The Progressive End Game: Top Down, Bottom Up, Inside Out

Top down, bottom up, inside out. It's a strategy that's been going for a hundred years that progressives have used to accomplish their agenda. The elites like Mike Bloomberg and George Soros believe they know best and they are doing whatever they can to take advantage of crisises in America and across the globe to push their plans. Just in the past few weeks, this strategy has been applied to global economy, war, and gun control. On tonight's Glenn Beck Program, Glenn went through each and explained what the ultimate outcome of the progressive end game could be.

Below, Glenn addresses the situation in Cyprus and how it impacts the global economy:

Let’s start with Cyprus and money. Cyprus, a small little island that nobody really cares about, and a last-minute deal was reached that will “spare the East Mediterranean Island a financial meltdown.” Oh, well that’s really good news, right? Well, not really, and not really good for you.

The Bank of Cyprus is going to be shut down and then turned over to the Greek banks – but aren’t they in trouble? But here’s what they did. Deposits over €100,000 will be frozen. Now, €100,000, that’s about $130,000. They’re going to be frozen and then used to resolve government debts and restructure. The government plans to take an estimated 30%, maybe up to 40%, of all of the assets from the frozen accounts.

Now imagine, first of all, a week ago it was going to be between 6 and 10%, but what they’ve decided is to freeze people’s account, anybody who has $130,000 in their bank account, freeze them and then pay off all the government debt. Can you imagine that happening here? The media is reporting this massive, multi-billion-dollar theft as a deal that saved the day. But did it save the day, and what does it really mean? What does it accomplish?

Well, if you’re a Marxist radical, it accomplishes an awful lot. First of all, it redistributes the wealth, redistribution of wealth, but that redistribution of wealth will cause civil unrest because of a couple of things. First of all, anybody who saved for an entire lifetime for a retirement, if you played by the rules, you know, you’re screwed, you’re screwed. They’re going to take your money.

But more importantly, and something I don’t hear anybody in the media talk about, small companies, any small companies with payrolls to meet. For instance, we’re a small company. I have all of my money in the bank. Well, if somebody took 30 to 40%, and first of all, froze my bank accounts, I’m not going to be able to pay my employees because everything is in the bank. And then, if they decided to take 30 to 40%, I can’t meet payroll, which means unemployment goes up and so does strife, so does hunger, so does anger. Wait a minute, that’s almost like civil unrest. So what they did causes the top coming down. Taking this causes the bottom to rise up.

More people take to the streets, the goal of the radical left, and the Progressives have successfully confiscated private funding for the greater good – first time, no private property. That’s very unconstitutional, but it’s Cyprus, so why pay attention? Unless, it’s not like anybody here has been saying about this kind of stuff.

VIDEO

President Obama: That’s why I have proposed taxing the record multibillion dollar profits of oil companies.

Hillary Clinton: I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy…

I want to take those profits. Got it. So there’s no private property because they know better. They’re the ones that made the mistake, the people – I don’t know about Cyprus, but here, we’ve been saying stop the spending, and I’m telling you, they will do what they’ve just done. This is a test. Cyprus is a test, and really it’s all about control. I mean, it empowers. Who do you think it empowers? Do you think George Soros, Bloomberg, Al Gore, Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, and all those people, do you think they’re going to be impacted by this sort of confiscation at all, or do you think they’ll be emboldened by it?

Do you remember when I said spit yourself out of the system because you know what, if you’re not designing the system, you’re going to be a slave to it? Do you remember that? Do you think the people who sat at the table trying to work this deal out, to approve confiscation of 40% of everybody’s asset that has anything in their life savings in a bank, do you think they approve that if they went, Oh, gee that’s going to hit me 40%? Do you think they were affected by it at all?

This kicks the snot out of everybody who comes up behind because the Soroses and the Bloombergs of the world, they don’t care. They got theirs, and they’re designing the new system. And what happens, this kicks the snot out of everybody who’s semi-rich behind them, anybody who has $130,000 in the bank. This creates greater instability in the region. It causes runs on the bank. You watch, it will happen, but also instability politically speaking for a couple of reasons.

