Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Matt Kibbe responds to Rove, establishment GOP

February 12, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Last week Karl Rove made his intentions clear: He’s going to bat for who he and the GOP establishment feel can "win" an election. Rove does not put much value into what the candidate's actual ideology is, which is kind of a sticking point for everyone who feels betrayed by the GOP (aka actual conservatives). What does Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks feel about the Rove startup?

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Freedom Works is a group that has really changed the landscape, and I have to tell ya they have been under attack like nobody's business from the establishment. And the establishment is very powerful and very, very clever, and I am proud to stand with Matt Kibbe and his crew at Freedom Works. And Matt is on the phone with me now. Hi, Matt.

KIBBE: Hey, Glenn, how you doin'?

GLENN: I'm good. I ‑‑ I will tell you that I am ‑‑ I heard last week about Karl Rove and his plan. Basically he announced an attack on you guys, to stop anybody who's stopping these establishment members of congress or the Senate, stop anybody who's trying to take him out. And that's you. I mean, you guys are the ones who have done it. That's the TEA Party.

KIBBE: Yeah, he's specifically talking about some of the candidates who won but also guys like Richard Mourdock who put his foot in his mouth and didn't quite make it. But no, they're going after us, and I think that the measure here as uncomfortable as it is, all of us should be a little bit proud that we have the establishment so freaked out that they've decided to just come after us straight up. That tells me that we are accomplishing something, we're shaking things up. I think it's a paradigm shift and unfortunately none of us, Karl Rove batted zero. We got a few guys over the finish line like Ted Cruz and Jeff Flake.

GLENN: Which is great.

KIBBE: But because there wasn't a clear winner, it's a little bit like gang warfare now. They are trying to take us out and we're trying to defend our position based on the principles you were just talking about.

GLENN: But I will tell you this, man: I think if we play a national game, we lose. But if we play a local game and a state game, we win. I mean, look at the difference in the states. Because people, you know, in the TEA Party, the 9/12 project, Freedom Works, we're playing it at the state and we're winning. Look at the gains that conservatives and free market‑minded people have made in the last four years, all on the state level.

KIBBE: Yeah. And if you think about it, it's very consistent with our principles again. We believe in local. We believe in bottom up. We believe in individual autonomy governing at the local level, not some top‑down dictate from a czar. And that's ‑‑ when you think about our principles, I draw all my strategic influence from the principles. You've got to think locally. You've got to respect the bottom‑up power of citizens in an open‑ended democracy and you've got to let them make the decisions. And that's exactly what the establishment is fighting. But I think, you know, it's not that complicated for us to figure out how to win because it's very much dictated by the values in the Constitution, the values and individualism, that responsibility that each of us have to hold our politics and our government in check so that it doesn't steamroll right over us.

GLENN: I know that the mainstream media wants to seem like there's a war in the GOP, and they've been doing this for a while and trying to make us look like the extremists, but we're just the ones holding fast to the principles. Since when has that become extreme. And they're trying to ‑‑ they're trying to stir this war up, but there really is a war in the ‑‑ there's only going to be one survivor, don't you think? It's either going to be the establishment or it's going to be the grassroots, one of the two.

KIBBE: But they are trying to put the Genie back in the bottle. I don't think that you can control freedom, and with the Internet and with talk radio and the decentralization of information, there's no way that grassroots America's going to sit back down and do as they're told. And I think that's ‑‑ that's the desperation that you see on the other side. They see what's coming and they liked it the way it was. So I do think that they're pushing against a string when they try to stop millions and millions of voices who have power that they didn't have before.

GLENN: That is exactly why the president is issuing his executive order on the Internet tomorrow. He's asking companies to be responsible and just ‑‑ just answer these few things for us as the government and do these things. And I mean, it is the ‑‑ it's the beginning gateway to control of the Internet, I believe. But we'll ‑‑ we'll see his executive order tomorrow.

I said a couple of weeks ago I'm done with the GOP. I think most people are. They've shown themselves to be waste of time and waste of skin really, quite honestly, most ‑‑ most times. When they do ‑‑ when we are strong enough in states and even like Ted Cruz, they spent money against Ted Cruz. They have done this with a lot of Freedom Works and TEA Party candidates. They try everything they can to make sure those guys do not get in. Isn't it time just to say, "I don't really care, and it's time for a third party."

