Our Country Flies on the Balance of Two Wings—Both Left and Right. It Must Be Restored.

We all have a story that we tell ourselves. The problem with our country right now is we don't have a common story anymore. Our common story is the founding of our country and the Civil War and the civil rights and going to the moon and we can do anything. And after the second World War, we had the Berlin airdrop. We helped people, we were the most charitable. That's our story. That's what we tell ourselves.

That story has been broken by another story. We're nothing, but oppressors. We're oppressors that came and stole the land, killed people, never had any good intentions, enslaved a whole race of people. Even when we had the Civil War, there were no good guys. Abraham Lincoln was even an oppressor. We've only ever done anything for money. We're warmongers. We steal everything that we have.

That's the story that now half of America is telling itself every day, and it is being reinforced every single day.

Stories are really important.

The story in the first half of my life was, I'm a kid who nobody ever understood. And my mom was an alcoholic who committed suicide. My dad and mom got a divorce, nobody understands me. And yet, I have this talent, and I'm going to make it big. I'll show everybody. That was my story in my twenties, coupled with my family suffers with depression and alcoholism. I'm going to kill myself in the end, and I'm going to be an alcoholic. And what happened? By the time I was 30, there I was. Because stories are powerful.

When it comes to politics, who is better at telling stories? The left or the right?

The story that I tell myself every day now is the Jesus story. A guy who grew up with nothing, who taught people during three years of his life just to be honest with yourself, to be humble, to listen, to serve, to search for truth. That you're going to screw up and you should ask for forgiveness. Live those principles and die on those principles, if you have to.

So now that you know my story, what I've tried to base my life on, look what happens: In the last election, I saw a guy running for president who I didn't think lived any of the principles from that story that gets me up every morning. That's the story that I tell myself, that you don't even have to believe in redemption. You don't have to believe in Jesus. You don't have to believe any of it. I do. It's the story that keeps me from drinking and keeps me from imploding. I saw our country going towards a guy who I didn't think lived any of those principles. I was certain of what was going to happen, and tried to warn people and what happened? I imposed, if I may speak to my friends and the left, the tyranny of certainty. I stopped living my principles, mainly humility, because I was certain I didn't have to be humble. I knew the truth.

So people say to me, Glenn, you've got to stop apologizing. No, I don't. That's part of my story. If you make a mistake, as quickly as you discover it, go and ask forgiveness, try to make amends. If they accept it, they accept it. If they don't, they don't. I've done my part. I behaved the exact opposite of my story, which caused cognitive dissonance in me. And if cognitive dissonance lives in me, I know myself well enough, I'll start drinking, because I can't live that way as a split personality. I can't live two lives. I don't know how people compartmentalize their lives. I cannot.

Now we're telling ourselves another story. What I heard from a caller today is exactly what she doesn't like in me and doesn't like in the left. And that is, the tyranny of certainty. "How dare you tell me you're right." I'm working on that. It's really hard to do the job, where the leader of the industry is "on loan from God," and I'm supposed to have the answers, to share those, and remain humble. It's really hard. But you notice she said that the problem is, they think they know the answers --- and we're right.

I think I've been right on a lot of stuff. I just have to realize that my opinion is my opinion. But I also am wrong on a lot of stuff. I believe in eternal truth. I believe in truth from God. A lot of people don't believe that. Okay, then what's the other way of finding truth? Either scientifically proving it, doing a case study and actually proving it in a laboratory, or when it comes to living, you have to have a case study. Well, I don't really want to experiment with people. So we have to go back and look at history and ask: How did it turn out the last time? How did this turn out the last time it happened? What did the people choose?

Do you really believe that the politicians are going to solve health care? Does anybody really in the sound of my voice believe that they can solve health care? First of all, was health care better or worse before Obamacare? It sucked. It had its problems. It's like the United States of America. It is the worst best country on the planet. They all suck, but we're the best.

If you could show me a way to live, really show me a way to live and say, Glenn, here's proof, this is a better system, it makes people more free, it helps people be better. You're able to be yourself and be your better self. I'd do it in a heartbeat. I would surrender my citizenship today. I am not loyal to the flag. I am loyal to the idea of America, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain rights, and nobody can take those rights.

My story that I tell myself is the greatest blessing of my life. Because it gives my troubles --- I don't want to say suffering, but use that word perhaps in your life or in the life of others --- meaning. It gives my pain, be it emotional or be it physical pain, meaning. No matter what has happened to me, no matter what the situation is, I can walk away from it and say, "Okay. Why did that happen?" Instead of saying, "I can't believe this person. I can't believe everything in my life sucks."

Everything in my life might suck right now, but what gives that suffering meaning? What gives that trouble meaning? Are we even looking for that anymore?

That's what I tried to say with Elon Musk or with George Washington Carver, most of the great inventions of the world came from hardship. You think somebody would have invented the car if we all had flying carpets? No. We had an ox and a cart. We had to shovel the crap from behind them all the time. I mean, you want to talk about gases, okay. Live around some cows for a while. Plow your field with a cow or an ox or a horse. Not fun. So somebody invented a tractor. It's not like the fields were plowing themselves. You know what we should invent? Something I can sit on and plow this field. There's meaning to what's happening in your life. And you can either grab it and figure it out and use it to make your life better, or we can use it to be angry. We can use it to be depressed. We can use it to lose all hope and let somebody else fix it for us. Or we can do it ourselves.

When I say let's come together, I don't mean with the extreme right or the extreme left. I have nothing in common with them. I really don't, besides my humanity. I don't have much in common or much to talk to with people who want to shut everyone else up. But I don't know when this country has ever decided we don't need two wings of our eagle, both the left and the right. I don't know when the eagle said, "I can fly with just one wing."

There's balance to that eagle. Just as much as there is --- and I hate to say this, what an oppressor I am --- there is importance for both a man and a woman. We don't speak the same language. Women, at times, drive me nuts. I'm sure I drive my wife and my daughters crazy. My son and I, we understand each other. It's the women. And the women, they understand each other. Two wings of an eagle, you need both. How stupid would it be for me to say, "You know what we need, you know what would make this planet better? No women." And yet, there are women and progressive groups that say men are useless. It is a lie. It is a lie just as much as I don't need my liberal friends or they don't need their conservative friends.

Together, we can fix this. Together, we will find our way out. But only if you have an honest, open and willing mind and heart.

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.