Who is Reza Aslan? Glenn exposes his progressive record

The media went has been going nuts over Reza Aslan's new book about the "historical" Jesus, "Zealot". It's gotten plenty of praise from the left, and anyone upset over it has been portrayed as being anti-Muslim. But the manufactured uproar over Aslan's Islamic faith is only a distraction from the real issues: he has obscured the facts about his educational background and his deep ties to progressive organizations. Aslan is first and foremost a progressive, whose goal is to raise doubts in believes in Jesus and ultimately have the leave the faith like he did. Glenn laid out the truth during the opening monologue of Wednesday's Glenn Beck Program.

Get more an Aslan and the questions raised about "Zealot" from TheBlaze.

Well, hello, America, and welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and to TheBlaze. This is the network that you are building, and it is important that we build it, because there’s a problem with truth, and there’s a problem with truth in the media. And we’re all following the media like zombies, and it’s true, you know it is, because why isn’t America – I was out in California. Gas is $4.11 out there. Why is nobody talking about that? Because the media isn’t talking about it.

We follow the media, and this book is evidence. The media is hyping this book about Jesus, and whenever the media decides we’ve got to tell you about this book about Jesus, it’s fairly safe to assume that it’s not going to make Jesus look really good. I saw this book while I was out. I’ve been gone, I think, for what, five weeks now, and I saw it popping up everywhere. And I knew something was up.

And I called the studio, and I called the staff. And I said do me a favor, look into this book, and most importantly, tell me who this man is. Who is the author? Well, NPR was billing this as “Christ in context.” Woo, NPR says that? The Seattle Times wrote Zealot “looks at the age Jesus lived in to expand what’s known about the historical figure.” Really? And Publishers Weekly named it one of their best new books. It’s got to be good.

Generally, it is positive all the way around with anybody in the media, no controversial language attached to it whatsoever, as is the case whenever I or pretty much any Conservative appears on mainstream media outlets, and we mention Jesus. Not surprisingly, the book has ended up to be just another attack on Christian beliefs, and yet no one in the media or the administration is condemning it, which I thought was weird, because I know if I condemn or write a bad book about, let’s say, the Prophet Muhammad, well then I’m going to be responsible for the Benghazi attacks, right?

I mean, do you remember the horrible, evil video questioning Muhammad? It was denounced by Hillary Clinton. It was denounced by President Obama. I guess we just have to go shoot up an embassy to get some attention here, but that’s not what Christians do. But I thought that they were against any denigration of any religious figure? I mean, the president, I guess he was a little more clear when he went in front of the UN. What exactly did he say?

VIDEO

President Obama: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

 

Ah, that’s it. That’s it. The future can’t go to the people who slander the prophet of Islam. The man who made the video slandering it, and it was an awful, went to jail. This guy, the guy who slanders Jesus, is he going to be condemned? No, they’re giving him cover. You see, it started out strangely. Initially the media failed to point out that the author, Reza Aslan, was a Muslim.

Now, I want to be really clear here. I don’t really care. A Muslim has every right to write a book about Jesus. You don’t like Jesus, you like Jesus, you’re a Muslim, you’re a Hindu, you’re a Christian, I don’t really care, but it should be pointed out, and this is the same thing, a Christian has a right to do a book about Muhammad or a video – freedom of speech.

But I don’t think everybody agrees on that one. And the important thing is if I’m writing a book about Muhammad, everybody should say full disclosure, he’s a Christian. Same thing with this guy; full disclosure, he doesn’t like Christianity. He’s a Muslim. But the media and the author were hiding it at the beginning for some reason. Now, there was an interview early on with NPR, and here’s what he said.

VIDEO

Q: Are you still a Christian?

Reza Aslan: No, I wouldn’t call myself a Christian because I do not believe that Jesus is God, nor do I believe that he ever thought that he was God or that he ever said that he was God. But I am a follower of Jesus, and I think that sometimes, unfortunately – I think even Christians would recognize this and admit it – those two things aren’t always the same, being a Christian and being a follower of Jesus.

Yeah right, this guy’s absolutely brilliant. Hat’s off, he’s brilliant. He is. Are you a Christian? No, but I am a follower of Jesus. I think I’d call myself that. Really? No mention here that he’s a Muslim who holds the view that Jesus Christ is not the son of God. He does say Jesus isn’t the son of God.

