Slotto hits it big in the Marketplace

A few years back Glenn talked about a man on the Marketplace website who had a dream and a shed. He didn’t have much money for his business idea so he worked out of his shed. After the segment aired things changed dramatically. This audience responded in a huge way - how big? So big he's now getting his product in Bed, Bath, and Beyond and other stores across the country! Glenn discussed the story on radio this morning.

Below is edited text from his monologue on the story:

I want to give you a message of hope today. I want to give you a message of success. I want to tell you about an American entrepreneur. His name is Robert Darling. Robert Darling is a creator of a ‑‑ of a handcrafted toy called Slotto. It's unfinished wood pieces that you ‑‑ that have slots in them you put them together. And it's kind of like the Lincoln Logs or the Tinkertoys of today. And in 2008 this guy's 61 years old, the market crashes, he loses his job, he's got nothing. He's got nothing. And he doesn't know what to do. He actually is out on the street after looking for a job, he'll go out and he'll get a sign and he'll go on the street with a sign that says, I need a job. He meant it.

He lived in Oregon. And then he would go back to his house and he would start to make these little toys that he was selling part time at, like, the farmers market in Portland, Oregon. These toys called Slotto. Well, he couldn't, he couldn't ‑‑ you know, he couldn't make enough of the toys to be able to, you know, feed the family, keep his house and everything else, but he really believed and he was like, this is what I really need to do, and I'm not going to be on the government dole.

Well, he found out about ‑‑ he found out about the Marketplace and he sends me a bag of these toys, Slotto. And I get them and I say, "Well, you know what, let me go take these and I'll play with them with Raphe and if, you know, we like them, I'll call you back." So we take them, I take this bag home and I dump it out in the living room, on the living room floor one Saturday or one ‑‑ I think Friday night, and we start playing with it. Well, before I know it Tania's like, "Okay, it's time for bed and it's really late." And we had made, like, I think a castle and he made a castle, I made a castle and we were playing war with it. The next morning I get up and he doesn't have the TV on and he's now making airplanes and so we make an aircraft carrier out of them and airplanes and we're having dogfights and we spend all day playing with Slotto.

So halfway through Saturday I call up Kevin and I said, this toy is great. I love this. I said, let's see if, you know, we can do the deal with the Marketplace. So Monday I get in and I'm all excited and he said, "Glenn, I called him back and he's really excited, but there's a down side to this. He's just one guy and he's only working in his shed that he built and he doesn't even have the money for a roof on this shed. He's just taken tarp and put it over for the roof so he can keep the rain out." I'm like, you've got to be kidding. I said, so we can't ‑‑ how many can he make? And he said he can only ‑‑ he can only promise that he can make, like, 263 of these. I said, we can't go on national airwaves and say only 263. And he's like, "Look, we'll just do a 48‑hour sale and in 48 hours we'll cut it off and whatever he sells, that way ‑‑ because you believe in it, right?" And I said, yeah, it's great. And he said that way he can get some seed money because he's got nothing. I said okay.

Well, here was the problem. I went on the air and I talked about it and this was 200 maybe 9 and I talked about it and I said this is the greatest toy ever. Slotto. And I said, we have a two‑day sale. By the even of the hour we couldn't shut the Internet process down fast enough. By the end of the hour, he had sold double the amount of Slotto games. They were selling Slotto games ‑‑ or Slotto sets, one set every 30 seconds and we could ‑‑ it was blowing everything out. People were ‑‑ it was Google trending. It was just all of a sudden exploded.

Well, now here we are with a guy who advertised on this program. He went through the Marketplace because he was just an entrepreneur that didn't have a lot of money but, you know, he was like, "If I could just get this in front of people, they will love it." I am so excited to tell you that Robert Darling has announced on TheBlaze that Slotto, a little idea that he had, has moved clearly out of their little shed that he couldn't even afford a roof on and moved now into a new workshop where he has his own employees. Sales have been so good that he's just signed a deal with J.C. Penney, Kohl's and Bed, Bath & Beyond.

