Blast From Obama's Past at Gun Town Hall

January 08, 2016

Writer

An unlikely character was paraded out Thursday night at CNN's Town Hall on gun control.

Moderated by Anderson Cooper, the town hall featured both gun rights and gun control advocates---including the controversial Fr. Michael Pfleger, the radical Chicago priest from Obama's Jeremiah Wright days.

Father Pfleger was markedly composed during the town hall, but his comments remained rife with radical ideas.

"The reality is that I don't understand why we can't title guns just like cars," said Pfleger.

Naturally, a little thing like the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means nothing to him.

The radical priest typically displays a more ginned up persona in the pulpit or in front of the media. In case you've forgotten some of Pfleger's more flagrant comments, here are a couple of reminders:

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

GLENN: I was pretty amazed and impressed that Taya Kyle was there and some of the other people that were there in the audience of this town hall meeting. I did not expect that. But I was absolutely astounded, astounded that the president, on his side, welcomed Michael Pfleger.

PAT: Nutjob. Absolute nutjob.

GLENN: Complete nutjob.

PAT: I don't know if people remember because it's probably been seven or eight years. It's been almost eight years. He was around the time of Jeremiah Wright. He would come in and guest speak at Jeremiah Wright's -- they were fast friends. He's another one of those psychos from Chicago, just out of their mind. He's a Catholic priest, but I don't see any Catholicism in him.

GLENN: No, I believe the church has asked him to shut up and sit down.

PAT: Stop? Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.

STU: They asked him to leave at one point, didn't they?

GLENN: Yeah, they were like, "You're crazy. So shut up."

But Michael Pfleger is the guy -- if I'm not mistaken, he's the guy that when Jeremiah Wright was exposed, he was like, "I'm not with Jeremiah Wright." And it was Pfleger that he said was his spiritual adviser. And Pfleger would go to the White House or call him and pray with him and give him spiritual advice.

PAT: Where did Wallace fit in there then?

GLENN: Jim Wallace?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah, Jim Wallace was in there too.

STU: Yeah, Pfleger was in that series of characters that surrounded Obama in that Jeremiah Wright --

PAT: Look at the radicals with this guy. It's just --

STU: And listen to him speak. I mean, he's --

PAT: Oh.

GLENN: Okay. So let's listen to him a little bit. Do you have last night --

PAT: Oh, this is going to fill you with the Spirit.

STU: Oh, really?

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: This is not from last night.

PAT: No, this is from several years ago.

GLENN: Yeah, so this is one of the president's spiritual advisers and one of the people that he felt was qualified to help him make his case against guns.

PAT: Be prepared to almost be lifted up here and just weep, like a 3-year-old girl.

MICHAEL: -- honest enough to address the one who says, "Don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did."

CROWD: Yes! Yes!

MICHAEL: But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did, and unless you are ready to give up the benefits, throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money that's been put away in the company you walked into because your daddy and your granddaddy and your great -- unless you're willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation because you are the beneficiaries of this insurance policy!

PAT: Crazy, man. He's crazy. That is crazy.

GLENN: Amen. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

STU: Talking about reparations.

PAT: Yeah.

MICHAEL: -- if you're honest enough (breathing), to expose white entitlement.

VOICE: Entitlement!

PAT: The guy is white, by the way.

MICHAEL: The supremacy, wherever it raises its heads.

JEFFY: Does he identify as white?

PAT: I don't know.

STU: That's a good point. I don't know.

MICHAEL: I said before, I really don't want to make this political because you know I'm very unpolitical.

(applause)

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

MICHAEL: But when Hillary was crying and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, "This is mine."

(applauding)

(laughter)

MICHAEL: I'm Bill's wife. I'm white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.

PAT: Remember how anti-white he was? I mean, he can't even breathe, he was so --

GLENN: I know. Yeah, he was so -- he reminds me of another piece of audio. If you remember somebody else ranting and -- (heavy breathing)

(laughter)

VOICE: (heavy breathing) You don't care.

GLENN: Mel Gibson.

STU: Yeah, one of Mel Gibson's crazy phone calls. Another off-the-reservation Catholic.

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: You know, those two have a lot in common. I think the Pope would go, "Yeah, these guy are not really with us."

STU: I didn't feel the love. And it did seem like -- was he on a treadmill during the --

PAT: No, he wasn't. No.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Okay. So we had Taya Kyle on our side and the rape victim. To help bolster the president's argument, he goes to Michael Pfleger. And these are the same guys that say because you are Christian, you're clinging to your God and your guns. Because you're a conservative, you're clinging to your God and your guns. This is his spiritual adviser. Wow.

PAT: I mean, you forget sometimes how many radicals he was surrounded by because --

JEFFY: Was?

PAT: And still is. And still is.

GLENN: Is.

Featured Image: US President Barack Obama speaks at a town hall meeting with CNN's Anderson Cooper on reducing gun violence at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, on January 7, 2016. Obama announced limited measures two days ago to tackle rampant US gun violence and called on Americans to punish lawmakers who oppose more meaningful reforms. (Photo credit should read NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

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