Dinesh D’Souza: Progressives Shift the Blame, Present Themselves as the Remedy

The very dangerous former inmate Dinesh D'Souza joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday to discuss his thoroughly researched bias against Hillary Clinton, revealed in his bestselling book and movie by the same title, Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. The movie is currently the number one DVD in America on Amazon.

RELATED: Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Hillary’s America’ Horrifies Critics, Delights Audiences

"I noticed he doesn't particularly think Hillary will be a good president," Co-host Stu Burguiere commented.

Glenn also made an observation.

"I've picked up that he's also critical of the Democratic Party," he said.

Not wanting to put words in the bestselling author's mouth, Stu carefully described D'Souza as "skeptical of their leadership."

"I would say that it's almost as if he's calling them racist," Glenn said, not holding back.

What's the truth about D'Souza's stance on Hillary and the Democratic Party?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these hardcore questions:

• What's Bill Clinton's type of girl?

• Is Obama a thin-skinned narcissist?

• Was Hillary raised as a Democrat or Republican?

• Did Hillary participate in beauty contests as a young girl?

• How many Republicans owned slaves in 1860?

• What does former attorney general Eric Holder have in common with the movie Casablanca?

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

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. I've heard that there's this woman, Hillary Clinton, and there's this other guy -- he's a jailbreaker. A law breaker.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: This guy has been in prison. So what credibility does he have? He has an axe to grind against this woman called Hillary Clinton. Who is she? What possible scandals could she have in her past? The law breaker himself, Dinesh D'souza is here, and we begin, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Hillary's America is the number one DVD in America on Amazon right now. And Hillary's America, the book by Dinesh D'souza has been out and been a number one and top five best-seller for a very long time.

Welcome to the program, Dinesh. How are you?

DINESH: Great to be here.

GLENN: Good to have you.

As you're watching Eric Holder -- he tweeted today, right? As you're watching people talk about putting people in prison because they disagree with them politically --

JEFFY: Which could never happen.

GLENN: -- which could never happen in America -- oh, wait a minute. It happened to you.

(chuckling)

When you saw the tweet today from Eric Holder which said...

DINESH: Well, in effect he said, "I am shocked, shocked to hear that there are people talking about putting political dissidents in jail in America."

STU: Right.

DINESH: He seemed to be outraged. It reminded me, of course, that the guy from Casablanca, the lieutenant who was shocked to find gambling going on right under his nose.

GLENN: Right. Right, right.

DINESH: And, my case, look, there are people who have committed campaign finance violations who have gone to prison.

GLENN: Yes.

DINESH: But in every single case, there is corruption or witness tampering, or in one case, the guy had done it several times before. In my case, the amount was 20 grand, my own money. And not something I was looking to gain. I was helping a college friend running for the Senate. So no American has been locked up for doing what I did. And the government looked really hard to find a case so they could tell the judge, "Look, we think you should put this guy in prison because this guy went to prison -- they couldn't find a single case.

And so that's the issue, justice at its core isn't just if you do it. Because, you know, you get a speeding ticket and they give you one year in prison, you did it. But it's a penalty that doesn't fit the crime, where other guys who did the same thing aren't going to get remotely like the same penalty.

GLENN: You've been a guy who has been outspoken from the beginning on Barack Obama and now Hillary Clinton.

You're not making any friends with the woman who could quite possibly be the next president of the United States. What have you changed in your life? Or what has changed mentally in you, knowing what they can do, a lot of people would back off. A lot of people would say, "Okay. I'm going to shut up." You didn't. You doubled down.

What are you thinking?

DINESH: Well, I think I've been in some ways radicalized by my own experience. And when I took on Obama, I thought was making kind of an intellectual discovery about him, that he was not so much a civil rights guy, but an anti-colonialist.