Now again, the fact that Aslan is a Muslim doesn’t matter to the story. In fact, that’s the red herring. The reason why I bring this up is the fact that they’re dishonest about it. That’s what matters. Because as it turns out, he’s being dishonest not about the Islam thing. He is not forthcoming about a lot of things, himself, Jesus, and most tellingly, the associations that reveal his real motivations behind writing the book Zealot.

What is it? It is the latest progressive attempt to change and rewrite history. That’s what it is, and that’s the number one priority now for Progressives. From naming streets after communist labor activist Cesar Chavez to making movies glorifying the murderous revolutionary Che, Progressives are trying to cement the legacy of the radical revolutionary and the leftists.

And that’s what they’re trying to make Jesus into. He was just a radical. He was just a revolutionary. He was just like Che. And if you believe anything else, you’re into the dustbin of history. That’s what they’re doing, and the scary part is it’s working because no one is exposing it. Tonight, we’re going to do just that, and it’s up to you then to carry the water and spread this around to all of your friends.

We’re going to show you the truth behind this author that he and no other media source has even bothered to point out. And when we do, they’ll say oh, there he goes on the chalkboard and the conspiracies. Nope, it’s all out in the open, didn’t take us long to find it. You can find it yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Do your own homework. Get to the truth about well, why? Why? Why is this guy doing it?

Well, he’s just a scholar, right? He’s a scholar. He’s got a passion for this. That’s what he’ll have you believe. When you dig down, people will say no, no, no, it’s because of his faith. No, it’s not about that. So that leaves he wants fame, he wants money, or he wants power. To find out why he’s doing this, you have to begin to uncover the many falsehoods surrounding this book and the author.

Let’s start with the first dishonest claim. He’s a religious scholar and a historian. In fact, I’m quoting him, he has a PhD in the history of religions. That’s how everyone is identifying him because that’s how he identifies himself. In fact, he gets a little snotty about it. In an interview on Fox News, he declared himself a historian and a PhD on the history of religions.

Well, let’s look at this and see how the facts compare. Can you please play the history of religions, or do we have that coming up later? Because I know he has four degrees. He has, in 1995, he got a BA in religion, in religious studies, a BA. That’s not a PhD – Santa Clara University. In 1999, Masters in world religions from Harvard. Okay, good, not a PhD. In 2002, a Masters in fine arts in fiction, interesting – in the University of Iowa.

In 2009, a PhD in sociology. That is bizarre. So he’s studying us. He’s learning how to write fiction, and he learns how to speak the religious language. Wow, it’s a fascinating work here. But you know what I notice, there’s no history degree. There’s no history degree. He’s not a PhD in religions, and he’s not a historian. It’s possible that his Harvard theology degree included some history credits, but that’s not the same, not even on the same planet as an expert with a PhD in the history of religions.

Please play the Fox News piece here where he goes on. Listen to how he says it.

VIDEO

Reza Aslan: To be clear, I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament. I am an expert with a PhD in the history of religions. I am a professor of religion, including the New Testament. That’s what I do for a living, actually. To be clear, I just want to emphasize this one more time, I am a historian. I am a PhD in the history of religions.

]Uh uh, no, no he’s not. He’s not a PhD in the history of religions. He is not a historian. I tell you what, next time I’m on any channel, I’m going to insist that they put historian underneath my name. I spend a lot of time looking at history, a lot of time. Do you think they’d let me get away with historian? How about if I said I was a PhD in American history, and I don’t have that? Would anybody allow me to get away with it?

A cursory glance at his book reveals serious flaws in both fact and logic. But before I leave there, could you please put up where he’s teaching now, because he said I want you to know what I’m teaching here. This is what I do. I’m a professor of history specializing in the Gospels. No, actually he’s at UC Riverside, and he’s in the department of creative writing. Really? He also is…he’s at the University of Southern California in public diplomacy, which is an interesting place for him to be.

He’s also a contributor for The Daily Beast, but my favorite, my favorite is the last one. Can we put this up? He’s a sometimes professor, sometimes professor, and Tiffany, if you can please find that for me. He’s a sometimes professor, and what he’s doing is he’s teaching people something fantastic. He’s teaching people Middle Eastern revolution. That’s what he’s a professor of, revolution through – go ahead, here it is – revolution “on the art of protest in the Middle East, examining protest literature, film, art, and music. There it is, Drew University.

