Stephen Colbert's Childish, In-kind Rant Doesn't Help the Country

Comedian and TV host Stephen Colbert didn't like how the president treated a CBS reporter in a recent interview. Admittedly, the president did not behave in an admirable way, but does stooping to his level make it better?

"There's a difference between joking with people who you love, joking with people who you like and then just telling a racist joke. When you're just out telling a racist joke because you hate 'them' --- fill in the blank --- then it's no longer comedy. It's a statement," Glenn said Tuesday on radio.

RELATED: Stephen Colbert Unleashes All-out Trump Takedown: ‘I Love Your Presidency, I Call It “Disgrace the Nation.”'

Stephen Colbert clearly made a statement with his response. Not only that, he became part of the problem --- but where does it end?

"By feeding back into it, [they think] 'we're not the lying media,'" Glenn said. "Shut up. Just prove it. Just live it. Show us that he's wrong."

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 2:56 from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I want you to listen to Stephen Colbert and -- and CBS broadcast entity, what they broadcast last night about Donald Trump. Listen to this.

STEPHEN: Walking out in the middle of a sentence wasn't even the president's biggest insult to John Dickerson.

DONALD: And I think, actually, I've been very consistent. You know, it's very funny when the fake media goes out -- you know, which we call the mainstream, which sometimes I must say is you.

VOICE: You mean me personally? Or --

DONALD: Your show. I love your show. I call it Deface the Nation.

STEPHEN: Really?

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop. Stop.

Anybody think that's a smart move on President Trump's?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Anybody think that was a classy move?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Anybody think that you want to defend President Trump on stuff like that?

PAT: No.

STU: At least he said it to his face, I'll give him that.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If you are going to get into a fight with a bully like that, what do you do? One of two things: You either punch back harder. And if the bully is -- is known to throw haymakers, you're going to get into a fight until one of you can't get up. Okay?

Only one's walking away from a fight like that. The other way to win in a fight like that is to kill them with kindness. Not play that game. The American way is to not play that game.

Now I want you to listen to Stephen Colbert.

STEPHEN: Donald Trump, John Dickerson is a fair-minded journalist and one of the most competent people who will ever walk into your office, and you treat him like that?

Now, John Dickerson has way too much dignity to trade insults with the president of the United States to his face. But I, sir, am no John Dickerson.

PAT: Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Here it comes.

(laughter)

STEPHEN: Okay.

GLENN: That is the sound of the republic dying.

STEPHEN: Let me introduce you to something we call the Tiffany way. When you insult one member of the CBS family, you insult us all. Bazinga. All right? Here we go. All right?

PAT: He's on one now.

(laughter)

STEPHEN: Mr. Trump, your presidency, I love your presidency. I call it Disgrace the Nation.

GLENN: Now, listen to this.

STU: That's funny because it's the same joke.

PAT: Similar. Similar.

STEPHEN: You're the glutton with a button. You're a regular Gorge Washington. You're the presidunce, but you're turning into a real pricktator.

(laughter)

GLENN: That's the Tiffany way.

PAT: That was naughty.

STEPHEN: You attract more skinheads than free Rogaine. You have more people marching against you than cancer. You talk like a signed language gorilla who got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's (bleep) holster.

PAT: Whoa.

GLENN: Wow.

(applauding)

STEPHEN: Your presidential library --

GLENN: Man.

STEPHEN: Your presidential library is going to be a kid's menu and a couple of Juggs magazines. The only thing smaller than your hands is your tax returns. You can take that any way you want.

PAT: Okay.

STEPHEN: We've got a great show for you tonight.

PAT: Wow. He's got a great show for us tonight. All evidence to the contrary. But thanks.

STU: Yeah, his tax returns, he hasn't released those yet.

PAT: Right. He's comparing that to some body part.

STU: Right. But his tax returns haven't been released. That's why it's funny to say that. Because his tax returns haven't been released yet. And it's a good observation about his tax returns because he hasn't released those. So when he brings that up, it's funny because he hasn't even released them. I don't know if you saw that in the news.

GLENN: So the press --

STU: So horrible.

PAT: So bad.

GLENN: The press is -- the press just doesn't understand what they're doing. They just don't have any clue as to what they're doing.

