Senator Mike Lee, Rafael Cruz, Glenn and others fire up the crowd at FreedomWorks 'Free the People' rally

Glenn joined Matt Kibbe, Senator Mike Lee, Rafael Cruz, and others on the eve of Man in the Moon for FreedomWorks 'Free the People 2013' rally at Usana Amphitheater in Salt Lake City. The event, focused on the topic of entrepreneurship was filled with passionate speeches from prominent figures, politicians, and Americans just like you.

President of FreedomWorks, Matt Kibbe opened the night by praising small business owners, Tea Party and 9/12 group leaders, and the entrepreneurs in the crowd.

"Unlike my hometown, Washington D.C., I actually respect what you do," Matt Kibbe told the crowd.

Kibbe went on to note that the current administration is alienating small business owners, demonizing those that are successful and limiting the success of those that are working hard to make ends meat. But, Kibbe noted, that is to be the expected response of anyone in power toward those who don't need or want to turn to them for assistance, noting that the founders felt lonely as well when they signed that sheet of paper that declared the country's freedom.

Great African American conservative leaders, like Mia Love, Deneen Borelli, and Rev. C.L. Bryant also joined the rally to tell their stories of hard work, failure, and eventually success.

Mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah Mia Love told the story of how her parents came to the United States from Haiti with nothing, but with hard work, were able to buy a home and eventually put all three of their children through college.

For them, Mia noted, "you didn't come to the United States of America for "easier", you came here to be free."

Deneen, now a Fox News Contributor, was the first member of her family to graduate college.

"Hard work, perseverance, and my faith in God that has gotten me to where I am today," she told the audience.

She attended night school for 11 years while working in corporate America to achieve that success. Borelli spent 20 years in corporate America before moving into the public policy sphere, describing her move as going from "a citizen on the sidelines to a citizen on the front lines

"We have two choices," she told the crowd, "to be dependent or independent. I chose to be independent."

Arizona Congressman David Schweikert and entrepreneur Jeff Sanderer each joined the stage for a few moments to talk to the FreedomWorks crowd. Schweikert focused on the responsibility each American has who truly believes that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document.

He noted that the things destroying the country and the culture and internal.

"We've allowed the ballot box to put these people into power," he said, "that needs to stop and it needs to stop today."

Sanderer, told the audience that it's his believe that they are the one who will put a stop to it. In fact, he told the audience he believes they'll do more than that, he believes they're going to change the world.

Much like Glenn has been highlighting lately, the current battle isn't simply about economic freedom or the right vs. the left — it's about freedom vs. slavery.

"Liberty is right, slavery is wrong," he said. "Man longs to be free."

"The opposite of liberty is not financial insecurity," he continued, "it's slavery. And we should not be afraid to say so."

Arguably one of the most memorable speeches came from father of Senator Ted Cruz, Rafael Cruz. After heard him speak for a few minutes it's easy to see that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree in the Cruz household.

Rafael came to the United States from Cuba at the age of 19. He put himself through college and thought Cuba had found the man to revolutionize the country and increase freedom with Fidel Castro was elected. After moving back to Cuba after college, it didn't take long for Mr. Cruz to see how very wrong he was.

As a result of the marxist ideology that Castro put the country under, Cruz came back to the United States — disillusioned, but thankful. After his life in cuba, he knew how precious and rare America was.

In 1976, after hearing witnessing policies that reminded him of Cuba be implemented in the country, Rafael quickly got actively involved in the Reagan campaign. He knew what happened there couldn't happen here.

"If we lose our freedoms here, where do we go?" he asked, and noted was something he engrained into Ted while he was growing up.

Today, under the Obama regime, Rafael noted his fear that the country is following the same mistakes he and his former country once did. He recalled the most ominous words he's ever heard were said in the last two State of the Union Addresses by President Obama: "If Congress does not act, I will act unilaterally."

"This country is unique because of its documents," he continued. "Outside of the Bible, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the greatest two documents ever pinned. And the written they've last is because they were written on the knees of the framers."

He emphasize how important it is that they are not disregarded.

"this country is unique

outside of the bible, constitution and declaration are the greatest two documents ever pinned. and the reason they've lasted is bc they were written on the knees of the framers.

"This administration can take everything away, but they can't take our honor," he closed.

A Senator that is cut from the same cloth as Rafael Cruz's son addressed the crowd later in the show: Utah Senator Mike Lee.

