Glenn talks with Andrew McCarthy




Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad


by Andrew C. McCarthy

RELATED ARTICLE:


No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen

GLENN: Andrew McCarthy is a guy I had on last night. Andrew McCarthy was the lead prosecutor for the '93 World Trade Center bombing. This guy has been -- I mean, he's been going after bad guys for quite some time and he's got an incredible article out about the company that he keeps on Barack Obama. And we started in on this conversation and I had, like, three and a half minutes with him last night. Started in on this conversation and there's just not enough time because the pieces of the puzzle on Barack Obama, you have to put them together yourself. And there are so many pieces out there that give us a very different picture. A disturbing picture on who Barack Obama really is based on the company that he keeps. Andrew, how are you?

McCARTHY: Glenn, I'm great, how are you?

GLENN: Very good. I want to get right to Barack Obama and the company he keeps. Before we get into it, tell me why it matters. Some people say, "Oh, you can't judge him by the people that are around him or that he's had contact with."

McCARTHY: Yeah, I used to hear that when I was a prosecutor, too, you know. They used to say you can't -- that's just guilt by association to which, you know, usually before people got convicted, I would say, well, you know, try proving conspiracy without association, you know. I mean, it's sort of an element that's of some importance. And obviously we don't condemn somebody simply because of who he associates with but, you know, people are drawn to each other for a reason, and I think there's a theme that runs through all of these troublesome connections that Obama has and frankly he's somewhat lucky, I think, even though you -- if that's a strange way to put it, that so much of this analysis has been infected by the racial element of right because I think the racial component is actually the least important of the things that strings this altogether.

GLENN: Well, the racial element is the first tip-off that this guy has Marxist tendencies.

McCARTHY: Yeah, that's exactly right. And the racial element, if you dig a little bit deeper into it, this liberation theology, this Black Liberation Theology is just really a sort of a parrot of the leftist liberation theology that was -- you know, that came to our attention so powerfully in the Sixties and Seventies in South and Central America.

GLENN: Well, I mean, here's -- I love this from your article, from the church's own mission statement that he goes to. "We are African people and we remain true to our native land, the mother continent and the cradle of civilization." The one that you would remain true to, your native land, I mean, most people that go to that church, I would imagine their native land is America.

McCARTHY: Yeah, you would hope that. I don't think that you can uncouple that with some of the, not only the fact that Obama stayed in that church for so long and, you know, had Wright marry him and baptize his children, but some of the things Michelle Obama has said hook up to this a little bit too uncomfortably for me. For example, this business in her thesis and, you know, I know we all don't want to be tagged with our college usings but again, you know, we're trying to put these pieces together. But she actually argues in the thesis that a separatist would understand the black community and the black experience in America better than one of these sort of benighted integrationists because only the separatist really understands the authentic experience and can touch that. And I just, when I hear that sort of stuff, I hear the very echoes of the part of the mission statement that you're talking about here.

GLENN: All right. So let me -- let's start at the beginning because I think Michelle Obama is the key to understanding Barack Obama. I think, you know, her statements that people dismiss on, oh, America is just downright mean or some of the stuff she just said in a speech last night that was absolutely incredible about how, you know, she went to Harvard and Princeton but people tried to keep her down there and she barely makes it and she's an anomaly and, gosh, now they're trying to take the presidency away from her husband. I mean, it's amazing stuff, but let's get to her through two other really important pieces and that is let's start with William Ayers.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: William Ayers, you told me last night on television you need to read the September 11th article on William Ayers, member of the Weather Underground. Last night we posted it up on our website. I bet it's probably still there. America, you should read this. When I read it, Andrew -- I was amazed at this guy that he is allowed to be -- or that he's, not allowed, that he's so accepted by the people in Barack Obama's company.

McCARTHY: You know, Glenn, and the thing I asked you yesterday and I'm sure now that you've taken a look at it, it resonates even more. Common sense question for people. Ask yourself, could you talk to this guy for 30 seconds and not know where he was coming from.

GLENN: No.

McCARTHY: Then if the answer's no, then ask yourself if you're a person of Barack Obama's sophistication and education, is it conceivable that you could be around this guy -- and he spent quite a bit of time around him -- and not know precisely where he was coming from and how he wanted to quote/unquote change America?

GLENN: Well, it makes -- when you start to look into who his friends are, it makes a couple of things, like the flag lapel pin makes sense, that he won't wear a flag lapel pin. There is a very famous picture that we posted on the website a few months ago where he was on the phone at a campaign headquarters with a Che Guevara flag behind him.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: And I thought to myself what candidate would sit in there and have that picture taken with a Che flag behind him. Well, I know exactly what candidate, a guy who would associate with William Ayers. Tell everybody about William Ayers. Take it a little deeper than what we know as member of the Weather Underground, bombed the Pentagon.

McCARTHY: Right, bombed the Pentagon, bombed other U.S. targets including the capitol, banks, U.S. headquarters, et cetera. Now, Obama waves at all that and says all that stuff happened 40 years ago, how can you blame me for stuff that happened 40 years ago. I don't want to quibble with dates, it doesn't quite happen more than 40 years ago. But more to the point, he has associated with this guy in the here and now, and that interview that we talked about a couple of minutes ago was actually published by the New York Times on sent 11th.

GLENN: Yeah, the article is entitled "No regrets For a Love of Explosions, in a memoir of sorts, he talks with life of the weatherman and he is not ashamed of it. In fact, in a very creepy way he talks about his love for and the beauty of explosions.

McCARTHY: Yep. It really is creepy is precisely the right word for it. But the reason I think it has very -- it's very important in the here and now is that it's a fresh statement, it's an indication by him that far from any regret over what he did, he actually says that he wishes that he had done more. And when he's challenged a little bit and, you know, this is the "New York Times," so he wasn't going to be challenged that much. But when he's challenged a bit on some of the things he's saying, he talks about, you know, how can you talk about America as a great country; it still makes me want to puke. Every ounce of his being --

GLENN: This is recent stuff.

McCARTHY: I'm sorry?

GLENN: This is recent stuff. This is not 1970. That's recent.

McCARTHY: No, and it's not only recent stuff, it's stuff that was vintage of the time that he was sitting on the Woods board, a left wing charitable organization, sitting on that board with Barack Obama and making appearances with him on, you know, college panels, one of which at least was arranged by Michelle when she was an associate dean at the University of Chicago.

GLENN: But it also doesn't go just to sitting on boards with him and college panels. His wife was also a, you know, 1970s terrorist activist and when Barack Obama first started launching campaigns, didn't he launch at the Ayers home?

McCARTHY: Well, that's exactly right. His coming out party was at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, his wife that you just alluded to a second ago. You know, I have some stuff in the piece about Bernardine Dohrn as well who was quite a character in her own right.

GLENN: You can't leave it -- I mean, when Sharon Tate was killed, she came out and said, "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach, wild."

McCARTHY: Yeah, wild, that's what she said. You know, and that, again I suppose you could dismiss some of this as the youthful exuberance of a youthful terrorist but, you know, if there weren't -- if it wasn't so obvious that there was a freshness to it in the sense of their lack of remorse over it and Ayers, of course, saying that he wishes they had done more and, you know, one of the things I think you can't dismiss out of all of this is, you know, I'm a counterterrorism guy. So I guess maybe that's my prism for looking at a lot of this stuff. But, you know, with respect to jihadism we have both a hard jihad and a soft jihad, you know. We have people who blow up the buildings and then the people who engage in the extortion, you know, just like you pay the Gambino money man.

GLENN: Right.

McCARTHY: Because you know what the wages of resistance are. And what I fear with these characters, Ayers and Dohrn in particular, is they haven't changed where they're coming from. They haven't changed a bit the thing, the ideology that motivates them. What they've changed is their methodology. They are not blowing up buildings anymore. They are, you know, shaping mines.

GLENN: Yeah, they have been institutionalized.

McCARTHY: Exactly.

GLENN: Not in the way I would like them institutionalized. Then if you can tie into Rashid Khalidi.

McCARTHY: Well, when Dohrn -- I'm sorry, when Ayers and Obama were on the Woods board together, they were -- the board was in charge of deciding who got the largess from this organization. One place that got some money from them, a decent bit of money was the -- was Wright's church, Reverend Wright's church was awarded money as basically as an homage to Obama for his service on the board which again shows how identified to people who knew them, how identified Obama was with Wright and with that whole church.

GLENN: Sure.

