It is time to come together and lead people out of the darkness

You may have noticed that Glenn has had a wide range of guests on his programs this week. From Montel Williams to Rabbi Irwin Kula, James Altucher to Kamal Ravikant, Glenn has been speaking to individuals who might not agree with him politically but share common principles and passions. Glenn opened this morning’s radio program with monologue centered on the importance of joining together with those who may have once made us uncomfortable in order to lead people out of the darkness.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

Yesterday, I had several people in my studios here who are very different than me. I have a new friend in Rabbi Irwin Kula. Rabbi Kula is a New York liberal rabbi who three years ago didn't even want to meet with me. He was like, ‘I don't think I'm going to meet with devil boy.’ But he did because he is a man of integrity and courage, and we sat down and had a great conversation.

I told him at that time, ‘Rabbi, here's what I think is coming. And here is what I think we need to do. And I would just ask that you would pray on that and see if you can help.’ A year went by and we saw each other again. And he said, ‘You know what I've learned in the last year?’ And I said, ‘No, sir.’ And he said, ‘How many people have unreasonable hatred for you.’ I said, ‘Do you remember when I asked if we could meet together?’ He said he never hated me. I was a cartoon character to him. And he said, ‘Now my life is so amazing because I am witnessing unreasonable hatred that I never knew.’ And he said, ‘Being your friend is interesting.’ I said, ‘I understand that.’ A year goes by. And he said to me, ‘I'm beginning to understand what you're talking about. I'm seeing what you're seeing now, with the hatred that is growing on all sides. I want to talk you more about it.’ This is before I gave a speech someplace, and he happened to be there. He came up to me afterwards and he hugged me and he was crying and he said, ‘I'm in. I'm in.’

We've been trying to get together now for the last eight months. And we keep missing each other. And finally he got on the plane and he came down yesterday and he sat with me. We had such an amazing chat. A chat about the hole that so many people are feeling. The hole that our kids are cutting themselves, our kids are killing themselves, and everybody is talking about gun regulation. Even, you know, with me, I'm talking about video games. But really, what we should be talking about is the hole that everyone is trying to fill. And we're all filling it.

We're all addicted to something. I want you to really think to yourself: What is it that you're addicted to? And when I say ‘addicted to,’ what I mean is: If I asked you to put it away for a month, could you do it or would you do it? If I said, don't have any coffee for a month, don't have any alcohol for a month, don't have a cigarette for a month, don't view pornography for a month, don't use the Internet for a month, don't use your cell phone or text message or email for a month. Would you do it? Different question than could you do it. Would you do it? Most of us at first would say, ‘Oh, it can't be done.’ But I would challenge you.

Five years ago you didn't have an iPhone. Five years ago you weren't texting. Five years ago you didn't have Facebook. Five years ago we didn't have Twitter. So these things we all lived without just a very short period ago. So the answer is: Yes, you could. But would you?

We are so busy checking the mail. How many times have we been in a conversation. I was just in a conversation… and somebody pulls out their phone because they just got a little buzzzz, and I looked down, ‘Oh, news item just happened.’ Really? I haven't seen you in four months. How about we have a conversation? I didn't even notice it because I thought, ‘Oh, wow, that's important news.’ But was it? Really? I mean I would have found out that news in just a few minutes. Is that news going to affect us somehow or another? Do we need to know exactly what's happening? I understand we're in the news business, so yes, we do. But I'm asking you: When you find out, oh, the guy from the V.A. just apologized. Is that something that you need to know right now? Are you going to affect that somehow or another? Does Washington affect you somehow or another? We're watching the Kardashians, not all of us, thank God.

This is a historic studio. This is where they made JFK and portions of Forrest Gump. All the Barneys were done here. Prison Break was filmed here. Robocop was filmed here. Silkwood was filmed here. These are historic studios. But these studios fell into disrepair, and they just went dark. I really just think they just went dark. This was a bad building when we first came into it. You could feel it. The people were miserable here. It was bad. And we have spent now the last year… trying to get the bad karma out of this building and change the way it feels and the way we relate to each other. And it has been quite a journey.

