Can love conquer all?

Last night on the Glenn Beck program, Stu Burguiere filled in for Glenn. Andrew W.K., our favorite rocker with a "philosophy of partying" joined Stu to weigh in on atheists and loving your neighbor. During their conversation, Stu brought up a video of a "prayer" that occured at a city council meeting that left many outraged. Stu took the opportunity to ask Andrew W.K. his thoughts on the video asking, if Andrew was in in the city council meeting would he have acted the same as the "prayer leader"?

In true Andrew W.K. fashion, he took the opportunity to respond to the question in a loving, enlightened and meaningful way:

Well, for me personally, I wouldn’t probably go to a meeting like that. I think there’s other ways to accomplish probably very similar ends that don’t involve as much fighting, I guess, or just battling. I think that certain people are drawn to that kind of environment, that kind of atmosphere where they like debate. You know, debate is a great thing. They teach it. People can become world-class debaters, and again, it stirs up emotions that are very satisfying.

It’s fun to feel like you beat someone in a debate. It’s fun to, you know, to lose sometimes and to sort of have that humiliation. It’s all, I guess, you know, sort of a game in itself there, but these are real things on the line, and I would imagine that, again, if you hold onto these beliefs very passionately and personally, no one can really strip you of what you think. You know what I mean? At least so far, technology has not allowed us to infiltrate someone’s brain completely, so hold onto that, you know, in the midst of all these battles.

As the conversation continued, it turned towards messages of love and hope; beliefs that have played a strong part in Glenn's life and his shows. After all, Glenn does have a song entitled "Love" as his radio theme song. In response to some critics, saying that Andrew W.K. now preaches "hippie-dippey nonsense," he took the opportunity to discuss the complexities, yet beauty of love. And in true Stu fashion, it somehow turned onto a conversation about cute pugs, but it is still worth a watch.

Stu: Joining me now to talk more about this is Andrew W.K. Andrew, first off, what is your opinion on drunken horse chasing? Is that part of the party hard philosophy?

Andrew: Well, drunken riding is never a good idea, even if you’re the horse. You know, it’s dangerous for everybody, so try to avoid drunken really anything with a vehicle, and a horse does count.

Stu: Okay, that’s good. We have that cleared up. And again, this is how we come together, and we can all live a happy life. I’m interested in your take on this, because, you know, there are a lot of different viewpoints out there, and I really do think that is what makes this country great. We’re allowed to express them without fear of, you know, any reprisal from the government, but it seems like people get so antagonistic against each other and just try to basically ruin everybody else’s fun. And you see the story, I think there’s a good part of that in the story from Florida where the atheist tried to basically needle all the people who have faith in the committee. How did you see that?

Andrew: Well, I think that largely what people want in these situations is attention. They want us to be doing what we are doing right now, which is talking about it, but hopefully even more than that that we’re thinking about it. And I think any situation that brings us into personal thought and reflection, ultimately that’s good, so if we give them credit for inspiring thought to see inside of ourselves what we think about these things, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Stu: See, you have too positive a viewpoint. I strive to get to the point where I could handle things the way you do, because, you know, I can’t help to get annoyed sometimes when people needle me or needle something that I care about, and I think that’s the average person. You know, at the end of the day, does it make a difference in your life what someone else thinks about your viewpoint? No, but it’s still something you feel like you need to defend your turf. Maybe you feel like they need to, you know, it’s like sports, you feel like your team is being violated, and you want to defend it. How do you get to that point where you can kind of just sit back and say…? Yeah, go ahead.

Andrew: I think sports are actually a very good comparison, because if we think of sports as a game, we engage in that because it’s fun. We are not defending truly our life in a game like a sport like football, for example. We’re allowed to explore those feelings in a playful way for the sake of competition, the excitement of standing with the team, but at the end of the day, we also do realize that it is kind of just for fun, even very passionate fun, very emotional fun, but for fun.

So when someone needles at me, if I’m not so sure of my point of view, it might threaten me a little bit more, but again, I just have to think about it, and ultimately, like you said, I don’t care that much about what someone else thinks, especially if that person was just trying to get under my skin, you know?

Stu: So put yourself in a position, you’re someone who, you know, you believe strongly in whatever, you know, atheism or whatever, and you’re sitting at a council meeting like that, and you don’t like the prayer thing. You think it’s silly. It’s not your belief structure, but you do recognize that there are good people who are with you who do. Do you take that opportunity to go in there and try to essentially insult them to win them over? Does that work? Or what do you do with that time?

Andrew: Well, for me personally, I wouldn’t probably go to a meeting like that. I think there’s other ways to accomplish probably very similar ends that don’t involve as much fighting, I guess, or just battling. I think that certain people are drawn to that kind of environment, that kind of atmosphere where they like debate. You know, debate is a great thing. They teach it. People can become world-class debaters, and again, it stirs up emotions that are very satisfying.

