The War on Moms

While the left continues to accuse the right of waging a “war on women,” the Obama Administration is implementing their own “war on women” by, as Glenn put it, “treating them like morons.”

Yesterday, Democratic talking head Hilary Rosen went on CNN and basically said that because Ann Romney was a stay at home mom, “she’s never worked a day in her life,” and therefore doesn’t have any credibility regarding economic issues.

Here is her statement from CNN last night:

“With respect to economic issues, I think, actually, Mitt Romney is right, that ultimately women care more about the economic well-being of their family, and the like. But he doesn't connect on that issue either. What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying my wife tells me what women really care about are economic issues. When I listen to my wife that's what I'm hearing. Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the economic issues that -- a majority of issues that women are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send to them to school, and how we worry about their future."

Glenn couldn’t help but point out that Ann Romney has not only raised five children, those children were all boys – not exactly an easy task.

Stu took note of how little attention has been paid to the second part of Rosen’s offensive comment. “She has never put thought into the economic future of her children.”

“That’s a shot at being rich,” Pat said, also questioning how anyone could not be aware that most everyone is concerned with the future of their children, regardless of their economic situation.

“I bet wealthy conservatives are more concerned about their children's economic future than liberals are,” Glenn said. “Because conservatives are more likely to say, pull yourself up by your bootstraps this is my money I made it. You go make it on your own. I'll help you, but you go make it on your own. You're not going to live off daddy. The Kennedys live off daddy, and granddaddy, and gran-gran-grandaddy. Limousine liberals, that's what it is. They pass it from generation to generation, and they just become these really dependent people.

This always seems to be how the left exposes who they really are. They point their finger at the right, and accuse them of exactly what they themselves are guilty of. “This is who Hilary Rosen, and people like her are,” said Pat.

For those that are thinking that this isn’t really relevant to the Obama campaign, he can’t control every talking head out supporting him on the campaign trail, they may want to consider Hilary Rosen’s connections to this administration, like the fact that she’s made multiple visits to the White House.

“She’s been to the White House numerous times,” Stu said. “In fact the White House logs, according to National Review, say that Hilary Rosen has visit the White House thirty-five times.”

Thirty-five White House visits may not seem like a lot for a President who has been in office for over three years, but compare that with General Petraeus, who is in charge of a war operation in Afghanistan that has been going on for about a decade, and you may notice a problem.

General Petraeus has been to the White House nine times.

“So Hilary Rosen has been to the White House 35 times, and General Petraeus has been there nine times,” Stu said. “Here's the guy who's bailed out this President [General Petraeus] when he was in a really tough spot. He came in and took one for the team, stepped up for his country and didn't care about politics – and bailed out this President in these wars. He gets nine visits, and Hilary Rosen, the “hey, the stay at moms don't work” lady gets 35.”

“Hey ladies, how are you feeling about ‘stay at home moms have never worked a day in their life?” Glenn asked.

Rosen’s comments fit the pattern of the left. Glenn pointed out that unless you see the world their way, you’re going to be demonized. The left will find something wrong with your lifestyle or ideology to make what you’re doing seem worthless - notice the deafening silence of groups like the National Organization for Women.

Ann Romney doesn't seem to need the defense of any organization. She quickly came out and defended herself yesterday by joining Twitter (@AnnDRomney) and releasing a statement saying, "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work." This started a firestorm on twitter, and had the left backpedaling so fast they couldn't help but trip all over each other.

“I think I like Ann more than I like Mitt,” Glenn said. “She’s a pretty strong woman.”

Glenn noted that she suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, something the liberal media would have quickly pointed out if a conservative had attack a mother of five for staying home and raising her children. Ann is also a breast cancer survivor.

“Will the press even do anything about it?” Glenn asked.

“Of course not,” Pat said.

“This is a bad one though,” Stu said. “As you're trying to pitch your sell to women across the United States, you're this insulting? This is the attitude they've carried throughout the campaign. They always demean the stay-at-home mom. It’s always a secondary choice and something they don’t like. And here it is, in it's most overt stance. And immediately the administration comes out and says, well this is just an advisor. We don't agree with these comments.’ Really?”

Stu pointed out the hypocrisy of this White House that didn’t seem to have any problem coming out and exploiting Romney’s advisor who made the ‘etch-a-sketch’ comment. However, when it is one of the Obama Administration’s advisors, the media backs off quietly.

This wasn’t a comment about one person running for President, this was a comment that belittled women all across this country doing the best they can to raise their kids and take care of their families.

“You want to talk about a war on women? Not only did they say this to Ann Romney. But they took everybody that works at home, and everybody who is home schooling,” Glenn said. “Every woman who is strong and stays at home, they're now adding on top of it the real war on women, which is the subtle war of the demeaning and the degrading of those women and their choices.”

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.

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.