The Oval: The Global Freedom Movement

July 25, 2012

Wilson

Writer

Good afternoon.

Across the globe,

People marvel at America.

They see the elections we have…

The public debate…

Over who gets to sit at this desk…

And they marvel!

How is it possible, they say…

To criticize someone with so much power!

In public…

And not go to jail?

Not suffer?

They look to America.

They see our political arguments….

Our freedom of speech…

Our many civic organizations…

Our volunteer culture…

Our sense that anything is possible...

And they conclude:

“We want to be Americans, too!”

So…

They dress like Americans…

Listen to American music…

And adopt American technology,

And they think…

This will give us American freedom, too!

So in Africa…

In Europe…

In Asia…

In the Middle East…

When they want political revolution…

Political freedom….

They try to adopt our culture…

They try to launch a revolution of their own.

They imitate what they see.

The latest in our culture…

The same hair…fashion…

And technology.

They are quick to use Facebook…

Or Twitter…

To organize… to rebel.

And that’s fine.

But does it work?

We have seen...

That the rebellions and so-called Arab Spring…

Which began in technology…

…Ended in chaos.

And repression.

In Egypt, we were told that….

The kids in the street…

Could tweet themselves to a liberal democracy!

That they could use Facebook…

…to beat back the generals and the mullahs!

You may remember the photos…

Of the university kids…

With their western clothes…

And their fancy computers…

Pushing a revolution through the digital universe.

But in Cairo’s Tahir Square.

They were getting crushed…

By camels and wooden clubs…

And now…

The kids are in fear for their lives…

The generals they fought can’t protect them.

From the mullahs.

The western garb is going away…

Here comes the hijab… and the burka.

In the end, those who ended out on top….

Who hold power…

Who will run Egypt now…

They don’t use Twitter.

They don’t friend people on Facebook.

They do things old-school.

They rely on a technology…

…that is far more effective.

Far more durable.

It’s called the sword…

Fear is their technology.

Fear. Intimidation. Threats.

And if necessary…

Far worse.

The mullahs of the Muslim Brotherhood…

Had something else.

They had a sense of history…

They could draw on something deep.

They knew what runs in the veins of every Egyptian…

A longing…

Not for the West…

Not for technology…

But for national pride.

Egypt is a nation that has lost every war in the last century…

A nation with an economy that has drifted to dependency…

And so the Muslim Brotherhood had a simple message:

And you will feel pride again.

And if you don’t follow us…

There is the sword.

And the Muslim Brotherhood understands something…

…that all the techno-savvy kids don’t.

If you want to win people over…

You meet them where they live…

Where they work….

Where they pray.

If you want to start a revolution…

You don’t do it in 140 characters.

You do it with big ideas.

With history.

We forget this sometimes.

We forget, in this age of digital media,

That in the end…

The ideas that win the day…

Aren’t necessarily clever…

Or funny…

Or accompanied by a youtube video of a barking cat.

The ideas that win the day…

Are those delivered…

Steadily…

One by one by one…

Until everyone hears it.

You don’t do it with sizzle.

You do it with steak.

The fanciest technology…

Won’t save you…

If you don’t have ideas behind you.

If you don’t have history behind you.

Now:

Why is this on my mind?

Because I’ve been approached…

By people in Italy…

Denmark… England…

[Other nations here]

And they ask me all the time:

“Glenn, how do we build a tea party?”

They want their own tea party.

But here’s the thing…

They can’t have a tea party movement…

Unless they know why we chose the term “tea party”…

And they don’t!

They think we get together and drink tea!

They don’t understand what the first tea party was!

They have no appreciation for what that term means…

When Americans say ‘Let’s have a tea party’…

We’re not talking about drinking tea on fancy saucers!

We’re talking about a revolution against tyranny…

But if you don’t know American history…

You won’t know that.

And so I always urge our friends…

The friends in Freepac…the global freedom movement…

Find your own tea party tradition…

It exists…

It may not be as dramatic as our tea party…

But in the heart of every man and woman …

There beats a desire for freedom.

Everyone has it inside them.

In every nation,

There is a natural hatred of tyranny…

A natural dislike for concentrated power.

And it is the goal of Freepac to bring it out.

But there are no shortcuts.

No easy paths.

You can’t just start a Facebook page…

…And expect it to blossom.

You can’t tweet yourself to freedom!

You have to do real work.

And here is what real work looks like…

You call a meeting…

At a local restaurant…

And you invite all your friends…

And you see who comes.

If you only have three people say yes…

You try to get a fourth.

If you have 20…

You try to get to 25.

If you have 50…

Go for 60.

Get ready to argue about your goals…

And get ready to use more than 140 characters…

Because if you want freedom,

You’ll have to be more than clever…

You’ll have to be more than tech-savvy.

You’ll have to be smart.

And energetic.

And if you’re doing this in Europe…

Or Africa…

Or Asia…

You can’t call it a tea party.

You’ll have to find your own historical touchstones.

You have to be authentic.

You have to be substantive.

This Saturday night…

We will meet, you and I,

For a rally to Restore Love.

And if you’re not from America…

Steeped in American history…

You hear that phrase “restore love”…

And you wonder:

Is this about giving out hugs and kisses?

Because you may not know…

What the word “love” means…

…To Americans.

It’s a deeper meaning.

And it can’t be summarized in 140 characters.

In America,

Love is about charity.

Love is about service.

Love is about the work of our hearts.

And in America,

Our goal is to restore love,

To reclaim it.

Because all too often,

Those in power tell us not to love,

Not to do the work of our hearts.

Just pay our taxes, and let them worry about helping our fellow man.

So this weekend,

We are going to remind ourselves,

Why we must do this work ourselves.

It is an urgent issue for us.

Vital.

Because if we can’t do the work of our hearts…

We are not free.

I’m not saying that in other nations,

Our brothers in the freedom movement…

…Need to do the same thing.

I’m not sure.

Because I don’t know.

That’s up to them…

…to find out.

A global movement of freedom…

…doesn’t come in one flavor.

Doesn’t depend on one model of success.

So, to my friends in other nations…

…Who are looking to build their own tea party movement…

I have a simple message.

Don’t be distracted by technology…

Don’t be distracted by the accessories of freedom.

Don’t be distracted by the American model.

The three-cornered hat is not for you.

The tea party, we’ll keep that.

Find your own touchstones.

Discover your own history.

Everything you need…

…you’ll find where you live.

Your history will point you to freedom.

Your ideas will win the day.

No shortcuts.

Know this:

Hard work lies ahead.

If you don’t do the hard work,

The results won’t last.

We are seeing that today in America.

We sometimes take for granted…

…The freedoms we enjoy.

And those who want to take away that freedom…

…They count on us to relax our guard….

…To take the shortcuts…

To just post a few videos on Facebook.

And let it go at that.

But winning freedom took blood…

And keeping freedom takes commitment.

Freedom is like the heart.

It’s a muscle.

And if we don’t use it…

Exercise it…

Push it to the limit every so often…

It gets weak.

It doesn’t work as well.

And eventually, it gives out.

When Benjamin Franklin walked out of the Constitutional Convention….

Someone said to him:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

And Ben Franklin said:

“A republic. If you can keep it.”

So my message to my friends from foreign lands…

Is the same as my message to Americans.

Securing freedom is the work of every generation.

And if you do the hard work,

The results will last.

And the freedom you win…

Will belong to you…

Forever.

Thanks for watching….

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.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

The Oval: The Global Freedom Movement

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

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

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

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

Willful blindness

Monthly attacks

Democrats are radicalizing