Is America building a "virtual Berlin Wall"? Glenn talks to Overstock.com CEO about business under a progressive administration

Glenn: I had an e-mail from a friend last night who said that they were in an argument with somebody over “economic patriotism,” the idea of loyalty oaths, and he said I proudly stood beside you the whole time on this one because that’s not a solution to anything good. The idea of loyalty oaths and being patriotic by staying in a country is a way for us to build a virtual Berlin Wall. When a country says you’ve got to stay here, you’re forced to stay here or we’re going to penalize you or destroy you, that is in effect a Berlin Wall, and that’s not American principles.

We have Patrick Byrne here. He is from Overstock.com, rather outspoken. Thought I would pick your brain on this because I think that what everybody is looking at, it bothers me, and it’s always bothered me when the right has done it. If you go back and look at all of my sets, I’ve never had a flag on the set. I don’t like flag-waving. And we’re talking about economic patriotism, and we’re not talking about solving the real solutions.

So tell me, we have the highest income taxes in the world now for corporate income tax, but we also have other problems. I think we’re starting to look unstable to the rest of the world even though we are still probably the most stable or going instable. What should we be doing?

Patrick: As far as?

Glenn: Keep people here, to keep companies here?

Patrick: Well, you know, you’re a businessman. I’m a businessman. I’d love to be able to raise my prices and say no one can leave, no one can defect. This country was built on exactly the opposite principle, that we were going to have the most competitive environment. And you know, now our corporate tax rates are basically 40% federal and state, and we’re up against people who are taxing at 15%.

And it’s just natural, people, you know, you raise the price of something, people buy less of it. People forget that taxes are not, you know, chiseled on stone and come down from the gods. Taxes are just the name for the price that government charges for their services. And when you raise your prices, people buy less of your service, and that includes the government. So they’ve made it really uncompetitive for multinational companies to stay. It’s becoming more and more irrational.

Glenn: They will try to say that companies don’t have a responsibility to their shareholders, they have a responsibility to their country.

Patrick: This whole talk frankly of economic patriotism scares me. I’m as patriotic as the next guy, but it’s nut-job talk. And loyalty oaths, I see Jonathan Alter did some story about –

Glenn: It’s crazy.

Patrick: The actual intellectual roots of this stuff is in Benito Mussolini. That’s where that –

Glenn: Can I tell you something? I know this sounds horrible to say, we just talked about it, that is what the FDR administration said. With the blue eagle, they said it is fascistic. That’s before we thought Mussolini was a bad guy, and they’ve erased all of that now. But that’s on the record, it’s fascistic to do that. That’s not in line with our principles.

Patrick: Well, people forget the far left and the far right meet at the bottom. Benito Mussolini was a hard left socialist in Italy. He was a prominent, not just prominent, he was one of the leaders of the, he was part of the Marxist communist takeover of the socialist party, and then he came out of World War II still a hard left socialist but decided, you know, he came up with this new theory that included nationalism, a very nationalistic version of socialism. But he was very popular in the United States in the 1920s and 30s. You probably know that Cole Porter song, 'You’re the Top'.

Glenn: Yeah.

Patrick: If you look up the lyrics, it includes you’re the top, you’re the great Houdini, you’re the top, you’re my Mussolini. And Mussolini was very well-regarded in this country until 1935 when he invaded Ethiopia. And FDR, Franklin Roosevelt, consciously modeled the New Deal and the National Recovery Act on the state corporatism that Benito Mussolini was arguing for.

I know this all sounds so weird to Americans now, but go back, and there’s a book by David Boaz at the Cato Institute about the link, the deep intellectual link and the influence that Mussolini had not only on Hitler, of course, but Roosevelt.

Glenn: I will tell you, you know, what frightens me is we look at what’s happening here, communism was a global takeover, you know, the international communists. Fascistic tendency was a national, but it was both socialism, both socialism –

Patrick: Well, Nazi-ism, it’s an abbreviation for National Socialism.

Glenn: Right, so you have that. We’re looking now at a world that in some ways is parallel. We had to pick, do we like the fascist or do we like the communist? We picked, well, we like the communist better, so we’ll get into bed with a communist to defeat the fascist. That’s World War II. We’re now looking in the Middle East, we like Saudi Arabia better than we like Iran, but they both want to control with a religious ideology that we reject, but yet we’re going to get in bed with one of them. We have to be careful on what our values are.

