Three Things You Need to Know - December 5, 2017

Finally Banned... Maybe?

The US Supreme Court has finally, definitely, possibly… ok maybe temporarily Greenlit the travel ban. Are we ever going to get some kind of finality on this? This version of the ban - the third if anyone’s still counting - was issued FOUR months ago. It’s currently facing ongoing opposition from two lower courts in two separate challenges. Those cases will be heard this week, so that temporary win for the administration might end up be a short celebration.

You’ve really gotta give it to the Social Justice Warrior activists, media AND politicians. It’s pretty impressive how they can take any issue AT ALL, and turn it into Social Justice jihad. Are you Pro-Life? Well then you somehow hate women. Are you pro-religious liberty? Wow… what a fascist bigot you are. I would’ve loved to be a fly on the wall at the strategy table for when they began to strategize how to spin the travel ban.

“Quick guys what do all these countries have in common?”

Nerdy guy in the back raises his hand… “umm, they all have a lot of sand? Trump hates desert climates!”

“Nice thought! Maybe we could spin a climate change argument here. Quick! More ideas!”

Brainy girl with glasses stands up… “Uh, all these areas are conflict zones?”

“YOU IDIOT! That’s the stupidest idea we’ve heard. You can’t just say that and not follow it up with an agenda. Here, let me do the work for you… ‘these are unstable areas. A prime example of the effects of global colonialism.’ Boom.”

“Wait a minute. Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Chad. There’s a lot of Muslims in these areas! Change the wording from ‘Trump’s Travel Ban’ to ‘A Travel Ban On Muslim Majority Countries.’ Of course there is that small issue of North Korea and Venezuela, but screw it. Done and done!”

Back to reality here for a second. If this truly were a Muslim ban then why the addition of North Korea and Venezuela? Why wouldn’t you add in the most populous Muslim countries in the world? Indonesia has 13% of the world’s Muslim population and thus the largest. India’s number 2 and Pakistan is number 3. The only country in the travel ban the breaks the top 10 is Iran.

Why are people so comfortable with putting a false Social Justice agenda ahead of National Security? Maybe it’s because the people pushing this will never have to live with the consequences? How many of them live in neighborhoods that will be overrun by illegal immigrants or refugee resettlements? I’m going to wager very few. Look at Hawaii. The state that has become famous for overruling the Travel ban. Since 2010 Hawaii has accepted a grand total of TEN refugees. That’s less than 1%. And non of their legal immigrants come anywhere close to the conflict areas listed on the Travel Ban… oh, but they’re all about allowing North Korea to stay on the ban list. So here’s to a little safety...well, for the next few days at least.

Conservative Principle Put Into Practice

After eight years of progressivism gone wild under President Obama, it’s startling when something conservative actually happens in government.

Yesterday, President Trump was in Utah to sign proclamations that reduce the size of two National Monuments – Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. The monuments were created by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Keep in mind, all that Trump did yesterday was reduce the size of these monuments, he did not abolish them altogether.

However, Trump clearly hates the environment. At least that’s the predictable mainstream media take on his action. He doesn’t care about nature, he just wants to open protected lands so evil developers can swoop in and build condos.

The kind of national monument I’m talking about isn’t a statue, it’s land that Congress, or a president, is allowed to set aside and protect as a “historic landmark” of some kind. Once the land is declared a national monument, it’s closed to ranching, mining, recreation, or development of any kind – even if the local community doesn’t want the land to be protected as a national monument. In fact, often the local community actually needs the land for things like making a living.

This power to create national monuments comes from a provision in the 1906 Antiquities Act. That kind of provision is like giving crack to a Progressive. Bill Clinton, and then especially Barack Obama went crazy during their presidencies, scooping up ridiculous amounts of land for the federal government as national monuments. Obama declared more national monuments than any president in history. Congress has only declared 30 monuments in the 111 years since the Act – Barack Obama and Bill Clinton declared 41 monuments just between the two of them.

Trump has already been criticized for his “unprecedented use of presidential power” yesterday to reduce the size of Bears Ears by 85% and Grand Staircase by 50%. But where was the criticism of Barack Obama’s “unprecedented use of presidential power” to create 265 million acres of new National Monuments? The Left didn’t care, they thought it was heroic.

President Trump is not a true conservative, but this should be applauded for the rare thing it is – a conservative principle actually put into practice. Local control of land usage makes sense. Obama’s federal land grabs were an absolute overreach. There’s nothing wrong with Trump trying to fix those abuses.

Charitable Slushfund

A $750 birthday cake.

$13,582 for a Beyonce concert.

$15,000 on a Jaguars box.

And $89,852 on a bus trip from Jacksonville in 2013 for President Barack Obama's second inauguration.

Those are just some of the ways former U.S. Representative Corrine Brown used the funds from her charity “One Door for Education.”

The $800,000 that was donated to the charity under the pretense that it would be used for scholarships was actually used as Brown’s personal slush fund.

Of the $800,000, only two scholarships were ever awarded. They amounted to a paltry $1,200.

After serving nearly 25 years in Congress, Brown received her punishment for this disgusting fraud. On Monday, a federal judge sentenced her to five years in prison.

During sentencing, the federal judge called Brown actions “especially shameless.” He continued, “This was a crime born out of entitlement and greed committed to ensure a lifestyle that was beyond her means.”

Just think of the good that Corrine Brown could have been done with that money instead of throwing lavish parties and going shopping. Think of all the children she could have helped. Now, Brown’s legacy is one of avarice and greed and unnecessary Beyoncé concerts. A legacy far worse than that of even Ebenezer Scrooge.

MORE 3 THINGS

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

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.