Tonight's Florida Primary: Ann Coulter weighs in

January 31, 2012

Writer

Ann Coulter called into the radio show today to discuss the Florida primary and what she expected to do down in the Sunshine State. What did she have to say? Read the full transcript of the interview below!

GLENN: Florida elections today and Ann Coulter is on the phone with us. Hello Ann.

COULTER: Hello Glenn Beck.

GLENN: What do you think is coming today.

COULTER: One thing I've noticed is the media seems to be encouraging raised expectations for Mitt Romney so if he wins by anything less than 15 points it will be declared a victory for Gingrich. And the upcoming caucuses if Romney loses a single one, wow, it's a Newt Gingrich bounce. I note that in that regard that an editorial is strongly encouraging these debates go on.

PAT: This Washington outsider Newt Gingrich is coming on so strongly right now with his brand new ideas that are complete separate from Washington. I love that about him. And I love the fact that the establishment, the Republican machinery is all behind Mitt Romney.

GLENN: There's really only one guy who can even make that claim, and even he is not an outsider, and it's Ron Paul. But at least

COULTER: Why wouldn't I say why isn't Romney the outsider.

GLENN: You're right.

COULTER: It isn't such a terrible thing. You do tend to choose politicians from politics. I think we saw in the choice of Republican candidates Herman Cain. Even when he was in right he was stuck for an answer. Yet and still don't go around calling yourself an outsider if you spent your entire life in Washington first as a congressman, and trading on your influence in Washington.

GLENN: So he's never had a real job.

COULTER: I guess there would be an assistant professor 30 years ago.

GLENN: I wouldn't call that a profession. He's a historian for Freddie and Fannie. There's the first line I cut. You need a historian. What is the hell is that?

COULTER: That was not a good answer.

STU: I find it amazing as they keep going to Gingrich as the antiestablishment guy. Here's a guy who voted for the Department of Education. And it's one thing and at least the fact that he was around to vote for the Department of Education's creation shows you

GLENN: Try this on for size. Here's a small government guy. Do you have the State Department audio. This is one of the most amazing pieces of audio I've heard from a Washington outsider that wants to return the power to the people.

COULTER: Hold every last

GLENN: Not that one. He sounds like the Taliban.

COULTER: Giving the conservative stress on the federalism as Rick Santorum has said if a state wants it can ban contraception. This focus on the federal government solutions is the federal government that created these problems and at least with a state it's easier for a state to modify. It's easier for states to see what other states have done, and how it worked out. You have more control over the officials you are electing to smaller area a town or governor or legislature. Which is why I find the comparison of Romney care, and Obama care so baffling other than it's generally the same subject area. And you can describe it to a politician's name to the word "care." One is constitutional, and one is unconstitutional.

GLENN: I would agree with you on that. Who thinks I don't care if it's a state or not, who thinks that they can actually fix it by having the state run it? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

COULTER: I think that the big issue on Romney care there isn't much any governor can do. The problem with the healthcare was created by the federal government and it can only be fixed by the federal government by repealing stuff.

GLENN: By reducing the size of the federal government.

COULTER: Right, and in particular the federal law requires hospitals to treat all comers. And Massachusetts was spending $1 billion a year, $1 billion on uncompensated medical costs so they are

GLENN: Wait a minute. Let me play devil's advocate here. So you're going to let vagrants die on the streets.

COULTER: I'm not going to say that the taxpayers is on the hook when they wander in to sleep off a drunk.

GLENN: What if they're really sick.

COULTER: I think in an ideal world what I would do, I don't have to have tax incentives to tax us less to begin. That's the world we're living with. For the tough cases let's fine I don't care if the federal government is going to pay for the tough cases. The federal government is going to set up poor people's hospitals. At that point we can pay for with the amount of money we're paying for the Department of Education now. But you don't wreck the whole system to deal with the hard cases.

GLENN: I think you go back to what the Ben Franklin did. You have people like Jon Huntsman. He built the Huntsman cancer institute, and you have people that build hospitals, and they can partner with the states or with corporations or whatever, and they get tax incentives for.

COULTER: Charitable hospitals.

GLENN: Let's not put all of the Catholic hospitals out of business. That's a different idea. I've not heard this anywhere.

COULTER: We have to rethink the State Department, and I have to said inn crease its size by 50%. To be able to have a truly professional modern high technology State Department.

GLENN: How are you feeling about an increase of the size of the State Department by 50%?

COULTER: That is raging against the machine in my part. But he has this tendency to give precise numerical figures when he's talking about his head. You have to increase it by 50%. I remember during 2007, and 2008 every month he was giving a different prediction of 80% chance Hilary will be the next President. And next the month Hilary's chances have fallen to 25%. And 25.4% of women have been raped in college.

STU: There's a lot of the things in his speech pattern. I think that the fundamental will file for bankruptcy if Newt Gingrich doesn't win the nomination. It's like is or the to this guy. Everything is a fundamental something.

COULTER: Now I'm having all these words are being stripped from my vocabulary, and I hear them, and it gives me a problem.

GLENN: A fundamental rash.

COULTER: Because frankly.

GLENN: Let me ask you this. What is the deal with the Sarah Palin's endorsement of Newt Gingrich.

STU: She hasn't officially endorsed.

PAT: Basically to all intents and purposes she has endorsed.

GLENN: What's up with that?

COULTER: It may be a disagreement on whether you think it's a good thing for this rancorous primary to continue, and whether that makes it more or less likely to defeat Obama in the fall. We've had 20 debates. I think this primary is quite a bit a nastier than others I've seen. I think it's going to hurt whomever, and Romney the eventual nominee. And I don't think it's a good thing for the debates to go. The lead up to the "New York Times" let the debates go on.

GLENN: It's crazy. We're cannibalizing ourselves. I'm not getting any new information out of these debates. Is anybody else?

STU: It's enough.

GLENN: Enough. All that's happening. Let these debates go on. Now let's have a rule that they can't talk about each other. They can talk about what they will do, and compare it to the Democrats, and Barack Obama, and you can do that. But I don't need to have them taking each other apart anymore. It really bothers me.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: They sound like a bunch of third graders.

COULTER: I dispute the aphorism that which does not kill you makes you stronger. Really you could gouge your eye out, you could live. Does that make you stronger?

GLENN: I don't think if it's self inflicted. That's probably why it doesn't apply here. But maybe it's just me.

COULTER: That seems to be the argument. The one who baffles me the most I reject the cynical explanations for people coming out on the other side. We may disagree, and particularly in the case of and the one I have the Thomas Sole. I think there's not a ray of light in the difference in our opinions and I respect him, and I've been baffled by his columns in favor of Newt Gingrich. And he has I think it's today complaining that Romney is lying about or being deceptive. I don't think he uses the word lie. And Newt does. And the ethics complaint. Unquestionably Gingrich resigned. The ethics reprimand was a lighter sentence. That was a majority House of Representatives. They were trying to protect their leader. There were a lot of the honorable Republican including Porter Goff who was the head of the ethic committee who thought that a reprimand was deserved. It was two years later that Gingrich resigned in disgrace because he was having a long term affair in the middle of Republicans having an unmistakable argument between Democrats and Republicans and the Democrats being adultery, and sodomy.

GLENN: And sodomy.

STU: Obviously.

GLENN: Why haven't we had her on the every day of the show. Ann thank you very much, and we'll talk to you tomorrow when it's a huge huge disappointment because Romney didn't win by 80 points.

COULTER: That's. Good to talk to you.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep