As the War Drums Begin to Beat, Echoes of the Fear From the Cold War Era Come Back to Mind

Last night, I came home, and I turned on the news. It was 8 o'clock last night, I was so exhausted. I just laid down on my bed and my son came in. And he laid down next to me and he was talking to me about the car chase videos that he had seen. These amazing car chase videos where, you know, the police are chasing these guys. "They're so stupid. And, Dad, how could they possibly think they're going to get away?" I was less than a great dad last night. I was so tired. And the news was on.

And he told me about a few of the car chases. And I think he could tell that I was distracted. And he just paused. And he then just kind of looked at the news. And he said, "What's happening, Dad?"

Now, they were talking about everything that was going on with North Korea.

I said, "I'm not sure, son." Not lying to him. But I didn't need to fill him with my fears.

I said, "I don't know. But, you know, the world has seen this stuff before. The Cuban missile crisis was the last time we saw something like this perhaps, and we backed away from the brink." Thanks to X-Men, I didn't have to explain the Cuban missile crisis to him. He had seen that in the movies.

I'm not so sure this time that we are the people or that even the press is behaving the same. Last night, it felt almost as if the press was egging the president on, just egging him on. "Come on. Come on. You're not going to have any credibility unless you back it up."

"Gee, Mr. President, you can't just say things like that." I never heard that during the Obama administration. And I -- and maybe it was just me. Maybe this was not what was being said, but this is what I heard last night, that we are entering a position to where we have to go to war. We have to do something now or we have no credibility.

No. You know, perhaps we don't have to do anything, except the right thing. Because of our credibility? What credibility do we have, for the love of Pete?

I was watching it last night, and I saw Kim Jong-un. He's not crazy.

I did a whole chalkboard, a whole entire episode on Kim Jong-un, which --- you need to understand, he's not a crazy guy. He's not. You think he is. But he's not.

He's actually quite measured. He is in his own country, if you understand who he's speaking to, who his audience is, he's ruthless. He is evil, but he's not crazy.

The one thing he can't do is back down. He cannot look like he is under the thumb of the United States, or he will lose power.

As I was watching this last night, what was going through my head was, why are they so far ahead of the estimates? Where is that coming from? How are we that bad at intelligence in North Korea? And if so, could it also be that they don't have working nuclear weapons that are, you know, able to go on the ICBM? Is that possible?

So what kind of faulty information could we be operating under? And I'm not one to bury my head in the sand. How will we know what's good information and what's not? And how are they so far ahead? Is Russia or Iran helping them? Is anyone else involved in this?

Personally, I'm a big fan of our president making promises and then keeping them. I was a big fan of what he did in Syria. However, we're way over that self-imposed red line. We've been over that red line that we put out there --- you know, months ago we've crossed that line. Let's stop ratcheting up the rhetoric because we have to. No, no, no, we don't. Perhaps this is a time to say, hey, it looks like all of the past presidents have failed on North Korea.

That the world has failed on North Korea. And the time to act on a rogue state is before they have nuclear weapons. Most Americans don't begin to even understand what war with North Korea even really means.

And let me tell you really clearly: It could mean the end of the western way of life. It could mean millions of dead, unlike anything we've seen since World War II. Millions of dead.

The collapse of the western economies. And perhaps nukes used on Japan, Guam, Los Angeles, all from North Korea. And us using most likely tactical nukes.

We've missed the opportunity. The world did nothing. Former presidents have failed because they've appeased or ignored or were in a dream world. Let's not blame this president for the mistakes of the past presidents. And let's not encourage this president to act hastily.

How long before Iran has nukes? I don't know if Kim Jong-un will use nukes, but I am really pretty clear that anybody who is saying that the Mahdi, the Twelfth Imam, who is the Promised One from their, you know, religious scripture, that is going to come and bring fire and death and wash the world in blood and fire --- any president of --- of the supreme council now in Iran, who is coming out and making statement day after day, the Mahdi is here, he has arrived, he's walking among us, and soon, that day will come. And they believe in their religion, that that is a good thing, those guys will use nukes. What are we doing on that one?

The media never paid attention to that. They won't pay attention. I could say that until I'm blue in the face. They wouldn't pay attention to the caliphate. "Oh, that's just talk." Really? Was it just talk? Was it?

And so you lectured me about how you can't take people at their word. And yet, last night, all I saw on television was the excoriation on television and how we have to take him at his word, when everybody in America knows, he did not mean we're going to rain nukes down on North Korea. At least everybody in America knows that.

The rest of the world doesn't. North Korea doesn't. It was a huge mistake. But for you to hold him to his language and say how important language is when you're a leader of a state, but then never to have held North Korea or Iran to their language, when you've never held the PLO to their language, the Muslim Brotherhood to their language, please, don't start with me.

I didn't tell my son any of these things last night. He fell asleep next to me holding my hand. He was not afraid. He was not worried. He wasn't thinking about any of the things that were going through my head.

And as I watched television, I remembered I was his age when I was worried about missiles flying over the polar cap, that I knew 18 minutes from the Soviet Union to Seattle, 30 minutes tops, the only warning you would have. I grew up in the Cold War. Anybody who is my age knows and is not looking forward to going back to a world where you and your children are afraid of things like that.

I watched in my head those scenes that I could vividly remember of Jason Robards in the movie The Day After. And now that I'm old, I realized that that came out in 1983. Why? Because Ronald Reagan was calling them the evil empire and talking tough. And the Democrats didn't want to talk tough on the communist nation and the Soviet Union. They thought that was the fastest way to nuclear annihilation. They have been proven wrong. But now knowing what I know as an adult, that movie was not to tell the American people anything, other than: Your president is evil.

A loud commercial came on and brought me out of that memory and back to where I was, laying side by side over the blankets, horizontally across my bed with my son, watching the news of the day. And as I came back in, I realized he hadn't been holding my hand. I had been holding his.

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.