It’s fun to feel like you beat someone in a debate. It’s fun to, you know, to lose sometimes and to sort of have that humiliation. It’s all, I guess, you know, sort of a game in itself there, but these are real things on the line, and I would imagine that, again, if you hold onto these beliefs very passionately and personally, no one can really strip you of what you think. You know what I mean? At least so far, technology has not allowed us to infiltrate someone’s brain completely, so hold onto that, you know, in the midst of all these battles.

Stu: That would be pretty fun though, because you could get people to do like anything you want. It would be awesome.

Andrew: I’m sure they’re working on it. Yeah, they’re getting along with that technology, but so far, so good, we can still think what we want to think ourselves.

Stu: It’s right around the corner. You had someone kind of take you to task or attempt to take you to task in one of your recent columns where they said basically like Andrew, I love you, I love your music, you’re great, but you’re constantly preaching this hippie-dippy nonsense, and everyone needs to find love and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And it was interesting to read that, because I could produce 12 letters a day that we get from our listeners that say the same thing—Glenn’s constantly talking about, you know, trying to work together and understand other people, and it’s a different vibe for maybe talk radio or politics.

Andrew: Yes.

Stu: And so it’s tough. I struggle with it, to be honest. You know, I struggle with it. You sit there, and a lot of times I think, you know, love…and you made this point in the column, love can conquer all. Why can’t it? You know, stop doubting it. But there’s a human feeling that it just feels like it’s sort of this, I don’t know, Enya sort of thing that’s just sort of like flowing up there. It’s all feel good and everything, but it doesn’t actually get results. If you don’t go out there and fight for your positions or fight for what you believe in, then you wind up just getting rolled over.

Andrew: The elusive qualities of that approach, loving everybody, it seems…it’s like this, it’s too good to be true combined with too easy combined with unrealistic combined with all these efforts that we make. We’re so used to striving, like it’s an outward push, this, you know, forcing ourselves, forcing our will.

We can judge success more clearly in this material world where we see results that we made happen, and this love approach which is, you know, even the word love, it rubs people the wrong way, which is so strange, but this approach is all the opposite. It’s all about not doing as much, about going inward instead of outward, about getting results in a less tangible way, and for that reason, it is challenging. It isn’t easy, but at the same time it’s like the easiest thing of all.

You know, to love a baby, for example, that’s not…takes a lot of hard work that you have to put all that effort into loving that baby. You just look at its round face and its plushy eyes and its dewy complexion, and you just feel good. So why can’t we, you know, have that same kind of ease in all these other situations? I mean, not everything is as cute as a baby. That’s probably part of the reason.

Stu: That would be a solution. You know, Glenn once said a long time ago, because I have two pugs, and I was arguing that my dog was cute, and he said it was actually incredibly ugly. You look at a pug, you know, it’s got a smashed face. It’s got the giant bulging eyeballs, but it’s still cute, and his point was anything that’s small is cute, and maybe that’s the problem, we’re just too large. If we just were all cute little babies, we’d all be able to love each other a lot more easily. I don’t know if that’s going to be solved anytime soon, but…

Andrew: Well, yeah, that’s a good point. I mean, like is a mountain, a mountain, you wouldn’t call a cute mountain or a cute galaxy.

Stu: It’s grand. It’s beautiful. It’s just you have this little adorable thing that’s just there, and when you see something small and adorable, you can’t help but love it. It’s when they get big, and then they’re ugly dogs.

Andrew: You know, our ability to be bigger than other things is where we can, you know, exhibit mercy and acts of, you know, benevolent kindness because we do have a larger presence to that thing. I mean, we’re bigger than an ant, and we can choose not to step on an ant, for example. And the mountain is bigger than us, you know, or God could be bigger than us and thinks of us like the way we think of a baby. So can we look at least at each other as brothers? I mean, my brother is pretty cute, and he is younger than me, but he’s actually an inch taller than me, and I still feel that kind of affection for him.

Stu: Wow, you actually brought that back to something rational. That was pretty impressive. I have to give you some credit on that.

Andrew: I did lose it for a second there.

Stu: Let me give you this, is it part of the equation here to try to love someone and solve problems that way? Is part of it just being comfortable in your own skin, being comfortable that you can’t convince everyone to agree with you, being comfortable that other people are going to think you’re an idiot sometimes? If you can get to that place, all of this becomes a lot easier.

Andrew: I completely agree. I think maybe that’s the best way to put it actually is that it’s a mindset. You actually can’t ask that much of it to work all the time. It’s sort of like an ideal, and why not have the highest ideal we could possibly conceive of at the forefront of all our behavior in our mind, even if we don’t always get there, even if we never get there? You don’t settle for less. We push for more, you know?

Stu: Yeah, that’s a great point. Andrew W.K., thanks so much for coming on, and we’ll talk. Maybe next time you come on, we can just expand the conversation on the drunken horse riding. I think that was really important.

Andrew: Okay, I like that. That sounds good.

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.