Are the American people 'sick of the games and lies' in politics?

The 2016 Presidential election is coming up, and candidates are already making their way across the country schmoozing and persuading citizens that they are the right candidate for this country. Last night on the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn took the opportunity to discuss how American's are "sick of the games and of the lies" within both political parties. Are American's finally done listening to power hungry politicians? See what Glenn had to say about it.

Glenn: I think people on both sides of the aisle, both left and right, are really sick of the games and the lies, and most of people are tuning out. That’s a really bad idea. No, it’s shame on me once, or no, it’s fool me once, and shame on me, right? Fool me twice, and I don’t know how this works, but shame on all of us. We’re fed up, and that’s the point. And we’re tired of being fooled and played for fools.

That brings me to Hillary Clinton. Here she is, the least-relatable human being since perhaps Al Gore, trying to go around the country looking like the average person. Saturday Night Live is having a field day with the blatant contradiction. SNL mocks every candidate, but they are going after Hillary with the same zeal they attacked Sarah Palin with. They’re out for blood.

I think she is going to pay for the sins of Obama, quite honestly. No one is falling for the shtick anymore, and I think they’re saying things that they wanted to say about the Obamas but couldn’t. Clinton has made hundreds of millions of dollars since leaving the White House, and by far are the richest presidents of all time, so them being the champion for the little guy is kind of laughable, and everybody knows that they’re out for power and they’re out for money.

You know, they might be people good people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but when you put them in the Scooby Doo van, you know, riding around for a couple of days in the Scooby Doo van and then returning first class on a nice jet, hardly winning anybody over. I don’t know if you’ve seen any of the actual footage of her, you know, on her listening tour. Do you think she’s really listening? Really?

The Washington Free Beacon put together a little clip and counted the “um-hum,” counted them. See if you’re feeling the passion here with the 88 um-hums.

VIDEO

Glenn Right now, she’s thinking, “Oh, dear God, when are these people going to stop talking? How much longer do I have to suffer through this? I can’t stand being around these peasants anymore.” Somebody could have said America’s dependence on fluffernutter must stop— um-hum. She wasn’t listening to them at all, not at all.

The Clintons will be making the rounds looking to cash in on every political past favor, but it looks like some may not be all that ready for Hillary after all. The Miami Herald reported today that the former mayor of Miami, Manny Diaz, is hosting an event for Gov. Martin O’Malley. I don’t know about you, but I think people are beating down the doors to get O’Malley to run. That’s one everybody’s been clamoring for. Where is Officer O’Malley?

Who is this guy? I mean, that’s how weak their bench is. There’s nobody lined up to be up next for this one. We’ve got Hillary Clinton, who we all know and deeply love or some guy named O’Malley. Are we witnessing a pivot point in America? Um-hum, um-hum, um-hum. I think we are. Um-hum, um-hum. Is it finally the time that we reject the political family empires in America—you know, the Kennedys and the Bushes and the Clintons? Um-hum, um-hum, um-hum.

It appears the backlash against Hillary is very real and very, very palpable, and I believe the same will hold true when Jeb Bush enters the race. Um-hum, um-hum, I think it will. The entire reason Jeb is waiting so long to run, I think, is because as long as he’s not a declared candidate, he can raise unlimited amounts of funds, so that’s what he’s doing, going around and oil my arms, oil my wallet. Oh, yes. That’s what’s happening. He’s greasing all of the establishment wheels to fill the coffers and then let the machine churn out yet another Dynasty candidate.

Eventually Dynasty was canceled. The Karl Roves of the world say that’s the only way to win. That’s nuts. I think that’s an outright lie and the type of thinking that has done more damage to the Constitution, to the republic, and to the political parties in the past 25 years than in the entire previous 200 years. The truth is if somebody has something legitimate to say and they are authentic, it will connect with the American people, and they will win.

You don’t even have to be authentic. Everybody talks about the brilliance of the Obama campaign. It really wasn’t that smart really. They definitely had a machine of their own, but the real reason he won is because he tapped into something, an idea. He got people to come out to the polls in droves. It wasn’t just money; it was a movement. It was a couple things: One, people on both sides of the aisle really were excited to hey, let’s break a barrier here, let’s have a black guy be president. For as shallow as that seems, it was kind of a cool thing. Okay, I wish there was more than just the color of his skin, but that was a big deal for people on both sides of the aisle.

That was a movement, but people also thought that he would be a uniter who would heal the divisions, stop the nonsense in Washington. They thought he would be transparent; he would end the wars. It was an idea, and here’s the idea, we can be better than we are. As it turns out, he didn’t buy any of that. Um-hum, um-hum, um-hum, none of it.

People are looking for it again, and that’s why people like Ted Cruz, like Rand Paul, because they’re saying something different, and we’re actually looking for somebody to actually say what they believe. I contend we don’t even have to like more than 50% or 60%. I think if you like somebody 50% of what they say, 60% you agree with, you overlook the other 40% because you’re just like they really believe that. If they’re authentic and they believe it, I’m willing to go with that because I’m tired of the um-hum, um-hum. You’re such a peasant. We’re done.

Clinton and Bush represent everything that is wrong with Washington. A new book details how Bill Clinton has raked in over $100 million in speaking fees and appearances. I mean, how many ribbons do you have to cut at the opening of Walmarts to get that kind of money? That’s since he left office, and most of that money—total coincidence—came while Hillary was Secretary of State.

Between 2001 and 2013, the president earned $105 million. Now, during Hillary’s four-year stint as Secretary of State, four years, the ex-president earned $48 million of the $105. Wait a minute, he earned $105 between 2001 and 2013, but for four years he earned $48, and it took double the amount of time to earn the remaining $57 million. So, she has power, and he gets huge speaking fees. She doesn’t have power, and it takes twice the amount of time.

I’m sure nothing nefarious is going on there. And I’m not a monitoring laundering expert or anything like that, but I am a thinker, and it sure seems possible that something kind of nefarious might be going on. Um-hum, um-hum, um-hum. Hillary only deletes her emails about yoga classes. I know, I know. She’s totally on the up and up about everything else.

Here’s the thing, I think America is finally ready to move past the American Dynasty, maybe. It has been boiling beneath the surface for a while. The Tea Party was the first to tap into it, but the other side also had, what was it, the people who were peeing their pants in the park? Operation wall—whatever that was. That was beautiful. There were some real authentic people there too that were sick of this.

The election of Barack Obama was largely based on the belief that he would help reduce or end the partisan bickering, be transparent, clean it up. Real, actual, nonestablishment candidates are now rising to the top, but will they be able to break through that glass ceiling? Will they be able to do that?

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.