Rep. Allen West in tight race

Florida Congressman Allen West joined Glenn on the radio program this morning. West is currently in a tight race in his Florida district, causing Glenn, and likely most of his radio audience, to question everything they know about common sense and America. The Congressman shared his thoughts of the presidential election, the situation in Benghazi, and the countries need for principled leadership.

We have Allen West on the phone. As we talk about Benghazi, there's nobody better to tell us exactly what we're prepared for and that we he don't leave any man behind than Allen West who's running again in Florida in a tight race, which makes me question everything that I think I know about America. But Allen, welcome to the program, sir.

WEST: It's always good to be with you, Glenn. How are you doing?

GLENN: I'm very good. Before we even start, thank you for everything you've done in the Service but thank you for being somebody who actually says the tough things. You're one of the only people that will really say the tough things. You and people like you, Michele Bachmann and Jim DeMint, you'll go right out on the front lines and you don't mind if you're shot even by your own side, and I appreciate that.

WEST: Well, that's what it takes. We have to have principled leadership that will go out there with courage and conviction and character.

GLENN: So tell me about Libya, Benghazi.

WEST: Well, I have to tell you first and foremost, you have to ask your he feels why was an ambassador at a consulate that was established basically in a combat zone. You know, one of the things I did not agree with first and foremost was that we did get involved in Libya. It was, you know, past the War Powers Act. So the president actually violated that. And I think he's kind of taking a hands‑off approach thereof. The most important thing is, you know, me being a former combat battalion commander, if you ever have men and women that are pinned down, if I ever send anybody out on a patrol that got pinned down and they called and asked for additional resources, the only response is how soon we can get it to them. And when I think about the highly technologically advanced military that we have, I just don't see how we were not able to provide the resources necessary for those individuals that are being engaged by radical Islamist terrorists, and we knew Al‑Qaeda was there, we knew that Al (inaudible) who was released in 2007 from Guantanamo Bay had stabbed and Al Sharia.

PAT: Allen, what do you make of Panetta's comments is one of our deals is that we don't send our military into any situation where we don't know the details?

GLENN: That's ridiculous.

PAT: That doesn't ring true to me at all. Is that accurate?

WEST: No, it does not ring true. And that really is not what the military is about. We go to the sound of the guns and we don't wait for the perfect situation. If you have people that are on the ground, that are engaged and they are requesting the help, you know, you don't sit around and try to develop the best possible scenario.

I'll give you another example in a short history back during the Clinton administration. I think everyone remembers the battle of Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down, the book and the movie. Well, those Rangers and Delta Force operators, General Garrison had asked for a C‑130 gunship support and also armored support. Then it was Secretary of Defense Les Aspen during the Clinton administration who denied that. And what was the result? 18 rangers and operators were killed, 75, 76 I believe were wounded. Yeah, they did kill over 2,000 Somali militiamen but it should have never gotten to that point. And I think that there's something deeper here that we have to look into.

Also no one's talking about the fact that the commander of Africom, General Carter Ham, who I know somewhat well has stepped down from commander of the African command and now just yesterday it says he's retiring. You don't find a combatant commander that is relieved out of his position early and then the next thing you know he's being retired. So there's a lot of questions we have to answer. But first and foremost, Glenn, we've got to relieve the current commander‑in‑chief.

GLENN: Okay. Let me just, let me clear something up. We've done a lot of work on General Ham, and General Ham's wife is terminal. This was something that he had been talking about for a while. However, it was expediated, I believe by his choice, and we have sources saying that he did stand up against Panetta and say, "What are you talking about?" And that's what has moved things forward. But it was his choice to leave. I just wish some of these guys would actually come out and say something because, you know, Napoleon's line has come to my head a lot. When they said, you know, where are you going to be? And he said, "Listen for the sound of the guns. That is where you'll find me."

WEST: You're exactly right and that's what leadership is. Leadership is being where the action is and that's how you are able to make the best possible decisions. And look, Glenn, always, you trust the person that's on the ground, the person that is engaged. And when you have two former Navy SEALs who are, you know, quite skilled and from what I understand they also had the targeted capability to lase these mortar positions and enemy positions. We could have gotten them support if just F‑16ing to go by and do a low fly‑by over those individuals to disrupt their operations.

GLENN: Thank you. You know, I was talking to a Navy pilot ‑‑ or an Air Force pilot the other day and he said, Glenn, you know what we should have done? We should have launched our fighter jets. He said we do this all the time. You fly at the speed of sound; they never see you coming.

PAT: 100 feet off the ground.

GLENN: 100 feet off the ground. He said we would have broken every window for blocks and he said we do it all the time. You're not hurting anybody, you're not launching anything. He said it freaks people out and you disperse a crowd that fast. Why didn't we do that?

WEST: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, how easy is that? That's ten minutes away.

WEST: You know, furthermore if as President Obama said that he gave an order to get the people on the ground everything they need, well, first of all, where is that written order? And if the commander‑in‑chief gave an order and some people subordinate to him disobeyed the order, then I want to though who disobeyed the order. This cannot go away. But I say most importantly we've got four days to make an incredible decision about the path of this constitutional republic. But then even after that, we're going to continue to press on and get the answers on this Benghazi thing. Because we cannot have something like this ever happen again.

