Samantha Bee of 'Full Frontal' Talks With Glenn About Bridging the Divide

What does it mean to be men and women of good will? What does it mean to love your neighbor as you would love yourself? What does that look like in action? We need to figure it out because it's the only way we can find peace on earth and peace with each other.

Samantha Bee, host of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on TBS, joined Glenn in studio Wednesday to begin a dialogue about uniting our divided nation. While the two would traditionally be viewed as opponents, even adversaries, based on their political views, they both believe we've got to get back to place where we can listen to others, hear their opinions and be open to different viewpoints.

RELATED: After Winning a Divided Election, Thomas Jefferson Gave a Unifying Message

“People are receiving their news in their own bubble of the internet. It’s very difficult to penetrate that with actual information,” Bee said. “I don’t really know how to penetrate that. I don’t think anybody really does.”

As a result of that information bubble, many people define others by who or what they hate --- and it's no way to come together and find common ground.

How do we heal the divide? It starts one conversation at a time, by taking a risk and reaching outside your comfort zone.

"If we can find honest people who are actually struggling with that --- how we do this without causing more problems --- we will make it. We will make it," Glenn said.

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

• Why did Samantha want to talk with Glenn?

• Does Glenn think Samantha has a potty mouth?

• Should presidents be messianic figures?

• Is Samantha an American?

• Why is civil discourse essential?

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

GLENN: Joining us now -- and she just said, "Wow, this is real." And I said, "No, I think most people would think this is unreal."

SAMANTHA: Maybe.

GLENN: From Full Frontal, Samantha Bee. And we don't know each other.

SAMANTHA: No.

GLENN: We've talked to each other once last night for about 25 minutes.

SAMANTHA: Yes. It was a very pleasant conversation. It was great.

GLENN: It was.

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: Why are you here?

SAMANTHA: I don't know. (laughter)

I don't know. Why are you having me here?

I'm here. We're doing -- well, we're doing a piece -- we're doing a piece with Glenn, and so you generously invited me to be on your show. We are merging worlds in a way.

GLENN: In a way.

SAMANTHA: In a way.

GLENN: Because I'm sure we haven't talked about it, but I'm sure there are many things we don't agree on.

SAMANTHA: I can pretty much guarantee that for sure.

GLENN: Yeah. So --

SAMANTHA: I don't think that's a bad thing.

GLENN: I don't either.

SAMANTHA: I don't see that as -- I don't see that as a bad thing.

GLENN: I think people trying to control people's lives is a bad thing.

SAMANTHA: Yes. I do agree with you.

GLENN: Oh, my -- the first thing off her mouth --

SAMANTHA: What! What!

GLENN: Your world is coming crumbling down.

STU: You are a sellout.

SAMANTHA: Uh-oh.

GLENN: Did you lose some crazy bet? And now here you are.

SAMANTHA: I'm winning the bet. I'm here.

GLENN: Saying I agree with Glenn.

SAMANTHA: It's okay with us to agree with each other on some things. I feel like there's a shared humanity, right?

GLENN: There is.

SAMANTHA: We really literally have to have conversations with people we don't agree with. It's essential.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: And I do feel like -- I'm sure that a lot of your listeners or your viewers have either not watched your show, or they have watched my show and they have not -- and turned it off.

GLENN: Yes. Turned it off in anger.

SAMANTHA: Or, you know, one interesting thing that happened on our show -- we went to the conventions, of course. And while I was at the Republican convention, so many people there came up to me privately and said, "Oh, my God, I love your show. It's really funny."

GLENN: I think you're really funny.

SAMANTHA: Thank you. Well, I wasn't really --

GLENN: You have a potty mouth.

SAMANTHA: I wasn't fishing for a compliment.

(laughter)

Definitely have a potty mouth for sure.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: But people I think -- I think people on both sides of the aisle can appreciate a well-crafted joke. And I do think it's essential to be able to make fun of yourself. It's just --

GLENN: Uh-huh. Is there a problem -- because this is -- you'll notice that -- I mean, except for the conservatives that have a stick lodged someplace.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: Or Al Gore and Tipper, when they were against the -- you know, wanted the parental labels on CDs or albums, I think at the time.

SAMANTHA: Albums, I remember those.

GLENN: Yeah.

