Glenn was right, Libya edition: stunning new report

Glenn will have much more on this story Monday night at 5pm ET on TheBlaze TV. Don't miss it!

Just a few days after the Benghazi attacks Glenn called out the administration’s phony youtube theory and posited one of his own. That theory was that Chris Stevens was overseeing the efforts by the administration to arm the rebels fighting Ghaddafi. Glenn goes over the Business Insider report showing there is ‘growing evidence’ that suggests Amb. Stevens was at least aware of heavy weapons being moved to rebel forces.

"The president is out on the stump speech right now saying that he's really decimated Al‑Qaeda, but if you go back to when we went into Libya, again the New York Times was reporting that we may be arming the wrong people. We may actually be arming Al‑Qaeda. Do you remember that happening during the Arab Spring?" Glenn said.

"They said we were arming Al‑Qaeda. The White House denied it. My speculation was right after the September 11th attacks that not only was this an attack by rebels, this wasn't due to a video, this was due to the fact that Christopher Stevens was the gun‑runner. He was the guy brokering the deals with Al‑Qaeda‑related affiliates. That was my speculation."

Now what has the Business Insider found? Their report is below:

The official position is that the US has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.

 But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. 

Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them "Libyans" when he explained that the FSA doesn't "want these extremist people here."

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died." 

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out heavy weapons from Libya.

In any case, the connection between Benghazi and the rise of jihadists in Syria is stronger than has been officially acknowledged.

"You follow this? The guy we worked with is the guy doing these deals. Our ally Turkey is ‑‑ knows all about it. Our ally, the prime minister, who's the best friend of Barack Obama? Who's the one he was the first one to call? He didn't call, not Tony Blair, he didn't call Gordan Brown. He didn't call anybody. The first guy he called was Turkey's leader. He's the closest to Turkey's leader," Glenn said.

"Turkey is taking the arms from Libya and shipping them into Syria. Reuters also reports that satellite photos exposed a CIA post in Benghazi located 1.2 miles from the consulate. It was used as a base, among other things, for collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from the Libyan government, including surface‑to‑air missiles. And that its security features were more advanced than those at the rented villa where Stevens died. We also know that a dozen CIA operatives and contractors left the Benghazi base after it was exposed. Could the two CIA groups be connected as a start‑and‑end points to help funnel heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition. The answer is yes. We know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. CNN reports that FSA members are cutting their own deals to get weapons from well‑armed extremists."

"So it raises questions on who the CIA is arming. We also know that U.S. weapons are now ending up in the hands of hardline Islamists in Syria. It turns out that many of the jihadists are the same ones, the same people that Stevens helped arm to topple Muammar Gaddafi."

"Now here we go. Who was he having dinner with? On September 11th. September 11th he was having a meeting with the Turkish ambassador, the guy who's involved in the gun‑runnings.  He's having dinner and he leaves from dinner 40 minutes early.  The consulate is surrounded and he dies.  Eerie coincidence?  I think not.  This is the truth of what happened in Benghazi."

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders got kicked out of a restaurant on Friday night. Not because she and her party of eight were talking politics and annoying other customers, but because Sanders has a high-profile job for a President hated by the Left. These days, some hate on the Left is disguised as moral "conviction." So, the owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia asked Sanders to accompany her to the outside patio where she asked Sanders to leave.

The Red Hen owner said:

This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.

RELATED: The 'Masterpiece Cakeshop' ruling is actually a win for LGBT rights

It doesn't take much imagination to consider the hell that would've broken loose if a conservative-leaning restaurant owner had tried to "uphold their morals" this way with any member of the Obama administration.

In just the past few days, protesters have gathered at DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's home and threatened the children of DHS employees, Florida's Attorney General was followed to a movie theatre where protesters reportedly spit on her, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders was kicked out of a restaurant because she works at the White House. And the Left doesn't see any contradiction in this kind of bullying. The same Left that finds discrimination in every square inch of society, is stalking people – females no less – and harassing them.

Ironically, they've gone so crazy with their hyper-P.C., micro-aggression, trigger warning bull crap, that they've now come around to discriminating themselves.