He said this:  "I started out making Slotto in a makeshift shed in my backyard.  It was a constant struggle.  The opportunity from the Marketplace allowed me to get a real workshop, hire employees, grow my business.  I realized how many people truly loved my product.  The Marketplace didn't just grow my business.  It propelled my business to extraordinary heights."

This guy was out on the street with a sign.  He made all of the Slottos himself.  It was his idea, it was his passion, it was his sweat.  It was everything that he did.  And then soon he'll be demonized.  Right now he's an American success story.  Right now, in this economy, when nobody can ‑‑ when nobody ‑‑ everybody needs a handout, everybody needs something, no.  No.  You know what we need?  We need great entrepreneurs.  And we need a place where entrepreneurs can get together and they can show the American people their wares.  There is so many great things on the Marketplace, and I know that ‑‑ I know that, you know, there's nobody more frustrated than I am at the speed at which we do things.  We do things incredibly fast but not fast enough for me, and it drives me nuts.  The Marketplace is going to end up being one of the most important things I ever do.

The Marketplace and the American Dream Labs are going to end up being the most important thing I think I've ever done because we're going to show you that things can be done, and we're going to give people the opportunity, like this guy. Slotto, we had nothing to do with it. We didn't come up with his plan. We didn't come up with the toy. We didn't do ‑‑ I had my part. My part is show good people a great product. Show them. And show them, get into a situation to where you don't need ‑‑ right now you need so much money. This guy was selling them at the Portland farmers market because he could just go and bring a table and show up and bring his stuff. You can't advertise on a national platform. You can't do that. You have to be J.C. Penney's or Kohl's or something like that.

I remember the first time I went to go get a car loan. I went into the bank and they said, "You don't have any credit." I said, "I know. But that's why I'm here. I want to be able to get a car loan." "Well, you don't have any credit." Well, how do I get credit ‑‑ this is before the time where everybody had a credit card. "How do I get the credit if you won't give me a loan?" It was a Catch‑22. How can I be successful if I can't tell people about my product? How can I be a big huge thing if nobody knows about me? That's what the Marketplace is. And hopefully in the next six months, hopefully by March you're going to see a new phase of what we're going to be doing for entrepreneurs and taking the next step. I don't even know how many, what do we have, 250 people in the marketplace now? And it's just because I am not growing with debt. I refuse to get into debt. We could be a lot bigger. This Marketplace could be a lot bigger and a lot more things if I took on $10 million of debt. I am not going to do that. And I'm not doing it because that's when you become beholden to somebody. And I'm not going to become beholden. I want to do the things that I believe in. I want to find the entrepreneurs that really have the same kind of mindset. I don't know Mr. Darling. I know his work. And I know he's come up and he's pulled himself up. And I know that at least for a while ‑‑ and he's 61. So I'm guessing he's going to be this way for the rest of his life. But at least for a while, he will not forget where he came from. And he will help others achieve their dreams. And he will stand up for the American entrepreneur and the American experience and the American spirit. And he'll help spread that. I'm not just taking anybody. I don't want to just take anybody. I don't want to partner with just anybody. I want to partner with people who believe the same kinds of things. We don't have to believe the same things politically but we have to believe in the entrepreneurial spirit, we have to believe in American exceptionalism, we have to believe that we can do it, we have to believe that corporations don't have to be bad. They can be good. We don't have to believe that ‑‑ we have to get together on the idea that you did build something. And you have a right to keep that when you're done and not be vilified for doing something with your life, doing something with your brain and your hands. That's a good thing.

If you bought it on the Marketplace, you might want to save that bag and that original Slotto game because that one was made by the creator, and soon you won't know the name of the person because they're hiring new employees. American employees. In this economy.

Congratulations. Slotto, America's new Tinkertoy.

 

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

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.