Glenn: This is probably the hardest thing I have ever asked of you

Glenn and TheBlaze have been covering the growing crisis at the southern border for a number of weeks now. With the situation further deteriorating, Glenn came before his audience on Monday morning with an interesting ask. In fact, Glenn described what he was about to say as “the hardest thing” he has ever asked for. But as he shared troubling new information about the humanitarian crisis at the border, Glenn asked his listeners to consider donating to Mercury One.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

I'm not going to tell you who is giving me this information because things down at the border are extraordinarily difficult and not what you are being told it is. The Administration – and I believe this also includes the progressives Republicans – are trying to keep the lid on the media right now. And the churches are the ones who are pulling people's feet out of the fire. Our state reps now have gone and toured the facilities that are happening in Laredo, Brownsville, Van Horn, McAllen, and all across the border. This one particular facility that I want to talk to you about holds 400 people but currently it has 1,200 kids in it. Some of them are toddlers. 1,200. 400 is what the max capacity is.

Let me ask you: How fast would the federal government or the state shut you down if you had anything that said maximum capacity 400, and you had 1,200 people if there? Three times the amount. Is anybody seeing a problem with this? The federal government is breaking their own laws and they are keeping this information from us.

I am told by people who have toured and work at this facility that when they open the doors to go in, the stench is so bad the politicians that were to go in gagged and backed out. One of the churches is planning on converting their entire church, the largest in the area, to become a holding facility because of how bad things are. Things are so desperate right now, hygiene and food are the number one problem. Clothes are further down the list. They need portable showers and Port-A-Johns. They have no way to wash their clothes. They need food and hygiene care right now. Many of them have not eaten in days. FEMA is supposed to be down there. They are not down there.

The more I get into it, the more angry I get. The more I see and the more I hear from both the Republicans and the Democrats, the more disgusted I am with them. And then we're sitting here in this situation to where we have to ask ourselves: Who are we? What is it we're going to do?

I have come to a place this weekend that I believe in the Constitution of the United States. I believe in the United States of America. And that is my citizenship. But that is my secondary citizenship. The Constitution of the United States of America was God-inspired and man tried to write. It guarantees some basic freedoms for us, and that's why it exists. But that is not where those freedoms come from. Our freedoms come from a higher citizenship. And now we have people who are in need. As I sit and I look at what's happening on the border and then I look at whose border it is, we've never seen a humanitarian crisis like this. We never had refugee camps in America that I know of unless we were the progressives that rounded the Japanese up or the Germans or the Italians. We've not done that. In America, we pride ourselves on the fact that we're the good guys, right?

That's who we are. We pull our wounded enemies off the battlefield and we treat them in our hospitals. We offer medical care to our prisoners – even those who have done the most heinous things, the worst of the worst, we still believe in treating them in humane ways. And it's because it's simple. It is really simple to Americans. And this is what makes us different. We believe humanity is a higher standard on the battlefield. We believe humanity is a higher stand than the rule of law. We believe helping people, being charitable, being good, is what makes us. We have a higher calling.

The same thing goes for our borders. Humanity, our humanness, is a higher standard than immigration. To consider the well-being of others is what makes us human. It's what makes us Americans.

I have to tell you, I am so mad at our politicians right now, I can't take it. I'm to the point now where I'm beyond mad. I beg them, please, please, for everything that is good and decent, secure our borders and fix our immigration policies. Please, don't you see the misery that is being caused all over the country? Please. Can you not hear, can you not smell what's happening on our borders? Please. But I have no faith in Washington anymore.

I still have, thank God, my faith in you. Now we have a choice. We can run down to the borders and secure it ourselves. Let's get our guns. Let's go down there and secure it ourselves. But that doesn't fix the humanitarian crisis. And we have to err on the side of humanity. If we're going to be Americans, a choice has to be made. And we always make the right choice. We really do. As people, we always do. We would rather extend ourselves and see the life of a child protected than err on the side of being silent or still and harm coming to a child while politicians do what politicians do nothing, debate meaningless words. That's what makes them politicians. Acting in a compassionate way is what makes us human. It's what makes us Americans.