The self-righteousness and hypocrisy here is disgusting. Kicking someone out of a restaurant – that's a new one for Virginia. Well, it's not really new, it just hasn't been seen there since the Jim Crow era. The Left likes to fancy itself the political side that dragged America out of Jim Crow and now keeps us from returning to it. Even though that is total historical fantasy, that's what progressives tell themselves in order to sleep at night.

Ironically, they've gone so crazy with their hyper-P.C., micro-aggression, trigger warning bull crap, that they've now come around to discriminating themselves. And they don't even realize it. They think they're still fighting the good fight, upholding justice. But they've actually ushered in a new Jane Crow era, where if you even hint that you support something like securing the border, you could be stalked, spat on, or kicked out of a restaurant. For having a political view.

That doesn't sound very progressive. It's more like psychotic tyranny.

NASA now has an official plan for taking out asteroids

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

The next time asteroids menace the earth, we'll be ready. Because NASA has created a plan.

But before you get too excited, unfortunately, NASA's just-released plan does not include a Bruce Willis-led crew of roughnecks landing on an asteroid and blowing it to smithereens with a nuke. Which begs the question, if that's not part of the plan, what's a potential "Space Force" actually for?

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

Yesterday, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a report titled, the "National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan." Okay, see, this is the problem with government bloat. That title is a waste of words. Just call it "Armageddon."

The report is 18 pages of steps for NASA and FEMA to take over the next decade to prevent big asteroids from clanking into Earth. Wait, why is FEMA part of this action plan? Well, you know, in case the NASA part fails and we do get squashed by an asteroid. FEMA calls the we-get-squashed scenario "a low-probability but high-consequence event."

Step one in the NASA plan is better asteroid detection and tracking. That seems important. You can't dodge punches you never see coming.

Second, improving our ability to predict where an asteroid might hit, so FEMA can respond appropriately.

Third, the awesome part — asteroid deflection. So, if NASA's not using tough oil-drillers to land on and kill the asteroid, how would they do it? The plan would be to launch a spacecraft toward an asteroid that would change the asteroid's trajectory just enough to give us earthlings a good scare and a great show. But live to tell about it.

Just call it "Armageddon."

NASA has plans to experiment with this deflection technique with a spacecraft launching in 2021. It's called the "Double Asteroid Redirection Test" or DART. Clever.

Currently, astronomers have found over 8,000 asteroids in space measuring at least 460 feet across. That would be big enough to pulverize an entire state if it hit the US. But don't worry — only one-third of all near-earth asteroids are that large.

So, just a 33.3 percent chance of total annihilation.

We made it. It's Friday. This has been a tornado of a week. We endured the nonstop commotion of the migrant family separation policy and, best of all, we saw a near-immediate resolution, with President Trump's reversal of the policy. Whatever your stance on the policy, you have to admit, it's a good thing the chaos is over.

RELATED: Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Apparently, not everyone feels the same. Time magazine, for instance, has chosen to focus on the now-resolved matter for their July 2nd issue. They've released the cover. It features a cutout of the sobbing 2-year-old Honduran asylum-seeker — you've likely seen the image — captured by Getty photographer John Moore. Only, instead of featuring the original image, Time has chosen to photoshop an oversized image of President Trump, postured to appear like a bully standing over the crying girl. The background is solid read. The caption reads: "Welcome to America."

It's not enough to blame Trump for the whole debacle. We can't even have that conversation. No, the mainstream media feels the need to literally plaster him on the cover, to photoshop him into an awful situation, to make him look like a villain however they can. What good does that accomplish? And how long is the media going to demonize the President—what does he have to do?

The cover story is titled "A Reckoning After Trump's Border Separation Policy: What Kind of Country Are We?" Excellent question. What sort of country are we? Are we the sort of country that can pull it together and make this thing work despite our differences? Or are we the kind of country full of ungrateful people who throw tantrums even when everything goes their way?

President Trump reversed the policy, shouldn't that get some attention? Shouldn't he get some credit for affecting change in a way that his predecessor — contrary to what you'd surmise from the media — was unable to? No, instead, lately, we're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

We're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

Nietzsche noted that the severest punishment you can inflict on a person isn't to punish them after they've done something wrong or bad. In many ways, that sort of punishment can actually foster relief. The severest punishment is to punish someone when they've done something good, because you lessen the chance that they'll continue to do good.

