Glenn: People are being destroyed by political correctness

February 03, 2015

Writer

Way back in the early 1600s, scientist Galileo Galilei was sentenced to house arrest for holding the belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Inquisition, the tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church, persecuted Galileo and other scientists, banning their works and ideas. On radio today, Glenn took a look at the world political and cultural landscape today and wondered if history was repeating itself. Has the church been replaced with the state? Is anyone who disagrees having their life destroyed by political correctness?

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

GLENN: I had dinner last night with a friend who was not a friend of mine two years ago. Didn't want to be with me. And then became friends with me. He's on the left.

And his business partner, this woman, she hates me.

PAT: Still?

GLENN: Listen. Hates me. Hates me. Hates me. Hates me. Would like not -- I'd call his office and say, can I talk to him? Yeah, no, he's -- he's -- he's anywhere, but around a phone for you. So she didn't like me.

So last night, we have dinner, and I can just feel it coming off of her. And my friend brought her because he wanted her to listen to me. Be around -- because she didn't really listen. So she listens. She cries -- before we leave, she cries, and she says, I am so sorry. I am so sorry. I had no idea. We may not agree on everything. But I know who you are, and I'm in. I'll help you.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: I mean, unbelievable. And it's not that we agree on everything because we don't. But we're willing to sit down and say, where do we have common goals? Where do we have commonality? Where can we -- we have to stop the bickering back and forth. We have to stop name-calling. We have to stop -- we have to stop this. We have to stop trying to win. Because winning -- right now -- in the old days, we used to -- when the Republicans would win, they would get a bill passed and they would win, they would hold up and say, we won. And the Democrats would hold the same bill up and say, we won too because we got these things. And so everybody walked away a winner. Now everybody is walking away trying to crush the other one. It doesn't even matter if you get what you want in Washington. It does for the American people, but it doesn't even matter if you get what you want as long as we win and you lose.

I'm not interested in making somebody lose. I'm not interested in being vindictive. I'm not interested in punishing -- what was it the president said? Punishing our enemies? I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in moving forward. I'm interested in moving to common sense. I'm interested in moving in a direction of freedom. And so when it comes to these measles vaccinations, we have a lot in common with the left.

And we can't separate ourselves. We have to reach out to -- to allies that say, okay, I disagree with you on many things, on this, let's agree. Let's move forward on this.

PAT: Is it possible that the godless animals on the left love their children too? Is it possible?

GLENN: No, it's not. It's not possible.

PAT: No. We can't consider that. We don't have that in common.

GLENN: No.

PAT: We can't come together on this --

GLENN: They're just hatching children and then -- I don't know what they do it for, but...

PAT: Well, they do it for a tax write-off.

GLENN: I don't think they're interested in tax write-offs.

PAT: They pretend not to be, but they are.

GLENN: They're just that evil.

PAT: They're liars. All godless animals are liars.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat. I think you helped out a lot there.

PAT: It's great. But we have that commonality. We all want the right thing for our kids and no one wants measles to spread through the society. How can we possibly come together on this?

GLENN: Wait. None of us want measles. None of us want our children to have measles. Nobody wants an outbreak or somebody to die from measles. Let's have that as a baseline.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: However, we also don't know what's going on with autism. We don't know what is happening to our children and to our families. If you look at what the numbers were for autism 25 years ago to what they are now, and now they're saying.

PAT: Yeah, there's something going on.

GLENN: I don't know what's going on, but there's something. One in 300 now have autism. It used to be like one in 5,000. Now it's one in 300. They're saying, if this trend continues, by 2025, it will be one in every two will have autism. Well, I think that's concerning.

PAT: Very.

GLENN: And if you happen to be a parent and you say, you know, I'm sorry, God gave me a brain. God gave me personal choice and responsibility for those choices, I'm going to say no to those vaccines because I've done my homework.

It's not like -- nobody that hasn't done their homework says no to vaccines.

PAT: By the way. According to the CDC, about one in 68 children have identified with autism spectrum disorder. One in 68.

GLENN: Wow.

PAT: And you're right. It used to be something like one in 5,000 or greater than that before. Now it's one in 68. It's amazing.

GLENN: And that could be our food. That could be our environment. That could be -- it could be vaccines. I mean, there are -- there is research that shows that the vaccines somehow or another, are tied to some children having -- you know, going into --

PAT: It was that study in 1998 that threw a lot of people. And since, I think the doctor was kicked out of the medical association and it's been pretty discredited. And there's been a lot of evidence that they've thrown at us that is, no, it has nothing to do with it. A lot of people remain unconvinced because there's something going on somewhere and we don't know where.

GLENN: And the way to solve that is to not just brush it under the rug. Not to say, it has nothing to do with that. Science is settled on that.

PAT: And you're a moron for even thinking it.

GLENN: Right. That doesn't help. That won't convince anybody. Coming out and saying, yes, it might. We don't know. Now, let's look at all the evidence.

PAT: That's essentially what Obama was saying in 2008.

GLENN: Exactly right. Let's really look at all of the evidence. We all have a right to opinions.

Now, we also have a responsibility -- when we execute those opinions, we have a responsibility. So if you don't want to have a vaccine for your kids, then the community does have a right to say, you're not going to school. And you're going to have to home school. That's fine. That's fine.

I mean, we have a right as a community to do those things. We don't have a right to bash each other and say you're a moron and I'll strap you down to this table or I'll take your children from you. You don't have a right to do that.

I mean, since when? You know, Pat and I were you be talking about this. And I'd like to take some phone calls on this. We have a lot of great people who are on the phone already. I'm going to spend a lot of time on the phone today. But I'd like to hear. I'd like to make a list of all the people who have been discredited or destroyed in the last ten years.

PAT: By political correctness?

GLENN: By political correctness and by the political machine. On both sides. But look at how many people have been destroyed. This hasn't happened before in my lifetime. Here's another group of people that are now being rounded up and pointed at and being called morons and idiots and crackpots and crazies. Just totally discredited. If you stand -- if you stand out of line, where is anybody saying, my gosh, we're living in the days of Galileo. The church has become the State. And if you don't practice their religion exactly the way they tell you to practice it, you're done.

How many people have lost their jobs? Have lost their credibility? Start all the way back to -- the -- the -- the -- the auto bailout, with the GM dealers. Remember the GM dealers. All of a sudden they wake up morning, and the government says, you no longer have your dealership. What?

PAT: Mostly Republicans. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, that -- that was the beginning of this. And it just doesn't stop. We have got to unite. We've got to stand together.

I was talking to the chief rabbi of England, and he was so powerful. Man, he was one of the most powerful men I've met in a long, long time. And I said -- you know, I told him where I thought things were headed. And he said, Glenn, let me tell you what God is telling me.

And this was off the air.

He said: God is calling all of his children to stand together. Muslim. Mormons. Catholics, Jews, Hindu. Buddhists, atheists, all of them. We all need to stand together. Because evil is going to pick us off one by one. And unless we stand firm on a few basic principles that we all have in common, we ain't going to weather this storm. And he's right.

We have to reach out and start talking about basic principles that we have in common. Because those things work. And I'm sorry, if freedom is a crazy idea, as Rand Paul said, well, then, you go ahead and call me crazy. I will -- I will -- I'll proudly be deemed crazy for standing up fort freedom of choice.

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