What Romney should say tonight

If you had asked Glenn six months ago what the GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's approach in tonight's debate should be, he would have had a difference answer than he did this morning.

"You know, six months ago you got to go after him.  You've got to go after him.  I don't think you do," Glenn told listeners this morning.

This morning Glenn gave the points that he believes Mitt Romney should make during tonight's debate. They aren't points that discuss his radical past or Marxist tendencies.

If Glenn were Mitt Romney, here's exactly what he would say tonight —and it may surprise you.

"Mr. President none of the things you've said about me are true.  You've even admitted to lies and mistakes in your approved ads in your 60 minute interview," Glenn started.

"Tonight, Mr. President that should not happen because it's not about politics. It's about our country, and it's about credible.  Whom can we trust anymore? 

The American people don't trust the news media.  They don't trust the Republicans.  And they don't trust the Democrats.  They don't trust you.  And they don't trust me.  But they're going to go in and make a decision."

"Whom do they trust Mr. President? Whom do they trust?"

"Let's look at some of the facts."

"You attacked my record at Bain, yet in every single case I wasn't even at the company when you accused of layoffs and outsourcing in every single case. 

You went so far to post a story from the poor man who lost his wife to cancer on your website, and Stephanie Cutter hosted him on one of your campaign conference calls.  So this isn't something from a super PAC that you had no control over it was on your website.  You tried to use the story that it was me who laid him off, so he lost his job and lost his insurance.  And then his wife got cancer, and died.  Instead, the truth is — because that's what this has to be about Mr. President, and the American people need to know the truth — the truth is, he lost his job after I left the company.  His wife went on her own company's insurance, then dropped it, then got sick. And then, seven years after I was involved with this man or his family, seven years after I left the company, she got cancer, and died. 

That's a tragic story not only for that family but, Mr. President, that is a tragic story of an American President without any credibility. 

You and your surrogates have accused me of not paying my taxes, even when an organization that has 8% of the population saying, "no I can trust the news from the "New York Times" — 8%.  Even the New York Times says, "the President is wrong." 

You continue to claim I haven't released my tax information.  I have.  I have released my tax information for the past two years, as much as Ronald Reagan did. And I released the summary tax information going back 20 years.  To illustrate the futility of releasing this tax information, last week, when I had discovered I paid more tax than I needed to I was attacked for that even though you harp on the fact that you want the wealthy to pay more. "Pay their "fair share."  I paid more and your people attacked. 

Then you went around and attacked me when I did pay $500,000 more than I was paying and that's just the beginning of it.  Because your constantly attacking me and anyone who has earned their money.  You've constantly attacked my wealth.  Yes, I have been successful. Since when — since when has that been a curse in America and not a blessing? 

With that wealth I have helped to bless the lives of others: through employment, investment opportunities and charity.  One of the revelations in my taxes, if you care to look, is that last year I donated 30% of my income — that's four million dollars — to charity.  I didn't wait for the government to act.  I knew people were hurting and needed help. We're in a tough time.  Charities are hurting for cash.  I upped my charity." 

"Let me break out of Mitt Romney for a second," Glenn interjected,  "Because the man in me would say, "now up yours."  But that would be inappropriate." 

"Why would I up my charity? Because I am my brother's keeper, not the government. 

And that's the difference between the two of us. 

You've taken a phrase I have used and you took it out of context.  This is a choice that America has to make.  Whom do you trust?

About 47% of Americans, I said, aren't paying taxes.  To claim I wouldn't care about half the country if elected is ridiculous.  That's what you said.  Mr. President, you know that's disingenuous at best.  I was referring to the fact that I can't worry about getting their votes.  Not that I don't care about them as human beings or their struggles. 

You know that Mr. President, we're adults.  You've alleged that I never struggled and I don't care about hardworking Americans.  Mr. President, I've worked long and hard to get where I am today, as has my wife.  As far as caring for people, I've never been comfortable extolling the work I've done for others.  Let's just suffice that I have personally given my time, my council, and my money to help people of all income levels in all stages of life.  I've been doing that my entire life.  I was raised that way. 

Service is in my D.N.A.. 

The fundamental difference between us is you have turned that responsibility over to government agencies.  You believe your job is to fight for bigger government who will in turn fight for the people.  I believe that it is my job to fight for the people.  It's more of a direct line but I learned that in business. 

I believe it's my responsibility to get involved.  I believe it is your responsibility to get -- you believe that it's your responsibility to get the involved with other people's time and money.  I believe people should make that decision themselves.  But it's not just about what you've said about me and the lies you've said.  That just has to be said because it is a contest between the two of us.  But that's not something we should dwell on.  We spend tonight's hour on is what you have done. 

