Glenn regularly takes his daughters on daddy daughter dates, and this week he had the opportunity to see Madame Butterfly at the Winspear Opera House in Dallas.
Friday, Glenn treated his audience to a not-to-be missed retelling of the classic story.
Listen to this segment, beginning near mark 8:00, from 'The Glenn Beck Program':
PAT: Are you going to another opera in the meantime over the weekend? You going to hit the opera scene?
GLENN: Just because I do a father-daughter date and I do the things that my daughter wants to do, I don't know why you have to mock me for that.
PAT: It's pathetic.
STU: We seen you -- you're woke Glenn Beck, right? So this is you opening up to new cultures.
GLENN: No, I've gone to operas since my daughter started getting into this.
STU: Oh yeah, the whole thing is bullcrap.
GLENN: Okay, so let me tell you, this is the third installment, the third time I've gone to the opera with my daughter.
PAT: The last time I heard about this, I think it's The Nose in New York.
GLENN: Lincoln -- Kennedy Center?
PAT: And all they did was sing about a nose the whole time.
GLENN: No, a nose with feet that came out of the nostrils. It was really great. I am convinced that that is somebody who was high with his friend and went, you want to screw with the people that all think, oh, oh, I understand what this is all about? We're going to write the dumbest, craziest, and we're just going to say this is what it's about, and you watch. They'll all jump on.
Because I watched that thing and we want, come on, people! And the people were like, oh, isn't this brilliant? It's a nose with nostrils coming out so it can stand up and walk around and singing about communism. No, it's not wonderful.
STU: And it was feet coming out of the nostrils.
GLENN: Yeah. That's how it walked. So anyway. That was the last one. Before that I saw the Wagner Ring Cycle. I don't know which one. But it's the famous one, I guess, with the tree and the sword. That's all I remember from it. It's like, where is my sword! Five hours of where is my sword. It's right there! See the tree? (Laughter.) It's the only other thing on stage that isn't the tree! Laugh. Oh, my gosh.
JEFFY: That was at the met.
PAT: He was apparently very, very near sighted.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Where is my sword? Shut up. I almost ran up onstage. Here. Here it is! (Laughter.) So Madame Butterfly comes to town here in Dallas. And my daughter --
PAT: Is this a traveling Broadway thing? Don't know?
GLENN: I don't know. Let me preface it with you're not going to want to go after I describe what I've seen. But if opera was like this, I would go more often. It was really amazing. It was really amazing. The people that were singing were just -- this woman, I guess, is the person that you want to see as Madame Butterfly. I didn't even know what the story was about. I read it in Wikipedia on the way.
(Laughter.)
And it was really amazing. But may I just say this: If your story is about a 15-year-old beautiful, delicate, flower, a girl who is virginal, young, soft, beautiful, delicate, little, frail, youth, glowing, and so she comes out in the first act. The first guy comes out, he's supposed to be an American, and he's a big, hairy, Italian opera singer, singing in Italian, and he's the American, and he comes out and he talks about, (singing) oh, my beautiful flower, she's coming, she's coming, I can't wait to see her I'm going to marry her, she's not going to, it's a fake, no, don't marry her, like, that she's a beautiful flower, so delicate, don't crush her petals, no, no, no I'm going to marry her because I love here even though I'm going back to America-- (singing deep tones).
So I'm waiting for this beautiful, delicate flower, and it's a 40-year-old opera singer.
(Laughter.)
And she comes onstage and she's like, (singing) I'm a little flower. And I'm like, no, honey, you're not! No!
PAT: Isn't she somewhat rotund as well? Corpulent?
GLENN: I would describe her as an opera singer. Stick some horns on her and you've got the standard opera singer. So she's bigger than the American guy. Okay. And she's like, (singing) oh, I'm so young and small and fragile. No, honey, no you're not. So then she's -- she's singing to the guy who's going to marry her, and then her uncle comes, and she's got these Japanese family, these relatives, who are strangely all white people, and they all come on, and they're all singing, (singing) we're the family at the wedding. We just love the wedding. And then the uncle comes, and the music changes, and it's dark.
STU: Are they really explaining this, by the way?
GLENN: No, it's almost -- it's almost that. Yes.
STU: Okay. Sorry.
GLENN: So you don't have a problem -- it's not deep. What I've found is the lyrics are not deep.
STU: They're just saying the thing that's happening.
GLENN: Sometimes. A lot of times. Most of the time. It's not real subtle, you know. And now it may be the translation, because you're watching the translation up above the stage.
STU: You're not even watching the show.
GLENN: Yeah, you're watching, and okay, that's what she's saying. Well, you didn't translate that. What the hell is that? What did she just said?
PAT: Do they normally have the English translation?
GLENN: Some do and some don't. Opera is really weird. There's no microphones.
PAT: I thought you just had to know it or not.
GLENN: No. Some don't.
PAT: Huh.
GLENN: And they get really snotty, and they're like, if you don't know it --
PAT: But we in Dallas. We want to know.
GLENN: New York was like that.
PAT: They would to know the words.
