Can you believe anything this administration says?

November 15, 2012

Writer

Glenn talked on radio today about how the truth is becoming an endangered species and trying to speak it today could get you smeared or possibly worse. From Benghazi to Petraeus, this administration has been selling lies and up until now too many people have bought it. Here’s the case you need to make to your friends.

"I don't know if you've noticed but it's been nine or ten days since the election and we've been almost entirely Obama‑free and I can't take him anymore. I'm redesigning everything I do just to stop talking about him because I can't talk about him anymore. At least as far as talking about his policies or playing sound bites from him, today we momentarily break our self‑imposed moratorium on Baracknophobia or Obamanations. See, it's like Romnesia? Get it? Remember the fun? That was so much fun."

"We have to help you make a case with your Obamanoid friends," he said. "The case is how can you possibly believe anything that these people are saying? How can you possibly buy into this?"

"I told you yesterday that I have a friend who wrote for General Hospital, was the one responsible for love in the afternoon. She was there. It was, she was the head writer for all ABC soaps. She wrote the soap Bible for Love in the Afternoon. And remember that's when Luke and Laura got married. I remember they were also trying to freeze the world. We went over the Benghazi story, and this is literally true. She said, ABC would have never bought that. She said that story's impossible. They would have never bought this story. It's too implausible. And I reminded her, "You're the one who wrote them trying to freeze the world." She said, "Yes, but it made sense on paper."

"So in our continuing effort to arm you, because you are the verb, to arm you with an argument on how can you possibly believe the stuff they're selling, look at this Benghazi and Petraeus mess, how after all that has happened with this can anybody believe a word that they are saying. First, first they told us that Benghazi was all about a pathetic laughable YouTube video."

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks is a crude and disgusting video, sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. - Barack Obama

"This was not just the day of or the next day and just not a casual mention. As he said there, for the last two weeks. For two weeks he was blaming the schlocky YouTube fiasco for what happened in Benghazi. And Jay Carney solidified the administration's position."

This is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy. Not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video. - Jay Carney

Later, when President Obama went on The View, he said they were still conducting an investigation.

Glenn said, "Still doing an investigation. Isn't that incredible? So it went from absolutely a YouTube video not to our policies to we're doing ‑‑ we're still doing an investigation, even though reports were out, even though the fact that we have cameras all around the world. All around the world we can see anybody do anything. We had two drones over Benghazi, yet have you seen a picture of it yet? Sending realtime video back to the White House to watch the attack live. Have you seen a single video of it yet? Have you seen one, America? Have you seen one? We had cameras there. There were cameras on that, on that embassy, on that safe house. You know there were cameras there. Nobody had a cellphone. Nobody could send a picture back. We had two drones overhead sending realtime pictures and yet, and yet they still have to investigate. You haven't seen a picture, either."

"Then they finally decided that since YouTube protestors probably didn't show up at CIA safe houses with RPGs, machine guns and with an organized premeditated attack plan, they couldn't even get their lap dogs and the mainstream media to believe that fairytale. So now not only is it terror but it is self‑evident terror."

It is I think self‑evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials. - Jay Carney

"So it was self‑evident terror. And not only is it self‑evident that it was terrorism but apparently they never said anything else," Glenn said.

The president of the United States referred to it as an act of terror immediately after it occurred. - Jay Carney

"Now after lie after lie after lie, more lies are put on top of it. More lies. But... but they didn't know. They had no idea this was going to turn into this. This was just a spon‑ ‑‑ another spontaneous event. Petraeus happened on the day of the election, not a day before, not a week before. They knew nothing about it. The sex scandal with General Petraeus, man, it couldn't have come at a worse time! Now the media's got to talk about a sex scandal and so we do not talk about what did the president know and when did he know it about Benghazi. Now we're having to ask the question, what did the president know and when did he know it about the sex scandal at Benghazi. The FBI knew about Petraeus, the affair, before he became CIA director. So they knew this while they vetted him for the job. This means that somebody didn't tell the president of the United States that he was putting into the most sensitive position of all time a guy who could be blackmailed, was having an affair. That is the most irresponsible thing I've ever heard. If the president didn't know, somebody should lose their job. They obviously knew. The president obviously knew. He had to know to make the decision to hire him. And yet your neighbors don't give a flying crap. They don't think this matters somehow."

"But wait. If you act now, even more lies."

REPORTER: How is it that the White House didn't have any idea of this until the day after the election and then congress a few days later?

CARNEY: Well, I would refer you to the FBI. They have as my ‑‑ as I understand it, protocols in place for when they notify the legislative and executive branches of investigations and, you know, it is simply a fact that the White House was not aware of the situation regarding General Petraeus until Wednesday and the situation regarding General Allen until Friday. So, you know, the FBI is a place to go in terms of an explanation of the protocols they follow, but I understand that that is the answer that they will give, that there are protocols they follow that govern how they inform the various branches of government of these kinds of investigations.

REPORTER: Well, do you understand how people would think this is utterly bizarre, I mean the day after the election, and the anger you're hearing on Capitol Hill they didn't know this was going on? It just ‑‑ I mean, the timing, at least the appearance?

CARNEY: Look. All I can tell you is when the White House was informed.

"Utterly bizarre. Because it's utterly impossible. And you know what? They've gotten away with it for four years, one after another after another, to the point to where you are turning out ‑‑ you're tuning out. To the point where your neighbors are saying, "I can't deal with it anymore." Whether we let them have free reign for four more unfettered years is really up to you. But look, before blood shoots from my eyes and I bleed to death, we've been over this a billion times. You know they have lied to you. You know they lie to you today."

"But we have to figure out a way to not preach to the choir. We have to figure out a way to tell the American people the truth and get it to anybody who's possibly willing to wake up. Because this does matter, to your security, to the security of your children, to your children's future and freedom."

"And by the way, while I'm at it, speaking of the nonchoir, let me just say thank you, nonchoir. You've just given our permission to Barack Obama and his evil, nasty crew of liars to lie to our faces for another four years. To put our country, our freedoms, all of our hard‑earned money, our businesses, our future, Israel, freedom, all at stake so we could be more comfortable with lies and deceit and deception, coming our way every day like a warm blanket to tuck us in. Congratulations to the 62 million Americans who made the worst choice in the history of our planet. The history of our republic. The problem is, our problem, was we thought more people were awake. But they are putting more people asleep. We thought more people were as awake as we are, but 11% fewer people came out to vote for Obama but unbelievably 2% fewer showed up for Romney and John McCain. I can't believe it. We need you. We're battered and bloodied, and so many of us say "We can't do it anymore." Let us behave like people determined to be free. We may be down but we're not out. You help spread the message to the 2% that didn't show up and another 10% or 20% beyond that. When a good man like Romney loses to a cast of really shady characters, whether you agree with all of his policies or not, when we knowingly choose liars, we're in trouble. We're in trouble. But the good news is the Constitution is the answer and the Constitution survives."

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep