Breakdown of the Family: The Four-Part Series

The American family is the backbone of society. If you believe in the Bible, you know that after God created Adam and Eve, he commanded them to have children. From the beginning, the ideal family included a biological mother and father to both be in the home, raising their children together. By removing God from our public discourse and breaking down the family unit, progressives have damaged and weakened society.

This series explores how the traditional family unit is statistically superior for people and society --- and the devastating impact of secularism and liberal policies.

Listen to the full series:

Breakdown of the Family Part I: The Children

In 1950, 75 percent of black families were two-parent homes. A strong family unit was the backbone of black America. Three out of four children had both parents at home. Today, 73 percent of black families are not traditional family units. Most black children now grow up without fathers. The result is a world turned upside down as children copy what they see and repeat what they learn.

While the black family has been the hardest hit, by no means is it the only segment to suffer. The American family of every race, every ethnicity, continues to disintegrate as virtually no one steps up to address the problems and propose solutions. Since 1980, the marriage rate has dropped 45 percent and 41 percent of children are born to unmarried mothers (73 percent in the black community). Fatherless or single-parent homes produce children who are two times more likely to be arrested for juvenile crime and twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems. They are also 33 percent more likely to drop out of school and three times more likely to end up in jail by age 30.

This isn't to say that single moms can't be fantastic loving parents or single dads are just not capable of raising wonderful, well-adjusted, highly successful kids --- because they can and they do. Grandparents can and do wonderful child-rearing. Same-sex couples certainly love their children. And sometimes the ideal family unit, for whatever reason, just is not possible.

But in general, where possible, traditional family units produce the best results, consistently, over decades of studies.

Could it be that biologically a woman brings certain traits and skills to child-rearing that a man doesn't, and vice-versa? And is it just possible that that combination leads to the most well adjusted, highest functioning human beings?

Breakdown of the Family Part II: The Cause

What caused the destruction of the American family? In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson announced the War On Poverty. Twenty-two trillion dollars later, that battlefield is lined with remnants of broken American families. Huge government welfare and indoctrination programs have contributed to dependency, stripping people of dignity, raising unemployment and enslaving three generations of American citizens.

Also taking a toll on the American family was the feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Progressives told women they couldn't be fulfilled by staying home with their children. The movement also had strong anti-men sentiments. After the women's movement, society and culture changed. With two working parents, children were often left with caregivers or on their own. In 2008, ABC reported that three-quarters of American girls would become pregnant that year.

Even many liberals understood many years ago that the family is the building block of civilization. If it crumbles, so does civilization. Yet far too many Americans have been swallowed up in political correctness. Today, society will tolerate virtually any substitution for the traditional family unit in the name of tolerance. But tolerance is only one side of the coin. The other side is truth. Without both truth and tolerance, everything falls apart.

Breakdown of the Family Part III: The Black Family

At the turn of the last century, black families were thriving. Today, the majority of black children grow up without two parents or a father figure. What caused the disintegration of the black family? According to Burgess Owens, former NFL star and author of the book Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps, liberalism and Democratic policies destroyed the black community:

In order to understand what the impact of liberalism has been, I think it's important to, first of all, recognize where the black race had been the first hundred years after the Civil War. From 1865 to 1965, the black community had 50 percent of all black Americans as part of the black middle class. We had the highest percentage of black men committed to the family and their marriage, the highest percentage of entrepreneurs in our country.

The introduction of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society attacked the very fabric of American black families. Massive government programs had the opposite effect of what we were told they would. For example, incentives were put in place for black women to have babies, stay unemployed and no longer need men in their households. The result was a dependency on government that has been absolutely devastating.

Today, one of the biggest threats facing black families is located, by design, primarily in their own communities: Planned Parenthood, an organization voraciously supported by Democrats. Progressive racist Margaret Sanger founded what would become Planned Parenthood to eliminate the black family, and her efforts have been wildly successful. In New York City alone, more black babies were aborted than born in 2012.  

Can we change course and restore the American black family?

Burgess Owens believes we can:

We were the best example of what the American dream is all about. Someone can come here, in any situation, any background, any kind of baggage, and still make it if you decide to dream big and go forward. So I look forward to my race once again being a great example. I think that it will be a small minority of our race who still believe in our country that will pull out my race back from the abyss of socialism. And in doing so, will also do the same for our great nation, pull ourselves back and be an example of what we can do to revive ourselves, to be the great vision that our forefathers saw us as.

Breakdown of the Family Part IV: The Solution

Since the Progressive Era began, traditional American values have been continually attacked, and the hardest hit has been the family unit.

The first step toward healing our families is wanting to heal them. According to a Focus on the Family study, Americans do want that. When asked what mattered most to them personally, Americans agreed that a loving family is the single most important priority among a list of many high priorities:

• 54 percent = loving family

• 50 percent = health

• 43 percent = financial security

• 33 percent = happiness

According to Marc Mero, president of Family First, we can reverse the damage done to the American family, but it won't happen overnight. It will take a committed effort and positive messaging to reverse the disintegration of the family.

He also summed up the most important things he believes need to happen in order to heal American families:

First, overall, we need to speak truth into the culture. We really do. We need to speak truth into the culture and say, "This is really what's happening in our culture." We need to identify the problem, as we've already discussed, but we need to also talk about the solution.

Secondly, I believe one of the most important things we can do to make the family thrive once again, to bring the family back together, is to get fathers more involved in their kids' lives. We have two problems: We have one that many fathers are physically absent from their kids. There are 24 million children in our country right now who are growing up without their biological fathers. We have many millions more who are growing up with fathers who are in the home, but are emotionally absent from their kids. And so if we can reverse those two trends and really get fathers engaged in their lives, I believe that we can really turn things around and have families that don't die, that don't just survive, but actually thrive in our country once again.

The American family needs an advocacy group like the LGBT community, which overcame overwhelming odds, huge approval deficits to turn public opinion around in an incredibly short period of time. They went from states flat-out refusing to even consider same-sex marriage, to losing referendums in every single state that held a vote, to same-sex marriage being accepted by the majority of the people and the law of the land in under 20 years. If advocates for the traditional family had such focus, organization and commitment, the American family could be saved. And with it, perhaps America itself.

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials

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.