When I -- when I went and started talking to members of the press and members of the opposite side. I said to them, "Please, don't make the mistakes that I made." Now --

PAT: And how much did they yell and scream about respect for the president?

GLENN: Oh, my.

PAT: Treating the president so badly. Jeez.

GLENN: That is -- look, what their response will be, "This president is so much worse -- how dare you even compare." It doesn't matter. It's the president of the United States. And beyond that, you are sounding like him. You have become just as despicable as him. When you say that, you know, look at the child-like behavior -- look at the child-like behavior, except he's doing it professionally. And so that's the little line that you have in your head. Well, I'm a comedian. That's not comedy. That's third grade comedy. That you could feel viscerally he felt that. Comedy stops becoming comedy when it it's real.

Now, every joke -- I mean, the problem with comedy is every joke, somebody is on the losing end of it, always. But there's a difference between joking with people who -- who you love, joking with people who you like, and then just telling a racist joke. When you're just out telling a racist joke because you hate them, fill in the blank, then it's no longer comedy. It's a statement.

That's a statement. And he's being rewarded right now by ratings. But where does this end? The press doesn't understand. By feeding back into it, we're not the lying media. We're not the lying media. We're not the lying media.

Shut up. Just prove it. Just live it. Show us that he's wrong. But even in their own Correspondents' Dinner, they couldn't do that. Even in their own Correspondents' Dinner, where they were the ones putting it on and then they were the ones that reported on what they were doing, they didn't report on -- on what Woodward and Bernstein really had said. What they reported on was that Woodward or Bernstein -- I can't remember which -- had made some point to the president about fake news. That it's not all fake news.

But before that, they went on and on and on about the responsibility of the media. It's a two-way street. They didn't report on that.

They didn't think that that part was important. What they thought was important was the slam on Donald Trump and the president. Zero self-reflection. It's not going to end well for the media. It's not going to end well for America. It's not going to end well for -- this is separating -- you know, here's what my mistake was: When I've said in the past, because I hurt half the country, they will look at that statement and say, "Yeah, see, he knows he was wrong, and he was hurting by lying to all of those conservatives and whipping them up into a frenzy." No, no, no. No. I was so convinced that I was right and that you were wrong, that it didn't matter how you felt. That I was right. And if you disagreed with me and the millions of people that had agreed with me, you were too stupid to get it.

PAT: Also, you remember how bad it was -- I mean, we weren't saying anything like this about Obama. We -- we were saying the guy is a Marxist. He has Marxist tendencies.

GLENN: Well, that was racist for us to say that.

PAT: That was all racist, and that was all horrible. And that was disrespectful, when we were just talking about his ideology. This is all personal stuff. These are all fourth grade insults. You're calling him names. I mean, they're doing everything they claim to be against.

GLENN: So Samantha Bee, who is a friend of mine, Samantha Bee, she's doing an interview with Mother Jones of all places. Could you go further left? And she is -- they talk about the interview with me.

Mother Jones: You had an intriguing interview with Glenn Beck at Christmastime. I love the sweaters. About our political rift. Beck had admitted that he had done damage by being so divisive. He said to you, "Please don't make the mistakes that I made." Do you think this is a time for people trying to come together or more of an oppositional moment?

Samantha says: Both. Listen, we're not in Kumbaya Town here, but you need to be able to talk to people. You need to be able to agree from time to time if we're going to get anywhere.

Once you've started a civil dialogue, it's a much smoother road to compromise. The key thing to remember is it's a daily practice and it's not easy.

Glenn and I, in the strongest terms possible, disagree on a lot of things. When you can agree on one thing, you should have no expectation that suddenly a person is converted to your way of thinking. You have to be willing to be frustrated constantly. There are certain things that we can all agree on, are terrible for America. Beck loves this country. I love this country. I chose this country. Blah, blah, blah. I have respect for the Constitution.

Great. Samantha, you are making exactly the same mistake that I made. Exactly the same mistake.

Stephen Colbert, you are both getting so wrapped up in your anger and hatred and vitriol for this president, that you are forgetting that a third of this country, if not 50 percent of this country, still like the man. Still agree with him.

And every time -- every time you do a monologue like Stephen Colbert did, it makes it impossible for someone who is either in the center -- and says, "Look, I don't like either side," to rally around you. To rally for your side. Because you're both acting like children.

Our country is better than this. We're better than this.

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.