Glenn: "We are going to double down"

I'm sorry if ‑‑ for those people who want to lick their wounds and have a pity party, this show is not for you today. If you want to talk just about politics, you want to talk about the Republican strategy for, you know, 2016, this is not your show today. This is not the one. This is not the place you should be. I am not interested quite honestly in hearing the concession speech of Barack Obama. I turned it off. He could be the nicest man in the world; he could be the Antichrist. Doesn't matter to me anymore. I am really, really ‑‑ you know, I've been saying to you for a while and I've been saying it even stronger off air to my business partners and everybody else: I don't know how we survive. If he doesn't win, meaning Mitt Romney ‑‑ and I didn't think Mitt Romney was the savior. I disagreed with a lot of Mitt Romney's policies. But what I agreed with an Mitt Romney was he was a decent, honest, honorable man. And half of the country doesn't put value in honor anymore. In honesty. It seems half of the country, they voted for assisted suicide, and it's funny because we're talking about actual physician‑assisted suicide and then figurative national suicide.

So I sat there on my set last night and what I said, I think about this time yesterday, was I caught myself halfway in the middle of a monologue and I think I cleared my throat and I said, I'm biting my tongue here to say things that I ‑‑ hopefully I won't have to say tomorrow. But I got up yesterday at 3:00 in the morning and I knew. And I couldn't sleep and I started to say my prayers and I got up and kneeled down by the edge of my bed and I knew that ‑‑ or I suspected that my mind's not God's mind, and the peace and the comfort that he had given me and so many of my friends was not about an election. God's about a bigger picture than an election or a candidate. God is about the freedom of mankind. God is about the Constitution, which is a divinely inspired. Just like those Christians that rolled up the Dead Sea Scrolls and put them in pots. I don't know what happened to those Christians but they hid them. They hid them and they preserved them because it was important. The Bible was never wiped out, but the people who originally wrote the Bible were scattered. I don't know what the future holds for the country, I don't know what the future holds for business, I don't know what the future holds for the dollar but I will tell you this: Do your own homework. I said over the summer, you know what really scares me is I'm always wrong about politics. I can't ‑‑ I can't tell you what's going to happen in politics, and I guess my arrogance or misunderstanding of the peace and comfort that I felt in my prayers that I thought I did understand politics. No, I didn't understand politics and I also didn't understand God, and I also didn't understand the American people, or at least half of them. But the other half I know. The other half I know because I'm just like the other half. There are times that I'm afraid, there's times that I'm discouraged. There's times that I don't want to go on. I said to my wife, this is what led me to wake up at 3:00 in the morning yesterday. I had said to my wife, "Honey, when Mitt Romney is elected, things will settle down a bit and we'll be able to ease up a little bit." I hadn't seen my wife really for more than five minutes a day or spoken to her on the phone for more than five minutes a day in the last four or five weeks. I was always on the road, she was on the road. I was busy doing other things. And I went to sleep that night with the comfortable feeling that I believed the lie that I had just shared with my wife and that is that things would calm down. And when I woke up at 3:00 in the morning, I realized, boy, that's not going to work because we have way too much work to do and we haven't fixed it for that cliff, if you invert that fiscal cliff or the cliff that we have made for ourself on almost every front, the educational cliff, the societal cliff, not just the fiscal cliff. If you invert that, it's a mountain. And we hadn't even begun to climb the mountain yet. How could we possibly take the steam out of our shovel? We can't.

His work and his glory is not for a presidential election. It's for the salvation of all mankind. And that requires freedom. So his agenda is freedom, and we have esteemed it too lightly.

Last night literally minutes after the election was called, I went to ‑‑ I went to work, first understanding what we had just witnessed and then quickly moving into what needed to be done. By 6:30 this morning I sat in my studio and brought my staff in, and some had red, puffy eyes. Some of them just because they were tired and they're like, "You are a slave driver!" And others because they had a very bad night.

At the time where there is a reason to tell you right now to hunker down, at the time when there is a reason to tell you pull in the oars, pare back to essentials, prepare for the worst, I came in this morning and I ‑‑ first thing I said to the president of my company: Double down. We're going to double down.

As our meeting broke this morning, I instructed my staff to develop a plan to expand, and I ask anybody with business sense to try to grab me by the shoulders right now and say, "What, are you nuts?" But I know I will look you in the eye and say probably. But it's suicide to sit back. And not just for my company and your company but for the country. We don't have the luxury of time. I've been telling you for a while and I've been telling my own staff, if the president wins, I don't know how we survive. I don't know how we survive the regulation that is coming from my country. I don't know how we're going to survive the pressure and the tactics because he has more flexibility now and they remember their enemies I don't know how we're going to survive because I won't compromise. I won't make a deal with the devil. And I urge you to hold me to that because I have a feeling it's going to get tough. My faith in God and the continued promise of this country has led me to take other steps other than to cower, other than to pare down. I thought we would have two to four years to be able to get this to be a voice of truth, and if you have been following at all on TheBlaze, I have ‑‑ I have stuck a stick in almost everybody's eye, in the book publishing world and the radio world, as we are now our own publishers and now our own radio network as well, in the Internet world, as we are now just Buzz Feed just said that we are the equivalent of the Huffington Post in so many words. We're much smaller, but they're AOL Time‑Warner. We're the rights, the Huffington Post, and we're only a year old. I have stuck a stick in all of the networks because I believe that they are a thing of the past, and the only way for them to survive is on government dollars which will eventually make them the government shill.

I don't owe a man a dime, and I'm building a network that is very different, and I'm building a network and the things that I will show you in March, I'm building a whole system, an ecosystem that will be afraid of no man because we will help each other. And it's way beyond news and information and entertainment. It is all really truly about small business, and I'll reveal those plans to you as we get closer in March.

I told my staff this morning over the next few months we have to add programming to our television and radio network and expand our news‑gathering capability on TheBlaze.com. We are no longer going to be a blog site. We are going to be a news site. We are no longer going to be a fledgling Internet and small satellite‑driven television network. We are going to be a real television network with a real news department. We are going to hyperfocus our attention. We are going to provide courage and inspiration and truth. We will expose and we will lift up. We will not tear down.

I asked this morning the head of our news programming to develop the following: First, a Nightline‑style show that tracks the elements in the world that works toward the demise of our country and the Western way of life and our most precious ally Israel. This is something that I have been quietly working behind the scenes for a while but it's going to cost me about $4 million a year to do it and do it right. It will have assets in Israel, it will have assets in Europe, in Canada, in South America, in Asia, and here in the United States. The production cost alone is $4 million and that's if I cut corners.

I told my news developer today that I want to launch a replacement for 60 Minutes. Not today's 60 Minutes but the ones from years ago that actually pursued the truth regardless of politics and held those accountable based on right and wrong, not left and right, one that doesn't have to worry about sponsorships, one that holds people accountable and to hell with the consequences; it's the truth. You'd be shocked to learn how many influential people contact TheBlaze, either directly or through intermediaries with stories the mainstream media chooses to ignore, and I mean every, every corner of the mainstream media, stories of tantamount importance to you and the country. We must expand our ability and we must do it now. No one is going to tell the truth soon. Have you noticed the changes and the drift in the media? And I'm not talking about MSNBC. Have you noticed the drift in the media? You have to ask yourself why. The answer is fear. Sponsors. Investors. Debt. And did I mention fear?

I also ask for a show concept that teaches the real history of our country, that will focus on the Constitution. I ask this morning to have an actual banner made will that will hang from the studio of my offices here in Dallas and also in New York and soon in Washington D.C., our studios there. It will say these words: The Constitution now and forever. We're not going to look at the revisionist and apologist version of history contained in our textbooks but real history and actual constitutional principles. We have to know it. And finally one thing that I hadn't planned on debuting really truly for about 18 months, not in a show form, and I don't know. It might be 18 months, it might be two years from now, unless I have your help. But the American Dream Labs television show. This is a program that will highlight the dreams and dreamers of this country, that are absolutely essential and key. We must teach them to our children. We must show the way out. We must find the way out together. I'm tired of talking about green energy. Real solutions that are here, now. Who can build them, how can we build them, and education. New and sometimes outrageous ideas. Any one, any one of these could transform an economy and restart the magic furnace of innovation that defined this country for so many years.

I also ask to look immediately at expanding the reporting capabilities of TheBlaze.com. We are not going to be a blog site. We are not going to take other people's work and just mirror them on our site much longer. And I am asking you for your help on a couple of things. These steps are vital, but I have to have your help. This network, this company is funded by me and by you. That's it. And I'm at my limit. It cost tens of millions of dollars. I've been told not to say how much but it's ‑‑ I was told, and I said, good God almighty, what? I'm not the guy who does the finances. I'm the guy who spends the money unfortunately. I need you to help me on this. We have to double our subscriptions. I wasn't planning on asking you this until this morning, but I thought we'd have more time and I'm telling you we're going to run out of time. I need to double our subscriptions. I promise you I'm going to spend every single dime on innovation. I promise you I'm going to spend every dime on telling the truth. I am not doing this to get rich. Believe me I don't think money's going to be worth an awful lot very long. The truth is going to be worth a fortune.

If you haven't subscribed, I need you to go to theblaze.com/TV and sign up now. Please. Please. Please. Right now about 300,000 people keep this network up and running, and may God richly bless your sacrifice, as you give us the strength and the power to deliver value for your investment. Find a friend or two or three and introduce the network to them. If you have friends or family who would benefit from the service we provide, maybe they can't afford the expense; give them a gift subscription. I guarantee one of the most meaningful gifts you'll ever give it to your kids, your friends, anybody. And let me give you my word: This is about expansion and investment, not padding the bottom line. I give you my word on that. Expansion and investment. To date we have poured every single dime that has come in through subscription right back into improving our network and it's not going to stop. Already I've lost quite a tidy sum, in fact figures that I never thought I would earn in my lifetime, let alone lose. But I have walked around these studios now for the last few months making plans, drawing some things up, and I thought I had time. I need your help. Please subscribe. TheBlaze.com/TV.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.