Obama Demands Black Voters Cement His Fantastic Legacy by Voting

September 19, 2016

Writer

Since Obama delivered so much to the black community during his eight years as president --- you know, things like racial harmony, soaring employment and superior standards of living --- it's only fitting he's owed. Big time. And it's time to pay the piper.

"I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good sendoff, go vote," Obama said recently to a predominately black audience of Capitol Hill lawmakers and guests.

If anyone should be insulted it's black voters.

"I'd consider it a personal insult --- politics is personal. This is the problem with our country. Everything is personal. No. That has nothing to do with you. I don't know if you know this, Barack, but you're not running. And even if you were running, just because I don't vote for you doesn't mean it's a personal insult," Glenn said.

If Obama had actually done anything other than hurt the black community, there would be no plea to make. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Now, let's have this conversation: Low black voter turnout would be a personal insult.

This is Barack Obama: I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy if this community lets down its guard and fails to activity itself this election. You want me to give -- you want to give me a good sendoff, go vote.

Wow. Let's -- let's talk about this here for a second.

JEFFY: Just calling out the action to vote, right?

GLENN: Yeah, uh-huh. So let's talk about this.

First of all, you want to give me a good sendoff -- why should people in the black community give him a good sendoff?

PAT: He's done nothing for them.

GLENN: I mean, I think the exact opposite.

PAT: Yeah, he's hurt --

STU: Well, he did heal all the racial wounds. That pretty much seems to be over, right? You know, I think we're all set.

GLENN: Why should anyone give him a good sendoff?

PAT: He seriously set back race relations in this country 40 years, easily. Fifty years.

GLENN: Easily. Easily.

PAT: We're back in the early '60s now, I think race-wise.

GLENN: And beyond that, just look at unemployment.

PAT: Unemployment is terrible.

GLENN: Unemployment numbers are, with the youth, in 50, 60 percent.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If you look at the standard of living, it's gone down. If you look at the number of poor, it's gone up.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What has he done? What has he done? Now, that's the first thing.

The second: I'd consider it a personal insult -- politics is personal. This is the problem with our country. Everything is personal. No. That has nothing to do with you. I don't know if you know this, Barack, but you're not running.

And even if you were running, just because I don't vote for you doesn't mean it's a personal insult.

PAT: And the third thing in that, he's expecting all blacks to vote en masse --

GLENN: In a bloc --

PAT: In a bloc, for a certain party.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Now, why would they?

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Why would they?

GLENN: Why -- I want you to -- if anybody can defend this, I'd love to hear from you.

How can you possibly defend saying to a group of people, "You owe it to us. You have to vote, or it will be a personal insult to me. It will be bad." How could you possibly not vote for this candidate? Even the guy who has done it has done nothing for them. Even though the guy who is going to replace him, they don't necessarily like. They're not voting for her --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- they're not going out and voting because they don't believe in her.

STU: But do it anyway because it will be a personal insult to me if you don't.

GLENN: Right. And wrong. In fact, he goes on to say: Good sendoff, you got to vote for me -- I think he -- no, I guess that's it. It was somebody else that said something.

Others are taking it a step further and saying, "You know, this is -- this is detrimental to the country if you just don't follow in the bloc?"

STU: I mean, I would be insulted as a voter if they even asked that of me. If you -- you're asking me to vote for a candidate because you will be -- you will be insulted if I don't? You will be -- you think your legacy will be hurt if I don't do that? I mean, that's offensive to even ask. Right?

That's not how you're supposed to vote.

GLENN: Check your brain at the door.

PAT: Especially when his record is so terrible with the black community. They've gone backward, not just the race relations in this country have gone backwards, but so has -- so has the black community because economically they're worse off. Job-wise, they're worse off. The families are worse off. The murder rate, worse off. All of it, it's worse.

GLENN: Again, tell me -- tell me what she has done. What she had done. Not him. I can tell you what he's done.

PAT: For the black community?

GLENN: Tell me what she's done. Because it's about her.

PAT: I can't think of what she's done for anybody.

GLENN: Right. I could look at the party and say, "What has the party done for the black community ever? What has the party done to actually help the black community?"

It wasn't civil rights because that was -- those were the Republicans.

PAT: That was by the Republicans.

GLENN: So even with their own argument, the Republicans became bad after the civil rights movement. So it wasn't civil rights. So what has the Democratic Party done for the black man? What has it done? What has Barack Obama and what has Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton done for the black family?

STU: Well, if they had done something, his argument wouldn't be, you're going to hurt my feelings if you don't vote for Hillary.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It would be, "Hey, look at all these incredible accomplishments. You should vote for those." Instead, it's, "Well, look -- I mean, he is saying those things as well. But you wouldn't need this personal plea if the argument were obvious. If it was, wow, we've changed the lives of African-Americans and made things so much better. That would be an easy argument to sell to people.

PAT: Yeah, it would.

STU: You wouldn't need to say, you'll hurt my feelings if you don't cast this vote.

PAT: If they had actually helped.

STU: Right. That's an easier path. Right?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I mean, maybe that's not easier. That's probably harder, but it's a more direct path.

GLENN: So if the Democratic Party had done some things and they -- and they need to go and said, "Hey, we've done some things for you." And even though you really don't like Hillary Clinton because of her husband's record and everything else, you really don't like her, you wouldn't be offend if they said, "It's not going to hurt my personal feelings, but you need to vote for her because of the Democrats."

STU: Because the Democrats?

GLENN: Right. They're Democrats, and these guys are Republicans, and these guys are evil.

STU: It seems like a terrible way to vote, right? I mean, you don't do that. You vote -- oh, no, I was about to say something really bad. I was about to say, "You vote your conscience."

PAT: Oh, my.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Oh, my gosh. I'm sorry to offend the audience. I didn't mean to go there.

PAT: You hatemonger.

STU: But I will say this, if African-American voters don't vote for Hillary Clinton just because she's a person that they don't like or agree with on things: Well, they own it. I will say that, they own it. Let's say it again: They own it, like it's a really important intellectual point. They own it.

PAT: Stu, will you hold them personally --

STU: I will hold them personally responsible. They own it. Wait. Let me say it 13 more times.

PAT: Now, if you tell me you're a mauve belt or something --

STU: No, I would never go that far.

PAT: -- even after that because then I will really be scared, and so will they.

GLENN: All right. All right.

STU: It's an interesting point though. Is it not the exact same argument? How can you criticize Obama and what he's saying today if you're doing the exact same thing to other voters?

PAT: I don't know. I don't know what you're saying. All I'm saying --

STU: I will be personally -- I will feel --

GLENN: All right. We got it. I got it.

STU: I will hold you personally -- "personally" is the word in both cases. This is getting even more and more interesting.

PAT: It is. It is.

STU: Well, I will say that they own it. Hey, guys, they own it.

GLENN: Okay. We got it. We got it.

STU: Hold on. Let me say it again. They own it. They own it. They own it.

GLENN: Got it. Thank you. Thank you.

Featured Image: U.S. President Barack Obama holds a press conference about the recent bombings in the New York region at the Lotte New York Palace Hotel on September 19, 2016 in New York City. On the evening of September 17, 2016, a bomb placed in a dumpster exploded in lower Manhattan injuring at least 29 people. (Photo by Anthony Behar-Pool/Getty Images)

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