That’s not the same, is it? Now, his education started as most education does. He was a Christian before going into college. And colleges are doing a great job turning people out that are not Christians anymore. It’s there that his professors started teaching him.

VIDEO

Reza Aslan: I became very angry. I became very resentful. I turned away from Christianity. I began to really reject the concept of Christ.

Interesting. So it’s not surprising to me that the elitist godless professors sway him away from Jesus, but that’s his starting point – anger, resentment, rejection. But he stays in school. He gets his several degrees. For a religious expert, he doesn’t seem to have a grasp on even the most basic facts, but he’s busy teaching revolution in the Middle East so…

Now, Aslan was deflecting the NPR question of his own religious views, but he also blatantly lied about the point in the Gospels. Go back to the NPR piece here where he made this claim in the interview. Watch this.

VIDEO

Reza Aslan: I do not believe that Jesus is God, nor do I believe that he ever thought that he was God or that he ever said that he was God.

Okay, got a problem with this one, because Jesus made it very clear that he was. He was either God, the son of God, or the Messiah. He’s in the God circle there. And I don’t care how far you get away from it, if you read the Gospels, it’s pretty clear that’s who he’s saying he is. It’s one of the reasons why everybody wanted him dead. He refers to himself as I Am, which is the holy name of God, at least four times. In Mark, Jesus is asked, “Are you the son of God? And he says “yes.” Well, that seems like it’s pretty clear. So why would a religious scholar make such an easily disprovable claim?

The string of dishonesty seems to be a pattern here. Judging his work on his merit, judging him just – forget about everything about that he lied about his PhD, he lied about what he does for a living, what he’s currently teaching, that he’s a professor of. Let’s just judge him just based on the book Zealot. We showed you the one disputed claim. Here’s another one. He wrote in the Washington Post that “the Gospels are not, nor were they ever meant to be a historical documentation of Jesus’ life.”

He said, “These are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ words and deeds. They’re testimonies of faith, composed by communities of faith written many years after the events they describe.” Okay, this claim is flat-out false. Let’s go to the Gospel of Luke. Luke says “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.”

Now, that’s what it actually says, so I don’t know you can say that it was just a thing on faith. Oh, I remember, I remember, he said because this was written a long time, sometimes 30-40 years after, right? And so the authors weren’t reliable because it was 40 years after his death and after it happened. Well, that seems to be a logical problem here, professor. How are we supposed to take your book seriously 2,000 years later if 40 years couldn’t get it right?

If you need more evidence, read the book. I’m not a book burner. I’m not somebody – you can read the book. It’s garbage. We wanted to give you a taste here. We wanted to establish the clear pattern of dishonesty, but why is the real question, why? What is the reason behind it? That’s what we try to do on this show. We go back to that one question, why?

Well, to answer why, you have to look at who he really is. Who is he? He’s not who the media says he is, and he’s not who the detractors say he is. The media says he’s a God professor of Gospel history. No, no, he’s not. He’s got a PhD in Gospel history. No, he doesn’t. No, he doesn’t. And it’s not who his detractors say. He’s a Muslim, just trying – no, he’s not. He is a Muslim, but that’s not what his motivation is. It begins with Aslan Media. Now, why would this guy who’s so focused on God and religion, because that’s what he is, he’s a professor, why does he have Aslan Media? Go back to what he’s teaching. What is he teaching sometimes at Drew? He’s teaching the art of revolution and protest through literature and music. That’s what he’s doing. So he’s producing literature and media.

Now, who is Aslan Media? Well, they’re operating under the fiscal sponsorship of this group, the Levantine Cultural Center. Well, who are they? Well, they’re easy to figure out. They’re partners with CODEPINK on the founding committee of a project called Narrative 4. What’s Narrative 4? Well, that’s a project dedicated to creating social change, and that was a…that’s a project of the Tides Center. This is starting to look familiar, isn’t it?

He’s also a board member on the National Iranian American Council. Now, who are they? Well, they’re funded by George Soros. He’s also on the Board of Directors of this. This is great. Let’s take our Ploughshares. Take our swords and pound them into ploughshares, so the Ploughshares Fund, which is launched with money from the Tides Foundation. Now, Tides funnels money to the Ploughshares, and now the Ploughshares sends it back to Tides, and they can fund other progressive groups like Media Matters.