The -- most people don't have a problem with The Simpsons because they know The Simpsons might take your guy on and hit him hard in the face.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the very next joke or the very next episode, going to hit the other side just as hard.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you think that comedy -- you know, The Daily Show and your show, do you think you do that? Do you think you hit your side just as hard?

SAMANTHA: I think that we look for those opportunities for sure. I think that, you know, we launched in a very particular moment in American politics. I mean, we launched at the beginning, really, of campaign season. And so there was just a plethora of material.

GLENN: Sure.

SAMANTHA: For us to select from.

GLENN: Sure.

SAMANTHA: I think that moving forward, that will happen more and more for sure. But there's no -- there's...

GLENN: Here's why I ask this question.

SAMANTHA: Yeah. Are you going to show a little bit of our show to acclimatize people to the tone?

GLENN: Uh, no.

SAMANTHA: You don't need -- that's okay. I promise, some of you will really like it. It's very edgy.

GLENN: No. I -- I like it. It is -- it is -- I used to -- I was much more of an artist with the F-word than you ever will be.

SAMANTHA: Okay. Oh. Oh.

GLENN: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Okay.

GLENN: And then I found Jesus and all of that stuff.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: So I've cleaned up my act. And so it is a little assaulting for viewers that are not used to that -- you know, Mike Huckabee will watch it and say, "I've never heard a woman use the F-word before."

SAMANTHA: Well, he would 100 percent find me to be nasty.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: Yes.

GLENN: He might go farther than that.

SAMANTHA: He would go further than that.

GLENN: You may be from the underworld.

SAMANTHA: Definitely from the upside down.

GLENN: But, anyway, I find you very, very funny.

PAT: We actually have played clips of your show.

SAMANTHA: Which -- I was curious about that because you mentioned that last night.

STU: We can play -- as you might know --

SAMANTHA: In like a favorable way, right?

STU: Yes. No, actually --

PAT: Donald Trump can't read.

JEFFY: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Trump can't read.

STU: We thought that was really funny.

PAT: And -- that was very funny. And the trolls in Russia. We played --

JEFFY: Yeah, the hacker.

GLENN: We spent an hour talking about the trolls in Russia.

SAMANTHA: Did you?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That was really interesting. How the heck did you find those people?

SAMANTHA: Well, you know, we have an incredible research team.

STU: Yeah, ours sucks.

JEFFY: Yeah, no kidding.

GLENN: We got this guy.

STU: We have that guy. He just sits over there and types --

SAMANTHA: Oh, boy. That's it. The whole team.

GLENN: Well, he ate the whole team.

(laughter)

SAMANTHA: You know, we have -- yeah, we have an -- we have just an amazing team of people. And we had one woman who was able to -- she just ended up in I don't know chat rooms. I don't know what she did to kind of infiltrate that world. But she ended up chitchatting a paid Russian troll. And, you know, the story was born out of that. And then it just kind of grew and grew. And then we decided it was worth it to go to Russia and speak to them in person.

PAT: Did you ever at any point believe they might be not the real thing?

SAMANTHA: Not real.

PAT: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Well, you know, you have to treat them -- you have to -- obviously, you have to be very suspicious.

PAT: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: I think we did our absolute best due diligence with them.

PAT: Uh-huh.

SAMANTHA: And we determined that we were comfortable -- we were comfortable believing that they were real. And I believe that they were real.

PAT: It sounded like they were.

SAMANTHA: Since the story aired, Russian media has tried to discredit the story in various ways. But that's kind of what they do.

JEFFY: They do.

GLENN: So is it disturbing to you at all because we've been on this Russian thing for, four years? Three years? About the influence of Russia and Putin. And it's interesting because a lot of people that were -- were okay with that in saying, "Yeah, okay. I believe you. Yeah, that's wrong. That's bad. That's dangerous."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: In the last year, many of them have said, "That's propaganda. That's crazy. That's not happening." Or it's, "So what?"

SAMANTHA: Right.

GLENN: Does it bother to you that we seem to be playing musical chairs, that under the last president I was freaked out and thinking, "Oh, my gosh." And now, under this president, you're saying, "Oh, my gosh."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Well, it's not just me saying it. There are a lot more people.

GLENN: No, no. I am saying it -- I'm saying it as well.

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: But the point that at least I have been trying to make and many people in our audience have been trying to make -- and we were never taken serious is no president should ever make you feel that way. Not because we elect the great guys. Our Founders knew, they're going to elect bad guys. It's the balance of power. No man should have so much power that he can reach into your life and change our culture and change everything.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you see that? Or?

