Creator of Trump vs. CNN Meme Offers Apology We All Need to Hear

July 05, 2017

WRITER

Welcome to the new normal, another day, another Presidential tweet story. A Redditor who created the video clip of Trump going WWF on a guy with CNN logo superimposed on his face was tracked down by CNN and he's now offering an apology. The mea culpa doesn't fit with the typical media narrative but there is a message he shares that is important for everyone to hear.

Trolling is addictive and what you say actually means something even when you mean nothing.

"Now listen to what the guy said who made the original and was accused of this and did some really bad things. Look what he said: 'Your self-worth does not come from this. It's addictive. Think of the other people on the receiving end, before you say really horrible things that you know you don't mean. Because it's real,'" Glenn said on radio Wednesday.

For good or evil, there is a powerful message for our society.

"Your voice is more powerful than you ever could imagine. And man's individual voice is more powerful than it's ever been since the creation of the earth and Adam first woke up," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: All right. So CNN finds the guy who made that video of Trump in the WWF fight from years ago. And -- and -- and they ask him, okay. So what's up, dude?

Because he posted, wow, can't believe the president retweeted this.

Well, you go to his Reddit file, and you see that he has done horrible, horrible things. Really anti-Semitic. Really bad.

And this is the part of the story that doesn't make sense to me. Because the usual way for the mainstream media to handle this is you see a guy who is posting anti-Semitic stuff. You do nothing. You just assume he's a conservative. And you go for him. And it doesn't matter what the truth is. And, I mean, I don't know how you can post anti-Semitic stuff and the truth be good, but you just never give him a break in the mainstream media ever.

They -- they do everything they can to connect decent, innocent people to those kinds of thoughts, when they don't exist.

Here's a guy where it does exist. He apologizes. And they're like, okay. Well, we accept his apology.

I don't understand that. Because the way I look at the media, they are only in for the president's blood, at every step of the way. And so it doesn't -- something is not right on this story. Or something has changed that I find hard to believe. But maybe.

So what do we get out of this? Well, I want you to read what he posted yesterday. I think this is something that we should all read to our kids at dinner tonight. I'll share it, when we come back.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: I just can't get over the feeling that something is not right with this -- with this story, this HanAholeSolo story from Reddit.

STU: The internet makes every story interesting because you have to read their stupid screen names.

GLENN: I know. I know.

This -- this guy was up on Reddit and filed all kinds of anti-Semitic stuff. And then he's the guy who apparently did a version of the -- the tweet the president sent out. And it's the one where the president is -- it's old footage of Donald Trump at a wrestling match, and he throws a guy down on the ground and just beats the snot out of him. It's a wrestling thing.

And -- and this guy superimposed the CNN logo over the face of the guy the president is beating.

Well, he gets up -- he sees the president has tweeted it. And he thinks it's his. And he's like, oh, my gosh, that's great. And he's happy.

But then when the media gets a hold of it and says, look at the violence, the guy isn't happy. He's like, you know what, that's not mine. That was somebody else's. Somebody else took my original tweet and then added sound effects and music behind it or audio.

STU: Initially, he was happy.

GLENN: Yeah, initially he was happy.

STU: Then he turned around.

GLENN: Then he turned around. Yes.

STU: It's important.

GLENN: Now, this is the part that I think we can actually use to help our own children. But some of this is really interesting.

First of all -- this is his apology now: First of all, I'd like to apologize to the members of the Reddit community for getting this site and this sub embroiled in a controversy that should never have happened. I would also like to apologize for the posts made that were racist, bigoted, and anti-Semitic. I am in no way that person. I love and accept people of all walks of life, and I've done so for my entire life.

Huh. Okay.

I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life. I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on Reddit and never meant any of the hateful things I said in these posts. I would never support any kind of violence or actions against others, simply for what they believe in, their religion, or their lifestyle they choose to have, nor would I carry out any violence against anyone based upon that or support anybody who did.

Do you believe that?

STU: You know, it's -- it's weird coming from someone who would post that kind of trash on the internet. But, I mean, it reads I think in an authentic way, does it not?