And to pursue that story, journalistically, I went to Kenya. But I think the effect of that movie was to get not only -- it kind of got into his head, Obama, and it made him look bad because, you know, there I was with his brother in the Harooma Slums of Nairobi. Here was President Obama talking about, "We are our brother's keeper." So it made him look like a complete hypocrite. And he's a thin-skinned narcissist. So I think this is where the vendetta started.

But I didn't really know what I was getting into. I thought I was, you know, blowing the whistle and showing people a side of Obama they didn't know.

But you take on the US government, they unleash the FBI on you. They've got your bank records in one hand, your tax files in the other hand. You know, you feel the vulnerability of that, United States of America versus Dinesh D'souza.

So my initial reaction was to step back and cower down. And then when I got in the confinement center, all these hoodlums walking around, sleeping on bunk beds, and spitting everywhere and so on.

Again, my initial reaction was to be a hermit, to stay back. And it was only as I began to reflect on this, it kind of took me back to my childhood. I'm an immigrant. I came to America with $500 in my pocket. I've seen the American dream.

Well, this is the other America. And I decided, "I'm not going to do that. I'm actually going to kind of go all in for this country, which has meant everything to me."

GLENN: Does it concern you -- because you and I both know who Hillary Clinton is. She is corrupt to the core. The WikiLeaks is showing that she'll say one thing to -- you know, out in the open. And the 180-degree opposite, you know, behind closed doors. Does it concern you at all for where this country has been, the trouble that is probably on the horizon, economically, et cetera, et cetera. And thank you're dealing with somebody who says, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Does it concern you at all that you would be targeted again?

DINESH: I'm more concerned for America than I am for myself. In some ways, I feel like there's a certain weird safety being on the front line.

GLENN: Yes.

DINESH: In other words, you know, if the guy who writes Hillary's America, makes the movie Hillary's America disappears tomorrow, who is the main suspect. Right?

GLENN: Right.

DINESH: So in some ways, there's a certain security in being out there in front.

But if she is the gangster that we believe her to be, shouldn't we make every effort to block her? Because once you give her the Oval Office, you give her the accouterments of power -- even as Secretary of State, we saw what she did with that power. But even then, she was under the reign of Obama. However, the Obama people at least were like Hillary: Give us a list of all the foreign donors who are giving you money.

But without that, remove that, and now you have a woman who has the full apparatus of the federal government. The FBI. The CIA at her disposal. It is a terrifying kind of power.

GLENN: You think she ever believed -- you know, I said the other day that the Hillary of the 1960s, if she could come back and meet the Hillary of today, she might punch her in the face. Because she's become everything she claimed she was against.

Was she ever -- was she ever pure in thought and just wanting to do good things? Did she have a turning point in her life where it went really dark?

DINESH: You know, there's only little glimpses of young Hillary that one can get from all the bios of Hillary.

Remarkably, when she was very young, she wanted to be a beauty queen. She entered all these beauty pageants.

JEFFY: That was a tough road.

GLENN: Enough.

DINESH: Well, she wanted to be the classic, you know, the all American girl. That was her original thought. And she was a Goldwater girl in those days. She was a Republican. Her dad was a Republican.

STU: I didn't know that.

DINESH: Oh, yeah. And so her mom was kind of a closet liberal, but the dad was a Republican. I think what happened is when Hillary was late in high school and then on to Wellesley College, she realized, "I don't have the looks, and I don't have the political charm. I don't have that magnetic gregariousness that you need to advance in politics. I actually need to find a partner who does, someone who in a sense can carry me."

GLENN: So do you think that was a political calculation, her relationship, at the beginning?

DINESH: Yeah, I think she knew. See, remember, Bill had had problems with sexual harassment at Oxford, even before he came to Yale Law School. And Hillary knew about that. Hillary knew about Bill from the old days. She knew from the beginning. So she made a decision to go ahead. And there had to be a reason. Just like there had to be a reason for Bill to go for her. She's not his type. He's the opposite of his type.

GLENN: What's his type?

DINESH: His type is Monica Lewinsky.

