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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Senator Mike Lee: "Tell them to fund the government, not Obamacare"

July 25, 2013
Wilson

Writer

This morning on radio, Senator Mike Lee joined the program to talk to Glenn about the growing effort in the Senate to block any continuing resolutions that will fund Obamacare. According to Senator Lee, and the Senators standing with him, this could be the last chance to stop the unpopular law from fundamentally changing the country and the role of government in our daily lives forever. Senator Lee believe that the reason he and so many others were elected to office in 2010 was in direct response to the passing of the health care law. If they don't stop it, they've failed, so he says it's their responsibility to try.

If the American people understand what's on the table, Senator Lee thinks there is a real chance of success. Will the American people take action to stop Congress from passing any continuing resolutions that will fund Obamacare? Watch the full interview above or read the transcript below to see what the Senator says you can do to get involved and help stop funding for Obamacare.

Full Transcript:

GLENN: let's go to Senator Mike Lee who is on with us.  He has ‑‑ he and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, among others, have put together a movement that really does need to become a movement, and I'm asking the TEA Parties, I'm asking the churches, I'm asking the 9/12 project, I'm asking anyone within the sound of my voice to get involved and lead this.  This has to be a movement.  By September 30th, the Senate has to be convinced.  41 Republicans ‑‑ or 41 senators need to be convinced to defund the president's healthcare.  This is coming in a continuing resolution.  Harry Reid is going to say the Republicans are trying to shut down the government, et cetera, et cetera.  Not true.  It's not even trying to ‑‑ in my view not even trying to shut down universal healthcare but trying to make sure that the Constitution and our system is protected.  The president is picking and choosing what parts of laws now to enforce.  He can't do that.  This was passed as a package in a certain way.  It's falling apart, so he's saying without congress, "Well, I'm only going to do this part and this part."  Well, that's not what the law ‑‑ that's not how it works.  And Senator Lee is making this case, but he needs you to call your senator and get involved.  And Mike Lee is here to talk to us about it just a little bit.

 

Mike? 

 

LEE:  It's good to be with you, Glenn.  Thank you very much. 

 

GLENN:  Did I ‑‑ am I miscasting this at all? 

 

LEE:  No, no.  That was perfect.  I mean, look.  We were elected, a whole bunch of Republicans, to the House and to the Senate in 2010 with one very simple mandate:  Get rid of ObamaCare.  Stop it.  And since we took office, we've passed CR after CR that continued to fund ObamaCare.  I understand why that happened, even though I didn't vote for those.  You know, a lot of people thought the Supreme Court would strike down ObamaCare.  It didn't.  A lot of people thought we would elect a Republican president and he would stop ObamaCare; that didn't happen, either.  We've got one last shot.  This is the final stop on the ObamaCare Express Train before these things kick in on January 1st.  We've got to defund it, we've got to defund it now.  We've got to have all Republicans who purport to be against ObamaCare to say that they will draw a line in the sand they will not cross and that line is they are not going to fund ObamaCare. 

 

GLENN:  I was talking to a senator the other day, and he told me that the Republicans are worse than you think, Glenn.  He said they're doing the same old thing and what one Republican suggested in, I guess your meetings or whatever, what one of these guys suggested was that they just pass a nonbinding resolution to stand against universal healthcare and said, just do that because the president is just going to continue to fight.  He'll die on his sword on this one.  We've got to give up because he never will. 

 

LEE:  That's right.  And that would make the Republicans in congress much like the unarmed English bobby who upon seeing the commission of a crime yells "Stop or I'll yell stop again."  We've become totally Feckless and we can't law that to happen.  That would be devastating to the Republican Party, to the conservative cause and to the country as a whole. 