Yesterday, the [Rabbi Kula] walks in and, I mean, most rabbis that I know, they live in their head. Israel means ‘to wrestle with God.’ That's what the translation is. ‘One who wrestles with God.’ And so most rabbis that I know, they live in their head, and they wrestle with God, and they're just these giant brains. I have met – on very rare occasion – one that lives in the head and the heart… And he walked in here and he said, ‘Boy, there is something happening here.’ I said, ‘Yes, there is, Rabbi.’ And we started to talk and he never talked about my community. He talked about his community. And he said, ‘Let me take the beam out of my own eye before I worry about the speck in somebody else's.’ He said, ‘There's so much hate in my community.’ Now, he's assuming – and I'm going to assume that you are doing the same – as I relate this story, that you're now thinking about the hate in our community. But he said, ‘There is so much hate in my community. And it's becoming unreasonable. And it's because we're lying to each other. We are lying about everything. We're lying about our lives. We're lying about the future. And we're all afraid. And we're lying that we're not afraid. You watch news and they're lying to you about what's happening in Washington. They're lying to you about what's happening with the banks. They're lying to you. And we're starting to separate from each other.’ And he put his head in his hands and the man wept.

We have to love each other. I want to read something we put up on this chalkboard. We have this giant hallway in this studio. It's a four-story atrium in the middle of the studio and this hallway. This is probably 20 feet tall and 40 feet long. It's chalkboard on the side. And I wanted to show you what I wrote on this. And this is for my staff to read:

I believe the world doesn't have to suck. But for that to be true, we have to be our better selves. We must empower, forgive, lift, enlighten, hope, dream, create, and above all, love. Most people will laugh at this idea. Let them. We won't notice it because we'll be busy changing the world. So to all those who visit here, welcome and join us. To the rest of the world, we may appear as mad men. We actually like it that way because they'll never see us coming.

That is a message that I gave my staff and that is a message that I give you today. Religion has been so corrupted. Religion has gone so dead and cold. Religion has become about rules and not about love. It has been about making money and building bigger churches and rock bands or whatever it is, and not about service.

I remember when I said to my wife, ‘Will you marry me?’ And she said, ‘No.’ And I said, ‘Okay, that's not the actual answer I was looking for. How come?’ And she said, ‘Because we don't have God in common.’ And I said, ‘Honey, I believe in God deeply. I just don't go to church because I don't believe in church.’ And she said, ‘We're not going to get married unless we go to church.’ And I said, ‘You got to be kidding me. You come over to my house on Sunday. I have gotten up and I've just watched like The Sopranos on HBO and I'm in a perfectly good mood. I'm good. You, on the other hand, have gone to church. And so now you come over and you spend the first 20 minutes talking to me about how everybody was honking their horns. How everybody -- somebody flipped you off while you were trying to get out of the parking lot. How people only went for 45 minutes and as soon as they had the sacrament, they were gone. Why would I want to go there? I'm great watching The Sopranos. Why would I want to go to that?’ We hadn't found what they were looking for.

But I challenge you. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about finding something that fills that hole that doesn't come from man. I don't care what it is, but find something that is bigger than you. The reason why our kids are cutting themselves, the reason why our kids are shooting, the reason why these video games are dangerous is because it aids in the going dead inside. It speeds the process up. There is nothing our kids are shocked by. Nothing.

Do you remember how frightened you were of some things when you were little? Our kids have seen it all. They have seen murders. They have seen rapes. They have seen bloody, dead bodies. They have seen it all. So there's nothing that shocks them and on top of it, there's nothing sacred. There's no reason to be reverent for anything or anybody. Tell me the things you believe in. Tell me the things that are bigger than you. Tell me the things you think your kids have reverence for. Go into our churches. There's no quiet space. If it's quiet, it's because everybody is on their cell phones or their iPads and they're texting. The only reason why it's quiet is because they're living in the cyber world. What is it that fills that?

I challenge you to find something that fills that. That's real. That you're not going to lose if the economy goes down. That will make you stronger if you lose your job. Not weaker. Something that you cannot lose, something that is a lighthouse. It's a polar star. What is it for you?

And then I challenge you to start looking for people that make you uncomfortable. I've had a conversation with Montel Williams this week that was necessarily uncomfortable for him. I've had a Rabbi from the Upper West Side of Manhattan. That wasn't comfortable. We have to start reaching out to people and the best thing about this audience is we have always tried to push and prod and poke and in a safe place make you uncomfortable – just be true. Just be honest. Not ever saying what I think you want to hear. But saying what I believe.

You have this amazing elastic mind that most audiences don't have. You go and look at an NBC audience and they do not have the ability to think out of the box. They don't have the ability to go into an uncomfortable place. And that's the same with most audiences, left or right. You're different. Go find and seek those people because I'm telling you, we need to tie each other together. We need to rope each other together. And we need to find our polar star, so we can lead people out of the darkness.

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.