McCARTHY: The other recipient I talk about is Rashid Khalidi who is a long time apologist for Yasser Arafat. Now, there's been some reporting that he was actually an official member of the PLO, that he was their spokesman. He denies that that was true, but certainly doesn't and I don't think could deny that he was a very pro-Arafat character and that he has been a supporter at least of terrorist attacks directed at Israel soldiers which he denies as resistance, not terrorism.

GLENN: This guy is tied in with Barack Obama and William Ayers in what way?

McCARTHY: Well, in two ways. Number one, when they were on the Woods board together, they voted to donate $75,000 to an outfit that he started in Chicago called the Arab American Action Network. It was co-founded by him, by Khalidi and Khalidi's wife. And then Khalidi moves on from Chicago to go to Columbia to actually take over the Edwards Said chair and become a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University which has become, I think notorious, and I say this as a Columbia graduate, has become notorious as a real hotbed of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic passion I would say. When he moved on, from when Khalidi moved on from Chicago and Columbia, they had a big dinner for him, a farewell dinner, and there were Obama and Ayers together again, you know, paying tribute to him on his way out the door from Chicago to Columbia.

GLENN: It is amazing to me that all of the pieces are here. Everything we need, Andrew, is here to judge who these people are and yet nobody in the media wants to tie it together. Nobody wants to tell the truth. And even when you do see all of these pieces, people are dismissing it.

McCARTHY: Well, you know, I think they dismiss it, Glenn, because it means either of two things and both of them are unpleasant, especially for this almost cult-like infatuation that people have had for Obama. I personally think Obama's candidacy has been more about us than it is about him. I think he's been almost an empty vessel where his supporters have projected their hopes and dreams on him as if that was, you know, what he was actually about and as if he didn't have a personality of his own that we needed to be concerned about.

GLENN: Right.

McCARTHY: But what this means is either of two things: Obama continues to say, you know, I didn't know this about Wright or I didn't know that about Ayers or you can't, you know, blame me for what these people say or think. If that's true, he's got no business being President. I don't think we want a President who, you know, could spend all this time around people who are five-alarm anti-Americans and say, you know, he wasn't true enough to know who they are, who they were and what they were about. The alternative is that he knew exactly what they were and what they were about and he was totally comfortable with that and I don't think, you know, that does him much good, either.

GLENN: This is -- you are hearing Andrew McCarthy. Andrew is the prosecutor responsible for leading the investigation of the blind Sheikh in the '93 World Trade Center bombing. He's got a new book out called Willful Blindness, a Memoir of the Jihad, how we're not paying attention to the 800-pound gorilla that is sitting in the room. Andrew, I'd like to have you back to talk about what you learned in that trial and in that whole process trying to put the blind sheikh behind the bars. May we have you back?

McCARTHY: Oh, I'd be delighted, Glenn, thank you.

GLENN: Thanks lot, Andrew.

McCARTHY: Thank you.


 

Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders joined Glenn Beck on this week's podcast to share her unique perspective as a trusted adviser and confidante to President Donald Trump for two and a half years, which she also details in her new book, "Speaking for Myself: Faith, Freedom, and the Fight of Our Lives Inside the Trump White House."

Sarah described the unprecedented levels of corruption she saw firsthand during the Russia probe and shocking lengths to which Democratic leaders and the mainstream media would go to "take the president down."

Sarah said she often saw sides of Donald Trump that the media never covered. Recently, she went on the record denying the Atlantic's claims that the president mocked our military during a 2018 trip to France. She was on that trip, she told Glenn, and her account of what really happened paints a very different picture.

"The people who are making this outrageous charge are such cowards for doing so in an anonymous way. If you really believed this, and believed it was wrong, one, why did it take you so long? And, two, put your name on it the way the rest of us have," Sarah said.

"He didn't say those things. Not only was I there that day, Glenn, I spent two and a half years traveling all over the world with the president, watching him interact with men and women of our armed forces almost every single day during that two-and-a-half year period," she added.

"This is a person who loves America and loves the people who allow the rest of us to live in America, free, and have prosperity. And I got to see that a lot. I think it is shameful that people are trying to distort who he is and what he has done, particularly when it comes to the men and women in the military."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Sarah Huckabee Sanders below:

Find the full podcast below, on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.


Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The Daily Beast recently reported on a group of 50-plus leading progressive organizations that calls itself the Fight Back Table or FBT, who are planning for a "post-Election Day political apocalypse scenario."

The FBT held a meeting on Zoom to launch an initiative they dubbed the "Democracy Defense Nerve Center." Meeting participants prepared for expected threats to a fair election in November, such as "armed right-wing militia dudes show[ing] up in polling places," or poll locations that "mysteriously close" on Election Day. They also predicted that President Donald Trump would claim victory regardless of November's election results, which would lead to inevitable "mass public unrest."

"It is very obvious that Trump is laying the groundwork for claiming victory no matter what ... we will fight to protect [our democracy] from what we truly see as a president who has gone off the rails and taking this country down an authoritarian fascist path," said MoveOn Executive Director Rahna Epting.

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program," Glenn argued that the left is using large-scale mail-in voting — which unlike absentee ballots does not require voters to submit an application ahead of the election — to set the stage for chaos, revolution, and ultimately cause civil war to destroy our nation.

"No one will believe the [election] outcome because they're changing the way we're electing a president this time. And people don't understand the difference ... this is Democratic states just printing ballots and mass mailing them," Glenn said.

"They've been war-gaming this forever," he continued. "And the media is trying to make it look as if the right is the one that is violent. We're not planning anything to happen on Election Day, except to go and vote. The chaos that's coming, I think is remarkable. And if the DOJ doesn't get involved and find out who these groups are and what they have planned, you are going to have intimidation and chaos the week of the voting, and for weeks [afterward] until we go into civil war. This is not hyperbole. This is what the left is now saying."

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Netflix film 'Cuties' is darker than you thought

'Cuties'/Netflix

Plague. Recession. Riots. Looting. Fires. Murder Hornets. And now, as we round the third base toward the home stretch, 2020 gives us Cuties, a delightful French coming-of-age film by Maïmouna Doucouré that's half Stand by Me and half Coyote Ugly – if you were to combine both films into an anthropomorphic entity and then forcefully dip its toe into the perilous waters of pedophilia.

Cuties begins by showing us an 11-year-old Senegalese girl named Amy, whose fundamentalist Muslim family has recently moved to France. We learn that Amy's father has gone back to Senegal to bring home the woman who is to become his second wife. The mother's struggle is very clear to Amy, who begins right then and there to develop a hatred for her father. She starts looking for ways to rebel, and soon lands in the company of a group of ne'er-do-well girls, who fancy themselves dancers and have adopted the group name "Cuties". Their primary goal in life at the moment – and the thing that drives the film's narrative – is to participate in and win the big dance competition coming up soon. The ring-leader – a dark-haired bespectacled girl who resembles Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to such an eerie extent that it can't have been on accident – lives in Amy's building, and the two form a kind of delicate friendship throughout the film.

Here is where the movie most resembles a female version of Stand by Me, and it's also where I began to understand that this is a remarkably beautiful film at times. It's well-shot, well-scored, and well-acted. In fact, Fathia Youssouf Abdillahi (the actress who portrays Amy) is quite possibly the most talented child actor I've ever seen.

I began to understand that this is a remarkably beautiful film at times.

The portrayal of this group of girls wending their way through the thick tangles of childhood and constantly grasping at what they perceive to be higher concepts of adulthood is somehow both charming and bothersome at the same time. Knowing virtually nothing of the real world of sexuality, they engage in a kind of whimsical speculation as to how sex works that almost comically mirrors the aforementioned Oscar-winning film (and a ton of other coming-of-age movies as well). Some of this is fine. There's a particularly funny-turns-emotional moment when one of the girls, upon finding a used condom lying around in the woods, blows it up like a balloon and begins playing around with it. The other girls – who at least know enough to know that one doesn't touch such things for fear of disease – immediately recoil from her, tell her that she's going to catch AIDS, and so embarrass and frighten her that she begins to cry. The scene is, again, beautifully shot, and I found myself sympathizing with the character as she feels an overwhelming moment of ostracization-through-misadventure. In the following scene, we are treated to a montage of the girls washing her mouth out with soap, and it breaks the tension.

All of that to say that not only does this movie have plenty of redeemable moments that are on the beat film-wise, but also that it will pull you in headlong whether you want it to or not – which is what a good film is supposed to do.

