Rabbi Lapin: ‘Christianity Is the Last Unprotected Minority’ and the War Against It Is Real

“It’s not hard to see how things are going and you have to put a stop to it on time.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin joined Glenn Beck on Monday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program” to discuss why society accepts the perpetual war on Christianity and Judaism but not the Muslim faith.

Rabbi Lapin also had a dire warning for Christians and likened current hostility toward Christians and Jews by progressives and the alt-right to Nazi Germany. He shared a famous expression by Winston Churchill with Glenn about a time when England ignored the threat from Germany which drew a striking parallel to modern times.

His warning to Christians?

“There’s a war against Christianity right now and I’d go as far as to say that Christianity is the last unprotected minority,” warned Rabbi Lapin. He further discussed the “mind-numbing” bravery by Hollywood elites at the Golden Globes and posited that they mock the Quran on Broadway the same as they did “The Book of Mormon,” and see what happens.

“They’ll never mock Islam …” said Lapin.

Tune into the podcast above to hear the rest of Glenn’s conversation with Rabbi Lapin.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I spent a lot of vacation reading, and I was trying to look for perspective and insight, and one of the things that I read, one of the articles that I read was by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, and he's with us now.

Hello, Rabbi. How are you?

DANIEL: Hi, Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: I'm good. It's always good to have you. I read a great article that I wanted to talk to you about, by you. Where you start out, "I am no Winston Churchill. I have a hard time even being Daniel Lapin, but I have a warning. Can you a take us through this?

DANIEL: Yeah, sure. My point was that there are times in history when there are certain warnings, where there's writing on the wall. And one of those times was when Winston Churchill, in the ten years that led up to World War II, a time during which England was ignoring the threat of Germany, completely oblivious to the war-like goals of Adolf Hitler in his quest for more space for the third like. Everybody ignored it, and England unilaterally disarmed. They scrapped a number of the royal navy ships. They ignored the possibility of needing an air force. They didn't build planes.

During all this time, Churchill was saying, look. Just read Hitler's book, Mein Kampf. Just listen to his speeches in German. And you'll know where this is going. We are going to have to fight a war, and the longer we put it off, the more serious it's going to become, and the more devastating the consequences to us. Very often -- and this is true in life. Confronting problems on time is better than letting them go. If I had to say, what is the secret of successful living, you know, every one of us right now, do not what you want to do. Do what your head tells you you should do, and do it when you should do it.

And Churchill said the same thing. If you don't fight the war when it should be fought, you're going to fight a much tougher one later on.

And meanwhile, everyone else says, oh, Hitler wants peace, everything's going to be fine, and Prime Minister Chamberlain and said peace in our time -- meanwhile, sold Czechoslovakia down the road.

Anyway, my point is, it's not hard to see how things are going. And you have to put a stop to it on time. Otherwise, it becomes much more difficult. And I felt --

GLENN: You draw this comparison to history, and then you say, look, I want to issue a warning right now to Christians.

DANIEL: Yeah! Absolutely. I know it sounds funny for a rabbi to be singing Onward Christian Soldiers, but the fact is, you know, we just don't have the numbers in terms of people to dramatically impact the culture on the street.

Yes, we have disproportionate influences, no question about that.

Unfortunately, however, 70 or 80% of Jewish influence goes in the wrong direction. It is sadly not a convince that George Soros happens to be a Jew who is utterly divorced from anything Jewish, and he is loathing, I'm quite sure, of the Hebrew testament just as much as he's loathing of anything Christian.

Yes, there is a war against Christianity right now, and I would go as far as to say that Christianity is a lost, unprotected minority.

Yeah.

You know, you spoke earlier in the show about the enormous, mind-numbing, bravery shown by Hollywood. Right?

GLENN: [Laughs.] Yes. It was -- I was weeping.

DANIEL: Sorry?

GLENN: I was weepy and teary-eyed when I saw it the data.

DANIEL: They put the show on Broadway, the Book of Mormon. Really brave, right?

GLENN: Yes.

DANIEL: -- poke fun at one of the most successful groups of people, Latter Day Saints church, most successful group of people on the planet. Strong family life, business, everything works well in the LDS, and so we'll do a show mocking them.

What about the brave -- why don't you do a show called the Book of Islam? Do a show on the Koran on Broadway. Let's see some bravery here. You want to mock something, mock that. But no, never mock Christianity.

Excuse me. They will never mock Islam but they'll mock Judaism, and more than that, Christianity is truly up for grabs.