SAMANTHA: I -- you know, I guess fundamentally I don't really trust anyone. I don't really --

GLENN: We don't either.

SAMANTHA: I don't really -- I just don't see presidents or -- I don't -- as these messianic figures.

GLENN: Right.

SAMANTHA: I just don't think that any one person or leader is going to be everything to everybody. And, of course -- you know, the pendulum swings.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: It --

PAT: Uh-huh.

SAMANTHA: It's -- I think what we're going through right now feels very different to me, in my experience, which is limited because, remember, I'm an immigrant. And this is the first election that I was able to vote in.

GLENN: You're from, where?

SAMANTHA: So that was -- I'm from Canada, you guys.

GLENN: Oh, that's not an immigrant.

PAT: Oh.

STU: I'm a Bluejays fan.

SAMANTHA: That's a total -- my immigrant experience, I came across with my babushka. You know.

GLENN: Yeah.

So it's not that -- the thing that I think we can unite on that I -- and it seems -- it seems almost eye-roll stupid, but it's not, is the Bill of Rights.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The Bill of Rights -- we all agree -- you know, I was dumb enough in 2003 to go, "Oh, George Bush, he'd never misuse the Patriot Act." By 2006, I'm like, "Oh, my gosh, how stupid was I." Then -- and left -- you know, the people on the left were right there.

And the reason why a lot of us didn't listen to that warning was because, "You're just the other side. You're just against George Bush."

Oh, my God, shut up.

And now, under Barack Obama, it expanded and got worse. And under this guy, it's going to expand and get even worse.

SAMANTHA: Do you feel like the world is going to be -- or our world -- at least I feel -- and this is part of the reason why we're here today is because I do think that it's important for us to kind of redraw the lines a little bit. I don't think that it's as clear-cut as left and right or liberal and conservative anymore. I feel like --

GLENN: True liberals --

SAMANTHA: -- you need to form alliances in a different way now. I think that, you know, there are things that are imperiled now, or certainly there feels like there's an urgency and there feels like there's violence in the air to me.

And I think that it's going to be more important than ever for people to kind of reach into areas where they wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable and hold hands with people --

GLENN: I agree.

SAMANTHA: -- in a different way.

And I think -- you know -- and it's more about -- and it's more than just talking, too. It's actually more than just civil discourse.

Civil discourse is really, for me, just the beginning of change.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: You know, that's a nice place to start. It's a very privileged idea that we can all sit here and go, "We should speak to each other nicely. We should actually be civil."

GLENN: Yes. We should do more -- we should also listen to each other.

SAMANTHA: Speak nice. Speak -- you know, speak properly to each other.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: Listen to one another. But then there's an action moment too, where you have to -- you have to defend people. You have to stand up for people who are imperiled in this new world. You have to take action. I don't know what the action moment is. We do have to find it.

GLENN: It will come. It will present itself. Don't look for trouble. It will come. Be prepared for trouble.

SAMANTHA: This is all so comforting.

GLENN: No, no. But don't you --

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: You just prepare for it. And then if it doesn't come, it doesn't come. But if it does, we'll know it when it comes. And then we are prepared and united to stand on common principles.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But no one wants to talk about common principles. Everybody is talking about policies. And that's been our problem -- that's been my problem. I wanted you here because I think you felt -- you feel right now like I felt -- not in '08, but in '12.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Where I thought, "Okay." For instance, TIME Magazine just made Donald Trump person of the year.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: And in the headline, it says, "President of the divided states of America."

I completely agree with that. But there's a lot of people that will look at that and go, "Really? Slap across the face." Where Newsweek, in '08, ran the headline and the cover, "We're all socialists now."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Dismissing the good portion of the population that was like, "No, I'm not a socialist. I don't want to be a socialist. No."

So one side just dismissed the other. And we're still doing that. Just dismissing.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: In '12, I'm -- I was shocked that the American people could know all of this information and still vote for him because of, I thought, lies, of doctors cutting off of feet, and everything else. And you feel that way now about Donald Trump. So do I.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But you kind of lost faith in, "Crap, it's not just the president, it's the people around me too. I don't understand how they're disconnecting from truth. They're just accepting it." Do you understand what I'm saying?

SAMANTHA: I do. But I'm not sure I know what the question is.

