Survey: Where do you stand on these conspiracy theories?

June 10, 2019

Thought Catalog / Unsplash

Glenn Beck

CEO/Founder

Have you seen this survey on the most-believed conspiracy theories in America?

It's no surprise the survey has been getting so much attention. The results are actually a pretty disturbing.

Infographic: Belief in Conspiracy Theories in the United States | Statista

I decided to put together a quick survey of my own, with slightly different wording.

Up-vote the ones you agree with and down-vote the ones you disagree with.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone. However, I would not be surprised to find out the government sealed evidence that others were involved.

If by "deep state" you mean long-time Washington power brokers who are used to calling the shots and now feel threatened by Donald Trump not listening to their advice or council — yes, I do believe that many people like that are working against him and his administration.

Whether alien bodies are in Area 51 or not, I do believe the government knows more about UFOs than they have told us.

I do not believe the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, but as we know, NSA advisor Sandy Berger was caught destroying documents from the national archives related to both Bush and Clinton. All U.S. administrations have been to close to the Saudis, and the Saudis were involved in 9/11 at some level.

I believe the climate is always changing — it's natural. I would be willing to accept that man MAY play a role in this. But I do not believe in the solutions currently being discussed, nor do I believe the intention of most political activists are pure.

Any talk of the Illuminati provides the true dangers to man's freedom — like very powerful NGOS and men like George Soros — a perfect cover.

The U.S. government has done some horrible experiments on people and land — I also suspect they will do more things in the future. But I do not believe in the systematic spraying of chemicals using chemtrails.

The moon landing was real, but I see a time coming when people will not be able to trust their eyes due to deep fakes.

What do you think?

Let me know in the comments section below.

Did the New York Times SUPPRESS 'Chasing Embers'?

Glenn once again made his mark on the New York Times bestselling list with his newest book—and first novel for young adults— Chasing Embers, ranking No. 8 on the Bestselling Young Adult Hardcover Books list. But is the New York Times once again cooking the books against Glenn?

This isn't the first time the New York Times has been accused of cooking the books against authors who go against their narrative.

Chasing Embers falls behind other trending teen novels like Darkness Within Us, Shadows Between Us, and Nightbane. Yet, according to the raw sales, Chasing Embers sold twice as much as the number one spot, Reappearance of Rachel Price. While all the other entries are, for the most part, listed sequentially after the number one spot according to raw sales, Chasing Embers sits at the number eight spot with twice the amount of sales than the top five, and three to four times the amount of sales as the bottom five.

Is the New York Times suppressing Glenn's ranking because of his political stances or Chasing Embers' anti-establishment message? If so, it wouldn't be the first time.

Glenn's previous non-fiction book, Dark Future, published in 2023, quickly made it on the New York Times Bestselling Non-Fiction Hardcover list at the No. 13 spot. However, if the list were determined by raw sales alone, Dark Future would have been ranked number seven on the list. While Greg Gutfeld's book, The King of Late Night, had fewer sales than Dark Future, it outranked Dark Future in the No. 5 slot. Moreover, Granger Smith's faith-based nonfiction book, Like a River, was excluded from the list, even though it received nearly twice as many sales as the list's No. 1 spot, Outlive, by Dr. Peter Attia.

Is the New York Times suppressing Glenn's ranking because of his political stances or Chasing Embers' anti-establishment message?

This isn't the first time the New York Times has been accused of cooking the books against authors who go against their narrative. Legendary author James Patterson, who holds the Guinness World Record for the most #1 New York Times bestsellers, criticized the list as "inaccurate," recounting how his book, Walk The Blue Line, which tells the real-life stories of law enforcement officers, wasn't even on the New York Times Bestseller List for the first week after publication, despite its sales outperforming its competitors. Once it was on the list, it continued to rank below books it had significantly outperformed, according to raw sales. The ongoing discrepancy between Patterson's ranking and raw sales raised suspicions that the New York Times was silently publishing Walk The Blue Line''s pro-police message.

Is the New York Times at it again? Perhaps the once-acclaimed source for the top-trending books of the day has lost its credibility. If you want to read the books the New York Times is trying to suppress, like Chasing Embers and Dark Future, click HERE.

The RADICAL track record behind Kamala's VP pick, Tim Walz

JIM WATSONCHRIS KLEPONIS / Contributor | Getty Images

It's just under two weeks until the Democratic National Convention takes place in Chicago, and the assumed Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, has just announced that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will be her running mate in the 2024 election.

Governor Walz has been in politics since 2006 when he was first elected to Congress where he represented Minnesota's first district. He was elected Governor in 2019.

