Anonymous Declares War

Update: Glenn also discussed the story on GBTV, you can watch the segment below:

Original Story below:

If Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization came out and openly called for war against the United States of America, do you think the media would pay attention?

That’s the question Glenn asked this morning after listening to the latest video released by Anonymous, the international group who allegedly hacked the CIA, Syrian government email accounts, Consumer.gov, and a U.S. security company whose tear gas had been used against the Egyptian demonstrators, just to name a few.

“We're not talking about a group that doesn't have any power,” Glenn said. “We're talking about a group that does have power, and has demonstrated it.”

Here’s the latest message from Anonymous:

Here is the transcript of the Anonymous message:

We are not calling upon the collective to deface or use a distributed denial of service attack on a United States government agency website or affiliate. We are not calling upon the people to occupy a city or protest in front of a local building. This has not brought on us any legislative change or alternate law. It has only brought us bloodshed and false criticism. For the last 12 years, voting was useless. Corporations and lobbyists are the true leaders of this country and are the ones with the power to control our lives. To rebuild our government, we must first destroy it.

Our time for democracy is here.

Our time for real change is here.

This is America's time, to have its own revolution.

Therefore, Anonymous has decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms. We call upon the Citizens of the United States to stand beside us in overthrowing this corrupted body and call upon a new era. Our allegiance is to the American people, because they are us, and we are them.

Operation V, engaged.

We are Anonymous.

We are Americans.

We never Forgive.

We never Forget.

To the United States government, it's too late to expect us.

 

This was released on February 26th, two days ago, yet no one in the media or our government is talking about this—not to the American people, anyway.

“Don’t dismiss these people,” Glenn warned. “Remember, these people have attacked the websites of the CIA. I believe they’ve attacked the NSA. They have attacked Stratfor, and dumped all of the documents.” Glenn continued, “I don’t know who they are, but they are not fools. They are well financed. They are well thought out. And, they are very capable.”

Glenn, who obviously runs an internet business and is very brave in the topics he covers on GBTV, does not dismiss Anonymous. Glenn does not think that everyone in Anonymous has the same intentions. Much like we saw in many of the uprisings in the Arab Spring, he believes there is a split in this organization.

“I believe there are probably those people that are inside Anonymous that are good and decent …and right,” Glenn says, giving the example of the Stop Online Piracy Act, and the legislation that labeled America a battlefield where the government would have the ability to scoop American citizens up and hold them without trial. “These things are wrong,” Glenn said. Adding, “These things are a grave danger to the freedom of mankind and to this country; grave, grave danger. And this technology—we’re not dealing with the revolution of 1776, we’re not even dealing with 1938—the technology that this government has …they can scoop groups of people up in a heartbeat. There is no hiding from this government.”

So, like Glenn said, there are things that Anonymous says that we can agree with, and we should build off of those things, but destruction of the government is not the answer. We are a country of laws, not of men—there has to be some government.

While Glenn may agree with Anonymous on many topics, but method is where there is a clear divide. Glenn compared it to the difference between Thomas Paine and George Washington.

“Both Patriots—one was right, one was wrong—but both Patriots,” Glenn said.

Just like there are probably people inside Anonymous that are good, there are likely those on the far left. “I also believe there are people inside Anonymous that are gravely misguided and are on the wrong side of not just the tactic, but also wish to destroy, because they are on the far left,” Glenn said. Adding, “I would not be surprised if some of this financing and some of this power unbeknownst to many of the people in Anonymous is coming from the left, and coming from George Soros.”

Pat brought up that this is similar to what happened in the 1960’s, when the far left approached John Lenon and The Beatles wanting to know where they stood. Their response was the song, “Revolution:”

“If you're talking about Chairman Mao you're not going to make it with anyone anyhow. If you're talking about overthrowing the constitution, we need to change your head.”

“This is the same kind of thing. There are certain things that need to be change. There are definitely problems with the Obama Administration,” Pat said.

Glenn agreed, saying, “The last twelve years it has been almost useless voting. You look, and you’re seeing the same things from both sides, just a different speed, but you’re seeing the same thing. So they’re right on that one.”

The problems are clear if you are not for a massive government. The challenges really lie within the solutions to the problems. Destruction is easy. There is no challenge in tearing something down. These systems are going to collapse on their own weight. The banks, the big government systems, the debt and the corruption will destroy them without anyone pushing them over the edge. One of the problems with collapse and destruction without solutions is that you won’t know what you are collapsing into. There has to be a foundation to build off of, and a force for good. Otherwise, who do you root for?

Glenn compared this to the time he spent on the streets of Greece a couple of weekends ago. “One of the things I learned about on the ground in Greece is that they can no longer tell the difference. They don't know who to root for. There's no good standing up. There is no good. They don't know. There are the people that are using the fire bombs out on the streets, and then there are the people that are in the banks. And I asked one of the guys, ‘so which is worse?’ The answer was ‘I don't know. They're both criminals.’ But, in their heart they stand with the people on the street even though they disagree with their tactics they stand with the people on the street, because they say that the government is corrupt, and the banks are corrupt. You don't change it this way. You’ve got to go in and change it.” Glenn explained.

Glenn went on the explain that we all share the fears that anonymous has, and some of the fears the Occupy Wall Street people have, and that Libertarians have. “But, please read history. Please look at what’s happening over in the Middle East,” Glenn said.

Anonymous is going after many of the people that are going to collapse under their own corruption, but where are the attacks on the people who are getting rich off of the collapse, and helping to cause the collapse? “Where are the attacks on people like Soros? Where is the information on the people who are setting up what you will collapse, what hands it will fall into? Are you part of that?” Glenn asked.

That is the big question. Is Anonymous part of that? Have they looked down the road far enough to see whose hands they are going to fall into? Instead of destroying what is already in the process of self-destruction, wouldn’t it be better to strengthen the American people? Glenn pointed out that it is important to point out the corruption, but then what?

Anonymous has been a voice of anger and revenge, ending their videos with “We will not forgive. We will not forget,” but like Glenn said, “you say you are against bloodshed.”

“We must forgive. We must never forget,” Glenn explains. “We must—we’re commanded to forgive. We’re not commanded to forget.”

Glenn made a call out to the media to step up and realize what they are helping to build in their silence. “I beg the people in the media to wake up. I beg the people in the media to give your children and your grandchildren a reason to be proud of you. The times are growing darker and the time is growing short. I am begging the people in the media to wake up and see what you're against. To see what you are helping build in the government through your silence,” Glenn said.

“I believe this government only needs one more election. They only need the press one more time. Look at how they are beating you across the head now. Do you think that's going to get better?” Glenn asked.

Unless Americans take a stand with peace and love in their hearts we won’t be able to win the battle for man’s freedom. But, that’s the key.

“Pray for peace,” Glenn said. “Fill your heart with love, and do not be indifferent on things. Ask yourself ‘does it matter?’ The answer should always be 'yes.' When to stand? Now, now is the time to stand.”

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.