Is the Obama administration covering up scandalous details in Libya attack?

On tonight’s episode of "Glenn Beck", Glenn laid out a new theory regarding the attacks on American Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya. On the show, Glenn stated that he believes, based on his research and analysis, Stevens was not killed as a result of spontaneous riot spurned by the video spreading around YouTube parodying Muhammad. Instead, Glenn believes he was killed in a targeted attack and that the protests were just used as a distraction.

In the opening minutes of the show, Glenn laid out the timeline for the attacks on Libyan embassy::

- 10:15pm Consulate is engulfed in flames. Many escape, raced by convoy about one mile down the road to a supposed “safe house”. Stevens does not make it.

- 10:45pm Security staff regroup and try to take back the main building but encounter heavy fire and retreat.

- 11:20pm More back-up arrives and a second attempt regains the main building. Fighting erupts at the “secret” safe house and lasts 2 hours. The attack was described as “intense, deadly and accurarte.” It featured automatic weapons, RPG’s and mortar fire. The accuracy was said to be too good for ordinary revolutionaries. Two former SEALs are killed in firefight.

- 1:15 am – Stevens body taken to hospital and unable to be revived

Before the attack, one of the guards who died alongside Stevens, Sean Smith, posted the following on an online gaming message board: “assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures”.

Glenn wondered if all the elements of the timeline above and the message from Smith really match up with the story circulating Washington D.C. and the media – that the attacks were the result of a spontaneous protest spurned on by the YouTube video. He had a different theory.

After a break, Glenn tried to tell the story of what happened in Libya from a different perspective.

He started by putting several questions up on the chalkboard:

- How often was the ambassador in Benghazi?

- What was the consulate like?

- Was there any warning?

- If the attack was really about the film – why didn’t the administration issue a warning based on that?

- Was the embassy put on high alert? Or is the report that nothing was done accurate?

- Who was on the protective detail? What were they doing in the area?

- What did the “spontaneous crowds” have RPG’s and laser accurate mortar fire?

- Why was the most important person there, the ambassador, left for dead while many other made it out?

- Who was the ambassador?

- Why didn’t the white house warn about the movie?

Glenn theorized that the two people who were working the two former SEALs working protective duty for the ambassador were actually CIA agents on an intelligence mission to round up dangerous weapons in the war town nation. Before his death, Glen Doherty, one of the former SEALs who was killed alongside Stevens, told ABC News about that he was looking for weapons in Libya. Also, Glenn said that, although it was not explicitly stated, it could be inferred from the interview that they were rounding up weapons supplied by the United States to Libyan rebels during the uprising last year.

Glenn also pointed out that the media’s portrayal of Stevens seems odd as more information about him emerges. He is said to have a huge love for the Libyan people, which is odd considering several leaders of the Libyan revolt against Gadaffi have stated they fought against the United States, and the rebel leader claimed that many Al-Qaida members were working with him on the front lines.

Reports have also surfaced over the past week that Stevens snuck into the war torn country on a cargo ship, and that he travelled to Morocco, Germany and Sweden. Glenn also found it suspicious that he did not travel in the more protected, but more obvious, armored vehicles.

“That doesn’t like your average pencil pusher diplomat. Sounds a little more like CIA to me,” Glenn theorized.

Glenn theorized that Stevens was in fact the CIA operative who was the CIA weapons dealer in the region, and he believed that Stevens was the one who brokered the deal to give Libyan rebels weapons to fight against Gadaffi.

So what does Glenn think really happened?

- The U.S. government is indeed looking for missiles to recover, so that no one finds out that we supplied them to terrorists

- They find a weapons cache of surface to air missles

- Same missiles we supplied during the revolution to take out aircraft.

- The CIA agents were forced to call in Stevens, our CIA weapons dealer.

- He flies in on short notice and takes an unmarked car to avoid suspicion to meet them

- The meeting goes south, he is taken to the closest safe house, which is why he ends up at the poorly secured consulate building.

- The message Sean Smith sent to the gaming community was really a message to the CIA telling them they needed help.

Glenn asked which scenario was more plausible: 1) The attacks were a result of a protest spurned by a YouTube video or 2) The bad guys in Benghazi staged the protests to cover for the attack.

“I don't know if this is the case,” Glenn said. “But I do know it's more likely than spontaneous rag-tag protesters pulling off a high level power assault.”

Glenn said that the media must press the Obama administration on the mission to recover weapons in Libya, and expose the possible scandal that the administration supplied the very weapons that killed the ambassador.

Watch the opening monologue which deals with the Libyan attack below:

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.