Walz has a spotty track record, which seems par for the course for the current Democratic ticket. As Glenn pointed out on air recently, Governor Walz is every bit as radical as Kamala, which indicates exactlyhow Kamala will govern if she should win the election in November.

Walz has proven to be a radical and incompetent governor, a dangerous compliment to Kamala.

Walz was brought on board to bolster Kamala in the Midwestern states, some of which Biden barely won in 2020, and to win over middle-class Americans, a class of voters the Democrats the taken major losses in recently. While the Governor certainly attempts to come across as a moderate, middle-class Midwesterner, a quick look at his record shows a different story. The first thing Walz did after being elected governor was to institute a statewide diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, which he has renewed. Just last week, Walz defended socialism during the “White Dudes for Harris” livestream, a fundraising event for the assumed Democratic nominee.

— (@)

Walz was also responsible for the state of Minnesota's response—or lack thereof—to the BLM riots of 2020. Walz stood by as the BLM riots burned down city after city across his state, resulting in millions of dollars in damage. In Minneapolis alone, the rioters did $55 million in damages while Walz watched from afar.

Walz was one of the many governors who bungled their state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He wasted millions of dollars on unused morgues and a fraudulent scheme involving money that was supposed to go towards feeding poor children. Overall, Tim Walz has proven to be a radical and incompetent governor, a dangerous compliment to Kamala.

We can't forget his military experience.

His service in the Army National Guard has been a selling point for Governor Walz during his many political campaigns over the years, but his service wasn't as honorable as he claims it to be. While it is true that Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard for approximately 20 years, he resigned as soon as he learned that his unit was going to be sent to Iraq. While Walz claims that his term of obligated service had ended, National Guard records contradict that story, showing that he left early to avoid being deployed. The records also show that Walz snuck out of the National Guard rather quickly and failed to complete the required paperwork with his retirement filing showing “Soldier not available for signature.” Walz, who was a key leader in his battalion, abandoned his fellow soldiers right when he was needed most.

How did Kamala reckon he would be a good pick for VP?

Glenn Beck: Donald Trump is not a fascist

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

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

The Republican nominee is an enemy of the collective, a champion of the individual, and a defender of the republic.

Somebody tried to kill Donald Trump because he was convinced that Trump's a fascist. Let’s look into that definition. What exactly does it mean to be a fascist? The media is convinced that Trump is in the same echelon as Hitler, yet journalists never say what it actually means to be a "fascist." How convenient.

It appears some definitions of fascism have changed recently in the dictionaries that conveniently appear to reflect the leftist agenda driving the media narrative. Having read them, I can see why you might think Donald Trump is a fascist.

If you can’t trust your vote, you don’t have a democracy. You don’t have a republic. You have nothing.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, fascism is a:

Political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945. ... Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism.

Let’s break this down. First, many people may claim that Donald Trump is a fascist because he wants a strong military. Yes, he does want a strong military, but as a means of deterrence, not aggression. When you have strength, nobody wants to hit you because they know you'll hit back — and probably hit back harder. You need to be the tough guy on the playground.

Tough guys often do become fascistic, however. They promote “forever wars” by interfering in foreign conflicts. That's what makes Trump different than most Republicans. Trump hates war and hates the conflict of war. That’s why he separated from so many people on the right for so long.

Luckily, many of us have woken up and realized that these wars that our leaders put us in never end. They're ridiculous to fight. We always seem to lose in the end, one way or another, because it's not our responsibility to go in and tell other people how to live. That’s not fascistic. I just think that’s right.

The Encyclopedia Britannica continues to describe fascists as having a “contempt for the electoral democracy.” We've been having a discussion recently about what a democracy is. Are we a democracy, or are we a republic? You can do your own homework on this. America’s founders were very clear. In fact, when Ben Franklin walked out of the constitutional convention and a woman asked him what form of government they had adopted, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it." This was something that we all understood up until Woodrow Wilson started changing things.

Democracies last for a very short time. The average constitution lasts 17 years, but our Constitution is coming up on its 235th anniversary. Why? Because we have balanced democracy with a republic. Democracy is “one man, one vote.” You vote for a representative. Once you are done voting, then the representative begins to vote on your behalf. That’s where it’s gotten screwed up because we’re not electing good and honest people — people with our own values. It’s also screwed up because we can’t trust our vote. If you can’t trust your vote, you don’t have a democracy. You don’t have a republic. You have nothing.

