GLENN: Well, here's an episode that I would really like to lose. Because once you -- luckily, it's radio. So you're not going to be able to see this. But as you're listening to it.
PAT: It's unbelievable.
GLENN: Realize it's 100 times worse when you actually are watching it.
PAT: This actually happened on a Netflix original show.
JEFFY: Yes.
GLENN: This is something we feel necessary to say. This actually -- in today's world --
PAT: It really happened.
GLENN: Think of this.
PAT: Happened.
GLENN: In today's world, where honestly, space aliens could -- Anderson Cooper could go on TV tonight and lift up his eyelid and pull it over his head and reveal himself as an alien, and we would be like, "Huh."
JEFFY: Should have seen this one.
GLENN: In this atmosphere, we have to say, this actually happened.
STU: Yeah. I mean, in all seriousness, it's one of the worst three minutes of entertainment put together. And, by the way, we have five of the top ten, so we know --
GLENN: This is our category. We have all of -- yeah, we're lifetime achievement winners when it comes to bad entertainment.
STU: Yes, this is the worst thing I may have ever seen.
PAT: Have you ever seen -- I didn't even know he had a Netflix show, but called Bill Nye Saves the World?
JEFFY: Yeah.
PAT: Who knew? And why the hell did Netflix put him on? What is the draw of this guy? I don't understand it.
GLENN: Okay stop here's Bill Nye the Science Guy. And he's going to introduce something that you, of course, know.
PAT: This is amazing.
GLENN: And warning, kids -- warning, if you have kids in the room --
PAT: Yeah, it's a little harsh.
GLENN: It has dicey language in it. It's all technical science language.
STU: No.
GLENN: But the song is -- remember, and we're the science denier.
PAT: Uh-huh.
GLENN: We're the ones denying science. This is on the science stage this weekend, my vagina has a voice.
VOICE: So you guys, seriously, this next thing I feel is very special.
PAT: It's very special.
VOICE: This is a cool little segment. You know this woman from Crazy Ex-girlfriend. Please give it up for Rachel Bloom.
GLENN: I didn't know Crazy Ex-girlfriend.
PAT: I don't know her, but...
VOICE: This one goes out to all my bipeds who identify as ladies!
PAT: Okay. For all the bipeds who identify as ladies because that's as close as we could come to calling you something that sort of identifies a human being.
GLENN: Women. Okay. So wait. That's what she said? For all you bipeds that identify as ladies.
PAT: Bipeds that identify as ladies.
GLENN: Okay. All right. But we're the science deniers.
(singing)
VOICE: My vagina has its own voice.
PAT: Wow.
(singing)
VOICE: Sometimes I do my voice for my vagina. Please, tell me I'm not the only one who does that.
(laughter)
GLENN: Stop. I believe that laughter is piped in.
PAT: Oh, it had to be.
STU: Really?
GLENN: I believe that --
PAT: I think it had to be.
GLENN: Well, they didn't mic the crowd.
PAT: I don't know if there even is a crowd. Is there a crowd there?
STU: I thought there was a live audience there. I mean, he seems to be talking to them at the beginning. It seems like it's a variety show.
PAT: Is he talking to us at home?
GLENN: I don't know.
PAT: I've never seen the show.
GLENN: I don't know. I've never seen it either.
VOICE: (singing) Much more than either.
PAT: So bad.
VOICE: (singing)
May have some butt stuff. It's evolution. Ain't nothing new.
PAT: Wow.
VOICE: (singing)
(music)
French treasure. 'Cause my sex joke is so (singing) more.
(music)
If they're alive, I'll date them. Channing or Jenna Tatum. I'm down for anything. Don't box in my box. Give someone new a handy and give yourself props.
VOICE: Oh, you think you're so smart. Did you learn gay in college?
VOICE: (singing) with all of that while I drop some knowledge. Sexuality is --
(music)
GLENN: Okay. Stop.
PAT: Has there been anything worst ever broadcast?
STU: Ever. Ever.
PAT: Ever. I don't think so.
GLENN: Yeah, but listen to the message.
PAT: Oh, it's science, Glenn.
GLENN: I know. My vagina has a voice.
PAT: They're singing science.
