Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

WATCH: S.E. Cupp interviews Sen. Ron Johnson on Real News

January 24, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went before the House and Senate yesterday to testify on the September 11, 2012 attacks on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya. While Secretary Clinton enjoyed some fawning questions from her supporters, she also faced pointed criticisms from her detractors.

One of the most dramatic moments came during questioning from Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who asserted that Americans were “misled” about what occurred leading up to the attacks, a question that caused Secretary Clinton to lose her composure and shout:

CLINTON: With all respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator.

On Real News last night, S.E. Cupp interviewed Senator Johnson to get his reaction to what transpired during the hearings.

CUPP: With us right now is Senator Ron Johnson. Thanks for joining us.

JOHNSON: Hello, S.E. How are you doing?

CUPP: Good. Firstly, and this is not a condemnation of everything Secretary Clinton said today, but I was incredibly offended by her reaction to what I thought was a very valid question from you, and I think we all know what difference it makes whether the attacks were spontaneous or terrorism. What was your reaction to her response?

JOHNSON: I was surprised by her reaction, but, again, I thought it was a pretty simple question and valid point that this administration, I think, purposely misled the American public for a couple of weeks. And we all know why they did it. They have this narrative that [Osama] bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda is on the run, and all is well with their policy of disengaging with the world. The point I was trying to make is: it didn’t have to drag on for two weeks – this question of whether it was a terrorist attack or sprung out of some protest. All that really needed to happen was a simple phone call to the evacuees. Ask them what happened, and they could have easily told them there was nothing happening outside of the consulate prior to these guys rushing the gate. When you read the Accountability Review Board report, it’s obvious there was no protest, and those people could have answered that question very simply with a very quick phone call. It is clear we could have avoided two weeks of controversy.

CUPP: And a number of senators in the hearing called some of Secretary Clinton’s responses “unsatisfying.” Rand Paul, John McCain, and others pressed for more answers and more accountability from the State Department. Were you satisfied?

JOHNSON: I don’t think we really got any more answers to our questions. We are going to continue put questions on the record, and we will try to get those responses. One thing that I will agree with Secretary Clinton on is the primary thing we ought to be doing is learn lessons from the failure – the failed leadership that really took a look at all of these requests and did nothing with them to beef up security. We should learn those lessons and apply them to all of our other diplomatic missions so we can protect Americans that are serving this nation honorably abroad.

CUPP: Help us understand, from your perspective then, why Benghazi happened. Was it politics? Was it a funding issue, negligence, incompetence, duplicity, all of the above? What do you think?

JOHNSON: I would say, certainly, a failure of leadership – the fact that those cables didn’t bubble up past a certain level. I believe Secretary Clinton when she said she didn’t see those cables, those pleas for reinforcements, and beefing up security. So that is a real problem when you’ve got an incredibly volatile region – let’s face it, a nation where we led from behind in, and we continue to lead from behind in. That’s part of the problem, S.E., when America doesn’t lead, there is a void. There is a vacuum that is created and bad people to flow in to fill that void. And that is basically what happened in Libya. Again, that is just a failure of leadership from the president on down.

CUPP: Secretary Clinton also discussed the recent attacks in Algeria and ongoing terrorism threats in North Africa at great length. She seemed to contradict the President’s insistence that Al Qaeda has been decimated and urged action in that particular theater. Do you expect that we’ll intervene in Mali?

JOHNSON: I have no idea. I know the French were expecting at least some support, and it seems like we haven’t given them that much from that standpoint at all. Secretary Clinton really specified her remarks in terms of Al Qaeda being decimated – primary Al Qaeda. But what she certainly did admit is that Al Qaeda is springing up in different nodes all around North Africa. Let’s face it: Al Qaeda is not on the run. It is growing. The threat to America is real, and we need to take that seriously. We have to look at that fact honestly if we are actually going to secure our nation.

CUPP: Lastly, Senator, a number of your colleagues across the aisle criticized Republicans for failing to fund adequate security in places like Benghazi. What is your response to that?

JOHNSON: Listen, this government spends enough money. If we can’t prioritize spending properly to protect those individuals who step up to the plate and defend our freedom, something is wrong here. And something is horribly wrong here in Washington. There is plenty of money flowing into this government. It is about prioritizing spending to do the things the federal government was designed to do and to stop doing the things our founders never intended the federal government to take upon itself.

The panel went on to dissect the Secretary of State’s behavior during her time in front of the House and Senate, and it became clear that Secretary Clinton’s response to Senator Johnson was the defining moment of the day’s events.

“I think it was a rare misstep from her,” S.E. said in regards to Secretary Clinton’s “what difference does it make” remark. “‘What’s the difference’ is the reason we are having these conversations in the first place. ‘What’s the difference’ informs our public policy in areas like Benghazi. ‘What’s the difference’ – whether this happened spontaneously or was terrorism – should inform our decisions in making sure this never happens again. And, finally, ‘what’s the difference’ speaks to this timeline that we have talked about time and time again on this show of negligence, incompetence, and duplicity. ‘What’s the difference’ speaks to all three of those.”

Amy agreed with S.E., adding that she found the comments “shocking.” “It was jaw dropping, gob smacking,” she said. “I could not believe our Secretary of State was saying, ‘What’s the difference?’ It was absolutely stunning to me.”

While the exchange proved to be a rare moment of candidness from Secretary Clinton, Buck and Will agreed that her future political ambitions were the driving force behind the majority of her statements.

“It was stunning, but I have to also say that Secretary of State Clinton is not being held responsible,” Buck said. “I think she is already looking at the calendar and planning her 2016 run. This is not going to be sticking to her with any real political consequence.”

“I am not sure I can totally agree with your certainty that there is going to be no accountability for this,” Will responded. “As this goes on in time and this kind of reverberates, this could have serious consequences for her in 2016. ‘What’s the difference’ is pretty offensive.”

Guest panelist Ben Domenech noticed Secretary Clinton’s responses were quite retrospective given the fact that Clinton is still the standing Secretary of State.

“She is not addressing any of these responses to these senators, to these congressmen, from the perspective of someone who is still working within the government, within the administration,” Ben said. “But rather as someone who is looking back on it already and already looking on to the next thing.”

Ultimately, the hearings seemed to confirm a sad and unfortunate truth – there has been plenty of finger pointing under the guise of accountability but no actual accountability.

“She is claiming responsibility because she is not actually responsible,” Buck concluded. “She should have offered her resignation right away… but she didn’t because she knew she could get away with it.”

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

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

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.