Is There a Moral Way to Kill a Zombie?

November 14, 2016

Writer

The latest season of The Walking Dead has dominated watercooler talk for weeks. People just can't seem to make peace with the new level of violence in the show. The early seasons, it seems, got rid of those pesky zombies in just the right way.

"It wasn't inhumane. They were just killing them quickly. They weren't torturing or playing games with them or anything like that. They were just killing them," he said.

So if Glenn can't stomach The Walking Dead any longer, just what is he watching?

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

• Is hacksawing a zombie a responsible way to kill?

• What does Stu think about the new movie Arrival?

• What does Glenn call the greatest war movie he's ever seen?

• How many times has Glenn seen Schindler's List?

• Are there spoilers below?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Andrew Hertzog says that The Walking Dead has officially jumped the shark.

PAT: Well, is he talking about the first episode? Because he's right about that. That was out of control. That was out of control.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: That was ugly. And -- but now Jeffy's told me last night's was out of control as well.

JEFFY: Well, I mean, it was. Last night was way out of control.

PAT: As much or more than the first one?

STU: Wait. So the apocalyptic zombie series was a little too violent for your tastes?

PAT: Well, seriously --

GLENN: Oh, no, Stu. It got to the point I stopped watching it.

PAT: It's gotten ridiculous.

GLENN: Yeah, it's like crazy. It's man's inhumanity to man now.

JEFFY: We're definitely at that now.

PAT: So is this worse than the opening episode?

JEFFY: Well, violence-wise, no.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Inhumanity?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: This Negan thing is ugly.

GLENN: Ugly.

JEFFY: And our love of Rick --

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: I mean, I haven't -- I haven't recorded my talking Walking Dead podcast yet. You'll be able to hear that later this afternoon on TheBlaze Radio.

PAT: Don't ruin it for people.

JEFFY: But this whole -- the Rick that we love --

PAT: Uh-huh.

JEFFY: -- needs to come back. Because the -- the Rick that Negan has developed --

PAT: Uh-huh. Not good.

JEFFY: Is bad. Is bad. Bad.

STU: There's not much you can give away obviously. I'm just surprised --

JEFFY: You don't want to. You don't want to on this show.

STU: I can understand not liking a certain amount of violence in your show. I get that. But I'm surprised that that's some line for you guys. This is a series.

GLENN: Because it was different. It was different because there are zombies. So it wasn't -- it was almost like it wasn't real.

PAT: It wasn't real.

GLENN: Yeah. But it wasn't -- you know -- and it wasn't inhumane. They were just killing them quickly. They weren't torturing or playing games with them or anything like that. They were just killing them. Not all of them.

PAT: This has definitely changed.

GLENN: Yeah. And now it's man's inhumanity to man. So it's different. And I don't like that. I don't like watching, you know, men do things to other people for sport, for entertainment. I just don't like it. It bothers me.

Did you see -- did anybody see The Arrival this weekend?

STU: I did. I did.

PAT: No.

GLENN: And what did you think?

STU: I thought it was good. You know, I thought it was good. I did not see it -- it's in the mid-90s in Rotten Tomatoes, which I did not see it as that.

GLENN: I think it's the best alien movie -- the best -- the most tense alien movie I've seen in a long time without it being, you know, something is falling from the ceiling. You know, without it being alien.

STU: You said it the most tense movie that really did not --

GLENN: I thought it was a great sci-fi movie, one I haven't seen like it ever before. And I really loved it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The ending -- it's just very cerebral. It's one that you'll walk out of going, "Okay. I think I get it. I'm not sure if I get it."

STU: That's kind of how -- they're supposedly -- they keep promoting it as having a big twist ending.

GLENN: Oh, stop it.

STU: I didn't think it did really.

GLENN: Because you were walking in, thinking it's going to have a twist.

STU: Yeah, that always ruins it.

