Who is Pope Francis?

Updated 3/21/13:

First, a story that we covered last week, but we didn’t cover it like the rest of the media. We didn’t cover it wall-to-wall. They covered it wall-to-wall, but it was only about an inch deep. The media was making a spectacle out of the pope last week. No one really talked about what this really means for you if you are a Christian and somebody who believes in self-government, maximum liberty, and maximum responsibility. What does the pope – what side is he on?

If you’re somebody who believes in charity but not charity as defined by a government where they force you through taxes, if you know the meaning of liberation theology and you don’t want social justice as it was practiced when it was trying to overthrow the church in South America in the way Jim Wallis means it. Who is he?

This guy at this time is either going to be John Paul, who helped free the world from Communism, or he could be, and I hate to use this example because I don’t necessarily agree with what people say but, Pius XII, who some say collaborated with the Fascists and the Nazis. Which one is he? Because it would probably be one or the other because of the time that we live in now.

Well, the media took their usual tact of just hitting only their hot-button issues. The white smoke had barely cleared, and then they began defining the new pope as vigorously against gay marriage, fervently anti-choice, and I love this one, but he’s also “less energetic, however, when it came to standing up against Argentina’s military dictatorship during the 1970s.” Oh, and I love this one, too – he also testified on “the military junta’s systematic kidnapping of children, a subject he was also accused of knowing about but failing to prevent.”

Now, the media also told us within five minutes that he has something to do with liberation theology, and I love this quote, “the unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin” and real problems. Oh, no. Which is it? I mean, because I don’t know. The pope’s all one of these two things. Pope Francis is either a conservative bigot who four decades ago loved dictatorship so much, he only loved that slightly less than the systematic kidnapping of children, or Pope Francis is a Marxist radical who was in on subverting the church through liberation theology.

You know, I watched TV last week and I thought, Boy, you know what we need? We need a network that would, I don’t know, wait, do their homework, and then give us the truth. That’s what TheBlaze is going to do tonight, give you the truth. We waited. We did our homework, and we have lined up a few people that can actually tell us what all of this means.

Pope Francis was dubbed the “Pope of Hope” on Twitter, and that is exactly what the world needs now, because the world is on fire or about to be. There is going to be a new Axis and new Allied powers. Do you remember the old alignment from World War II? That was the Axis power, the evil power, and then this was the ones that fought against it in World War II.

I will tell you that – make this prediction out loud – in the next five years, there will be a country in Europe that is run by the Nazis. Five years ago, I said that, Hey, the Nazis were going to come up. That was crazy. Now I will tell you within five years, and I think it will be sooner than that, a country will be a part of this again.

The new lines have not been drawn yet, but we’re working on the show, I think for next week or the week after, where we’ll show you exactly what’s growing, where it’s growing, but you know about the radicals Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood. Sharia law is spreading throughout the Middle East, but up in Europe, politicians have lost credibility on all sides. Europeans are now throwing their support behind the Nazis we’ve told you, the Golden Dawn Party, gaining more seats in Parliament. It now is, I believe, up to 28% approval rating, and those two things will be the new Axis power, anyone who is anti the Western way of life, the free market, capitalism, anti-Israel. And it will be supposedly pro-democracy and social justice. Okay, but who’s on the other side?

Start with social justice here. I know social justice quite well. Remember, those are the two words that brought down the wrath of almost every church on the planet when I said on the radio, social justice, you better find what that means and run. Let me make the same statement that the media never reported on the first day that I said that, and that is Social justice as practiced by Jim Wallis and Jeremiah Wright is dangerous. Social justice as practiced by most Catholics, most Baptists, and most people of religion, where it is connecting with your heart and choosing as an individual to help those in need, that’s good. But which one does the new pope practice?

First, let me dive deeper into the difference between the two. Social justice can be used, and liberation, and all of this stuff, can be used for good and bad. Hitler actually, believe it or not, rode into power on social justice. It’s a classic tactic for the extreme left – you stir the masses, you get the bottom to rise up so the top can come crashing down. Hitler was actually talking about Jesus before he was elected, but he was only doing it because everything was out of control, and then as soon as that happened, then that Jesus thing – That guy was an atheist if not just out and out a Satanist.

It’s the oldest Marxist trick – you come in on something that means something good and you pervert it, and by the time people figure out what it is, it’s too late. It was perfected in South America, where it really becomes insidious because it merged with religion to overthrow the religion. You’ve heard me talk about black liberation theology, and that’s what Obama’s Pastor Reverend Wright preaches and just about everybody he surrounds himself with. It is Marxism poorly veiled as religion. That was born out of liberation theology which began back in 1968 at a Latin America Bishops’ Conference – think of this – where they proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus Christ with the teachings of Karl Marx.

Now, you often hear leftist politicians quote Jesus to support massive government redistribution of wealth programs, right? It puts the focus on the faith. You don’t focus on the saving grace of Jesus; instead, you focus on the way the government can fix liberating people from unjust economic or political or social conditions, social justice, a decidedly Marxist principle and evil. This happened in South America, exactly where the new pope is from, and so when you hear the words “social justice,” when you hear the words “equality,” “economic justice,” “fairness,” “income inequality,” “labor,” “struggle,” “redistribution of wealth,” all of these things, if you know what they mean can absolutely be Marxist or Communist in nature.

