Are Romney and Obama really the same? Rand Paul weighs in with his views on the election, Libya, and foreign policy.

October 25, 2012

Writer

Rand Paul called into the radio show this morning to discuss several pertinent issues, including the unfolding situation in Libya as well as the 2012 Presidential election.

"It sure smacks of a coverup and sort of a politization of something that was a serious problem," Paul said. "I would have asked Mr. President where were the uniformed Marines? How come that the ambassador had no Marines protecting himself? And in light of this latest information how come nobody was sent in to help."

"What has really angered me about this whole situation is four days after President Obama turned down the DC3 the plane they wanted for security that they requested, four days later he spent $100,000 greening up the embassy in Vienna promoting his global warming initiative and really when you are making political statements with State Department dollars and you will not provide security for probably the most dangerous country in the world. I think it's inexcusable and unacceptable. If the buck stops with the President somebody should be fired, and he should make a decision that somebody made a grievous error," Senator Paul continued.

Earlier in the month, ABC News obtained an internal State Department email from May 3, 2012, wherein the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Libyan embassy for a DC-3 airplane that would help the team in their duties. Ambassador Stevens was copied on the exchange.

ABC News spoke with a government official who explained the advantages of such a plane. They reported:

The U.S. government official who provided the email to ABC News – and wanted to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter – described the small DC-3 plane as an asset for a security team to more freely and safely move throughout the country, and to more easily transport arms and other security equipment. In short, having the plane allowed the security team to better perform its duties, the official said.
The State Department official acknowledged that the plane was used to get around Libya, not just to get in and out of the country. But once commercial air service was re-established, the State Department decided that the SST didn’t need the plane anymore. The security team, it would seem, disagreed.
Told of the State Department’s explanation, the House Oversight Committee spokesman said the “State Department’s naive determination to follow rigid bureaucratic policies, instead of making common sense decisions that took the serious threat of terrorism conveyed by those on the ground into account, appears to have been a significant factor in the Benghazi Consulate’s lack of preparedness.”

Glenn also asked Rand Paul about the libertarian point of view and the two party system. Glenn said that while he's libertarian, he believes the process of pulling back the roll of government needs to be a slow and gradual one. This viewpoint contrasts with some libertarians who want radical changes quickly, a philosophy that Glenn believes will cause chaos.

Glenn pointed out that Ron Paul, Rand's father and libertarian hero to many radicals, has refused to acknowledge a difference between Romney and Obama. Glenn wondered if Rand agreed with his father or if he saw a difference.

" To me it's more a general philosophic difference in the sense that President Obama truly believes that the answer to making the economy grow is to grow government and I think Governor Romney believes the opposite. That you have to grow the private sector to have a government sector at all. That it's paid for by the private sector. Those are just two opposite philosophies. Now is my father right sometimes on foreign policy? Do both of them believe in intervening everywhere all the time? I think our foreign policy has been too much everywhere all the time. I think we should moderate where we are and keep in mind the national defense of our country is very important and being everywhere all the time is sometimes counter-productive," Senator Paul said.

"So I think there's some similarities sometimes on the foreign policy. When you watch the debate you don't see a difference really on foreign policy."

Greta Thunberg's latest escapade: Gaza aid or Mediterranean vacation?

Fabrizio Villa / Stringer | Getty Images

What would we do without Greta Thunberg?

Everyone's favorite Swedish nepo-baby climate activist is making waves with her latest plea for attention. Thunberg, who rose to fame when she prophesied an environmental apocalypse before the UN in 2019, has set aside the climate rhetoric to champion a new cause: freeing Palestine.

On Monday, June 2nd, Greta and her motley crew of wealthy activists, actors, and politicians—including Liam Cunningham of Game of Thrones fame and Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament—set sail from Catania, Italy. The small sailboat, known as the Madleen, embarked with the lofty goal of "breaking Israel’s siege" of Gaza and delivering humanitarian aid. This fool’s errand was orchestrated by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, a "grassroots" organization founded in 2010 to bring aid and attention to the plight of Gazans… through boat rides.

Greta Thunberg’s so-called “freedom flotilla” encapsulates the delusion and hypocrisy surrounding the Israel-Gaza war.

This isn’t a humanitarian mission—it’s a Mediterranean leisure cruise. Participants are smiling, swimming, and filming TikTok videos. This is self-serving… pic.twitter.com/eUzhsXW54r
— Maccabee Task Force (@MacTaskForce) June 3, 2025

As this video reveals, the so-called "urgent humanitarian mission" looked a whole lot more like a Mediterranean pleasure cruise, complete with swimming, frolicking in the sun, and social media posting. The booze-cruise vibe of the crew, paired with the tiny size of the craft, which could only carry enough "aid" for a token photo-op, exposed the true nature of this voyage. It was nothing more than a flimsy excuse for a group of privileged elites to enjoy an exotic vacation while fishing for attention and a dose of self-righteousness. All the while, chanting 'Free Palestine'—a slogan Glenn warns can fuel anti-Semitic violence like the Boulder firebombing.