 

GLENN:  You said, Mike, when I first talked to you, somebody had told me that you were going to run, and I didn't know you and I said "I want to talk to him."  And I called you and you pulled your car off to the side of the road.  You and your wife were driving in through a canyon and you were going to lose the phone connection.  And I asked you a pretty pointed question about how was your soul, and you answered in the right way.  And then we started ‑‑ I said, what do you know about the Constitution?  And you started talking to me about how you were raised on the Constitution.  And it sounded to me like you were brought up for this time or times like these to protect the Constitution.  Forget about ObamaCare here for a second and tell me a little bit about the Constitution and why, why this has to be stopped because, do you believe at all that it is going to put the final nail in the coffin of congress or in the Senate to where the president doesn't need approval, doesn't even really need to go to you guys; he can just interpret laws the way he wants? 

 

LEE:  Yes.  That's a big problem.  So this strikes at the heart of two very big problems in our republic.  One is the problem of federalism being ignored.  Federalism refers to the fact that most of the power under the Constitution is supposed to be retained by the people, to be exercised locally and at the state level.  Only a few powers are supposed to go to the federal government, and the power to tell us where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it and that we have to buy a certain kind of health insurance is not among them.

 

The other part of that power, separation of powers that you were just referring to, the laws are supposed to be made by congress, not by the court which rewrote ObamaCare twice in order to uphold it after finding that it was unconstitutional as written, and not in the president, who has now amended ObamaCare twice, once in saying individuals have to comply with the law during the first year but employers don't.  And then it's saying we're not even going to require people to prove their income based on their eligibility, in order to establish their eligibility for ObamaCare subsidies.  And so this really is about the Constitution, Glenn.  It's not just about a single policy.  This is about the protection of an institution that has made this the greatest civilization the world has ever known.  This document was put here to make men and women free.  It was written by wise men who I think were raised up for that very purpose, to establish and protect freedom.  This is being threatened actively by our president and we as Republicans will be complicit if we vote to fund ObamaCare yet again before it kicks in. 

 

GLENN:  Okay.  Mike, the American people are tired, they don't believe most people in congress, they don't believe their voice makes a difference, they've marched, they've talked, they've done all kinds of things.  Somebody's calling Pat the right now to say, hey, I'm ‑‑ I'm part of that.  Some of us would turn our phone off in a broadcast, but ‑‑

 

PAT:  Some of us probably thought it was. 

 

GLENN:  That would only be one of us.  Anyway, so the people are tired and they think ‑‑

 

PAT:  That's not mine.  That's not mine! 

 

STU:  That was Glenn's the whole time? 

 

GLENN:  I don't own a phone.  I don't own a phone.  So it's not mine. 

 

PAT:  I just threw mine out. 

 

GLENN:  No, you didn't.

 

PAT:  Oh, no, I didn't. 

 

GLENN:  It's right there.

 

PAT:  There it is. 

 

GLENN:  Oh, it is yours! 

 

LEE:  What do you mean you don't own a phone?  You rent with an option to buy? 

 

GLENN:  I don't carry a cellphone.  Anyway, the thing that I wanted to have you address is people don't believe that you guys ‑‑ and I'm not saying you, but many in the congress and in the Senate are not serious, that this is some sort of, you know, nonbinding resolution, that their voice won't make a difference, et cetera, et cetera.  Please address to the people what you think they need to do and why this time it will make a difference and this time it is imperative that you do it. 

 

LEE:  Okay.  This time it will make a difference because the people can express in clear unequivocal terms that they understand Republicans in congress are in one of two camps:  Those who are for ObamaCare and those who are against it.  If they really are against it as basically all Republicans in congress claim to be, then they must indicate that they are against it by agreeing that they will not vote to fund ObamaCare.  They won't vote for any continuing resolution that contains money for further enforcement and implementation of ObamaCare.

 

There are a couple of ways you can get that message across:  First, call your senators and call your congressmen and tell them in those very simple terms "Don't vote for any CR that contains ObamaCare funding." 

 

GLENN:  CR is continuing resolution? 

 

LEE:  Continuing resolution.  Don't vote for any funding mechanism that contains ObamaCare funding.  Number two, you can sign a petition that we've got going on my website, Lee.Senate.gov.  Go to Lee.Senate.gov, and click on the link that says "Don't fund it."  You click on that link, you can sign a petition.  You can sign up with a letter that I've written that I'm having other senators sign.  You can join that same letter telling Harry Reid that we don't want any funding mechanism to fund ObamaCare. 

