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?

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.