Again, why I always talk about spoiler alerts and why I will be very careful here as I speak about this. Because it does ruin your experience. If you go in there expecting something, then it comes and it's not a big deal. And that might have been what happened to me. I didn't think it was that great, to be perfectly honest. I thought it was well done. It was interesting. It was one of those movies, I was like, wow, I'm going to figure out something big coming up soon. Where is it? Where is it? And then, oh, okay. See you later. Like, it was just like kind of a letdown, I felt like. But it was well done. It was well done.

GLENN: Yeah, it was really well done.

STU: Yeah. She's great.

GLENN: Mini spoiler here. Turn down the radio, just a mini spoiler --

STU: Oh, gee, come on, why can't you --

GLENN: No, no. It's not going to --

PAT: Don't. Don't.

STU: Why?

GLENN: Turn the radio down. Turn your headphone --

PAT: We can't turn the radio down.

STU: We work with you.

GLENN: Jeez, for the love of Pete.

PAT: Don't do it. Don't.

JEFFY: Go ahead. Stop it. It's not going to ruin anything.

GLENN: You guys are weak and pathetic. Pathetic.

JEFFY: It's not going to ruin anything.

STU: I mean, I wouldn't -- knowing -- you know, this is in retrospect, but knowing what I know about the movie, I don't know that I would go to it.

GLENN: Oh, I would.

STU: It's certainly not worth a second viewing for me.

GLENN: Oh, I would like to see it again.

JEFFY: Oh, so, Glenn, give us the spoiler. Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: No, I'm not going to -- it's not a spoiler. It's not a spoiler. It's really not a spoiler. You wouldn't understand it until after it happened anyway. But I'm not going to give it. I'm not going to give it.

STU: Good.

GLENN: All right. So anybody see -- anybody see the Mel Gibson movie? Rex Reed just said it's the best war movie since Saving Private Ryan.

STU: Spoiler alert it's a war movie. Oh, come on.

GLENN: I 100 percent agree.

JEFFY: What did People magazine give it?

GLENN: I think that is just an outrageously great show -- or, movie.

JEFFY: Movie.

GLENN: Best war movie I've seen.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Really, really --

STU: There's been some good ones.

PAT: Is it better than like 13 Hours and American Sniper?

GLENN: Yes. Yes. It's really good. Really good.

PAT: Really? Because I thought American Sniper was tremendous. And 13 Hours. Both of those --

GLENN: It is. They both are very, very good.

PAT: And you like this better?

GLENN: This one -- yeah, I do. I like this better because I've -- I've just never seen a war movie like this. I've never seen one like this. Never seen the heroism. I mean, American Sniper, you know, you're looking at a hero. And, you know -- you know, the lone survivor. You're looking at a hero, not like this. Nothing like this. I've never seen a hero movie like this before. And this is true.

JEFFY: And they replicate the horrors of war really well.

GLENN: Like you won't believe.

JEFFY: And it's really, really good. But you don't want to watch The Walking Dead because it's too violent?

GLENN: It's like -- for instance, I have no problem watching Schindler's List once. I don't need to see that for entertainment. I wanted to see that for history's sake. But I don't need to see that for entertainment. So I don't want to watch a movie about Mengele. Hey, let's watch a show about Mengele and how creepy and icky he was. No. No, thank you. No, uh-uh. Not for entertainment purposes, no.

Nobody else has that line? Just me?

STU: Well, I think the line is sensible, that you don't watch hard-core violence so television. I mean, if that's your thing, that's your thing.

GLENN: No. It's not even hard-core violence. It's really not hard-core violence. Like, for instance, I took Raphe to Hacksaw Ridge. I saw it in advance. There's no swear words in it. It's a great message. The only thing -- there's no sex. There's no swear words. There's nothing.

