Glenn's emotional message to Israel: Forgive us, for we know not what we do

On Tuesday, the Federal Aviation Administration temporarily banned all U.S. airlines from flying to and from Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel. The ban followed reports a Hamas rocket infiltrated Israeli airspace and landed near the airport.

As TheBlaze reported, the FAA’s notice “was issued in response to a rocket strike which landed approximately 1 mile from Ben Gurion International Airport” Tuesday morning, the agency said in a statement. The ban will remain in place “for a period of up to 24 hours.”

The moratorium has come under fire from many who believe the FAA’s action signifies a “win” for Hamas. Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg was one of the vocal detractors who went so far as to board a Tel Aviv-bound El Al flight Tuesday night to protest the FAA’s decision.

"This evening I will be flying on El Al to Tel Aviv to show solidarity with the Israeli people and to demonstrate that it is safe to fly in and out of Israel," Bloomberg said. "Ben Gurion is the best protected airport in the world and El Al flights have been regularly flying in and out of it safely. The flight restrictions are a mistake that hands Hamas an undeserved victory and should be lifted immediately. I strongly urge the FAA to reverse course and permit US airlines to fly to Israel."

On radio this morning, Glenn issued a harsh condemnation of the FAA and the Obama Administration for empowering Hamas via this decision. As he explained, the flight moratorium offers Hamas a rare victory in this two-week-old bloody conflict, while choking Israel. Glenn reiterated his personal support of Israel and its right to defend itself.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

I want to talk about what the FAA and the Obama Administration did. They gave a win to Hamas. I want you to listen to this and understand. Without an investigation, there was a rocket landed a mile away from the airport in Tel Aviv. They didn't report that it landed on a house. How about we start with that one? You're always talking about how the rockets of Israel are landing on houses. How about the rocket from Hamas? It didn't land in an open field. It landed on a house. But it was a mile away from the airport. And, immediately, the federal government shuts down all American planes going to Tel Aviv and Israel and Ben Gurion airport.

I know this for a fact: If you stop the airlines from going to Tel Aviv, you're choking Israel to death. This was a 24-hour suspension without any kind of investigation at all. What they are doing is they are sending Israel a message. And let me just ask you: Do you believe that if American airliners feet it was unsafe to fly into Israel, they would make that call? Shouldn't the airlines be the one, without my pressure, to say, ‘I don't want to fly in there because I don't feel safe’? Wouldn't they do that? El Al is one of the safest airlines in the world and Ben Gurion Airport is one of the safest airports in the world. Israel is not like Boston.

That's not to say, God forbid, something couldn’t happen. But Israel knows, especially now, that if an airliner was about to be shot out of the sky, it would be horrible for their country as well as ours. You might say that's counterintuitive. ‘Glenn, that would make Hamas look bad.’ Really? Let's think this through.

Who would the media blame? Would the media blame Hamas or would the media blame Israel? I contend that already the media would have blamed Israel, but now that there's been an FAA moratorium, and the FAA is saying, ‘Hey, we're a little concerned about planes flying into Israel.’ What have they done? They have just set Israel up. So if, God forbid, something does happen, Israel would get the blame because the President and everybody else would say, ‘See, they should have known better.’ That's where it starts. Have you heard anyone talking about how Hamas should stop?

Instead, we're stopping people from flying, while we are lecturing the people who are trying to stop the people with the rockets. We are equating violence with violence. I heard the argument yesterday. I think it's great. As if somebody who is trying to stop a rapist, that their violence is equal to the violence of the rapist. No, no. That's not the way it works.

Could I ask you a question? Would JFK airport or Newark airport, if they were being bombed, would we have planes flying in there? ‘Yeah, Canadian Airlines, keep flying into Newark.’ Or would we say, ‘No, we know better?’ Would we have more compassion and say, ‘We don't want 300 dead people burning up like in Ukraine. Would we want that? Would we want our international flights from our biggest allies, especially knowing that even our biggest ally will put the blame on us and not the separatists? This is a direct attack on Israel by our country and by the FAA, and all in the name of safety.

America, answer a few questions: Do you think the FAA and the DHS know how to keep our airports safe? Do you think our airports are safer than they were on 9/11? I would be hard-pressed to find anyone to say yes. There are a lot of trappings. But do you really believe you are safer than you were on 9/11? Do you really believe this government – a government that didn't know that a country in revolution was being taken over by Muslim extremists in Libya would be unsafe for an ambassador to fly into and go to a lightly guarded non-embassy in the heart of terrorist town on the anniversary of 9/11? This government didn't see that one coming. You really believe they know what's happening in the air space halfway around the world of another country? Do you really believe that they're better to judge it than that other country?

If I hadn't seen the anti-Israel actions, the fruit of this government's labor in the last six years, I would say to you, ‘They've got to know something that we don't know, but I don't.’ But, especially seeing that this President continually says, and I quote, ‘I get the news only TV, just like you did,’ I can't give him credit he knows something that I don't know. Even if he does, his very intelligence organizations were the ones that said that whole attack on 9/11, by Muslim extremists, was a video. That had nothing to do with extremism. Why would we listen to those advisors?