Fabrizio Villa / Stringer | Getty Images

In the end, Greta Thunberg’s latest escapade was a textbook case of performative activism dialed up to eleven. Trading in her climate doom-mongering for this half-baked humanitarian jaunt, she clung to relevance without lifting a finger to do anything meaningful. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition’s little boat trip wasn’t about helping Gaza—it was a golden ticket for smug elites to soak up the Mediterranean rays while playacting as saviors. It’s a shameless grab for the spotlight, and Thunberg, with her flair for theatrics, is the ideal poster child for this floating fiasco.

Your voice unveiled: 81% support Trump’s stand against rigged justice

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Scott Jenkins, and your response was unmistakable.

A resounding 71% of you said you believe the Biden Justice Department unfairly targeted Jenkins, a clear rebuke of the narrative peddled by the powers that be. Even more striking, 81% of you backed Trump’s decision to pardon him, seeing it not as a dodge of justice but as a defiant stand against a corrupted system. Your votes revealed a deep-seated belief that the judicial process is being twisted to serve political ends. Can the DOJ’s claims of fairness survive such overwhelming doubt from voices like yours?

Your verdict rings loud: Trump’s pardons aren’t undermining accountability—they’re exposing the rot within institutions that prioritize power over truth. The question now is, how long will the elite’s “justice” hold up against your demand for answers?

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Bombshell: Judge indicted for helping violent illegal evade ICE—Left calls her a hero

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Biden’s DHS freed a Venezuelan hitman. But Democrats erupted when Trump offered refugee status to white farmers fleeing racial persecution. It would be laughable if it weren’t so morally bankrupt.

The left’s radical immigration agenda isn’t just dangerous, it’s hypocritical to the core. Some recent stories show just how radical leftists have become.

Let’s start with a story Blaze News reported this month that should infuriate every law-abiding American. A 42-year-old Venezuelan man — a known hitman tied to the brutal El Chamu gang and accused of four contract killings — was released into the United States after being caught crossing the Arizona border illegally in 2022. That’s right: arrested, deemed inadmissible, then set free.

Leftists' selective outrage reveals a disturbing truth: Their moral compass isn’t guided by justice or suffering. It’s guided by race and politics.

But it gets worse. The Biden administration granted this suspected murderer a work permit because, at the time, the U.S. wasn’t talking to Venezuela about taking back its criminals.

This man walked freely through our communities for nearly three years. He was finally arrested in February 2025 — not thanks to Biden but because President Donald Trump pressured Venezuela to resume accepting deportees. Immigration and Customs Enforcement picked him up in Grapevine, Texas, which happens to be in my backyard.

This is what happens when ideology overrides public safety. And it’s not an isolated case.

An activist judge

In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was just indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade ICE agents. Dugan reportedly got “visibly angry,” confronted federal agents in her courtroom, and then snuck the man — who was facing battery charges and had been deported once before — out a private exit for the jury.

This man is accused of punching one victim 30 times and attacking a woman who tried to intervene. Both victims were hospitalized. But Dugan, a sitting judge, allegedly aided his escape. That’s not just reckless — it’s criminal.

And yet, as usual, the left rushed to glorify her. Some are actually comparing Judge Dugan to Harriet Tubman. I wish I were joking! Leftist lawyer Jeffrey Mandell and his friends at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are likening her actions to a modern Underground Railroad — as if protecting a violent illegal alien compares to the rescue of fugitive slaves.

It’s beyond insulting. Harriet Tubman risked her life to free human beings from bondage. Judge Dugan risked the public’s safety to help a man accused of brutal violence. The left’s delusional moral equivalence here reveals exactly how twisted their priorities have become.

Blind eye to genocide

Yet, these priorities don’t apply if you don’t have the left’s approved skin color.

President Trump has made it a priority to deport illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. That’s what this is really about. But instead of recognizing the distinction between lawful immigration and criminal activity, the left screams that Trump wants to “kick out all immigrants” and destroy the American dream.

Then, when the administration offers refugee status to 59 Afrikaners fleeing persecution in South Africa, the same people lose their minds.