GLENN: You wrote -- you said, consider the long list of antiChristian books that have been published in recent months. American Fascist, the Christian Right and the War on America. Baptizing of America, the religious right's plans for the rest you was.

The end of faith. Religion, terror, and future of reason. Purity and Politics, the right wing assault on religious freedom. Atheist Universe, the thinking person's answer to Christian fundamentalism. Kingdom Come, how religious right distorts the faith and threatens America. Religion Gone Bad. The hidden dangers of the Christian right.

DANIEL: Without trying, my researchers came up with 50 antiChristian books, books that if you would replace on the cover the word Christian with the word -- pardon me, homosexual or something like that, the world would absolutely go nuts. It would be totally unacceptable. But since it says Christian, it's fine. And you find the same thing also in movies. I'm not saying movies define the culture but they certainly do track the culture.

And the last time a nun was portrayed sensitively and respectfully was the Sound of Music from the '60s. And back in those -- remember Bing Crosby and movies like Boys Town and things like that.

This was a sympathetic priest who played a key role in society, shaped the lives of boys. And now, what do you get now? Now all you get are movies that assault and attack every priest, every nun, every pastor. These are people who are evil and doing horrible things. You know, one in 20,000, but look at the list of folks in show business, right?

One point to find good people overwhelmingly, look at the people who give their lives over to God and who really take care of other people. You find no detection of that at all. Furthermore, I want to say, Roland Emmerich, famous writer and director, he did Independence Day where half the planet was destroyed with computer-generated imagery, of course. But more interestingly, in 2009 I think he did the movie called 2012, which was a celebration of the Mayan myth. He hates Christianity. This is a guy who makes no secret of his loathing of Christianity. He makes the movie, 2012 in which he destroys Jerusalem and the Vatican and the famous statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, and people said to him, look, it makes sense to also destroy the Kaaba, in Mecca.

This is an apocalypse. That's wiping out the whole world. If you're going to wipe out Jerusalem, never mind Washington, D.C. but Jerusalem and the Vatican and Christ the Redeemer statue. He said, do you think I'm crazy? Do you think we want a fatwa?

So he basically said, look, I'm a coward. I'm not an artist. I'm a coward.

GLENN: So you are -- you are saying, your warning, really, was -- because you brought up Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, and you said, look, you can choose to ignore this, but it's at your own peril.

DANIEL: Well, you know, I'm saying that things are not going to slow down. The history doesn't suggest that all on its own, America's popular culture, which is shaped very much today by a secularist agenda, even in the schools, you know, and when you've got the minds of the young, you pretty much can tell which way things are going in the future.

We used to send our children to schools. They would be safe physically and spiritually, and what they were taught were the famous three Rs. Children need to learn to read, to write, and to do arithmetic. Nowadays, we send children to school. They're not always safe physically. Heaven knows they're not safe spiritually. And we don't teach theology.

They do get inculcated and indoctrinated with what I call the three Ss. Socialism, secularism, and sexuality.

They get drenched with secularism, and this is what children come out of school with. This means that those are the future adults and leaders tomorrow. Their hatred to Christianity is going to be the same or more than today's. And so I guess what I'm saying is, let's link arms, shoulder to shoulder, and let us now be as sensitive to attacks on Christians as the blacks are about attacks on African-Americans, and homosexuals -- heaven knows, the best people in the whole world to jump on anyone in the culture who does anything anti-Semitic are my folks. Let's take a page out of the book of all of these folks and Christians, learn to link arms and defend yourself against insults in the call the. I will tell you, the phrase turn the other cheek, which is so well known in Christianity, actually comes from the Old Testament. It's the book of Lamentations. And when Jeremiah wrote that book and spoke about turning the other cheek, it wasn't a virtue. It was a curse. It was saying that your enemies are getting so strong that when they might you on one cheek, you barely can do anything to stop them hitting your other cheek as well.

And so I say, let's go for the Jewish interpretation here.

GLENN: [Laughs.]

And let's what? Go ahead.

DANIEL: Let's stop turning the other cheek. Let's stop ignoring the attacks on Christianity. We Jews know that these attacks on Christianity are bad for everybody, not just for Christians.

GLENN: Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Author of so many books. Let's see. The latest one, America's Real Buried Treasure, recently, Thou Shall Prosper. Rabbi Lapin. You can find him at RabbiDanielLapin.com. RabbiDanielLapin.com.

DANIEL: I appreciate everything you do, Glenn. I really dough.

GLENN: God bless you. Thank you so much. Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.