45 years later, Glenn takes a poignant look back at the Apollo 11 launch

On July 16, 1969, Americans gathered around their television sets as legendary broadcaster Walter Cronkite reported live from the Kennedy Space Center. The Apollo 11 was set to launch at 9:32am ET, and the energy was palpable.

Watch Cronkite’s coverage for CBS News below:

45 years to the day later, Glenn wondered on radio this morning what has happened to the ‘anything is possible’ mentality that saw Americans put a man on the moon in remarkably short period of time. Is such a feat even possible anymore? Glenn believes it is, but it will take hard work to get back to the place in which the sky’s the limit.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

Think if I said to you those things today. I mean, think of the schedule that Cronkite just laid out. People that were my age back then did not think when they were growing up that man would never go to the moon. Never.

My father was born in 1926. He lived in a house without electricity, without running water. In the summer months they didn't even wear shoes. He remembers the Great Depression. He remembers World War II. And he told me once, ‘Glenn, nobody thought we could ever go to the moon. We didn't even actually think that. That wasn't possible.’ So the people that were there at the time never thought that that was even possible. But because John F. Kennedy – well, let me start earlier. Because Walt Disney and Wernher Von Braun happened to read articles saying, ‘We can put a man in space. We can put a man on the moon. We can actually go to Mars.’ He got Ward Kimball to animate something in 1955 called "Man in Space."

Editor’s Note: You can watch Man in Space HERE.

Dwight Eisenhower, who couldn't convince the Pentagon that we could go to space, watches it, calls Walt up and says, ‘Walt, you did it. I've been trying to convince the guys at the Pentagon that we could go to space. I don't need to convince them. You just convinced the American people.’ And once the American people were convinced that something great could happen, that we could actually do it, once you laid out the facts in an understandable way... Man in Space explains the physics. It explains exactly how it works.

There's nobody on television that would do anything like that today. Now, you have got to change the picture every 45 seconds. You can't talk about real immigration reform. You can't talk about real economics anymore. You can't talk about money printing or how the Fed works or doesn't work. You can't talk about the caliphate. No one will take the time to explain it to you. Nobody will actually do it because it can't be done. Yet we were on Fox News. We had the number one shows talking about Woodrow Wilson, number one shows talking about Road to Serfdom. And I didn't have the talent or the money Walt Disney had.

Think about how small man is in the vastness of space. Here's Cronkite on television in 1969, just an hour before we launch into the heavens and a week before man touches the moon for the very first time, and he lays it all out. Stage one: It's going to take off at 9:32. Two hours later, another rocket boost will hurl that capsule all the way to the moon. Then they will circle the moon. Then they'll land on the moon. And then on Monday – you want to talk about must-see TV – man will forever be remembered. This one man, just a regular guy from America, will actually be the first man to set foot and touch the face of the moon. And because Americans believed it could be done, they did it. For peaceful purposes, we did it.

Wernher Von Braun, the same guy that invented the V-2 rocket for Hitler, the same technology that was used for death, was used for miracles because he decided to put the Hitler playbook away and start to look at the possibilities. And then we had a president who wasn't mired in the mud, but instead looked up to the sky and was reaching for the heavens and said, ‘We can do this. We are great when we work together. And this is something we can do. And it's worthwhile. We will forever be remembered as doing something that no man had ever dreamt could even be done before. And we can do it within a 10-year period. We can do it by the end of the decade. Imagine.’

And look at what we're mired in now. We can't even have a conversation about whether the border is secure when there are thousands coming across. Forget about the math. Forget about the computers that didn't exist. Forget about the systems that didn't exist. We can't even agree on the mathematics. We can't even agree that the border fence isn't complete. We can't even agree that there's a crisis when the President himself stands in front of the American people and says, ‘There's a humanitarian crisis.’ At the same time, his own party, his own allies say, ‘There's no crisis. What are you talking about? There's no crisis. We just need $4 billion. But there's no crisis. Everything is fine.’

Think about how small man is in the vastness of space. And now think that was 45 years ago when we reached out to touch the face of God. It was 45 years ago. And look how small man has become. Look how small we are now as people. And it has nothing to do with a comparison of the vastness of space. It has everything to do with our ideas and our dreams. It has everything to do with the fact that we won't even face reality anymore. You can't do great things if you don't face reality.

I did an interview yesterday with CNN Reliable Sources. They came down. They spent the day with me yesterday. They asked some tough questions, but it was a fair interview. The host said to me yesterday, ‘So you're trying to be a better man.’ Yes, I am. ‘You're trying not to be divisive.’ Yes, I'm trying to tell the truth, but I'm not trying to be divisive about it. I've never tried to be divisive, but I'm trying to be more careful.

I don't want to needlessly do any more damage. I never tried to do damage. It was not my intent. I really was trying to do basically what Walt Disney did with Man in Space. Give the information in an entertaining way, so people will watch it and consume it. That's an important part of our job – make sure that people will watch it and understand it without dumbing it down. Try to get tough concepts across to people. That's not easy to do. Sometimes you have to put a fish in a blender. Sometimes you have to boil a fake frog. That's part of it.

And he asked me, ‘Why this change?’ And I said, ‘Because this change has been happening to me since I went to the Mall in Washington, D.C., and I stood there at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and I saw those 500,000 people who believed in something and it wasn't me. And I believed in something. And I realized, we all believe in something better than what we have. We all believe in something bigger than what we're currently doing. We all believe in something as grand as the moon shot. And that is: We can live in a world that is much more peaceful. We can live in a world where our neighbors get along, where we respect each other, where we're decent to each other, where honesty and integrity and honor and courage and love make a difference. They play a role. They're a centerpiece.’

And I said, ‘If we don't, we're in real trouble because I believe we are a country at civil war. We just haven't started shooting each other yet. And we have to back away from that.’ And he looked at me and said, ‘How are you trying to be less divisive and you come out and say something like that?’ And it boggled my mind. I'm not rooting for Civil War. I'm not blaming the civil war on anybody. I'll take blame. Go ahead, blame it all on me. History will show it's not my fault. It's all of our faults. We're all doing it. We all have to be careful.

We're all walking around with nitroglycerin. Let's not shake each other. What do you say we don't shake each other? Let's try to be good and decent and better than we were before, and let's try to do it – not before the end of the decade – but before the next election.

What do you think? Can we do that? I think we can. But it's going to require all of us. But it's first going to require all of us to tell each other the truth. Math makes a difference. We would have never made it to space if we would have lied about mathematics. We can't lie to each other. We just have to expect the best from each other. We have to stop blaming each other. We do have to diagnose the problem. If you have cancer, do you smoke? Is it lung cancer? Well, then you've got to stop smoking cigarettes. You got to stop.

There's no hate involved in that. It's just the truth. And hope is found only through the truth.

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.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

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.