Dinesh D'souza: Obama is most animated when attacking Republicans, conservatives, Christians

November 19, 2015

Editor

Glenn sat down with Dinesh D'souza today to get his take on Obama's emotionless response to the terror attacks in Paris. Why is it that Obama gets passionate and riled up about the police, Syrian refugees and gun control, but not people losing their lives at the hands of Islamic extremists?

D'souza also had some interesting thoughts to share while talking about his new book, Stealing America: What My Experience With Criminal Gangs Taught Me About Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party. Listen to the audio or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Dinesh D'souza. Number one best-selling author. New book. Stealing America: What my Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me About Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party. Dinesh, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

DINESH: Glenn, always a pleasure.

GLENN: Can you explain to me -- when I watched Barack Obama, and I assume you saw him in Turkey this week.

DINESH: Yes.

GLENN: When America and everybody's heart was breaking -- and this is our ally. This is France. This is one of our strongest allies.

And everybody -- the emotion was -- was pouring out and I've never seen Barack Obama more Ben Carson like. You know, he spoke and it was -- and it was like and, you know, this was -- this was a really bad setback. There wasn't any emotion there. It was -- there was no outrage. There was no -- there was no passion.

DINESH: He was reading from his tax return, in effect.

GLENN: Yes, did you see that, and can you explain it?

DINESH: I saw that. And I actually noted the astonishing contrast with Hollande. In fact, Hollande started out a lot like Obama. He's been actually very receptive. He's been condemning earlier Islamophobia and so on. But the moment there's blood on the street, Hollande sounds like Winston Churchill. He starts using the language of civilization against barbarism. He says things like "we will be merciless." Obama, on the other hand, sounds like Obama. And I think this is actually an indication of modern progressivism. Because I think we saw it similarly with Hillary in Benghazi.

And here's what I mean. These guys appear to be annoyed when there is a foreign policy crisis. A little bit -- they feel like that's a distraction. Why are you bothering me with that? I've got more important things to do. So one reason I wrote this book, Stealing America, is my argument is the progressives are busy domestically stealing the wealth of America. That's what animates them. That's what motivates them. They do get animated when they are blocked from doing that by Republicans. But, on the other hand, all this other stuff happening abroad is no more interesting to them than thieves who are robbing a bank would be interested in news reports that the overall security -- external security of the bank is threatened or that there are bad macro economic effects from stealing from a bank. They're looting the bank, and that's what they care about.

GLENN: So when he's bringing in the Syrians, he's not passionate about the security of the United States. But, boy, is he passionate about bringing the Syrians in?

DINESH: Yeah. And he's passionate about making the point that there should not be a distinction between Islam and Christianity. Notice that his voice gets a certain emotionalism in condemning those who say that, for example, Syrian Christians are less likely to become Islamic radicals than Syrian Muslims. I mean, you'd think that it would be obvious that a Syrian Christian would be less vulnerable to the siren call of Islamic radicalism. But for Obama, that is an offensive, annoying, irritating thing to say. And he'll attack it. That's what gets him charged up.

GLENN: Pat, do you have the speech where he said Christians have a responsibility, and Muslims have to do this and, you know, ask why their kids are being indoctrinated. Do you know that? From the speech on --

PAT: Is it the one where he was talking about there shouldn't a religious test.

GLENN: Do you have that one? Yeah.

GLENN: Listen to this. I want to get your opinion on this. If this is the right cut. Do you have it?

PAT: Or do I have it? Let me see.

GLENN: Okay. You look for it.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Is there a -- a stealing of America happening with the Syrian refugees?

DINESH: Well, just if I could make a point on this religious business, imagine if there were a group of Christians somewhere in the world who are very pious and very serious about their faith and in the name of their faith were committing massacres, were committing bombings, were engaging in mass violence, do you think Obama would show one minute of reluctance to call those Christian extremists --

GLENN: No. Not at all.

DINESH: Of course not. So there's a double standard here. And behind every double standard, there's usually a single standard. And so it seems to me that Obama's single standard is he's got this systematic preference for Islam over Christianity. And it exposes itself in the very differential way in which he treats the two faiths.

GLENN: Well, he also says that we shouldn't jump to any conclusions. Yet, I don't have all the facts and the police acted stupidly. I don't have all the facts, but we -- we know what happened in Ferguson. I don't have all the facts, but we have to act now because there was another shooting today.

I mean, he is quick to assign the blame everywhere. But he always comes out after one of these events and says, "Now, wait a minute. Let's slow down. Let's not be crazy and let's not do anything rash because you always make mistakes."

DINESH: Yeah, I think that's right. Obama is the most animated when he is attacking Republicans, conservatives, and Christians. Those are the three groups that really get his goat.

Foreign policy threats to him, he always takes a statesman-like, above-the-fray stance. Now, the stealing America that you asked me about, I think, is an escalation from what liberalism was about before. By an escalation, what I mean is we're now seeing an effort on the part of the progressives to put their hands, not just on the wealth of the government, the $3 trillion in the federal budget, for example, but to extend the control over all the wealth of the private economy. We've seen under Obama, for example, major industries. Banking insurance, automobiles, health care. Now increasingly energy. They're trying to establish federal control over the private sector.

GLENN: When I saw the -- you know, the president was out to talk about global warming and yet another scheme. And it was -- what is it? $14 trillion a year this scheme for global warming. All I could think of was, "You're just stealing the wealth. That's all you're doing."

DINESH: Yeah. I mean, Obama doesn't know or care whether the earth is getting hotter or colder. He has no idea. But he sees it as a wonderful opportunity in order to make headway in the stealing America project. Part of what I learned in the confinement center, Glenn, was we tend to look at these as arguments, as debates.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. I want to explain. When he says I was in the confinement center. You want to talk about taking lemons and making it into lemonade. Correct me if I'm wrong, you got the premise of this book by being incarcerated, and you were in jail with hardened criminals and thieves and murderers and rapists and everything else. And you're like, I recognize this as the Democratic Party.

(laughter)

DINESH: Well, I began to learn the way they operate.

GLENN: Right.

DINESH: They would give me a sales pitch, and then they would say, "Well, that's our pitch. If we're trying to rob a house, we need to get the homeowner to lift the latch off the door. So we've got to sweet talk him into doing that. Now, the moment he lifts the latch off the door, we can kick in the door and go in." But the pitch creates the element of momentary trust that allows the scam to go forward.

So I now begin to see that what happens in American politics -- Obamacare, this whole business about Obama giving you rebates on your college loans, these are all wonderful scams.

I mean, let's look for a moment at this college thing. Obama says to young people, "I'm going to forgive your college loans or I'm going to make it not required for you to pay them back. I'm going to give you free college." Now, think about that. How is he going to do that?

Well, the federal government has to pay for it because nothing is free. You have to pay professors and pay for buildings and so on. So Obama and the government doesn't have the money, so they're going to borrow from the national debt. The national debt is going to go up. Who is going to pay that national debt? Who is going to inherit it? The same young people who were the beneficiaries of Obama's munificence. So what Obama is really doing is he's taking money from young people, from their own future earnings or from their own back pocket and giving it to them.

But he's making himself into the philanthropist. Obviously it's not his money. It's their money. So it's not even robbing Peter to pay Paul; it's robbing Paul to pay Paul.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.