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

Matt Kibbe and "The Hostile Takeover"

June 19, 2012
Wilson

Writer

FreedomWorks founder Matt Kibbe joined Glenn on radio today to talk about his new book Hostile Takeover and the upcoming FreedomPac that will be taking place the week of Restoring Love. The FreedomPac event will be a gathering of a global Tea Party and will feature a large number of people from Europe coming to learn more about America's Tea Party and libertarian movement.

A rough transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Matt Kibbe is with us. He has a new book called Hostile Takeover: Resisting Centralized Government's Stranglehold on America. Matt is from FreedomWorks.org and a good guy, really, really gets it. You describe yourself more as a libertarian, Matt?

KIBBE: Yeah, I definitely am in the libertarian camp.

GLENN: Okay. Which I think is why I like you because you're not ‑‑ you're against both the Republicans and the Democrats. You'd vote for either of them if they understood small government, but you're trying to work within the system. The point of your book is trying to explain what's going on and how to get out of it. In my book Cowards, I have a chapter on libertarianism where it talks about, "Look, you can't be the crazy libertarian, hey, let's legalize heroin tomorrow." That can't happen tomorrow. You automatically count yourself out. There are steps that you need to take, which is really kind of what you believe, isn't it?

KIBBE: Yeah. Libertarianism is about individual freedom and responsibility, and these are the values that defined our country. But it's a ‑‑ the interesting question today is how do we get from where we are. We all know we're off track. How do we get back to those principles. And it's got to be done through the process that the founders established. It's got to be done frankly between one ‑‑ between one of the two parties. And that's why we've called for a hostile takeover of the Republican Party because we've given up on the Democrats, the progressives have hijacked that party and when you look at what they say at least, I see only one party that's at least talking the talk.

GLENN: Let me play a little bit from Chris Matthews yesterday. He's talking about Mitt Romney. I'll play the whole cut later but listen just a little of about. This is amazing.

MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this Romney character. I don't think Romney cares all that much about the presidency except that he wants it. If he weren't running do you think he would be watching this show or any other show on politics?

PAT: No one watches your show, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Mitt cares about three things: His faith, his family, his business. Right now his business is running for the president. That's why he's interested in the presidency. It's his business to be interested. Let's answer questions, if the interviewer doesn't ask the most obvious thing, something that Mitt's briefers have been over and over with him, he seemed stunned. He doesn't have an answer. Why? Because he never thought of that one. Fact is he hasn't thought about many things outside his zone of interest which again includes his faith, his family, his business. And this is the most dangerous thing about this guy. Since he doesn't have a foreign policy, he buys the foreign policies of the powers that be. So he sings this song of his neocon so‑called advisors. What they really are, of course, are people advocate a point of view: The need for a new war with each new Republican president.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. This is amazing. He's trying to, A, make Romney look like an empty airhead, which he's not, and beholden to people like Grover Norquist. First of all, do you believe that Mitt Romney is beholden to people like Grover Norquist and, B, how do we make sure, if he is or isn't, that he doesn't become beholden to anybody except the Constitution?

KIBBE: Well, I don't think he's necessarily beholden to any particular person. I would love for him beholden to the values and the people that he needs to get elected in this cycle and I think that's the challenge. We've talked a lot about Mitt Romney's weaknesses and whether or not he shares the values that everybody that listens to the show does. I think if we show up, if we do all the things that you've talked about and I talk about in Hostile Takeover, Mitt Romney can be a placeholder for those values. It's not so much whether or not he believes them. It's what he does in office that matters.

GLENN: So tell me, because people will say that you're just playing the game. Here you are, Matt Kibbe, you're just playing the game. You're ‑‑ you know, they always give you two choices, you decide to go with the Republican and ‑‑ I mean, look what ‑‑ look what Rand Paul, who's one of the best libertarians out there, the best thing that's happened to libertarianism in I don't know how long and look what the libertarians are doing to him.

KIBBE: Yeah.

GLENN: Because he's saying "You've got to go with Mitt Romney."

KIBBE: Well, here's the bottom line, and I think we forget this sometimes. We've obsessed so much about who's going to be in charge of the executive branch as if we're looking for a benevolent despot to solve all our problems for us. We don't believe that. We've never believed that. George Washington certainly didn't believe that. It's gotta be bottom‑up accountability. It's got to be our ability as a sustained social movement based on a set of values to constantly hold who's ever in the White House, who's ever in the Senate, who's ever in the house, we have to hold these guys accountable because elections don't matter as much as our ability to sustain a set of opinions. Because politicians will respond to that. I've been arguing in the book that even George Washington was responding to the bottom‑up values of colonial America that insisted on respect for the individual over anybody in power.

GLENN: What do you ‑‑ are you concerned at all, Matt, about the movement, if Mitt Romney would win, the movement all of a sudden saying, whew, okay, we dodged that bullet, and we kind of go back to sleep. That people don't understand that this is a runaway freight train and you're going to have to go for cuts for yourself, they're going to affect you, and you can't sit down.

KIBBE: Well, this is the challenge of the evolution of the Tea Party movement, the evolution of decentralization and politics. Do people understand that this is not a one‑time event, it's not about getting somebody elected and that November 7th is more important than November 6th because the process of making sure that Mitt Romney keeps the promises he's made on the election trail, that the senators that we elect. This is what our responsibility is as citizens, and if you just elect a new set of bums and then leave them to their own devices, you're going to have the same disappointments you've had in the last cycle.

GLENN: Any comment on Orrin Hatch last week during a debate on radio with Dan Liljenquist? He called Freedom Works sleazy?

KIBBE: He said we were the sleaziest group he had ever seen before. And I couldn't help but think about his good friend, his good self‑proclaimed friend Teddy Kennedy. And I wonder, really? Am I sleazier than Ted Kennedy?

STU: (Laughing.)

KIBBE: I think it's politics. I think he's trying to demonize Freedom Works and all of the activists in Utah that want to hold him accountable. Because he doesn't want to talk about his record.

STU: Not to mention Kennedy worked his entire life for that title. I mean, you couldn't have possibly outpaced him this early in your life.

GLENN: You're still really early on in the game, Matt. I don't know if you know that.

The name of the book is Hostile Takeover: Resisting centralized government's stranglehold on America, a great roadmap out, a great book to really help you understand where we are, where we're going, what we have to do, why we have to do it. Hostile Takeover, available in bookstores ‑‑ it's out today, right?

KIBBE: It's out today.

GLENN: Out today. Go ahead.

KIBBE: And if I say so myself, it's awesome.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: With all the enthusiasm that Matt Kibbe can muster there. Calm down, Matt.

By the way, Matt is going to be with us on July 26th at Free PAC. You can grab your tickets. They're like 15 bucks, here in Dallas. That is the weekend of Restoring Love. That's on the Thursday. A ton of people coming for it. It is really, really cool. I don't know if Rand Paul was supposed to let the cat out of the bag, but he did a couple of days ago that he's coming. Did you know that he did that?

KIBBE: I actually didn't know that he did that.

GLENN: Yeah. Did you know that he's coming?

KIBBE: Well, we were wrestling with the Senate schedule because I know he's desperately interested in coming and, you know, if Harry Reid messes with the schedule, we're going to have to deal with that.

GLENN: Yeah. All right. Well, that is happening. You can find out all the details on that at FreePAC.com. FreePAC.com. Thanks very much, Matt. Talk to you, man.

KIBBE: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Appreciate it. Bye‑bye.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

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.