The only thing in this movie is violence. But it is real violence. It's not gratuitous. It's a real depiction of war. And my son sat in the seat next to me. And, you know, he'll watch anything. And he's like Jeffy. He's just dead inside when it comes to playing video games and zombie stuff. The Walking Dead, not the man's inhumanity to man, but some of The Walking Dead wouldn't faze him. This fazed him. And I was glad to see it.

And he was like -- he reeled back a couple of times, like, "Whoa. Whoa. Whoa, Dad." I'm like, yeah, intense.

And he said, "This is what it's like?" And I'm like, "Yep, that's what war is like." It takes all the fun and games out of war.

STU: Which is positive.

GLENN: Very positive. Very positive.

STU: You do realize that.

So you're just saying you like -- you like when it's real and not when it's fake.

GLENN: Not that I want to watch snuff films, no.

STU: For example -- well, I mean, I -- to me, I would have almost, I think, the opposite line. Like, if it's just a -- you know, it's -- it's -- like I'll watch horror movies. I'll watch, you know --

GLENN: Well, that's what I looked at for like, for instance, The Walking Dead. But it wasn't hacksawing people, just regular people. It was hacksawing the zombies. And so I didn't have so much of a problem because it's really inhumane.

JEFFY: And they're telling us how to survive.

GLENN: I don't know. It's a weird line. I can watch an alien movie. And you can blow all the aliens up, and that's fine. Once you cross over into people and they're just regular people, no, I don't want to see that. I don't want to see that.

STU: Unless it really happened.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Unless those people actually went through those real things, then you want to see it.

GLENN: Or unless it's like West World, which I'm thoroughly enjoying.

STU: Oh, I gave up on it. It's boring.

JEFFY: I watched the first two, and I'm almost with you.

GLENN: Oh, I don't think so.

JEFFY: After the second episode, I'm almost with you.

GLENN: Maybe that's why I like it, because there's so much going on. And you want -- at least for me, I want to know what the heck is happening with the park. This is -- it's like Jurassic Park on steroids, except the people are the fakes. And you can go there and you can vacation and you can be whatever you want.

JEFFY: I love the idea of it.

GLENN: Oh, it's fantastic. And you can be a good guy, you can be a bad guy. You can be whatever you want. And you can do whatever you want because the people can't kill you, but you can kill them.

And so some people go with their families, and they have a nice little outing in the old wild west. Blah, blah. But the farther you get away from the town, the more violent and risky it becomes.

And they can't kill you, but you can kill them. And it's pretty amazing. Because there's -- because Anthony Hopkins plays this role that is just really good.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: The concept is really interesting. The execution to me has been --

GLENN: I like it.

STU: -- dull. I mean, that's my own personal opinion. But there's a lot -- I mean, there's a lot of good stuff out there to watch. You can lose yourself in the world of entertainment, which I've had to do many times over the past year and half or so.

GLENN: Me too. I've watched more television -- I didn't watch television up until last year. I had no connection to television at all until last year. Now, I'm like, I can't turn it off.

Featured Image: Image from season 7 of The Walking Dead.

The BIZZARE connection between the Vegas Cybertruck bomber and mystery drones

CHANDAN KHANNA / Contributor, Paula Bronstein / Contributor | Getty Images

Unfortunately, in recent times Americans have become far too accustomed to tragic mass shootings and attacks.

But the Cybertruck bombing that occurred outside of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas earlier this month is different. Not only did the method and outcome of the attack differ from the begrudging norm, but the manifesto left behind tells a captivating and horrifying-if-true story that potentially sheds light on the most frustrating mystery of 2024. On his radio show, Glenn highlighted some of the strange and harrowing claims made by the bomber, and he was not convinced that they were just the ramblings of a madman.

What happened during the bombing? What did the bomber hope to achieve? And what does his manifesto potentially reveal about our government and the secrets they keep from us?