JEFFY: Yeah.

DINESH: His type is the sort of, you know, high cheek-boned, wide jawed, you know, trailer park girl, if you will.

DINESH: Thick hair.

DINESH: Yeah. He likes that style. Hillary, the hippie. Hillary, the sort of, don't shave your underarms. Hillary, the sort of ideologue. That's just not --

GLENN: You didn't need to bring that up.

JEFFY: Oh, we're back to beauty pageants?

(laughter)

DINESH: No, this is -- I'm just drawing on what was -- yeah, this was all -- this is all in the Hillary biographies.

GLENN: Right, right, right.

DINESH: So they both found something that the other person had, and they made a pact early on. And their marriage has been based on that. So that's why I think it's been so interesting to see the media playing this pageant.

GLENN: So when do you think she went really corrupt and dark? Was -- let me just ask you this: You know, the Travelgate and the Lincoln bedroom, and the selling of access. Was that the beginning -- the training wheels of what became the Clinton Foundation? And if so, what is the Clinton Foundation, the training wheel for, to come?

DINESH: Yeah. So you remember in the Arkansas days, the Clintons would do small-time -- they would do small-time rackets. Hillary puts in a thousand bucks, she makes 100 grand because there's a guy who is essentially sheltering her from risk. And why is he doing that? Because Bill is attorney general.

So they're running small rackets. Then they get to the White House. They can't believe it. They suddenly realize that things like pardons can be sold. And so here's Mark Rich. He's willing to put in millions of dollars into the DNC and to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for a pardon. And they're on their way out the door. Why not? They go for it.

So to them, everything is for sale. Now, when Hillary becomes Secretary of State, now, they've already exited the presidency. And now their schemes become cleverer and bigger. And they realize, "Oh, Bill's speaking fee is $150,000. Why don't we move it up to $600,000?" Obviously, Bill's content isn't going to improve.

GLENN: Right. There's no slide show coming with it.

DINESH: But now they want favors out of Hillary, and so this isn't really paying for a speech. It's a bribe. But it's just guised as payment for a speech. And so the Clintons in that sense are completely unscrupulous. I haven't seen anything like this -- we've seen it with like Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall in New York. But at the national level, I mean, have you heard of a Secretary of State renting out American foreign policy? Never.

GLENN: No. So what does that give us a glimpse into what she is going to be if she wins? What does America -- what does American policy look like?

DINESH: The way I think about it is kind of like this: What did Al Capone want out of Chicago? If you could give him everything he wanted, what did he want? He basically wanted to be the mob boss of Chicago. Right? He wanted to be able to loot the treasury. He wanted all his buddies to be on the payroll. He can give him contracts when he wants. He wanted his critics to be pushed away. Leave the state. I'll throw you off a roof. I'll reduce your influence. I'll get you fired. And the most important thing, he wanted to walk into the big Chicago stadium and have the whole crowd stand up and shout, "Big Al, Big Al, Big Al," with cult-like devotion. That's what Hillary wants from America. She wants to be the --

GLENN: So she's -- we're not talking about Evita. We're talking about an oligarch.

DINESH: Yeah, if you look at Evita -- I mean, Evita was corrupt. Evita wanted to -- Evita was sort of a girl from the wrong side of the tracks who made good and wanted to cash in on her opportunity.

But let's say this: Did Evita care how the ordinary Argentine live his life? Did Evita want to tell you what religion to practice or where you can live or whether you can own a gun? She couldn't care less.

GLENN: Right.

DINESH: And most dictators are even like that. They don't care about your personal life. As long as they're ensconced in power and you don't molest them, they don't want to molest you. But today's progressivism has such a built-in tyrannical impulse, which Hillary embodies, that you can't say today, "I'm going to go in my little enclave, and I'm going to be sheltered. And I'll just live my life, drive my pickup truck, and I'll go hunting."

No, they're going to come after you, in your church, out on the hunting range. They're not going to leave you alone, and so we can't leave them alone.