Patrick: They’re both anti-liberal. Believe it or not, you know, as you know, what you and I are are actually liberals, classical liberals. That’s the correct Milton Friedman, Thomas Jefferson, that’s classical liberalism, the idea that you don’t have an over-powerful state. Now, the word liberal got hijacked in the 1930s and 40s and has come to mean in the United States just the opposite, but in Europe, liberal is still used to mean what we are.

Glenn: Correct.

Patrick: But you’re absolutely correct. It’s a part of history that is neglected, but the deep intellectual connection and common roots of the fascistic tradition and the socialist or communist tradition, and when I hear talk of economic patriotism, I’m hearing Mussolini. The whole corporatism philosophy that he preached used terms like that.

Glenn: In that particular article by Jon Alter, he mentioned, you know, even McCarthyism, that the GOP should be, you know, looking at McCarthyism. No, we shouldn’t be. Nobody should be. And I don’t think the GOP would be all that different than the Democrats. They’d just take it in a different direction, but they would both be…the Patriot Act, wrap yourself in the flag, and you can get away with just about anything.

Patrick: I can’t believe some of this stuff is happening in our country, that we’re seeing that the discourse has taken this turn really in the last 20 years and that there aren’t more people understanding, you know, the historical roots of what it is we’re doing.

Glenn: But don’t you think that, and it’s like this with, I mean, how many times has communism tried and been failed? Everybody says well okay, yeah, but Mussolini went bad, yeah, but, you know, Stalin went bad. And so it’s always it’s not going to be that way, because people want to believe in a utopia. They want to believe that that stuff would work, that we could all live like it, but it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

Patrick: There’s a great quote from Adam Smith about how the man of systems, what he calls meaning a heavy ideologue, people who have like systems they want to impose on society, they seem to imagine society like it’s a great chessboard and that they can just move the pieces around. They forget that in the case of humans, those pieces have their own internal motivations, and they want to, you know, they can’t just be shuffled around like pieces on a chessboard.

And so these heavy ideological approaches, really they look very similar to me. And the liberal, the traditional classical liberal or what’s sometimes called libertarianism now, they’re pretty related, was the idea that no, we won’t have this overpowering government that’s demanding. We’ll form a government that serves us, not that we serve it. Anybody who is talking about economic patriotism is taking as their background assumption that it’s our function to serve the government rather than forgetting, you know, or they forget that no, we’re the primary –

Glenn: So the government comes to you and says we need you to sign this loyalty oath.

Patrick: I won’t sign a loyalty oath.

Glenn: They threaten to close you down, whatever pressure they would have to, you ever sign a loyalty oath?

Patrick: Never, never, never. No, I would laugh them out of the office.

Glenn: Does that make you un-American?

Patrick: No, I think I’m patriotic. I remember what the organizing principles of our republic are, and they include that, you know, we form, Milton Friedman had a great saying on this. Remember John F. Kennedy said something about in his inaugural address ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Milton Friedman, greatest friend of freedom in the 20th century, said that that would be, something like that could never be said in a state that still understood what freedom was because in our tradition we are, you know, we’re the primary actors, but we form this entity, the government, in order to secure our freedom.

So that’s like a plumber, you’ve hired a plumber to come and do something, the plumber does a lousy job, costs a lot of money, and when you try to criticize him says hey, don’t ask what I can do for you, ask what you can do for me. You’d say this plumber had gotten too big for his britches.

Glenn: Can I tell you a better way of saying it then…not that, that’s a great explanation, I mean but to change what John F. Kennedy said? Because I think what most people think is don’t keep taking, let’s figure out what we can do for each other, not the country but each other. It’s more of the idea of Ben Franklin, there is a God, he’s going to judge us, best way to serve him is to serve our fellow man. That’s the American religion. That’s the American ethic, let’s help each other.

Patrick: And to do that we needed government, and we needed limited government that’s going to perform certain functions we can’t do individually. We can’t defend our borders individually. You know, you don’t want to be your own policemen and court system.

So you need a government to do things, but let’s remember, it’s just this entity that we created, and to have it say oh no, you don’t understand, you’re supposed to be, you know, happy to pay us 40% of your income, corporate America, and if you don’t, you’re not patriotic, you have forgotten that you serve us.

That betrays that this worldview has gotten so skewed that they think, they’ve just gotten big for their britches. They’re like the plumber who’s saying, you know, don’t ask what you can do for me, ask what I can do for you.

Glenn: Thank you very much.

Patrick: Oh, thank you, Glenn.

 

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.