And we need good.

I know at the heart of things, we're the kind of country that can come together for the good of mankind. We've proven that. But we need everybody.

The Left has been protesting and throwing tantrums since the day Trump was elected. They don't like him, we get it. At some point they need to change from diapers to undies so we can move forward.

Has anybody else noticed how politicized sports have gotten? The NFL is practically three berets away from a socialist revolution. They seem more concerned with dismantling social norms and protesting than with playing football. The Minnesota Vikings announced yesterday they will host a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.

According to LifeSiteNews, the LGBTQ inclusion summit will "include speeches, interviews, and panel discussions with a variety of athletes, coaches, and activists who are homosexual or transgender" and "will be hosted at the team's recently-completed TCO Performance Center."

The summit marks the latest in the NFL's continued advocacy for LGBTQ rights and initiatives. Last year, the league launched NFL Pride, in a bid to "heighten sensitivity to the LGBTQ community" and reinforce "commitment to an inclusive environment in which all employees are welcome."

RELATED: New NFL policy will punish players who protest the national anthem

Fair enough. No one should be harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, but is that really what this is about? Because it kind of seems like there's more going on here. Kind of seems like there's a political, ideological slant to it. At the very least, it's virtue signaling.

The summit is "part of a settlement agreement the Vikings made after [former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe], who is straight, filed a lawsuit against the team in 2014 for allegedly creating a hostile work environment for homosexual and transgender people."

So, yeah, virtue signaling.

Ultimately, the NFL is a private business and, as we saw with the National Anthem kneelers, they can conduct their business however they like, and in turn the consumers can decide whether or not to keep giving them their money.

Mostly, the situation is just strange. Can you imagine how well this partnership would have gone over in the 1970s? Moreover, at what point does being LGBTQ come up during sports? How have we landed in this strange place, where politics and gender and race must be represented within every single interaction?

It's also worth mentioning that most people don't care if an athlete is gay — with the possible exception of transgender athletes, but that's another topic entirely. This tolerance has actually been confirmed by studies and surveys throughout all kinds of sports, in various countries throughout the world. Even countries with, shall we say, a far less tolerant view of the LGBTQ community than we have here in the USA — even people in those countries believe that it doesn't matter. People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

Overwhelmingly, regardless of the sport, people do not care about the athletes' sexuality — in fact, most of us would rather not know. We don't watch golf to muse the social significance of gender norms and sexuality. We don't go to a baseball game to meditate on the evils of the patriarchy and the terrors of cultural appropriation. If an athlete is good, who cares what their orientation is? It's certainly not a new idea that LGBTQ can perform in sports. Typically, what sports fans care about is talent. Is the athlete good?

I guarantee that if Liberace rose from the dead tomorrow morning and was suddenly able to play basketball as well as 90s-era Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls fans would not complain if he joined the team. I think it's fair to say that most people like sports better when they aren't swamped with politics. Keep the politics elsewhere, especially these days, when it's nearly impossible to escape the increasingly intolerant politics of the Left.

Perhaps they could learn a lesson from our friends, the Ancient Greeks. It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks indulged in, well, LGBTQ activities. They were quite fond of the various activities. But they also built a civilization of tremendous importance to humanity as a whole. Philosophy, art and, yes, sports. When they were charged off to war, they didn't slap a Rainbow flag bumper sticker on the back of their chariot. Their sexuality did not define their identity. They were multifaceted human beings, able to go to war or to the theater or to the town hall as a citizen, because citizenry was what mattered, personhood and selfhood. More importantly, they lived in a time when people cared about self and tribe over sexuality and gender. Identity was selfhood, not sexuality.

At the end of the day, who cares if the Minnesota Vikings want to host an LGBTQ event? But they should expect to see an increase in shoulder-padded men traipsing across the stage on Broadway.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Most people like sports better when politics aren't involved

Breaking down the announcement that the Minnesota Vikings will be hosting a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.