But social justice can be good. Equality is great. Economic justice – okay, maybe. Fairness, income inequality – maybe. Labor – you should work. Struggle – yes. It builds us. Redistribution of wealth – no, no. Redistribution of wealth and Capitalism, they’re one or the other. Capitalism – I believe redistribution of wealth is really only Marxist, and Capitalism can only be used, true Capitalism, not Statism, Capitalism, it can fall into the hands of evil, but it also can lift people out of poverty and squalor. It’s like jihad – it’s either evil or it’s about a struggle to make things better.

You have to investigate these words, and that’s what we’ve done. We’ve spent the last week really looking into this pope and looking into these words. And we’ve assembled a couple of people here, three or four people that I think can help you understand is he a good guy or a bad guy, and I think you’re going to like the message here. The media looked at this pope and within ten minutes saw things like lack of equality, social justice, why he’s just like us. Uh huh.

We need to know exactly what he means by those things. We need to know, does he practice what he preaches? That’s an important one. It’s really not too hard to spot a fraud on things, because a real leader will lead by example. Progressives don’t. Dictators don’t. They tell you how to live your life, and then they do something different. Let me give you an American example – in fact I’ll give you three of them. President Obama told the American people that we are in a time of crisis, and so we all have to tighten our belts. Do you remember?

VIDEO

President Obama: When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize.

Got it? Prioritize. Prioritize and tighten your belt. Now, he shut down the student White House tours and threatened to cancel the White House Easter egg hunt because of the sequester cuts. That’s him tightening his belt. Quite honestly, you can keep the White House closed forever and the White House Easter egg hunts I could care less about, but that’s how he’s tightening his belt. But is he really living it? Is he concerned about saving every penny of taxpayer money he can? And is he walking the walk himself? He’s telling us we have to as families – don’t go to Vegas, yet his family keeps going on very lavish vacations with and without him.

Taxpayers last year spent $1.4 billion on the Obama family, $1.4 billion, and I get it, he needs security, but is it too much to ask to at least have him vacation with his own family at the same place at the same time? I mean, Michelle is in Spain. Their daughter is in Mexico on spring break, and he’s spending millions of bucks, you know, golfing with Tiger Woods. That golf game a couple of weeks ago cost $1 million in your hard-earned money.

It is so blatant that even his adoring fans in the press have recently questioned him about his lavish lifestyle.

VIDEO

Report: How does the president justify lavish vacations and a golf trip to Florida at taxpayer expense, and does he plan to cut back on his travel?

Jay Carney: I can tell you that this president is focused everyday—

Okay, stop. What he can say is, Do as he says, not as he does. Same thing for Michael Bloomberg. He passed strict idling laws. We told you about ’em this week. Next three months, he paraded around New York City with a fleet of SUVs that idled for hours at a time, all the time, and when confronted, his solution was to have people strap an air-conditioning unit to the outside of his car. He can get around it, but you cannot.

Same thing with Al Gore. He tells everybody cut back for the sake of the earth, yet he owns multiple energy-consuming mansions, yes, mansions. This green warrior has a 20 – look at these mansions that Al Gore lives in. Really? His father was a senator, and then he was a senator and a vice president. How does he have this? One of his mansions consumes 20 times the energy of the average American home. Now, his response when confronted with irrefutable fact that he is a hypocritical energy hog, he says, “I think what you’re seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They’ve completely lost the debate on the issue so now they’re just attacking their most effective opponent.” No, no, Al, no.

Pretty sweet mansions for a guy who by the way has also been accused of just getting rich off of this global warming scheme, but he says, remember, I am putting every penny, every penny I have into nonprofits.

VIDEO

Al Gore: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, The Alliance for Climate Protection.

Okay, so it’s all for a nonprofit, and maybe he’s telling the truth, I don’t know. I haven’t looked at his taxes. And you know, maybe he’s just buying all of those houses, you know, with the money he earns from, I don’t know, selling TV networks to the sworn enemy of America. Anyway, the point is on those three examples is a strongman, a dictator, a Fascist, an Uber-Progressive, will always fail to live the life and practice what he preaches.

So how does the pope live? Where does this pope stand? Which side of social justice is he on? Does he see liberation theology as a goal or a problem? How about Capitalism? Does he see wealth inequality as something caused by rich not paying their fair share, or that people all around the world have lacked the heart now to see the need for charity, personal charity, so their hearts are going to need to be changed? Is he a guy who says the rich just isn’t paying their fair share while he dresses in only the finest Italian tailor-made clothes and shoes, and lives in a palace?

Let me tell you, we’ve been planning this show for a while, and I’ll tell you, one of my first glimmers of hope was this picture that came out on Saturday. Look at his shoes. Now I know he wasn’t the pope, but I think they could’ve gotten him a new pair of shoes if he wanted one. These are real shoes. These are people shoes. These are not pope shoes. Does this pope see Jesus as someone who believed big government was the answer, or does he believe as I do and I think you do that Jesus was a radical transformationalist and the radical transformation was of the individual?

Bible-quoting leftist like Jim Wallis will twist the Scripture to fit their Marxist ideology, but that’s where Communism and liberation theology go wrong every time. Jesus came to change hearts, not government laws.

If the pope believes in collective salvation, if he worries about the collective and fails to speak about the individual salvation, individual empowerment, individual responsibility, individual potential, then there is trouble. But if he recognizes the individual and then leads by example and demonstrates how you change the world not through a big government but you change the world by being more kind, more gentle, more humble, we will see one of the best popes, I believe, in the Catholic Church’s history, and we just might see a man who’s not on our side but on God’s side. Tonight, the perspective I don’t think you’re going to see anywhere else but on this network, TheBlaze.

Patriotic uprising—Why 90% say Old Glory isn’t just another flag

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.