Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson—The Similarities are Getting Eerie

January 15, 2016

Writer

An eerie similarity between Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson is emerging. You remember Woodrow Wilson, the president Glenn loves so much? Not. America's current problems with an out-of-control, overreaching government can be traced back to Wilson's progressive policies.

If you listen to the language of Trump, it sounds much more like a progressive than a constitutionalist.

"Ronald Reagan said, 'The problem is the government.' Our Founders said, 'The problem is the government.' Donald Trump says it's the people running the government," Glenn said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

From Donald Trump's perspective, the government doesn't need to be reined in, it just needs to be managed better. Now where have we heard that before?

Philip Dru: Administrator, a favorite book of Woodrow Wilson's, was written in 1912 by Edward Mandell House, an American diplomat, politician and presidential foreign policy advisor. Advisor to whom? You guessed it---Woodrow Wilson.

The book's hero leads the democratic western U.S. in a civil war against the plutocratic East, and becomes the dictator of America. Dru as dictator imposes a series of reforms that resemble the Bull Moose platform of 1912---then he vanishes. Considering the author had such a close position to the president, it's no surprise that some of the ideas in the book eventually made their way into public policy.

"Do you realize that if you look at [Donald Trump] as a great manager, you have completed the progressive, fundamental hope number one? You take the president and you make him nothing more than an administrator," Glenn explained. "The president is a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. You don't need a president. You don't need the Constitution. You don't need the Congress. You need a guy who just manages the bureaucracy."

Still not convinced Donald Trump is a progressive akin to Woodrow Wilson? Just listen to his new campaign song with children---creepily similar to Obama's kiddie propaganda song from 2008. What inspired Trump's anthem? A song from World War I used by none other than Woodrow Wilson.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Donald Trump probably had five boos last night. If you think you're going to unite the party around that guy, it's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. He is a torch and burn everything that doesn't agree with him. He is Barack Obama. He's doing the same thing that Barack Obama -- you disagree with him, it doesn't matter if he liked you in the past. It doesn't matter if he said I had all my attorneys turn this inside and out. He's totally qualified. If it stands in his way, he'll say and do anything. He will destroy you to get his way.

What difference is it?

By the way, I saw something on a Facebook post that said -- because here's what I wrote last night.

While I strongly disagree with Donald Trump's view on Muslims, I believe he will only grow in numbers because Jeb Bush, believe it or not, who I also disagree with, was right. People are afraid because this president has denied the problem, can't name it, and has made us much less safe. That's what Jeb Bush said last night. And that's exactly right. People want security. And they don't believe anyone in Washington, DC, or anyone in the media anymore. They know that they've been lied to by the people that -- the people who trust radical Muslims in Iran more than they trust those who attend church in small towns all across America. They are tired. They know they've worked hard. They're not getting ahead. They don't even know what we're fighting this war for anymore. They're tired of seeing excuses made for criminals, illegals, people who burn down towns like Baltimore or Ferguson. And those who kill in the name of Islam. Always an excuse for those people, but never an exception for Americans. It's bottom up, top down, inside out. Things are so out of control that people rise up and cry out, "Help! Won't somebody do something?" They want somebody just to take care of the problem.

The bottom rises in despair, the top answers their call. Oh, I'll fix that problem. And it finalizes the transformations and turns us inside out. People never make good decisions in times like this. We made shameful mistakes in World War II. A progressive FDR had a problem with immigration, and they called them at that time saboteurs. We would call them terrorists today. German terrorists. We worried about Japanese saboteurs. Before Pearl Harbor happened, FDR had already drawn up his plans for concentration camps. Which, by the way, internment camp is not what FDR called them. FDR always referred to them as concentration camps. The moment he had an excuse of December 7th, he rounded up the Japanese. The guy who ran that program for a very short period of time was Dwight Eisenhower's brother. Dwight Eisenhower's brother resigned and told the new guy, "I hope you can sleep tonight. I can't sleep anymore because this is so terribly wrong."

People were afraid, and so they violated their principles because the government had failed to do their job and screen out the few and tell the truth about the German and Japanese people as it was growing in strength. They allowed FDR to do it because it allowed them to feel safe and it allowed them to not have to do any of it themselves. They didn't even have to think about it.

