Glenn: It's time to start focusing on principles and faith, not politics and religion

Below is a transcript of this segment:

So this morning, I came in and, quite honestly, my heart was full of anger this morning. My heart was full of anger because I'm tired of religion. I'm really, really tired of religion.

Let me say this: We used to say don't talk about religion and politics. It always leads to trouble. May I suggest that that is something we really need to consider again. We shouldn't be talking about religion and politics. Glenn, you're on a radio show, you don't talk about politics. We talk about principles.

The problem with politics and the same with religion, everybody uses it as a game to win.

I'm winning for my religion. My religion is right. Your religion is wrong. You don't know. You're a bunch of sinners. You're going to hell. Oh, my gosh, you're deceiving. Shut up.

It is our understanding of religion - if we really understand our religion and we really actually practice our religion, maybe we're going to be okay. But religion is really important because it defines our doctrines and it defines what is it that we believe and it helps us live our faith. But if we start concentrating just on our religion and not our faith.

Remember, religion is to help us live our faith. The same thing with politics.

I hate politics. I hate politicians. Why? Because they've forgotten the principles that actually the parties used to stand for something. I honestly don't know if they ever did. But in principle, they were supposed to stand for something. And those things helped you further what you believed in.

But now, it's all about the win. Now it's either just about baptism. I got to win. I got to win. I get to get you into the waters. Come to my church. Your church is bad. My church is good. What? You got to stop voting for the Republicans. You got to vote for the Democrats because we care about children, we care about poor. We care about this. You guys don't care about that. No, you don't care about that. We care about the poor. We care about the people down at the bottom. You're hurting those. --  Shut up both of you.

What are your principles? What is your faith? Those things we can unite on: principles. Those things will heal the world: principles and faith. But we all spend too much time watering the weeds. You water the weeds and expect flowers to grow? Flowers are not going to grow. We're watering the weeds.

Every plant, every thing that wasn't planted by God - meaning, everything that doesn't fall in line with universal principles, universal truths - will be uprooted. You don't need me to do it. I don't need to go out and uproot it. I feel like I'm too small. I can't effect anything.

I was talking to Dan one of our writers this morning in the hallway before I came in. I said, people write to me, and they Facebook me, they tell me thank you so much for what you're doing. I don't know what I'm doing. I don't know what I'm doing. I'm no different than you, you don't know what you're doing. We're doing the best we can. We just get up and then we do it again tomorrow. That's what we're doing. We're all doing the best we can.

And all of us are made to feel insignificant. All of us are made to feel like we're not making a difference that we'll never make it.

You won't make it unless you play the games, unless you water the weeds.

 

Why?

You won't make it unless you vote for this person. You won't make it unless you go to this church and you adhere to this doctrine, not that doctrine, this doctrine.

What?

What are the things that are essential, essential for me to be able to make it? What are those things? Because I will bet you that we agree on 99.9%  on those things when you strip the label off it. Republican, Democrat. This church and that church. Forget about politics and religion. Let's talk about faith and principles. When we strip off the labels off them. And you were talking to an alien [because[ the only person you would trust now is some alien that you thought, okay, well, they don't have an agenda. They don't really know. So you would answer an honest question.

Everybody else: Well, what do you think? These politicians now on the campaign trail: Do you agree with what the president has done? Do you agree with his policies or not? It's a yes-or-no question. Give it to me. Yes or no, do you agree or not?

I know that there are subtleties. I know there are things that you will agree and disagree. Yes or no, on the whole, do you agree or don't you agree?

The Republicans: I don't agree! I don't agree! Of course, because they have to say that because of the way it looks. Because we have signaled that we have an attention span, and I'm not kidding you, an attention span four seconds shorter than that of a goldfish.

And so you can't say, well, I actually disagree with him. I do disagree on these things. We can't, because all the sound bite is, I don't agree with him. I do agree with him.

