Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Fundamental Transformation: Obama trying to change the definition of “individualism”

June 11, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Barack Obama promised his presidency would fundamentally transform the United States of America, and it sounds like he won’t stop until they are literally rewriting the dictionary. In a recent speech, President Obama redefined the American concept of “rugged individualism” - and it no longer involves “rugged” or “individualism”.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: So the president has come out with a fascinating new definition -- because that's really what we're into now, new definitions. We've redefined brave. We've redefined hate. We've redefined love. Let's we define -- because we have to change our words and our meanings. Let's redefine rugged individualism.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Before we go on, I just have to ask everybody here. Rugged individualism. How would you define that Jeff Fisher?

JEFFY: Strong by yourself.

PAT: The ability to take care of oneself, right? Come what may, you're independent. I'm going to make my own way. I'm going to make sure that whatever happens to me and mine, I'm going to take care of it.

JEFFY: And I don't need you.

PAT: I don't need you.

STU: This is the definition of individualism. The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant. Now, rugged to me in this particular context would indicate that it's not always going to be easy. It might be bumpy. It might be hard. It might be tough to get through it. But you do it anyway because you believe in self-reliance so much.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: You're tough. You're tough. Nothing will stop you from being self-reliant.

PAT: It certainly doesn't mean I'm depending on the government.

STU: No.

GLENN: Well, who would say that?

STU: Let me give you definition number two before you figure that out: A social theory -- this is for individualism -- a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. That is the actual definition of the word.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So we got it. Rugged. Come hell or high water. Individualism, I am going to fend for myself and I'm going to make it. Rugged individualism. Here's the president's definition.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism that defines America has always been bound by a shared set of values.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. I just want to say -- it's defined by a shared set of values. So we're already into the collective. It's defined by a shared --

PAT: Yeah, you're sharing it with everybody. My individualism is shared with everybody. My individualism is so collective that we all have it.

[laughter]

GLENN: I'm so independent that I'm tied to you in the same definition.

PAT: Yes.

OBAMA: That we're in this together.

PAT: We're in it together. Forget individualism. We're in it together.

GLENN: My individualism is a shared definition that we're all in it together.

[laughter]

OBAMA: That America is not a place where we simply turn away from the sick.

GLENN: Stop. Now, notice what he's done.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We're all in it together. Our rugged -- I'm going to redefine some words and some theories here for you, kiddoes. I'm going to take and I'm going to turn it upside down. But then once I do that, before you can say that doesn't make any sense, I'm going to throw in something that we all do share, we don't let people starve. We don't let people die on the street.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And if you want to define rugged individualism any other way, that means you'll let them die on the street.

PAT: That's what this guy does.

GLENN: That's what he's doing.

PAT: That's what he does all the time.

GLENN: That's how he makes you into someone who must be hated because he's redefining words. We all know that -- Webster, not the little black guy, the dictionary says -- Webster says rugged individualism is a determination to be able to make it on your own. Come hell or high water, you will make it on your own.

STU: Without anyone's help.

GLENN: Without anybody's help. That's the definition of that. He's changing the definition. And to be able to call you a bigot or a hater that just wants to have people die, he has to redefine the words "rugged individualism."

So when you say, wait a minute. No, I'm a Libertarian and I believe we can all make it. He then can go, well, see we -- we once had this shared idea that we don't let people starve in the street. Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. We were talking about what it means to be a rugged individual. It didn't mean I didn't help the person on the street who was dying, who maybe got their hand cut off by, oh, I don't know one of the new Islamic, you know, terrorists that you have working at the Department of Homeland Security. I don't know. Maybe that's what happened.

PAT: Rugged individualism has nothing to do with anybody starve to death. It has nothing to do with being poor. It has nothing to do --

GLENN: With the collective.

PAT: Any of this crap he's talking about.

GLENN: Right. It has nothing to do with the collective. It's who you are and how you make it. It doesn't mean that you make it at anybody else's expense. You're making it because you won't take a handout from anybody else. You don't need it. You will make it. It will make you stronger. You see somebody along the way that needs help. My Christianity, which I know he doesn't like, my Christianity tells me I have to help. My rugged individualism says, I don't need help. I'm going to do it. And I'm going to make it. And don't spend your time worrying about me. You worry about you.

Then when I get to somebody on the side of the street, my Christianity says, I got to help that person.

PAT: Yeah. It doesn't say I have to pay more taxes so the government can help that person. It says I have to.

STU: Individually.

PAT: Again, individually. So it's not conflicting with your rugged individualism.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: Everything he's saying conflicts with the definition he's supposedly defining.