Inside out, there’s no private property. You can’t trust the rules anymore. Inside out, a new power class. They’ve just destroyed everybody who was coming up, so anybody who made the rules, those are the people that now have the money for power. But you’ve also made new enemies, the people in Germany. The Cypriots now are saying, Germans, those evil Germans. It’s not the Germans. It’s not the Germans. Who’s making the decisions? Watch the other hand. But also Russia – up to 40% of the Cypriot bank deposits are estimated 40% to belong to Russian businesses and individuals’ worth about $32 billion. Okay, that’s not a good idea.

Dmitry Medvedev, he called the actions of Cyprus “the stealing of the stolen.” Don’t steal from the mob. Do the people in Cyprus not watch the news? Have they not seen what happens to the enemies of Russia and those people who they don’t like or steal their money? Journalists mysteriously fall out of buildings nine stories up. Dissidents are mysteriously poisoned to death. Political enemies, like this guy just this weekend, ended up mysteriously dead in the bathtub. Hmm, I wonder what happened there.

Everything that happened in Cyprus is a major progressive victory. Okay, top down, no private property, redistribution of wealth, take the savings. Bottom up, it’s going to cause unemployment, civil unrest, and those who saved are screwed, and runs on the banks. Inside out, no more private property, new power class, and new enemies. Top down, bottom up, inside out, it’s happening with money, and this is just the beginning.

Next, he tackled the growing unrest in the Middle East:

Next, we go to war. This one’s strange. Something’s happening here, and I can’t really put my finger on it yet, but it’s not good, not good. Let me show you this. Do you remember this video? This video we ran when I was over at Fox. The IDF will routinely inspect flotillas heading to Gaza to ensure that there are no weapons on board, and the aid is truly humanitarian and everything else. Nearly all the time, these inspections happen without incident, but this flotilla was different, and we knew about this flotilla going in. We knew about it because we covered it almost live as it happened.

The IDF soldiers were ambushed and immediately attacked by activists and beaten with iron bars. Some soldiers were stabbed. I know these things because we have the video. There they are, beating them. We have the video. I’ve talked to members of the IDF. I’ve talked to leaders of Israel. It’s very clear what was going on. One of the soldiers was tossed overboard. An activist wrestled a gun away from an Israeli soldier and opened fire. The Israelis then shimmied down from helicopters and returned fire, and nine activists were eventually killed in the fight. This was clearly a case of self-defense. No one in the media covered it. We did.

I covered it for months, the only one that was covering it. But now, nearly three years later, something happened over the weekend. Israel formerly apologized for this. They’re paying compensation to activists and the families. I saw the video. What’s up with that? Israel doesn’t apologize for things when they know they’re in the right, so why now? What’s different? We are, the United States of America. We have virtually no power left. This apology indicates the disillusion of America’s long-standing with a strong alliance with Israel and I think a signal to the rest of the world. We don’t count anymore. Even Andrea Mitchell called Obama’s and Netanyahu’s relationship one of the worst she’s ever seen.

VIDEO

Andrea Mitchell: It’s gotten off on the wrong foot, and they’re trying to fix it, but it is one the worst relationships I can remember. And I’ve covered ever president going all the way back to Ronald Reagan.

Yeah, no he’s the best friend. Israel understands this. It understands that it can no longer count on America to watch her back, so they’re going to start playing their own game now, and right now they’re just trying to buy as much time as possible. I think they know that they’re appeasing Turkey’s anti-Israeli Prime Minister, a good friend of Barack Obama’s, and they know they’re not going to win him over, but I think they hope that they’re going to slow him down.

I’m not entirely comfortable with this explanation of what’s going on, but so far it’s the best theory that I’ve heard or read, and it seems to make sense. But something else is afoot. There is a clock that has been started on the war front. Something has started. One thing that stuck out with President Obama is that he is oddly beating the war drums on Iran, saying we’re going to do everything possible to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. He’s gone on and on about this.

VIDEO

President Obama: And I will repeat, all options are on the table. We will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from getting the world’s worst weapons.

Okay, he’s starting to sound more like me five or six years ago. I’ve been saying for years that Iran is the head of the snake. It’s not Iraq. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s Iran. And I’ve been warning that this is extraordinarily dangerous because they believe in creating world chaos. Why? Because it will hasten the return of the 12th Imam. Who’s the 12th Imam? The one that radial Islamists believe is the savior of all mankind. Others, who shall remain nameless at this point – me – think that he might be the literal Antichrist, and no, not this guy who, come on, let’s be serious, he looks just like Barack Obama. Come on, how do you deny it? How do you deny it? It’s like father and son here, just like the guy who last night played Herod. See this guy? Do you think it’s a coincidence that this guy looks just like Harvey Weinstein? I don’t think so.