GLENN: So my question is: How do we take on -- how do you take on your side and say, "You know what, there are some things that -- lying about Benghazi did matter. It did matter."

SAMANTHA: There are consequences to lies.

GLENN: Right.

SAMANTHA: I think we are seeing that. I don't really know how to --

GLENN: How do you mean that? We're seeing that?

SAMANTHA: When you -- well, there are just false narratives. There's -- I mean, we've all been talking about fake news. We were talking about it on the show the other night.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: There's so much distrust. There's so much -- we -- you know, people are receiving their news in their own bubble of the internet.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: It's very difficult to penetrate that with actual information.

GLENN: On both sides.

SAMANTHA: I agree.

GLENN: We're self-selecting out.

SAMANTHA: Well, of course.

I don't really know how to -- I don't really know how to penetrate that. I don't think anybody really does.

GLENN: But that's what we're here for.

SAMANTHA: But that is why we -- that is why we need to be so vigilant and so diligent and do things in a different way and take ownership of those.

GLENN: We're going to spend some more time together. I'm doing something for your show.

SAMANTHA: No. Delightful.

GLENN: And then we're going to spend some time on Facebook.

But -- look at that look. "Delightful."

SAMANTHA: No, it is. It's going to be delightful.

GLENN: Look at that look. I saw that look.

SAMANTHA: Don't -- don't read anything sinister of that. It will be fun, I promise.

GLENN: All right. It is nice to meet you.

SAMANTHA: It is so nice to meet you.

Featured Image: Samantha Bee, host of 'Full Frontal with Samantha Bee' on TBS on 'The Glenn Beck Program', December 8, 2016.

5 SURPRISING ways space tech is used in your daily life

NASA / Handout | Getty Images

Is your vacuum cleaner from SPACE?

This week, Glenn is discussing his recent purchase of a Sputnik satellite, which has got many of us thinking about space and space technology. More specifically, we've been wondering how technology initially designed for use outside Earth's atmosphere impacted our lives down here on terra firma. The U.S. spent approximately $30 billion ($110 billion in today's money) between the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the Moon Landing in 1969. What do we have to show for it besides some moon rocks?

As it turns out, a LOT of tech originally developed for space missions has made its way into products that most people use every day. From memory foam to cordless vacuums here are 5 pieces of space tech that you use every day:

Cellphone camera

LOIC VENANCE / Contributor | Getty Images

Have you ever seen a photograph of an early camera, the big ones with the tripod and curtain, and wondered how we went from that to the tiny little cameras that fit inside your cellphone? Thank NASA for that brilliant innovation. When you are launching a spaceship or satellite out of the atmosphere, the space onboard comes at a premium. In order to make more room for other equipment, NASA wanted smaller, lighter cameras without compromising image quality, and the innovations made to accomplish this goal paved the way for the cameras in your phone.

Cordless vacuums and power tools

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

When exploring the moon, NASA wanted astronauts to use a drill to collect samples from the lunar surface. The problem: the moon has a severe lack of electrical outlets to power the drills. NASA tasked Black & Decker with developing a battery-powered motor powerful enough to take chunks out of the moon. The resulting motor was later adapted to power cordless power tools and vacuums in households across America.

Infrared ear thermometer

BSIP / Contributor | Getty Images

What do distant stars and planets have in common with your eardrum? Both have their temperature read by the same infrared technology. The thermometers that can be found in medicine cabinets and doctors' offices across the world can trace their origins back to the astronomers at NASA who came up with the idea to measure the temperature of distant objects by the infrared light they emit.

Grooved pavement

Bob Riha Jr / Contributor | Getty Images

This one may seem obvious, but sometimes you need a massively complicated problem to come up with simple solutions. During the Space Shuttle program, NASA had a big problem: hydroplaning. Hydroplaning is dangerous enough when you are going 70 miles an hour in your car, but when you're talking about a Space Shuttle landing at about 215 miles per hour, it's an entirely different animal. So what was NASA's space-age solution? Cutting grooves in the pavement to quickly divert water off the runway, a practice now common on many highways across the world.

Memory foam

BERTRAND LANGLOIS / Stringer | Getty Images

If you've ever slept on a memory foam mattress, it probably won't come as a shock to find out that the foam was created to cushion falls from orbit. Charles Yotes was an astronautical engineer who is credited with the invention of memory foam. Yotes developed the technology for the foam while working on the recovery system for the Apollo command module. The foam was originally designed to help cushion the astronauts and their equipment during their descent from space. Now, the space foam is used to create some of the most comfortable mattresses on Earth. Far out.

