There's No Carrying Water for Ted Cruz

This election season, Glenn finds himself in what he calls "a refreshing place." Why? He can finally fulfill a promise he's made to himself the last two election cycles: support a candidate in its purest form, without compromise or feeling like he's "carrying water."

"What I enjoy most about being a Ted Cruz supporter [is] I have not once had to make an excuse for something he has done. ...Not once," Glenn explained.

No justifying something stupid he's said.

No justifying something cruel he's said.

No justifying his voting record.

No reconciling his private behavior versus his public behavior.

No apologizing for indiscretions with interns.

No explaining away something he did five years ago.

"Man, it is nice to be able to sleep at night and feel good that I don't have to carry a bit of water for any man," Glenn said.

Refusing to serve someone's interests comes at a price, though.

"Why is this show one of the only shows that doesn't hold water for Ted---for Donald Trump? I'll tell you why," Glenn said. "We don't have any friends. And we've often said, 'That's a really bad thing. Really bad thing.' And the reason why we don't have any friends is because we won't carry anybody's water. We just won't do it. If they screw up, we won't carry water."

Where does Glenn place his loyalty? With his audience and the truth---simple, freeing and refreshing.

Listen to a program segment below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: I find myself in a very refreshing place. And it is a place I promised myself I would be in, but I have -- I promised myself for the last two elections I would be in this place. But I have faltered on that because I've been like, "Okay. Well, we have to get somebody in. Better than Barack Obama." And I said to this audience, "You stop me. If I get to that point, you've got to stop me. I will not vote for somebody who is just really bad. And I've convinced myself. Please stop me."

What I enjoy most about being a Ted Cruz supporter, I have not once had to make an excuse for something he's done. I have not once had to say, "Yeah, I know, but he's really good on other things, though." I have not once had to justify one of his votes. I have not once had to justify something stupid, something callous, something mean, or something cruel that he has said. I have not once had to dismiss or justify his behavior, either towards other people in private, in public. Not once have I had to justify that. Not once have I had to apologize for something he did to an intern. Not once have I had to say, yeah, but that's that was five years ago, he's a different man now. Not once. That puts me as a voter and as a supporter -- I'm not carrying any water for this guy.

The only water I have to carry is when somebody says, "Yeah, well, he's not really conservative." Have you read his resume?

"Well, he doesn't really know the Constitution." Again, have you read his resume?

"Well, he's not really a good dad." Where do you get that?

"Well, he's in with these people." How? How?

"He's part of the establishment." They hate him.

"He's inconsistent." In what way? Name something you can say about Ted Cruz. I don't have -- all I have to do is correct the errors. I don't have to justify what he has done.

Never before in my life -- and I will tell you, it was like this with Ronald Reagan until two things, he made the deal with amnesty and the Iran contra affair. The Iran HEP contra affair, I happen to believe Ronald Reagan, but I'm not sure.

Ted Cruz is the only candidate I have -- and we watch these guys. You know when he was first on. We didn't know if we should buy him. We didn't know if we should believe him.

And I looked him in the eye, and I said on the air, "We'll be your worst nightmare." Why is this show one of the only shows that doesn't hold water for Ted -- for Donald Trump? I'll tell you why.

We don't have any friends. And we've often said, "That's a really bad thing. Really bad thing." And the reason why we don't have any friends is because we won't carry anybody's water. We just won't do it. If they screw up, we won't carry water.

My bond, my loyalty is to you. You were my friend long before any of these clowns were my friends. You've done more for me than anybody else I know. My loyalty is to you and to the truth. And too many people in the either are friends of Donald Trump -- I play golf with him. I know him. I've been to dinner with him. I've had all these relationships with him. And so I excuse these things because I'm a friend of his.

If you were a judge, you would recuse yourself. You would say, "I cannot discuss him in any way because I'm a friend." You would be -- you would be recused.

I'm not saying this as a bad thing. I'm saying this is human nature. You don't want to piss off your friends. You know, and I'll do you a favor. And so you're either doing that candidate, whichever candidate it is, a favor because I'm going to excuse you on this one because we're friends. We've got a good relationship.

I told Ted Cruz, "We're going to be your worst nightmare. We are not carrying any water for you. We will not excuse -- when the thing with the TPP happened, what did we say? We didn't excuse him. We said, "I don't understand this. I don't get this at all." We were the first ones on board saying, "Wait a minute. What are you doing, Ted?" What, Stu?

STU: I was going to say, you guys more than me. I was more in favor than you guys were.

GLENN: But we weren't.

STU: No, you guys stepped in immediately.

GLENN: We don't carry water. And I have to tell you something. It is so unbelievably freeing. It is a pleasure to be -- and if you can find another candidate like this, go for it. But it is a pleasure to be a supporter for Ted Cruz where I don't have to apologize. I don't have to comprise my credibility. What's wrong with the conservative movement? What is the biggest problem with the conservative movement and the G.O.P.?

STU: Comprising principles.

GLENN: And? And how do you feel? Why are you so mad at the G.O.P.? Because you've been out there with your friends defending these clowns and saying, "We're not like that. We don't mean that. That's not what we do. It's your side that does that." And then you elect them, and then they get in. And then you're like, "Son of a bitch. I've just carried all that -- you've hurt my credibility."

I don't have to do that with Ted Cruz. So the reason why these attacks on Ted Cruz are not going to work, one, he's 66 percent everybody's second choice. So anybody who attacks him -- if Rick Santorum attacks him, there's a good chance half of his support really likes Ted Cruz. And it makes you go -- the only thing you don't like about Ted Cruz is, I don't think he can win. That's the only thing -- that's the only negative I've heard on Ted Cruz. I don't know, his personality. I don't know if he can really connect with the American people. It's never about his policies. It's never about anything of substance. It's about, I don't think he can win. So when somebody attacks him, you immediately go, "Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. He's the only guy out there that is completely solid. If he had the personality of Ronald Reagan, we would all be in the boat for this guy." If Ted Cruz had the personality of Marco Rubio, this would be done. It would be done.

And so when somebody, who doesn't have the record of Ted Cruz, starts to say, "Well, you know what, he's really not -- you go, "Hang on. That doesn't make sense." And so you immediately demote -- you give demoting points to your guy because you're saying, "Wait a minute. That doesn't compute. So something is wrong. You're part of the problem."

PAT: We all like Rick Santorum. Look how it affected us, when he started attacking Ted Cruz. It pissed us off.

GLENN: I have no -- because we know it's dishonest. We know it's dishonest.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during the Sunshine Summit conference being held at the Rosen Shingle Creek on November 13, 2015 in Orlando, Florida. The summit brought Republican presidential candidates in front of the Republican voters. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

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.