This is why the Republicans have been saying that we need paper ballots. We need to have ID requirements on Election Day. This is not something that fascists do. This is something that they do at your 7-Eleven when you go to buy beer. This is something you must have if you’re driving a car. This is something you need if you're going to college or applying for work in many places. You need to have an ID to vote. That’s not racist. That’s not fascist. That’s protecting the “democratic” part of our democratic republic.

Yet the government wants you to have some sort of a vaccine ID to enter buildings. How could you be in favor of the government interfering in a decision as personal to you and your body as getting an experimental drug? Yet you don't want people to have any form of ID to show that they're a citizen and a registered voter? That is not a democracy. That’s just corruption.

Encyclopedia Britannica also defines fascism as “a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites.” This is something that I used to disagree with vehemently for a long time with liberals. They used to say, “These corporations are going to take over the world because they're so powerful.” They were right. In my lifetime, I never thought a corporation could be as powerful, corrupt, and controlling as the government. Before AI and before Google, elites didn't have that power. But they have that power now. We are now living under the ruling of elites. If you didn’t go to the right college, if you don’t hold the right opinion, you’re not an elite. You’re an idiot. And we “idiots” are told to only listen to the elites.

Encyclopedia Britannica also says that fascism is “a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a ... ‘people’s community.’” This is where it gets interesting. This is where they equate Donald Trump’s love for his country to “nationalism.” They think he’s trying to replicate 1930s Germany. That is deeply misguided. What makes us great isn't about any particular race. What makes us different is our heritage.

This society was forged by people who came here from all over the world. How could we possibly be anti-immigrant? People self-selected to come here and forge the West. Have you watched a Western? Have you watched a cowboy movie? Have you watched “1883”? Have you watched “The Magnificent Seven”? Have you seen “Horizon,” the new Kevin Costner film? These people were insane. I have a grandmother who lost an eye while crossing the mountains. She just yanked it out and said, "Keep moving." These people were nuts. That's what made us. That’s what makes us different. Our heritage is one of explorers, of risk takers. That’s why we’re good entrepreneurs.

But in fascist Germany and Italy, individual interest was subordinated to the good of the nation. The individual didn’t matter. It was the collective that mattered. That’s a key sign of fascism.

Who is the champion of the individual? Who is the figurehead of the party who champions the collective? Let me answer that clearly: Donald Trump is an enemy of the collective, a champion of the individual, and a defender of the republic. He is anything but a fascist.

Yes, Republicans ARE weird, and that's a GOOD thing

Leon Neal / Staff | Getty Images

Ever since Kamala Harris has become Biden's de facto replacement, mainstream media and Democrats alike suddenly jumped onto a simple yet effective new attack against the Right: they've started calling us "weird." This simple word has gained traction so rapidly among left-wing pundits and politicians alike that Glenn said he suspects some behind-the-scene coordination is in play.

The strange appearance of the word "weird" can be traced back to an MSNBC interview last week with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who called Trump and Vance "weird." The saying gained popularity when the Democratic Governors Association posted the following image on X after the interview:

Exactly right. pic.twitter.com/Y7UYjSyy7o
— Democratic Governors (@DemGovs) July 24, 2024

Why is this "weird" attack so effective? As Glenn pointed out on air recently, it's difficult for Republicans to respond to such a claim without sounding like "the schoolmarm." When Democrats call Republicans weird, the knee-jerk reaction is to play by their new rules: to point out the Left's "weirdness" in response. While this is certainly a fair reaction—and a warranted one—if you respond this way, you have taken the bait. As Glenn pointed out, "The happy warrior wins." All the Left has to do is keep their cool and say, "See, look how weird they are!"

The reason this strategy is so effective is because in essence, the Left is correct, and the Right is weird—if you look at it the right way.

Weird is a relative term—weird compared to what? Compared to today's culture of identity politics, gender-affirming care for minors, drag queen blasphemy at the Olympics, and embracing Marxism? If that is the standard of "normal," then yes, conservatives are very strange indeed. For years, the Right has defined itself by opposition to the mainstream media, Hollywood, elitists, and other such trendsetters. Apparently, the Left is only just beginning to catch on. If refusing to participate in such "thrilling" events like "White Women for Kamala" or "White Dudes for Harris" makes you weird, then maybe it's better to be weird.

Don't fall for this playground bully tactic. There are more important things to worry about. The election is far from won, and we have to choose between a president who is "weird" when compared to the Left's standard of normalcy and a president who will take America further down the radically progressive road that has nearly destroyed this country over the past four years. This November, the choice is yours.

Glenn's Show Prep