The bombing

Las Vegas Review-Journal / Contributor | Getty Images

On January 1st, 2025, a rented Tesla Cybertruck full of gas tanks, fireworks, and other explosives pulled up to the front door of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. Just before 8:40 a.m., the truck exploded before bursting into flame, injuring seven nearby people, all of whom are in stable condition. Aside from the minor injuries and minimal damage to the hotel, the explosion was absorbed and redirected by the truck, with the only death being that of the bomber, who allegedly shot himself before triggering the explosion.

The bomber has been identified as a former Army Special Forces Master Sergeant with a promising military career. He had given no sign of his intentions to his family and friends before the attack, and according to the Pentagon, he showed no red flags. While there may not have been any obvious signs, Glenn speculated that the bomber may have been suffering from PTSD and/or a traumatic brain injury, which is backed by the Army's admission that the bomber had received counseling through its Preservation of the Force and Family program.

The manifesto

Ethan Miller / Staff | Getty Images

Two different documents that were allegedly authored by the bomber have been discovered. The first was found on the bomber's phone and is composed of a list of grievances against the United States, a call to Americans to rally behind Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and an outline for a militia takeover of D.C.

The bomber also asserted that his attack was not an act of terrorism, but a "wake-up call" designed to attract attention, which he explained was the purpose behind the fireworks present in the explosion. He also claimed the attack was designed to "cleanse [his] mind" of the "brothers" he lost and the lives he took during his time in the Army, which further corroborates the theory that he was suffering from PTSD.

The second document was emailed to retired Army intelligence officer Sam Shoemate, who revealed its contents on The Shawn Ryan Show podcast. The bomber claimed the government was hunting him due to his knowledge of top-secret information relating to classified technologies. The bomber also alleged knowledge of war crimes committed in Afghanistan by the United States that resulted in the death of thousands of civilians.

The bomber's email gave several names and other information that he suggested could be used to verify his claims, but as of now, it is unclear how much, if any, of his story has been verified.

The connection

YELIM LEE / Contributor | Getty Images

Where do the mystery drones that have been plaguing the skies above New Jersey enter the story?

The bomber claimed the drones are operated by the Chinese and are a part of the same program that launched the spy balloon in 2023. He claimed these drones use a "gravitic" propulsion system, and are the most serious threat to national security due to their ability to transport an "unlimited payload" with unparalleled speed and stealth. He went on to claim that the drones originated from a Chinese submarine parked off the East Coast.

While these claims appear far-fetched, Glenn pointed out that if he is right about this, we are in grave danger. China or other foreign powers could have weapons of mass destruction parked over every major city, every military installation, or even the White House, and we would be powerless to stop them. We know our government lies to us regularly. Would anybody be surprised if they were hiding world-altering tech from us? Trump's reelection has given us another opportunity to demand answers and learn the truth.

Glenn: The Left's January 6th narrative doesn't hold four years later

Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

Four years ago yesterday, the events of January 6th, 2021 unfolded—an event that the Left repeatedly said was the darkest day in our country's history. Yet, as time passes, the narrative surrounding that day has started to unravel, revealing uncomfortable truths that demand both explanation and accountability.

For millions of Americans, January 6th marked a dividing line, a day that deepened the fractures within our society. Emotions ran high, and trust in the institutions that were sworn to protect us was shattered, a portion of which will only be restored by dramatic action. This trust continues to erode as new details emerge, revealing gaping holes in the Left's narrative about January 6th.

The lies that surrounded the events of that day were not mere "misinformation"—they were bombshells that forced us to confront a much darker reality about our government’s actions. And these revelations must become the message we take from January 6th: the true nature of our current government, its accountability, and the lengths to which it will go to protect its version of events—even when it is a lie.

Let’s begin with the pipe bombs. On January 6th, Americans were told that two pipe bombs had been found near the RNC and DNC headquarters and that they could have caused catastrophic harm. The pipe bomb was placed at the DNC headquarters the night before January 6th. Interestingly, the security sweep of the building the next morning did not find it. Then Kamala Harris was transported in the height of January 6th. Conveniently, all the records detailing the event were “accidentally” deleted by the Secret Service.

