How do you change the world - for good or for bad?

On radio this morning, Glenn delivered a powerful monologue that took a look at how you can change the country - and the disastrous results that come when its done for the bad. When people are disempowered, they can no longer create positive change, but can at best do nothing and at worse destroy. How? He explained on radio and

"How do you change the world? You change the world one person at a time. You either ‑‑ you either empower them and you tell them that they make the difference, that they are responsible, that they play an important role and a leader builds them up through education and enlightenment and then shows them that they are the answer. That's what a leader does. And then gets out of the way," Glenn said.

"If you want to cripple a nation, what do you do? Well, first you crush the enlightened, you make sure that they don't believe in God or anything bigger than themselves and then you destroy the educational system so they don't, they don't ‑‑ they're not equipped to be able to even have rational thought anymore," he explained.

"Now, I tell you this because I want to give you an example of where we're headed and the choice that we have in front of, in front of us. I am convinced that we are facing the election of 1860. I am convinced that whoever becomes president of the United States needs to be Abraham Lincoln."

"Barack Obama has a portrait of Abraham Lincoln hanging in the Oval Office now. And that's who he says he wants to be like."

"Do we believe that he is Abraham Lincoln, that when the crisis comes that he will free people, or will he enslave them? Will he free them? Will he do the things that he needs to do to hold the union together? Is he a uniter, or is he a divider?"

"So (when America) was split apart, Abraham Lincoln was the one saying it can't stand, it won't stand. If divided, it won't stand. And he's begging: Please, don't do this, please, let's come together, let's come together. Instead, we have a president who is the great divider, not the great uniter. The great divider. He is trying to divide us in race, he is trying to divide us in class, he is trying to divide us now in sexual preference and sexuality. He's trying to divide us old and young," Glenn said.

Glenn then read a quote that had often been attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville (although some claim he was not the one who said it)

In the end, the state of the Union comes down to the character of the people. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there. In the fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there. In her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits, aflame with righteousness, did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

"Now let me show you how easy it is to cease being good. Would you say that the British people are good? I'd say generally speaking, yes. I think people, generally speaking, are good. It doesn't matter what country they are, but I think generally speaking, they're good. But that is being ‑‑ that's being pushed out of us," Glenn said.

He then told a terrifying story that showed where we as a country could be headed.

"In Great Britain a story that has been up on The Blaze for a while and I just can't get over it, and most people don't know it. And you need to know this story. There's a park in England that is ‑‑ that's got a big pond in it, and the pond is two feet at the edges, three and a half feet at the center of it, and it's a big pond, and it's in the middle of, you know, just a regular park."

"(People) were walking their dogs, they were doing what people do in parks and one guy was walking right there by the edge of this manmade pond. He has a seizure and he falls into the water face down. Now, this water is two feet deep. He falls into the water while having a seizure. People all get out their cellphones. They don't help him. They get our their cellphones and they start taking pictures and some of them call 999. That's the version of 911 here. Nobody goes into the water when you cease being good, you cannot be great. Nobody goes into the water to pull this guy. He's face down having a seizure in the water. He's not going to survive if somebody doesn't go into the water and pull him out. They don't. They wait for paramedics. The paramedics come 25 minutes later."

"Now he's clearly dead. 25 minutes later the paramedics come. As they arrive, there's a big crowd now watching this guy floating in the water. Nobody's pulled him out. And so what do they do? The paramedics and the police, the fire trucks, the paramedic trucks, the ambulance, they all come. Along with the police cars. And the first thing they do is tell the crowd, "Step back, step back," and they put out stanchions so people can't come any closer to the pond."

"Then the next thing they do is they start unloading the fire truck and they put together a medical tent. I'm not kidding you. See the pictures on The Blaze. A medical tent. And they put this giant medical tent in and they start equipping it with everything that they might need to save this man. In the meantime two paramedics start to go into the water. They are pulled back by a supervisor who says, "No, no, no, wait, wait, that could be hazardous. We don't know. Wait." It's now 45 minutes into it. The supervisors then tell exactly what the paramedics need to do. They get the guys from, I'm not kidding you, with wetsuits, SCUBA gear, and they get them all suited up to go into this pond that is two feet deep at the edge and three and a half at its deepest point. It's not good enough that they now have, you know, the SCUBA gear. Now the fire trucks take the ladder off because they want to make sure that the guys in the SCUBA don't get hurt. And so they take a ladder from the fire truck and they put it down into the two feet of water and they secure the ladder so the guys in the SCUBA gear can go down into the water on the ladder. How humiliating is this? They go down ‑‑ not both of them. Only one guy goes down into the water and he's given a pole. And he takes that pole and he rubs it against the ground as he's walking towards the man. He's stroking that pole against the ground, the bottom of this pond back and forth to make sure there's no hazards so they don't get hurt. Once he walks away of just a few feet, he looks to the other guy and says, all clear here. The other guy walks down the ladder and gets to his knees, to his knees. They're in SCUBA gear. To his knees. They walk over to the guy and they bravely pull him out. Paramedics take him, the guys in SCUBA gear are then on the ground, (huffing), "That's a tough one." The paramedics put him on a stretcher and carry him in to the medical tent where they examine him, 90 minutes later pronounce him dead."

More terrifying details on this story here

"How did that happen? How did that society turn into that? That society turned into that slowly over time. 'Don't do it. Don't help. Don't. You could get hurt. Don't. You don't want to get involved. Don't. Let's just get this on videotape.'"

"Nobody goes into the water to save this guy. Nobody. No one goes into the water and attempts to pull him out. Not one."

Glenn explained that society is slowly being nudged into a place where people are less likely to help. Regulations and rules have taught us its better to stand back and let the "experts" help, even when it will take too long for them to show up and do anything.

"I contend this is exactly what's happening to our society. They are trying to destroy our churches, our charitable feelings, our love for one another. They are trying to regulate us into oblivion so we don't think on our own."

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.