KIBBE: You know, I think it might be. The only hesitation I would have is that there's a lot of legal barriers to a third party. The GOP and the DNC have strategic advantages in the tax law and how campaign finance allows them to do certain things that a third party can't do. But I'm starting to think that it's possible. Because I used to say we had to take over the Republican Party. I'm open to the possibility that, you know, if the GOP doesn't want us, we should go somewhere else.

GLENN: That's right.

KIBBE: But I'm not so convinced that we haven't already taken over the GOP. And if you look at who we've repopulated the Republican Party with purely by accident; we weren't setting out to create more diversity, we weren't setting out to create the GOP stars that would show up on the convention floor in Tampa, but lo and behold who did you see? You saw Ted Cruz. Tim Scott, the only black person in the Senate, TEA Party insurgent from South Carolina. Marco Rubio. You go down the list of all these young stars that the GOP has now embraced as their own. Guess what. They were candidates that the GOP opposed every step of the way.

GLENN: Yeah, but you also have people like John Boehner who is just an abomination to freedom. He is a huge barrier to freedom.

KIBBE: Yeah, I think you'll find establishment guys like that, sort of leftovers from a bygone era in every political party. Politics is not the most beautiful thing in the world and I think if we created a successful party, built a stage that became the new winning majority, all of a sudden everyone would pretend to be us. And I think if you look at John Boehner and Eric Cantor and a lot of the Republicans that are essentially protecting the status quo, at one time or another maybe in their careers, even today they pretend to be us. They talk the talk but they never ‑‑

GLENN: You can see them through them, though. The American people, I'm not really worried about ‑‑ I'm not really worried about cash, quite honestly, because I think the Internet has made people so free and it's ‑‑ I trust somebody, a friend of mine sending me something and saying, "Hey, this guy is really good." I trust that much more than an ad, and look how much Karl Rove spent. I mean, you know, the TV ads and all that stuff, we don't buy that stuff anyway. We want to hear it from our friends. We want to be involved at the grassroots level. We really are doing ‑‑ you know, they accused us of Astroturf. They've got all the Astroturf, and the GOP is part of it as well. They are trying to talk the talk. But the good news is we don't buy it. We don't buy it. And more and more people are saying, "You know what? I used to be a diehard. I gave money. I campaigned. I'm not going to work for them anymore. I'm not going to give my money to them anymore because I don't believe them. I think the GOP has a massive wake‑up call coming their way because they will just find themselves alone with a few old people, you know, with lots of money, and what's that going to get you? That's going to get you lots of ads on TV that nobody will believe.

KIBBE: Yeah, David Dewhurst, I think he outspent Ted Cruz 5 to 1 and, you know, the TV ads don't matter that much anymore. This is ‑‑ again this is why they are so freaked out. Freedom is trending and to go back to the Internet, that is the fight. I think civil liberties and free speech on the Internet is perhaps the most important fight.

GLENN: Yes.

KIBBE: Because that's the vehicle by which people beat the government.

GLENN: All right. So give me one thing that we should watch for on the State of the Union tonight.

KIBBE: Watch him not talk about anything that matters. Literally.

GLENN: I see that every day.

KIBBE: He's going to talk about infrastructure which is code for more spending and more Keynesian expansion of projects that don't matter based on money that we don't have and probably printed and created out of thin air. And he's going to talk ‑‑ the irony is he's going to talk about expanded power for the EPA even though places like Pennsylvania, the energy boom in Pennsylvania, North Dakota perhaps was the source of the few votes that he did get.

GLENN: Yeah, his win.

KIBBE: It's the irony. But he's going to talk about all the wrong things. He's going to go so far left that he's going to create a real problem for his own party because they still have to win in red districts and red states, and that's a huge opportunity for us in 2014.

GLENN: All right. Matt, God bless you. We'll talk to you soon.

KIBBE: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Matt Kibbe. You know, I don't trust organizations. I trust people. And I've seen Matt Kibbe for a long time behind the scenes, and I trust Matt Kibbe.

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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.