"Their interests are aligned": Glenn reveals how radicals on all sides are exploiting terror attack

Regardless of whether or not you find the cartoons in the 'Charlie Hebdo' magazine obscene, one thing we can all agree on is that the victims of the Paris attack had a right to print those images to satirize religion. Glenn finds the images incredibly offensive, but that doesn't mean those terrorists had a right to murder twelve people.

In the wake of the attack, Glenn sees many of the forces he has warned about for years coming back to the forefront. Radicals on both the left and the right are using the crisis to force what they want. Radical Islamists are blaming the French government for allowing the offensive cartoons to be printed.

In his opening monologue Thursday night, Glenn returned to the chalkboard to draw the connections between all the groups on the left and the right seeking to exploit the attacks and instability for their own gain.

And in the end he stood where everyone with common sense should. With Charlie.

Below is a transcript of this segment:

But let me go back to stability—I am Charlie. This is the actual newspaper that CNN and FOX News and everybody else is afraid to show you. It’s pretty vile. It’s got some really nasty stuff in it. I don’t think…if this is the way they depicted Jesus, or if you were a Jew and they depicted David or Moses like this, you’d be very upset. We wouldn’t kill people, but we’d be very upset.

So, I want to make sure that you understand, this is obscene. What they’re doing here is wrong; however, in a cultured, civilized society in the West, you have a right to be a dirtbag, and I can’t gun you down on the streets.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.24.36 PM

We right now have so many problems stacked one on top of each other. Have you ever gotten up in the morning, and you have a shoelace, and it’s been knotted, and it’s been knotted, and it’s been knotted, and you just for the life of you cannot get that knot out? The banking crisis with derivatives, more people out of work than ever before, the oil prices dropping, your food prices rising, printing of money…they just keep tightening that knot. The instability with people turning on the police and the tragedy in France…you’re never going to get that knot out.

There’s nothing you’re going to—at some point, because we didn’t start down here, we didn’t say wait a minute, wait a minute, before we put another knot on top of that, now it’s going to take a radical decision. Now, what you have to do is cut the shoelace and start all over. You just have to cut it out and start all over again.

We’ve covered a lot of stuff this last week trying to show you all of the problems that are stacking up one on top of another, and we’re doing it to build up to a show that airs Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week on Mother Russia, because the story on Mother Russia and what they’re doing now over there is they are purposely tying more knots, and they’re doing it because they want somebody to cut the string, because as soon as the shoelace…we’re walking man, we’re still walking. As soon as that shoelace is cut, all hell breaks loose.

It’s not so bad when you’re just doing it with your shoe, and you can just get another shoelace, and then you can sit there and take the time and do it, but if you’re in a hurry, if you’re moving at the time, you don’t just cut the shoelace. You have to stop down, but if everything is unstable, you’re in trouble when that shoelace is cut, and that’s what the radicals everywhere are trying to do. They are trying to cut the shoelace. They’re trying to get us to start from scratch. That is their goal, and to start from scratch, you have to first cut the knot. You have to break everything apart. You have to attack stability.

I’ve been mocked for this, and man, it is just looking more and more true every single day. Radicals, Islamists, Communists, Socialists work together against Israel, work together against capitalism, work to overturn stability. The protests then become contagious. They cascade. They sweep the Middle East. They begin to destabilize Europe and the rest of the world.

Screen-Shot-2012-09-24-at-4.06.53-PM-620x281

When I say they’re going to work together, what people heard was oh, Glenn Beck says, you know, President Obama is texting ISIS. No, that’s not what I said, and maybe it’s my own fault for not articulating it more clearly here, but some people have an agenda. You know what I mean is the forces working together. " So they’re not attending the same, you know, weekly meetings at Motel 6 right down the street from the forest with the big owl in it, but they’re all encouraging instability and taking advantage of the same events in the process, for example, this shooting in France.

This shooting should really bother you. It’s hitting people hard, and it should. Two things are happening. People are starting to come together, strange bedfellows, like Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is an atheist, and he said yesterday not all religions are violent, but one is. He went on to explain that a little deeper to where I actually agreed with him.

Jon Stuart give a great monologue last night where he said pretty much we should all be worried. You have a right to do this. People in the press are afraid. CNN won’t do this. USA Today will not print any of this. In America?

Now, here’s what concerns me, the reaction from the far right groups—remember, people who are pushing for that knot to break so they can reshape the world, the people pushing for anti-foreign immigration policies in Europe. Now remember, the far right in Europe is not the same in America. In America, the far right is small government, individual liberty. The left is big government, Fascism, Communism, Totalitarianism. Got it?

That’s the true right and left, and the political scale, Democrat and Republican, are up and down, and they slide this direction. Right now, they’re both kind of sliding over here to big government. So the reaction is entirely different from the Tea Party on illegal immigration here in America. In Europe, they are targeting people by race and nationality, and they are using that for a bigger more powerful government.

Right now, about 7% of France’s population is now Muslim…7%. Suspicions and hatreds already exist. This doesn’t come lightly. So when an attack like this happens, there’s a backlash. Let me show you some of the backlash that nobody else is talking about. Why? Because they dismissed that chalkboard I gave you at FOX.

Listen: “This bloodbath proves wrong those who laughed or ignored the fears of so many people about a looming danger of Islamism.” Or this one: “The Islamists, against whom PEGIDA has been warning over the last 12 weeks, showed in France today that they are not capable of (practicing) democracy but instead see violence and death as the solution.”

