Glenn: Ferguson "the very beginning" of what will happen in America if we don't change course

Last night, the grand jury declined to indict police officer Darren Wilson on any charges related to the shooting of black teenager Michael Brown. Events surrounding the shooting have heightened racial tensions in Ferguson, MO, and across the country the protestors have held the case up as a high profile example of a racially biased justice and law enforcement system. Protestors took the streets in several major cities, and Ferguson descended into riots. On radio this morning, Glenn called for peace while also chastising those who would use the grand jury decision and the protests to further divide the country, including President Obama.

Glenn: Last night, we were all together for Thanksgiving. We were watching Godzilla. And halfway through, I said to my family, I'd rather live in this world. I'd rather live in the world where giant lizards are climbing out of the sea because I think I would understand this a little more. It would make sense to me. And nobody would be saying those big things that crushed Las Vegas would be good. We would all have some idea of what good and bad, right and wrong. Right now, the world is so screwed up. You don't know what up is and down is. You have no idea what good and bad, right and wrong is.

Last night, when Ferguson came out and we started setting things on fire, when you're watching Fox News and you're seeing one of their reporters just try to report the news and somebody in a Guy Fawkes mask comes up and they pull the camera down to the ground, you wonder and you worry about the reporters. You wonder and you worry and you start to think, if you're me, is this when they're starting to pull reporters out of their seats in the newsrooms? Is this the beginning of that?

Because I'm telling the press, you think when you put a sign on your back that says "press," that's always meant 'friend, don't bother me'. I'm telling you now, the rebels and the revolutionaries that want to be on the streets, they don't look at you as an ally or as a friend. That's why they're pulling your cameras down. This is the very beginning of what will happen to the press.

This is the very beginning of what will happen to our cities if we don't change course. If we don't do what Abraham Lincoln did right after the Gettysburg address, and that is, turn our faces to God at Thanksgiving. At Thanksgiving is when he did it. And it turned the war. We were losing everything up at to that point, but it turned the world. Because he said, we need to humble ourselves. Are we not a nation that needs to be humbled? My gosh, I don't even know what we stand for anymore, except for money and power and greed and corruption. That's not the America I know or love.

People out on the streets -- the president gives a speech last night -- Pat, do we have the audio of the president? Can we play a little of this?

PAT: Yeah, he was terrific. As usual.

GLENN: You know what went through my mind?

'And Barack knows we have to change our traditions'.

You know what we've changed our traditions to? It's Thanksgiving week where we don't have to worry about anything. We just worry about the upcoming food fest. We worry about, will we be able to make it to the mall and get the things we want to make? If we're struggling because of our finances -- which happens in every economy -- you're struggling and you worry about Christmas and what it will be like for the kids. Those are our traditions.

But Barack knows. Here we are -- if we all try to gather with our family, we now have to talk about politics. We now have to talk about what he's done. He's already -- he's just started to release the illegals. He's now started that this week. So we have to talk about that, and we have to talk about Ferguson, and we have to talk about what one senator is calling a race war. Perfect.

OBAMA: First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury's to make. There are Americans who agree with it and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry.

PAT: This week we're a nation of laws, last week, not so much. Not so much a nation of laws.

GLENN: That's the way it works.

STU: It's a flip of a coin. They happened to say he was innocent, but it could have gone either way. If you think that it's a complete BS decision, you're just as right as someone who looked at the facts.

PAT: That's how he presented it.

OBAMA: We need to recognize this is not just an issue for Ferguson. This is an issue for America. We have made enormous progress in race relations over the course for the past several decades. I've witnessed in that in my own life, and to deny that progress, I think, is to deny America's capacity for change.

But what is also true is that there are still problems. And communities of color aren't just making these problems up. Separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it's being applied in a discriminatory fashion.

PAT: Why would you say that in this case, when that is clearly not the situation here? Why would you even bring that up? That's not the case here.

GLENN: This is so unbelievably outrageous. This president -- first of all, I think this is the first time I've heard him say, hey, we've come a long way, and I'm evidence of it. I'm evidence of it. Have you heard him say that before?

PAT: I haven't.

GLENN: Neither have I.

By the way, this is the most time any president has had to prepare a speech, so this should have been the best speech, the most well-thought out, most eloquent speech of all -- this could have been his Gettysburg address.

There was no rush to a speech here. All of us knew what the verdict was going to be because all of us could see the evidence as it was presented. We didn't even have access to everything the grand jury had, but we had enough to know it's probably not going to prosecution.

Not because of some race thing. The president should have gotten up and said, look, this is the system. And, yes, despite what I did last week where I made myself emperor, we are a nation of laws. And because of that, we believe in the system. And it's never perfect. In this case however, it looks like the grand jury may have gotten this one right. Now, sometimes in the past it has been wrong. And he can even talk about some of the cases, the civil rights cases, where you had grand jury members who were on the grand jury who were clearly intimidated or part of the clan. But those cases happened in the 1960s. And I'm evidence that this nation is not a racist nation.

Now, here's the thing, if you look at the evidence that the grand jury apprehend, you will see that this guy, the cop. There are witnesses. Black witnesses, that said they saw him charge the cop and say, you're too much of a cat to do anything about it. You're too much of a "cat" to shoot me. (He didn't actually say cat). You'll have to figure it out. He was taunting the cop.