These are white farmers and their families — victims of racial violence, land seizures, and targeted killings. The South African government passed a law in 2024 that allows for the confiscation of land without compensation. Political rallies routinely feature chants of “Kill the Boer,” referring to white farmers. A political party leader led one such rally in 2023 — and it wasn’t subtle. The crowd chanted, “Shoot to kill!” with bloodthirsty fervor.

Elon Musk, a South African native, called it open incitement to genocide. He’s right.

You’d think the self-appointed champions of compassion would welcome these families with open arms. But no — they’re furious. MSNBC analyst Richard Stengel dismissed their plight as “apartheid nostalgia.” U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) called it “global apartheid.” And the Episcopal Church, which has helped resettle more than 100,000 refugees and proudly aids illegal aliens, publicly refused to help these 59 families. It even ended a 40-year partnership with the federal government over it.

Why? Because these refugees are white.

Jemal Countess / Stringer | Getty Images

Narrative-driven immigration

In summary, the left welcomed a Venezuelan gang hitman into the country and handed him a work permit. Leftists are defending a judge who allegedly helped a violent offender escape ICE. They have no problem with 10 million illegal immigrants who flooded the country under President Biden. But when it comes to 59 South African farmers fleeing actual persecution?

They call it racism. They shut down programs. They rage on television.

This isn’t compassion. It’s a radical ideological agenda that says borders should be open to criminals — as long as they fit the narrative — and closed to those who don’t.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so morally bankrupt.

Leftists' selective outrage reveals a disturbing truth: Their moral compass isn’t guided by justice or suffering. It’s guided by race and politics. Some victims are celebrated. Others are ignored, depending entirely on their skin color and the usefulness of their story.

America is at a crossroads. We can continue this reckless, backward approach — or we can choose sanity, security, and fairness. President Trump is trying to restore order, but the radical left is fighting him every step of the way. And if this latest circus has shown us anything, it’s that leftists are just getting started.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn: Pay attention to what the State Department's RADICAL reset is signaling

John McDonnell / Stringer | Getty Images

For years, the U.S. State Department operated on inertia—an institution locked into a cycle of caution, consensus, and risk aversion.

Speeches were careful, strategies were diluted by committees, and action was often defined by what couldn’t be done. The language was always the same: "nuance," "complexity," "stakeholders." Rarely was it about results.

That has changed.

What’s come out of the State Department in the last hundred days is a complete departure—not just in tone, but in structure.

Under Secretary Rubio, the department isn’t just adjusting tactics. It’s undergoing a philosophical reset.

The most telling shift is this: the department is no longer preoccupied with managing decline or defending abstractions. It’s operating from the premise that U.S. foreign policy must serve actual national interests, not vague global norms or ideological missions.

Look at the key decisions. The Global Engagement Center—an office that claimed to combat disinformation but increasingly acted as an internal censorship tool—is gone. Not repurposed. Not renamed. Eliminated. Aid programs that masked themselves as diplomacy while undermining core U.S. positions have been cut. Contracts to NGOs with open hostility toward U.S. policy goals? Revoked.

This isn’t cosmetic. It’s structural.

The department’s reorganization is consolidating power downward—removing bureaucratic silos, emphasizing merit over ideology, and restoring clarity to diplomatic goals. This isn’t about optics. It’s about removing friction between strategy and implementation. On immigration and border enforcement, there’s now a foreign policy posture that treats visa privileges as exactly that—privileges, not entitlements. Visa holders who break laws or support terrorist groups lose their status. Period. No press conference required. Just enforcement.

Regional partnerships are now framed by expectations, not entanglements.

Countries that allow mass illegal migration into the U.S. are being held accountable. Agreements are being structured around reciprocity. When those agreements are ignored, consequences follow. China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, long treated as inevitable, has been directly challenged. Beijing’s role in Panama, particularly regarding the canal, has been dismantled through diplomacy backed by leverage, not lectures. That wasn’t done through press statements—it required statecraft, pressure, and the willingness to say no.

In Europe, there’s been a reframing of NATO obligations. Not as symbolic unity, but as measurable responsibility. The benchmark is no longer two percent. The conversation is now five. That changes the nature of the alliance. In Africa, the posture is shifting from dependency to commercial engagement. Trade, not aid. Access, not assistance. Diplomacy with terms, not with guilt.

The contrast is stark.

This isn’t a matter of tone or branding. This is a systemic shift away from a model that rewarded process over outcomes, toward one that is rediscovering the purpose of diplomacy: to secure advantage, resolve conflict, and protect national interests.

This recalibration will not be popular in foreign capitals used to ambiguity, or in institutions comfortable with drift. It’s also not universally admirable. It’s direct. It’s unambiguous. And it signals something rare in modern American foreign policy: conviction.

That alone is worth paying attention to.

Glenn's Show Prep