GLENN: I --

PAT: I mean, this is madness. This is --

GLENN: I'd like to raise my hand. I'd like to raise my hand. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. I just can't go there anymore. I raise my hand to say enough of the insanity.

PAT: How is it that somebody in this audience doesn't raise their hand and say, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. You don't have any clothes on right now. You have no clothes.

GLENN: He wasn't wearing clothes?

PAT: No, he wasn't. He was completely naked.

GLENN: Wow. For a minute I thought you were referring to that fairytale, the emperor has no clothes, but he's --

PAT: No, I was really -- it wasn't a metaphor. He was actually naked. He was actually naked.

GLENN: He was actually naked. Wow. Okay.

PAT: It was weird. I don't know why he did that.

GLENN: But there's more.

OBAMA: Turn our backs on the tired. The poor. The huddled masses.

It is a place sustained by the idea, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That we have an obligation to put --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. That's not what sustains us. That's not what sustains us. I am my brother's keeper? All we would be is a hospital. That's all we would be.

PAT: And a broke one.

GLENN: And a broke one. No. It requires people to go out and create something.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That's what sustains us. What lifts us up and makes us a great nation is we also help people and love people. My gosh this guy doesn't get it. He's -- honestly, he has a third grade understanding of the United States of America.

PAT: I don't give him that much credit.

GLENN: In today's world. Today's third grade.

OBAMA: And see each other's common humanity.

GLENN: Still defining rugged individualism.

OBAMA: After decades of trying, after a year of sustained debate, we finally made health care reform a reality here in America.

PAT: All about health care. Rugged individualism is about socialized health care.

STU: Again, I give you a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. It's actually in the --

GLENN: It's actually the exact opposite of the dictionary definition.

STU: Uh-huh. And there we are. As Jeffy said so many times, whatever they say, you should believe the opposite.

JEFFY: Because the opposite is true.

STU: And here it is.

GLENN: That is absolutely unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

PAT: I don't -- I really -- I mean, I know he does this all the time. How does he get away with it? There's nobody that's curious about --

GLENN: Okay. All right. So when you -- there's two things that have happened to our country. One, you teach people to -- you can't make a difference. Don't say anything. Don't cause a hassle. Just -- just leave it alone. It will pass. Okay? So there's the first reason why we don't say anything. Just don't -- we're not -- we're not those people. We never have been. We just all want to get along. Okay? So we have backed up and backed up and backed up. And we have been taught to back up. Then comes the second lesson. You better shut up or we'll destroy you. Now, there is a third lesson to this. And that is, I'm going to beat you nearly to death and the fourth lesson is, I'm going to beat you to death. But the first two lessons are, you don't make a difference. It's better just to leave it alone. Just be quiet. That one has been taught my whole life. The second lesson has just started in the last ten years. And that is, shut up, or I'll destroy you. The third lesson is coming soon. Shut up or I will beat you within an inch of your life. And all you have to do is beat a few people. So we don't say anything because we're like -- have you ever been around a dog that has been abused? You are around a dog who's been abused, you reach out to pet that dog, and they turn away. They put their head down. They see that hand coming, and they think they're going to get hit. We're close to being that dog. We're not there yet. But we're close to being that dog.

Many Americans are that dog. We've never been hit. Think we're cowards now? We've never been hit. You have people now who are being put in jail because they were a baker who wouldn't make -- in jail! Not a fine. Jail. You do that, and enough people will say, you know what, I don't want this hassle. I'm just going to go on with my life. I just want to be left alone. We cannot be those people. We cannot be those people. You know, Martin Luther King, by the time he got to -- the entire black population was like that dog who had been abused. They had been abused for 300 years. So every time they saw a white person come, and they, still, many places they still flinch, you're white, they flinch. That's how deep the abuse went. You can't claim anything close to that abuse.

We're just getting to the point to where we're being told, you don't make a difference, and shut up and sit down or I'll destroy you. But look at what happened. When Martin Luther King taught them, no, no, no. Stop arguing. Stop fighting with each other. Start standing together. Start being who you really are. You're good, decent, honorable people that just want a fair shake. You're not trying to hurt anybody else. You're not trying to put the whites out of business. You're not trying to kill them. You're trying to just be a neighbor. That's all you're trying to be, is just be a neighbor. Hey, neighbor. Hey, neighbor. That's it. How unreasonable is that? Stand together and don't flinch. If they hit you, don't hit back. And look what he changed.

We don't have that ground to make up. Only a few people have been imprisoned or thrown in jail, like the baker. We have not had -- we don't have most of our society being thrown in jail. We have not received 300 years of abuses.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

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.