U.S. Ambassador killed as Islamic extremists storm embassies in Libya, Egypt

On the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, chaos in the middle east erupted. First the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was swarmed by thousands of protesters who torn down the flag and replaced it with terrorist slogans - but then things really got ugly when a U.S. ambassador and three staffers were killed in Libya when their Embassy came under attack as well.

Read continuing coverage of the embassy attack HERE.

In Libya, an angry mob stormed the American embassy and in the ensuing violence the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three staffers were killed. CNN reports that RPGs were fired into the embassy and caused it to be engulfed in flames. Stevens and the three other staffers were separated from the rest of the people in the building.

CNN elaborates:

A senior U.S. official familiar with the details of the attack said a rocket-propelled grenade set the consulate ablaze, leaving the Americans facing a fire inside and attackers outside.

Stevens and the others who died were separated from the rest of the staff while trying to escape to the roof of the building. The official said there were several "valiant but unsuccessful" attempts to get back into the building and rescue them.

Stevens, Foreign Service information management officer Sean Smith and a U.S. regional security officer were in a safe room in the Benghazi post as it burned around them, according to CNN sources. The security official got out and went back for Stevens and Smith, but found Smith dead and recovered his body, the sources said.

Stevens managed to escape the burning house, but the sources did not know what his condition was when he got out. The sources said Smith died of smoke inhalation, but it was not clear how Stevens died.

Meanwhile in Cairo, Islamic radicals stormed the walls of the U.S. embassy in Egypt and tore down the American flag in protest of a film that mocked Muhammad and Islam.

AFP reported:

Nearly 3,000 demonstrators, most of them hardline Islamist supporters of the Salafist movement, gathered at the embassy in protest over a film deemed offensive to the Prophet Mohammed which was produced by expatriate members of Egypt's Christian minority resident in the United States.

A dozen men scaled the embassy walls and one of them tore down the US flag, replacing it with a black one inscribed with the Muslim profession of faith: "There is no God but God and Mohammed is the prophet of God."

Demonstrators also daubed part of that slogan -- "There is no God but God" -- on the walls of the embassy compound.

Upon reviewing the news, Glenn could not believe how America could react with any

"1979 is the last time somebody tried to kill our ambassador and they did kill our ambassador in 1979 under Jimmy Carter.  What a surprise.  What a surprise.  It has happened only five times and what a surprise, it was in the radical Sixties and Seventies.  And then America got tough and they stopped killing our ambassadors."

"Now, now that they have killed four embassy staff members and an ambassador and they have taken two embassies, not one, two different embassies and surprisingly ‑‑I mean, what are the odds, what a coincidence, on September 11th, that that just happened to be the day coincidentally.  They are sending us a message, and what was the message we sent back? "

Glenn said that, to this point, the response from the White House has been weak and unconvincing. Instead, the President should be making a strong stance against the radical groups who led these attacks and stop funding countries like Egypt and Libya whose governments are not friends of the United States.

"We are talking about Muslim extremists.  We're not talking about every Muslim," Glenn said. "They are animals.  And this president, what is he doing?  You know what this president should be doing?  He should be calling every congressman right now and saying I'm stopping all funding to Egypt, all of it.  I'm stopping all funding or any aid or anything else we're doing in Libya, all of it."

Glenn railed against Obama's previous praise of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian President Morsi, and the Arab Spring, as well as his disrespectful treatment of Israel.

"He won't meet with Benjamin Netanyahu but he's bringing the Muslim Brotherhood leader of Egypt into the White House! "

"Here's what the president should be doing today:  First of all, our warships should be on alert.  This is an act of war.  Just taking the embassy is an act of war.  We had two embassies taken in two Islamic countries yesterday by Islamic radicals.  They went in, they burned the flag.  That's an act of war.  We don't need another war and we certainly don't need another war in the Middle East and we certainly don't need it under this commander‑in‑chief.  But let's be clear.  That's an act of war.  Then they take our ambassador and they kill him!  What do you think?  Is that an act of war?"

"First thing, the first thing that has to be done is the president needs to address the American people and say, 'This is an act of war. Now, how the United States of America decides to handle this is an ongoing discussion and we'll let you know. But we're putting you on notice that we did notice you killed our ambassador and took two of our embassies. You don't push the United States of America around. Period. And by the way, we also notice that you did it on 9/11. We don't think that was a coincidence. Message received, Muslim Brotherhood. You'll receive our message. Here's the first thing we're going to do. Congress is not sending Egypt a billion dollars'," Glenn said.

"In about a month or so we're going to elect another president and he'll stand by you. He'll help you when you want to overthrow the Muslim Brotherhood."

"This president also should announce that he apologizes to Israel. Israel is fighting for their life. Ahmadinejad is coming over and speaking at the United Nations on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year. He's speaking and addressing the United Nations. The next day Benjamin Netanyahu is speaking at the United Nations. The president is going to be there. Benjamin Netanyahu is going to be there. But the president is too busy when he's in New York to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu. Remember, the guy, he has told he's never had a better friend. 'I've been the best friend Israel's ever had as a president.' But he's too busy. And what's on his schedule that he just can't cancel? He said that Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House came out and said that he can't meet with Benjamin Netanyahu. No, just can't do it. Don't have time; too busy. Oh, by the way, on that day I'm going to be ‑‑ I'm going to be on the David Letterman show. What do you think? Do you want a president that thinks that David Letterman is more important than our ally Israel? I think this is a pretty easy choice, America," Glenn continued.

"The other thing the president should be doing is closing these embassies. Pulling everybody out. Do you know that Canada just pulled their people from Iran? I'm telling you war is coming. Get our people out. And get our troops back home."

"This is not good. If you give this man (Obama) another four years, there will not be a country left. There's no way to survive the onslaught, the coopting of the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no way to survive the way this man spends money. "

"It's 1979 and as much as Bill Clinton looks like a dream come true to us, if you give this man another four years, America, Jimmy Carter is going to look like a dream come true.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?