Senator Lee recalled what it was like when he first joined the Senate and how uncomfortable he felt with the title. But, after being hassled for looking like a DC staffer, Lee recognized something: sometimes you have to assert your title — or as he put it, "what is properly yours."

"Sometimes, even when it's difficult, you have to assert that which is properly yours," he said, "As men and women of America, we were meant to live free and we must assert it every day of our lives."

"If we stop and we don't assert those rights because is difficult," he continued, "we all lose them."

Senator Lee noted that looking at the crowd that showed up in his home state of Utah makes him more optimistic than ever that the freedom movement is going to be the winning movements.

"We can win. We can get there. But we have to do it together," he told the crowd.

Quoting Gandhi, Lee reminded them, that at first your detractors will ignore you, then they'll laugh at you, next they'll want to fight you, but then…you win.

Looking back over the 9/12 and TEA Party movements, Sen. Lee reflected, "our movement began just a few years ago…and when we started it they ignored us…and then, of course, they laughed at us. Righ now they're fighting us. But guess what comes next? We win."

Glenn took the stage last, and tied everything that was said that night together in a way that only Glenn Beck could. He tied it all to Civil Rights, our basic rights. In fact, because of that simple fact — that this freedom movement is all about our basic constitutional (of Civil) rights — that's the only reason we're capable of organizing this size crowd.


Video streaming by Ustream

"There isn't anyone on the left or the right that can put this kind of crowd together," he told the audience. "We can because all we care about is the basic constitutional rights of Americans."

Almost all Americans agree on these basic rights, but the language used between the left in the right is different. One group talks about Civil Rights, while the other talks about the Constitution. What it all comes down to is where you draw your line in the sand.

"If you don't draw a line in the sand you will just keep drifting," he explained. "You have to know what you are willing to do and what you're not willing to do. It's really easy because it's about civil rights."

"MLK wasn't asking for special rights," he continues. "He was asking for the same things guaranteed in our Constitution."


Video streaming by Ustream

Even today, in what feels like one of the most divisive times in recent history, 85% of america agree with freedom of speech. Despite that, we're letting these rights be violated every single day by groups like the NSA who are tracking and monitoring everything we do in the digital world and otherwise.


Video streaming by Ustream

"When will we say enough is enough?" he asked the audience.

"What are WE creating? What is our line?" he continued.

Glenn's line, like most Americans, is simple: It is the constitution of the United States of America.

There are two fronts to the current freedom movement, Glenn explained: the political and of conscience. These movements have to work side by side and it can't just be about politics, it has to be about rights.

This week, Glenn has met people who traveled from all of the world to be here for Man in the Moon. China, Canada, Hong Kong, you name it. The world is crying out for help and looking for a model to follow.

"You are the model the world is crying out for," Glenn told the audience. "Stand up and take the reigns."


Video streaming by Ustream

"This audience is going to be a pivot point," he continued. "This audience is going to be the one that changes and saves the nation."

But not just with politics, Glenn explained that while they're working on the political, and the mainstream media will try to keep them focused on the political, that's now how you create real change the hearts and minds of the people around you. The culture has to shift.

"We're working on the political, we're working on the spiritual, but the voting box is the last stop," Glenn said. "The first stop is the culture."


Video streaming by Ustream

"When you see the Main in the Moon tomorrow it is my hope that we no longer let the dreamers and the great artists of our day be co-opted by the left," he said. "We can change the culture and imprint that on our children's hearts."

In closing, Glenn explained that he's already begun work on (what's now called) Man in the Moon 2. It's about the journey to America and why people came here.


Video streaming by Ustream

"People came here a reason," Glenn proclaimed. "To follower their own conscience — to be free. We need to celebrate that!"

"Find out why YOU have made the spiritual journey to America," he continued. "Stand. Protect. Defend. And love one another with courage. Trust in God and divine providence and all is well."

Check out the quick interview with Glenn following the FreedomWorks event below and then get ready for the big event tomorrow!

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

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

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

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

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

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

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

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

Negotiating with radicals

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

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

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

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

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

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

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

What we really celebrated

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

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Architects and operatives

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

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

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

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

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

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

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

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

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

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

The funding networks behind the machine

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

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

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

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

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

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

Federal funding pipelines

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Not just domestic — but global

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

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

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

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

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

Peace through strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names matter

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.