Mr. President you promised to cut the deficit in half by now.  I know it's evil George Bush's fault but you've had four years.  This year's deficit is the largest in the history of the planet earth.  It's $1,275,800,000,000. You've added more to the national debt in four years than President Bush did in eight.  You called his efforts unpatriotic.  What does that make yours, sir. 

You promised to close Gitmo.  You didn't.  You promised not to hire lobbyists.  You hired 17 within the first two weeks.  You promised to allow five days of public comment before signing any bills.  That hasn't happened.  You promised to televise healthcare care.  You didn't.  It was all behind closed doors.  It was with special interest groups.  You promised healthcare care costs would decrease.  What has happened.  They're up 25%.  You promised Americans if they liked their healthcare plan they'd be able to keep it.  Up to 30% of employers have dropped or plan to drop out of their healthcare when Obamacare is fully implemented because they can't afford it anymore.  You promised to reduce earmarks to 1994 levels.  Nope.  They continue.  You promised that if you make less less than $250,000 none of your taxes will increase.  Obamacare will raise taxes on million on Americas.  Plainly centered around those that are making $55,000 a year not to mention the smoking tax.  The tanning tax, and uninsured.  You said that Obamacare mandate was not a tax.  And then your people went in and argued to the Supreme Court it was a tax. 

You promised that the world would respect and love us again.  Instead our allies have no idea where we stand.  Instead our enemies are emboldened.  The middle is on fire.  And our embassies interest and people in the Middle East are under siege.  This White House, this White House has lied to the American people just on Libya enough. 

You promised over and over again jobs, those three little letters was job number one.  Say what you will about your efforts of creating and saving jobs but unemployment has been above 8% for 42 straight months.  There's 80 million unemployed or under employed in this country.  I don't care about the 47%.  Mr. President I'd like to give these people dignity by giving them a job not another government program.  You promised to take responsibility.  You haven't.  You blame Bush for absolutely everything.  And then when you can't blame Bush let's go back to the Libya.  You've blamed everybody from the Navy SEALs.  Or should we blame Gerald R. Ford for everything.  You promised a new tone Mr. President. 

The tone is not as bad it's much, much worse.  You'll have a book fair with Hugo Chavez but you have no time to meet with anyone who opposes you. 

Mr. President, millions of Americans hope for change.  The same change they hoped for last time and then didn't get it.  What they got was more of the same.  But they got deceit in record numbers.  They're footing the bill.  They're working hard.  Too many Americans think Washington is playing a game and we're spending their future. 

There is one thing Mr. President I do agree with you on.  You told Matt Lauer before you were elected if I don't have this done in three years this is going to be a one term proposition. 

And with that Mr. Moderator I'll end my one point of unity and agreement with my opponent. 

I think Mitt Romney needs to be -- needs to rinse all of the sarcasm out of my delivery and needs to be laser focused on the facts and absolutely laser focused on the impact on the American people. 

Mr. President we're here to talk about the domestic policy.  There is nothing more crucial to domestic policy that the mom who's taking her kids to soccer practice and ballet, and has to stop at the gas station.  Because of your policies in the Middle East, offshore drilling, the keystone pipeline, there's nothing more relevant to them than the cost of gasoline.  It's doubled since you've been in office.  The guy you appointed as secretary of energy said that he was hoping for 8 dollars a gallon gasoline.  He retracted that as soon as he got into office.  That doesn't make sense unless you're playing a media game and lying to the American people again because you said your policies would make electricity costs necessarily skyrocket.  So for fairness, you don't have a problem with that.  Mr. President, have you gone to the coal miners, and have you talked to the coal miners in Ohio, West Virginia, people who have been Democrats for their entire life.  They think quite honestly you are just a nightmare.  Why? 

Mr. President, why have you shut out of 500 coal fire plants, you've shut down 100.  Now I understand we all want to be clean, and but we have to have energy, and we can't -- you want to talk about 47% who cares about the 47%.  The one who's going to make their electricity prices necessarily skyrocket how is the 47% going to be able to afford that? Or are you developing another program for another handout and another ticket to slavery?  When we have technology that will replace 50% of our electricity I'm fine — I'm fine.  I'd like to get rid of them too.  I'm not sitting here fighting for the Stanley steamer. 

New technology let's embrace it.  But we don't have it yet Mr. President, and every time you invest you lose.  Every time you've taken the hard earned money from the pockets of people you say it's a bad thing it's a bad thing we should have Social Security be able to have the people invest their own money with a chance that maybe they get a higher return.  Why? Because you say that's not right because they might lose it all.  Stocks are risky thing.  Yet you take the money from their taxes and you invest it in the riskiest of things, and then you say we got a bet. 

This isn't Vegas.  This is the United States of America and it's Washington D.C.  We're supposed to have trust.  America doesn't trust any of us in Washington with their money.  Nor should they."

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.

Top FIVE takeaways from Glenn's EXCLUSIVE interview with Trump

Image courtesy of the White House

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.