Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

PolitiFact: 73 Percent of Trump's Statements Are False

March 01, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

PolitiFact has looked at Donald Drumpf's statements and finds that 73 percent of his statements are false.

"He is a sociopathic liar. He doesn't care. He may not even know he's lying anymore. He just believes whatever it is that he makes up in his own head," Glenn said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "You'll never see his income tax. Not because there's something going on there. But because the people who have worked with him closely for over ten years estimate his net value, his net worth at $150 million."

Should that be true, what would it say about the character of man who refuses to release tax returns so people won't find out his whole life is a lie?  

Additionally, it's well-documented that Drumpf quickly turns from friend to foe should he feel threatened.

"If you don't do him a solid, he destroys you," Glenn said.

Here's a sampling of Drumpf's grade school name-calling:

Erick Erickson — a total low life

Arianna Huffington — a liberal clown

Chuck Todd — pathetic

Charles Krauthammer — a loser and a jerk

Bob Vander Plaats — a phony and a con man

Glenn Beck — a dopey idiot

An article today in the Weekly Standard, written by Stephan Hayes, makes one ponder this pertinent question:

If Drumpf condemns anyone he dislikes, why does he go soft on David Duke and the KKK?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  It's Super Tuesday, and it's much more serious than it sounds, the responsibility on each of our shoulders today, to do our homework before we walk into our polling locations.  The fate of America rests on your shoulders.  But no pressure.  We start there, right now.

(music)

GLENN:  Hello, America.  And welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.  Today from Washington, DC, and the studios at WMAL, I want to thank 1000 KTOK for hosting us yesterday in Oklahoma City and WMAL for hosting us today in Washington, DC, as we prepare for CPAC that is happening this weekend.  We'll be broadcasting from there Thursday and Friday and talked to some of the people at CPAC.  Max Lucado is going to be on with us today, as is Ted Cruz.  

It is Super Tuesday.  25 percent of all the delegates will be assigned by tomorrow morning.  And it's going to be pretty hard to -- to stop Donald Drumpf at this point.  Not impossible.  But pretty hard to stop.  I'm looking at the news today, and I find it interesting that all of these people are coming out with these plans to stop Donald Drumpf.

And the one I keep hearing about is insanity.  And it's Marco Rubio's plan, not to win any of the -- any of the contest today.  His plan is not to win any of the contest, but to believe just to have enough delegates to go to a brokered convention.  The other plan is to have the G.O.P. kick Donald out and run somebody else in his stead.

What kind of banana republic do we live in?  I am not a fan of Donald Drumpf, nor will I vote for Donald Drumpf.  But I have to tell you, if the American people say they're going to vote for Donald Drumpf, the G.O.P. was the one that made the deal.  The G.O.P. was the one that said, "You have to run -- you can't run for third party."  You think you're going to take his delegates away and not start a civil war?  You think you're going to kick him out of the party and not start a civil war?

The G.O.P. is done.  They're just done.  They didn't get it.  They have no idea why Donald Drumpf has any kind of traction at all.  And none of their plans include the guy who is number two in the delegate count.  They refuse to look at the guy who actually is going to win some states today.  Why?

Because he's anti-establishment.  Because he will stop all of this nonsense that's happening in Washington.  So why get behind that guy?  You got to get behind the guy that doesn't win any states.  That doesn't make any sense.

Because the establishment is still all about power.  It's all about control.  We have gone down this road now of progressivism far too long.  And people don't see it.  I got up this morning and I was thinking about it.  I was watching the news and I thought, "You know, it's amazing to me -- it's amazing to me.  This guy, Donald Drumpf, would be laughed out if he was running for Democrats.  We would laugh at him.  We would all say, oh, my gosh, bring it on.  Exactly what Hillary Clinton doing."

There's a new story out about how Hillary Clinton is salivating at Donald Drumpf.  By the way, new poll out shows Donald Drumpf does not beat Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head.  And they haven't even begun.  Look at what the New York Times said yesterday.

New York Times has an off the record, confidential meeting with Donald Drumpf back in January.  Where supposedly he said, "Look, everything is negotiable.  Don't worry about it.  I know you're all freaked out."  But basically what he said -- what was it on Greta, I can be anything.  I'm going to be changing rapidly once I get the nomination.  I'll be changing rapidly.  I can be whatever I need to be at the time.  Basically he said that, apparently to the New York Times, in a confidential meeting, that everything is negotiable, and the stuff he's saying on the border, don't worry about.