I don't know what's going to happen on our border. I don't know what's going to happen with our politicians. I have a feeling I know. And I want no part of it. These people have to be sent home. They have to be sent home. But I can't sleep at night knowing that we know what's going on.

When I got that email, I reached out to Mercury One and asked them, can we send trucks? We just helped with a tornado up in Nebraska. We sent five tractor-trailers within hours. We had five tractor-trailers. This is going to take a lot more than five tractor-trailers. I want to be really clear. I am not for amnesty. I am not for open borders. The policies have to be debated. The laws have to be written. But we can't allow the suffering to happen on our side of the border and know about it.

If you don't want to know about it, you better turn off the radio. Well, oops, it's too late for that. You now know about it. It's like if we were in the hospital, and there was a sick child and they were an immigrant and they're sitting there, anybody, it doesn't matter. We always say, we didn't need universal health care. We know our system was broken. We got that. But we don't want it running through the government because it's going to make it worse. And they said, ‘Well, you can't let people just die of cancer in the streets.’ Nobody was dying of cancer in the streets. You and I both know that when people would go into the hospital, they would get treatment. You know that, and I know that. Because it's what Americans do.

Today, I want to appeal to you. I want you to just think about this, please. The two citizenships that we hold. We will destroy our country if we only recognize the citizenship that we have in our country. If the Constitution of the United States of America is our god, then we are lost already. Our God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Our God demands certain things from us. He demands us to see each other. He demands that we help each other. He demands that we help the child. We help the suffering. We are the Good Samaritan.

There are some who are going to say, ‘I'm not going to help the people. They came across the border.’ Well, okay, but they're here now. They're on our border. Yes, some of them may be MS-13. That's a different argument. We can sort out who's who after we take care of people. That's for the government to do. I'm not talking about we're going to send them into our cities.

I'm saying can we please get them Port-a-Potties. Can we get them portable showers? Can we feed them? You want to show the world what it means to be an American? Then let's do that. Let's put the well being of others on the highest pedestal. I beg our politicians, please, stop seeing Rs and Ds. Stop seeing votes. Start seeing people. You got to get this one right. You can't swamp our cities. You can't swamp our churches. You can't swamp the American people. We're the only lifeboat out there. You want to help people? We have to be strong. You have to get this one right because the American people are charitable.

But the cause of charity, even though it's noble, is not a solution. It's just a means of closing the gap. You have to close the gap. You have to be strong and say, ‘Stop sending us your 3-year-olds. It's not right. It's dangerous for the 3-year-old. Please. Implore to people.’ They are just like you. What parent sends a 3-year-old across the border with a drug smuggler? I'll tell you what. Somebody who sees what's on the other side. Somebody who says there's nothing here. They'd be better off up there. I'll take the chance. What does that tell you? That tells you that things are so out of control in their country, that things are so lawless in their country, that their children don't even have a chance. Why in our wildest dreams would we try to help people in other countries by becoming lawless ourselves? The laws matter. It is up to the President, it is up to the Department of Justice, it is up to our Congress to actually stand by those laws and enforce those laws and if you don't like those laws, then change those laws. But until you do, you have to enforce them and until they do, we have to be charitable.

I don't know how you're going to react. I really don't. This is probably the hardest thing I've ever asked of you because I know how angry you are. I know what you feel on the border because I feel exactly the same way. But what makes us Americans is empathy. What makes us Americans is charity. When our game is divine, and everything that we do is noble, at least everything we strive for is noble, that's when we become America.

Could I ask you to donate to MercuryOne.org. I will promise you that every dollar – even if it is only a dollar – will go to help those in need. We will not stop helping those who are hit by a hurricane or hit by a tornado here in our own country. But now for the first time in my lifetime, we have a humanitarian crisis because the politicians have dropped the ball. Let's not drop the ball ourselves. Let's continue to be Americans. MercuryOne.org.

You can donate to Mercury One HERE.

Front page image courtesy of the AP

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

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

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

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

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

Peace through strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names matter

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative engineering from the top

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

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

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

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

Institutional and media coordination

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

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

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

Surveillance and suppression

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

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

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

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

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

Peace or bloodshed?

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

Outsourcing presence

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

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

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

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

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

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

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

Reclaiming our humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.