An open letter to James Madison

March 20, 2018

The Glenn Beck Program

To the Honorable James Madison

Dear Sir,

I am writing to request your help and guidance. It has been some 230 years since you wrote the Constitution of the United States of America, a document I believe you had intended to establish a permanent, cohesive Democratic Republic --- the first of its kind on the face of the earth. In that document, you and your colleagues outlined a government that would be subservient to the people, deriving its powers from the consent of the governed.

Having been through decades of rule by a despotic king and parliament you did not elect, you laid out a framework for a government with very limited powers. Instead of creating a powerful, centralized government, your Constitution instead set forth a system that would ensure the people would retain their natural rights and individual states would retain their own sovereignty and control over their own destinies.

Our constitutional rights are under attack, ‘there’s going to be nothing left’

Your Constitution specified a government that would be in balance, with an elected bicameral legislature designed to ensure rural, agricultural states would not be ruled by densely populated urban states.

Your document laid forth three branches of government, with each branch having the power to curb the power of the others --- designed to prevent any branch of government from developing the power to take away the rights of the people or of the states.

And while the Constitution details very limited powers granted to the government, it also provides for the flexibility of being able to be amended by the people when they determine their freedom and security might be better served with new powers they choose to grant to the government, or powers they wish to take back from it.

In short, you wrote the Constitution to secure the blessings of liberty to yourself and your posterity, to create upon this earth a great experiment: a nation of individuals who would self-govern, where the government would never be allowed to steal the freedom and wealth of its people.

Your experiment has failed.

Well, sir, I regret to inform you that your experiment has failed. Your Constitution didn't work.

If the goal of the Constitution was to form a government that had limited power over its people and would never grow to deprive people of their liberty, their property and their lives, then it was a failure.

Don't get me wrong, it had a really good run.

The nation you helped to found quickly grew to become the most powerful nation on earth. Freedom was let loose upon this land, and the ingenuity of the people of the United States, unencumbered by a controlling, centralized government was able to build the most prosperous, wealthy and powerful country that has ever existed in the world.

With liberty assured to its citizens, the country you built has been to the moon. We have lifted billions of people around the world out of poverty. We have harnessed the power of the atom. We have vehicles with the power of 800 horses under the hood.

Mr. Madison, the nation you envisioned in your Constitution was real for a while. With the government out of their way, the people did what you thought they would: they flourished.

However, it didn't last.

Today in the nation you founded, we have lost those freedoms you detailed so thoroughly. The Constitution, designed to ensure a government of limited powers, is largely ignored and forgotten. The government no longer feels compelled to pay any heed to your document. The people of your nation are no longer secure in their own homes.

The government listens to all their conversations without warrants. The government steals their wealth at its own whim. The government's authority is not limited by the Constitution you wrote. Today in your nation, legislators who stand in defense of your Constitution are openly ridiculed in the media and on the floor of Congress for having old-fashioned thinking that is out of date. The government of today dictates to us what we are allowed to eat, to watch, to say, to purchase.

Our government determines for us what medicine we can take when we're sick, what our religious leaders are allowed to say from the pulpit, how fast we can drive our cars and what firearms we are allowed to have to defend ourselves. Our government openly spies upon us, forces our children to go to schools that it controls and takes our wealth at the point of a gun to fund endless wars across every continent on earth.

I'm writing to beg for your help.

In short, Mr. Madison, I'm writing to beg for your help. I need your help to understand. You see, you wrote the Constitution with what appears to be a fatal flaw: in order to fulfill its function of ensuring a government with limited powers that is incapable of taking away the rights of its citizens, it relies upon people.

The Constitution holds so much promise for a people, but it also relies on them to live it, to enforce it.

Today, if a Senator or House member stands to speak of limited government, they are shouted down as someone who must hate children, or must hate minorities or women. Today, our government is expected by the people to solve every perceived problem for every person and group on earth. Today, the government must control the weather, they must end disease and poverty, they are expected to ensure people don't get fat, don't get addicted to drugs, don't get concussions playing sports. The government must control hate and ensure nobody's feelings get hurt. Today, people willingly trade their freedom for the illusion of safety.

This great evil --- where did it come from? How did it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from? Who is doing this? Who is killing us, robbing us of life and light, mocking us with the sight of what we might have known?

Does our ruin benefit the earth? Does it help the grass to grow, the sun to shine?

Is this darkness in you, too? Have you passed through this night? Did you imagine the evil in your era, James?

I suppose it is unfair to judge you too harshly. After all, you did design and build the most powerful, free and wealthy nation that has ever existed. You designed a country that would see human beings for the wonderful creatures they are, that would respect their nature as a species, that would let them think and act freely.

Your document, in its simple brilliance, respects man as man is by his nature: a self-aware being of free will, endowed by its creator with inalienable rights that are neither granted to it nor dependent upon any other person or group. Rights that belong to each of us simply because we exist at all.

I wonder what you might say to us today. What might you say to Senator Mike Lee or Ted Cruz or Congressmen Thomas Massie, just before they stand up on the floor of Congress to defend some passage in your Constitution? What might you say to a school teacher when she gets to the chapter in the textbook that covers the Founding Fathers?

What might you say to me, sir? I, who have been a staunch defender of your document for most of my adult life. I, who have defended those in government who still try to live by your document?

Maybe you'd say:

Dear Mr. Beck, thank you for your note.
Sorry, the whole Free Nation thing didn't work out, good luck in the gulags.

Or maybe you'd say:

Glenn,
Don't give up on it, keep on defending your liberty, as we did in my day when a government stood against us to snuff it out.

Or maybe you'd tell us all the simple truth. The Constitution is just writing on a piece of paper. It only has the power you choose to grant it. Your freedom and liberty are not guaranteed by a piece of paper, nor could they ever be. They are secured and guaranteed by each of you, acting and working together to ensure your fellow citizens don't act to deprive you of them. Maybe you'd say:

It is not that the Constitution failed the people, Mr. Beck. It's that the people have failed The Constitution.

- Glenn Beck

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.

Glenn's Show Prep