When Our Side Lies, We Must Call It Out

May 25, 2016

WRITER

The year was 1781, and British statesman Edmund Burke took to the floor of parliament and said these words:

There are three estates in parliament. The first estate is the clergy. The second is nobility. The third, the common man. But there in the reporter galleries yonder there sits a fourth estate, much more important by far than the rest."

What Burke was saying was really simple: In a democratic society there are institutions like religion, government agencies, unions, political parties. To ensure proper governance and fairness, they come together. They debate. They find agreement. They make new laws and repeal old laws. But Burke was saying right then, and he identified the value of a fourth estate in society, a free and independent press.

The press needs to act as a people's watchdog. They ensure the people retain their access to truth, that we are informed and aware of what the institutions and our leaders --- whether they're clergy, unions or governments --- what our leaders are doing and if our leaders are telling us things that are truthful and consistent. They are the fourth estate. And they are elevated above the government, above unions, above our churches, above our religious figures. They protect us by finding and publishing and exposing the truth, so then we can make an informed decision, so that we the people are not misled and aren't lied to, so our freedom can't be taken from us by con men.

So what happens when the press starts to lie? What happens when they make it their goal not to discover and present the truth, but rather to fulfill a particular political agenda? What happens when the press aligns itself heavily with a single political party and begins to shape stories to support a particular moral ideology? We know because we've seen it.

Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

What happens is this: The truth is lost, and the people begin to trust no one. When the watchdog aligns itself with the wolves, it is the sheep who become the victims. The goal of the majority of the press stopped being about telling the truth around the time of Woodrow Wilson. That's when it became a coordinated effort, the fourth estate merged with the first and second estate.

It was three estates against one. The press stopped being about telling the truth and became about transforming the world, shaping it closer to their heart's desire, about getting certain candidates elected or changing the perception about human morality or our culture. The press developed an agenda that was far beyond fact-finding.

It began about presenting a story that gave readers and viewers a certain perception. It is the reason the Council of Foreign Relations was begun. Facts could be left out if they cricked the agenda. Certain photos or videos would be used or edited to tell the story, the editor, the reporter, or the company owner, or the politician, the government wanted to tell. And in their hearts, they had justified it, because to them, they were making the world a better place because they believed their agenda was right.

They were fighting against evil. They were fighting against deforestation. They were helping put a stop to gun violence. They were reducing alcoholism. Preventing obesity. Trying to put an end to income inequality. So a little lie here, a little omission here, a little snip of a video here or a sound bite --- you just select the right image, and you can create whatever perception you want among the readers.

So what if you have to bend the truth a little bit, if you have to smear a good man's name in the meantime? So what if you have to make people who look like they read the Bible, look like toothless rednecks to prevent gun violence, to save a child, it's worth that the truth be damned. We all know this because we've watched it for 100 years.

It's the job of the press to discover the truth and to present and inform us of the truth, but it hasn't been done in a long time. And without it, you know, because you see it. We become blind. We are lost because we cannot make an informed, rational decision about our future. And no one even looks to the press anymore because people say, "They're all lying." And when everyone is perceived as a liar, then there cannot be any search for truth. The truth becomes irrelevant.

Without a free press actually doing their job, the common man cannot do his job. We cannot protect each other's freedom. We can't act in concert to defend our neighbor's liberty.

We've known for a long time that the mainstream media has leftist bias. Independent watchdog organizations have released study after study showing how that bias impacts the veracity of their stories and their conclusions, how the truth is left behind. And every conservative knows it. We have lamented it for years. We have nicknames for it --- lame stream media, the drive-by media, the left stream media. It's even funny until we have completely lost the truth.

And now we find ourselves in a situation to where nobody is even looking for the truth --- because there is no standard of truth.

What we're lamenting is not just the lost of journalistic integrity. It's not just that they have a left-leaning bias. We have lost access to truth. And now the game has changed almost entirely, as it should have. But it's gone down the same road. In today's media world, the goal is just to sell eyeballs, to get shares, to get clicks. The more sensational the coverage, the more scandalous the story, the more bias you can pack into a story, the better. Throw them the red meat that they want. It's more likely to get shared, more likely to get clicked on. And, therefore, more likely to drive advertising dollars and high CPMs.

