Revenge vs. Love: This election choice is clear

There's one day left before the most important election of our lives and most important election since 1860. And the candidates were out making their final case to the American people, and this is the case that the president has been laying out for the last couple of weeks. This is the one he's been laying out as his final case to the American people.

You may be frustrated sometimes with the pace of change. I'm frustrated too sometimes. But you know where I stand. You know what I believe. You know I tell the truth. - Barack Obama

Wow. He's frustrated just like you. Going on his how many vacations a year, jetting all around, not having to worry about the price of gas. He's frustrated just like you. Just like you. But you know that he always tells the truth. You know where he stands. That's his case. You know where he stands. Israel doesn't know where he stands. Iran doesn't know where he stands. The SEALs don't know where he ‑‑ the parents of SEALs who have lost their lives don't know where he stands. People who said, hey, gas is too expensive and then hear him say it was only $1.87 when I got into office because Bush had destroyed the economy, they don't know where he stands. Small business owners don't know where he stands. People looking for a job don't know where he stands.

We've discussed several times before, including very recently, the proven lies. There are things that you don't really know where he stands and then there are proven lies that he has told. I've never looked back, and this is not a judgment on him. This is more a judgment on America and the press. I've never looked back and marveled at how many people will fall for and accept, knowingly accept a falsehood. I've never seen it before in my life. And after being caught in lie after lie after lie that he has the audacity to look the American people and the media in the eye and then say, you know I always tell the truth." You can't go through all of the things that we have gone through over the last four years because it is unbelievably numerous. The places where he actually lies to you. Says one thing but then is caught on tape saying something else behind closed doors.

He was asked, is it fair for somebody like you making $20 million a year to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver? And Romney said yes, I think that's fair. That didn't happen. That's not true. That was an out‑and‑out lie. And every fact‑checker on the planet has already said, "That's a lie." And Obama knew it. Romney was specifically referring to the principle that capital gains should be taxed lower than other income because it's been taxed once already, a principle, by the way, that Obama agrees with in his own tax policy. But that hasn't stopped President Obama for knowingly distorting and lying. Obama has continually lied about Romney's plan for GM. And while lying about it, he calls Romney the liar. Even though virtually every fact‑check organization has backed Romney on it. Romney wanted GM to go through bankruptcy. A managed bankruptcy. That doesn't mean put it out of business and destroy it. Every airline has gone through management ‑‑ what is wrong with us, America? Then Romney wanted to go the extra step and say loan guarantees from the U.S. Government to keep them going forward: Obama continues to claim that women rely on Planned Parenthood for mammograms. They don't. Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms. But that's the way he can say, "I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about the great work that Planned Parenthood does on mammograms." They don't do mammograms! Obama claimed that Romney lied about oil production on government lands. He didn't. He was right. And virtually every fact, I think every fact‑check organization verified that within minutes of him saying it. For eight years now Obama has claimed that business get a tax break for shipping jobs overseas. Romney says, I've been in business my whole life; I've never even heard of that. I've been global business. I've never gotten a tax break. Obama mocked him, called him a liar.

So what are the facts? If you ship your jobs overseas, you can deduct the moving costs. Now, that's not a tax break. You're spending the money to move overseas. That's no tax advantage. That's ‑‑ the tax advantage would have to continue on after the move. Just like every other company in the world. It's not a special thing. If I move my company from one place to another, if I move it from New York, please, people in New York, move to Texas. And on Wednesday listen to me. If he loses, if Romney loses, move soon. I will get a business deduction for moving those people from New York to Texas. That's the way it works. That's not to move people overseas. It's fairness. It's the same for every company. Are you telling me that there aren't some companies that need to say, "Hey, Bill, we've got to open this up in China. We've got to be over there. We need a representative." So they're not going to get their tax deduction for moving but they will some place here in the United States? That doesn't make any sense. There's no incentive for being overseas.

On the Benghazi situation, even Candy Crowley admitted after the debate that it was Romney who was right about the way Obama had presented that attack. He continues to lie about that. Obama hasn't ‑‑ he keeps saying it: Mr. President, I'm sorry, but we don't know that you always tell the truth. In fact, I contend a vast number of Americans know just the opposite.

We also know that you're nasty, you're small‑minded and you're divisive in much of your rhetoric. And I know you don't like to hear that and nobody likes to say that to the president of the United States. But we have tons of evidence of you doing it, from 2010:

But they're going to be paying attention to this election. And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on it... - Barack Obama

We're going to punish our enemies? He was specifically talking about anyone running for the GOP. Punish, if Latinos don't punish our enemies. If that is not small, nasty and divisive, I don't know what is. But that's just ‑‑ that's just one of the many examples. That one's from 2010. I can give you one from this weekend.

And at the time the Republican congress, any Senate candidate by the name of Mitt Romney (Boos from crowd) No, no, no. Don't boo. Vote. Vote. Voting's the best revenge. - Barack Obama

Let me tell you something. I am going to share this with you. I wasn't going to, but I am. If you look at history through a biblical world view, the last step before a nation is completely destroyed is they drive the righteous from among them. If this isn't a sign from a group of people that will drive the righteous from among them, and that's the last step before God's wrath comes, I fear for our country and it is ‑‑ it cannot be overstated. It cannot be called paranoid. The best revenge, punish your enemies, and Valerie Jarrett last week saying "we don't forget"? That's Occupy Wall Street. That's the French Revolution. Now it's our turn? What are you talking about? You've had the last four years. What do you mean now it's your turn? That goes to Vladimir Putin: I'll have more flexibility. Hear me. If you are a God‑fearing person, hear me. Last call, America. Last call. Because the righteous will be driven from among them.

But I believe in the American people. I believe that we are not too far gone. I believe that people can watch and see the difference. They can feel the difference. When you watch Barack Obama, you can just see he is angry. When you watch Mitt Romney, you can see he is not. We are not an angry nation. We don't listen to demagogues like that. It doesn't work. No matter how much power he has amassed, no matter how many friends in the media he has, Americans know. And if they reject it this time, and if they're so dead inside ‑‑ that's a possibility. If they're so dead inside that they can no longer see the difference between good and evil, we will be destroyed because we will be a remarkable evil on this planet. Our technology alone would make us so dark and so spooky that it is beyond comprehension. But I don't think we're there.

Thomas Jefferson said trust the American people. They will see their mistake and they will correct it. I have prayed this whole election. For 40 days I have fasted: Lord, just let people see who Mitt Romney is. And let people see who Barack Obama is. I didn't ask for any special favors, not somebody to win one way or another. Just let people see who they are. Now it's up to you. Now that you've seen them, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to vote because it's the best kind of revenge? May I ask, revenge for what? What have we done to people that make them so angry? What have we done? We disagree with each other. What have we done to you? Created a country that allowed you to become the president of the United States of America? My gosh, what a curse around your neck. What have we done? That's how twisted and evil and angry and divisive they really are. And you hear that...and then you have to choose: Do you want that... or do you want this.

Did you see what President Obama said today? He asked his supporters to vote for revenge. For revenge. Instead I ask the American people to vote for love of country.

- Mitt Romney

The choice is a simple one and it is in your hands tomorrow.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

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.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

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.