Well, I called yesterday for Donald Drumpf to demand that the New York Times release that audiotape.  Because they said they will, but they can't release it because it was a confidential meeting.  And they can't release it without his permission.  But if they ask, if Donald Drumpf asks, they will release it. 

Well, I think this is an outrageous lie by the New York Times.  Donald Drumpf has said many times that he thinks one of the biggest liars is the New York Times.  I happen to agree with him.  I think that he should demand that the New York Times produce that tape.  And show that he did not indeed say those things.

Except he was on Hannity last night, talking about it.  When he spoke to Sean, he said, "Well, look, yes, a lot of things are negotiable.  But the New York Times is a liar."  Well, if the New York Times is a liar, you should -- you should demand that the tape be released and then sue them.

Don, I know you love to sue them.  You love to sue them.  Suing is a way of life with you.  Because to quote you:  You get greedy.  And you say, "Give me the money.  Give me the money."  And you grab and you grab and you grab.  That's a quote from you.  

So I know you're greedy, which is another beautiful, wonderful, uge, Christian characteristic.  But I know you get greedy and you want to grab.  So sue them.  Because you have them dead to rights.  They are hurting your reputation by saying that you are telling the American people one thing and doing the exact opposite.  Because we know you would never do that.  That's ridiculous to assume and insulting to you.

He won't call for the release of that tape.  Guarantee it.  Because I bet you my house, that what's on that tape is exactly what the New York Times says is on that tape.  Because Donald Drumpf is a liar.

Nobody wants to hear that about people.  PolitiFact has looked at his statements and 76 percent of his statements -- or, 73 percent of his statements are false.

He is a sociopathic liar.  He doesn't care.  He may not even know he's lying anymore.  He just believes whatever it is that he makes up in his own head.  You'll never see his income tax.  Not because there's something going on there.  But because the people who have worked with him closely for over ten years estimate his net value, his net worth at $150 million.

Just so you can put that into perspective, that's what -- that's about what Forbes magazine says I'm worth.  So that knocks Donald Drumpf down lots of pegs.  By the way, I'm not worth that.

But imagine if it meant something to me.  What would that say something about my character, if I was like, "No, I'm worth more than that.  Oh, man, how dare they say that I'm only worth $150 million.  I'm worth a billion dollars.  I'm worth $500 million."  What would that say about me?

I laugh at the numbers that they always quote from me because that's what my company does in revenue.  That's not what I get paid.  One of my companies hasn't even paid me in five years.

But what would it say about a man's character if you wouldn't release your tax returns because you just didn't want people to know how much you really are worth because your whole life is a lie?  

The other thing that I think Donald Drumpf, the reason why he's not releasing his tax returns, is because he's not as charitable as he says he is.  He says he's been giving money for years to vets.  My guess is, his charitable contributions are less than 2 percent.  I'll bet you that they're zero.  But definitely worth less than 2 percent.

He raises money through the Drumpf Foundation or the Drumpf -- he goes and asks other people to give money.  And then he doesn't give money himself.

And, by the way, there's people asking now, "Why hasn't he delivered on the charity funds that he promised in Iowa?"  You would think -- I don't even understand this story.  You have -- you've selected the charities, why haven't you given the money to the charities?  The money is there, you've selected the charities, why haven't you just released the funds?

Anybody see the John Oliver, just amazing monologue of 20 minutes taking down Donald Drumpf?  Stu, Pat, Jeffy, have you seen -- you saw the whole monologue?

PAT:  Yeah.  We talked about some of it yesterday.

STU:  Yeah.  We talked about some of --

GLENN:  Yeah, go ahead.

STU:  We talked about some of it yesterday.  And one of the things we talked about was that he had the exact same experience we had with Donald Drumpf, in which Drumpf also accused him and Jon Stewart of wanting him on the show and Drumpf said no.  So that's the only reason those people hate him, which is the exact same thing he said about us.  And not true in either circumstance.

GLENN:  Yeah.