Ploughshares also has helped fund the launch of the Center for American Progress. Ploughshares also donates heavily to the International Crisis Group. Isn’t that great? Oh, that’s Samantha Power, which brings us back to the International Crisis Group, the responsibility to protect the Gaza flotilla. Remember when CODEPINK was there? It’s funny. It’s funny that all he wants to do is talk to you about Jesus – does he now?

Whenever somebody wants to change history, it usually comes back, when you really look into it, to the same cast of characters, unless they’re being demonized. If they’re being demonized by the mainstream media, you know none of these people are involved. If they’re being hailed as a God, you know the ends justify the means, Progressives are back, you know, the ones who believe it’s okay to lie as long as the end, the result is the one that you desire.

So forget about this guy being a phony Muslim or a phony scholar. Who is he? He’s a radical Progressive. He is also hardcore anti-Israel. The 2010 flotilla, remember CODEPINK? Yeah, he said about this particular point in history in the world, he said, “At what point are rational, peace-loving, Israel-supporting people of the world going to stand up and say ‘enough’? How much longer are we to bear the Hasbara propaganda…,” that’s an interesting phrase, “…that places the image of the State of Israel above its well-being?” You see, he knows what’s better for Israel than Israel does. I’ve heard that before. I think the president said it.

“How much longer are we going to accept the cries of victimization from the strongest and…,” get this, “…richest nation in the Middle East?” It’s no longer Saudi Arabia. It’s Israel to this historian and PhD in the histories of religion. “How much longer are we going to put up with a policy of collective punishments that has led to the slow starvation of 1.5 million people?”

He also is mainstream at least with the mainstream media and this administration and with George Soros and with the Tides Foundation. He thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is wonderful. “On the Muslim Brotherhood, make no mistake, however the current uprising in Egypt turns out, there can be no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt, and that is a good thing.”

In an interview on the Muslim Brotherhood website, he said, “I decided to study religion in school, even though I planned on being a writer, because of my experience at Santa Clara University, a Jesuit university steeped in the promotion...,” you can hear it coming, can’t you, “…of social justice. The Jesuits taught me that whatever I did for a living, it must benefit society, it must be for the greater good; I must work towards justice and peace.”

Justice and peace, he said these words very carefully to the Muslim Brotherhood’s official English language. Why? Well, I think Americans really need to understand the Muslim Brotherhood is the freedom and justice party. But how does freedom and justice come about with the Muslim Brotherhood? They believe according to their own websites the only way to achieve freedom and justice is with sharia law.

See, this guy is very good at speaking two languages at once. He’s a media guy. He’s a media guy. He’s a radical. There’s a difference between the Catholic understanding of social justice and the Muslim Brotherhood understanding of social justice and freedom, even a difference between the George Bernard Shaw social justice. I mean, he told us why bother keeping somebody alive if there’s nobody, you know, that’s benefiting from their life in society?

There’s a difference. Even the Catholic version of social justice, which I’m sure he doesn’t really even understand that if there’s one God, he sorts things out. And that one God, why would he let his son be crucified? Why would he let his son – Catholics believe this – why would he be crucified? To set the example.

There’s a difference between man’s justice and God’s justice, but see, he seemed to miss that in his Catholic education. Make no mistake, it’s not because he is a Muslim. He’s not writing a book slamming Jesus because of his Muslim beliefs. He’s not writing it because he’s an amazing historian and has uncovered some incredible new facts that the world has to hear.

Make no mistake, he is a progressive radical above all else. He wants to change our understanding of history and our relationship to God to create social change. That’s what he’s teaching at Drew University. I mean, at least when he’s a visiting professor occasionally at Drew University, the class has chosen, they know what they’re walking into, to witness the art of protest in literature, film, art, and music.

What he is currently doing, he’s acting it out. His goal is to cause doubt in believers of Jesus and ultimately have them leave their faith like he did so Progressives will have more devoted followers who can do whatever their hearts desire tells them to do – change our history, change our traditions. That’s what this is really all about, and the good news is for Reza, bad news for us, he’s not trying to do this alone.

VIDEO

Michelle Obama: And Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices. We are going to have to change our conversation. We’re going to have to change our traditions, our history. We’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation to provide the kind of future that we all want desperately for our children.

 

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

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

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

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

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

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

Peace through strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names matter

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.