Mercury Confidential - The man behind Mercury INK

Ever wonder what goes on behind the scenes at Mercury Radio Arts? Just how do all of Glenn’s crazy ideas get done? Does anyone ever get a chance to sleep? Well, over the next few months we are going to take you inside MRA, giving you the inside scoop on everything from publishing to special events, Markdown to GBTV. We will be interviewing members of our New York, Columbus, and Dallas staff, bringing you all the info, so you can know what it’s really like to work for Glenn.

Sitting in his office high atop Sixth Avenue, one thing is for certain: Kevin Balfe has a lot of books. From signed copies of Broke to foreign language translations of The Christmas Sweater, books line the windowsills, the shelves, and the tops of desks. As for the wall space, it is occupied by – you guessed it – posters of various Glenn Beck and Mercury Ink book covers. For Balfe, Senior Vice President/Publishing at Mercury Radio Arts, being surrounded by books has become just another day at the office, but it wasn't always that way.

After graduating from University of Connecticut as an accounting major, he went to work for a few accounting and consulting firms and eventually ended up at an online financial start-up at the height of the dot com era. That company was bought by a newsletter publisher and Balfe became chief operating officer. It was there that he had his first foray into the publishing world.

"I got a couple years’ experience of running a direct to consumer publication," Balfe said. "And when Glenn decided his first business outside of radio was going to be a magazine – that was sort of how I got hooked up with him."

Balfe joined Mercury in January 2005 and was tasked with starting a monthly magazine for fans of The Glenn Beck Program. "I took over Fusion magazine which is The Blaze Magazine now, and launched that soup to nuts. I got that whole thing going."

Within two years of Balfe's arrival, Glenn inked a deal with Simon and Schuster, the world’s largest publishing house. Being that he was the only member on staff with some form of publishing/writing experience, Balfe became the go-to person for the new book.

"Since I was the only person with 'writing' experience at the time, I went over and did the book thing – An Inconvenient Book it was called." The book was instantly a hit and became the first of seven #1 New York Times bestsellers for Glenn. It remained on the chart for 17 weeks.

"When that one did so well, Simon and Schuster signed Glenn up for more. That’s how I got my start in the book business," Balfe recalled.

Today, Balfe oversees Mercury’s partnership with Simon and Schuster, which encompasses the books Glenn publishes each year, in addition to Mercury Ink – Glenn’s imprint with Simon and Schuster that publishes books from third party authors. Mercury Ink’s first book, Michael Vey: The Prisoner of Cell 25, by Richard Paul Evans hit #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.

"I was hired to start a direct magazine – 10 issues for $35/year – and now I am writing and editing and coordinating the production of – I think we are doing 14 books this year or something. So it’s quite a bit different," Balfe said with a laugh.

"And I had no book publishing experience, which is the cool thing. I think if you take a look, most people around here didn’t get their education in the field they are working in, including Glenn, so we take it from the top. So (this job) bears no resemblance to what I was doing, but I love it."

He may love what he does, but his job does not come without its headaches. One of Balfe’s favorite stories about Glenn has to do with a book promotion they were running.

“We did a promotion, I think it was for Broke, and BarnesandNoble.com agreed that one week before the book went on sale, if you went to BN.com, for one day only, they were going to sell the book for 50 percent off,” Balfe explained.

“I wrote it all up for Glenn and gave it to him to read on radio. What that translated to on air was ‘Today only Barnes and Noble is selling this book for 50 percent off.’”

Glenn, not always realizing the power of his words, mistakenly sent thousands of listeners to Barnes and Noble retail stores, instead of Barnes and Noble’s website to purchase the book. “So, all of a sudden, thousands of people across the country in their cars are pulling into Barnes and Noble stores and going up and saying that Glenn told me this book is 50 percent off. The stores had absolutely no idea what these people were talking or that the online promotion even existed. So essentially we had thousands of very confused customers and Barnes and Noble employees across the country.

“That was fun,” Balfe said sarcastically.

And when it comes to Glenn’s book pitches, headaches can also come in spades. Glenn's thoughts come a mile a minute on the air, and his book ideas are no different. Balfe has heard it all over the years, but he says the one of the worst book ideas, from an economic perspective, that Glenn has ever pitched is one they actually ended up publishing.

"The worst pitch that we actually ended up acting on is We Are Brothers," Balfe responded while walking to the windowsill to pick up a copy of a book created in the wake of Beck’s “Restoring Courage” trip to Israel in 2011. "This book is so typical Glenn. He does this trip to Israel and sends his photographer over there on two trips, which is not inexpensive, and then tells me we need to do a book."