GLENN: Hey, are you? I'm Bill. Bill the vagina. Yesterday I was Carol. But today I'm Bill the vagina. Taking your calls now. Hello. I'm listening. Go ahead. Yes, Peter. Come in a little closer. What were you saying?
(laughter)
GLENN: I mean, jeez.
STU: Is that the voice she does -- is that the voice she does?
GLENN: How are you doing? Give us a whoa. Let me tell you something.
STU: That is really --
GLENN: I was vomiting out a child the other day. Oh, my gosh. Split my face wide open.
STU: Oh, okay. This is why --
(laughter)
STU: The issue here is -- no.
GLENN: If a vagina could talk, this is what it would be saying.
STU: Okay.
PAT: I think maybe it should stop talking.
STU: Yeah, no. I think that was the good --
GLENN: What, are you ashamed of me?
PAT: Yes.
STU: We are ashamed of you. Yes. Very ashamed of you.
And, again, now we've broken the record of Bill Nye for the worst moment in broadcast history, which I'm glad you reclaimed the title.
GLENN: Holy cow. Right. Thank you.
STU: It's interesting because a lot of people are offended over the content and message of that. Which she's saying -- basically saying I can't be assigned a sex.
PAT: And that's science?
STU: That's science somehow.
PAT: That's science. Jeez, man.
STU: But really, I'm much more offended at how terrible it is. Like, I don't -- they could be saying anything, and I don't think it would overcome just how awful a production it is.
PAT: No, it's unbelievably bad.
STU: It's horrific. What could they possibly have been thinking?
GLENN: You're still freaking out that my vagina has a voice.
STU: No, I know. I am.
GLENN: But my butthole has a stink beyond your wildest imagination.
STU: You've set the record already. You don't need to further it. This is like --
GLENN: Whoa. Whoa.
(laughter)
STU: This is like, you've already scored 101 points. You don't need to go for 130. Wilt. It's like, let's just calm down.
(laughter)
GLENN: Wow.
STU: That is absolutely unbelievable though. I mean, I seriously -- how in good conscience as a person who works in the entertainment industry, how could you let that on the air? That's something you light fire to the tapes before they get it to Netflix?
GLENN: No, here's the thing -- here's the thing: Netflix has spent a lot of money on that. There's nobody at Netflix that goes, yeah, well, my head has a mouth. And my mouth has a voice. You're fired. Get out. Get out.
STU: Well, I think the point with Netflix is, it's not like they're broadcasting -- this is -- it's the benefit of Netflix. They could put a bunch of crap on there too. They have a lot of great points.
GLENN: Yeah, but at some point, doesn't some shareholder go, come on?
JEFFY: And they might. They might. This is one season.
STU: But this doesn't cancel -- no one cancels a subscription over this, do they?
GLENN: No, no. Because there's so many other great shows. And so maybe it brings in some crazy nutjob liberal that subscribes and thinks it good. Maybe Bill Nye -- someone in Bill Nye's family subscribes because of this show.
GLENN: But here's the -- here's the problem: This is why -- I mean, are you seeing anybody who is conservative? Crazy, doing a show like that.
STU: No. And thank God!
GLENN: No, I know that. But they'll put anything on as long as it's liberal. As long as it's liberal, progressive, it doesn't matter. You know, the idea that the left has gone over after Fox News -- you're only thinning the herd. By making -- by making conservative views a pariah. What you do is you only allow the strongest or the craziest to stand.
And so we -- we'll stand. I'm telling you, we're going to continue to stand, even if I have to do it under a tree. I'm going to be doing -- I'm going to be saying my view under a tree, if it's only with three people. That's okay. You're not shutting me up. But the ones who last -- after you clear out -- if you make it uncomfortable for the normal people to say something, the only ones that are left are the truly dedicated or the nutjobs that will just get some other nutjob to pay for it.
STU: Well, that and, of course, obviously all the vaginas with voices. They'll always speak out. They're always there to speak out to America.
GLENN: Yeah. My vagina has a voice, but conservatives don't.
We should write a song.
STU: My vagina has a voice, but conservatives don't.
PAT: May have just broken the V-word record of all time too, right here.
GLENN: No, no. I don't believe so.
STU: It's possible. Again, in a science discussion, these things are allowed.
PAT: Pretty close.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