Anyway, just a few months ago, the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden was laughing about Iran, dismissing the possibility of war. Do you remember?

VIDEO

Vice President Biden: This is a bunch of stuff. Look, here’s the deal –

Martha Raddatz,: What does that mean, a bunch of stuff?

Vice President Biden: Well, it means it’s simply inaccurate.

Rep. Ryan: It’s Irish.

Vice President Biden: It is. We Irish call it malarkey.

The only reason why I’m bringing this up is because they were so clear there was no war. There was nothing with Iran, and now I keep reading, and most of the people in the mainstream media I don’t think is noticing it. Most people who are watching the mainstream media are noticing, but there’s a change. What has changed? Why is Mr. Diplomacy now threatening war? Why is this so important all the time?

Even a few sources of ours have come up and said, oh, there’s war right on the horizon. Why? Why? Because this is now the last thing that we should be doing, because that will set the Arab world on fire. Is it that now’s the time, because if you set the Arab world on fire you could set the whole world on fire? So the Iran situation is escalating, and then on top of it, you have the latest from Syria. Why is no one really talking about this?

The opposition has a new prime minister in Syria, going to head up the effort to form a new government post-Assad. Who is he? Well, he’s a friend of ours. He’s a good friend of ours, this guy. He’s great. He was born in Damascus. Then he left Syria in 1980 and became a naturalized American citizen. In fact, he was neighbors with us. I didn’t know this at the time. I wish I would’ve known. He resided right here in Texas. He was the choice of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood. Isn’t that great?

Now, there was one objection, besides mine, to his appointment from the free Syrian army, and wouldn’t you know it, I mean, such bad luck. The day they announced that they were against the Muslim Brotherhood’s guy, there was a bad, nasty car crash. Well, it wasn’t a crash as much as it was POOF! And he gets himself blown up, so, it was just a coincidence and what timing, huh? I mean, cars mysteriously explode all time, especially, I don’t know I haven’t checked yet, but it might have been a Chevy Volt.

This is all about the Brotherhood. Hitto is the man now, and he’s been there for quite some time. If you look at his resume, boy he loves the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, the Muslim American Society. He was a representative for CAIR who definitely has nothing to do with terror or Muslim Brother – what?

Many of these groups have been identified as part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, he went to Turkey just at the end of last year, well last December, and then he goes to Syria just a few days ago. Isn’t that weird? So this guy was living right down the street from us. There’s the studio. Right there, the Texas, there’s TheBlaze studios. That little black dot, that’s the Muslim Brotherhood guy. We were neighbors. Why didn’t we have barbecue or go see a Cowboys game?

The next day, he’s over in Syria as the new prime minister of the opposition forces fighting to get a Muslim Brotherhood Egypt-style government implemented post-Assad. Whoa, that’s weird. It’s almost like this is further confirmation that everything in our documentary called The Project was true.

The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the White House, this administration. It is alive and well inside of our borders, even the great state of Texas. And you know what else is weird, that America was running guns from Benghazi to the Syrian opposition. At the same time he went over to Turkey, our boats were landing in Turkey, and we knew full well that those guns were landing in the arms of radical Muslim Brotherhood fighters. It’s almost again like what reported and nobody else did about Benghazi attack being connected to gunrunning operations are true. Wouldn’t it be nice if somebody else would connect the dots from time to time?

Here’s something else nobody else bothers to report on or connected the dots on, America’s popularity in the Middle East. Guess what, we are so popular right now. Support for the United States of America in Egypt Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan is great. It’s a little lower than it was in 2008 in the closing year of George W. Bush, but hey, you know, we faced some headwinds. Our approval rating now – do we have it – our approval rating right now is 15%. Okay, like I said, a little lower, you know. It’s down about 20% in the last four years, down from 35% during the last year of Bush. It was so bad at 35%, this guy was going to save us, and now it’s at 15%. Wait a minute, that sounds a little like bottom up.

