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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Buck Sexton on Obama scandal week: “there's no way that they will be able to get out of this unscathed”

May 14, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Glenn spoke with TheBlaze national security editor and host of Real News Buck Sexton about the horrific week the Obama administration is having as several lies and scandals are finally becoming front page news. Most of the time the press feigns interest for a day or two and moves on - why will this time be different?

Read Buck's Op-Ed on the White House scandals HERE.

GLENN: Buck Sexton is here. He is our national security editor for TheBlaze. He just wrote a piece: Obama under siege from scandals. And it's ‑‑ you seem to be saying here, Buck, that you think this could take the administration down?

BUCK: Hey, Glenn. Yeah, there's no way that they will be able to get out of this unscathed meaning that the, at a minimum, nevermind what the actual mechanisms could be in play here for resignations and perhaps even ‑‑ I've never said that anyone ‑‑ that I thought that President Obama was at risk of impeachment. Depending on what we find out from this, I can't say that I don't think that's a possibility anymore. It depends on what these investigations show us. But the ‑‑

GLENN: Yesterday I ‑‑ yesterday I didn't call for it. I called for a thorough investigation and an independent committee to look at because let's see if they rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors provable, provable high crimes and misdemeanors. But I think he's absolutely impeachable on this if you can get enough whistleblowers to actually testify, if they don't scare them all away.

BUCK: I'm absolutely with you on that, Glenn. That's the question. What's provable here. What this administration is incredibly adept at is making sure that the bureaucracy is a place where they can hide, you know, the midlevel people and no one ever thinks that they are really going to get in trouble. It's easy to blame them and they always cut off the top level guys from that direct exposure. But, you know, the character and the intent of the administration now, I think for really any American who's ever going to open their eyes ‑‑ and there are some who won't ever do it. I know that. You know that. There's some who will just, they will be on the hope and change train until it goes off the cliff. They don't care. But anyone who's actually paying attention knows now that Benghazi has proved they will lie, the IRS scandals prove they will cheat, and the AP has proved they will steal, at least when it comes to records of journalists. So it's really astounding that all these things have come together at once and I think no matter what happens now, Glenn, nobody is ever going to be able to look at the Obama administration the same way. Claiming grotesque incompetence and negligence to get you out of scandal after scandal at some point changes people's opinion of you at a minimum if they can't prove, as you point out, that there was direct White House orders given for any of these issues.

GLENN: Okay. So let me take Benghazi. Let's play this audio from Panetta. This was the first real red flag. I mean, we were getting sources on this the night that it happened, but I ‑‑ for the regular people, if you're watching, when Leon Panetta went to congress and said, "Here's what happened on that day." Listen to this little piece of information.

PANETTA: But as to specifics about time, et cetera, et cetera, no, he just left that up to us.

AYOTTE: Did you have any further communications with him that night?

PANETTA: No.

AYOTTE: Did you have any other further communications, did he ever call you that night to say how are things going, what's going on, where's the consulate?

PANETTA: No.

AYOTTE: Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?

PANETTA: No.

AYOTTE: No one else called you to say, "What ‑‑ how are things going?"

PANETTA: No.

AYOTTE: But just to be clear, that night he didn't ask you what assets we had available and how quickly they could respond and what we could do to help those individuals?

PANETTA: I think the biggest problem that night, Senator, was that nobody knew really what was going on there.

AYOTTE: And there was no followup during the night, at least from the White House directly?

PANETTA: No.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: So when I heard that, Buck, I thought, okay, we're in the middle of a presidential campaign. What he is saying is the president, while an ambassador was being killed and we had an embassy under siege, you want to make the president look like this robust hero. You want to make him look ‑‑ I mean, he was practically PhotoShopped into the picture in the Osama Bin Laden compound, and what do they do here? They make sure to announce clearly to everybody he was nowhere near. He had nothing to do with it, no calls, no nothing. I knew immediately, gun‑running. There's something very, very bad going on in this embassy and they know if it comes out, it will taint him. So he just disappeared that night. Am I reading this wrong?

BUCK: Yeah, I don't want to be flippant about this, but I was willing to stay up all night many times to study for sociology tests when I was in college. And the fact that the president didn't roll up his sleeves and didn't not go to sleep at all until he found out exactly what was happening with the U.S. ambassador. I mean, he's the commander this chief.

PAT: Incredible.