Initially, Balfe didn't mind the idea. "Fine, we will do a photo book. We did a photo book for 8/28 (the Washington D.C. event called “Restoring Honor,”) and it was beautiful. We sold a lot of them."

Unfortunately for Balfe, this photo book would not be like the others. He said that Beck told him, "This has to be the nicest book ever created."

Simply looking at a copy of We Are Brothers proves this book lived up to that mandate. With a luxurious imported cloth cover, embossed gold lettering, and high quality paper, the book feels expensive – and it is.

"I mean the whole thing is beautiful. The problem is it is literally the most expensive book ever created. Like these things cost – I won’t even give you the number because you wouldn’t believe it – but it’s more than most books even retail for," he lamented.

"So we have sold like four of these. And I have thousands and thousands of them sitting in a warehouse. And I blame Glenn.

"Do you want one... or 20,000?"

Editor's Note: I took one home with me, and I have to say it would make a lovely gift... Father's Day perhaps?

Despite the minor misstep with We Are Brothers, exciting things are coming up for the publishing department. Cowards, which was just released, returns to the oversized, color, non-fiction issue type books like An Inconvenient Book, Arguing with Idiots, and Broke that have been so popular with the audience.

"This was really about getting back to Glenn’s roots. He loves these types of books – when the book is not about one topic, but rather a theme." In this case that theme is how radicals, politicians, and the media refuse to tell us the truth out of their own self-interest. Each chapter of the book focuses on a different issue, which satisfies Glenn's desire to basically fit five books into one.

"It lets him focus on violence at the border, and the media, and economic terrorism, and George Soros, and religion, and all these things that would typically not fit inside one book," Balfe said. "We all know that Glenn is so ADD, and he wants his books to be like he is on-air, which is all over the place. It’s basically a brain dump, and my job is to make that cohesive and make it feel like it was actually meant to be one book."

Cowards deals with 13 different issues that all tie back into the theme. "Again, there is a common thread in that it is all about the idea that we are five months before the biggest election of our lives and people don’t know the truth about these things, and that is frustrating to Glenn."

A book of this caliber would typically take at least a year to create. Cowards, however, went from concept to completion in just 12 weeks.

"I would say normally if someone just came to me and said we need to write this book, I would say this is a good year because it takes a ton of research,” Balfe explained. “This thing has 35 pages of footnotes and it requires going out and finding experts in the field that we can consult with because, as much as Glenn really knows his stuff, when you get into drug cartel violence on the border, there is a lot of nuance there that Glenn doesn’t necessarily know. We have to have a series of meetings and calls with experts and really understand the stuff before we start writing.

"So you have that whole process. And then you have the writing and editing process. And then, of course, Glenn wants artwork and sidebars, and text boxes, so you have all that stuff. So I would say a year—and we did it in 12 weeks, which was definitely a record for us. And it was not anything I ever want to do again. I basically did not sleep for three months."

And what about the army of people it would take to research, write, and edit a book like this? "I would say 20 people probably contributed in a material way to the book,” Balfe said. "I kind of play general contractor. Like if you want to build a house – no one guy can go and build an entire house. You have to hire the specialists like the plumber and the electrician. You have to make sure they are all in the right order and that no one is stepping on each other’s toes. At, the end of the day, someone has to make sure it looks like a cohesive house.”

There is no rest for the weary, and this is shaping up to be an exciting summer for Mercury Ink. The second installment of Chris Stewart’s Wrath and Righteousness series is due out next month. This 10 book series is unique in that a new e-book will be released every six weeks over the course of the next year.

Also hitting shelves next month is The Communist, which chronicles the life of Frank Marshall Davis – mentor to a young Barack Obama. “It’s a good history lesson of the Communist Party in the United States,” Balfe said.

In August, the highly anticipated sequel to Richard Paul Evan’s New York Times bestselling book Michael Vey is due out: Michael Vey 2: Rise of the Elgen. It already has Balfe’s seal of approval. “I just read it, and it is very good!"

As for Glenn’s next book – Balfe gave us the inside scoop. “Glenn’s next book, knock on wood, is going to be the sequel to (Glenn’s #1 New York Times bestselling political thriller) The Overton Window  (actual title TBD). We hope to have that out in time for Christmas.”

It's clear there is a lot coming up for the guy who began his career as an accounting major, but he is enjoying every sleepless second of it. "Yeah, it bears no resemblance to the original job I was hired to do," Balfe said smiling. "Although, there are probably not many people around here that have the same job." And that is most certainly true.

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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.