Ted Cruz: If you're looking for a candidate embraced by Washington elites, I ain't your guy

Twenty-four hours after announcing his campaign for President of the United States, Senator Ted Cruz joined Glenn on radio. During the interview, the two discussed the grassroots support that will be key to Ted's campaign, the theories that he isn't a natural born citizen, and his dark horse run for U.S. Senator in 2012.

GLENN: How are you, Ted?

TED: I'm doing great. Great to be with you.

GLENN: Good to have you here. What is it like to announce you're running for president of the United States? What is that day like?

TED: Well, I have to say, yesterday was electric. I mean, the energy and passion. We had 12,000 college kids - they were on fire. They were ready to stand up and lead a movement of courageous conservatives to turn the country around. And it was breathtaking. It was inspiring. Seeing their passion really gives me incredible strength. The very first voice I spoke to after the announcement speech was you when I was handed the phone to go on-air with you yesterday.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: I want to tell you -- and I say this for you, not for us. This works out horribly for us. But, you know, being our friend may not be the best thing for you.

[laughter]

TED: You know what, I'm very proud to dance with who brought me. And we'll stand together happily.

PAT: Everyone wants to know how they can help you. Everyone wants to roll up their sleeves and get to work for you.

GLENN: Before you answer this, I just want to say, that people like James Carville, they are terrified of you.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: They are warning the Democrats, don't dismiss this guy.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Weren't you world champion debate guy, something like that? I think that was the actual title.

TED: In college, I wasn't exactly one of the cool kids.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Didn't exactly play football.

TED: The star quarterback and then the star debater. There's a little bit of a difference.

[laughter]

GLENN: The smart people in the Democratic party, everybody else is blowing you off, and I'm telling you, between, what you've done and what I know of the people who actually believe in the Constitution, if you play your cards right, you're going to have the biggest grassroots campaign probably next to Obama, if not surpassing Obama. The passion will be there in spades.

TED: Well, and that is at the heart of our campaign. It is a grassroots movement from the people. You mentioned the smart Democrats. Look, the smart Democrats understand that the American people are fundamentally center right. And what worries them is a leader who understands that as well and will speak for the shared common sense conservative values we have across this country. So many Republican leaders have bought the media spin that the American people have abandoned our values. And that's simply not true.

I'll give you an example. Last week I was on your show. And on the show, we asked people to text in the word "Constitution" to the number 33733. Do you know how many people texted in?

GLENN: I do.

TED: 26,295.

STU: Wow.

PAT: That's great.

TED: It was incredible. That was ten minutes on your show. Over 26,000 people texted in. I'll tell you, the 24 hours since we launched the campaign, the number of people who have gone to our website, TedCruz.org, and contributed to the campaign has been astonishing. The website blew up yesterday. And all of the political elites in Washington and New York are saying there's no way a real conservative can compete with the establishment choice because you won't have the money that comes from the lobbyists.

Look, our strength is the grassroots. And we have been saying since the moment we announced, people over and over and over again coming to TedCruz.org. If they can, they max out. But even if they can't, they give $10, or $25, or $50. And that will fuel our effort to build a grassroots army of courageous conservatives all over this country.

GLENN: So, Ted, let me ask you this. This is a hard question. I like Rand Paul. I like Scott Walker. I'd like to see those guys advance. There are progressives in the Republican, i.e. Jeb Bush, that just need to be stopped or we'll end up with Jeb Bush. Is it at all part of your strategy or will you consider not going after Rand and Scott Walker, Rand in particular, to keep the guys who love the Constitution in play so folks your energy on the people who are the progressives?

TED: I very much like and respect Rand Paul. I like and respect Scott Walker. They're both good guys.

My focus is not going to be going after anybody. My focus will be making the affirmative case that, number one, what I think primary voters are looking for is someone who is a consistent conservative who says the same thing yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and who will stand up and do what he said he would do. And I think to win, the only way we'll win is if you have a full spectrum conservative who has a proven record standing for principle, whether it's on Obamacare; whether it is stopping the debt ceiling; whether it is stopping President Obama's executive amnesty; whether it's defending the first amendment, free speech, religious liberty; defending the second amendment; defending our privacy; defending the tenth amendment and stopping Common Core; standing with the nation of Israel; standing up to Iran and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

And I'll tell you, as I look at the potential field, I see a lot of people who I like and respect who are friends of mine. If you look at those issues that I've just listed off and you ask of all of the senators and governors looking at this field -- looking at this race, how many of them have actually stood up and led and engaged meaningfully on the great issues today?

PAT: Only you.

GLENN: Only you. That's why we're such big supporters. So let me take you here. Yesterday there was pushback on education. You were talking about the right to education, et cetera, et cetera. Ronald Reagan came out and he wanted to defund and shut down the Department of Education. Will you go that far?

