Susan Rice Scandal: Proof the Media Is in on the Game

April 06, 2017

WRITER

Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor under the Obama administration who denied leaking the names of Trump officials, proved one thing on her recent media tour: The media is utterly biased and void of intellectual integrity.

Rice's statements on the unmasking scandal made it clear that in the normal process of the national security business, she asked the National Security Association for the names of certain Americans involved with President Trump's team. However, her claim that she didn't "leak" names was merely a game of semantics --- and the media knew it.

"Her claim is she didn't leak those names. Well, you don't have to when you unmask them. It goes out to the mass. Everybody who is on the list, everyone in government who got that gets the update with the unmasked names," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

Rice also said she didn't seek the names for "political purposes." Again, a game of semantics the media let slide.

"Media, you wonder why Donald Trump became president of the United States? This is your example," Glenn said. "You're doing it again. For anybody who thought possibly that you would have a backbone, that you have learned something, that you have become enlightened, you're doing it again! You are taking a story and you are picking the winner. You are picking the one you choose to believe."

Rice's previous lies to the American public should have left her with zero credibility, and yet the media gave her a platform to lie more without being challenged.

"It's your job to dissect this story and to show where the truth is and how it's all being lumped together to make it appear as though she's telling the truth," Glenn said. "This is the problem."

He continued.

"With so much dishonesty in the government, the credibility of those we've elected to serve us is completely shot. And so what do we do? We elect somebody like Donald Trump --- not because of the credibility of the people in the government, but because he told us the truth. And this is the truth: You can't believe the media. They are in on the game, and this Susan Rice story is proof positive," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to The Glenn Beck Program. I want to start with Susan Rice. Here's what Susan said.

SUSAN: I leaked nothing to nobody.

(laughter)

GLENN: Now, aside from the double negative, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice employs they're leaking nothing to nobody. Obviously, that means that you leaked something to everybody.

(chuckling)

But I digress.

Susan Rice who once claimed that the deserter Bowe Bergdahl served with honor and distinction is now vehemently denying any wrongdoing in the scandal of unmasking and leaking the names of Trump officials, which we will get back to here in a second. There is the unmasking, and then there is the, quote, what the media is calling leaking the names. It is a red herring because the media is lazy again.

Respected columnist Eli Lake citing anonymous US officials familiar with the matter, end quote, reported Monday that the national security adviser requested the identities of US persons in the raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign.

Now, she went on a media tour yesterday, to where she could be surrounded by friends who would let her go on the record without pushing her on any tough questions. Here she is with Andrea Mitchell.

SUSAN: First of all, Andrea, to talk about the contents of a classified report, to talk about the individuals on the foreign side who were the targets of the -- the report itself or any Americans who may have been collected upon incidentally, is to disclose classified information. I'm not going to do that. And those people who are putting these stories out are doing just that.

GLENN: Okay. So let's boil this down. It's pretty clear the implication from her various statements on this scandal that she has given is that in the normal process of the national security business, she indeed did ask the NSA for the names of certain Americans that were involved with President Trump.

But her claim is, she didn't leak those names. Well, you don't have to, when you unmask them.

It goes out to the mass. Everybody who is on the list -- everyone in government who got that gets the update with the unmasked names. She also says she didn't seek them for political purposes. Listen carefully.

VOICE: Within that process and within the context of the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, did you seek the names of people involved in -- to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people surrounding the president-elect, in order to spy on them?

SUSAN: Let me begin -- absolutely --

VOICE: In order to expose them?

SUSAN: Absolutely not for any political purposes, to spy, expose, anything. But let me --

VOICE: Did you leak the name of Mike Flynn?

SUSAN: I leaked nothing to nobody.

GLENN: I leaked nothing to nobody.

Again, we'll come back to that with Grammar Pat.

Now, maybe -- maybe some can be forgiven for doubting the veracity of a woman who looked us in the eye and flatout lied to us as the ambassador to the UN in 2012.

SUSAN: But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is of the present is, in fact, it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the problem: She knew she was lying then. Obama knew she was lying then. Hillary Clinton knew she was lying then. I contend the president knew she was lying then.

Media, you wonder why Donald Trump became president of the United States, this is your example. You're doing it again. For anybody who thought possibly that you would have a backbone, that you have learned something, that you have become enlightened, you're doing it again! You are taking a story and you are picking the winner. You are picking the one you choose to believe.

She has no credibility. Was she following orders last time? Perhaps. Is she following orders this time? Perhaps.

It's your job to dissect this story and to show where the truth is and how it's all being lumped together to make it appear as though she's telling the truth. This is the problem. With so much dishonesty in the government, the credibility of those we've elected to serve us is completely shot.

And so what do we do? We elect somebody like Donald Trump -- not because of the credibility of the people in the government, but because he told us the truth. And this is the truth: You can't believe the media. They are in on the game. And this Susan Rice story is proof positive.

Now, let's go to -- let's go to Pat, who is going to take us to the chalkboard.

PAT: And diagram this a little bit.

GLENN: Yeah. I leaked nothing to nobody. Just show me how I leaked nothing to nobody works here, Pat.

PAT: All right. Well, first of all, this is obviously a negation, right?

GLENN: Pat at the chalkboard teaching.

PAT: Negation. Although, she used a double negative.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: Which, of course, leads to a positive statement. As you know, two negative numbers multiplied together makes it a positive. So if you leak nothing to nobody, that does mean that you leaked something to everybody. Now --

STU: You're saying it was a true statement?

PAT: It was a true statement. She obviously leaked something to everybody.

Now, if she was trying to say she didn't leak anything, then you have to use the negative auxillary, I didn't leak anything. The pronoun "anything." Or you could perhaps use the negative article, I have not leaked anything.

(chuckling)

GLENN: To nobody?

PAT: To anyone. To the --

STU: Can you say "I have not leaked nothing to nobody?" If it was a triple negative, she would be okay, right?

GLENN: If you say, I have not leaked anything to anyone, why isn't that a double positive, which would lead it to a double negative?

PAT: Because you've used the negative particle "not," which obviously means you haven't.

STU: And also, if you multiply two positives together, you don't get a negative. You get a positive.

PAT: Right. Correct.

GLENN: How do we know math is right? Have you checked with Common Core lately?

STU: Well, fake math, fake news. It's all real.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat. We appreciate that, for clearing that up.

PAT: Thank you.

JEFFY: Thank you.

PAT: Happy to do that.

GLENN: For anybody who wanted to know exactly -- by the way, anybody who is making fun of Donald Trump in the media and how he speaks --

PAT: Right.

GLENN: -- is anybody going over this? Is anybody saying, "Hey, Susan Rice, I didn't leak nothing to nobody is probably not something at a cabinet level."

STU: I didn't leak nothing to nobody would have been okay because it's a triple negative. However, she said I leaked nothing to nobody, making it a double negative and making it incorrect.

GLENN: You're right. You're right. I'm sorry --

STU: Or actually correct. Because she actually did leak it.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. But she didn't leak it. And here's how they're getting away with it: May I erase your work on the chalkboard here?

PAT: Yes, you may.

GLENN: Okay. So can anybody tell me what FISA means?

STU: Foreign Intelligence Security Act?

GLENN: Foreign Intelligence Security -- it's not act, is it? Is it act?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And so what does it do?

STU: Yeah, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. Sorry. Surveillance.

GLENN: Surveillance. Anybody know what it does?

STU: Well, there's foreign intelligence that has surveilled with this act.

GLENN: That's all you need to know. That's all you need to know. They are surveilling foreign intelligence.

Now, why are names masked in FISA? So everything we're talking about here goes to a FISA court.

PAT: They're masked because if Americans are caught up in it, they don't want to suck Americans into something that they're --

GLENN: Great.

PAT: -- not guilty of.

GLENN: So let's go back a bit.

How does the FISA court work? What is the FISA court? How is it supposed to work?

FISA court was developed because we found out in the '70s that the CIA was starting to spy on things. And we wanted to make sure that the CIA and the FBI and everybody was in their proper roles.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But we -- we saw that the CIA was starting to use surveillance in foreign countries. And we were afraid we were going to use them here in America.

And so they put this wall up. And this is the point of the FISA court. We built a wall so no one -- no CIA, no NSA could ever cross back into the United States.

And so what the CIA said --

PAT: And it's illegal for the CIA to spy on Americans.

GLENN: Correct. This all comes from the Nixon era, and all this stuff was -- and you were starting to spy on Americans. So the FISA court was designed. And the FISA court, you as the CIA, you have to come to a FISA court and say, "Hey, we have a foreign intelligence that needs to be surveilled. We need to listen to their phone calls." Great. Listen to their phone calls.

And we're listening to their phone calls, as they're coming into the United States. They are here in the United States. And we need to listen to them.

Well, wait a minute. If they're here in the United States, they're going to be talking to Americans.

Yes, but what we'll do is when we issue the report, we will black out their name, and we will put US citizen number one.

And so when the FISA -- when the FISA report came to Susan Rice's desk, it said, "Here's the -- you know, the Russian operative Igor Mullowski (phonetic) -- whatever his name is, spoke to US citizen number one." Now, how do you unmask that?

PAT: You go to the NSA or the CIA and you say, "I need -- can I know -- I need to know who this US citizen is."

GLENN: So how do you know who to go to? CIA, NSA, how do you know who to go to?

PAT: I don't know.

STU: Are you teaching us or asking us?

GLENN: I'm asking -- I'm teaching you too. Do you know?

PAT: No. Whoever filed the report I would --

GLENN: So you go to whoever issued this report.

STU: Okay.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: The only people that have the key to unmask are the people that issued the report. So you go to the -- let's say the NSA. And you say, "Guys, I see US citizen number one. I think I know who this is, and there is something else going on that you're not privy to." Because everything is compartmentalized. I need to see US number one. And unmask US citizen number one so I know their name. Because I think they're connected in this other thing that we have going on over here. We have to make sure it's the same person.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Now, when they unmask it, who gets the unmasked report?

PAT: Person who asked for it.

GLENN: That's what I would think. Nope.

So when they're saying, did you leak anything? She didn't have to. Those reports go out to all of -- like 20 people. Those reports go out every day. And they have unmask.

If they are -- if they are unmasked -- they go out masked. Then if somebody asks for them to be unmasked, they're reissued, and they go out to everyone with the unmasking. So she didn't to have leak it. She gave it to 20, to 100 different people.

STU: And someone there leaked it.

GLENN: Someone there leaked it.

STU: She started the process.

GLENN: Right. So the questions they should be asking --

PAT: She puts the blame though, on the NSA, because they're the ones who decide whether they'll unmask or not.

GLENN: Right. Right. So let's play this out, Pat. She's exactly right. They do. You play Susan Rice, I play the NSA. Hello, NSA.

PAT: I'd like to know who citizen number one is.

STU: Why is your voice so low?

PAT: She's got a cold.

STU: Oh, okay.

GLENN: Wow, I hope you feel better, Susan. You sound really bad. You sound like that guy on the radio. What's his name? Oh, man.

PAT: Yeah, I don't feel good right now. So -- nobody knows. Nobody knows his name. It hasn't been unmasked yet.

GLENN: So, Susan, I can't just give you the name of the person.

PAT: No, I've got another investigation going on.

GLENN: You have another investigation going on? Can you tell me a little bit about -- I don't need to know about the investigation, but can you give me a reason why you think this name is important?

PAT: Well, it involves a Trump campaign.

GLENN: And are you doing something on the Trump campaign and the Russians?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Okay. So you have something else going on?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So you do need it?

PAT: I do it need.

GLENN: Good. You don't just call them and say, "Hey, I need a name unmasked." Those are masked as a wall. It is incumbent upon the -- the agency that issued the report --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- to then say, "Why do you need it?"

Now, as national security adviser, as the head of the president's national security, she has more clout than anyone else. But it is her case. She cannot blame anyone else for saying, "Well, they just released it." No.

They released it to you because you are the president's national security adviser. You are the top of the pyramid.

PAT: And you made the case.

GLENN: If you say, I have another case that you're not aware of, they will unmask it. Because you're the top of the pyramid. The only one higher is the president.

PAT: And based on her interviews, she -- she kind of walks this line --

JEFFY: Yes, she does.

GLENN: Yes, she does.

PAT: -- that, yeah, I did unmask something, but it wasn't for political purposes and I wasn't going after the Trump campaign.

GLENN: So the question should be, then what were you working on to ask for it to be unmasked?

PAT: Which she would say national security. Classified.

JEFFY: Classified.

GLENN: Correct. Correct, she will.

So then the next question is: So was that name the name connected with something else? National security. Well, you have an American -- you have an American's life at stake here.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Their whole --

PAT: Yeah, it's bad.

GLENN: The reason for the FISA wall, you've just destroyed their life. I think you have a responsibility to repair it and speak frankly.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

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

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

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

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Susan Rice Scandal: Proof the Media Is in on the Game

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

Where did all the water go?

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

The cost of secrecy

Transparency is an imperative

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

Or is it about self-preservation?

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement?

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?