Losing our freedom of conscience in America at a blinding speed

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably seen that America is being torn apart. Fundamental principles and common sense are being destroyed. Up is down, down is up, and two plus two suddenly equals five. People are losing their jobs because they stand up for religious principles. Politicians espouse whatever stance on is popular at the moment. Gun rights and freedom of speech are attacked at every opportunity. When will it stop?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: So you remember the song from Lee Greenwood. I mean, it's Fourth of July week so we'll hear it this weekend in every city across America, God Bless the USA. The chorus goes, and I'll gladly stand up next to you. And I'll -- and defend her still today. You know that part?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I've always thought that that part referred to standing side by side on a battlefield. I'll always stand up next to you and defend her still today. But I don't think that's the case now.

I'm sure that's not what he intended when he wrote it. You know, to see our situation. Maybe he did. But I see us standing up defending her here at home without any weapons. I see us standing for the right of conscience.

If anybody has been paying attention, and you haven't been playing politics, just paying attention, America is being torn apart. We're just being ripped apart at the seams. All of our most fundamental principles are being bludgeoned to death. And I say that with full confidence. Hillary Clinton said that traditional marriage was a fundamental, bedrock principle.

Now she doesn't. That was like eight years ago she said that. A fundamental, bedrock principle. Well, I agree with her. And now it's gone. But I think our speech is going away quickly as well. You can say anything you want if you don't mind being hungry for the rest of your life. You can't support your family. If you love unemployment, speak your mind all you want, baby. The CEO of Firefox, fired. Because six years prior he had donated money to a cause in which he believed. Donald Trump this week, fired because he said something I don't agree with, but I don't want him fired for it.

People working at ESPN, right chink in the armor, fired. Freedom of speech? Nope. Nope. Fundamental, bedrock principle, gone. Freedom of religion, religious institutions in some cases have been forced against their doctrine to provide birth control, contraception, and even abortion. Have you heard the latest on Steve Green's place? Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby may have to close.

Because the government is going after them again. And they just came out and said, we may not be able to stay open this time. Hobby Lobby!

So don't tell me we have freedom of religion. People are being forced to provide services for ceremonies in which they conscientiously object. It's called a conscientious objector. We've always had that, that carve-out in the Constitution. If your God tells you I can't do that, you don't do it, and no one can force you to do it.

But now, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, two ministers who operate church threatened with arrest for not performing a gay wedding ceremony. Arrest, jail time!

The Supreme Court ruling that came out last week, is that going to help or hurt? Listen to what our first openly gay senator Tammy Baldwin said about religious liberty this week.

TAMMY: Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith, that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe religious deeply held religious beliefs. But I don't think it extends far beyond that.

GLENN: Okay. It doesn't extend very far beyond that.

Say whatever you like in your church -- this is James Madison -- say -- yap all you want. Got this. Got that, whatever. But as soon as you step out on the sidewalk, your ass is mine.

I don't think so.

By the way, so you know how that works, Tammy, if I may call you that, Tammy, a guy who has been in the service forever, forever -- I'm sorry. No. A guy who is -- I was thinking of another religious case.

This guy is a fire chief in Atlanta. A fire chief.

He said something inside the walls of his church. He was fired from his job because he said at his church from the pulpit, I don't believe in gay marriage. He was fired. So tell me how that one works, Tammy.

By the way, the First Amendment doesn't say anything about institutions of faith. What it does say is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I'm exercising my faith right now by telling you what I believe.

The right to keep and bear arms every single time some psycho senselessly takes an innocent life, they roll out the tired, old argument that guns have no place in our society, despite what the Constitution says. The right to be secure in your home, papers, documents, unmolested by authorities, unless there is a probable cause to search or seize your property. Three letters for you: NSA. Here's three more: IRS.

Those are all gone, gang. Or they're on the ropes. Power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, reserved for the states.

Yeah. Right.

(laughter)

No, that doesn't happen. There's no marriage. There's no straight marriage in the Constitution.

That is a power reserved for the states. Not the Constitution. It says it in the Constitution. So the Tenth Amendment is gone. The only thing we have to not really worry about is probably the quartering of soldiers in our homes. Knock on wood. Well, don't knock on wood because that might be a little confusing to some because there might actually be a knock on your wooden door and I don't know it might be the Third Mechanized Infantry Division that is just wanting to stay.

PAT: Looking for a place.

GLENN: Can we crash here? Our public schools and universities are turning out kids and they're turning them into entitlement addicts. It doesn't begin at school. Because even at our sporting events and other extracurricular activities prepare them to expect everything without earning anything. Participation trophies. Telling them that they're special for no apparent reason. Heaping undue praise on them. Even, when just maybe, constructive criticism would keep a few losers off of American Idol. We told you about UC Berkeley, where Janet Napolitano and her staff are banning certain phrases. These are not words. These are now ideas.

This week, last week it was UC Berkeley. This week it was University of Wisconsin joining the list of racist microaggressions. Microaggressions. Take your microaggression and...

America used to be a place where based on your hard work, dedication, and talent, you could have a legitimate chance to get ahead in life. You could actually possibly become successful. Thanks to the University of Wisconsin and UC Berkeley, we discovered now that's just not true. Gaining reward based on your efforts apparently cannot happen. It's referred to as the myth of meritocracy. Saying things like the most qualified person should get the job just accentuates the microaggression that is seething inside of you. Desperately trying to get out.