TED: Absolutely. Of course, we should shut down the Department of Education. It has been driving federal mandates and intruding into the critical role of education. I think education is too important to be dictated by unelected bureaucrats in Washington. It should at the state level or even better at the local level where we as parents can have direct influence and control over what's being taught to our kids.

GLENN: This is the thing that attracts me to Libertarianism. I can be as conservative as I want and my neighbor could be Ben & Jerry the ice cream guys, and we can get along as long as neither of us are trying to control the other's lives. That's where Washington needs to be stopped. Because we can get along if I'm not trying to tell you what church to go to and how to live your life and you're not telling me what education I have to have or how I must tolerate X, Y, or Z.

TED: Well, and that's one of the reasons you and I see eye to eye on so many issues. I have described myself - I am a conservative, but with strong Libertarian leanings. And I think the path to victory is reassembling the old Reagan coalition. Bringing together conservatives and Libertarians and evangelicals and Reagan Democrats and Republican women and young people and Hispanics. And that's one of the things we saw so powerfully in Texas when I ran for Senate in 2012. You know, I think it was the case that in 2012, that I was the only candidate in the country who was endorsed by both Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

And you talk about two political leaders who don't generally see eye to eye on much, and their supporters often have sharp disagreements. And yet we had both Ron Paul and Rand Paul came, did an enormous rally with me in the state capitol. We had thousands of young people out in the hot sun. And Rick Santorum came to Dallas. We had another rally with thousands of evangelicals come together. If we're going to win, we have to appeal to the shared values that bring together courageous conservatives across this country. I think that's the path to victory

PAT: Sounds really good.

GLENN: I remember standing in Rick Perry's office, and I had just gotten here. And it was the week before your election. And he said to me, 'you're backing the wrong guy.' And I said, 'what?' And he said, 'Ted Cruz, you're backing the wrong guy.' And I said, 'governor, I don't think so.' And he said, 'you don't know Texas politics.' And I said, 'I don't think you know the American people on this. And I'm new to Texas, so maybe you're right. But I think you'll be surprised by this.'"

How much of that surprise, you were not supposed to win. You were way outspent. You were way outgunned and yet you won. How much did your win here in Texas play a role in your decision to run for president?

TED: It was a very significant factor. It demonstrated that the overwhelming power of the grassroots, and that's what a lot of the Washington political establishment don't understand. In Texas, when we launched the campaign, beginning of 2011, when we started, I was literally at 2 percent in the polls. As I've often joked, the margin of error was 3 percent.

[laughter]

And, Glenn, you'll appreciate this. When I went home to Heidi and said, 'sweetheart, we're at 2 percent.

And he said, 'technically couldn't you be at negative one?'"

PAT: This is all really promising, if only you weren't Canadian. Oh, darn it. Can you believe that's come up already? You have the View crew wanting to see your birth certificate. Whoopi Goldberg was accusing you of harping on the birth certificate with Obama. Which I never saw you do. Ever.

GLENN: Did you ever do that?

TED: No.

Look, I think you can tell a lot about a person by who comes out shooting at them. I thought it was very interesting that The New York Times said yesterday, Cruz cannot possibly be the candidate because the Washington political elites hate him. And my immediate reaction was, 'gosh, do I have to declare that to the FEC as a contribution.' Because I can't summarize what we're trying tolerance better than that. If you want a candidate embraced by the Washington political elites, I ain't your guy. But look, if you want someone who will actually stand with working men and women who want to believe again in the miracle of America, want to bring power back to the people and out of Washington, then that is exactly what we're trying to do in this campaign.

STU: Senator, when President Obama announced his run in 2007, there were a lot of conservatives who said this is a first term senator who has been in office for three years, he doesn't have the experience to be president. A lot of people made that argument on the conservative side. They'll make it against you. What's your answer?

TED: I think two things. Number one, there's a real difference in my tenure in the Senate and Obama's tenure in the Senate. In his time in the Senate, he was a back bencher who did not engage in a lot of issues of consequence.

In the time I've been in there on issue after issue, I've been leading the fight to stop Obamacare, to stop amnesty to stop the debt that is crushing our kids and grandkids. To defend our constitutionally rights. But number two, unlike Barack Obama, I wasn't a community organizer before I came. I spent five and a half years as a solicitor general of Texas, representing Texas in front of the Supreme Court. And we won some of the biggest victories in the country defending conservative principles whether it was the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance or standing up to the world court of the United Nations and defending US sovereignty and winning.

GLENN: Senator, I hate to cut you off. It's TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org. Thank you very much.

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative engineering from the top

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

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

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

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

Institutional and media coordination

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

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

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

Surveillance and suppression

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

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

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

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

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

Peace or bloodshed?

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

Outsourcing presence

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

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

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

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

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

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

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

Reclaiming our humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.