The art of misdirection: The Left is manipulating the narrative on gun-control

June 29, 2018

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

CEO/Founder

The Art of War by Sun Tzu is largely predicated on misdirection as a tactical strength in warfare. In it, he advises:

Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.

The attentive viewer, the careful listener can spot even the cleverest misdirection. It's that nagging feeling, that twinge in your gut, the suspicion that something just ain't right. You can sense a con and you don't like it. You can tell that something sinister is at play. The media has perfected an agenda-setting approach to news that is deception at its finest. They control the narrative, the framing, the output of information.

So when the media swarmed around the February 14th massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, many of us suspected that something else was going on.

Why all the focus on this killing? Why now? Why such vigor? Why didn't the Las Vegas killer provoke the same reaction? And how did the entire thing turn into a circus of protests and outrage so intense that most of us forgot where we should even be looking?

As Sun Tzu wrote, "In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity."

Politicians on the Left, along with the media, have a permanent anti-gun stance that they will move mountains to promote.

According to the media, our attention was meant to be trained on two things: Guns and the teenager victims. Politicians on the Left, along with the media, have a permanent anti-gun stance that they will move mountains to promote.

Just like we've seen lately with the media suddenly caring about children on the border when it's actually been a problem for years, for the Left, the end always justifies the means. When it comes to guns, they have their "guns are the problem" story and they stick to it religiously.

The Left is motivated on all fronts to skirt the truth and broadcast their doctrine.

In the Parkland case, the media framed a group of smart, charismatic kids, who, being kids, loved the chance to be rock stars, without ever realizing that they were tools in the whole scheme — and don't balk at the term "rock star." It's not hyperbole. The group is currently on a 70-city tour, the "March for Our Lives: Road to Change."

From the start, Hogg and his classmates proved impervious to criticism. They actually thrive on it — painting themselves as victims of gun rights advocates has become part of their foundation. Using these children as representatives, the media was able to push a gun-control narrative, and accuse critics of verbally abusing children anytime that narrative was challenged. Where, then, should we redirect our gaze?

For starters, there's the mass killer himself. Since 2010, police had been called to the killer's home 39 times. Multiple requests were sent to the Broward County Sheriff's Office to have the killer's cache of rifles taken away. Online, he posted pictures of bloodied dead frogs and said things like: "I wanna shoot people with my AR-15" and "I'm going to be a professional school shooter." In another post from his now-deleted Instagram account, the shooter posted a photo of a bullet-riddled target and the caption: "Group therapy. Sometimes it works." The killer had been expelled from the campus he would eventually terrorize and teachers were told to remain alert. Even the FBI had been warned. The agency received important information about the killer but chose not to follow up.

The school district, the Broward County Sheriff's Department, the FBI — all failed to stop the killer.

The media has portrayed the killer as a product of Trump's America when in reality, he is a shining example of incompetence at every level short of the office of the President. The school district, the Broward County Sheriff's Department, the FBI — all failed to stop the killer.

It's no secret the Broward County Sheriff's Department has conducted themselves poorly from the very start. The day of the killing, police from nearby Coral Springs arrived at the school to find officers from Broward County hunkered down behind their squad cars outside the school. According to news sources, the Coral Springs officers have expressed resentment toward the Broward Country officers "about what they perceived to be a dereliction of duty."

Then there's the car. No, not the Lamborghini (which turned out to be on loan from a local dealership, in 2014, for a Toys for Tots charity). I'm talking about this car — or, more specifically, this tweet:

Our new #dodge #charger. Do you like the paint job? pic.twitter.com/l6EfKxuaru
— Broward Sheriff (@browardsheriff) June 24, 2018

The car, like most repurposed police cars, is more than likely a confiscated car, meaning the department did not spend taxpayer dollars on it. The issue here is more about how tone-deaf the tweet is. And, honestly, given the Department's record, they probably should've gone with a Prius or even a scooter. Or, better yet, they could've auctioned the car off and donated the money to a meaningful cause. Maybe even just wait until a year or so had passed, then get back to tweeting like a teenager again.

Although, in this case, a tweeting teenager, Kyle Kashuv, made far more sense of the whole ordeal with his criticism of the Broward County Sheriff's Department:

Coward of Broward https://t.co/cItenVsRDO
— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) March 28, 2018

Most recently, we learned about Andrew Medina and David Taylor, two security guards at the school who could have prevented the entire killing, but chose cowardice instead. One of the guards, Medina, saw the killer approaching the school and failed to phone in a code red.

"I'm telling you I knew who the kid was," Medina told investigators. "Because we had a meeting about him last year and we said, 'If there's gonna be anybody who's gonna come to this school and shoot this school up, it's gonna be that kid.'"

Regarding the killer's threat, Taylor said the same thing: "Not only me, but all of our security personnel. I would say everybody [knew]."

Yet, upon seeing the killer approaching the school in military gear, Medina radioed Taylor, who briefly encountered the killer, then huddled to safety in a janitor's closet.

To make matters worse, Medina had previously sexually harassed Meadow Pollack, one of the victims of the killing. He'd asked her out for drinks, so aggressively that she complained to the school. A report on the matter notes that she and another student "became so uncomfortable with Mr. Medina's comments and actions, they sought out different routes to their classes in an attempt to avoid him."

Why has the media largely shrugged off or ignored new details surrounding the killing? As facts continue to emerge, we gain a fuller picture of the tragedy that occurred that day, and the myriad mistakes that brought it to life. Yet the media has chosen to depict the shooting as strictly a gun-related issue.

No one is pursuing truth — everyone is just persuing victory.

It wasn't the guns — it was the combination of a mentally disturbed teenager, with city, county and school district corruption. But in order to cover their own backsides, public officials were eager to cede the spotlight to the photogenic Parkland students, who in turn provided the media with the holy grail of anti-gun propaganda material.

In the words of Sun Tzu:

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

From gun-control to border-control, the nation's over-the-top rhetoric has reached an unsustainable level. No one is pursuing truth — everyone is just pursuing victory.

Now, outside the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, Trump supporters are throwing feces at people like monkeys. I can only say "monkeys" here because I'm talking about Republicans. I'd be a racist if I said that and it was Democrats flinging poop.

At what point does this rhetoric spill over into civil war? It would be easy to do with 400 million guns out there. Even then, God forbid, it wouldn't be guns causing the war, it would be the people. Guns didn't cause the Civil War in 1861 either.

If we're going to survive, we have to stop all the instant outrage and ground ourselves in principles and in the truth.

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