The real truth behind Obama's 62 country anti-ISIS coalition is really, really depressing

ISIS has been pretty busy lately…

“ISIS' explosive expansion”

“ISIS' threats, Americans' fears growing”

“Islamic State is 'most potent threat to the world since Third Reich' says Nobel Prize winner”

That’s funny, I also think Glenn Beck said that…years ago. But he doesn’t have a Nobel Prize.

Can you imagine the damage ISIS could do if they were the Varsity team? Thank goodness they’re only the JV team.

But we really shouldn’t be worried.

John Kerry and his friends have gotten together to come up with a solution: A “core coalition” to stop ISIS.

It is interesting that our Secretary of State made a point to say that the “over” 62 countries and entities that are teaming up with us against terrorism is not “cosmetic.” I wonder why he would say something like that.

I thought it might be useful to check up on those countries and see what exactly they are doing to “degrade and defeat ISIL or DASH or ISIS or whatever.”

Here are the countries that have actually done some stuff:

Iraq: Ok, they’re in the thick of it. It’s their country. That’s not to say they have done enough. If they had done enough, they wouldn’t need us. However, one of their big contributions according to The Washington Post is requesting military airstrikes from the United States.

We also know that Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE have participated in airstrikes.

Our next category is “Countries that have done a little bit.”

France: Bombed a warehouse occupied by the Islamic State in Iraq and has vowed to take part in future airstrikes “if needed.” Also, they really don’t think we should be calling ISIS “the Islamic State” even though that is their name. Typical France.

Germany: Has sent 40 paratroopers to Iraq.

Now look, I don’t want to demean even one soldier being sent. These are real lives. But we’re talking about countries the size of Canada and Germany here. They’re sending about as many people as Subway gets during lunch hour.

Denmark: Isn’t bombing anyone, but they did Provide a transport aircraft. So they’re sort of like the Orbitz of this battle.

Italy:  Italy has no plans to take part in airstrikes but has offered to aid in the refueling of planes instead. They’re kind of like the Sunoco of this battle.

The next category of the coalition is “Countries that have sent some stuff”

United Kingdom:  Gifted $1.6 million of weapons and ammunition. Plus, Prime Minister David Cameron has not ruled out contributing to U.S.-led airstrikes in the future.

Thank you for not ruling out your future helping, that is so thoughtful.

Turkey:  More than 100 trucks of humanitarian aid has been sent to Turkmen in Northern Iraq. So they’re probably sending 101 trucks.

Slovakia: And look, I don’t think Slovakia is loaded, they’re not the rich guys on the block. But we’re counting Slovakia as part of this coalition and they have donated $25,000 in aid or roughly the price of a brand new Kia Optima.

Qatar: Sent 300 tons of humanitarian aid to Iraq. And they also passed a new law to stop charities diverting money towards the Islamic State. Which apparently was happening.

Norway: Norway is part of the coalition is part of the coalition because they contributed some blankets and kitchen sets. This is a great donation because it works for a war or if you’re playing house.

Our next category is…“Countries that have said some stuff”

They haven’t done anything, but they have said things and that makes them part of the coalition.

Georgia: The defense minister said officials “fully support what the United States is doing to eradicate these barbarians.”

I’d rather have that than “I fully support what these barbarians are doing.”

Kosovo: The Prime Minister posted on Facebook that they are part of the “emerging global alliance to fight a great evil.” It’s a Facebook post, but a strongly worded Facebook post. I “like” it.

Finland:  Will “concentrate on delivering humanitarian aid to people in desperate need.” Sounds a little more like a charity and less like an army.

Taiwan: Said it would “cooperate closely with the international community to provide humanitarian aid and will “monitor the threat to global security” and will If Taiwan is monitoring, we should be all set.

And these are the countries that have an “unspecified commitment” but are nonetheless counted as part of the coalition AKA “Countries that haven’t done anything”

For example...

Andorra, which doesn’t have an army, and relies on France for protection.

Bosnia is shaped like a heart. Very intimidating.

Lithuania is the only country in the world with an official scent. If it’s not pork scent—I’m not sure it’s going to scare ISIS.

Macedonia is reminiscent of sets from the Lord of the Rings so maybe it can bore terrorists to death.

Malta is a 122 square mile island.

Mexico can send their chupacabras to defeat ISIS, so they actually have something there.

Moldova is the poorest country in Europe.

Serbia is the largest exporter of raspberries—maybe fruit ISIS to death.

Slovenia has one of the largest brown bear populations in Europe. To their credit, bears are pretty scary.

Tunisia is doomed to fall to ISIS, so they can’t help us.

Ukraine is pretty much Russia now, so they have their own problems.

Morocco is one of the largest producers of hashish and cannabis—so they might not be the most focused on ISIS.

Portugal produces half of the world’s cork—I bet they can make some badass cork guns.

And there you have it. Obama’s core coalition.

Hm. I’m not an expert on combating terrorism, but I don’t think you assemble a team to degrade and destroy ISIS with players that haven’t even expressed any interest in playing and really have nothing to offer.

It’s kind of embarrassing, actually.

What’s most amazing about all of this is the lack of interest from the media. When the Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing” invaded Iraq, every news broadcast mocked the rag tag group of countries and comedians thought it was just hilarious.

Where are you Will Ferrell, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Dave Chappelle?

At least back in the Iraq days, they used to say it was just the United States and the UK. This time, the UK has just “not ruled out to contributing airstrikes in the future.”

Perhaps this time, they truly are enthralled by and supportive of the war coalition put together by this Nobel Peace Prize Winning president.

So to review:

-MORE THAN 82% OF THE COALITION IS SENDING 0 TROOPS AND FLYING 0 MISSIONS.

-14 COUNTRIES ARE IN THE COALITION BECAUSE THEY’VE SAID SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT THE COALITION.

-13 COUNTRIES ARE IN THE COALITION FOR NO DISCERNABLE REASON WHATSOEVER.

-WE’RE GLAD TO HAVE ALL THEIR SUPPORT, BUT I DOUBT THE ISLAMIC STATE IS GOING TO BE STOPPED BY A FACEBOOK POST. EVEN IF IT’S STRONGLY WORDED.

So, you heard we're fighting ISIS, with a giant mega-coalition. We're sure not going-it-alone, I tellya. What is our coalition made up of? Where is the media asking these questions anyway? Watch in horror.

Posted by Stu Burguiere on Tuesday, March 31, 2015

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.