GLENN: Okay. Back in just a second with more of Dinesh D'souza. Is the paper book out yet?

DINESH: No, the books are still in hardback, but the movie is out in DVD.

GLENN: The movie is out in DVD. It's Hillary's America. Dinesh D'Souza.

[break]

GLENN: Dinesh D'souza is with us. The movie, on DVD, is out now. Hillary's America. Where he really takes you back to the -- the roots of the Democrats and the progressive party, which is as racist as you can get.

DINESH: And -- and many of the rip-off schemes, the rackets, the exploitation, that we see in the Clintons, we find that sordid tradition going back all the way to Andrew Jackson. So the racism wasn't just that I don't like blacks. It was that I found a way to get black people to work for me for free. In other words, that's what slavery was. It's basically a stealing of another man's labor. And in order to steal his labor, you have to steal his whole life.

And the Democrats championed that. And they said it was a good thing. So they're the inventor of the notion of slavery as a positive good.

And then after the Civil War, they came up with new schemes. Segregation, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, and then the whole social Darwinism, forced sterilization, all of which led to sympathy for fascism.

So there's all this stuff. And I think in one of the greatest -- you know, there's the economic heist. You rob Fort Knox. You rob the treasury. But then there's the intellectual heist, which is, you rob the honor of America and the Republican Party, and you blame them for the bad things that you did. That's the genius of the progressives, is to shift the blame on to someone else.

GLENN: It is.

DINESH: And then present themselves as the remedy.

GLENN: How is it that the Klan, which has always been Democrat -- it was a Democratic voting machine. How is it that the Klan has now moved into this alt-right, to where they're -- I mean, they are -- you know, like the neo-Nazis. National socialism. How -- what do they find with the right that they identify with?

DINESH: Well, the -- let's think of what motivated someone to join the Klan in the first place. Like, why would you join the Ku Klux Klan?

The reason was that in the South, what the Democratic Party said to the poor white guy is, "I'm going to make you a member of an aristocracy." Right? You're going to be higher than every black guy in the country. So even if here is a black guy, he's educated, he went to college, he's got a good job, and you don't, but because of your skin color, I'm going to put you on top of him. So whiteness becomes membership in this racial club. And your social status becomes elevated by virtue.

So Democrats were offering that to poor whites in the South. And that was one of the main reasons -- think of why the poor whites thought in the Civil War. They didn't have slaves. What were they fighting for? What was in it for them? The Democrats have always understood the kind of low motives of the human psyche.

Even today, look at the way they tap into avarice, envy, all these secret emotions that people have. And they never do it openly. They never say, "You're an envious man." They go -- they make it seem like you're self-righteous. "You're being denied your fair share." Therefore, you should you know smash into this guy's house and take his stuff because he owes owes you. So the the Democrats know what they're doing. They're playing with fire. They're playing with low human emotions. Now, there is a far right version of doing the same thing. And so you may say that at the extremes, the right and the left tend to converge.

GLENN: But what I don't understand is, for instance, the neo-Nazis, their claim is the far right, but they're national socialists. I mean, the right in America has always been the smallest possible government. You know...

DINESH: No, absolutely.

GLENN: Extreme on the right should be anarchists.

DINESH: Even in Europe, if you think of the right, what's the extreme right in Europe? It was throne and alter.

GLENN: Right.

KELLY: It was the idea of a country run by an alliance between sacred church and the monarchy.

GLENN: Yes.

DINESH: And that's gone. That's want ape threat today.

GLENN: Right.

DINESH: What is a threat today is a different kind of different collectivism. Which was now a by the Nazis by the progressives. Most people don't realize all those three movements were on the same side of the aisle.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Can we see the example of what you're talking about in the way they frame things? We've talked about about forever, keeping up with the Joneses, we looked at that as a negative idea, or what everybody else in your town has. Now they frame that as income inequality. And it's the same basic foundational belief, right? That you should be able to get what everyone else has. But now that it's framed as income equality, all of a sudden that's a positive. Isn't that an example of what they're trying to do?

