Hillary Clinton just topped Obama's "fundamental transformation" speech

Hillary Clinton made one of the most important political statements of all time - and no one is covering it! During a campaign speech, she attacked the very bedrock upon which the nation was founded. No longer will dissenting opinions be tolerated. Religious beliefs have to change. There’s a progressive agenda forming that goes much further than anything we’ve seen from the Obama administration. What is it? What does it mean?

Listen to the segment below, and scroll down for the full monologue:

GLENN: The question for this century and for the future of America is this, I think. Can we find enough people that just will leave everybody alone? That just want to live their life, just do the right thing. Live their own life. Be good to each other. Don't hurt each other. And just leave everybody else alone.

Can we find enough people, Americans, that want to live their life that way? Dude, I don't care. I really don't care. You want to get married. You don't want to get married. You want to marry a dude. You don't want to -- you want to marry a girl. Fine. Whatever.

Whatever.

Now, if I say that to you, can you say to my church, hey, you want to marry, you know, just dudes. Just females. Females and dudes.

Whatever.

Leave me alone! And let's work together. Let's help each other. Let's be good to each other. Let's be good neighbors. How boring will it be if we all think exactly alike. There will be no growth. You'll have no growth at all if everyone is in lockstep with everything. Think about how much -- I've said this before. But I actually believe this. And I get in trouble every time I say it. Because people are like -- think about it. Thank God for Barack Obama. Barack Obama has made me a better American. He has. I am more involved. I know the Constitution. I know the Founding Fathers. I've -- I've discovered for myself Libertarian principles. I really don't want to get involved. I've recognized that, gee, these wars across the ocean are just dumb as a box of rocks to do. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I've learned all these things because of Barack Obama.

Conflict helps us grow. Difference of opinion helps us grow. But difference of opinion is no longer valid. Can we find enough Americans that just want to be cool with each other? Because if we can find those Americans, we'll make it. If we can't, America as we know it is done.

I believe an extremely high-profile American politician has finally jumped the shark. I say this. Once you hear this politician. You'll say, no, Glenn, this politician will never jump the shark. There's nothing this politician can do. And I'm not talking about Barack Obama. This politician has gone farther than any politician I've ever heard in my lifetime.

And as usual, there's so little coverage of it except here. I'm actually not sure how many people know of it. And if the American people know about it, I don't even know if they care anymore.

But I can say, without any reservation whatsoever, this is a phenomenal statement that needs to be paid attention to by all Americans. Because the principle that was blatantly attacked is, in fact, the bedrock principle on which this country was founded. And it is this: Religious liberty -- you cannot violate my conscience. If I happen to believe something deeply, religiously, that's my business. I'm not in your business. Don't be in my business.

Now, if you've been living in a cave, you know, in one of the countries that hate our guts, you know, one of the countries that the Clinton Foundation sends tens of millions of dollars to or if you pay attention to the mainstream media, you may not have heard this.

HILLARY: Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.

GLENN: This is amazing. What Hillary is saying here is, it's no longer acceptable to believe something that the government doesn't believe.

For instance, Christians. I would assume this applies here. If the government says abortion is fine, you can no longer believe that it's akin to murder. If that marriage is between a man and a woman, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. You don't have the right -- you have to change. Quote: You've got to change our religious beliefs.

Those two issues are paramount to all progressives. In fact, it's safe to say, that to the American left, those are the two most important principles of all. It seems. Homosexuality and abortion. I don't think so. But they seem to run on that all the time.

So your religious belief has to change. Deep-seated cultural codes. I'm quoting. Deep-seated cultural codes. Religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed, end quote. That's not who we are.

That is just not who we are. It's -- it's an un-American kind of idea. It's -- it's anti-Christian. But Hillary is running in a country, don't worry, Hillary, you're only running in a country that is 75 to 80 percent Christian. So what could possibly go wrong? Nothing. Because nobody is paying attention to it.

So maybe I'm the oddball here. Maybe I'm the only one that cares. Maybe I'm the only one that sees a problem with that. Because I think it's the most outrageous line ever spoken by an American politician. That includes, we're five days away from fundamentally changing the United States of America. That was one amazing statement that came from Barack Obama in 2008. And he did it.

So I take these guys at their word. When she says, your religious belief has to change, I take her at her word.

Five years ago, that statement would have been enough to topple any presidential hopes for any candidate. The campaign would be in ruins.

They would be dropping out of the race by now. Especially if that candidate had said just a few short years earlier in 2007, she said this.

