How the Benghazi Movie Could Affect the 2016 Election

Glenn watched a screening of 13 Hours, which opens Friday, and recommended everybody to go see it. The movie details the grim hours when the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by Islamic militants on September 11–12, 2012.

"What’s really tragic is, you’re not going to see a damn Democrat anywhere near this movie," Glenn said on radio Thursday. "It does not get into politics at all."

That being said, Glenn pointed out the movie offers hints about Hillary Clinton's mistakes throughout and following the ordeal, despite not mentioning her by name.

"If you can get Democrats to come see this movie, then all you have to do is when you get out of the parking lot, you just play that little clip of Hillary where she says, 'What difference does it make?'" Glenn said. "You play that, and they'll go out of their minds."

On his TV show Thursday at 5pm ET, Glenn will be interviewing some of the heroes who were on the ground during the Benghazi attack.

"You will see who they are and how they were treated at the beginning before there was any problem," Glenn said. "I know the stories of people in government, that's the way they treat these guys, like absolute garbage."

Check out the trailer for 13 Hours below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/embed/4CJBuUwd0Os?showinfo=0;rel=0;fs=1 </p><p> expand=1]

Listen to the segment with Glenn discussing the movie on The Glenn Beck Program.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Last night, I saw a screening of 13 Hours, which opens Friday. And everybody should see it. And what's really tragic is, you're not going to see a damn Democrat anywhere near this movie. And not because it takes down the president because it doesn't at all. It does not get into politics at all.

STU: You did say that it doesn't mention the president at all. And it does.

JEFFY: At the beginning.

STU: The only thing that it does about the president in the entire movie, that I noticed -- there is a quick mention at the very beginning, you're right, Jeffy -- but there's one in the middle where they say the time he was briefed.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And it's just a passing mention of when he was briefed. But I'll tell you, it's not in the end of the movie.

JEFFY: No, it's early.

STU: It's pretty early in the situation that he knows about this.

GLENN: And afterwards, you see the CIA people calling for help and saying, "Help us. Help us. Help us." And you see the military -- one of the disturbing scenes is -- and it's just real quick. I mean, the only mentions where they're indicting people is, you see hours into this -- you'll see at the very beginning, they're ready to scramble the warplanes. I mean, the minute it happens, you see the military spring in action. Where are the planes? Where are the ships? Let's go. Stand ready. Let's wait for the command.

JEFFY: And that's when you're two or three hours of the 13 hours, and that's when POTUS is being briefed.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Then they will just clip -- for me, one of the lasting images -- and it's only on screen for maybe about four seconds -- are the fighter jets on the tarmac with the canopy open --

JEFFY: Yeah. Yes.

GLENN: -- and the pilots standing next to their jet, ready to go.

STU: Waiting to get in and go.

GLENN: Just waiting to go.

STU: And there was an audible groan in the theater when that happened.

JEFFY: No kidding.

GLENN: There are a few things -- honestly, this movie will shake you to your core. It really will. It really will.

And anybody who knows the story of Benghazi, and if you paid attention to what the White House said and what they said they did -- I think what it was is, when they sent the first drone over, they said, you know -- I remember the White House saying, "We didn't know what was going on. We were getting phone calls and sketching information." Bullcrap. You had a drone over -- over the embassy. We know that. We know that.

And I remember saying for weeks, "There was no drone in the area? There was not a single drone in the sky?" Yeah, there were drones in the sky. They knew. They were watching. They were watching the whole time. And that was one of the infuriating things is when they were watching, and they could see the entire thing. And they never showed this. But you know that -- the president wasn't. He was sleeping. But you know that everybody in the situation room was watching these guys die.

How somebody didn't go -- honestly, I would have gone to prison. How somebody didn't walk up to the president and grab him by the collar and say, "What the hell is wrong with you, man? What is wrong with you?"

STU: Yeah, there's not a moment in this movie where you see Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama pick up the phone and say, "Oh, I don't care about those people," and hang up.

GLENN: Nope. Nope.

STU: But you see they got wind of this early enough, that if they made it a priority, it would have stopped. If they made it a priority, if they said, "I don't care what's happening. Stop all the meetings. I'm going to stay up an extra half an hour past my bedtime." Whatever they had to do and made it a priority, the outcome would have been different.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I think that's overreaching. They didn't even have to make it a priority. All they had to say was, "Get them. Get them. Go save them." We're the United States of America. They were on the back of pickup trucks. As the president likes to say all the time, "What, a bunch of guys on the back of the pickup -- you just got your ass kicked by a bunch of guys on the back of pickup trucks because somebody had a different agenda. And I don't know what that agenda was. But it wasn't doing the right thing.

So let's talk a little bit about -- first of all, Jeffy, we haven't heard what you thought about it.

JEFFY: I enjoyed the heck out of it. And I enjoyed that it was the story of Benghazi. And if you don't know the backstory, it's a good war movie.

GLENN: Sure.