And why was he he taunting the cop? He was taunting the cop because the streets have turned. The same reason that Europe has a problem with no-go zones. We've created no-go zones. If you're of a specific race or religion, you're already in a no-go zone, America. There's no such thing as equal application of the law anymore. All men are created equal and endowed by their creators. The president could have, since he's a constitutional scholar, could have said all men are created equal. Which means you're born equal. You have an equal shot in America. But you have to do something about it. It depends on how you react to life. Not what happens in life, but how you react in life that sets the course of this nation.

Now, how we react to it, because all men are created equal, but we don't have equal outcomes and we obviously don't respond the same way. So now is your moment of choosing. How will you respond to what life has dealt to you. And I'm specifically talking about the Brown family, and the Brown family has so far behaved admirably. They're hanging out a little too much with Al Sharpton for my taste, but they're saying peace on the streets.

Now, let me ask you, besides the Brown family, how have you been affected exactly? How have the Palestinian activists been affected in Ferguson?

I'm sorry. How have the communists, how has Occupy Wall Street personally been affected? There's something in our law called standing.

I can't bring a lawsuit against someone I don't have a standing. If someone sells somebody a car and it's a piece of crap, I can't go and sue the car dealer or the car maker. I don't have any standing. I didn't buy the car. I don't have the car. It didn't affect me. Where is your standing?

Well, all men, all men -- really? Show me the evidence that any wrong has been done here. Because the grand jury just deliberated and said it didn't. Now, that doesn't mean grand juries get it right all the time, but show me the actual evidence in this case that shows you, you should be burning down a city.

The President of the United States by not being outraged, by lecturing us -- and that's what he did. White America, black America, conservative America, liberal America, he got on last night and he lectured us.

See, you don't understand. I understand. They're not making this up. They're burning down our city for a reason. What reason? What reason, Mr. President? Mr. African-American president, what reason? You were elected twice. You were elected the first time by offering hope of change. Real change.

The second time you were elected out of fear-mongering, out of spite, out of divisions. But you still were elected, Mr. President. So tell me how racist this country is. Tell me -- tell me how racist it is.

Were you elected by only Hispanics? Were you elected by only black people? Were you? Were there any Jews? Were there any Mormons that voted for you? Were there any Catholics that voted for you? Were there any evangelicals that voted for you? Were there any black people that voted against you? Were there any Native Americans that voted against you? Who voted for you, Mr. President? Because right now you're supposed to represent all of us.

See, this is the biggest problem with our nation right now. We have no healing time because our parties have figured out, if we continue to divide, we can continue to grab power. So there's no healing power. There's no time where the president becomes everyone's president. They tried to do this under George W. Bush, but a tragedy lead us all together. A tragedy brought us all together. You know what, I didn't vote for that guy, but I don't care. He's my president. And it lasted for a while. Do we really need a tragedy to do it? That's the wrong way.

Tragedies lead progressive presidents like Woodrow Wilson and FDR to round people up. I would suggest with a progressive president, and that would include someone like Newt Gingrich or John McCain, I would suggest we avoid tragedies because you never know what those guys will do.

At least we didn't know what the two big progressive presidents were going to do during World War I and World War II. God help us all if we have a progressive president and it's World War III, which brings me to Chuck Hagel, but we'll wait.

Anything you guys want to add before we take a quick break?

STU: Let me add this: The stupid idiot that I am, I sat there and watched the president make the speech and thought, I wonder if this time he'll come out and say something uniting. I wonder if he'll come out and say, sure, there are injustices, but this isn't one of them.

PAT: And he probably had more access than the grand jury did to all the evidence. He knows what happened here. He knows.

STU: Well, Eric Holder was involved in this investigation. He was on the ground constantly. The prosecutor mentioned --

PAT: Well, he knows there was a witness who said that Michael Brown ran at the cop with his head down like a football player. And even though there were three bangs -- three shots rang out, he just kept coming. He didn't have his hands up. He didn't have his hands in the air. He was running headlong this officer -- he already scuffled with him in his car and beaten him there and two shots went off there. He had all this evidence. He knows this isn't one of those cases like during the civil rights era, there were absolutely miscarriages of justice. This wasn't one of them. He never said that.

GLENN: Do me a favor, Pat. See if you can find the Francis Fox Piven where she was saying, where are all the riots in the streets? Where are the riots in the streets?

This is all this is. I want you to know, America. They're trying to ignite an American Spring. That's all they're trying to do. If we can get the American people to riot, if we can just get them to stop being who the American people truly are. Don't you see?

Everything about what they're trying to do to us is to rip us away from the good, peaceful, charitable, kind people we truly are. That's not how we always are. But historically America always rights itself. It always leans back towards decency, courage, and kindness and charity. We always right ourselves.

For the love of Pete, look at our history and see who we truly are. Don't see just the mistakes. See the good things. All they're trying to do is separate us from the good things. This is a prime example early on of why we must reconnect with God. We must reconnect with ourselves. We must reconnect with history. We must know who they are because they're trying do separate us from our history. They're trying to separate us from the goodness in our heart by making us angry. They want us -- they want us to rise up.

We must rise up with hearts full of reconciliation. Go ahead, brother. Strike me down. To quote 'Star Wars', you will only make me more powerful. Strike me down. Strike me across the face. I will turn the other cheek.

You tell me, which would have more power, which would the American people stand up for right now, if people were locked arms, singing hymns walking down the streets of Ferguson, would the American people -- because the case is not on their side, the facts are not on their side, it would really be hard to get the American people to stand with them.

However, if they were all standing together shoulder-to-shoulder marching like Martin Luther King and singing hymns and talking about the real problems in our country, do you think maybe a few people would listen to them more than the people burning businesses down.

Front page image courtesy of the AP.

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.