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: You know, someone who --

GLENN: I think there's a lot of people -- I think there's a lot of people -- I know I have responded kindly to people who are just trolls. And not so much anymore. But there were times when they would be like, "Oh, man, I was just kidding."

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And it was really -- people do try just to get a reaction.

STU: Totally, and I think it's a way for people to feel alive. And it says a hell of a lot about our society.

GLENN: It says a lot.

The meme was created purely as satire, he continues to write. It was not meant to be a call to violence against CNN or any other news affiliation. I had no idea anyone would take it and put sound to it and then put it up on the president's Twitter feed.

That's the question. Who did that?

It was a prank, nothing more. What the president's feed showed was not the original post posted here, but loaded up somewhere else and sounded added to it and then sent out to Twitter.

I think this is why they're accepting the apology. They're giving him credit to bring this to closer to the president.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Because who did that? Did the president have somebody do that?

I think this is why this is being accepted. Because it makes no sense to me. Something's wrong. Something's wrong.

And only because -- and I want to take people at face value. But you need more than one time of letting somebody go of something like this.

JEFFY: Well, there has to be a first time.

GLENN: There does. There does. There does.

It was a prank, nothing more. I thought it was the original post that was made, and that's why I took credit for it. I have the highest respect for the journalistic community. And they put their lives on the line every day with jobs that they do, reporting the news.

Okay.

PAT: They do?

STU: In war zones.

PAT: I mean, war correspondence maybe. But that's a pretty small percentage.

STU: Yes. An exaggeration of the --

PAT: Yes. Yes. They're not the military.

GLENN: To people that troll -- now, this is the part -- this is the part that I think is important to read to your family, to sit down and talk about, was this right -- play the video. Was this right? Was this right of the president to post it? Was it right for somebody who made it? Was the media's reaction right?

PAT: No.

GLENN: And just -- just talk to -- just talk to your kids about the difference between right and wrong. Because our kids look at the internet as a game.

To people who troll on the internet for fun, he writes, consider your words and the actions conveyed in your message and who it might upset or anger. Put yourself in their shoes before you post it.

I mean, I remember saying things, doing things, and then, you know, a friend of the family or somebody else would say, "Hey -- that I didn't know what was standing there -- what would your mother say about that?" And you would immediately freeze and go, "Yes, sir." That's as bad as it got for us, was just saying it to four or five of our stupid friends and getting caught.

It's totally different now. What this guy said got somehow or another to the president of the United States.

Put yourself in their shoes before you post it. If you have a problem with trolling it -- if you have a problem with trolling, it is an addiction just like any other addiction someone can have to something. And don't be embarrassed to ask for help.

That's powerful to say to your kids. And that goes to all of the studies that we're reading about now, that talk about the hits that you get in your head every time somebody likes what you've said.

STU: Studies and South Park episodes. Both -- both scientific genres are speaking about --

GLENN: Yes. I believe the South Park episode actually more.

Trolling is nothing more than bullying a wide audience. Don't feed your own self-worth based upon inflicting suffering upon others online, just because you're behind a keyboard.

I think that's a tremendous story.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: It's a good apology. I -- I just -- I can't help, but think that this has been blown way out of proportion. I mean, you know, it's Trump doing a wrestling move on somebody with CNN on their face. It wasn't really CNN.

STU: What? No, it said it right on his face.

PAT: He didn't really do this. Nothing happened in real life. It's just a dumb little, what? Five-second video?

STU: Yes.

PAT: It's just -- it's so out of proportion. We've just lost all connection with proportion now.

GLENN: No, because we've lost all connection with decorum. We've -- I mean, guys if Barack Obama would have done that with a teabag over a guy's head, we would have gone crazy, and the media would have said nothing. We would have gone crazy. We would have. We would have.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Yes, we would have.

STU: Yeah. Probably.

GLENN: If Barack Obama would have tweeted out something like that, and he had like a 9/12 Project and a Tea Party --

STU: I can -- I can imagine.