And the other reason they don't answer that question is because they don't have the balls to answer that question. They're not willing to actually suffer the consequences of what they believe in because they're about politics and not policies. They're about religion and not faith.

So as I sit down this morning and I'm going over all the things that we can talk about today, I see the real important things. The shootings up in Ottawa. What's happening to us? You know what's happening to us. You know what's happening to us. We have been infiltrated. There are those who believe in the radical teachings of psychopaths. Psychopathic Islam. Radical Islam? No. Psychotic and psychopathic Islam. Let's start being a little more clear. They're not radicals. They're psychopaths. They're here.

Last night if you happened to watch 'For the Record', you saw they're here. They're in Boston. We're telling the story of the Boston imams and the Boston mosque and the Boston council of Islamic relation or whatever the hell that is. Nobody up in New England wants to tell this story. Nobody in the press has the courage to tell this story except a few.

Most Americans don't have the courage to look at the story. Why? Because I can't do anything to change it.

That what you gaze upon, you become. Are we watering flowers or are we watering the weeds?

Nobody ever says if you have cancer, you know what you need to do, go home and concentrate cancer. What you can do is concentrate on cancer and where exactly it's eating at you. What I would do is spend all your time reading about cancer.

Laugh. Live life. Concentrate on the positives. You want to think about cancer? Concentrate on how it is being eaten and destroyed by you, not that it's eating you. That you're eating it.

Are we doing that as a people? Are you doing that as a person? I sure the hell am not.

We bring you stories of cancer. Instead, we need to bring stories of how cancer is being destroyed and eaten and how it's being eaten and that there is hope on the horizon. And more importantly than those stories that show the cancer being eaten, stories that just are good. Stories that are uplifting. Stories that you unite us, don't divide us. Faith over religion. Principles over politics. Those stories.

You know, the days when everything was grass fed. In the days when nothing was manufactured. You went out and you killed it, and then you ate it. Couldn't eat certain animals.

So here comes this carpenter. He's a carpenter. You're a carpenter, do you even know how to read and write? Let me tell you what the law is. The law is: You don't eat these things. And the carpenter says, you know, it's not really the things that you eat that destroy and defile you. It's not the things that go in your mouth, it's really the things that go out of your mouth that defile you.

What a condemning statement that is. What a condemning statement that is for those feminists that absolutely jumped the shark. Feminism is over. Mark it down. It was the six years old dressed as princesses being taught how to say the F word. That's jumping the shark. That's the end of feminism. What woman looks at little girls and says, that's right. No woman worth her salt. No mother wants to be a part of that. That's anger.

Why do men generally, why are they the ones who say go to war? Because we're the ones who are much more prone to anger. Look at what the feminist movement has done. It is not what's going in, it's what's coming out that's defiling them.

So I'm talking to Pat and we're sitting here. And we're like, okay, what do we talk about then? What do we talk about today?

There's a lot. But if I believe my faith, if I want to practice my faith, then I better watch what comes out of my mouth.

I better have the faith that says: Anything that God hasn't planted is going to be uprooted.

Not because of me. I mean, I will be involved. He uses our hands, our backs, our bodies, our brains. He didn't just put prescription bottles down in the ground with antibiotics. That is a miracle from God, but he used us to develop it.

But as I look at the world and what is happening and to be able to point the fingers and say, you want that to happen here? What happened in Ottawa is coming here. You know it and I know it. It's coming here.

We can ring the bell. But pointing the fingers, I'm not sure isn't watering the weeds.

And before I went on the air, I opened up my favorite book and read this: Let them alone. Let them alone. They're blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, they're both going to end up in a ditch. Leave them alone.

Let's not end up in a ditch. They're blind. They're blind. And they're leading the blind.

Let's talk about principles. Let's talk about faith. And maybe, we should listen to our parents and what they taught us.

Don't talk about politics or religion because nobody wants to hear it. It only leads to arguments.

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.