Will 2014 be the year America says enough is enough?

TheBlaze's national security editor Buck Sexton opened Monday's Glenn Beck Program with a simple question: Will 2014 be the year America says enough is enough? As Buck explained, the United States has been teetering on the edge of big government progressivism for quite some time now, and soon the weight of a bloated government and overregulation will prove to be too much for this country to bear. With the midterm elections just around the corner, 2014 provides the opportunity to take a step back and reevaluate the current state of this country. Will Americans finally be ready say enough is enough?

Full transcript of the monologue below:

Now, Barack Obama promised Dmitry Medvedev that he’d have more flexibility after the 2012 election. You remember that. And they turned out to be truer words than I think even any of us could have imagined.

It was quite a harbinger for 2013. I mean, I thought Mr. Fundamental Transformation couldn’t get much worse after round one which brought us, let’s just take a little joyride through the wreckage, shall we? ObamaCare, we know how that’s been, QE ad infinitum, the QE, the easing that can never stop, Solyndra and the never-ending parade of green investment fails because it’s not their money, so why do they care? It’s your money.

Benghazi, we know that Hillary Clinton says it doesn’t make much difference, right? What difference does it make at this point that Benghazi happened? A lot, Hillary, a lot, we’re going to remind you of that in 2016. That’s what we’ve had to deal with over the past year, these issues, including Fast and Furious and others like them. I mean, this is right here, if you will, this is the pinnacle you would think of the problems this administration could possibly offer for us. But he was actually just getting warmed up.

Tonight, we take a look back at 2013, but more importantly, we’re going to look ahead to 2014 as well. And here’s my question, is this the year? Will 2014 be the year the pendulum finally swings back away from Progressives? Can Conservatives finally retake the high ground? It should be the year. Look, how many more big government failures and scandals does one need before they realize it ain’t working?

I bet you’ve forgotten more Obama scandals and debacles than most administrations ever have. In 2013, we saw tremendous amounts of scandals. Now, of course there was the IRS targeting scandal, right? The Associated phone records scandal, that was the thing that Eric Holder, by the way, said he had no idea, right? But he did have an idea, just like he said he learned about Fast and Furious through press reports, but I thought he knew about it before that – hmm, silly me. Oh, there was the ObamaCare rollout, after the NSA spying. NSA spying of course, there we go, and NSA spying, we know that that’s now something that the administration says they’re going to do something about.

What are they going to do about it though? They’re contesting it in court. They say okay, maybe we went too far. And the ObamaCare rollout, wow, even the staunchest Marxist left wing I-don’t-even-think-America-should-be-pretending-to-be-capitalist kind of guy knows that the ObamaCare rollout was a disaster, the round two of the Obama administration, the round two.

Now, if Conservatives cannot turn this disaster that we’ve talked to you about here into a winning message, if we can’t transform it into some kind of story for the American people that makes them trust Conservatives with government power so that they can limit government power and restore some semblance of liberty, we deserve our fate. We’re toast.

So something needs to change fast, because the other side is relentless. They’re pushing for more bills. They’re pushing for more huge comprehensive bills on immigration, for example, on climate change, also known as amnesty, and yet another redistribution of wealth scheme. There’s tons of those going around.

So 2014 is going to be a fight. It’s going to be a fight against the Marxist administration that we see now increasingly trying to take money from some people and give it to others. But the biggest fight for 2014 isn’t against Obama per se, there is also going to be a fight, because this is a midterm election, between the establishment increasingly progressive GOP with the Ted Cruzes of the world, the conservative members of Congress.

We have a choice that we’re going to have to face on our side, go with the moderate establishment Republican who can win or go with the candidate who stands on Tea Party conservative principles. Will we go with the Ted Cruz type even if the outcome doesn’t look all that great? I remember when Ted Cruz’s outcome didn’t look all that great. He had to win the primary against Dewhurst during Texas.

See, we’ve seen the lesser of these two evils approaches before. We know where it’s gotten us. And not only now are we in a dire fiscal situation, we’re approaching dangerous territory when it comes to centralized power in general. I mean, everybody should be appalled at how the president has been haphazardly ad hoc tinkering with the Affordable Care Act law.

Look, like it or not, it’s a law. As they have said so many times when there was the government shutdown and the fights over it, it’s the law. Well, they know that for Conservatives, for constitutionalists, that has meaning that it’s the law. When we read the words on the page that are supposed to be the law that Congress has passed, we care about those.

We find ourselves increasingly in a place where there is not a moral necessarily issue with what’s going on. We don’t feel like we have to give into this because the government is doing good. We have to give in because the government has force, can make us do these things.

So the president can go in and change a law as he pleases, it seems. Those are the sorts of things that maybe a Hugo Chavez or a Robert Mugabe may do. Now, last week President Obama changed the healthcare law again, this time extending the deadline for people to choose plans and relaxing the rules for those who had their plans canceled.

The press is so hyperfocused on making this stupid law work that they’re overlooking the fact that the administration thinks nothing of just changing laws without Congress or any process whatsoever. Remember all that talk in the first term about being tempted to do it on my own? President Obama said it over and over again, he’s going to do it on his own. I’m going to do it on my own, all this gridlock in Congress.

It looks like Obama has given himself over to his temptations. By the way, he was also tempted to enroll at least as sort of an act of good faith in his own ObamaCare law. By the way, he chose a bronze plan. Oh yeah, I don’t think he’s going to get that level of care. Now to be fair, the White House said that the military is still going to give the commander-in-chief his medical care, but that really tells us a lot, doesn’t it?

The president thinks that it’s an act of solidarity to pretend to sign up under the healthcare law that he’s making millions of Americans sign up for after getting millions of their plans canceled. He thinks that’s solidarity. He thinks that should make us feel better, even though it will never touch him or his family or anybody that he knows. It will never be a problem for them.

Oh, but it’s all about political theatre then. It’s all about the president saying I picked my bronze plan. He picked a bronze plan. Let’s be serious for a second. This is the President of the United States. It was all ridiculous, but it shows you how out of touch they are with your problems, with your healthcare concerns. Because this president can’t resist the flexibility offered to him in his second term. He just can’t.

Now look, Bill Clinton, he was maybe a little powerless against the sexual advances he received from a zoftig intern. This president apparently is tempted whenever a chance to override Congress walks by in something low-cut and lacey. You know Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be going all oh, the Constitution, the separation of powers, the prerogative of the legislature, if it was a Republican in the White House.

If the next conservative president announced that he was going to alter income tax rates to 10% or let’s make it 1%, hey, across-the-board 1% to help people in a tough economy…hang on a second. I want to take a moment to reflect on a 1% tax. As Glenn would say, that’s some good old-fashioned conservative red meat right there. It shouldn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the changes made. Everyone should be alarmed when a president goes around Congress.

A 1% flat tax, if President Obama can change the ObamaCare law all the time willy-nilly as he sees fit, why can’t all of a sudden we just have a president declare that the IRS is only going to enforce a 1% tax rate? Well, there’s no good reason, and in fact, this might actually be a really good idea. This could help people. I would love to pay a 1% tax per year.

But you see, changing laws without any accountability, changing laws without even consulting the representatives of the people, changing laws that absolutely blur any sense of separation of power into government, that’s what dictators do. So back to the original question if I can for a moment, is this the year?

Is 2014 the year people drop their allegiance to party? Is this the year even those on the left realize that government has grown too dangerous and unprecedented levels of control? Is this the year people say enough is enough? I sure hope so, because there’s only so much big government Progressivism this country can withstand, and we are teetering close to the edge.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

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.