 

GLENN:  And you think Harry Reid ‑‑ I mean, let me just play this out.  Harry Reid is going to with the president say they are going to try to stop congress, they are going to shut down the government.  These Republicans are out to destroy the government.  They want to shut it all down."  That's what they'll do. 

 

LEE:  Sure.  Maybe that's where they will go because that's where their political instincts and their reflexes tell them to go.  They are so used to saying that, it just comes out naturally.  But the reason that this petition is so important at Lee.Senate.gov and these phone calls are so important is because once he sees that that's where the people are and that's where their elected representatives are, he will see that it's going to have to be him.  It's not us trying to do that.  We don't want a government shutdown.  We shouldn't have a government shutdown.  We want to avoid that.  And what we're saying is if he wants a government shutdown simply because he so badly wants to push through the implementation of a law that is so bad for the American people that makes health insurance costs go way up that's made fundamentally unfair because corporations don't have to comply with it but individuals do, once he sees that, he will realize he's going to have to shut down the government and I don't think he can do that, not for a law that's this unstable, that's this unpopular. 

 

GLENN:  Mike, I appreciate it, and I appreciate the stance that you and a handful of senators are making.  You need 41 from either side to stand with you? 

 

LEE:  Yeah, we need 41 senators to stand with us on this.  And I don't care whether they are Republicans or Democrats, but we need 41 senators who are willing to say we're not going to vote for are any continuing resolution or other appropriations bill that contains ObamaCare funding.  In other words, the message is fund the government, not ObamaCare.  That's what we want to do.  That's what our movement is about. 

 

GLENN:  How bad is the pressure on both sides? 

 

LEE:  Well, it's intense.  It's intense.  You know, already you've got Democrats, the White House and Democrats in the Senate accusing us of going where they themselves would take us according to their words, and you've got a lot of Republicans who don't agree with the strategy so far.  But I think once they think about it, once they realize what we were sent here to do, I hope and expect that a lot of Republicans will decide to join onto this effort because it's what the American people demand and it's what the country needs. 

 

GLENN:  Well, Mike, I've talked to many senators and many congressmen in the last couple of weeks and I have never seen their concern as great as it is right now and I think we are ‑‑ we're at the end of the road.  Our Constitution hangs in the balance unlike it ever has before.  I would think that you would agree with me on that. 

 

LEE:  I do. 

 

GLENN:  And this is it.  And by September 30th, this really could be it.  This could be it. 

 

LEE:  That's right.  And we've got to help people understand that so that we can resist the impulse that Republicans in congress seem to have.  It's almost an epidemic, Glenn.  The impulse is always "Let's live to fight another day."  Better said, it would be let's live another day so that we cannot fight another day and say live to fight another day.  This is the fight, and if we give up on this fight, the reason this is so important is that I think Republicans will lose power if we don't do this because the people will look at it and say, "Look, there's no difference anyway.  Why should we trust those guys to power when they promised to take power and stuff off ObamaCare and then all they do are make symbolic votes in that direction." 

 

PAT:  Now, Mike, are you guys prepared to stand up and defend this when you are accused of trying to shut down the government?  "That's all these people want to do is they're anti‑government and that's all they want to do is shut down the government," who's going to step forward when that begins and fight for this thing? 

 

LEE:  Well, we're already facing that right now and so this is nothing new to us.  People are already saying that.  And our response is this is not about a government shutdown.  We don't want that, we don't need that, we're trying to protect against that. 

 

PAT:  Yeah

 

LEE:  We're saying you can protect against that if only you will fund government, not ObamaCare.  That's what we want, that's what we demand, that's what the American people are going to demand and I invite all within the sound of my voice to join me in this effort, contact their senators and congressmen.  Tell them to fund government, not ObamaCare. 

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.