Dinesh D'Souza to lift the veil on the Democratic Party in new documentary film

On radio Monday, author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza joined Glenn to discuss a new film he's creating with Gerald Molen - producer of Schindler's List, Jurassic Park and other classics. The new film, called Stealing America, will open during the Democratic Convention in July, 2016.

D'Souza compared the narrative of the film with his previous documentary, 2016: Obama's America, which he released in 2012 as an attempt to blow the whistle on Obama and expose a side of the incumbent president people didn't know.

"We made some predictions about Obama. And here we are, and I think the Obama we described is the Obama he's turned out to be," D'Souza said. "We want to do the same thing with Hillary. But in the new film, I want to go beyond the candidate, and look at the secret history of progressivism and of the Democratic Party."

He went on.

"People think the Civil War was a war simply between the North and the South. And the South was the pro-slavery side. The North was the antislavery side," he said. "But the northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas were defenders of slavery."

Listen to the eye-opening dialogue below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Dinesh D'souza, you know he is -- is one of my favorite writers. He came out with an incredible documentary right before the election last time that really kind of showed Obama's America and what he was planning on doing. And Gerald Molen is a guy that you know his work. You may not know him. Schindler's List. Minority Report. Jurassic Park. Days of Thunder. Rain Man. As executive producer. They are now working on a new movie called Stealing America. Welcome, guys. How are you?

DINESH: Great to be here, Glenn.

GLENN: Dinesh, this is coming out during the Democratic convention, and it is?

DINESH: Yeah. You know, four years ago, we tried to blow the whistle on Obama and expose a side of him that people didn't know. And part of what I wanted to say about Obama is that he wasn't just a bungler. He wasn't just an amateur, someone who didn't know what was going on. He actually wanted to see a shrinking of American prosperity and power. And so he we made a call on Obama. We made some predictions about Obama. And here we are. And I think the Obama we described as the Obama has turned out to be.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: So we want to do the same thing with Hillary. But in the new film, I want to go beyond the candidate, and look at the secret history of progressivism and of the Democratic Party.

GLENN: Love this.

DINESH: Because there's a whole narrative here, the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy. It's the party of progress. It's the party of abolitionism and equal rights and equal opportunity and women.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

DINESH: So the truth is completely different. And this truth is buried. It's not just buried in the media, it's buried in academia so that there's a kind of false narrative out there. And that's all young people are exposed to. So we think part of the decision next year is a decision about -- not just about America, but what really does progressivism and the Democratic Party stand for?

GLENN: And it's unbelievable, because we're working on a new book that will come out right before the election called The Progressives. And it is the same thing, that people don't understand what they're dealing with. They have no idea. What is the -- what is the thing that you have put together so far that you say, "People are going to be shocked when they find out?"

DINESH: We're going to -- we're going to tell a new story about the party system in America. We'll tell you a new story about the Civil War. People think the Civil War was a war simply between the North and the South. And the South was the pro-slavery side. The North was the antislavery side. But the northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas were defenders of slavery.

So in other words, right away, you see that this was not so much a North/South divide, it was a divide between the Republican and the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party, both in the north and in the south, staunchly defending and digging in in to protect slavery.

Now, of course, part of the narrative we'll deal with in the film is just the idea that, "Oh, yes, that's how things used to be. But we Democrats got really enlightened, and we got really smart. And now we're the good guys. And all the Dixiecrats and all the old slavery and segregation guys became Republicans." That is part of the official narrative. So this is part of the intellectual content of this movie. So we'll have a movie about a candidate. And we'll lift a lot of veils to show the candidate behind the mask. But we'll also lift the veils on the party itself.

GLENN: Do you guys think that Hillary will be the candidate? Gerald?

GERALD: I think it's questionable right now.

GLENN: I mean, put a movie in production that has Hillary Clinton as the candidate. I'm not sure. She is -- I mean, I hope she is. She's so wildly unlikable, by even her own party.

GERALD: It doesn't necessarily have to be all about her. The point that Dinesh has made about the -- you know, getting the truth about what the Democratic Party is all about. What they've been about. And about how anything that has become good in America, they have basically stolen. Abraham Lincoln was not a Democrat, even though they want to say so.

GLENN: How do you go from Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, Minority Report, all of these things, and then go to documentaries. Why are you doing that, Gerald?

