Glenn: Here's the truth on Benghazi

Tonight I want to cover two scandals and in these two scandals – Benghazi and the IRS – remember that timing is everything. Just last week, it was a week ago Saturday, the president was speaking to graduating students and of all of the messages that he could deliver to people, here’s the one he thought was the important message.

VIDEO

President Obama Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.

This is one of the most incredible things. Okay, I can’t take his voice anymore. To actually hear this guy, this is exactly the opposite of George Washington, this is the opposite of Kennedy, for the love of Pete. No president ever says Don’t worry about government tyranny. Are you kidding me? That’s what has made us America and it is something really bizarre for the most powerful man on the planet to say. It kind of wreaks of Hey, here’s my license and registration, Officer. And by the way, there’s nothing absolutely of interest in the trunk, so you shouldn’t look.

The definition of Tyranny: “Cruel or oppressive government rule.” Oppressive Rule: “The unjust exercise of authority.” Now, what would that mean, “the unjust exercise of authority”? Well, you’re looking for tyranny, I don’t have to explain it. Let me have the guys this morning on MSNBC explain it.

VIDEO – Morning Joe Show MSNBC

Man: One other point to make, there’s been many overblown claims of tyranny and abuse of power from the government over the last few years. We’ve had those, “we’re coming for your guns,” that kind of thing. This is tyranny.

Man: This is.

Man: If this is a government, a non-partisan agency coming after specific groups, this time it’s real.

This time, this time it’s real. I hope “this time” it’s not too late. We’re going to get to the IRS scandal here in a minute, but we need to lead with the thing that I think, I hope, or I think the people in the administration are hoping will just go away, because I hope all of the people in Washington are terrified of the news media actually on this story – Benghazi.

Why would they be terrified? Well, because of the one thing that no one really is reporting on yet and it is the truth, what’s really going on with Benghazi. The government is running guns and aid to our enemies: the Muslim Brotherhood, they go into the hands of al Qaeda, other Islamic radical groups and what they’re doing is fomenting revolutionary democracy. They’re running guns.

Ambassador Stevens was the point man for the exchange of guns. When it comes to what happened on September 11, they had forewarning. It came under attack by terrorists. The administration knew it, they watched it happen in real-time, they stopped the military from intervening and they are covering up and have done so by validating the radical Islamist excuse of Islamophobia in an attempt for sympathy and leniency on their murderous attacks. The Pentagon, the CIA, the White House and the State Department, they’re all involved.

And the scariest part is, it continues today. No one will speak out about this yet, but it’s coming. I believe this to be the worst scandal and worst cover up in our nation’s history and we’ve had some bad, bad scandals. The president wants you to look away from this, but we mustn’t as a country. If we don’t solve this problem this time around, God help us, because the administration will be completely out of control.

On September 11, 2012, the president was informed of an ongoing attack in Benghazi. He then decided, strangely, to announce to the world two days later that he just turned in for the night and he said You just tell me what happens in the morning. That should have been the media’s first red flag. Wait a minute, the guy is running for reelection, in the middle of a campaign, there’s an ambassador that’s killed, why would he come out and say Yeah, I was a little sleepy. I went to sleep. They were protecting him. They’re saying, Mr. President, if this ever gets out, you couldn’t be in the room. That was the first red flag, but let’s review on what they said.

First of all, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and the president said that the best intelligence suggested that Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest gone bad.

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton: We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.

VIDEO – Meet the Press

Susan Rice: What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous, uh, reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, uh, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

VIDEO – Face the Nation

Susan Rice: It began spontaneously in Benghazi uh as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: We saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack. That it was, we saw evidence that it was sparked by uh the reaction to this video.

VIDEO

President Obama: This was a crude and disgusting video that sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

This is a really important time. This September 25, really important time, because the president said today, he said he released somebody to go up to Capitol Hill and say it was an attack. Yet two or three days later, he said this, so which is it, Mr. President? It’s only getting worse for them. Every day that goes by, the more they’re on the record, the worse it gets.

They said there was no indication that what happened in Libya was terrorism.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: I’m simply saying that based on the information of what we initially had available and have available, we do not have any indication at this point of premeditation or preplanned attacks.

Okay, here’s the truth – No protest ever took place.

VIDEO

Congressman Trey Gowdy: When Ambassador Stevens talked to you, perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what precisely did he say to you?

Greg Hicks: He said, “Greg, we’re under attack.”

Congressman Trey Gowdy: Would a highly decorated, career diplomat have told you or Washington had there been a demonstration outside his facility that day?

Greg Hicks: Yes, sir, he would have.

Congressman Trey Gowdy: Did he mention one word about a protest or a demonstration?

Greg Hicks: No, sir. He did not.

No intelligence report, phone call, evidence or anything ever suggested otherwise. In fact, every report from the ground indicated this was clearly a coordinated terror attack planned by a group – not an act of terror by angry protestors. When caught in that lie, the White House tried to shuffle the blame on to the CIA saying the Benghazi talking points that blamed the video were put together by the Intelligence community.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: Those talking points originated from the Intelligence community. They reflected the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.

Right. Here’s the truth. There was an extensive amount of input from the State Department, specifically Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson concerning the edits.

VIDEO

Reporter: I have obtained 12 different versions of those talking points that shows that they were dramatically edited by the administration.

Dramatically. Jay Carney said the administration made one change to the talking points – one.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: And the only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the CIA was a change from uh, referring to the, the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post.” I think I had referred to it as a diplomatic facility, I think it may have been diplomatic post.