GLENN: Can you imagine? We would have gone crazy. We went crazy when he said, you know, and the car is in the ditch. And a bunch of Teabaggers, we're not going to let them drive. You'll put us in the ditch.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: A more exact example would be Fox News. Would we have gone crazy if it was Fox?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: Maybe.

GLENN: Yes. Yes, we would have.

PAT: He trashed Fox all the time.

STU: And we went crazy. And we went crazy.

PAT: And it was him. Literally him, not just the president retweeting him. It was him saying Fox was --

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: So...

GLENN: But we had a problem with it.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Yeah. That's --

GLENN: We had a real problem with it. And so it's not that this is a big deal. It's -- honestly, yesterday -- I should share this. I wrote something on Facebook, and it started with this premise, that the older I get, the less I hate things. You know, when you're a kid, you hate stuff. And your mom is always like, oh, no. You don't hate. You hate the actions that -- no, I hate the person, Mom. I hate them.

No, you hate their actions and the things that they do.

The older I get, the less I hate. The more I realize that things really, really matter, or they don't matter at all.

And the reason why this was going through my head yesterday was this tweet doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter at all.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: We're reading into it what we want to read into it. And we are reading into -- or, we are looking at a presidency that this -- this happens -- Bush was the last real president that tried to represent both sides. He tried to represent both sides.

He never was, well, tell them to go to hell. He did say that about -- you're either with us or against us, it came to conquering al-Qaeda and evil. But I'm okay with that one, but some people weren't. But he never went out -- I mean, he met with Cindy Sheehan and everything else. The president did not reach out to the right.

PAT: He didn't meet with her eight times. So...

GLENN: Right. So he never -- President Obama never reached out to the Tea Party heads, tried to really talk to the people.

PAT: Nope. No.

GLENN: Instead, you know, the IRS and Teabaggers and all this stuff. And this president has just upped that game. So we're just seeing -- we're just seeing an evolution of the presidency that I don't like. I didn't like it in the last one. I don't like it in this one. Some people don't mind it in this one because of what happened in the last one. Some people are minding it in this one because they didn't see it happening in the last one.

We saw it in both. I don't like it in either. I think that's a good place to be.

But it doesn't matter. What matters are the little things.

You know, when I -- when I wrote that yesterday, I don't hate, there are just things that matter and don't. And it's funny because a lot of the stuff that the media focuses on, really, it doesn't matter to me. The things that matter are the things I used to hate when I was a kid. Sitting down at the dinner table and having dinner every night. I was always like, I got to go. I got to go. I got another thing. I got practice. I have this. I have that. I've got to go.

I hated sitting down at dinner. I I had a --

PAT: What kind of practice did you have? Like violin? What sort of practice did you have to get to?

JEFFY: I had the same question.

STU: Pinochle. Pinochle. Was it -- what kind of --

GLENN: Theater and choir. Yes.

PAT: Theater. All right.

GLENN: There are other kinds of practices, you know.

JEFFY: Well, that's why we were asking.

STU: He was just trying to clarify.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So, anyway, had to go do stuff. Now, that's one of the most important things ever. It's just -- and I don't hate practice. I don't hate other things that you have to do. I just really love this. I just really love this. And I found meaning in the small things.

Which brings me to how I read this about Donald Trump and about CNN, you know, holding this guy hostage or whatever the hell is going on.

I don't care. That story, they can have it. They -- go further that story all you want. Here's what really needs to -- you need to know: The last paragraph of this three-paragraph apology, is one we should all be sitting down with our kids tonight and saying, here's news. I don't know what that means.

I mean, does any of this make you feel like it's right?

Now listen to what the guy said who made the original and was accused of this and did some really bad things. Look what he said.

Your self-worth does not come from this. It's addictive. Think of the other people on the receiving end, before you say really horrible things that you know you don't mean. Because it's real. Your voice -- just think of this lesson.

His voice, unbeknownst to him, made it to the president's desk. Don't tell me that you can't be heard in today's society.

Your voice is more powerful than you ever could imagine. And man's individual voice is more powerful than it's ever been since the creation of the earth and Adam first woke up.

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