Now why is our approval rating so low in the Middle East? Because we have the savior, right? Here’s why, because at least during the Bush, Clinton, Reagan years, we did go to bed with dictators that we didn’t like. I mean, we were in bed with dictators and we’re like, Ooh, I just can’t get clean, but now we’re seducing them. Now we’re taking brutal Islamic thugs, and we’re dressing them up in something low cut and lacy. Say, is that a bomb in your pants Mr. Muslim Brotherhood, or are you just excited to see me? That’s what’s happening.

We’re propping up the Muslim Brotherhood, a band of radical Islamists who want to control every aspect of human life. Kind of sounds like the Progressives, doesn’t it? They are worse than the previous dictators, and we’re putting lipstick on these pigs and my apologies to pigs.

Look at the words of Mohammed Morsi this weekend about those people on the streets, bottom up, that are protesting him. He said this weekend, “If I am forced to do what is required to protect this nation, then I will do it. And I fear that I might be on the verge of doing it.” Uh oh, that doesn’t sound good. Sounds an awful lot like what Adolf Hitler said right after the Night of Long Knives. President Obama supported this guy was well. No wonder people hate us.

The top is coming down even more, and the bottom continues to rise. And we are sowing the seeds of discontent literally, arming the Syrian opposition and funding a civil war and wooing the opposition leaders in the wings. And who stands with Hassad – you’re going to love this. You’ll never guess. New Alliance, war with Iran, Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, we were gunrunning. Bottom up, discontent on the Arab streets, nobody likes us anymore. We have a new alliance. This is inside out. We’re powering the Muslim extremists, and we’re also making enemies of Russia. Wait a minute, oh that’s right, that’s right. They stand with the other side, don’t they? Wait a minute, those of the same guys that the Western banks pissed off. What could possibly go wrong here? Nothing, I’m sure. When we come back, the last piece of top down, bottom up, inside out. We go to guns.

Finally, Glenn detailed the escalating efforts of the progressive elites to disarm the American people through increased gun regulations:

Glenn Alright, last piece here I want to tell you about is guns. Look who’s leading the charge now to dismantle the Second Amendment. It’s this guy:

VIDEO

Mayor Bloomberg: I think I have a responsibility, and I think you and all of your viewers have responsibilities to try to make this country safer for our families and for each other, and if I can do that by spending some money and taking the NRA from being the only voice to being one of the voices so the public can really understand the issues, then I think my money would be well spent. And I think I have an obligation to do that.

David Gregory: So you’ll spend money on ads?

Mayor Bloomberg: We’re starting to run ads today or tomorrow.

Okay I can’t take it. Please pray for me as we get into writing this speech for the NRA convention in about a month from now. I’m going down, and I’m going to give the keynote address at probably the most important NRA convention of all time, and boy I’ve got a lot to say. I’m not sure I should say all of it, but here’s a guy who views himself as a one-man warrior versus the special interests of the NRA.

Okay, let’s go over this. The NRA is a group with about 5 million members. Mayor McFascist is one person with $30 billion. So you know, the $30 billion, more than George Soros and a butt load more than the Koch brothers. So which one, the 5 million or the one is about the special interests? Which one’s about the Constitution, one with 5 million supporters, one with giant bank accounts?

Now, to be fair to Mayor McFascist, he also has Hollywood on his side, and I mean, there’s really a group of people that are, I mean, who could be more in step with mainstream American values than a Canadian in Hollywood?

Jim Carrey is the latest boob to actually support gun control, and he released the parody song – oh look, and he’s mocking country-western music and Hee Haw. He released this on the website Funny or Die, and after watching the painful 5 minutes and 56 seconds of this atrocity, attempt at comedy, I think it’s clearly or die for this one.

He called the song “Cold Dead Hand,” and in it, he mocks Charlton Heston. He also goes on the say, “Cold Dead Hand is abt u heartless motherf%ckers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.” Yep, that’s me. I say screw the kids, Jim. “Sorry if you’re offended.” Jim, I’m not offended, but I’m not surprised that you’re blinded by the lights in your eyes. You don’t see the hypocrisy here? I mean, in your upcoming film Kick-Ass 2, there’s – oh that’s a gun in your hand – nor the fact that you allegedly have armed bodyguards to keep you safe.

You at home, no, you’re not important enough to have armed bodyguards. Of course, you could have them. You just have to pay for ‘em. What? What’s the problem? He’s paying for ‘em.

