Doc & Skip break a Glenn Beck Radio Program rule

This wasn't the first time Doc Thompson and Skip Lacombe had covered the radio program with Glenn away from the microphone, so there's really no excuse for what they did. Doc even admitted he knew they were about to break a rule, but they did it anyway. What was their crime? Flagrant violation of the "Trump Free Zone."

"Now, I know Pat and Stu have called for a moratorium on the Trump word, but they're not here today. So screw it. We'll talk a little Trump," Doc said.

In utter defiance of the "Trump Free Zone," Doc went on to share what his thoughts on the billionaire business magnate.

"Donald Trump for me has never been somebody I'm going to actively support. Over the past couple of weeks I've said he's kind of the middle of the pack for me because he is the outsider. I think Donald Trump is quite bright when it comes things finance and negotiation, I think he would be tough when it comes to things like foreign affairs. But Donald Trump has backpedaled and flip-flopped and changed his mind on a lot of things, so I don't know what I'm going to get," Doc said.

Doc then shared a major announcement.

"Donald Trump has now moved into a new category for me. He's on my 'Not That Guy' list," Doc said.

His big hangup? Trump's recent statement about illegal immigrants and amnesty.

"For me personally, there are a couple of issues that I'm not able to negotiate on. And that is immigration," Doc said. "If you will not commit to deportations of all people here illegally, you're dead to me. You're politically dead to me."

Who else is on Doc and Skip's #NotThatGuy list? Watch the video or read the transcript from the radio segment below.

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

DOC: Who is on the list for you that is absolutely the person you could not under any circumstances vote for? For me, Donald Trump is the new addition. There are a couple of people that have already been on the list. I'll go from the bottom up who is on my list. The absolute bottom of my list. Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is only slightly worse than Jeb Bush because Mike Huckabee says and does a lot of the same progressive outrageously wrong, crappy things that Jeb Bush does, believes, and has done. But Mike Huckabee also uses Jesus to justify doing it. Which is reprehensible. That you would use your faith as supposedly a conservative, to woo people to go to your website and buy your crap, Mike Huckabee, and try to get you elected, only to build yourself up to use your faith to do that. That is absolutely the lowest of the low.

SKIP: And he's essentially one of those guys like in that Steve Martin movie, Leap of Faith too. I mean, going town to town. Talking about Jesus and healing people for money.

DOC: He's shaking snakes and telling you to drink the strychnine for Jesus. When all he's really interested in is himself. And, Mike Huckabee, you want to challenge me on that? Sit down here. I'll put you on this program. I'll put you on our program. I'll challenge you. I'll meet you on any street corner anywhere in America and debate you on this stuff. I know your track record.

SKIP: He won't come on our show.

DOC: No, he won't. Because he's afraid of us. Just like the other people. Mike Huckabee, I know who you are. I have your track record. I have the information on you. I know your record as governor in Arkansas. I remember when you called the conservatives in Arkansas Shiite Republicans. Comparing them to terrorist extremists in the Middle East because you didn't simply like the fact that they didn't want you to raise the taxes on the people of Arkansas. I know that you've been selling your website name and the people on that, that sign up for your site, so people can target them to sell essentially what I call snake oil. I know who you are. And using Jesus to do it, you're despicable. Slightly up on that list, is Jeb Bush. He does slightly all those things. He just hasn't invoked the name Jesus. So those two absolutely on the bottom of the list for me.

SKIP: Yeah, and those two will oftentimes trade off back and forth on who is the actual worst of the worst. I mean, Jeb Bush will come out and say something in the next week that will put him back on the other side for me. And then Mike Huckabee will come back. So they battle for the worst of the worst in my mind.

DOC: You know what it is, these two are so bad, I'd rather vote for Jim Webb, the Democrat former senator of Virginia before I'd vote for them. How bad is it? I'd vote for Lindsey Graham before I'd vote for those two. That's how awful it is.

SKIP: They're incrementally better than Obama. You want to talk about progressive.

DOC: Let me think about that.

SKIP: Seriously. Let that marinate for a second. I'll say they're better than Obama.

DOC: Hold on. No. No, I don't know if they are. I can make an argument they're worse than Obama. At least with Obama, you know what you're getting. With Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee, they wrap it up in being caring. We care more than you. But we're conservative. They get in there and do the same crap. In fact, if it hadn't been for George W. Bush, we wouldn't have Obama. Because he pretended to be the conservative. Did the same stuff. And everybody said, well, we don't like all that crap that's going on that's not conservative. But they thought it was and ran to Obama. So I put him on the same par with him. All horrible people. Next up on my list is Lindsey Graham. Skip Lacombe, Jeb Bush or Lindsey Graham? Go.

SKIP: I'll take Lindsey Graham. Begrudgingly.

DOC: Lindsey Graham or Chris Christie? Go. It's incremental.

SKIP: That's a tough one. Graham.

DOC: I put Chris Christie slightly above Lindsey Graham. Slightly.

SKIP: I don't know. I'm going Lindsey Graham because I don't want to see Chris Christie throwing up first pitch for years. Hold on. Maybe I do want to see --

DOC: Yes, you do.

SKIP: I talked myself out of it. Chris Christie.

DOC: There's another factor we have to consider. A much smaller factor than saving America, it's show content.

DOC: That's a much, much lesser. Way down on the list. But all things being equal.

SKIP: Chris Christie.

DOC: Lindsey Graham brings a lot of content. I mean, the first -- it wouldn't be the first president that -- how can I clean this up. An effeminate American president.

SKIP: Okay.

DOC: I mean, we talked about being politically correct in phrases yesterday. We don't know exactly all details with Lindsey. I'm just speculating. Effeminate American? Is that how we -- I think that would be good content. Anyone else notice that Lindsey Graham is starting to look like John McCain?

SKIP: Dude, they are. They've been hanging out too much.

DOC: John McCain is the emperor. Something, something, Lindsey Graham. Something, something, vote with me, Jeff. Something, something dark side. That's John McCain. Right? Take a look at recent pictures of Lindsey Graham. Look at Lindsey Graham when he was active in the military, I mean, many, many years ago, right? His uniform looked buttoned up. Okay looking guy. Look at him now. He's on the path to being John McCain.

SKIP: Same thing with John McCain too. Strapping young military man back in the day.

DOC: I think Lindsey Graham is trying to look like him now.

SKIP: I think you're right.

DOC: Also, on my not that guy list, Chris Christie. He's just one up from Lindsey Graham. Donald Trump has just been added. He's at the same level, one notch up from Chris Christie. With Scott Walker and John Kasich. That rounds up my not that guy list.

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.

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.