But, alas, there's more. And I'm not so much talking about the risqué dancing that's done throughout the film. Here's why: as if the plot structure of every coming-of-age story didn't lay it out clearly enough for us, kids strive to be adults. The results are often hilarious, sometimes disturbing, but it's their nature. Kids want to be more like adults. And in a world – such as the one depicted in this movie – where children either can't or won't seize on the example of adulthood provided by their own parents, a vacuum is created. And nothing fills the vacuum of responsible parenting better than social media.

For the girls, it is the well from which they draw their inspiration, acceptance and love. "Likes" are the currency of the realm, and if you don't think this is true in your own kids' world today, you need to wake up and smell the Zuckerberg.

Thus, it is no surprise that these young dancing girls are modeling their very existence after what they see in online videos, and regurgitating the same back at the soulless machine. That they would be twerking and gyrating in a manner that falsely suggests they do know a thing or two about sex is normal when you consider that they're dining daily on visual and musical junk food – art perhaps not entirely without merit, but certainly without taste. And if there's one thing about the movie that phone-it-in parents might do well to see, it is perhaps the juxtaposition of budding childhood and the laissez faire morality adhered to by the demigods of popular culture. In short: these girls are just trying to be like the only set of role models afforded to them.

Here's what should (in my opinion, anyway) not be okay, though.

Aside from the moments of dancing, this film is filled with the cinematography of sexuality. When you watch any film in which there is a femme fatale character (or in some cases several of them), the way in which they are shot by the camera is extremely suggestive of overt sexuality. To quote one of my favorite online film critics: "You may not have noticed, but your brain did." Tracking shots over women's bodies, particularly up their backside or across a heaving bosom all decorated in cleavage, are a stock in trade for many filmmakers (and the only one for some of them). It's so common in the making of movies that it's often lampooned as a trope.

I'm reticent to accuse the woman who made this film of directly catering to the desires of pedophiles – but... I can't completely dismiss the idea, either.

We'll save the discussion about whether or not this is offensive when actresses in their twenties and thirties do it for another time. What I would hope we could all agree on is that you don't – in good conscience – use those same tracking shots over the bodies of a group of 11-year-old girls, even to make a point. And you certainly don't do it over and over and over throughout the course of a movie. The unstated purpose of such shots in a regular film is to give the viewer a taste of the voyeur. You wouldn't be allowed, in polite society, to walk up to a woman and stare at her from inches away, scanning down her body as if you were about to fax her someplace. But with the movie camera, you get a little taste of that. Dopamine rushes to your brain, and you're instantly glad you shelled out the twenty bucks to see the movie.

And while it's theoretically possible that the unstated purpose on behalf of the filmmaker changes when the subject is a little girl, it can't be denied or even overlooked that, for a certain subset of the viewing population, the effect does not. I'm reticent to accuse the woman who made this film of directly catering to the desires of pedophiles – but after having sat through an hour and a half of shot after shot of this very overt technique, I can't completely dismiss the idea, either.

As Amy progresses down the path that her (barely) world-wise friends have chosen, she becomes far more steeped in it, because she has no sense of the unseen boundaries which exist even in a hedonistic postmodern society such as present-day France. She spirals out of control very quickly, trying to outdo her friends in overt displays of sexuality and even violent aggressiveness. If there is a redeeming quality to the message of the movie, it is that we are fairly explicitly told through what we see her go through that this is not the best life for her. That escaping from the oppressive Muslim traditions of her family is a thing she should seek, but that this is not the way to go about it. All throughout her journey, we are subjected to close-up images of her body (and the bodies of the other girls). At one point, Amy's mother and aunt seem to be performing a kind of exorcism on her to drive out the evil rebellious spirits they believe have taken over, and Amy vibrates in the middle of the room on her knees in a paroxysm of movement which is half-dance, half-apparent-demonic possession, and all sex. I don't mean to be graphic here, but she may as well have been doing a full-on sex scene, for all the heavy breathing and gyration and rank passion that's going on. As an adult – and particularly as a parent – it made me literally feel ill to watch.

It's a beautiful final scene... but it fails to pull the film from the mire into which it's dipped.

