Struggles continue for prosecution in George Zimmerman trial

The defense in the George Zimmerman trial is expected to rest its case shortly, which leads to the question that has captured national attention for over a year now: Will Zimmerman walk? Should he walk? On radio this morning, Stu and Pat went through some of the facts in the case and, unfortunately for the prosecution, it's not looking like there's much of a legal case.

From the beginning, the media and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made this a racial charged incident in which a white man killed a black teenager. Even once it became known that Zimmerman was in fact Hispanic, the narrative changed only slightly. The media continued to paint Zimmerman as an over-zealous aggressor, while Trayvon Martin was seen as a saint.

“George Zimmerman is being inserted into horror movies retroactively. He's being portrayed as Satan,” Pat said. “And, you know, the opposite was true for Trayvon Martin. He was supposed to be this angelic character. The president of the United States said, ‘If he had a son, he would look like Trayvon.’ I mean we went through that whole thing where he was pure as the driven snow and George Zimmerman was this awful racist white guy, which he isn't even a white guy, just out to murder a black person for some reason. And nothing like that has seemingly been the case since the trial began.”

“The racism thing is completely dead, completely dead,” Stu continued. “You can still argue that he did the wrong thing at this time, he handled this incident improperly, he shouldn't have tried to get involved in the situation, he should have – I don't know, risked the fact that maybe he was going to go break in and just wait for the police to come or whatever. You can argue all of that. But the racism thing is completely dead.”

And based on the testimony yesterday, from renowned forensic pathologist, Dr. Vincent de Mayo, it looks like the idea of Zimmerman being the aggressor that night is also being called into question.

ATTORNEY: Are you aware that Mr. Zimmerman said that Trayvon Martin was straddling him?

DR. DE MAYO: Yes, sir.

ATTORNEY: And leaning over him?

DR. DE MAYO: Yes, sir.

ATTORNEY: And that Mr.†Zimmerman had the gun in his right hand?

DR. DE MAYO: Yes, sir.

ATTORNEY: And if you would describe then what you know about that sequence of events compared with the medical, forensic, and gunshot evidence.

DR. DE MAYO: The medical evidence of the gunshot wound is consistent with his opinion, with his statement. But the fact that we know the clothing is two to four inches away is consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting and that the clothing is two to four inches away from the person.

“I mean, the way he described it, I mean, if you think about it, if you're on your back and you're the one on the losing side of this fight, your clothing, his hoodie, the famous hoodie is going to be pressed up against his body. Not only because of the fact that, you know, just gravity will do that. Also, his shirt, his hoodie was wet. So if you think of a wet sweatshirt, what's going to happen? When you're leaning backwards, it's going to be leaning up against your body, almost sticking to your body. If you're leaning over someone, because the clothing's heavier, it's going to fall away from your body. He also had an Arizona ice tea or fruit drink or something in his pocket of the hoodie, so that's going to make it lean down even further,” Stu explained. “And this, this idea that Zimmerman had executed him with the gun pressed up against his skin is completely disproved by this evidence. You know, if you think about, he's on the bottom shooting up. His clothing is four inches away from his body. And they can tell that from, you know, what happened as far as the forensics go with the bullet. So obviously Trayvon was on top. Obviously they were in an altercation. We know because of the evidence of the back of Zimmerman's head and the broken nose that he was not on the winning side of this altercation, and it seems completely justifiable that at that moment he believed his life was in danger, he was in danger of serious harm, and he used his gun and, you know, what looks like his Second Amendment right to defend himself.”

In laying out this evidence, Pat and Stu both reiterated that they do not necessarily support Zimmerman or his actions, but they do want to see the justice system work as it is intended to. In this particular case, the evidence seems to corroborate Zimmerman’s story that he acted in self-defense.

“I don't think he should have done this in the first place. I don't think he should have followed the guy. I think he should have left that up to the authorities,” Pat said. “But, you know, once he's in the situation and you're getting beaten and your head's getting smashed against the pavement and you think your life is in peril, what are you going to do? I mean, it's tragic that he went down that road but, you know, to charge him with murder is just, it's unconscionable at this point.”

Jeffy was quick to point out, however, that unless Zimmerman is completely exonerated, there is a good possibility he will still go to prison for some length of time on a lesser charge.

“I think, you know, to be honest about it, if I'm being completely honest, like, I have no vested interest in George Zimmerman other than the fact that I believe in our system and I want it to work for the best,” Stu said. “The best thing for probably all of us outside of George Zimmerman is that he does go to jail because God only knows what happens if this guy is set free after what the media has told America about this story, you know. But, you know, just because I care about the system and I care about, you know, his personal liberty, I think I want justice to be served. But the best thing for all of us probably is he goes to jail on some, I don't know, he was speeding at the time before he parked his truck. He's going to jail.”

Ultimately, Pat and Stu are both afraid that fear of violence and retribution will lead to an outcome that is not necessarily just.

“I mean, like, they did everything wrong in this case mainly because of fear from people like Al Sharpton, people who come in and incite these cases and light fires under people and blame every single piece of evidence that comes out in Zimmerman's favor on racism," he continued. “When you do that, you make people act erratically. And even if these guys in Sanford were good guys and just doing this because they felt they wanted to avoid a riot or something else, I mean, justice can't be served under those circumstances, and, you know, that's certainly been shown in this case I think so far.”

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.