What if The President is telling the truth?

May 24, 2013

Writer

It’s been painfully obvious the administration is distorting the truth and even outright lying when it comes to the scandals plaguing the White House. But what if the story the White House is spinning is actually true - that the President, Holder, Hillary and other top officials don’t know anything about anything. What does that say about the administration? Glenn had more on radio today.

I want to go over something I went over last night on the TV show. It's a really simple question, really simple question. With these scandals that are going on around the White House, it's time for the American people to use some logic and ask themselves this question: What if the president and the top officials in his administration are actually telling the truth? Let's take the man at his word, and it's really hard to do seeing that this ‑‑ the truth keeps shifting six or seven times just in the last few days. It makes it quite a leap of faith to believe anything that they say. But today I really want you to take him at his word and let's say they really didn't know about any of these scandals. The story line the administration wants you to believe, and they want you to believe it because that somehow or another is better for them. If it's really the truth, does it matter? It's really hard to believe that this is the truth, but I'm going to give it to you just as they have laid it out and then ask you if you believe it and then ask you to believe it for a second and ask what does it say. Where does it leave us? What does it say about the future of our country? What does it say about this president? Are we headed in the right direction? Will we and our children be more safe or less safe? Let's follow their lead. Let's take them at their word. The mantra of this administration in the face of all three of these scandals is "We don't know, we weren't aware, I don't ‑‑ I don't know exactly, I certainly didn't know anything and there certainly was no knowledge at the White House." Those are all quotes. So pull back and think about those things. Three huge scandals and no one in the White House or around the president knew. That's what they're asking you to believe. But I want to ask you to believe it for a second. What does that mean if it actually is the truth? On the IRS the president wants you to believe that even though the IRS commission visited ‑‑ the commissioner visited the White House 118 times and the IRS commissioner knew about the scandal for over a year, that most of his senior White House staff knew of the scandal for over a year, the media was reporting on the targeting, TheBlaze had broken the news in 2012. And I want you to know we know for a fact. We know for a fact that this president is very aware of the things that we say. We know for a fact because we know people who have been in rooms. We know for a fact that this president discusses the things that we discuss on this program. So despite the fact that not only us but the media was reporting on the targeting in February 2012, this president had no idea. The charges were brought up at a congressional hearing last year. He always seems to find out things from the news. That was in the news. No one told him. He didn't ask. His own team was debating internally at the White House with IRS officials on how to manage the public relations fallout, and somehow or another he didn't know. Despite all of this swirling around, despite the fact that a president is also a political animal, politics matter, no one went and cracked open his door and said, "Mr. President, we have a problem." No one asked him anything. He still doesn't know anything. Carney has said "We weren't aware of any activity or any review." Really? The president has said "I can assure you I certainly didn't know anything."

It's virtually impossible for the president to have not known anything about this scandal. It's virtually impossible... unless he is completely isolated. There are millions of ways he could have found out: The news, his staff, 118 visits, little coffee klatches, actually listening to people. But he didn't know. Let's take him at his word. What does that mean? That means that this president, the IRS commissioner reports directly to the president. The IRS commissioner was meeting at the White House 118 times. It's under the treasury. He meets with the treasury. It is literally down the hallway. You've got to go downstairs and through a hallway underground and you're in the treasury building. The treasury is next door to the White House. It's not across town. They report directly to the president, and he didn't know. The only way that's true is he's out of the loop, he's disengaged, he's not in charge of his people, he has said "I'm going golfing; you guys take care of it." He is more his wife who says she hates the White House, she hates politics and she doesn't want anything to do with it. It's ‑‑ he's really asking us to believe that golf is ahead of knowing what's going on. If that is true, if it is true that he doesn't know, why? How can he effectively govern if he doesn't know? And if he's not the one being informed and updated, if he's not the one setting the course, who is? Because we elected him to oversee. We elected him to get to the bottom of it. We elected him, not somebody else. He appoints all of these people. Did he give them carte blanche and do whatever they want and then don't call me about it; I don't want to know. I'm busy golfing. What is the story?

Being that our government is made up of elected representatives, the American people have the right to know who's calling the shots. Is it the president or is it not? And if it's not, fine; just tell us who is calling the shots. Is keeping the president out of the loop, is that intentional? I mean, remember with the Iran contra thing, the problem was they intentionally kept the president out of the loop. That was one scandal. This seems to be everything in his administration. This president doesn't know what's going on.

If the president president's story line is accurate, either he's not in charge or big government is failing... or, you know, the other, of course, we won't accept for the purpose of this monologue as being true: He's lying. The Associated Press, this thing shifts so fast, I don't know how you can figure out what they're saying to you. But the Associated Press and Fox News and CBS scandals where they're wiretapping, they were wiretapping the phones of journalists. Once again, the White House just doesn't have a clue, other than ‑‑ and this is a quote ‑‑ from hearing the press reports. Wow. Why even have an executive summary in the morning? Just pop on the TV. The man in charge of the DOJ, the attorney general, Eric Holder, doesn't have a clue. He claimed he didn't know anything about the AP, yet today we can report that he is now, new information, the guy who ordered the hit on Fox. But for the AP, Holder said he certainly didn't alert the White House. Really? The reason why he did the AP is because he said it was the third biggest leak, one of the top three biggest leaks he's ever seen, since 1973. It was vital to the nation's interest and one of the most dangerous internal leaks he's ever seen.

Now, I don't know about you, but if we're ‑‑ if we have dangerous leaks and one of the top three and the guy who reports directly to me ‑‑ remember, Eric Holder's boss is the president. There's nobody in between him and the president. Eric Holder's boss is the president, and he never decides to go over in all of his meetings and crack the door and say, "Mr. President, we have the most ‑‑ one of the top three most dangerous leaks I've ever seen." He never briefs the president on it? Not once? What does that mean? If the president didn't really know, was your life put in harm's way because they didn't alert the president? He called this one of the most serious leaks of all time. If it was such a serious threat to national security, you didn't alert the president of the United States as to what was happening? Americans were in danger and this president wants us to believe that for some reason, I don't know what yet, but for some reason he was so detached from the office of the presidency, either campaigning or campaigning for gun control or playing golf or going on vacation or planning another party at the White House, that he didn't even know a serious leak, one of the top three, was actually threatening American lives. If the president is not informed on serious threats to national security like this, who is being informed of these things? Who is calling the shot? Who does Eric Holder actually report to? What other security threats is he not being informed about? What else is he missing? What else doesn't he know? Does it make America less or more safe? What does it mean for free speech that the president, who's the one who lifted his hand and said to protect and defend the Constitution of America, what does it mean? Does the president's indifference and disconnection from the issue promote free speech or stifle it? Does it keep the government in check? What message does it send if the president shows no interest in the stopping of the systematic targeting of whistleblowers and members of the press? Will it cause more people or less people to risk their livelihoods in order to keep government accountable and tell the truth? If less people are willing to speak out against the government, does that increase or decrease government power is this does it increase or decrease government abuses of that power? Is it good for you and your family if there are no whistleblowers?

On Benghazi, on top of ‑‑ on top of all of these things, the top officials in the White House had no earthly idea that trouble was on the horizon in Benghazi. All of them have said they didn't have any intelligence prior to, but the facts now show they had plenty of intelligence on it. The president said he didn't know that there were requests. He was, quote, personally not aware of any requests. No one in the administration knew. They weren't told that they wanted more security. Well, who was? Who was? If the administration could miss all of the intelligence warnings that came in advance of the Benghazi attacks for September 11th, the day of any day we have to be more prepared and they weren't aware of those attacks, they didn't hear the voices crying out from the desert in the most dangerous place, if they couldn't hear that, how did they miss that? If the president and the secretary of state didn't have any information, any connection or apparent interest in the safety precautions for Benghazi at that time on September 11th, are public servants less safe or more safe today? Is America less safe or more safe? If they're willing to go against the intelligence reports and concoct a bogus story about a video while claiming it was the best available intelligence, which it wasn't, we now know, but they say they ‑‑ that's all they saw, well, don't you think we need to find out who put that bogus intelligence in and then claim to the president that's the best we have? Shouldn't we be firing that person right now? Shouldn't the president be smoked beyond belief? Let's just say that he still doesn't get it. If he still doesn't get it and he really didn't know and he's not really interested in finding the person that really put that bogus intelligence in there and then said that that was the best intelligence available, what else is this president being fed lies about that he's gullible enough to believe?

For the purpose of this monologue, what else is he willing to be ‑‑ to believe because he's just so disengaged? And in seeing that they haven't been outraged by the YouTube video lies and haven't fired the people responsible, does that make it more or less reasonable that they understand the security of the United States of America and your family the way you do? Seeing that the leaders around the world, including the president of Libya, came out on television the very next day and said "This is ridiculous; this was obviously a terrorist attack" and then we send Rice all across the television to tell the lies, the president did from the rose garden. Will the rest of the world trust us and our vision and our common sense more or less? And if the president laid out, you know, went to bed, as Leon Panetta said, had a quick briefing with him at 5:00 and then went to bed and then never heard any ‑‑ never heard a peep from the president or the White House, nobody contacted to find out what the Pentagon was doing. The Pentagon made all of the calls; the president was uninvolved; does that make you comfortable? Let me ask the left: That means the military industrial complex is not being watched over a guy you elected. That means the president of the United States said, "You just take care of it. Whatever you want." Really? You're comfortable with that? Because even a hawk like me, I'm not comfortable with that.

The president exercised his executive privilege and claimed Eric Holder was not aware. He and Eric Holder of Fast and Furious, he says he has complete confidence in that. Now here's ‑‑ this is a gun‑running operation. Really? Help me out with that. Help me out. What does it mean? The president of the United States and the top man at the DOJ have no earthly idea that their own people are literally arming drug cartels with thousands of guns. Does that make Americans and our neighbors in Mexico less safe or more safe? If some rogue government underlings can get away with arming deadly drug cartels with guns and escape the notice of the management of the United States, what other dangerous activity are they engaging in that they don't know about? How can the president lead if the president doesn't have a clue on what's happening around him? He doesn't know what's going on at the IRS; Americans become victims. He doesn't know what's going on at the DOJ, and both American citizens and members of the American press become victims. He doesn't know what's going overseas and Americans are victims, murdered in cold blood. He doesn't know what's going on with Fast and Furious and American border patrol agents like Brian Terry become victims, murdered, and people across the border are killed by the guns that were run by the DOJ.

This is the scenario that our president is asking you, hoping that you will believe, a scenario where through their incompetence and indifference Americans suffer as they get to the bottom of it. But they haven't gotten to the bottom of it. There's been celebrity parties and vacations. There's been campaigning against the Second Amendment, and there's been a lot of golf. You tell me. If that's what they want you to believe, how bad is the truth?

'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 resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

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 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?

Glenn's Show Prep