This was then. Too many Americans now want somebody to think for them. Quite honestly, watching Donald Trump last night, he sounded a lot like my uncle Bob. My uncle Bob, I don't talk about very much because my uncle Bob was not a good man. My uncle Bob, quite honestly, was an alcoholic and an abusive man. And after a few beers in, he would slur some rant and many people would say, "Damn right, pop!" He would never really say anything of substance. He would never suggest any real solutions. My uncle Bob was just mad. He would just say things that other people on barstools had said or would want to hear.

And as the day grew late, in the end, they'd just slap each other on the back and say, "Damn, right, Bob." And they would order another Rainier beer.

Will America think -- will they think, or will they actually go for another man with little or no detail, who just simply calls for hope and change? Or in this case, I'll make America great again.

Here is a response to that on Facebook last night that I read this morning when I got up.

A guy said, "Glenn, you don't understand. It's not that we don't -- we Trump supporters aren't thinking for ourself. We are thinking for ourself. It's not that we think he's going to fix all our problems." Now, listen to this. I want you to listen to this closely. Because if anybody in this audience thinks I've changed. That I'm the one that has changed. Listen carefully to what he said.

We just see Donald Trump as a great manager. Now, can anyone tell me why that might set me off and be proof that I haven't changed, you have?

PAT: Philip Dru: Administrator.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat.

Do you realize that if you look at him as a great manager, you have completed the progressive, fundamental hope number one? You take the president and you make him nothing more than an administrator. The president is a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. You don't need a president. You don't need the Constitution. You don't need the Congress. You need a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. Philip Dru: Administrator. That's exactly what you are seeing in Donald Trump, a progressive that doesn't say the problem is government. He says the problem is the dumb people in government. We've got the wrong people in government. We've got the wrong managers. We have the wrong people negotiating.

Ronald Reagan said, "The problem is the government." Our Founders said, "The problem is the government." Donald Trump says it's the people running the government.

He's not proposing that we shut down whole sections of the government. He's saying, "I'll manage it better."

That's not constitutional. The favorite -- his favorite novel, Woodrow Wilson. Oh, I hate that guy! Woodrow Wilson, his favorite novel was a novel called Philip Dru: Administrator. He read it like three or four times during his administration. It was written by a progressive to put it in novel form of how our government will work when we've completed this task.

It's a horrible book. But it's available for free. I think you can get it on Amazon.com. It's one of those books that is in the public domain so you can download it for free and read it. It's horrible, horrible, horrible, like dime-store novel fiction.

But when you read it, you'll meet Donald Trump. He's a reluctant servant. He just doesn't want to do it. I have a life of my own. I'm not the guy to be your president. I don't need this job. I don't want this job. Okay. Well, I'm the only guy that can do it. I happen to be in the right place at the right time. And damn it, I just care about my country. So I will. And I'll go in there and I'll serve. And I'm going to go in there and I'll fix this because we have all the wrong people running everything. Congress is all screwed up. The administration is all screwed up. I'll just go in. I'm a humble servant. And I'll just go in and I'll manage this right.

Well, about halfway through the book, he has managed things exactly right. In fact, he's managed things so great that he's decided to put a new council together to go state by state and manage the states as well. Because the states don't really work. And the Constitution as it stands doesn't really work. You can't get things done fast enough. And many times the state constitutions argue against things that are now in the US Constitution. So we all have to come together and work together. And I can do that because there's a lot of these politicians that are just standing in the way. But I'm a good manager. And you know me. I just care about the country.

Philip Dru: Administrator. It's happening. No, Glenn, it can't happen. He's a Republican.

The Republicans started the progressive party. It was Theodore Roosevelt.

GLENN: Can we play the audio? Remember the audio of -- of Barack Obama when he had the kids sing and everybody was really creeped out by this audio.

(music)

GLENN: Do you remember how all of us -- all of us said, "That is creepy. That is creepy propaganda that's now being pushed out for the kids?" I'd like to play a new song by a new candidate. Here it is.

(music)

PAT: Yeah! Everybody!

(music)

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: What, you have a problem with this?

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: Yeah.

(music)

PAT: Isn't that great?

GLENN: So president Donald Trump is going to make things great again. A new song for kids which I think is fantastic. And what I really, really like and I think is super is the fact that it's based on a song from World War I used by -- gosh, I can't remember who that guy was. Jeez. I know I hate him.

STU: Isn't his last name I Hate That Guy?

GLENN: I hate that guy. Oh, yeah. Woodrow Wilson. What a surprise.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson—The Similarities are Getting Eerie

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

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Peace through strength

Names matter

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

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

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

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

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

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity