The French Vote Only Delayed the Coming Storm

May 08, 2017

WRITER

The citizens of France elected centrist Emmanuel Macron in a landslide victory. In doing so, they voted to maintain the status quo and delayed the coming storm.

"A poll a couple of years ago found that 94 percent of the Czech Republic favor closing the borders completely --- but they're not. They're standing by the EU. What are the people doing? They're starting to become anti-immigrant," Glenn said Monday on radio.

That's exactly what's happening around the world as elected officials pander to the politically correct and refuse to deliver what people want.

"I'm not a xenophobe. I'm not a racist. I'm not any of these things. But, guys, we have got to protect and know who is coming in," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: The French people had two choices: Delay the coming storm and maintain the status quo, which is probably what -- well, definitely what I would have voted for. Or I probably would have sat it out because I wouldn't have liked either candidate. Or given into the old world, you know, European nationalism.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: That was their choice. They didn't have a good option. And what they did was delay the inevitable. The status quo is what got them to this place in the first -- in the first place. And so they've just sealed their fate for another five years.

Now, here is what is really fascinating.

The Russians know this, I think, better than anybody else. A couple of hours before France entered their 48-hour media blackout, before the election, a massive leak of Macron's campaign and financial dirty laundry hit the internet. Now, why would you do it just before the media blackout? Because you would know that no media is going to be able to pick this up. So you'll only have the internet. And that could work to your advantage or disadvantage. But you'd only have the internet. The way to really affect it would be to release it a little bit earlier, perhaps. Perhaps.

STU: Well, they thought that the media would fight back against it.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: So they had no opposition against it because of the ban.

GLENN: Right. Perhaps. Perhaps.

STU: At least I think that was their theory.

GLENN: Perhaps it was their theory.

So 48 hours before France has a media blackout and nobody can say anything about the election or anything, and they release this. Now, it was a -- it was almost a carbon copy of the DNC Podesta hack. Investigators over in France have traced it back. Exactly the same group, Fancy Bear, who is a surrogate for the Russian military intelligence. Why wouldn't you hide that? Why would you use the same people, the same DNS -- why? Why would you do it so late in the game? Perhaps as Stu said, it is because they wouldn't have any opposition.

But I believe it's because they knew just like the rest of the pollsters, that there was a massive trouncing coming to Le Pen no matter what. And 11.4 million people are probably going to sit out. Can we lead to more people sitting out and being disenfranchised and just saying, "I don't care who wins anymore." Not to help Le Pen win, but to add to the discontent. Releasing the information pours gasoline on a bonfire. The French already feel like I've got to settle for the status quo. But now this guy's coming in -- he's facing a lame duck five-year presidency. The French and the global media going to have a field day now, exposing Macron and his party's dirty secrets.

You'll notice -- did you hear much fanfare that the Clinton Global Initiative closed on April 15th. Yeah, right? Right? Look that up.

STU: This would be the time that you would want to turn it on.

GLENN: Look that up. They had problems with donations, apparently. Apparently, all of the big countries --

JEFFY: I bet.

GLENN: -- like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and everybody else, they decided that they didn't want to do anymore goodwill. Or, they decided that there was no access to be purchased.

STU: It's not shutting down.

GLENN: No.

STU: They've -- I think what you're referring to is a report that they were downsizing.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: Uh-huh. Which you think would be the opposite.

GLENN: Would be the opposite. You're now out of the --

STU: Worry about the elections.

GLENN: Right. How can the Clinton Foundation make this move and nobody notice? Nobody in the press is even noticing about their donations from -- from these countries. That they're starting to dry up. Kind of interesting.

If she were president, I can guarantee you, WikiLeaks would be exposing all kinds of things. And I believe the Russians will eventually expose Trump for all kinds of things as well. Why? What do they want? They want public distrust and angst. That's what they want.

If Hillary Clinton would have won, I think they would have done the same thing here. The hacks would have kept coming because they're playing the long game. The leftists, the Islamists, the alt-right are playing that game as well. What do they want? An insurrection. They want to burn the whole thing down.

France just took a massive step toward burning the whole thing down. And one more thought on this. Next, the Czech Republic -- the Czech Republic is taking in refugees, and they oppose it. A poll a couple of years ago found that 94 percent of the Czech Republic favor closing the borders completely. They're not. They're standing by the EU. What are the people doing? They're starting to become anti-immigrant. Germany is also becoming hostile to the EU.

What is happening around the world? Is that people feel -- and see if you feel this way -- nobody is listening to me. Nobody is -- I'm not a xenophobe. I'm not a racist. I'm not any of these things. But, guys, we have got to protect and know who is coming in. I want the best and the brightest to come in. And I also will take those from war-torn countries, but I want to make sure, just like we would have done in Germany, I want to make sure they're not Nazis. I want to make sure they're not actual enemies of the United States. Nobody is listening to me about my job and my pay. And they're playing games with health care. And they've promised us one thing. And our health care costs as a family went through the roof. And I couldn't keep my doctor. I don't even know what's happening. I don't know if I'm going to be able to get insurance anymore.

And then the right does it. And the right was lying to us. The G.O.P. -- is somebody listening to me?

The answer is no, far too often -- far too oftentimes. Nobody is listening to me. I have no levers to pull. There's nothing I can do to get somebody to turn around and listen to me. I can't effect change. I can't even control my own life.

And I don't recognize this anymore. I don't feel like I belong even to polite society. It was one thing when I said, you know, I don't really recognize my country. And the left laughed. And now the left is saying, "I don't recognize my country." And the right is laughing. I'm not laughing. I didn't laugh then. I'm not laughing now. I don't recognize my country. But more importantly, I don't recognize the truth in anything.

I mean, they're now expecting me to believe that a man can say he's a woman. Just say it. I'm identifying as a woman. And I have to accept that? That a woman can identify as a black person. And blacks have to accept that?

I don't even recognize the truth anymore. And I know the rich are getting richer. And I've never been a guy who has had a problem with rich getting rich. The reason why I have a problem with rich getting rich now is because far too many times, it's because they have access to banks and loans and interest rates that I could never get my hands on. Or they have enough lobbyists to rig the game their way. That's not fair.

And they're telling me that I can't hold sacred the things I have always held sacred, things about God, things about my country. I'm told that that has no meaning. Or if it does have meaning, it's all bad meaning. That's how people are feeling.

And when you increase the stress of money, when you increase the stress of losing a job, not being able to make ends meet, people will listen to anybody who says, "I got a plan. It's those people over there. We just get rid of those people." Whoever they are -- left, right, in the middle -- it doesn't matter. Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, it doesn't matter. People will round people up when they're afraid.

Thank God the French rejected that kind of thinking this weekend. But unfortunately, as the press celebrates -- because the press doesn't get it -- it's not that they're intentionally -- they just don't get it. They don't hear you. They don't hear Europe. And because they don't hear, they celebrate. Ooh. Dodged a bullet there. Victory for us. France isn't as racist as America. No. No. You really don't get it.

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