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

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

November 19, 2015
Ted Tuttle

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.