GLENN: Twenty seconds.

DINESH: Yeah, the good side of it is trying to immolate the successful guy, and that's what we believe. Right? The guy starts a business. You should. The Democrat approach is different. And that is to appeal to envy, to appeal to him pulling you down until the two of you are leveled.

GLENN: Yes. So when we come back, I want to talk to you a little about, what does America look like with Hillary Clinton as president of the United States? It can't be good. Dinesh D'souza, next.

[break]

GLENN: We're talking to Dinesh D'souza. Hillary's America is out. The book, also the movie. Number one DVD, Amazon. Great movie. A lot of really good research. I am so happy, Dinesh that you did it the way you did it. It's more than a documentary and talking heads. It's almost like a feature film.

DINESH: It's entertaining. And that's why people go to the movies.

GLENN: Yeah.

DINESH: And, you know, I'm thrilled that people love the movie. And I tried to put strong generalizations in the movie and invite the left to go after them. In 1860, the year of the Civil War, no Republican owned a slave. All the slave in the whole country were owned by Democrats. Now, think about that. That's a claim you can refute by simply giving me a list of five Republicans who owned slaves. No one has been able to do it. So it's the kind of unnerving factual claim that you go, "Why didn't someone tell me that in school? Why haven't I seen that in the media?"

DINESH: And part of what gives power to our movie is that the left has been so successful in covering things up, in putting out a false narrative.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, people get angry --

DINESH: Truth becomes incendiary.

GLENN: People get angry when they realize that this has all been hidden from them, especially African-Americans. They really feel duped.

DINESH: Who did the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. The leftist claim the full credit --- we did it. So whatever our sins in the past are washed clean because we gave you the civil rights movement. No, in fact, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats; the main opposition came from the Democratic Party.

GLENN: So let me ask you this question: And I said this on the air the other day, and I've actually called a couple of historians and asked them, and they said, "Wow, I don't know, but let me look into it."

You might actually know. Who wrote the Civil Rights Bill and, more importantly, the Great Society bills from LBJ?

Because we just did a deal about the destructive force of those programs, you couldn't have designed them any better to tear the black community apart. And then I started thinking, "Wait. But that's -- I mean, that was the progressive ideal." Were there deep progressives that wrote that -- do you know, were there any real racist progressives that wrote that? Any evidence at all that that may have been an intention of some that wrote that Great Society?

DINESH: Well, you know, going back to FDR and Social Security, FDR knew that it had to be designed -- if he wanted it to work politically, it had to be designed in a way that no one could undo it.

And FDR boasted, I'm going to design it in such a way that it can't be ended. It will go on forever. And the way I do that is I don't have Glenn Beck have a retirement account and Dinesh have a retirement account. I'm going to make it so that the old people today are funded by the young people today.

And that's why, when the young people become old, they're going to demand that the next generation of young people pay for them.

So these people thought of that stuff. They thought -- they weren't just thinking about helping Glenn Beck and Dinesh retire. They were thinking, how do we, the Democrats, get to own this program and own these people for generations?

Same with LBJ. With the LBJ -- they didn't say, let's go destroy the black family.

But they went, "How do we create a whole class of people who need us in order to get by, to pay the mortgage, to get food? Because that way, we got them. And if we can kind of hold them in this dependency -- so this is why, for example, why the left opposed gentrification schemes in the inner city.

You come in and say -- and you're not even a government. You're a private business. You go, listen, I want to bring in Starbucks. I want to bring in all these companies who will create lofts -- high-tech companies. Everyone will have jobs. The real estate values will go up.

The people who live there are better off because their property values will go up. The left will oppose you.

