We must become the UNITED States of America again

His portrait fades and his memory is gone.

An earthquake cracked his tower of stone

but his voice still cries “Charge on, Charge on!”

No surrender and no retreat,

First in war and first in peace,

A father, soldier and citizen,

He gave his soul to God, and his heart to his countrymen.

From Lady liberty to the California sun,

We keep looking for another one.

We will find our hope where we started from,

May God bless America with another George Washington!

When you give your soul to God and your heart to your countrymen.

-Lyrics from Tom Douglas’ “Washington”, Restoring Love – Cowboy Stadium 2012

Last night my family attended “Freedom Fire” with about 8000 Americans in a small town called Logan City. The little ones, having been raised too long in New York City and never been exposed to Kansas “City” didn’t understand how Logan was a “City”. I didn’t know how to answer other than saying, “size doesn’t define a city – the people do”. Pretty good for being as distracted as I was. I should have thought more deeply of the full meaning of that statement. It is true about a family or a country as well.

The “city”, upon learning that was going to be in attendance, had asked me, the day before the event, to say a few words. I agreed. The next morning, I saw story that I was going to “say something” on the front page of the local paper. Above the fold! Not something that would happen in that local New York “City” paper. That I was going to speak was not the point of the story, the point it seems was that I was going to “say something”.

As I read the story, I was struck by the fact that even though I had only agreed to speak around 4 pm the afternoon before, not only was it in the paper, but the reporter had found the time to learn of the “outrage” of some that had already called the Mayor and the University where the event would be held.

The local reporter asked for an interview as did the local radio station. In seeing that the radio station would air it live, so no edits or spin would be possible, I chose the radio station, which was not an affiliate of mine.

It was hosted by three really smart, fair and talented men. One left, one right and a libertarian. They were honest and frank. Two told me up front, they did not like me. The guy on the left and the conservative. I was so glad that I had chosen the radio station. It was a chance at honesty and real dialogue. In the end, I left a fan and with three new friends.

I spent forty minutes with them but only ten with the audience in the stadium where I was to 'say something'. I know the hosts heard the message, but because I didn’t get the one on one with the audience along with another important reason, I am not sure I was able to make myself clear to those in the stadium.

I also wasn’t able to speak with you on this holiday, so let me share with you the words that were on my heart that I think are important for me to say. Whether they are important to hear is up to you.

I know what I have said in the past was controversial. Some of it foolish, some of it wrong, some of it poorly worded. But on the same page, some of it right and some of it needed to be said. For those things that were said by me that caused needless division, I am deeply sorry. For those things that drew sharp lines around truth and deceit that were spoken out of a love of God, country, and a plea to return to common values - I do not regret that I said them. I do, however, regret that I had to be the one to say them.

The truth does set you free. But what, all too often, we overlook is that, many times, the truth will make you miserable first. It usually makes the messenger the most miserable first, because he knows that far too often he will be the one blamed. A messenger, loyal to the message, accepts that risk and relies on the hope that the message will at some point be heard.

Today I have another message that I regret having to deliver.

I believe we are a nation at, in or very near civil war.

The first shot hasn’t been fired yet. “Fondly do I hope and fervently do I pray – that this ‘mighty scourge’ might speedily pass away”, Lincoln said.

But if we are to reverse this course maybe we should look at his words again.

“Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looks to read the same bible, and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against each other. … but let us not judge lest we be judged. As it was said three thousand years ago, so it must be said, 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.'"

The first civil war pitted the North and South against each other and thousands died. But the fact is, that division still exists in many ways. It doesn’t seem to matter that “for every drop of blood drawn by the lash, was paid by another drawn with the sword.” The battle still rages, the wounds are not allowed to heal.

That was a civil war fought in the 1860s. It was over something that had to be stopped the scourge of slavery. If indeed I am correct in my assessment that we are in a cold civil war, not north vs. south, but neighbor against neighbor, let me ask: What is this conflict over?

