How did Reagan win the debate against Carter?

The media was hammering him as stupid and old and he didn’t do a very good job in the first debate with President Carter. So how was Reagan able to turn things around? Glenn explained on radio this morning.

"I want to tell you the story of Ronald Reagan and how he won the debate against Jimmy Carter. You know, we were living in a time very similar. People didn't think that Ronald Reagan could handle it and the media was hammering Ronald Reagan. Now the media was also hammering Jimmy Carter. You know, they had ‑‑ that's why Ted Koppel, we even went on the air because Ted Koppel started "Nightline" and it was just ‑‑ it was just about the hostage crisis. That's all it was. But Jimmy Carter was winning. And Jimmy Carter was very good at the first debate and at that first debate he made Ronald Reagan look like he didn't know what he was talking about. Because Jimmy Carter was a bureaucrat. Ronald Reagan was an idea guy, which is much more in line with the American people, the ideas, not the policy wonk stuff," Glenn explained.

"This is again one of the differences between the election then and the election now because Barack Obama is definitely not a wonk. He can't even tell you that the debt is at $16 trillion, not 10. He is just about an idea, and his idea happens to be out of step with the American people. His idea is about redistribution of wealth and socialism and that the buck stops with you. But he is so good at being the big picture idea guy that Americans just kind of go along with it. Romney needs to inspire. He needs to inspire and he needs to quickly explain things to the American people. He needs to find ways to explain how he's going to create jobs. That shouldn't be too hard, but you're going to need a good storyteller, a good ‑‑ somebody who knows how to package things," Glenn said.

"Back in 1980 that man was Roger Ailes. Roger Ailes was a guy who was at the time a political guy. I mean, he went in and he was the one who helped Nixon in the 1960s. He was a producer on the Mike Douglas Show and he was I think the youngest producer and that was the first talk show and there was a guy sitting in the makeup chair and he was putting on makeup, they were putting the makeup on and he was talking about how much he hated television and television was just this passing fad. And Mr. Ailes was standing behind him and I don't even know how young he was. He was young at this point. And he was standing behind him and he said, I'm sorry, Mr. Vice President, but television will either make you or break you. And if you ever want to have a future in politics again, you're going to need to learn how to do television."

"Well, about a year or so later, Nixon decided he was going to run for president and he called Roger Ailes and said, 'Will you help me? You teach me how to do television.' And that's what he did. And he became a political consultant. Now comes to 1980 and Reagan is losing and he lost the first debate because Carter could talk about all of these policies. He could talk about, you know, the farm subsidy bills and everything else. And Reagan was like, I don't even know what he's talking about. I don't know all these subsidies and these programs. And Roger came in to him and said, Mr. President ‑‑ or Mr. Reagan, you have ‑‑ you have good news and bad news. The bad news is you just got your butt kicked. But here's the good news. You can win. You can win. Reagan said how. He said, I don't mean this to be a slam. This is why the American people like you and this is why you're going to be so effective. You really, everything that you talk about really can all be summed up in about five things, and I don't remember what those five things were but they were basically, you know, communism is evil and we have to have a strong military. The government and its overregulation is the problem, and the solution is the people."

"So he gave him those five things, whatever they were, and he said all you have to do is just talk about those five things because no matter what is brought up, you can answer that question with one of those five things and those are the things the American people want to hear and what they like about you. And he said, you can articulate, you don't need anybody to help you on that. You already know those. And so he role played with Reagan. And Reagan said farm subsidy bill. He said, I believe government is the problem. I believe in the farmers and the American people. And if we would just get out of the way of the American people, the farmers will be fine because the farm he is know how to plant. The farmers know how to do it. The government doesn't. How do they know in Washington? I imagine that meeting ended with smiles all around and the next debate, 'Well, there he goes again.' And Reagan crushed him and that was the end."

"The reason I bring up this story is Pat and I were talking the other day about what Romney needs to do in the election and I'm like, "I don't think he can politically consult or would politically consult anybody anymore, but I wish he would." If there was a way that you could just say, 'Hey, magic fairy dust, resign for about four hours from Fox and then resign up, you know, later that afternoon, consult.' Or if Romney would just read the stories of what this man said. Roger Ailes is one of the smartest guys. He knows the American people. He knows the American people unlike I think anybody else does. He knows them and he can boil things down and I don't know who that guy is now that can do that. That's what Roger used to do, still does at Fox."

"Who is that guy? Who can boil them down for the American people and teach that to Romney? Because Romney, he's got to appeal to the regular person. I mean, how many people do you talk to and you're like, I don't know, I don't know if there's a difference. There is a huge difference."

"So what does that tell you? That tells you the American people are not really paying attention. They don't know who this guy is. 'I don't know, there's no difference.' They don't know who Barack Obama is because if they think Barack Obama is just like their beer buddy that they have beers with, they couldn't be more wrong. I contend most Americans, if you got to know the real Barack Obama and you were in his inner circle and you heard his friends and how they talk and what they say about America and the military and everything else, I contend the vast majority of Americans would despise Barack Obama as a friend."

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.