So a message to Israel. Israel, hear me clearly: As an American citizen, I don't represent all Americans. I don't even come close to representing all Americans. I represent me. I'm sorry. I am really sorry. I am sorry to the Ukrainians as well. We have violated our oath to you to be your friends. We're not going to come over and fight your wars, but, Israel, you don't need anybody to fight your wars. You seem to do a mighty good job on your own.

Here's what I can offer: My prayers and my support. And I wish my country would support you, but don't think that our country is our government. It's not. Our country is set up unlike any other country in the world, even yours. Our country is ‘we, the people.’ And there's a good number of ‘we, the people,’ a lot of people that – Republican, Democrat, independent, left, right – support you. We support our right to exist. We support your right as a Jew to live unmolested. We support your right to live in a state.

Everybody is saying we need to have the UN try to come up with a solution. Everybody says we have to have the UN. What does the UN say? Well, why are all these people asking what the UN says? Because we have to have a global governance. We have to have a global community come together and agree on a solution. Well, the UN came up with a solution. You should be the most legitimate state ever created. Your borders should be the most legitimate of all time because all those people who say we have to go to UN should be reminded that it was the UN that created your borders in the first place. It was the UN and this beloved global body that put you in that space.

You're just trying to live by the rules the world and that global body set up. You have a right to defend yourself. And dare I say it, none of us would have put up with this as long as you have. If Canada had in its charter that their goal was to destroy the United States of America and kill every American, as Hamas has in her charter, that they want to wipe Israel and all the Jews off the face of the earth, this is a no-brainer. You can't sit at a negotiating table when your ‘whys’ are different. Why does Israel want peace? Because we just want to live as neighbors side-by-side and just get along so we can raise our children. Why does Hamas want peace? Well, because it furthers my goal to wipe them off the face of the earth and kill all the Jews. There is no peace there.

I know that Jon Stewart and everyone else can make a joke of that. That's what they do. We are here to talk about adults. If this were happening to us or any other country, we would have bombed that country into the Stone Age. Be it right or wrong, that's what most of us would have done. Maybe you have an Israeli exceptionalism, because your Israeli exceptionalism would come from the same source, the God of Abraham Isaac, and Jacob that teaches us to be good the one another. Our best way to serve God is to serve our fellow man. And maybe that's why our rage would have bombed Canada into the Stone Age, but I've never seen Israel act out in rage. Boy, you have had reason. But you don't. You understood, when you took the Temple Mount, that God does not want bloodshed. You understood the sacred nature of that land, and so when you could have taken the Temple Mount, you didn't because you know that bloodshed is not always the answer.

Hear me, Israel. Sometimes, unfortunately, bloodshed is the only option left to a peace-loving people. I feel for the Palestinian people. I have met Palestinian people. We have working for us Palestinians. There's a difference between those who have been rapped up in hatred. That's not Palestinian. I feel for the Palestinian people and their children. I believe you do too, but you know and the rest of the world refuses to face that they are being lied to by their clerics and politicians. Unfortunately, in many ways, we are too. It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in this, when people are handing out sweets and candy and celebrating in the streets when there's a kidnapping of a soldier, a kidnapping of anybody. I would say the same thing about you. That's despicable. They did the same thing to us, but too many Americans have forgotten. They did exactly the same thing when our World Trade Center came down and all humans on the planet were sorrowful. All humans on the planet mourned with us and stood with us. They, the Palestinians, were handing out sweets and candy in the streets, exactly the way they are doing it to you now.

The Palestinians have to stop the insanity themselves. Until they do, you have to protect yourselves. We pray for a peace and we pray for the end of bloodshed as quickly as possible, but don't let us pull the rug from underneath you. Remain standing – even when your closest allies won't stand with you – unflinched in your hour of need. But know this: Many Americans and many all over the world still stand with you. And we will stand with you to the end.

While charity helped you build hospitals that take in friends and foe, our charity, Mercury One, has done the same. We have helped you build those hospitals, and, today, we are launching another initiative. We are going to help your military as well. We are sending supplies for your military – for you sons and daughters – who have been called into action and need flashlights, need blankets, need tents. Mercury One will deliver them. Quite honestly, I am thinking about delivering them myself this weekend.

While your sons and daughters are fighting, we refuse to stand by and let them be in need. While they are protecting the only land the Jews has ever owned and the only land ever to be created not only by the United Nations but by the only global authority I recognize – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Israel, you are not alone. God speed. God bless. And forgive us, for we know not what we do.

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

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

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

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

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

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

Peace through strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names matter

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative engineering from the top

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

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

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

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

Institutional and media coordination

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

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

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

Surveillance and suppression

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

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

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

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

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

Peace or bloodshed?

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

Outsourcing presence

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

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

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

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

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

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

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

Reclaiming our humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.