BUCK: It's so beyond the pale of what's acceptable and even the ideas that you've laid out now about how he may have been ‑‑ I think there were two things going on. There was a panic, if you will, a panic that came from the possibility that maybe things would come to light that they did not want to come to light and, you know, I'm being circumspect about these things on purpose. There's also the other side of this which is just the recognition that if the president accepted the fact, accepted his responsibility that he was in ‑‑ he was the head of the military that night, he is the leader of this country, then he would have to make decisions that would be attributable to him. Instead ‑‑ because you understand how the machinery works ‑‑ he allowed subordinates to handle this. I'm sure he gave them direction, don't get me wrong, but he just left enough plausible deniability so that we are where we are now, which is a place where we recognize all these decisions that were made were political. We left people out there to die. We did not call in the cavalry but, oh, the president, we don't know what he was doing then. They managed to do what they intended to do that night.

GLENN: I tell you that doesn't make any sense to me and here's why: Because, you know, if somebody is on the scene of the ‑‑ now, here's the scary thing. It doesn't seem to matter to America. But if you're really, if you're the president of the United States, it is better to have tried and failed than to not try at all. And our president walked away and said, "I'm going to bed, guys. Goodnight." I'm telling you, what they did was they had to isolate.

Buck, I know you're being circumspect of all of this stuff, and it's the right thing to do, but I'm telling you we were running guns and missiles over to Turkey. We know about the boat, we know about the captain, we know about all of it. Between what was happening with the ambassador and what was happening with gun‑running ‑‑ and I'll let the press figure that one out ‑‑ between those two things, they told the president, "You can't be anywhere near this." He knew. He knew. So Buck, you have faith that this is ‑‑ this somehow or another is actually going to be pursued, that the media is not somehow or another, they actually get it this time?

BUCK: Glenn, if it's not now, it's never. If the American people, if the media specifically in this case ‑‑ I mean, this isn't a shot across the bow for the media. I mean, this is a full volley into their hole. I mean, this is absolutely a declaration that you have no rights whatsoever under the First Amendment as a press organization. If the federal government believes that you have this was that it wants, it's going to get it, and it doesn't matter if they bring in a whole lot of innocent people in the process. There is so little dignity left, I think, Glenn, for the big media. And by the way, I know you must have felt a tremendous amount of pride, I know I did just being a member of TheBlaze team when this IRS story breaks and we're like, "Hey, yeah, TheBlaze, we were writing about this over a year ago. We were telling you about this, you know, this organization that's relatively new compared to the New York Times. And they now, if they want to get any shred of credibility back, if they want anyone to think that they are, in fact, worthy of the title "journalist," they will go after this like it is the D‑day invasion. I mean, they will put all their resources into exposing the administration on this.

Will they do it, Glenn? At this point it's hard for me to be disappointed in the media and it's hard for me to be disappointed in honestly Americans who just refuse to accept what this administration is, which is an administration that is completely lacking in character, that politicizes everything, and views its hold on power as the single most important end that it has.

GLENN: Real quick I've only got about a minute but there is one other factor in them not covering things and that is fear. This administration is going after whistleblowers and they are destroying. And you being a guy in the CIA and have worked at the White House, you know what happens to everybody underneath. You just said it: They take care of everybody on top an they destroy anybody underneath.

BUCK: It couldn't be any easier, Glenn, for them to intimidate. You said whistleblowers coming forward, you are absolutely right. There are people right now I think who have information that could fill in the blanks that could change our ‑‑ already, I mean the perception, how much worse can it get? Oh, it can get worse.

GLENN: Oh, it's much worse.

BUCK: But there are people right now with that information who are facing financial ruin, the loss of their career and the loss of their freedom. They are not above doing that. They will put people in federal prison who speak out of turn, and they have ways of doing this. I mean, they can hold over. They can say, "We're not going to bring the charges now. We're going to bring them in a year when no one's paying attention to this issue." So anybody who comes out is taking a tremendous personal risk, they know that, and they threaten people. They threaten people all the time in the bureaucracy. And what do you have? You're a guy, you're not making that much money. You're going to go up against the federal government. They get paid to ruin your life. They don't care how much it costs. Meanwhile you've got a family to feed. So Glenn, this he know that they can probably stifle some whistleblowers but at this point some people may just say, "You know what? America's too precious and I don't even care anymore." And that's the wild card that they can't account for.

GLENN: I hope you're right, Buck. Thank you very much. The article is up on TheBlaze now: Obama under siege from scandals by Buck Sexton, why he thinks that this will neuter and forever change, scar, and neuter the White House, if not kick them out of the White House. Thanks, Buck. Talk to you again.

BUCK: Thank you.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.