HILLARY: I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history.

GLENN: Into the mists of history. Holy cow. This is phenomenal. I want you to take this monologue and send this to your friends.

We'll post it up at GlennBeck.com today. You have to send this to your friends because nobody is reporting on this.

So as I understand it, Hillary, since her fundamental, I'm quoting, her fundamental bedrock principles that she took umbrage to anyone who said she would reverse those principles, now that she has reversed them, well, you've got to give up yours too. Now that her bedrock principles have been flipped upside down, it's time for her to tell you that you have to flip your bedrock principles upside down as well. And the firstamendment, forget the first amendment. Hillary Rodham believes that religious liberty. The right to worship as you see fit doesn't exist in America anymore. If it goes against the collective knowledge.

Now, here's the scariest part. I want you to listen to the response of the audience after she said that.

HILLARY: And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed. As I --

[applauding]

GLENN: They are cheering. It reminded me of another chilling phrase I've heard before.

PADME: So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.

GLENN: You know what's funny? A pretty prophetic line there, especially coming as it did from George Lucas, the progressive that he is. And I know that when they did that, they meant that about George W. Bush. And that he has no problem whatsoever with that statement from Hillary Clinton. But when Natalie Portman said that line, I don't really think they thought liberty could die to thunderous applause. Maybe they did because of September 11th. Maybe they did.But here we are a decade later, and it has happened. The elite who want to finish the fundamental transformation of America that the progressives started over 100 years ago and this president slammed into warp speed are become less and less inclined to even bother hiding their efforts anymore. We told you this would happen. They would become so emboldened that they would start saying things that at one time seemed impossible to believe that anyone would even believe they would say they believed them and they would say it out loud. And here it is.

Hillary Clinton told us last week at the Women's Summit that our deep-seated religious beliefs would have to change. We are no longer free to choose. They are pro-choice as long as you always accept their choice.What she didn't outline in that speech was, what do you do to change it? If my deep-seated religious belief doesn't change, what do you do as a government? Will we be vilified? Well, that's already being done. Will we be fired from our jobs? That's already happening. How about fined? No, they just made the baker pay for the fine of, what --

PAT: $135,000.

GLENN: So what's left? Reeducation? They're kind of doing that with Common Core. How about we ban certain religions? We ban the Bible. How about we imprison people? We're pretty much running out of options here, gang. We're down to the last few. Banning religions. Reeducation. Outlawing the Bible. Reeducation camps. That's all we're down to. And I contend, we're already pretty much doing reeducation. Just not in a camp. It's called a public school.

I for one do not want to find out. I don't want to see. I don't listen to her and say, she doesn't mean it. When somebody says they're going to do something, we as people need to start believing them. When they're chanting over in Iran, death to America. What the hell do you think they mean by that? Well, they're just saying -- they mean it. Death to America. When ISIS says, we will behead every Christian, believe them. They're doing it.

When a progressive says, you're going to have to change your fundamental core religious beliefs, take them at their word. The left has shown you exactly who they are. Now, the last time this happened was with the Woodrow Wilson administration. And the Woodrow Wilson administration scared this country out of their mind so much with prohibition and everything else, that they ran from the progressives.

I don't think that's happening. After the progressives in the 1930s, when FDR died, the country was scared so much that Congress passed a law saying the president could not stay in office that long. And the Republicans won by running a campaign that just said, had enough yet? That was it. America ran from this!

After Jimmy Carter, Americans ran. I don't know if Americans are going to run. They're awfully damn comfortable. And they don't see what's over the horizon. It doesn't have to be this way. Life is not this hard. Just a few things you have to get right. Love one another. Be cool with one another. Don't try to change one another. Basically, everything that you do in your marriage, well, except for the one part that Washington is doing to us now, but other than that, just pretty much everything you do in a marriage.

Do me a favor, we're posting this on GlennBeck.com and our Facebook page. I want you to put this on your Facebook page. I want you to take these audio clips, and I want you to share these audio clips. There cannot be any excuse.

I'm glad Bernie Sanders is getting into the race this week. Because Bernie Sanders is going to say, I'm a socialist. Good. I welcome you. Let's have a real debate. Hey, I really believe what they're doing in Sweden is the right thing. Good. Then let's talk about that. Let's not have this bullcrap back and forth where you're lying and the other guy is lying. Where you got Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush both lying about what they're going to do. Can we be honest?

Can we be adults? Can we be Americans and actually disagree with each other's opinions anymore?

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.