GERALD: Look, I'm not a kid anymore. I've got grandkids and great-grandkids. And I really, really wanted them to have a little piece of America like I had, maybe the same opportunities that I had. And this guy right here has afforded me the opportunity to step back, and I don't worry about the big films anymore. I think the documentaries have a chance on being bigger because they speak -- if nothing but truth, to life. And I'm just concerned about those kids, and that's why I'm here.

GLENN: When you look at Schindler's List, it's happening all over again now with the Christians in the Middle East. And you would think that that's one of your more important films. But Minority Report, I would make a case, I mean, with exception of the pro cogs that are in the milk bath, that was so far ahead of its time. We're now seeing a lot of the stuff that was in Minority Report. Did you -- when you guys were putting that together, did you think, "Oh, this is total science fiction?" Or did you think, "Parts of this are real that are coming?"

GERALD: I looked it as strictly just --

GLENN: Just a movie?

GERALD: Just a movie, yeah. Just, it was fun and well put together by, you know, the genius himself. I enjoyed working on that film just for that reason.

GLENN: You did a lot of work with Spielberg. How did you get connected?

GERALD: I love him. I worked on a project in 1985 called The Color Purple as a production manager, and our relationship grew from that point on.

GLENN: Amazing. And now you're connected. How did you guys --

GERALD: I keep looking for geniuses.

(laughter)

DINESH: Well, someone told me that if I was going to go from being a writer and a think tank guy and a speaker to making films, that I should find someone who could really help me do that in the right way.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: So they said, "Have you heard of this guy, Jerry Molen?" And I had -- I mean, I knew once I saw his resume. So I went and found Jerry, and I left him a copy of my book. And we talked. And we realized that although we come from opposite ends of the earth, our stories are actually unbelievably similar. By that, I mean, both of us are sort of outside guys who went into something. And we have experienced the American dream in our own life. And ultimately, our politics is based on that.

GLENN: When we're looking at the things that are coming, Dinesh, you and I have talked about the state of our country for quite some time. And I'm to the point to where I'm -- I think we've missed all the exits. We're going to pay a very heavy price. I don't know what that entails, but we're going to pay a very heavy price. And not just us, the entire western world.

DINESH: And the entire world. Because America brought something new into the world. And it's made the world a lot better. It's almost impossible to envision the 20th century without America, what would have happened to World War II. What would have happened to the Cold War? And I think Americans don't realize that for the last 65 years, they've been living in a privileged position, in which American prosperity, American power, the American passport is better than anybody else's passport. So once that goes away, history shows that it never comes back.

I mean, think of the ancient Athenians. Or think even about -- the sun did set on the British empire, and British empire is just never coming back. So America has its moment now, but if we squander it -- and I think what drives me nuts is I think that at the highest level, it's being squandered deliberately. And by deliberately, I mean by an ideological vision that wants America to be subtracted, to be shrunk, to be reduced. And if anyone had said, you know, even seven years ago that the United States would be, in a sense, in an oppositional position against Israel and aligned with Iran, I think even Democrats would have thought that was crazy. That would never happen.

GLENN: And we don't seem to care now. I mean, if I would have said to you ten years ago -- in fact, during the Obamacare debate, one of the deals was, "You're going to be paying for abortions." No, that's outrage that you could even say something like that. No, no, no. Look, now, even the Republicans won't do anything to stop us paying for Planned Parenthood and abortions. I mean, it's insane, where we have end up. And people just seem to be kind of okay with it.

DINESH: Or even the idea that this whole stand -- Shout Your Abortion. The idea of abortion as a positive good. It almost reminds me of the time when, during the American founding, slavery was seen, even by people who had slaves, as a regrettable necessity. Thomas Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the tail. We can't hold it, and we can't let it go." So this ambivalence was there, even on the part of the South and the southern planters. But starting about the 1820s, you had the positive good school of slavery, the idea that slavery was good, not just for the slave owner, but good for the slave.

This was like taking things way beyond -- and no one thought that in the 18th century. Similarly now with abortion, we've gone from sort of safe, legal, and rare, to this sort of idea that this should be promulgated.

GLENN: That this is actually good.

DINESH: A sacrament in modern liberalism.

GLENN: Yeah. You mentioned the youth. I'm torn. There is -- there's two sides. There are those who are completely clueless that have bought into it 100 percent. See America as the bad guy. See capitalism as, you know, a horrible, horrendous thing. And then you see another side, the side generally speaking, I think it's the Christian youth, that are awake and saying, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute." And are active. Which way do they fall? And how does this film actually hit them?