Why? Because they know, we've got 90 percent of these people enthralled to us right now. They're voting for us. If we make them self-reliant, they're going to be like, "Okay. I'm leaving the plantation. Goodbye." And so they don't want that to happen. And so they have a perverse incentive to keep these people enthralled.

GLENN: Into the book is Hillary's America. What does it look like in four years if she wins?

DINESH: Well, I'm from India, a country run by gangs. If you saw Slum Dog Millionaire, you get a feeling for what that's like. Debbie, my wife is from Venezuela. You know what it's like over there. People are eating dogs and cats, and the country is run like one big gang.

So we came to America because in America you don't have to be corrupt in everyday life. You don't to have pay a bribe to a cop. You can live your normal life. There are ladders of opportunity. That America is up for grabs right now, and I think Hillary is the antithesis of that. She's the antithesis of ladders of opportunity. She represents the whole idea that we belong to the government. She controls the government. We belong to her, in effect. That's the America that she's pushing for, if the American people will sign on the dotted line.

GLENN: Will the people sign on the dotted line? Are you saying this election, or will people sign on the dotted line after the election?

DINESH: Well, I think the sad thing about America is that the people who make the difference in the election are the least attuned to what's going on.

They're the people -- and their impulse isn't bad. Their impulse is that in a good country, you should normally be able to mow your lawn and go to work and go to the movies and not worry a whole lot about politics. Just like you should be able to live in a house and sleep on the couch and walk in the hallway without consulting the blueprints every day.

GLENN: Right.

DINESH: But it's when your house begins to shake, then you need the blueprints. And similarly, we are at one of those rare times in American history. I've only known four or five times in US history where this has been the case, where more is being asked of the ordinary citizen. More knowledge. More vigilance. More alertness.

Some of us as immigrants know this instinctively. And so it's a little bit of a waking up process to get the ordinary American who is like, what? What -- what's new? Why do I have to do this now? Well, because this is a different situation than it was in 1980 or even in 1960.

GLENN: Do we make it?

DINESH: You know, I think we do. I'm optimistic. I'm not one of these guys who goes, "The country is finished if Hillary wins." But it is true that when you take a lot of blows on the head, you become a different country. We've gone through a lot with Obama. It's not going to help.

GLENN: We are completely a different country than we were 15 years ago or eight years ago. Completely different country.

In retrospect, Barack Obama, better or worse or the same of what you thought in 2008?

DINESH: I think I had the sense of Obama in 2008 of a twisted pathetic, emotionally deformed person who had been abandoned by his mom and his dad. And out of this had hatched this perverted ideology that he was -- that he believed. And that he was pursuing with dogged determination. He wrapped it up in the bow of hope and change. But it actually was a very concrete set of things. That is still my view of Obama. He's a messed-up guy at the core, but his messed-upness is wrapped up in a kind of false idealism, just like his narcissism springs from deep insecurity. He's a more interesting person than Hillary.

Hillary is a straight-out, you know, Luca Brasi. What makes Hillary interesting is that she's Luca Brasi who tries to pass herself off as wearing a halo, which is a very ugly and kind of ridiculous sight. And that's what makes her comic, as well as tragic. So I don't really -- I'm not interested in Hillary, in the way I am interested -- I would like to have dinner with Obama. I'd find him interesting psychologically.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

DINESH: The same way I'd like to meet Nixon. But Hillary, I'll pass.

GLENN: So, but wait. What I was asking was -- the country weathered him better than I thought we would.

DINESH: Yeah, he's -- what he's done is he's weakened -- I think his greatest harm is he's weakened American influence in the world.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

JEFFY: Huge.

DINESH: It used to be that nothing could happen in South America, in the Middle East, in the Far East without America having a big say so. He's sort of made us irrelevant, and that was his goal.

GLENN: Yes.

DINESH: So that's his greatest --

JEFFY: A lot of help with Hillary Clinton on that in the State Department.

GLENN: Yeah.

DINESH: Yes, but it was his agenda. She was a functionary for his agenda in doing that.

