have the president through executive order doing studies on who should and who shouldn't have guns. He's demonizing anybody who's on the other side, saying there's something wrong, and I will not have these people stand in the way of progress. He's coopting and now controlling our doctors and our hospitals. They have a death panel. It wasn't in the healthcare bill as we told you at the time; it was in the stimulus package. They are right now having a hard time getting anybody to go on this death panel because those are the people who are going to decide who lives and dies. And if you have an attitude that not all life is created equal, if you are funding death camps by the name of Planned Parenthood, forget about your FEMA camp. Your death camp in America is Planned Parenthood. And you're funding it. When the world is going towards no value on life and when your world is going towards a place where it's so egomaniacal, there is no one but them. No one but the individual. No one else matters. "I want mine, Grandma. You had yours. I was promised this." When you have a world that is so inner twined and in five years from now you will not recognize our society. The beginning of the singularity is already here. The merging of man and machine. The merging of reality and total virtual reality, but a reality you will not be able to tell the difference between.
Stu, do you remember when I said to you back in the Nineties there's going to come a day where you won't believe your eyes because they will be able to make any image on camera, any picture? It won't matter? You could just ‑‑ we're there now.
STU: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: Would you agree?
STU: Oh, sure.
GLENN: I'm telling you now you will not be able to tell the difference between virtual reality, real reality sometime down the future, probably within the ‑‑ in the next ten years. That changes everything. All of this technology that is going on right now, do you know who's teaching ethics on technology? No, that's not a rhetorical question. We can't find anyone. They're not teaching ethics. When it comes to technology, they're not teaching ethics. And so now Al Gore comes out and he says on NBC for all the world to hear, and if you know anything at all about eugenics, if you know about the early 20th century progressives when Hillary Clinton said she is cut from that cloth, "I am one of the early 20th century progressives," all eugenics, all Marxist want‑to‑bes, just they're not Marxists; they just want the Marxist utopia without the revolution. That's the 20th century progressive, early 20th century progressive. And they're almost unanimously cheerleaders for eugenics and weeding out the week. If you know anything about that, listen to what Al Gore just said.
GORE: The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, "Wait a minute, not too fast." And when these natural tendencies are accentuated with political ideologies or for that matter religious factions and the other divides that are sometimes used to ‑‑ for advantage, then it can get out of hand.
GLENN: Can it? And then what do you do? So you are born just only able to understand the future or dragging us back into the past. And then people will put a label on that. You'll either go into religion or you'll become a conservative.
PAT: Well, if you're one of those that are holding us back, of course you'll go into religion.
GLENN: Yeah. Or conservative.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Otherwise you're a Democrat, a liberal, and you're an atheist. You're a scientist.
PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.
GLENN: Extraordinarily dangerous. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Maybe I've read too much history.
STU: I found the story, the study he's talking about. This is ‑‑ it comes from New Scientist, British weekly scientific magazine. The title: Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative. Delves into the research on the formation of political opinions. I remember us talking about the story when it happened because it talks about how conservatives are dogmatic, routine‑loving individuals while liberals come across as free‑spirited and open‑minded.
GLENN: That's how they come across, yes.
STU: Yeah. According to the emerging data, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. These views are deep‑seeded and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be a liberal is like trying to persuade someone to not have brown eyes. We have to ‑‑
GLENN: Oh, let's ‑‑ oh. Maybe we should get some twins.
STU: Then it goes on, dogmatic types, more conservative, those who express interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
STU: And an interest in different cultures.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
STU: People with high openness scores turned out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.
PAT: Openness? How do you describe liberals as open to anything? They're not open.
GLENN: They are not open to ‑‑
PAT: ‑‑ anything but their own opinions.
GLENN: You know, can I tell you something?
PAT: That's it.
GLENN: ‑‑ Penn Jillette is ‑‑ and I'm sorry I keep talking about him but I find him one of the most fascinating men I know. Penn Jillette is just fascinating. When Penn Jillette and I met, and I'll tell you, I say this over again, I really respect him, blah, blah‑blah, but I think he's a bigot. Old information. He's not. He's not. Penn wrote to me last week, last week or a couple of weeks ago. Because we were ‑‑ we have these fascinating ‑‑ I'd love to do a book just on our e‑mail exchanges.
STU: The Penn and Glenn letters.
GLENN: They are truly remarkable because I'm trying to understand his point of view and he's trying to understand my point of view I think. And we're coming back and forth and we have these just all‑day exchanges. I'm not kidding you, one of them was just on that guy in Florida that was having sex on ‑‑ pleasuring himself on a donkey, not in a ‑‑
STU: Right.
GLENN: Okay. And that's how it started, 8:00 on a Saturday. At the end of the day ‑‑ we just kept going back, you know, about, you know, 300 characters maximum and just keep going back and forth on it. Fascinating. At the end I kind of joked with him. I said, you know, I don't know if ‑‑ I don't know if we're closer or farther apart. I'm not really sure. I have to digest this whole conversation over a very long period of time, I said, but then again I'm a guy who would never be invited to your house. Going back to a reference that he said about the second or third time I met him at CNN and he said to me, you know ‑‑ I said, you're fascinating. I'd love to get together with you sometime. And he said, I'd love to. He said, of course you're never coming over to my house. And he was serious. He said, you know, because you're a religious freak. And he said, I'm never going to have you religious people over. He said it's like, why would I put a poison in my house? And I was shocked. And I said, boy, I thought, I thought you were a lot of things but I never thought you were a bigot. And he walked away and we've always ‑‑ we had for a while still a relationship but it was a weird relation ‑‑ it was terse. He wrote to me and he said, I apologize that I have never told you this, he said, but you changed me. He said, yes, I used to be bigoted against religious people, he said, but you've changed me. I'm not. He said, I apologize for all of that and I am sorry and I am trying to fight my closed‑mindedness on anybody that I don't understand or I don't agree with. He said, on all fronts. He said, so I apologize. And now he's become a really, a big defender of people who are religious even though he's not. And he doesn't understand it. That's an open‑minded person. And I'm sorry, that is not ‑‑ he doesn't call people enemies. That is not a liberal. That is not somebody who says, "You know what? I'm somebody who's going to, you know, we've got to wipe these people out or we've got to find out if we can ‑‑ no. I respect them for who they are. Everybody is different. And as long as we try to play nice and I don't try to shut you down or call you names, you don't do that to me. We all live together. It's like a family. Just, there's billions of us. You live in the house and you all try to get along, even though you don't agree with each other. We all try to get along. We don't try to wipe each other out. And I would never as a dad go and say to one of my daughters, "Well, genetically, you know, she's born like that. She only believes those things and she's going to fall into a religion" or she's going to fall into some ‑‑ she will fall into some atheists. If I'm a conservative, she will fall in with some atheists or she will fall into some liberals because she was born that way, you know." Oh, my gosh. What are we turning into?

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?

Glenn's Show Prep