DINESH: I think that there's an idealism in young people that's very good. And there's a brand of conservatism that some people have been selling for 30 years, which does not resonate with young people. And that's the idea that, "Hey, you're young and idealistic, and we know that you're a liberal. But wait till you become older and jaded like we are and start having to pay taxes, and then we hope you'll swing over to our side." But that's never going to tap into the idealism of young people. We need a competing idealism.

GLENN: That's right. Are you a little shocked that in the -- we just said it earlier today. That there's not this -- that many of the people who are running today -- I said to -- which candidate was it recently? I said, "Stop with the IRS. What I'm looking for is someone who comes up and says there's a whole new way to do this." Because that's what we're doing with everything else in society. Everything else is, there's a whole new way of doing this. Why are we doing something that was started in the early teens of the last century and saying, "That's a good system." It's not. I'm looking for game-changers. I'm looking for people who say, "I have a completely new way of looking at this, through the framework of the Constitution. But a totally different system." Are you surprised that we're not getting that kind of thinking from very many -- I mean, Bernie Sanders is still looking back at the old system. But Bernie Sanders, that's what is attractive about him to so many people, is he's saying, "This doesn't work. We're going to try something entirely new."

DINESH: Yeah, both sides are actually now in a moment of reaction, in my opinion. We are -- our team is back to the '80s, and their team is back to the '60s.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: Now, when I came to America, this was in the very late '70s, there was a kind of electricity around modern conservatism. It actually didn't come from Reagan. It preceded Reagan. A lot of the ideas that we consider Reaganism were out there. Jack Kemp was talking about supply-side economics. General Daniel Graham was talking about missile defenses. And so there was a whole new way of looking at the world, but we haven't advanced beyond that. And so I think we're back in that moment now when we do need not only new ideas, but new ways of getting those ideas out.

GLENN: Do you see them on the horizon? Do you see -- who are the leaders of tomorrow? Have you seen anybody that -- that you're excited about?

DINESH: Well, let me put it this way. I think that when I look back at Reagan. Reagan came along, and all the ideas were out there. And Reagan said, "I like this. I like that. I like this." And that became Reaganism. So, in other words, it's a mistake for us to look to these candidates and say, "You're going to save us. We're waiting for you to come up with these ideas and then we're going to -- no, the candidates are actually looking to us to generate the ideas.

GLENN: But do you see someone that is capable of selling those ideas? Like my guy is Ted Cruz. But I -- I worry about his ability to sell it to the American people. Do you see a good -- do you see a good person out there? You're going to vote today. Who are you voting for?

GERALD: Today?

GLENN: Yeah.

GERALD: Rubio?

GLENN: Why?

GERALD: Because I like his message. And the more I listen to him, the more I like it. He seems to be able to get across and make his point, I think understood by the people that he's speaking to.

DINESH: It's surprising. And I feel this a little myself. As I talk to people, "Who are you for?" And they're hesitant to say. They're hesitant to say in part because they feel that our field is wide, it's deep, it's diverse, it says a lot of good stuff out there. It's not like previous times, where we want to pull our hair out.

There's an impressive group of guys out there, and gal. But not -- one hasn't come forward, I think where people feel like, "That's our man. That's the guy who is going to take it all the way." And so we're in that shaking out moment. And Trump, of course, is in the middle of it breaking all the toys and kicking everything upside down. I don't think a bad thing, by the way. Because I think the Republican Party has been so sleepy, so out of it, so disengaged, that it takes a little bit of a bull in a China shop to wake those people --

GLENN: I really don't have a problem with him being a bull in a China shop. I'm surprised how many conservatives look at him and say, "Yeah, I'll take him." I mean, I understand he's making things interesting. He's breaking things up. I understand the role he's playing right now. But to look at him and say -- after all we've gone through, with saying, "Constitution, Constitution, Constitution." And then to have a guy who is like really not a Constitution guy.

DINESH: I think it's because people distrust the Republican team from -- look, we had a Republican House and Congress. So the question becomes, "What do those guys do all day?" I feel like Obama wakes up every morning and goes, "How do I put the knife a little more deeply into the other side?" That's his daily agenda. And our side appears to wake up thinking, "How do we prevent the knife from going a little more deeply into our back today?"

GLENN: Right.

DINESH: That's all we do. So people are annoyed, they're frustrated, and they feel maybe Trump will do something different.

GLENN: Dinesh D'souza and Gerald Molen, the name of the next project that is coming out during the Democratic Convention is Stealing America.

Stealing America by Dinesh D'souza. Thanks guys for being a part of the program.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

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.

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.