GLENN: New York was like that too. I went to the symphony in -- with my other daughter on our father-daughter date Saturday. I almost broke my neck getting up so fast. I couldn't believe it. I come from radio, it's the pops and the orchestra and the guy comes out and shaking the hands of everybody, and standing up and he just walks up, and all of a sudden as he walks up to the platform, everybody jumps to their feet, and he points, and there's a snare drum roll. And I'm like, what the hell, and they start playing the national anthem. I couldn't get up fast enough. Everybody was standing up. I thought, wow, welcome to Texas.
JEFFY: No kidding.
GLENN: They do not do that in New York. National anthem? What? Anyway, so then --
PAT: Xenophobic.
GLENN: Then the uncle comes on, and the uncle is mad because she gave up her religion to marry him and become a Christian, and so he's mad. And all I can think of is, he's also in an enormous black man.
(Laughter.)
JEFFY: The uncle.
GLENN: The uncle. You have the beautiful flower who is not Japanese, she's Chinese; not 15, she's 40. She's thought delicate. She's sturdy.
STU: Casting maybe.
GLENN: I'm thinking, casting is not a problem in -- in opera. I think you're supposed to --
STU: It's just voice quality?
GLENN: I guess. I don't know. It's the only place when you -- I mean, what, it's all -- that's all it is. It's about the music. I really want to know the history of opera. Did it just start out -- because the acting is horrendous in almost every opera I've ever seen.
STU: Because it's not about that. Right? It's about --
JEFFY: A musical, right? On Broadway. A Broadway play.
GLENN: Could it be, and I apologize to everyone who's a musicologist and knows anything about opera.
STU: The three people that are out there.
GLENN: I thought it may have started -- the guy wrote the music, and it's like, this is great, let's get together Saturday and invite friends and blah-blah-blah, and they did that for a couple of weeks and somebody said, you know, it would be cool if we dressed up like the people. And they're like, you got to make costumes. Okay. We'll dress up. Kind of like, you know, a Star Trek convention where people are dressing up. They're like, I'll dress up as the character, and eventually they're like, you know what? I should pick up a knife or a fake knife and pretend it's that. Okay. And then it just started -- somebody said, I could build a set, and we could -- you're pretending. Why don't I pretend? But nobody ever thought, let's actually do a real performance. It's really about the singing. The rest of it is just -- because we had extra time on our hands. I'm not sure.
STU: Surely that's in a history book somewhere about opera.
GLENN: Either that, or they just have the worst directors, actors, and everything else.
PAT: Not good casting people.
GLENN: No. But really good.
PAT: Yeah, because your initial thing was --
JEFFY: It was incredible.
GLENN: It really was.
PAT: Doesn't sound it. Does not sound it.
GLENN: Pat, I bet you would like it.
PAT: No way.
STU: You liked La-La Land.
GLENN: You did.
PAT: Only because I'm so varied in my tastes. I'm so deep. This is complex.
GLENN: This is the Dallas Opera Company, I guess. I don't know anything about it. But this is the Dallas people. I don't think this traveling -- maybe she is traveling. I don't know. But this is absolutely tremendous. It's really, really good.
PAT: I'm sure they'll thank you.
(Laughter.)
LENN: None of the guys are going to listen to these reviews.
STU: Safe to say.
PAT: Dallas opera, you're welcome.
GLENN: You're welcome. Actually -- [Laughs.] -- I know they're not listening so I'm not saying this because they care. It was really good. I went home, I woke up Tania, and she said, how was it, and I always explain about going to the opera and I said, this one, Honey, I want to go again. They may not let me in. I may have to wear a disguise, but I want to see it again. It was really, really good. Really good. And I'm clearly not the biggest of opera fans.
[break]
GLENN: We were just talking about the opera is a wild place to go. I mean, on a Wednesday night in Dallas, Texas.
JEFFY: If you want to party.
GLENN: A few people in tuxedos. Every guy was in a tie and jacket. It was really formal.
PAT: That's unusual. Because we do not do that for anything anymore. Even Broadway, nobody dresses up for.
GLENN: No. Especially in Dallas.
PAT: In Dallas it's more so.
GLENN: In Dallas, there's cowboy black tie, can which means you wear a shirt, a tuxedo.
PAT: And jeans.
GLENN: And jeans. We don't even do black tie here. And it was amazing. And the theater here, it's like the Winspear theater or something.
JEFFY: Yes.
GLENN: How many theaters have we been to?
PAT: Many.
GLENN: We've been to some of the most beautiful theaters in the country. This is by far the most beautiful theater I've ever seen, and paid for by private money.
PAT: Wow.
GLENN: It is beautiful. Beautiful. Unbelievable theater. Must have cost those rich people a fortune.
PAT: If only Foreigner would play there, I'd get to see it someday.
GLENN: They'll take anybody. I asked, do you rent this place out? And she's like, yeah -- only in Texas. Yeah, we've even done birthday parties here.
I'm like, who the hell has their birthday party here? I want to know that.
PAT: Wow.
GLENN: Wow!
JEFFY: Ross Perot.
GLENN: Yeah. Probably somebody like Ross Perot.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
