Where's the Love? If 'Love Trumps Hate' Then Why All the Violence?

November 21, 2016

Writer

In the wake of Donald Trump's historic win, the left has gone on a full-blown temper tantrum --- and their hypocrisy is on full display. Love Trumps Hate is a familiar catch phrase at Trump protests, but evidently, it's only rhetoric with no real meaning.

"How hyperbolic can all of this get? How exaggerated can we expect this to become?" Buck Sexton asked Monday, filling in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program. "The guy is not even president yet, hasn't done anything yet, and there's all this Love Trumps Hate stuff out there."

Alongside the Love Trumps Hate signs are those with profanity or vulgarity. Chants that tend toward full-on profane are not uncommon. In some instances, Trump supporters have been beaten, threatened and verbally abused. Evidently, love only trumps hate when you share the same beliefs.

"There's no trace of irony with some of these protesters, when they say things like Love Trumps Hate and then they start cursing at somebody who doesn't agree with them on a matter of policy," Buck said. "If the Love Trumps Hate people are serious about making sure that Trump shows love and isn't this horrific dictator-in-waiting . . . I think they should also avoid beating people up for speech."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

BUCK: Buck Sexton here in for Glenn Beck today on the Glenn Beck Program. Thank you so much for joining.

So President Obama is president for a little while longer, and there are a lot of people who want to know how he will handle dealing with a Trump administration, post-Obama's own presidency. Is he going to be somebody who tries to hold Trump to account? Or is he going to pull a more George W. Bush maneuver, where he doesn't want to meddle in his successor's plans?

Obama was in Peru over the weekend, meeting with a bunch of world leaders, talking about trade deals, talking about all kinds of stuff. And he was asked specifically about whether he would weigh in on a Trump presidency right off the bat.

Here's what our current president had to say about how he will perhaps criticize or not our next president.

OBAMA: As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle, but go to core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, then I'll -- I'll examine it when it comes.

BUCK: Once again -- the assumption is where the condescension comes in. Just with the Hamilton actors making the assumption that they need to remind Mike Pence to defend their children, and the planet, by the way, President Obama feels the need to say that he will only step in basically if Trump takes the dial to 11, if Trump just goes wild, man. If he just does some crazy stuff, and casts off all respect and dignity. I don't know -- Trump -- dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria. Bad things happen because of Trump.

Can we wait until the guy gets into office before we freak out about everything?

The sort of collective hysteria from the collectivists. The left's constant proclamations that they need to get ahead of the coming catastrophe, is really in a sense a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because no matter what Trump does, they're going to think that it's horrific. Because they've been told now, ever since he won, that it was going to be horrific.

I've been saying from the beginning, they're so lucky that a hard-lined Republican, who is a bedrock foundational conservative didn't win. They're going to be able to get Trump to meet them halfway on a whole bunch of issues. It's much less frightening than they seem to think that it is.

Part of this is that they're upset that they no longer have the ability, the sort of secret weapon of shutting down speech they don't like by making claims of racism or xenophobia or misogyny. The misogyny one has never worked well for them, by the way. The War on Women even with Mitt Romney didn't work particularly well. Mitt Romney just wasn't going to beat Barack Obama in that election.

But they have President Obama coming out here and speaking on the world stage, saying that the door is open for him right after he leaves the White House to criticize the next document of the White House, if things get really bad.

Why do we have to -- why do we have to get ahead of things here? Why is there the suggestion that things might get so terrible that President Obama would have to weigh in right away?

I was wondering -- how hyperbolic can all of this get? How exaggerated can we expect this to become, given that I've had to wade through already some protests in New York City? The guy is not even president yet, hasn't done anything yet, and there's all this love trumps hate stuff out there. And a lot of placards and signs and chants that tend towards or are full of the profane, so I can't even repeat them on-air. I was taking photos of them. I was listening to some of them. Pretty nasty stuff out there.

And there's no trace of irony with some of these protesters, when they say things like, "Love trumps hate," and then they start cursing at somebody who doesn't agree with them on a matter of policy.

There have been some Trump supporters that have been attacked. There are actually people who wear make America great again gear, and that has been a symbol of -- or, that has been a target on them, and they have been assaulted because of it.

If the love Trumps all people are serious about making sure that Trump shows love and isn't this horrific dictator in waiting that they seem to think that he is, I think they should also avoid beating people up for speech. Just going to put that out there as an idea. I think it would probably be best that they didn't take the position that -- they have so much love in their heart, they have such kind people, that if you don't understand that and agree with them, then I'm going to punch you in the nose.

Whoa, settle down, everyone. This is not where things need to be. This is what -- the -- everyone from center left in this meltdown over Trump mode just needs to chill. But it's going to be hard. It's going to be hard. Because as you see, even with the transition, which you would think is a sort of boring -- and I'll talk about some of the picks and what's coming and the policy, that will be sort of more hour three today, although we'll get into maybe some of it coming up before then.

Transition team picks should be a pretty much straightforward process. Nothing to get anyone all that upset. You're looking at long-serving government officials. You're looking at people that are in many cases quite well-known to a vast majority of Americans. Trump is rewarding those who are loyal to him in the primary and the general, as I think any president would, and, quite honestly, should. Loyalty is important, especially given that he knows he's going be an embattled position from the very start.

Featured Image: A demonstrator holds up a placard during a protest against Donald Trump's US presidential election victory, at City Hall in Portland on November 11, 2016. Demonstrators took to the streets in Miami, Los Angeles, New York and other US cities to oppose Donald Trump's election as president for a third straight night of nationwide protests. (Photo Credit: ANKUR DHOLAKIA/AFP/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.

Glenn's Show Prep