GLENN: See, I have to tell you this is ‑‑ this goes to the election because I think we've lost common sense and common decency. I mean, the president is saying that he didn't ‑‑ we had to find out if it was a terrorist attack. Fox is now reporting this morning that they have a cable or they have seen a cable, they're not ‑‑ some of these cables are not being released but they're being shown to reporters. They have seen a cable from the State Department identifying the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack four hours into the seven‑hour gunfight.

WEST: Yeah.

GLENN: So he absolutely knew. But this goes to decency. The president was out on the campaign trail just the other day saying, you know ‑‑ he said this in four different speeches exactly the same way all on prompter: "You know, you've got to know if you can trust the president of the United States, and you know what I mean what I say." Really?

WEST: Well, you know, it's that. And also, I mean, all of a sudden you see him taking the pictures in the situation room for Hurricane Sandy. Why was he not in the situation room in on the 11th anniversary of September 11th we had countless amounts of embassies being attacked, being ransacked, we have the American flag being torn down. That's an act of war. That's your sovereign American territory. When you have a country like Sudan saying that we're not going to allow you to land your Marines to protect your embassy, that's where you've got to have leadership and that's what we are lacking right now and that's what we've got to replace in the White House.

GLENN: What do you ‑‑ who is the guy running ‑‑ you don't have to give him a name shout‑out but who is the guy running against you and what is different with you and the other guy?

WEST: Well, what you're looking at in my opponent, Mr. Murphy is, you know, a privileged young man who has had his father pretty much give him and do everything for him. His father has been funding, you know, six‑figure dollars into a House majority PAC which is a liberal Democrat PAC and then also establish for his son against me.

GLENN: Isn't he the guy ‑‑

WEST: He is a person who doesn't talk about any of the issues. All he is talking about is the reason why people should hate me. And I think that when you look at the high unemployment that we have in this country still and down here in the Treasure Coast area, the lack of opportunity for people to get out and get work, the tax situation, the regulatory environment, he stops talking about solutions, he just tries to demonize me, which is what you see all across with liberal progressive socialists, the Saul Alinsky school of thought. And we're going to do fine against him. We're going to be successful next Tuesday night. Don't worry.

GLENN: I'm not worried. I think that, I believe in the protection of divine and I believe there are millions of Americans that are ‑‑ still believe in that and are still harkening to the spirit and harkening to God and God is not neutral in freedom of all of mankind. And if America falls, freedom all over the world takes a mighty blow and it may take 1,000 years to be able to recover from it. And he's not neutral. His work isn't done. And as long as we are decent, God‑fearing people, we will be preserved to do his will. And I think that's exactly what you're going to see on Tuesday. I do.

WEST: Well, you're absolutely right. And as I always share with people, one of my favorite scriptures is Isaiah 54‑17 where it says no weapon formed against me shall prosper and every tongue which rises against me in judgment, you know, I shall condemn. But that's the heritage of those who will call and love the Lord.

So you know, I stand with my faith and my conviction. And I just want to thank you and so many others that are out there praying very hard for us down here. We've even got people that came in from Texas to help volunteer to get out in some neighborhoods for us. But this is a great event that it's going to be a great testimony to the strength and the courage of the United States of America next Tuesday night.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Allen West, appreciate it, and you have a good ‑‑ and you'll have a good election day.

WEST: Always a pleasure. Thanks, Glenn. God ‑‑

GLENN: Thank you, sir. Bye‑bye. Congressman Allen West on the program.

The SAVE Act scandal: Why are Democrats blocking voter security?

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.

Did Trump’s Liberation Day change the game? 3 bold takeaways revealed

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump’s new tariffs have sparked global outrage, and even conservatives are divided over the merits of his plan.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day" to usher in a new era for the American economy. This bold initiative began with the introduction of sweeping tariffs on most—if not all—countries trading with the United States. These tariffs are reciprocal, meaning the percentage charged to each country mirrors the tariffs they impose on U.S. goods. The goal was to level the playing field between America and its trade partners.

As Glenn predicted, these tariffs have caused some immediate damage to the economy; the stock market has been hit hard, and China has already imposed a retaliatory tariff. While many fear that a recession is inbound, along with a global trade war, others are trusting in Trump's plan, keeping their head and preparing to ride out this rough patch.

So, what exactly are these "Liberation Day" tariffs, and what happened on April 2? Here are the top three takeaways:

Baseline Tariff

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

To kick off Liberation Day, the White House unveiled a baseline tariff affecting all imports to the U.S. Starting April 5, 2025, every good entering the United States will face a 10% tariff, regardless of its country of origin. While some nations face additional tariffs on top of this baseline, others—like the UK, Australia, and Argentina—only pay the 10% rate. These countries enjoy this leniency because they impose relatively low tariffs on American goods.

Reciprocal Tariffs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For the countries that levied heavy tariffs against America, Trump hit them back hard. Cambodia, for instance, now faces a steep 49% tariff, while China contends with 34%, the EU with 20%, and Iraq with 39%. While these tariff rates may seem steep, they are all a good bit lower than the rates they apply against the U.S (see the full chart here). Trump’s strategy is to make foreign goods prohibitively expensive, encouraging manufacturing and jobs to return to American soil. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Canada and Mexico

Aaron M. Sprecher / Contributor, Chris Jackson / Staff | Getty Images

Notably absent from the "Liberation Day" tariff list are Canada and Mexico, America’s closest neighbors. That’s because Trump already imposed tariffs on them earlier this year. In February 2025, he slapped a 25% tariff on most goods imported from both countries to pressure them into curbing the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Exceptions include agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other items protected under NAFTA.

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.