Glenn to Sen. Jeff Flake: I respect you, but you’re talking to me like I'm a 3rd grader

Glenn has always been a fan of Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) because of his fiscal conservatism and spending discipline. But Sen. Flake raised some eyebrows when he chose to join the so-called ‘Gang of Eight’ with the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Schumer to pass ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform.

This morning, Sen. Flake joined the radio program to discuss the latest developments in the immigration legislation, and it is safe to say things got a little heated. Glenn’s primary concern with the Gang of Eight’s proposal is the four Republicans are making too many concessions and not getting enough in return. Sen. Flake, meanwhile, attempted to defend the policies.

Glenn pointed out that Sen. Flake recently remarked “nothing focuses the mind like a bad election,” and “for a variety of reasons, its time” to take action with immigration reform. “I saw your quote,” Glenn said. “Is this being pursued for political reasons or security reasons?”

“Keep in mind, I've been pushing for immigration reform during my entire 12 years in the House of Representatives,” Sen. Flake responded. “I'm not a Johnny-come-lately just because of an election. I think that this makes good policy sense. And what makes good policy sense is usually what makes good political sense as well.”

Sen. Flake went on to explain what he sees as one of the most important part of the bill, spending an additional $500 billion on more manpower at the border. “That’s just the start,” he said. “We recognize we need better and more fencing, more manpower, more surveillance.”

Considering the promise of a better, more secure fence has existed for several decades now, Glenn could not accept Sen. Flake’s notion that this time around would be any different. “What is it now that the fence is going to get built,” Glenn asked.

“Well, it isn’t built now. Like you said, it isn’t complete,” Sen. Flake said “We do need more fencing. There are certain areas of the border that fencing does not make sense – it makes more sense to have surveillance and other things, rather than a barrier like that.”

“I respect you. I like you. I think you have done a great job in Washington. I think you're one of the few that have kept your soul while there,” Glenn reiterated. “But you are talking to me on this issue like I'm a third grader. Like I don't understand that we do need to do something on the border.”

“Could you please, without doing Washington double speak that sounds like John McCain from 1987, tell me how we are actually going to deal with this,” Glenn continued. “How you would believe the Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham actually are going to do anything this time?”

Sen. Flake explained that simply building a fence will not solve the problem. Instead, the bill will implement a ‘second border’ through e-verify.

“If people can’t work here, fewer will come to live here,” he said. “We’ll have a legal framework for people to come and return home. You combine that with the employer enforcement, and finally being able to determine if a Social Security number is not just valid but is not used by 12 other people around the country at the same time. That's improvement. That's a good thing.”

Furthermore, Sen. Flake explained that the ultimate goal should not be sealing the border but securing it. “Yuma, for example, every morning between the hours of 4 and 8AM you have 10,000 legal crossings of the border in one port, one land entry. And that’s a good thing because they come and work in our fields and return home. And so what we need is a secure border. We have a better situation than we did a few years ago. It needs to be much better still. But in order to do that you need not only reinforcements on the border and to strengthen the border. You need the workplace as well.”

In addition to the problems American’s face at our southern border, the Boston Marathon bombing has proven there is currently an equal, if not greater threat coming from overseas – those entering the U.S. on student visas, work visas, etc. “We have 15,000 people from hostile Muslim countries on student visas that haven't shown up to their schools,” Glenn said. “How are you going to enforce that?”

“That’s exactly it. 40 percent of those here illegally now didn’t sneak across the border. They came on a student visa or vacation visa or tourist visa that have overstayed,” Sen. Flake said. “We don't have an entry, and exit system. We know when they enter. We just don’t know if or when they leave. That’s a problem. It’s a huge problem that we have. And until we have an entry, exit system that works, we're going to have this problem.”

“That is provided for in the bill. And funding is provided to bring it about,” he continued. “I'm not saying any system is going to be perfect. You're going to have people sneaking across the border or overstay visas. But you’ve got to have an entry, exit system that works. That’s what we are trying to do with this bill.”

Stu was still concerned, however, that the comprehensive nature of the bill allowed for a path to citizenship that resembled amnesty too much.

“Amnesty is an unconditional pardon for a breach of law. This is not an unconditional pardon,” Sen. Flake explained. “Those who're illegally and wish to stay will have to pay a fine… If you want to have RPI status, come out the shadows and work, then you have to pay the fine in order to get RPI status. That's the bottom line. If you're unwilling to do that then you can't get on this path.”

But Pat wasn’t buying it. He referenced previous legislation from the 1990s that required similar fines that ended up being virtually impossible to enforce. People who avoid the fine will continue to live in the shadows, just as they do now, which means nothing will change as a result of this bill.

“It's a long, arduous path. It really is,” Sen. Flake reiterated. “I submit that they will come forward… I think the vast majority of them will. If you take the flip side of that and say they won’t come forward, then what are we to do now? Why is the situation today, which is de facto amnesty, better than trying something like this?”

Glenn said that he will not be on board with the Gang of Eight’s plan until something is done about the border. Sen. Flake was quick to remind Glenn, however, that the only way to get something passed in a polarized Congress is to compromise.

“When you do a bill that can get through Congress, you do make compromises. There are things that I don't like necessarily about this bill,” Sen. Flake said. “But the reality is there are only 45 Republican and 55 Democrats, and in order to get something through the Senate that will go a long way towards fixing the border and the situation we have now – you're not going to have the exact bill that you want.”

“I do respect you,” Glenn said to Sen. Flake. “And there are not a lot of people that can come on the show and take this line of fire and do it with grace. You haven’t convinced me. But thank you for coming on.”

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.