Reeducation Camps? PC Police at UC Berkeley want to ban one of the most American phrases of all time

Remember how everyone referred to America as a “melting pot” in school? Well, that’s about to change in UC Berkeley. The school — for some INSANE reason — thinks the term is offensive and administrators want it out of the curriculums. Glenn’s been warning for a long time that universities are turning into reeducation camps that brainwash students to only think certain thoughts, and this may be the craziest example yet. Glenn had the story and reaction Tuesday morning on radio.

The Daily Beast reports:

Fifty years after the birth of the free speech movement at the University of California, Berkeley, officials across the UC system are encouraging faculty and students to purge mundane, potentially offensive words and phrases from their vocabularies.

Administrators want members of campus to avoid the use of racist and sexist statements, though their notions about what kinds of statements qualify are completely bonkers. “America is a melting pot,” “Why are you so quiet?” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” are all phrases that should raise red flags, according to the UC speech police.

Get Glenn's reaction below, and scroll down for a transcript.

Below is a rush transcription, it may contain errors:

Glenn: First you ban words. Now you're banning phrases.

It's not unlikely that the next step is to ban books. I mean, how could you not ban books? If you're saying that the person -- America is the land of opportunity, a book that says that must be banned. One that makes that case.

If you're saying that America is a melting pot, you've got to ban the books that originated that. How could you possibly have a book in the library that explains why affirmative action is racist? That's a racist microaggression by default.

It's not far down the road before books are banned by universities.

PAT: It's interest too because the people -- a lot of the same people who banned words in the past, like the N-word, which has absolutely been banned for white people.

GLENN: Not the president.

STU: It's -- it's the people who banned it that can say it. It's really fascinating to me that that's perfectly acceptable and he used it like you said earlier, without hesitation.

GLENN: With no hesitation.

PAT: He just went right to it. And I don't know how you can do that when you've been preaching all along about racism and offensive words.

GLENN: Because the first thing you have to do is you have to set up -- like Animal Farm. All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.

PAT: Yeah, that's where we are.

GLENN: You have to set up who is running the show. And who is running the show is definitely not God. God -- all rights do not come from God; they come from the government. And so they will tell you what you can and cannot do. They will make the rules.

You can't expect to understand them. They're arbitrary.

Because they're making them.

STU: Haven't we as a country done a pretty good job at sorting these out ourselves?

GLENN: No, because a lot of places, the most qualified person gets the job.

STU: I know. But this is why this is ridiculous. Like, we have a First Amendment in this country. And you look back at history, we are less than 100 years from a time where a -- a president that is completely celebrated today by the same people who want to make these bans in banning flags and banning words, those same people celebrate Woodrow Wilson, the guy who brought the KKK back. We're less than 100 years from that. We didn't ban people saying the KKK. We didn't end their organization. We didn't stop their publications from being available. They just suck so bad, the United States decided, get away. What a great country.

We don't have to ban these horrible ideas. You know, they get pushed back into the dustbin of history through what we see as a free speech market. It actually works. I mean, you see in Germany where they have -- they've gone and you can't do -- the guy wearing the Nazi armband on the train we were talking about yesterday, where was it? Seattle. That can't happen in Germany. You go to prison for that in Germany. Obviously you can do that. But the organic way to make these things go away for good and to be really tossed into the dustbin of history is to let people come to their own conclusions that those ideas are wrong. They're horribly, horribly wrong. And I think that's -- we've done a pretty good job of that in this country. We've come a long way.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

STU: I mean, I'm not going to say melting pot on the air. Oh, no. I did it.

GLENN: Wow. America's land of opportunity, Stu.

STU: Yes, I like it. I know it's unpopular to say, but I like it.

PAT: I suppose you feel the most qualified person should get the job.

STU: Yes. That's why I don't understand the whole Jeffy thing.

GLENN: Gee, Pat, why are you so quiet?

PAT: Are you saying I should assimilate into the dominant culture?

GLENN: I have to tell you something, I know we've joked for a long, long time, about, you know, Glenn always says, oh, yeah, Glenn, you know, he takes anything, and it always ends with a bullet in the head. This ends with a bullet in the head.

PAT: It does. I agree with that. I agree with that.

GLENN: This ends with a bullet in the head because the next step. They started with words. They're now doing phrases because the phrases are ideas. We're not talking about words anymore. We're talking about ideas.

The most qualified gets the job is not a string of words. It's an idea. So you have to squash the idea. If you can't squash the idea, you must put a bullet in somebody's head. What happens? Play Bill Ayers again. Play Bill Ayers again. Listen to this. This is the FBI informant that studied the Weather Underground in the 1970s. This is him when it became unclassified. This is what he said

VOICE: I brought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government? You know, we -- we become responsible then for administrating, you know, 250 million people.

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics. How are you going to clothe and feed these people? The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans and the north Vietnamese and the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing reeducation centers in the southwest.

We would take all the people who needed to be reeducated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't reeducate? They're die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. There you go. There you go. They're going to have to set up a reeducation camp. I contend that's the University of California Berkeley. That's a reeducation camp, gang. You're going there. You're sending your kid there, and they're telling them, there are ideas they must not think. Who puts their kid in a college where they say, you must not think those things? I want to go to a college that challenges my children. Pushes their buttons. Make sure they know what they really believe and what they stand for. Say the most outrageous thing to get them to think.

They're telling them, you shall not think. Nobody does that. Nobody does that. Nobody with good intent does that. I don't want my kids going to a church. I won't go to a church that says, you won't think these things. You won't read won't things. You won't talk about these things. No, no, no. Nobody says that to me!

I read what I want. If I want to read something that is -- is challenging to my faith, I will read that. Because I'm smart enough to figure it out.

They're telling your children not to think. That ideas are dangerous. Ideas change the world.

That ideas of merit are dangerous. Merit changes the world. Merit is the reason we have stopped disease. Merit is the reason we feed as many millions of people as we feed because of merit. Somebody did something. Somebody said, I can fix that. And they did.

So what happens? First you have the reeducation camp. There are those that will not go. The reeducation camp teaches you how to think.

They must ban certain thoughts. Once that ban doesn't go far enough, then they have to ban the thoughts and the books that those thoughts are contained in. Those books that further that thought. They must discredit those authors. They must discredit anybody who stands up for that. Who has a different point of view. Shout them down! Shout them down! Beat them in the streets. Call them racists. Call them haters. Do whatever you have to do. But get them to shut up.

If you can't scare them into silence, you beat them into silence.

And if you can't beat them into silence, you just kill a few of them and everybody else shuts up. That's the way it works. That's the way it has worked every time in human history. What, we're unique somehow or another? It doesn't end this way somehow or another? Tell me what makes us different than the Nazis when they banned thoughts. Tell me the difference. When you have comedians who have always gone to the universities -- why? Because they're open-minded. That's where you go and you try new thoughts, new things. You try to it on the youth. These -- the youth today are being taught, close your mind. Shut your mind down. Don't think different things. Think exactly what we tell you. When comedians will no longer go to college campuses because they're sheep. Because they're foolish. Because they're politically correct. You've -- you don't have revolutionaries. You have lemmings. You have useful idiots.

When will our children wake up? When will our college students wake up? They're telling you to ban ideas.

If you would have learned anything in history, you would have known, that is the act of a fascist dictator. I'm called a fascist. I say, read anything. More importantly, read what they tell you not to read.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

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.