Glenn’s interview with Jim DeMint

December 07, 2012

Writer

Senator Jim DeMint joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss his decision to resign from the Senate and accept the position as the President of the Heritage Foundation. Senator DeMint, a long time favorite among true conservatives in the Republican part, explains to Glenn that he took the position to expand the influence his Constitutional principals can had on growing the conservative base.

Senator Jim DeMint discusses who his possible replacement will be in the Senate, the future of the GOP, and the future of the country.

GLENN: We have Senator Jim DeMint joining us now and Senator, you are leaving ‑‑ tell me about Tim Scott and who are you pulling for to replace you?

SENATOR DeMINT: If I said, that would probably be the last person to be selected. So I don't want to show my hand. Actually I feel very close to the Republicans in our delegation and most of them were elected in 2010 and very principled people. So ‑‑

GLENN: So whoever?

SENATOR DeMINT: They are all good. Maybe I have a few favorites in there but ‑‑

GLENN: I understand that.

SENATOR DeMINT: I don't want to say. But I trust Governor Haley to make a good decision here and so I feel comfortable I'll be able to support whoever she selects.

GLENN: You were pretty outspoken about John Boehner here in the last week or so and the Republicans, the progressive Republicans are trying to tell the Republican Party that they've got to move left and they have to compromise all of their values, et cetera, et cetera.

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, Glenn, we have to separate what they consider political realities or political expediency from what our country really needs. What the president has been talking about is neither a plan or a solution. His increase in taxes in the top 2% is a drop in the bucket for our deficit and is likely to cost a lot of jobs and result in less revenue because of the way our tax system works. But we will have historic levels of revenue this year in our country, tax revenues. And the thought that if we take more money out of our economy and give it to incompetent, wasteful politicians and bureaucrats, that somehow that's going to help the middle class is completely irrational. The president wants a political trophy and what he is proposing won't solve any problem. So for Republicans to concede that we need more money in Washington when what we really need is less government for our country is just a, it's a bad mistake I think politically but it's certainly bad policy. We cannot concede that we can't cut spending, and what the president put on the table through Geithner was a real joke, it was a slap in the face to any American who is thinking, and Republicans should call it that. And we should have put it on the floor of the House and forced a vote on it so the Americans would see that not even Democrats would vote for what the president's talking about.

GLENN: Correct.

SENATOR DeMINT: But ‑‑ so I understand political realities. I've been there a long time. The president won the election. But the fact is the president can't get anything unless the House passes it, and he's asking for an unconstitutional blank check to create more debt when the congress is there as a backstop so the administration can't keep borrowing money.

GLENN: So why doesn't the House just pass exactly what he's asking? I mean, this is what Rand Paul said. Give him it. Give it to him. Give it to him. Do you agree with that?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, it wouldn't pass. And two years ago the same situation, same economy. The president said, we can't raise taxes on the 2%. They are the job creators. So the president is feeling his oats from the election when really all we got was a status quo. And the reason he won was not because his policies are good but it was because Republicans didn't talk about what we believed in, in terms that people could relate to. So we tried to make the election about Obama's bad policy instead of making it about our vision for the future.

GLENN: So ‑‑

SENATOR DeMINT: It didn't work.

GLENN: So do you agree with Rand Paul that we should give him what he wants?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, probably ‑‑ ultimately he's going to get one way or another what he wants and if we did, he couldn't continue to try to blame Republicans for his own policies. The fact is we've already gone over a cliff. We just hadn't hit the bottom yet. So people don't know it. But the policies that are in place through ObamaCare, the spending, the debt, the printing of money to pay for our own debt. As Mitch Daniels said this week, it is inevitable that our country is going to be brought to its knees in the next few months or years. So what we have to do is make sure that the alternatives to that, the solutions for that are in place at least at the state level so that we can pull our country back up.

GLENN: Amen. Let me ask you about Egypt just a bit. Egypt, the people are on the streets. They are protesting again because of another dictatorship. This is, the president is doing exactly what he did in Iran. He's saying nothing. This is the ‑‑ these are the people that are standing up against Sharia law and dictatorship again. And the only thing this administration is doing and with the help of the Senate and the House, we are being silent except with our checkbook. We are sending a Sharia law Muslim extremist dictator money. Why?

SENATOR DeMINT: It's really frustrating if you know anything about history. I visited a lot of the former Soviet republics a few years ago and so many people were thankful for Ronald Reagan just for being their beacon of hope by criticizing the totalitarian government that they were under. And that kept them going. And the fact that we don't have leaders of the free world speaking out in favor of the people who are fighting for the things we advocate. And I'm proud of the people of Egypt. I thought maybe, you know, they overthrew one dictator and they were just going to be happy with another.

GLENN: They're not.

SENATOR DeMINT: But they're not. That means that they have in their hearts the same thing we do, is just a hope for freedom. And they need people who are part of the free world to be advocates for them because we don't have to intervene militarily to embolden them and strengthen them with our words. And it's certainly a deadening silence coming out of Washington.

GLENN: There were people that were in the crowd who were Germans who never thought that wall would come down.

SENATOR DeMINT: Right.

GLENN: Until Ronald Reagan said Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. And when he said that people on both sides of the wall thought, "My gosh, that's a possibility. I never even thought of that being a possibility. "

SENATOR DeMINT: That's the kind of hope we need to instill, not a false hope of government compassion and security but the real hope of freedom. And when you instill that in the heart of a person, they believe it can happen. And once they believe it, it will happen.

GLENN: Senator, I want to thank you personally for giving so many Americans hope. You have been there saying the things that so many have. You've been standing and fighting the hard fight when nobody else would. You have been maligned and made into the ‑‑ made into the guy who brought on the recession all the way to a hate monger racist, you name it. Many people across the country have been made into the same thing. I mean, you're not experiencing anything that we haven't experienced on a smaller scale, no matter where we live in the country. But you've done it and you've done it with class and with honor and we have oftentimes said to each other, "Well, at least there's Senator DeMint. We appreciate your service, sir, and we look for not a ride off into the sunset. I swear to you I'm going to hunt you down myself if you go away.

SENATOR DeMINT: I'm not going anywhere. I'm raising the level here. Glenn, I have to thank you and all the Americans who covered my back through a lot of this, is what keeps me going. Everywhere I go people say thanks for fighting, and it makes me want to jump back in the arena. But I'm still in the arena and I frankly think that you and me and folks outside of congress can do more good than those who are sitting in those seats.

GLENN: Well, anything that you need, Senator. We need your voice and you have our back. So and I mean, we'll put our back into, you know, the direction that you think is important. We'll be with you side by side. So let us know.

SENATOR DeMINT: Thanks, Glenn. Good to be back on your show. See you soon. I'm going to bring a few buses to your Christmas party. I'll see you then.

GLENN: You got it. Thanks a lot. Senator Jim DeMint.

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.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep