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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)


A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)


Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)


Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)


The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)


When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)


Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)


Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)


If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)


John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)


Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)


Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)


Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)


Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)


Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)


Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)


When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)


There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)


If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.