PAT:  Can you imagine thinking so much of yourself that if somebody -- if you tell somebody you're not going to do an interview with them, that that's the sole reason that they don't like you from then on.  I mean, that's -- you think a lot of yourself when it's just, "Wow, he didn't do an interview with us.  So now we hate his guts and we're going to destroy this man."  It's so pathetic.

GLENN:  Not only how much do you think of yourself, what do you think the world is like?  I mean, what kind of world do you live in, where because -- it's usually self-diagnosis.  You know, when somebody like this says something about you.  They're usually diagnosing themself.  They see the things in others that is in them.

So he is like that.  If you don't do him a solid, he destroys you.  And so he thinks that everybody else -- because you won't do an interview.  I won't do an interview.  You must want to destroy me.  No, that's you in your sick, twisted world.  That's you, man.

STU:  Yeah.  And the Weekly Standard had a great point on this today, which is -- I mean, we all know the way -- what Drumpf does with people he doesn't like.  What does he do to people he doesn't like?  Erick Erickson, a total low-life.  Arianna Huffington, a liberal clown.  Chuck Todd, pathetic.  Charles Krauthammer, a loser and a clown.  Bill Kristol, a sad case.  Bob Vander Plaats is a phony and a con man.

PAT:  Jeez.

GLENN:  Jeez.

STU:  We already know, the things he's called Glenn fills up a whole page of the New York Times insult list.  In fact, the New York Times provided a catalog of the 199 people, places, and things Donald Drumpf has insulted on Twitter.  A complete list, which, of course, is not actually a complete list.  

But here's the point from the Weekly Standard which is brilliant today:  After a year of his candidacy, the political world knows well what it looks like when Donald Drumpf wants to offer an unequivocal condemnation.  When it comes to David Duke and the KKK, we still haven't seen one.  

He hasn't called David Duke a loser.  He hasn't called David Duke a scumbag.  He hasn't called David Duke a jerk or a phony or a con man.

PAT:  Right.  And why?  Because he supports him.

STU:  Because he supports him.

GLENN:  What do you think about Rush Limbaugh's excuse for this?  He said yesterday that Donald Drumpf was on the Sunday shows, and they have more gravitas.  They get more play than just the Megyn Kelly or Sean Hannity or something like that.  And so he was on those Sunday shows and he was worried about the poll numbers because the debate didn't go well.  And so he just didn't want to alienate anyone who might vote for him.  So it's not really an excuse.  I mean, it's still really bad.  But it's at least a reason why he didn't do it.  Do you buy into any of that?

STU:  I actually kind of do.  But the -- it's funny because people are saying, "Well, this is an excuse he's providing."  Actually it's the accusation.  The accusation is that he's pandering to white supremacists.

PAT:  That's not a good excuse.

STU:  It's not an excuse.  It's actually we're accusing him of.  

GLENN:  Yes.  Yes. 

STU:  And I think that is exactly what he's doing.  I mean, I don't know that anyone is saying that he -- while there is certainly long-term evidence and it will be exploited like crazy that he has bad racial tendencies, I don't think he's throwing a hood on him Friday nights.  That's not what I think Donald Drumpf is doing.

GLENN:  No, he's not a Klan member.  He's not a Klan member.

STU:  But he's pandering to these people like crazy.  And that's not a positive.  That's actually the negative we're accusing him of.  So I don't know if Rush framed that as an excuse.  But it's actually the thing I'm complaining about.

PAT:  I think the hoodies are for Tuesdays and Thursdays.  Not Fridays.

STU:  Okay.  Sorry.

GLENN:  Let me give you one thing real quick, and then I have to take a break.  

There's a new poll out in Florida.  38 percent of Floridians believe that Ted Cruz might be the Zodiac Killer.  The serial killer from, what?  A decade ago?  Or two decades ago?  The serial killer in Florida.  

38 percent of Floridians believe that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer.  We'll get into it in a second.  But I just want to say this, even with Floridians believing that he's the Zodiac Killer, he still beats Marco Rubio in Florida. (laughter)

Featured Image: Screenshot of The Glenn Beck Program broadcasting from WMAL in Washington, D.C.

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

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

Labor Day began as a political payoff to Socialist agitators

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

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

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

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

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

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

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

Negotiating with radicals

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

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

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

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

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

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

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

What we really celebrated

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

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.