The leader of Italy’s Northern League tweeted this: “If the MASSACRE of Paris is confirmed to be of ISLAMIC origin [which it has], it’s at this point that we have our ENEMY at home. #stopinvasion @now!”

Marine Le Pen of the Le Pen Party is a party that is being funded by Russia, dangerous party, leader of the National Front in France, she has been speaking out against the attacks, even called for the death penalty to be reinstated. The last person killed by capital punishment is 1977 in France, and they used the guillotine. It’s like California all of a sudden asking for the death penalty, doesn’t happen.

Le Pen has also likened the Muslim population increase in France to the German occupation of the 1940s, but you also have voices such as the radical Islamic cleric Choudary. He reacted to the shooting. Now, remember, USA Today will not show this; however, today in USA Today they printed this op-ed piece, and let me just give it to you.

“Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.” You got it? How do you coexist with that?

“So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine 'Charlie Hebdo' to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?” Oh, the irony, I love this, the irony of using free speech to promote anti-free-speech agenda. The government has no place telling anybody what they can and cannot print, period. No one does. Whether it is an Islamic State with no freedom of speech or the expulsion of all foreigners, both goals can’t happen until somebody cuts the shoestring.

Dozens of groups and forces, millions of individuals chipping away at stability, and it’s now spread to Europe. They’re trying to remold things closer to their heart’s desire. Let me ask you a question, why do you think Sony actually was hacked by North Korea? Do you really think they care about a few lame jokes in The Interview? No. Instability, they see the West as weak right now. What does that really do? If you can make Sony, if you can hack in and you can release all this, well, why not hack into other capitalist companies? Why not take them down?

The 12ers in Iran, the way to prompt the return of the 12th Imam, stir up chaos…Russia is looking now to stir up chaos. You will not believe what we have found. Please, tell all of your friends, tune in Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week. Tell them, tune in. This is a really, really important series of events that no one in the mainstream is talking about.

The enemies of capitalism need capitalism to fail. They go after instability. Now, I’m not saying there’s some secret meeting place in the woods. All of these groups have wildly different goals, but those goals require the same thing to accomplish, instability. At FOX, I told you there would be a time where people would come together to destabilize, and right now they are still working separately, but in a way, in the end, the end result, it’s all the same for them. They have come together.

Create a problem, call out for a strongman to rescue the people. What have they done? The Muslims go out and shoot and say we need a strongman to say this is illegal. What does the far right say? We need a strongman to shut the Muslims out and kick them out. The far right and the radical left and the Islamists are taking advantage of the tragedy in France to gain a rise in popularity.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.26.37 PM

We haven’t hit our economic crisis yet. When the economic crisis happens, you throw this fuel on the fire, and I am telling you, we have global instability and war. It’s happening in Germany. The left and the right in France are dividing, not uniting. Germany is doing the same thing. We’re doing it to some extent here. My question to you is are we strong enough to withstand the onslaught?

As I was standing here yesterday and the day before, and we had a 3.5, and then an hour later we had a 3.6, and the lights were swinging, and I’m thinking to myself I’ve never lived in an earthquake zone. I don’t know what this is. I don’t know what’s behind these walls. I know that Stage 2 right next door to us, that’s the tornado studio. We go into that stage if there’s a tornado, because it’s a box within a box. We know that that studio has withstood, what, 120-mile-an-hour winds, something like that? Earthquakes, I don’t know. I have no idea.

The ground is unstable. The economy is unstable. Our spiritual lives are unstable. Our culture is unstable. We have ignored the calls of the doctor. We’ve ignored the knotting of the shoes for too long. We didn’t tackle things like multiculturalism when they became trendy. We said oh, well, it doesn’t matter to me. Yes, it does matter, because we’ve lost our culture.

Our culture would say this is wrong. Our culture would say you shouldn’t even draw this. Our culture says this is wrong, but our culture also says I have a right to do it, and you don’t have a right to kill me for it. We don’t even know anymore. We don’t even know. On MSNBC yesterday, they were actually going back and forth on this, and they were comparing this to Jerry Falwell taking Penthouse magazine…was it Penthouse…yeah, Larry Flynt, to court during the Reagan years. That’s not the same as shooting 12 people and injuring another 11.

Old hatreds allowed to rise, evil leaders emboldened by a lack of response, the easy road taken on the economy, the easy road taken on discipline over and over and over again, little things exploited and picked at to make sure that we’re separated, the very words of those who threaten to topple the West ignored…

We had an infection in our big toe in 2000, maybe…maybe 1995. We could have stopped it maybe then. A few years later, we probably lose the toe. We let it fester. We’re going to lose the foot, the leg. If we continue to let this fester and we continue to go down this same course without doing anything about it, we’ll be lucky to lose the leg. We may even die. We have a nasty case going on right now, an infection.

Anybody who tells you that it’s those people, run from them. Run from them. You can say it’s those policies. I say it; it’s those progressive policies that are doing this to us. It is those ideas that many Muslims have in their head about what their religion is, and if that’s what that religion is, then that’s an infection and needs to be burned out. But it’s not the people, it’s the ideas that they have. That’s why George Washington said meet me on the battlefield of ideas.

That’s why these people don’t want you to express ideas. That’s why the media shuts anyone down that has a different idea. Start speaking out on all fronts—I am Charlie. It’s not too late to fight, to start fighting, but it’s getting close.

16047647039_82599daa17_k

Patriotic uprising—Why 90% say Old Glory isn’t just another flag

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

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

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

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

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

Peace through strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names matter

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.