Show a polar bear standing alone on a tiny iceberg and write a story about global warming. Millions of shares. Millions of eyeballs. Millions of people all around the world feeling sorry for the polar bears who are going to drown out there in the freezing ocean.

CARMEN JASPERSEN/AFP/Getty Images

Should I mention the polar bear population is increasing dramatically? No, no, no. I say that, it takes away from the goal here, which is to paint a certain picture. To give a certain impression. To get more click-through his and comments. Don't let the truth get in the way of doing good. You may not get a promotion at the Huffington Post. If your story doesn't get clicks and comments, the polar bears, they don't care. So really, who gets hurt?

We know this problem has existed. We know that it's existed in media for probably since the beginning of time. But as a coordinated effort by the progressives --- on both sides of the aisles --- for 100 years.

Quite honestly, the only reason why I have any career and the reason why people know my name is because I was willing to go on radio and go on TV and simply tell the truth, first about me, and then about the truth as I understood it. And audiences were so hungry for it because they couldn't find authenticity anymore in their newspaper or broadcast news channel. They couldn't find somebody who would say what they mean and mean what they said.

Now, if we conservatives and Libertarians and constitutionalists, those of us on the political right, those of us who have seen the rise of leftist bias and willful deceit, if we are to take over the mainstream media and we do the same thing, why would we expect different results? Why would we expect to be able to garner trust?

When the New York Times --- when anybody does it, when Facebook does it --- it has to be called out. Bias is bias. When it's proven, bias is bias. When the Huffington Post does it, we have to call it out. But when our side does it, perhaps it's more important to call it out on ourselves because we don't have this image yet. We're not known as the liars, yet. They think we are. They think we're no different than they are. But I contend we are different than they are. I contend we do have higher values and higher principles. I contend we do have the truth. So when you hear somebody on our side smear to smear, print falsehoods, we need to call it out.

Yesterday, the Drudge Report posted a story about Bill Cosby, formerly facing sexual assault charges, as he should have. He should face that. But what was amazing was Drudge rightfully led with that story, but he also put a picture on top. And so the lead picture was Bill Cosby standing in front of a very young, maybe 10-year-old picture, of Hillary Clinton. So she was in the picture behind Bill Cosby.

How long did it take to find a picture of Bill Cosby that could implicate Hillary Clinton in his rape case? A picture of Bill Cosby in the foreground, with Hillary in focus in the background, completely out of context. How is that any different than the polar bear on the ice cap? How is that any different than the picture of that one polar bear floating there?

Photo: William Thomas Cain/Getty Images

I want you to know, I have no sympathy for Hillary Clinton. She has led the way of smearing the right for decades --- "the vast right-wing conspiracy," a lie to protect herself. There is plenty of very low-hanging fruit that she deserves to be attacked for, but this isn't about her. This is about us.

Do we or do we not hold a higher standard for ourselves? Because if it's wrong when the left-leaning press uses an image that misleads or confounds the truth, if that would have happened and it was a picture of Donald Trump, do you think Drudge would have used that picture? Of course not. He was furthering an agenda. Do you think if you would have had that picture and it was Donald Trump and the New York Times did it, do you think we would be outraged? Of course. Of course we would.

We believe in principles.

Everybody knows how I feel about Ted Cruz and constitutionalists, yet the one charge --- I've heard a lot of charges: I'm a drunk. I'm failing. I'm out of control. I'm crazy. I'm on drugs. I've sold out all my values. I'm not the guy I used to be. I got paid off by Ted Cruz, his super PACs. I've made millions of dollars. I've heard it all. But the one thing I haven't heard is that TheBlaze sold out and became an organ for Ted Cruz.

I believe in principles. The news must be separate from an agenda. That doesn't mean you don't stand for something, but we don't lie. We don't smear. We don't publish stories with iffy sources, no matter how much we want a story to be true. And believe me, there are stories we have wanted to be true. But we must go where the truth leads us. That must be our mission as people, to help others discover the truth, not to be hoodwinked into it. But to question with boldness, even the very existence of God. For if there is a God, he must surely rather honest questioning over blindfolded fear.

So where do we go now? We must go where the truth leads us. It must be the mission to help people discover the truth.

Featured Image: The Glenn Beck Program, May 25, 2016

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.

Glenn's Show Prep