That is incredibly specific. But here’s the truth, there were 12 major revisions that went beyond stylistic. Jay Carney said the edits didn’t change the substance of the talking points.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: But the point being, it was a matter of uh, uh, non-substantive, factual correction.

Right. Anybody watch, anybody watch last week? Buck Sexton was on and he had it all on the chalkboard, all of the changes. The truth is, the State Department edits deleted all reference to the al-Qaeda affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia as well as references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. The edits prove the administration knew from day one that this was a planned terror attack and specifically went out of their way to provide cover for the terror groups involved in the attack.

Why? And then why would you instead direct the blame on America and American freedom and a filmmaker? It proves that Hillary Clinton lied in the face of families of the fallen Americans while she gave that speech when she said, “We are going to do everything we can to make sure that the guy who made this video goes to jail.” And they put him in jail. Hillary Clinton also said there was no advanced intelligence that warned of an attack.

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton: And with all of our missions overseas in advance of September 11th, as is done every year, we did an evaluation on threat streams. And the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.

Key word – actionable. I’ll get to that in a second, but here’s the truth. September 8th, three days before the attack, a local security official met with American diplomats in the city and he warned them about the deteriorating security. He told the U.S. officials, “The situation is frightening. It scares us….” And Gregory Hicks said this.

VIDEO

Greg Hicks: In Bahrain, my Shia opposition contacts gave me advanced warning of impending attacks on our embassy and anti-American demonstrations, allowing us to prepare and avoid injuries to staff.

Okay. We received a quote from one our sources, “Everyone in the Intelligence community knew this attack was coming.” This bolsters Hicks’ account and further proves Hillary Clinton was lying when she said there was no advanced intelligence or warning of any pending attacks. However, she used “actionable.”

Well, if you want to excuse her by using the word “actionable,” then we have to know the answer to this question: why were you confused, why did you swear you were going to arrest a filmmaker, because you did have intelligence. Maybe it wasn’t actionable at the time, but once it broke, you knew.

Just a few hours ago, about noon, the president again talked about the video. Here’s what he said today.

VIDEO

President Obama: Immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had been, uh, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time as we had seen uh, attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film.

Unbelievable. But here’s the truth, there was no protest in Benghazi. It was an attack. The protests in Egypt weren’t about the video either. He’s lying again. We know that the 9/12 Egypt protests were about the imprisonment of the Blind Sheik; a terrorist serving a life sentence in the States for his role in the ’93 World Trade Center bombings. So he’s making this up yet again!

No one even knew this video existed. There were no media reports prior to September 11, 2012. It had virtually no views. People weren’t even motivated to email it, let alone protest and kill somebody over it. It is a mountain of lies.

Let me give you a flashback from the debates.

VIDEO

President Obama: And the suggestion that anybody on my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.

Oh, well, I want the president to know, I’m not only suggesting it, I’m declaring it and I agree, it is offensive. It’s sick. And so why would this administration do it and then lie? Well, a few reasons. One, it fits with their political correctness theme; their embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals. It also provides political cover for the administration’s lie that al-Qaeda was defeated.

But it goes deeper than that, and this is the one thing that you’re not going to get the Republicans to talk about either. And believe me, believe me, at the highest levels, they know. It goes back to the original theory that we broadcast here on this network just a few days after Libya, and on Friday Geraldo Rivera reported on that very thing, about what we talked about days after Benghazi he said he’s now hearing from his sources – arming the Syrian rebels. Watch.

VIDEO

Geraldo Rivera: I believe and my sources tell me they were there to round up those shoulder-fire surface to air missiles, they were going to hand those missiles over to the Turks and the Turks were going to give them to the rebels in Syria. It was like Iran Contra. I think that it merits gigantic investigations. It will all become clear—

Okay, this is really interesting, because FOX News should either discredit Gerald Rivera and make it clear that his sources were wrong, or they should follow that story up. We made the same prediction on September 17th. We’re a scrappy little media group. I don’t have the global resources of Fox or ABC or CBS, but we’re still breaking ground on this story.

Why is it the big networks, with all of those resources have nothing? Well, actually they do. CBS News has spiked a couple of stories on this. Yet, the problem is, is that the head of CBS News, he has a brother and his brother happens to be the guy who changed all the talking points on Benghazi – David Rhodes. Now this is the head of ABC. This is Ben Sherwood. I actually like the guy. He’s a friend, but he’s wrong here. Give him credit, they did break the story on Friday and they were the ones that broke the damn, but his brother is President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, no, that’s this person. Ben’s is his sister. His sister is Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood. She is the Special Assistant to the President. And then you have Jay Carney. Well, Jay Carney is married to somebody, she just happens to be the Senior National Correspondent, Claire Shipman.

Let’s see, CBS, ABC, NBC. Hello! NBC spiked the story this weekend – Gregory Hicks, the whistleblower – they spiked it. The story is a Democrat, a Democrat that voted for Hillary Clinton. But NBC didn’t think that that was important. Maybe the president mocked the idea of tyranny lurking around the corner, because it’s not around the corner. It’s already here. It’s not only here with Benghazi, it is also here with the IRS. And please, Dear God, pray that your neighbors open their eyes, because the IRS becomes the healthcare enforcer in just a few months. And we’ll show you what the press has finally recognized that the IRS has been doing for the last couple of years, next.

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 America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

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?

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.