What you really mean by that phrase is that people are -- of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race. Why are you such a racist?

And for the holy love of heaven, will you please don't give me the old, everybody can succeed in this society, if they don't work hard -- if they work hard enough. Please don't give that to me. I -- you know that's a lie. Go ahead, say it. Say it to your microaggressive, hateful self. Go ahead say it. Colored people are just lazy. Yeah, that's what you say. Colored people. Hello, Mr. 1956. You're saying they're incompetent and need to work harder. I know exactly what you're saying.

Yep. Can't hide from the University of Wisconsin or UC Berkeley. This is what's being taught to your kids. Take your kids out of school. Don't. Send them to a local community college before this crap.

This is what's happening in the United States of America today. The family, the fundamental building block of civilization is being transformed. Marriage transformed. Speech transformed. Rights rewritten. Invented. Suppressed. It's all happening at the same time by design by the progressives.

And the result will be that America's cream will no longer rise to the top. Cream, we can't have cream. That implies a cow. Who are you to put your hand on the utter of an animal without asking for permission?

Merit is going to just be a parts of in Connecticut. That's it. We'll have generations of Americans who wait to be given what they believe they have coming to them because they're entitled. It won't come, but government benefits will, while they last. More and more fundamental rights will be created.

There is no fundamental right to marriage. Not in the Constitution. For straight people, either. There is no such thing as a fundamental right for health care. Those are things we like. But that's not something government is doing. Marriage was an institution that was started by the religious. And government cannot interfere with the religious inside the walls of the church. So how is it that they say they can -- no, we understand the First Amendment. We got it. You can do whatever you want in the church. And we'll leave you alone. It just doesn't expand past the church. By the way, open up the door of the church because we have to tell you what you're doing on the altar there with those two people. Can't have it both ways, dude.

Health care is the same way. Now they're talking about a guaranteed minimum wage. There is no fundamental right to a minimum wage. A job. There's no fundamental right to food. Now, these rights did exist in that glorious place called the Soviet Union. They still exist in that wonderful utopia of China. But not here in the United States of America. Why?

Well, because our fathers had a different idea. And I'll tell you about that coming up in a second.

[BREAK]

GLENN: So do you remember when the president said this about the Constitution?

OBAMA: That generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

GLENN: Right. Right. He is a constitutional scholar. He has that wrapped up tightly in a nice little box. That is exactly what it says because that's exactly what the founders designed it to do and be. Why? Because they studied all previous governments. They studied it from ancient Greece and Mesopotamia. They went out and they really searched what worked, what didn't, why did it fail, when did it fail. And then they tried to design something that took all of that into account.

They knew that the government shouldn't do certain things to the citizenry, the way Britain did. They wanted government out of the way. They believed that we can do it. We can do it on our own, and we can do it better. Except for a few things like military. Now, who doesn't think -- does Apple think the government can do computers better than Apple? Does Google think they can run the internet better than Google (sic)? Do you think you can run your life and your family, or the government would be better at that? Based on merit, we're given the right to pursue our happiness. Not the guarantee that the government would provide for us.

You got to grab your kids because they are being reprogrammed. We are being reprogrammed to accept that the most qualified person should not get the job. That the special person should. The first person, the first black, Hispanic, woman, gay, lesbian, transgendered man that's still questioning and a little bit transabled or maybe the first transracial. First dwarf. First something should get that job. But not the person who is actually qualified. No. Look, if Ted Cruz were gay, he had exactly the same policies, I would absolutely vote for him. If he would just for the love of Pete, man, put on a skirt, then he would be the first transgendered woman president. Then he's -- he's more than qualified.

We're being directed down that path. And if we continue down that path, America will cease to be great. We've already slid way past good. We're now in, kind of mediocre. It's okay. Kind of like Canada is looking pretty good right now.

Perhaps one day even less.

I started this with that Lee Greenwood quote. I think it's the first time in my career that I've quoted Lee Greenwood. But I'll stand up next to you and defend her still today.

It's time to stand. It's not time to stand against something. It's time to stand for something. Stand for the Constitution. Stand for people's rights. Not even your rights. Don't even worry about your rights. Somebody else's right. We're going to talk about Ted Cruz and he's talking about his solution to gay marriage. But I think in a way, what he's saying is, we got to stand up against gay marriage and get this thing overturned.

I think we need to get it overturned, but not because of gay marriage. We got to get the government out of gay marriage. Rand Paul has the right position on this. Get the government out of marriage entirely. They have no place in our marriage. Right of conscience.

They have no place in our marriage. If you want to get married, you get married. I may disagree with it, but how does it pick my pocket or break my leg? It doesn't.

You want to get married. Get married. If you're two consenting adults, how does this hurt me?

If you want to force my church to marry you, if I go to a gay church and they're like, we won't marry any straight people, so be it. Why would I want them to do it? I'm not going to force them to do it. I'm not going to force your church or whatever to do whatever. You don't force me to do whatever. Why can't we all just kind of be cool with each other? My evil plan, slowly, quietly take over the world, and then leave everybody alone.

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.