JEFFY: It's a good battle movie. If you don't know the backstory. Knowing the backstory like Stu said and you, you're angry and you're frustrated. You want somebody to do the right thing. You want somebody to say, "It doesn't matter that we were running guns and people will know, save them."

GLENN: You've got to get people to go see this movie. Because if you can get Democrats to come see this movie, then all you have to do is when you get out of the parking lot, you just play that little clip of Hillary where she says, "What difference does it make, if it was a bunch of guys who were having a party in the middle of the night."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: You play that, and they'll go out of their minds. They'll go out of their minds.

STU: Yeah. And Jeffy is right. If it's a story that is not telling something that's true, it's just a good war movie. The fact that it's telling you something that is true, it's in a lot of ways difficult to watch. Because you're living through an experience that is -- that your country let people down that were fighting for it.

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: Here's one of the things that's really powerful and so true and the reason why I'm so ashamed. Is at the end -- not at the end, but at some point during the war scene where they know they're going to die, they just assume they're all going to die, and one of them says, "Why am I here? Why am I even here? I volunteered to come over here. I'm going to die in a country I don't even care about for a cause I don't even understand."

And he says, "I volunteered at the beginning because I believed in something." And the other guy looked at him and says, "All those things, those are all long gone." And it's true. It's true. Every one of our soldiers, I don't know what you're fighting for. And they don't know what they're fighting for. What are you doing?

And it really rang so true to me. So here's a hard thing. I got to talk to these guys tonight at 5:00.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: I don't even -- I mean, I get weird in front of guys like this, especially when they're real heroes. Marcus Luttrell is one of my good friends. He's like a brother. Just love him. I'm so awkward around him. I'm so awkward around him. Because I have so much respect for him. I get weird like that. In a weird way, it's like Michael Buble, I have so much respect of what he does as a performer and everything else, I get weird around him. It happens every time around heroes like this.

I'm so awkward. And I thought of this last night as we were in the car driving home, I said, "What am I going to say to these guys? What am I possibly going to say to these guys?"

"Hey, I'm sorry. Hey, you were great." What do you say? I mean, I've got a billion questions. A billion questions.

JEFFY: It's going to be a long show.

STU: Yeah, that would be a long show.

I'd like to get their reaction on how the administration and Democrats, in particular, Hillary Clinton supporters in particular are trying to challenge their -- their series of events. Because they're basically trying to say none of this happened. They didn't tell them to stand down. You know, that these guys are -- I mean, they're basically accusing them of being liars.

And, you know, they're -- they're saying, "Wait a minute. We didn't even get interviewed for these commissions that they say supposedly proved that there were -- that none of this stuff happened. We didn't get interviewed for them. They didn't even come to us, the people in the middle of the battle, and interview us about it." You know, the way they're treating them is despicable, and I would love to hear their reaction on that because it has to be infuriating.

You go through this situation, and when the same group of people, basically, accuse you of being nothing and disparage you the entire time, and then afterwards, after you save their lives, they're still essentially doing it.

GLENN: Pat, does this sound like Wounded Knee to you at all? It sounds exactly like the same story. The guys who tried to tell the truth, the government just demolished. And anybody who told the lie got the medal.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No, the Indians did it first -- they all got the Congressional Medal of Honor. The general and I think it was a couple of colonels that said, "That's not what happened. I was there. That's not what happened." Those guys, their careers were destroyed.

PAT: Yeah. And Hillary was just asked last week or the week before, "Well, somebody is lying. It's either you or it's these guys who were actually there that are now on Fox News elsewhere talking about it." And her response was, "It's not me." So she essentially accused them of lying. You know, rather than say, "Well, I wouldn't say anybody is lying. It's just different perspective or whatever."

GLENN: That's why, these guys can make their case. Because, A, you will see who they are and how they were treated at the beginning before there was any problem. And if you don't think that's true -- I mean, I have guys -- I have guys who work for me that have -- have, you know, when they were in the military, they did some of the stuff that these guys -- and they verified that, "Yep. That's the way you're treated. That's the way Hillary Clinton will come in and treat you. That's the way any of them will." So I know the stories of people in government, that's the way they treat these guys, like absolute garbage. So you know that's true.

And the -- to me, the way you know that this -- they're not telling a lie is, there's not one thing in this movie that is on the screen that these guys didn't know. There's not one thing. They didn't say, "Here's what was happening in Washington." They didn't even say why the ambassador was there. They only told it from their perspective. This is what happened on the ground.

So what is going to believe -- I mean, they're not reaching out. What's happening is the administration is reaching out and saying, "They're not telling the truth." Well, you guys weren't on the ground. And all they're doing is telling what happened on the ground.

STU: Yeah, they're the ones being shot at, not you.

GLENN: Right. They were the ones. So I'm going to listen to you about what their story is. Because they're not saying what your story is. You're saying what their story is.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Which one am I going to believe? But, again, that's why you really -- you just really will not get anybody from the left to go see this movie. Because it's an out-and-out indictment on them.

Featured Image: Jack Silva, played by John Krasinski. Photo courtesy thirteenhoursmovie.com.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

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.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

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.