Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Why do planes keep crashing?

April 16, 2025
STR / Contributor | Getty Images
Zane Johnsen

Last week, two more serious air travel incidents occurred, adding to the mounting number of aviation disasters this year. Is flying safe?

Over the past year, the number of aviation disasters that have been blasted across the media has been steadily rising, with February alone having a half dozen incidents. It begs the question: Is air travel becoming more dangerous? Or has the media just increased its coverage of a "normal" amount of crashes?

If you look at the data, it suggests that flying has been—and remains—safe. The number of accidents and fatalities has been steadily decreasing year over year and remains a small percentage of total flights. In 2024, out of the approximate 16 million flights recorded by the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S. every year, there were 1,150 accidents resulting in 304 fatalities, meaning that the average flight in America has a 0.007% chance of an accident. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board records a decrease in both fatal and non-fatal aviation accidents when compared to 2024. By this time last year, there were already 399 crashes and accidents, while this year has only clocked in 271.

That being said, Sean Duffy, Trump's new transportation secretary, admitted that America's air traffic control system needs an overhaul. Duffy pointed toward dated air traffic control equipment, overregulation, and radical DEI as the culprits behind many recent aviation accidents.

But what do the crashes suggest? We've gathered details about the major aviation accidents this year so you can decide for yourself why planes keep crashing:

American Airlines Blackhawk collision over D.C.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

In one of the deadliest U.S. aviation accidents in the last decade, an American Airlines plane collided with a Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. The American Airlines flight was approaching Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport carrying 60 passengers and four crew when it collided midair with the Army helicopter, crewed by three, killing all 67 people involved.

The exact cause behind the mid-air collision is still under investigation, but it is believed that the Black Hawk was up too high and outside of its designated flight path. A report from the New York Times suggests that the air control tower at the Ronald Regan Washington Airport has suffered years of understaffing, which seems to be a result of DEI hiring practices. Investigators are piecing through the wreckage, and the exact cause of the crash is still unknown.

Medevac explosion in Philadelphia

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On the night of Friday, March 31st, a medevac plane with six people on board crashed into a Philadelphia neighborhood, killing everyone on board, along with one man on the ground. The small jet departed from Northeast Philadelphia Airport at 6 pm, and according to the FAA, it crashed less than a minute later after reaching an elevation of 1,650 feet. The ensuing explosion cast a massive fireball into the sky and wounded 19 people on the ground, killing one.

The six people on board the jet were Mexican nationals, including a mother and her sick daughter who was receiving treatment from Shriners Children’s Hospital in northeast Philadelphia. As of now, there is no official cause of the crash, but much of the plane has been recovered, and the incident is being investigated.

Alaskan flight disappearance outside of Nome

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At approximately 3:16 pm, on Thursday, February 6th, a small commuter plane working for Bering Air, carrying 10 passengers, took off from the town of Unalakeet, Alaska, destined for the nearby town of Nome. After a few hours, Nome lost contact with the small plane as weather conditions worsened. The following day, the Coast Guard discovered the remains of the plane, all 10 occupants were dead.

The wreckage of the aircraft, along with the remains of the passengers and crew, have been recovered and are under investigation. While there has been no official explanation given for the crash, the poor weather is believed to be a major contributing factor.

Small jet collision in Scottsdale

Gabe Ginsberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The pilot of a small jet died after the aircraft crashed into a larger plane in Scottsdale, Arizona, on Monday, February 10th. The owner of the jet that crashed was Vince Neil, the frontman of the heavy metal band Mötley Crüe, but Neil was not on board at the time of the accident. The jet had just landed in Scottsdale, where it appeared to veer out of control and smash into a parked Gulfstream at high speed. The plane was carrying four people: two pilots and two passengers. One of the pilots was killed, and the other three were seriously injured. There was only one person aboard the Gulfstream at the time of the crash, they suffered injuries but refused treatment.

It is believed that the landing gear failed upon landing, which caused the jet to skitter out of control and smash into the parked plane.

Delta crash in Toronto

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Monday, February 17th, a Delta aircraft flipped while landing and slid upside down across the runway while ablaze at Toronto Pearson International Airport. Fortunately, all 80 people aboard survived, and only three people suffered critical (though not life-threatening) injuries. First responders were quickly on the scene, extinguishing the fires and assisting the grateful survivors out of the wreckage.

The crash is believed to have been caused in part by the extreme weather in Toronto, which included a powerful crosswind and potential ice on the runway. It is also suspected that the landing gear failed to deploy properly, causing the plane to flip in the severe wind.

Small plane collision north of Tucson

aviation-images.com / Contributor | Getty Images

On Wednesday, February 19th, yet another small plane crash occurred in the skies above Arizona. Two small aircraft collided midair near Tusosn, Arizona at Marana Regional Airport. There were two people in each of the small planes, two of which from the same aircraft died, while the other two managed to walk away with little injury.

Marana Regional Airport is an uncontrolled field, which means there is no active air traffic control present on site. Instead, pilots rely on communication with each other through a "Common Traffic Advisory Frequency" (CTAF) to safely take off and land.

Hudson helicopter crash

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A helicopter tour out of New York City took a tragic turn on Thursday, April 10th, when the Bell 206 broke apart mid-flight and plunged into the Hudson River. All six people aboard perished in the crash, which included the pilot and a tourist family of five.

New York Helicopter Tours, the operator of the flight, announced it would cease operations following the accident. The decision comes amid scrutiny of the company’s safety record, which includes a prior emergency water landing and another incident where a helicopter was forced to land shortly after takeoff due to mechanical issues. The cause of the crash remains under investigation.

Upstate New York family tragedy

Billie Weiss/Boston Red Sox / Contributor | Getty Images

Days after the tragic Hudson crash, a small private plane carrying an NCAA athlete crashed in upstate New York, killing all six passengers. On Saturday, April 12, 2025, Karenna Groff, a former MIT soccer player and 2022 Woman of the Year, was aboard her father's Mitsubishi MU-2B with her parents, boyfriend, brother, and his partner when the plane went down in a muddy field in Copake, New York.

The aircraft was reportedly in good condition, and Michael Groff, Karenna's father, was an experienced pilot. While the official cause of the crash has not been determined, low visibility at the time of the incident is suspected to have been a contributing factor.

The recent string of aviation incidents underscores a troubling trend in air travel safety, raising urgent questions about the systems and policies governing the industry. While data suggests flying remains statistically safe, the alarming frequency of crashes, near misses, and systemic issues like outdated technology and questionable hiring practices cannot be ignored. BlazeTV's own Stu Burguiere did a deep dive into the recent crashes in the Blaze Originals documentary, Countdown to the Next Aviation Disaster, uncovering the truth behind the FAA’s shift toward DEI hiring and its impact on aviation safety. Featuring exclusive interviews with former air traffic controllers, lawyers, and Robert Poole—the inventor of TSA PreCheck—this documentary exposes how the Biden-Harris administration’s policies, under Pete Buttigieg’s leadership, have contributed to making air travel more dangerous than ever.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.