Surveillance footage was ignored, cameras were turned just hours before the bombs were planted, and we were told that critical cell phone data was somehow “corrupted.” But it wasn't. The only thing that was corrupted was our own government and FBI. According to the cell phone companies, the FBI simply never asked for the information. Leads were never pursued. Four years later, the identity of the bomber remains a mystery.

Why would federal agencies neglect this critical investigation into an event that allegedly was going to destroy the republic or kill the future vice president? Was the lack of action intentional, perhaps a convenient distraction to justify escalating security measures and cast a broader shadow over what they hoped would unfold that day? These are not wild conspiracy theories; these are questions every citizen must ask. Because now we know that our government lied to us.

We must also address the FBI’s role on that fateful day. We’ve learned that 26 FBI informants were present on the ground during the events at the Capitol. Let that sink in. What were they doing there? Were they infiltrating the crowd? Were they acting as provocateurs? The presence of these informants raises serious questions about how much of the chaos that day was organic and how much of it was orchestrated. If the FBI had informants on the ground, why wasn’t the situation under control before it escalated?

Four years ago, I called for the protesters to stop. I said that this isn't who we are, and these people should go to jail. I still stand by the belief that if you hurt anyone, broke any windows, or damaged property, you should be held accountable and serve a just punishment. But today, I’m deeply concerned that many of those who were not violent or engaged in damage are still languishing in jail, some facing sentences of up to 20 years. What’s more disturbing is the growing evidence that the chaos that unfolded was not an accident—it was part of a broader agenda.

Amid the chaos, the finger was pointed squarely at one man: Donald Trump. But new information paints a vastly different picture. Just days before January 6th, President Trump authorized the deployment of the National Guard, citing concerns over potential unrest. Yet, his request was ignored—rejected outright by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police. Why? Who in the chain of command made the decision to disregard the president’s directive? Had the National Guard been allowed to deploy, it’s possible much of the mayhem that followed could have been prevented. But instead, that opportunity was squandered, and the media narrative was shaped to fit a political agenda—one that painted Trump as the instigator, when in fact, he sought to prevent the violence that ultimately occurred.

And then, there’s the tragic death of Ashley Babbitt. A decorated Air Force veteran, Babbitt was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer while attempting to climb through a broken window. Her death was quickly ruled justified, and the officer involved was shielded from scrutiny. But now, we learn that the officer violated multiple procedural rules and could face criminal charges. Why was her death dismissed so quickly by both the media and the government? In an era where police actions are scrutinized heavily, why was this officer not held accountable?

As we look back, it's clear that January 6th was chiefly about the perversion of justice by the very institutions that were supposed to protect us. Big-tech corporations and global entities like telecoms and airlines offered up location data on innocent Americans who were simply in Washington, D.C., on January 6th. No warrants. No due process. They handed over personal data without question, and the FBI used it without hesitation.

What the FBI did with that data, how Americans there on that day didn't stand a chance in D.C. courts, how our politicians and federal law enforcement knew what was going on yet did nothing to prevent it, the calling off of the National Guard—what does this tell you about our country? Our government, our justice system, and our institutions were complicit in undermining the very principles they were created to uphold.

They are trying to create a system that thrives on division and chaos, a system that uses fear as a tool to control the American people. If the federal agencies can lie, manipulate, and withhold the truth about January 6th, what else are they capable of? What are they willing to do to maintain their grip on power?

Four years later, on the anniversary of January 6th, we must demand the truth—not the sanitized, politically convenient version. We deserve the full, unvarnished truth. We must hold accountable those in power who orchestrated, covered up, or ignored the events of that day. We must never allow the lies and the unanswered questions of January 6th to fade into the political ether. We must ensure that the truth is told and that those who lied to us are held accountable.

The Deep State's NEW plan to backstab Trump

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

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

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn's Show Prep