And, if you believe the film's director, that's what you're supposed to feel. She claims that the whole intent of the movie is to get people to feel uncomfortable as they realize the hyper-sexualized nature of children in our modern world, and how it's driven by the nanny state that is social media in our modern era. Part of me wants to applaud the effort – it certainly worked on me. I walked away from my television with a feeling of nausea and a renewal of the commitment in my head toward doing anything and everything I can to make sure that my own children never watch this film. The fact that the movie ends with Amy making a choice to reclaim her childhood – that she walks away both from the more oppressive elements of her Muslim upbringing (insofar as she will be able – we are never told) and from trying to become an adult too soon (insofar as she will be able – we are also never told) and embraces just being an 11-year-old girl – that fact doesn't change what's transpired. It's a beautiful final scene – it really is – but it fails to pull the film from the mire into which it's dipped.

In summary, I can't really put any sort of seal of approval on this film, despite part of me wanting to. I generally subscribe to the idea that showing us a thing is far better than telling us a thing – but there are limits, and I think Cuties crosses them. As much as I want to believe that the director's motives are pure as the driven snow, it's not lost upon me that – as I mentioned before – one of the main characters (with whom we are meant to be sympathetic multiple times throughout the film) is very obviously meant to be the prototypical girl-who-wants-to-be-AOC. This film is at war with its own supposed message – it seeks to convey the horrors of oversexualized youth while laying out on for open display an entire smorgasbord of pedophilic fantasies. The game simply isn't worth the candle.

Osama bin Laden's niece, Noor bin Ladin (Noor's family has always spelled their name differently than her uncle) wrote an open letter to America, praising our country as "a beacon of democracy and hope for all subjugated peoples" across the world, and warning: "America, you are at the very edge of the precipice. Please wake up! Take hold! Fight for your country, and be proud of your roots! Uphold your values. Stand for your flag and your anthem. Defend your history. Don't relent in the face of those who seek to re-write it to serve their narrative and justify the destruction of your nation. You have much to cherish and protect for your sake, and ours."

Noor never stood with or supported her uncle. In fact, she grew up with an American flag proudly displayed in her childhood bedroom. Now a resident of Switzerland, she describes the chaos and destruction she's seen spread across America over the last several months.

"Watching the gratuitous violence, streets burn, buildings and statues being defaced in America over these past months, I am heartbroken to see how an entire generation was successfully brainwashed into hating the very nation that has yielded the most freedom, justice and equality anywhere in the world.

"I am also highly distressed by the blatant erosion at various levels of your most basic individual rights and freedoms as guaranteed by your Bill of Rights, from arbitrary censorship of speech to unlawful, politically motivated abuses of justice," she wrote.

Noor warned America that if we don't stand up, defend our history, and cherish the principles which make our country great, than those who have sought to undermine our country for decades will divide and destroy us from within.

"The truth is that the undoing of America has been decades in the making. The globalists, Deep State, swamp, whichever name you call them, have been hard at work to weaken America's sovereignty and standing as world leader. Intent on erecting a new system of world governance where they would be in total control, they are seeking to undermine the fundamental principle of your country, "a government for the people by the people", replacing it instead with a world order of international institutions ultimately puppeteered by a caste of technocrats, oligarchs and international bankers.

"Though your Constitution stands firmly in their way, it never deterred them. Like a trojan horse, they infiltrated governmental and intelligence agencies, and all realms of society - education, media, entertainment, culture. At their disposal, tools of mass population influence: propaganda, fake news and censorship. By pushing their marxist-socialist progressive agenda for years, they set out to destroy your fundamental values and divide you. They negated God, dissolved the family unit and dissevered us from moral objectivity, effectively leaving a vacuum of degeneracy, cognitive dissonance and absurdity in its wake," she added.

Read the full letter here.

On the radio program Friday, Glenn Beck shared several highlights from Noor's letter as well as her first-ever interview with the New York Post.

"A letter was written to America this week. I want you to listen to the words," said Glenn. "'America, you are at the very edge of the precipice. Please wake up! Take hold! Fight for your country, and be proud of your roots! Uphold your values. Stand for your flag and your anthem. Defend your history. Don't relent in the face of those who seek to re-write it to serve their narrative and justify the destruction of your nation. You have much to cherish and protect for your sake, and ours.' [...] The woman who wrote that, the woman who is an American at heart, who is warning us, is Osama bin Laden's [niece]."

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:

*Note: Glenn mistakenly referred to Noor Bin Ladin as Osama bin Laden's sister. She is his niece.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.