GLENN: What's the difference between his agenda and her agenda?

DINESH: Her agenda essentially has to do with large suitcases of cash. Because I honestly believe that any country can get a meeting with Hillary, if they're willing to pay. Any business can get a meeting with Hillary, if they're willing to pay. And so in that sense, Hillary is above ideology. She has an ideology, and the ideology serves her. But she's perfectly willing to go against it if --

GLENN: Any of the triangulation of Bill Clinton in Hillary?

DINESH: Very little. Only the rhetorical triangulation. When she says things like, "I want to be a president for Republicans too." Now, that is a very interesting statement. Because in our system, the president is supposed to even represent the people who voted against him or her. She has no intention of doing it, but she says it.

JEFFY: Right. Right.

STU: Because that's one of the interesting things that's come out of the Podesta emails coming out, is that Hillary behind closed doors seems to be much better than she is in public. In that, she is saying things that are pro-free trade. She is saying things that are pro-fracking. She's saying these things. And my instinct is, she's saying them because she thinks the audience at that private speech thinks that, so she's playing to that. Is it just a --

GLENN: Which one is she? Is she the private one that is pro-business, pro-fracking if you pay, or is she the radical that wants to shut everything down because she believes in global warming?

DINESH: Well, she's neither. She gains on both fronts. So, for example, let's take a Hillary meeting with Goldman Sachs. Here's what Hillary says to Goldman Sachs.

She says, "Listen, out there, I've got to denounce you guys. Right? So I'm doing it because I have something to gain, which is political. I have to make you look bad because you're the enemy that's going to help rally people to my side. I've got to fool those people into thinking that I'm conspiring with them against you." Right?

And then she tells the Goldman Sachs, "But in reality, I'm conspiring with you against them. In other words, I've got all kinds of deals with you, if you're willing to give me money to the Clinton Foundation and to my causes. I can do business with you."

So she's benefiting at both ends, and that's the common denominator. And she's letting the Goldman Sachs people know, because they're sophisticated enough, that I have to do this.

GLENN: So the only thing she cares about is money?

DINESH: And power. And power. And power is the way the Clintons get money.

Now, usually in American politics, you make money first. FDR was rich when he ran for office. JFK was rich. So in America, people don't go to power to make money. The Clintons do.

GLENN: The Clinton Foundation laid the foundation of something that I think is just horrendous. And it's going to make Barack Obama a very powerful and wealthy man.

JEFFY: Oh.

GLENN: Does he build a much more powerful Clinton Foundation, and does that continue? Does his influence continue to change and shape the world?

DINESH: I don't see Obama quitting. Like I say, he believes what he does and what he says.

GLENN: Yeah.

DINESH: I totally think he will move in -- he'll learn from the Clinton Foundation. But let's remember what made the Clinton Foundation so perverse is that this -- you know, it's not uncommon for politicians when they quit to go to lobbying firms and make money. So cashing in later is one thing.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

DINESH: It's much worse to cash in while you're the decision-maker. And you go to a group of Indian businessmen. And they go, "Okay. Bill, here's 500,000 to make a speech. Now, we want Hillary to change America's position on the India Nuclear Deal. And if you do that, $20 million or $10 million will come flowing to your foundation."

I mean, that is actually selling US policy. Think about it, if the Clintons have gone from zero to $300 million, what's the product that they've been selling? They haven't made the i Phone. They haven't started a business. Their product is public policy.

Now, public policy belongs to us. It's the American people's product, but they're selling it. And they're cashing in on it. That's what makes them deeply corrupt. That's what, at the end of the day, for all Trump has done this, he has not done that, and they have.

GLENN: Hillary's America. Dinesh D'souza. Available in books and also DVD. Number one best-selling DVD on Amazon right now. Always good to see you and your lovely wife.

DINESH: Pleasure.

GLENN: Talk to you again.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Dinesh D'Souza featured on The Glenn Beck Program.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.