Glenn: Stop being against stuff. Let's start being for things

August 05, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

It is easy to be against something. It is easy to complain. It is harder to stand with conviction. It is harder to stand for something. On radio this morning, Glenn explained the importance of looking at the other side of conflict and turmoil to find what we stand for instead of what we stand against. That simple change of rhetoric can make all the difference.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

Stop looking at this as a win or lose because it's not a win or lose. It's reconciliation – win or lose. If we are trying to win, someone is a loser. We're trying to reconcile the country and bring the country back to common sense. The founders may have won the war, but that wasn't the end of the revolution. The revolution is still going on today. It is constantly being renewed. It is constantly having to be taught and grown. There is never an end to this. There's never an end to this, you know, and that's the problem.

Look at Common Core or anything else. So many times people say, ‘Oh, good we won.’ No, you didn't. You might have stopped something, but what are you for? And to be for something, it requires us to continually teach it and grow it and strive to be better so there's no real win or lose. And when we have that win or lose mentality that's when we give up.’ I'm just tired of losing.’ I'm telling you, the seeds we are planting right now will start to sprout in 10 to 20 years.

My grandfather, his seeds are really just truly taking root in me now. I'm beginning to understand what my grandfather taught me and beginning to understand the value of those things that he taught me. Well, jeez, he's been dead since 1982. He stopped teaching me a long time ago, but not really.

Is it really a coincidence that my family tried to save our little town of Mount Vernon, Washington which was being destroyed by the big mall and everything else? Everybody said, ‘We got to stop the mall. We got to stop the mall. Stop the mall.’ My folks said, ‘You'll never stop the mall. The mall is coming.’ They tried to pass ordinances of save our farmland and everything else, but it's coming. Instead why don't we take our little town of Mount Vernon and redesign it and make it something entirely different and new and cool? It was right around the bicentennial, they tried to make it into Mount Vernon, as in Mount Vernon, Virginia and make it this cool little brick streets kind of gas lamp kind of area. That's what they were for. Everyone else was against the mall.

In the end, because nobody would see the vision of being for something and they were so beaten down on being against the mall, and the mall was coming in. And then the mall came in, and everybody said, ‘The mall is great.’ And what happened? Mount Vernon still struggles today. And I don't think it's a coincidence that I was raised by a family that was for something magical, something great, something different. And here I am fighting the same battle, except on a national scale.

Stop being against stuff. Let's start being for things.

That is where we need to be. We need to start talking about it. You know, we have to talk about Israel and Hamas. We have to point out with Hamas: What is in their charter is evil? What they stand for is evil. They are standing for genocide. It is in their charter. That's the argument. Somebody on television should be ringing on the hour everybody hour.

Let's think about what we think could be: A strong Jewish state that is secure and allows people to live their religion and live their race for the love of Pete. Live who they are. Living side by side with another state that gets to celebrate who they are. Instead of getting down and arguing about how many missiles and who bombed the hospital and everything else – you'll never settle any of that because that's a distraction.

We have to be rooted in the facts. And we have to stand for those facts. We have to stand hard on those facts. It doesn't mean we're not going to fight for the things we believe in. It just means we got to change the way we're fighting because what we're doing is not working. It's not working. You're going to lose.

If we're not kind and generous and decent and God-fearing and know the best way to serve God is to serve our fellow man, it doesn't work. It all falls apart. Anybody who is calling for an uprising or an end, you're part of the problem, man. You're just giving up. ‘You're just trying to spread love and everything else.’ Yeah, you are darn right. And if in the end I'm judged as a bad man because I believe in decency, love, honor, charity, then, you know what, I'll live in hell If those things are the things that get you sent to hell, then I welcome the days I spend in hell because I'm not going to change who I am.

I have already made too many mistakes in my life. I had promised when I turn my life around, I would do my best. It is not your best. It's not the pope's best. It's not Mother Teresa's best. It's my best. And, unfortunately, my best is not as good as everybody else's, but I've done my best, and in doing my best. I've still made huge mistakes.

Do you want to make a difference? Do you see the road we're on is unsustainable? If you see that this road that we're on is unsustainable, then what are you going to do to change it?

I say let's start looking for a bigger vision. Let's start looking for a vision where we all belong, where we all feel heard. We don't agree with each other. There's no blacklist. There's no list that says you can't be my friend because you agree with me. If someone says you shouldn't be friends with somebody because they don't agree with you, you should question your friendship. If your business is being hurt because you do business with me or I do business with them, you should question, ‘Do you want to do business with those people?’

I learned this as an alcoholic. I lost a lot of ‘friends’ when I sobered up. I didn't lose in the end one friend when I sobered up. Anybody who thought, ‘Oh, Glenn, he's going all goody two shoes’ was no friend of mine. Because right is right.

We don't have to agree on things. We do to have look and say, ‘These things are worth standing for. These things are worth living for.’ I'm not going to say ever again, some things are worth dying for. All the things should be worth living for. Worth dying for is the mentality of Hamas. Worth living for, that's the American principles. Those are the Judean Christian principles. You're going to kill me for it, so be it. But I'm going to live every second. Dietrich Bonheoffer lived as they put the rope around his neck. He said thank you to that man. He lived every second of his life. He didn't die for anything he lived for it all. That's the difference. That's where we need to be.

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