James Dobson tells Glenn: IRS targeted me

May 20, 2013

Writer

Prominent evangelical Christian leader James Dobson joined the radio program today and revealed the the IRS targeted one of his organizations as well. When he had been stonewalled by the IRS for months and finally called to get an update, what he was told was shocking. Dobson told shared his story with Glenn today on the radio show.

TheBlaze has more on this story HERE.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Over the weekend Billy Hallowell from TheBlaze broke the story about Dr. James Dobson. This is some disturbing stuff. Dr. Dobson is on with us now. James, how are you, sir?

DR. DOBSON: I'm doing fine, Glenn, and thanks for having me on. This is such a critically important issue.

GLENN: Tell me, tell me what happened with you.

DR. DOBSON: Well, as you know, it's been admitted now that the IRS profiled ‑‑ that's my term for it but I think that fits ‑‑ about 300 or more conservative organizations. You referred just a minute ago to the TEA Party and the smoking gun there, but it's not limited to the TEA Party. The it's limited to evangelical organizations, conservative Christian organizations.

GLENN: Jewish organizations.

DR. DOBSON: I would imagine conservative Catholic organizations. And what they did was to harass and intimidate and delay their applications for nonprofit status, especially 501(c)(4) organizations. Billy Graham's ministries was part of it, Concerned Women for America and then, of course, the TEA Parties and who knows who else is on the 300 ‑‑ the list of 300. I can just tell you that our organization was among them. Family Talk Action applied for a 501(c)(4). We already have a (c)(3), but applied for a (c)(4) in September of 2011 and that started the process which took 19 months to come to fruition. Some of that time was spent by us answering questions, questions that I don't remember ever being asked before but our Family Talk Action attorney finally called to find out what the delay was. He couldn't get through and then on March the 19th of this year he got a call from a female agent named R. Medley and she called to tell us what the holdup was. And she said that Family Talk Action was ‑‑ and by the way, Glenn, I think we are the first one where the IRS had admitted, or at least one I know of that has admitted what was the problem with getting these approvals. She said that Family Talk Action was a partisan rightwing group because we represented only one point of view, she said that we were a political organization because we had criticized the president on occasion. And then she said that we were not an educational organization because it doesn't represent all views. Not educational, Glenn. I don't want to be self‑serving here but, you know, I have an earned Ph.D. from the University of Southern California in child development. I was a professor of pediatrics for 14 years. I've written 80 books. I've done 8,000 radio programs in 35 years, and I'm not educational. But it really all ‑‑

GLENN: Just so long as you understand that.

DR. DOBSON: It all comes down to this: Medley implied ‑‑ or this is the implication of what she was saying: That Family Talk Action was not worthy of a 501(c)(3) status, and she did say that they were probably not going to approve us and it was because we don't devote airtime that we have paid for to those that represent a different world view and opposing perspectives.

GLENN: You don't have to do that.

DR. DOBSON: And then this Ms. Medley asked our attorney if we want to do revise our application, and he said, "No. If we have to litigate, we will." And nine days later they approved our application. So that was our experience, and I'll bet it's been duplicated many, many times over.

GLENN: Did you say anything at all while you were going through this? Did you say any of this on the air?

DR. DOBSON: Say what? What the IRS had done?

GLENN: Yeah, what was going on.

DR. DOBSON: Yes. Today's program, Family Talk, and tomorrow's program. Tomorrow I'm interviewing Michele Bachmann and today I interviewed Penny Nance.

GLENN: No, but I mean ‑‑

DR. DOBSON: And they are alarmed about it too.

GLENN: During the scandal, during ‑‑ while you were waiting for it, did you ever mention that you were still waiting for the IRS?

DR. DOBSON: No. We obviously didn't want to rock the boat. We wanted to get the approval and so we didn't talk about it because ‑‑

PAT: I bet everybody was like ‑‑

GLENN: We were.

PAT: Everybody was lying that.

GLENN: We did exactly the same thing because we were doing some things as well and had some ‑‑ you know, I had an IRS audit and we ‑‑ you know, everybody said, Glenn, shut your mouth until it's over and you don't want to ‑‑ you just don't want to ‑‑ and that should tell you something. I mean, this is like Muslim extremism. You know, shut your mouth, don't say anything because they'll make it worse. I mean, that should tell you everything you need to know about the organization.

DR. DOBSON: It certainly does. And we knew. We knew what we were dealing with. We had no qualms, no questions about what the Obama administration thinks about conservative Christian organizations but, you know ‑‑

GLENN: So where was this R. Medley, how did you get roped up with her in Cincinnati (sniffing)?

DR. DOBSON: Well, our attorney called and asked for an update and he couldn't ‑‑ or he called to ask for an update and he couldn't get through. And finally she called back responding to him ‑‑

GLENN: Wait. What location was she ‑‑

DOBSON: I've never met her, I don't know her, but she called back and was amazingly candid with us.

GLENN: What location was she at? James, where was she, in what city? Do you know?

DR. DOBSON: You know, I really don't know. I assume that it was Cincinnati, but my attorney would have to answer that. I haven't been involved in any of the conversations because you let attorneys handle these things and that's what we did.

GLENN: Okay. Dr. James Dobson ‑‑

DR. DOBSON: Charles Krauthammer, a commentator on Fox News said something the other night that I thought was very telling. He said that this IRS scandal is the most damaging of all because the American people know the enormous power of the taxing authority and they're frightened by it. And, of course, chief justice John Marshall said in 1819 that the power to tax is power to destroy. So when you add to this the fact that the IRS is going to be the implementer of ObamaCare, they will know not only everything about our money, everything about our money, our salaries, everything, what we spend our money on, everything, but also know everything about our health. And you put those two things together and that is enormous power.

GLENN: Yeah. Dr. James Dobson, thank you so much and we'll talk to you again. Stay safe.

DR. DOBSON: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet.

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