5 most HORRIFIC practices condoned by WPATH

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Whatever you know about the "trans movement" is only the tip of the iceberg.

In a recent Glenn TV special, Glenn delved into Michael Schellenberger's "WPATH files," a collection of leaked internal communications from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Glenn's research team got their hands on the WPATH files and compiled the highlights in Glenn's exclusive PDF guide which can be downloaded here. These documents reveal the appalling "standards" created and upheld by WPATH, which appear to be designed to allow radical progressive surgeons to perform bizarre, experimental, and mutilating surgeries on the dime of insurance companies rather than to protect the health and well-being of their patients. These disturbing procedures are justified in the name of "gender-affirming care" and are defended zealously as "life-saving" by the dogmatic surgeons who perform them.

The communications leaked by Schellenberger reveal one horrific procedure after another committed in the name of and defended by radical gender ideology and WPATH fanatics. Here are five of the most horrifying practices condoned by WPATH members:

1.Trans surgeries on minors as young as 14

One particular conversation was initiated by a doctor asking for advice on performing irreversible male-to-female surgery on a 14-year-old boy's genitals. WPATH doctors chimed in encouraging the surgery. One doctor, Dr. McGinn, confessed that he had performed 20 such surgeries on minors over the last 17 years!

2.Amputation of healthy, normal limbs

BIID, or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, is an “extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis.” As you might suspect, some WPATH members are in favor of enabling this destructive behavior. One WPATH commenter suggested that people suffering from BIID received "hostile" treatment from the medical community, many of whom would recommend psychiatric care over amputation. Apparently, telling people not to chop off perfectly healthy limbs is now considered "violence."

3.Trans surgeries on patients with severe mental illnesses

WPATH claims to operate off of a principle known as "informed consent," which requires doctors to inform patients of the risks associated with a procedure. It also requires patients be in a clear state of mind to comprehend those risks. However, this rule is taken very lightly among many WPATH members. When one of the so-called "gender experts" asked about the ethicality of giving hormones to a patient already diagnosed with several major mental illnesses, they were met with a tidal wave of backlash from their "enlightened" colleges.

4.Non-standard procedures, such as “nullification” and other experimental, abominable surgeries

If you have never heard of "nullification" until now, consider yourself lucky. Nullification is the removal of all genitals, intending to create a sort of genderless person, or a eunuch. But that's just the beginning. Some WPATH doctors admitted in these chatlogs that they weren't afraid to get... creative. They seemed willing to create "custom" genitals for these people that combine elements of the two natural options.

5.Experimental, untested, un-researched, use of carcinogenic drugs 

Finasteride is a drug used to treat BPH, a prostate condition, and is known to increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer as well as breast cancer. Why is this relevant? When a WPATH doctor asked if anyone had used Finasteride "to prevent bottom growth," which refers to the healthy development of genitals during puberty. The answer from the community was, "That's a neat idea, someone should give it a go."

If your state isn’t on this list, it begs the question... why?

The 2020 election exposed a wide range of questionable practices, much of which Glenn covered in a recent TV special. A particularly sinister practice is the use of private money to fund the election. This money came from a slew of partisan private sources, including Mark Zuckerberg, entailed a host of caveats and conditions and were targeted at big city election offices— predominantly democratic areas. The intention is clear: this private money was being used to target Democrat voters and to facilitate their election process over their Republican counterparts.

The use of private funds poses a major flaw in the integrity of our election, one which many states recognized and corrected after the 2020 election. This begs the question: why haven't all states banned private funding in elections? Why do they need private funding? Why don't they care about the strings attached?

Below is the list of all 28 states that have banned private funding in elections. If you don't see your state on this list, it's time to call your state's election board and demand reform.

Alabama

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Arizona

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Arkansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Florida

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Georgia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Idaho

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Indiana

Photo 12 / Contributor

Iowa

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kentucky

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Louisiana

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Mississippi

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Missouri

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Montana

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Nebraska

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

North Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

North Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Ohio

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Oklahoma

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Pennsylvania

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Tennessee

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Texas

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Utah

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Virginia

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

West Virginia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Wisconsin

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked?