The Constitution Stops Globalism Dead in Its Tracks

December 08, 2016

Writer

The real problem facing America has nothing to do with globalization or globalists. It has nothing to do with nationalism or internationalism. Our real problem is ideas in direct conflict with the Constitution: socialism, communism and progressivism. These misleading labels basically mean the same thing --- total and complete government control.

Many people are asking the wrong questions to resolve our problem.

"I contend we are having the argument that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were having 100 years ago. Is the national socialist better or the international socialist better? The question has to be: Is the Constitution the answer?" Glenn said Thursday on radio.

The Constitution is the framework that outlines and defines what our government can and cannot do.

"The Constitution will stop you from doing all kinds of things, like meddling in people's lives, like telling them who they can and cannot marry, or how they can and cannot run their business, unless it's dangerous. The Constitution stops the meddling in international affairs and stops globalism dead in its tracks," Glenn explained.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these equally insightful questions:

• How do we get beyond personalities and talk about the issues?

• Why did Lenin coin the term 'democratic socialist'?

• How is the Constitution like a combustion engine?

• What does 'Nature's Law' mean?

• Is the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution?

• How did the words in the Declaration of Independence help free slaves?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to talk to you a little bit about -- we had a guy call us a few minutes ago. And he wanted to give me a lesson on the reason why the Republicans are great -- or I think he may have said Donald Trump. But we weren't talking about Donald Trump. We were talking about the left and right. Let's get beyond people. And he said, "Because they are now nationalists." And the real problem is globalization and globalists. No, that's not the real problem.

And there are a lot of people right now that are being convinced that the argument is between nationalism and internationalism or globalism.

And you can look at it that way. Two people that did look at it that way were Stalin and Hitler. He was a nationalist, and Stalin was an internationalist. They both believed in giant government state control. One said, "We're going to do this through the international community, and we're going to lead the international community and anybody who gets in our way, we're going to kill." And Hitler and Mussolini thought, "We're going to do this for the good of our own nation because our nation is so great. And we'll just do that. And it will spread to other nations. And we'll bring it to those other nations, whether they like it or not."

Nationalism and internationalism is not our problem. Our problem is socialism, communism, or progressivism. That is the idea that is in direct conflict with the other idea of the Constitution.

A lot of people who were progressives don't like the idea that -- that they would be labeled, along with socialists -- not so much anymore -- or communists. But socialism, if you know your history, your was only -- I'm sorry. Progressivism was only labeled that because they didn't agree with the one thing of -- of -- of communists. And that is, revolution.

Socialism is the step between capitalism and communism. And it lead to it.

If you don't believe me, read the words of Lenin before he got into office and they had the bloody revolution. He knew people were afraid of communists. And so he is the man, Lenin, that coined the term "democratic socialist." We're not communists. We're democratic socialists. The people will vote. And they'll vote for socialism. And they did.

And then they're free to say they're communists. Now, this is, again, all earlier 20th century. But you have to know the roots of it. And Theodore Roosevelt was a nationalist and a socialist. Believed in big government progressivism. Woodrow Wilson was even more. And he was an internationalist. League of Nations. United Nations.

I contend we are having the argument that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were having 100 years ago. Is the national socialist better or the international socialist better?

The question has to be: Is the Constitution the answer? Because the Constitution will stop you from doing all kinds of things, like meddling in people's lives, like telling them who they can and cannot marry or how they can and cannot run their business, unless it's dangerous.

The Constitution stops the meddling in international affairs and stops globalism dead in its tracks. The Constitution is the reason we didn't have a set flag. We didn't -- listen to me, we didn't have a set flag, I believe until Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt. It may have even been Wilson. You could arrange the stars any way you want. Why?

Because we won't so damn jingoistic. We believed in the concept of the flag, and it meant more than the flag itself. And it was Wilson, I believe, that went in and said, "No, we have to nationalize everything and federalize. And now here's exactly how you treat the flag." It was Wilson that gave us that, who gave us the -- the Star-Spangled Banner. FDR. We are defending these things as if they came from the Founders, when the Founders themselves didn't establish a national anything.

They respected everyone to rule themselves under the Constitution. Now, progressives will always say, "Well, the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the Constitution." You need to understand that the Declaration of Independence has everything to do with the Constitution.

Without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution can be anything anyone wants.

For instance, let me give you an example because I know progressives hate the Declaration of Independence. They hate it. It has nothing to do with it.

It is something for that time and that time only. Why would they be against that? Why would they be against that?

Because the Declaration of Independence is what freed the slaves, not the Constitution. The Constitution gave the ability to free the slaves. But it was the Declaration of Independence that did free the slaves. Because the argument was -- in our own documents, it says, "All men are created equal."

That was the argument. So let me show you.

I want you to think about the Constitution. Because everybody says, "God's not in the Constitution. It's nowhere in the Constitution." Of course, it's not.

The Constitution is nothing more than an engine. You know our Constitution is the most reused Constitution in the world. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution has been used by more countries than any other document to establish governance in the history of the world.

But wait a minute. All the countries are not like America. How come?

Because the Constitution is the combustion engine. That's all it is. But I can make a truck, using that engine, and I can make a sports car using that engine.

What do you want the engine to do? Do you want it to just run some belts, to run a turbine, to put some lights on? Do you want to use it for an aircraft? Do you want to use it for a race car? Do you want to use it for a crane to help build buildings?

It is the framework. It is the principles, the framework that helps you do whatever it is you want to do.

The Bill of Rights, that's something separate. The Bill of Rights is something entirely different from the Constitution. What rights are in the Constitution? Well, actually none. They're found in the Bill of Rights, which is just as separate, came years -- in fact, I think it was Connecticut, wasn't it, or one of the states that wasn't until 1939 that they ratified the Bill of Rights.

It came years later. Separate, yet part of it. And without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution doesn't work.

Well, it works. It will create all kinds of stuff. But it won't create things with rights.

So let me take you back to the first document. Because the first document tells you what we're building. The Constitution tells you how to build it. The Declaration of Independence tells you what we're building.

There's seven things in just the opening two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence that tell you everything you need to know about America.

One: The opening -- can you read the opening line, when in the course of human events, Pat. It becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have tied themselves to another people.

PAT: That have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them.

GLENN: Okay. What does that mean? Separate, but equal station? They're going to assume -- what they're saying is, there comes a time -- if we're going to disband ourselves from a government, a king, somebody else that's ruling over us, we -- it's -- the only right thing to do is to state why. Why are we doing this?

We need to tell the world, and we need to really remind ourselves why we're doing this. And assume the separate, but equal stations.

So they're saying, "We're not better than the king of England." But he's not better than we are. It immediately establishes humility for our nation. We're not better than everyone else. Our Declaration of Independence says the separate, but equal station. Nobody is the boss of us. And we're not the boss of you.

But there's a more important thing that I haven't addressed in that line. And that is this: The separate, but equal station, which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them. We'll come back to that.

Then the next paragraph is -- this is why -- this is why we're breaking away from the king. Okay? Because -- listen. We think that things are pretty clear. Let me state it this way: We hold these truths to be self-evident. We think everybody knows this. But nobody has ever said it before, let alone write it down.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. And that among these are life, liberty, and I'm going to use the original word, property. Why would I use that? Because pursuit of happiness -- replace the word property -- because they felt if they put property in there, then the left -- or, I'm sorry -- then the South would say, "Well, it's in the Declaration of Independence. We have a right to property, and slaves are our property."

And then we would have had the argument, are they property, or are they men? And that would have slowed everything down. So don't give them the tool of saying that they're property.

So they changed it to something enigmatic: The pursuit of happiness. Meaning, your right to go and be your own businessperson and do what you feel and follow your spirit and go paint a cloud.

Life, liberty, and property. Here's another important part: That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. The government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. And that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to those ends -- which ends? Destructive of which ends?

It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Now, let me go back.

They have certain unalienable rights, meaning God gave them these rights, and nobody can change them. Unalienable or inalienable. Whichever word you choose to use is -- it means you cannot change them. No one can change them. They are universal. They are -- they are the laws of nature and nature's God.

What does nature and nature's God mean?

Let's use the Second Amendment. That's not a law of God. Where in the Bible does it say you have a right to have guns, you have a right to protect yourself?

I guess you could read it through that, but it's really clear in the laws of nature.

In fact, you could use the laws of God to say, "Well, maybe you don't because he says thou shall not murder, and you can use a gun to murder." So they want to be very specific.

The laws of nature. That's the first one. Can you find that right in nature? Yeah. Nobody is going to say to me, but they'll say it about humans all the time.

Nobody is going to say, if I walk into a cave with a bear and I just want to go hug the little baby bear and the bear mom kills me, nowhere -- nowhere in the press are they going to say, "Oh, my gosh, we should destroy that bear. That bear is evil. We should declaw all bears."

They'll say, "That stupid guy went into a cave, and the bear -- the mama bear thought he was threatening the children. Of course, she tore him apart." That's the Second Amendment. Nature's law gives you the right to self-protect and to protect your family and your home.

Featured Image: The exterior of the National Constitution Center displays the opening words of the United States Constitution. (Photo Credit: Jeffrey M. Vinocur)

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.

Glenn's Show Prep