Dana Loesch tweeted about this, and after absolutely demolishing him, he said this over the weekend: “I’d like to respond to all the conservative pundits out there personally but I’m far too busy NOT stumping for the gun companies!” Yeah, what are you implying you dope, that we’re getting kickbacks from Beretta? I feel like I’m at the end of Scooby Doo and I would’ve gotten away for it, too, if it wasn’t for that pesky kid.

They make a product that we use. I mean, was Sally Struthers stumping for the food companies? Or did she see a bigger picture, no pun intended. Jim, look, let’s be honest with each other. I’m sorry that you’re not feeling well. It was a bad weekend for you. Bad weekend for me, I had to put my dog down. You had a pretty big box office bomb, and you know, Burt Wonderstone sounds good. I’m thinking that maybe we should send it to Syria. Then, they’ll have the biggest bomb in the Middle East.

Let me explain this to you nice and slow because I speak Canadian. I proudly give the money to the NRA that I give because the NRA is standing up for the Constitution when nobody else will, and they work for us. You see, this is the way that government is supposed to be, at least here in America. I don’t know what it’s like in Canada, but here in America, the government works for us. But see, Canadians, like you, come down here and try to convince us and people in, you know, universities, you know, and other morons, they try to convince people that you work for the government. But that’s not how it works.

Now, the gun lobby, there’s 5 million of us. They work for us. See, we’re not their puppets. They’re standing up to the people like you because we don’t have the money that Hollywood and Bloomberg and everybody else has. Now, I know that’s how you feel about President Obama, and I and millions of others, you know, don’t. I mean, I don’t believe that government knows better than me, and I do believe, as Mayor Bloomberg you know, doesn’t, that the government is infringing on the right of my freedom.

VIDEO

Mayor Bloomberg: I do not think we should ban most things. I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.

Oh, he does believe that we should infringe on rights. You see, I believe in the individual. He believes in himself. I believe in the individual, for liberty. I believe in individual freedom, to live my life, and you live your life. You want to make funny faces, that’s cool. It works for you. It did for a while. Then do it. Do everything you want as you see fit, as long as it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. That’s the way it works. If you or I make poor choices, then I believe we have to have maximum personal responsibility and live with the consequences of those choices.

I’m not a puppet. I’m not looking for a puppet. I’m a man, and I really just want to be left alone so I can be busy helping others and creating jobs, but thanks for the Canadian sidebar there, I appreciate it. The American Constitution gives us the right, and I will defend it. And I’ll look for all like-minded Americans that will stand against mister-take-your-soda-away because it’s bad for people.

You see, a peaceful government is not the norm in human history. It’s a fluke. It’s a freak. What keeps a government in check is a responsible citizenry which we don’t really have very much; an educated people. The teachers unions and the universities have pretty much taken care of that one; or a media that is responsible and tethers themselves to the truth. We haven’t had that one for quite some time, either; and people, willing to stand up to the power of the man, as long as the man is trying to violate principles.

Now, I thought that you would’ve been with us on that last one. I don’t know how you anti-fascist, anti-controlling government people suddenly have found yourself either in bed with or actually playing the role of the man, but really you should look at yourself in the mirror, I mean, without making all those funny faces that you do that were so funny about 15 years ago.

The rest of us are busy protecting the right to defend ourselves, especially when the government is going all top down, bottom up, and inside out, especially on the Second Amendment. And what’s really strange is they are infringing, and they are mocking top down. At the same time they’re doing that and flipping the Constitution, turning things inside out, they’re trying to take away our right to defend ourself, at the same time they’re threatening to cut back police and releasing prisoners in the name of sequester. So what would be the result? What would be the result of releasing prisoners and also all of the policies that they have from finances and all of the really pissed off Arabs in the world? What do you think’s going to happen? Chaos, fear, crime.

So people are rightly worried about the safety of their families as government is not enforcing the laws, and if you don’t believe me, watch this.

VIDEO

Wayne LaPierre: Look, we’re 5 million families, we’re 80,000 law enforcement families, we’re 11,000 law enforcement trainers. We want to make people safe. That’s what the NRA does every day.

That’s what it was really all about, and they are rightly upset, because the Constitution is being threatened by Progressives armed with an agenda, not the truth, and agenda. We have gun laws on the books, enforce them. If the Second Amendment is allowed to be infringed, what does it mean for the other amendments, the charter of negative liberties that so many Progressives say is outdated and no longer useful? What is the endgame, and can they win, next.

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.

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.