I would answer: The Truth. There really is only one truth. We can disagree on healthcare and taxes. But the truth is not subjective in cases like the VA. Are there secret waiting lists so workers gain bonuses? Yes. Are we killing US citizens with drones without a trial? Yes. Is the NSA spying on you, me, members of Congress and terrorists? Yes. Are we enforcing the rule of law equally and blindly? No.

But if I asked the average person in the street what is this conflict over - what would they say? In the end, it would boil down to our ‘uniforms’. Republicans vs. Democrats.

“He started it!”

“oh yeah, well you were the one…”

It is at this point the adult in the room is supposed to say firmly;

“Knock it off!”

Where are the responsible adults? We agree on the truth. At least the Left voted against these things under Bush, while the Republicans defended them. Now, in this never ending game of musical chairs the roles are reversed.

This was my point last night and will be my point and message going forward in clearer and specific examples: I will take responsibility for my actions. I will tell you that I was wrong on the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, drones and in many ways, the Republican Party. The Left was right.

Will you join me? Put your sword and shield down. Don’t worry about the splinter in the others eye, but instead take the beam out of yours. I don’t have a beam by the way, I believe I have an entire forest to remove from my eyes so I will be very busy for quite awhile.

We must again become the UNITED States of America again. It may be our last chance to save the Union that has indeed changed the world.

We have so much in common. More than any of us want to even admit. But the biggest is our heritage. At some point someone in our family came to these shores because the Constitution offered an opportunity for a better life. Even though those whose ancestors were brought here for the most evil of all of man’s desires, have a life is better than it would have been if they were born anywhere else on the planet. For all of our problems, that is not a fact that can be disputed. It does not justify the act, but it allows one to make sense of the senseless and move forward and build a positive life.

But, we have an even greater heritage, our common ancestry to a Heavenly Father. We indeed are brothers and sisters whether we like it or not. We are family, and just like family we are not required to agree or even always like each other. But as our Eternal Father commands, we must “love each other”. My earthly dad put it this way, “When all is said and done, we are still family and that never changes. In the end, family is all that matters and all that we’ve got.”

Let me say again, I am not just sorry for ‘how you may have interpreted’ the things that I have said in the past. I am actually deeply sorry for things I have said and done that have helped drive the wedge between us deeper. I ask for your forgiveness. I do not expect you to forget.

But I do ask you to understand a man cannot change overnight, he can only try to be better everyday. I will make mistakes again, I will say things that are stupid again. I live 4 out of every 24 hours live on air. I challenge you to not look for my mistakes, but perhaps spend time working on where you may be in error.

No matter if I am a perfect man from here on out, or if I were even hit by a bus today, the story will never be written: “Glenn Beck changes his life, or killed in freak bus accident – America heals”.

For America to heal, we must actively “bind up this nations wounds – to care for those who have fought this great battle, their widows and orphans.” We must be the good Samaritan. We must bind the wounds, care for and actually love those we supposedly hate or hate us.

Let us begin this Independence weekend by embracing each other on the bigger principles. Let us declare ourselves independent of the “old world”, full of old stereotypes and thoughts. Let us, let go of people telling us who we are, what to think or what to do. Let us view our problems as “liberating strife” and begin the long process of being better men and women than we were even five minutes before.

Let it be sung of us:

“who more than self, their country loved –

And mercy more than life”

We have no King but a Heavenly King. He commands us to love one another while the kings of this earth tell us to hate one another. We, each, need to ask ourselves: which King will I serve?

Let us unite at the feet of our American Father Abraham. Abraham Lincoln. Let us BEGIN to “bind up the wounds of this nation with malice toward none and charity toward all.”

It is my prayer that I may look back on this coming year and say quietly and meekly to myself that I did the best I could to live worthy of the stewardship of those rights and responsibilities that God has seen fit to graciously shed on me.”

I wonder if the “city” paper reported above the fold that I have now “said something?” If they actually heard me, they did. If they didn’t, perhaps it was because I didn’t state it as clearly as I did here. I hope they understand and forgive my reasons. Last night, I didn’t want to say anything overtly political at the ceremony marking our political birth.

I will continue to attempt to find my way in the days to come so in the end all success will be nobleness and every gain divine.

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.