Obama's Colossal Mistake That Could Get Us Into a Proxy War With Russia

October 06, 2016

Writer

Barack Obama wants to go to war with Syria? Those words are evidently floating around the capitol.

"That is a very thinly veiled proxy war with Russia. A colossally bad idea," Glenn said Thursday, kicking off his radio program.

Not only is it a bad idea, it's also unconstitutional; only Congress can declare war. But don't worry. Obama reveres the U.S. Constitution and always follows it to the letter.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these colossally important questions:

• What other U.S. war was a proxy war with Russia?

• Does Vladimir Putin perceive the U.S. to be weak?

• Is Vladimir Putin on a mission to restore the Russian empire?

• Why did the U.S. suspend diplomatic relations with Russia in Syria?

• What excuse would Obama give to enter into war with Syria?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Hello, America. And welcome to the program. We were just talking about a new -- I got a call from a couple of people in Washington yesterday because there are new voices floating around the capitol that Barack Obama wants to go to war with Syria. So you know, that is a very thinly veiled proxy war with Russia. A very -- a colossally bad idea.

Mike Lee is going to be on, either today or tomorrow to talk a little bit about that. He posted something on Facebook yesterday, actually made me call him. And I said, "What -- why is that?" He posted on Facebook about the separations of power for the president and Congress and said, "Only Congress has the ability to declare war, and Barack Obama needs to come to Congress to declare war if he wants to start another one."

I'm telling you, what we said yesterday, we are on the precipice. Nobody wants to hear it. But for those in this 10 million strong audience that are willing to open your mind and listen to something other than partisan politics, it's important that someone sees what's coming. And that someone is you. And we begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: We'll find ourselves -- I know.

We're talking about how nobody is going to declare war. Nobody is going to go through Congress. We haven't done that in a long time, but we need to have that conversation. Because I'm telling you, it's coming.

PAT: Yeah. World War II, I think, was the last time. Because Korea was a police action.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

PAT: And they got approval from the UN. But they didn't get approval from Congress.

GLENN: Right. And we all know how that worked out. And that was a proxy war between us -- Vietnam was a proxy war between us and Russia. And that is what's going to happen in Syria.

PAT: And Korea was a proxy war between us and China.

GLENN: Yep. Enough proxy wars.

PAT: Yeah, we've had enough of those.

GLENN: And this is not going to stay a proxy war. It's not. Vladimir Putin perceives us as very, very weak. And we dismiss them as very weak.

What we don't take into account is the man believes he is on a mission from God to reestablish the -- the Russian empire, the holy Russian empire.

And he is making a pact with those in the Middle East. He has befriended Syria. He has befriended Iran. Saudi Arabia is moving towards the same kind of situation. Saudi Arabia is moving towards Russia and away from us. We're going to have the Middle East and Russia against us. I don't think that's a good scenario at all.

And Barack Obama is now talked about the -- the word in the capitol. And I've heard this from several sources. Is that we're moving towards a war footing with Syria in a proxy war. And Barack Obama is going to say, "We need to do it for humanitarian reasons."

JEFFY: I thought John Kerry just lost an argument that he couldn't use war or significant growth in his negotiations.

GLENN: No, no. I am hoping this is not true. I am hoping this is not true. But I heard those rumors. And I called Mike, and I said, "Why did you post this on Facebook? Why -- because he just sat in front of his computer and said, "Here's what we all need to understand: Congress -- Congress is the one that can declare war." And that was concerning to me. After hearing the rumors and seeing what's happened in Russia -- where as I told you at the beginning of the weak, today is the final day of the four-day 40 million people strong civil defense test in -- in Russia, where they dispatched people all over the country, affecting 40 million people. And they went in for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and shut cities and businesses and schools and universities down and set it up as if it was a treatment center. Plus, they had all their fire departments, you know, scrambling. And how do we put out a nuclear fire?

It is a very big deal. Then, as we told you on yesterday's program, Friday, we told you that we had broken off diplomatic relations about Syria with Russia. Then we find out that they are in a civil defense maneuver for four days, affecting 40 million. I've already told you that Putin said that we are going to -- we're already in World War III and he can't get anybody to listen to them. And then on top of it, as we said yesterday, the Soviet or the Russian state television said -- and was quoted yesterday saying that a nuclear war with the United States -- didn't they say seems inevitable?

Look it up. It was -- if it wasn't -- I think inevitable is too strong.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: Seems very likely. Something like that. That we are on the road to a nuclear war.

I don't know if we're on the warpath with nuclear war. I have no idea. But we are entering a game-changing time. Game-changing time.

As game-changing as it was in 1914 and '15 and 1941 -- or, '38.

JEFFY: Imminent.

GLENN: Imminent. Imminent nuclear war with the United States

PAT: It's hard to believe that Obama would send troops to Syria.

JEFFY: It sure is.

PAT: You know, based on everything he ran on. Based on everything he said over eight years. Of course, it doesn't matter what anybody says anymore. Nobody listens. So he could get away with it, I suppose. But it's --

JEFFY: -- more than his belief in sending troops in?

PAT: Yeah. Come on.

GLENN: Okay. So, but let's think this through on history. And history always gets me into trouble. Because history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Okay. So just because someone is repeating the patterns that Adolf Hitler did -- I just had this argument with somebody yesterday: You can't say that so-and-so is Adolf Hitler. I've never said -- let's be frank about it. It was Donald Trump. I never said that he was Hitler. Never said that he was Hitler. Stop it. Only Adolf Hitler is Hitler.

Was he a guy with the initials, A.H. that nobody -- if he was Steve Johnson and he did the same things up until 1933, no one would have a problem with me saying, "Look at, he did exactly what Steve Johnson did in 1920 to 1933." That doesn't mean that he's going to gas 10 million people.

PAT: No. But Steve --

GLENN: That was Adolf Hitler.

PAT: -- was dangerous. Let's be honest.

GLENN: So you can't -- what you have to -- and this is hard for people to do: You have to look at what time period you're talked about.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: There is a huge difference. And past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

STU: Right. If you have ten paths to walk down, they all look very similar early on. Only one of them might end in the worst human tragedy of all the time.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But you don't take the chance to walk down the path even a step.

GLENN: Or you walk down the path with your eyes wide open and say, "Wait. No. You're leaning that way. We have to go this way."

STU: That's correct. We have to make sure we learn the lessons.

GLENN: You learn the lessons from the past so you don't repeat them. And when you see the patterns, you say, "Pattern. Let's make sure we stay off this road."

PAT: That's what learning from history is supposed to be. Right?

GLENN: That's what never forget means, you remember the patterns that got you there. Because no one is born evil.

Featured Image: Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) meets with his US counterpart Barack Obama on the sidelines of the G20 Leaders Summit in Hangzhou on September 5, 2016. (Photo Credit: ALEXEI DRUZHININ/AFP/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