White House Press Conference or Barack Obama Love-fest?

After eight months of avoiding the press, yesterday, President Obama held a press conference. And once it had ended, many wished he had waited another eight months.

Glenn described it as "the biggest joke he'd ever heard," and thanks to one CBS reporter, who Glenn labeled "Giggles McQueen," it was a pretty accurate description.

"She literally said, 'I've never seen you lose'," Glenn quipped before playing the audio of the reporters exchange with the president.

REPORTER:  Thank you, Mr. President, and congratulations, by the way.  One quick followup. 


PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Christie was there when I was running for State Senate.


REPORTER:  That's right.  I was. 


PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Christie and I go back a ways. 


REPORTER:  I've never seen you lose.  I wasn't looking that one time.


After some fairly well deserved mocking, Glenn continued to comment on some of the more notable (mind boggling) exchanges that took place during the press conference. Like the question from Chuck Todd, who basically gave the president an out to avoid answering it.

Glenn described it like this:

"Mr. President, when it comes to Benghazi and what happened with Petraeus, are you just going to wait until there's more information before you make a statement on that?" 

"Yes, I am, Chuck.  Next question?" 

"That was a tough one," Pat replied sarcastically.

Pat did point out that at least one reporter in the White House Press Corps managed to get out a real question…of course, getting a "real" answer is a completely different ballgame.

Fox News' Ed Henry put President Obama on the spot on his handling of the terror attacks in Benghazi by asking this:

"Sean Smith's father Ray said he believes his son basically called 911 for help and they didn't get it.  And I know you've said you grieved for these four Americans, that it's being investigated, but the families have been waiting for more than two months.  So I would like to ‑‑ for you to address the families, if you can.  On 9/11 as commander‑in‑chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?"

Here's the president's non-response:

"Ed, you know, I'll address the families not through the press.  I'll address the families directly, as I already have, and we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day.  That's what the investigation's for. But as I said repeatedly, if people don't think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don't know how our defense department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks. Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives.  That's what our job is."

Unfortunately that doesn't answer Ed's question. The question was: Did you sign the order? Because, as President of the United States, he had to sign an order.

But, to no one's surprise, the press did not ask a follow up.

Did he sign the order?

"No," Glenn told listeners. "The answer is no. Otherwise, he would say yes. It's an easy question."

The absurdity didn't end there. The president actually had the arrogance to go off about the criticisms of Susan Rice, our UN Ambassador — you know, the one who was blaming the attack on a YouTube video on television two weeks after the attack. The president it actually considering appointing her as Secretary of State and simply doesn't understand the outrage over the idea that she would be Hilary Clinton's replacement.

Here's what the President had to say…

"She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me."

Really, Mr. President? There were twelve reports on his desk within six hours of the Benghazi attack — twelve. And not one intelligence community was reporting the attack was over a YouTube video.

"Where did you get the intelligence?  Why is he throwing the intelligence under the bus?  Because of Petraeus," Glenn said. "They knew you in advance.  They manipulated the situation, held that card in reserve so when they needed to change the topic.  This is why for the last year they have been blaming everything on bad intelligence.  Everything has been blamed on bad intelligence."

Pat noted that the president said something very telling at the end of his statement.

"Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me."

" I say we take him up on that because ultimately it is his responsibility," Pat added.

But unfortunately, Glenn points out, they probably won't.

The only question they have to get the answer to is: Did you sign that order?

There is public knowledge that the president had reports on his desk with enough information to do so, and enough information NOT to blame the attack on a video. So who gave him the bad information? Who told the president that it was a youtube video?

Name the person, fire them and correct the mistake.

"He can't," Glenn said, "because he is the mistake."

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.