What happened on September 11, 2001 that made us better people?

On Thursday’s radio program, Glenn poignantly reflected on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and asked listeners to think back on where they were 13 years ago. September 12, 2001 is a remarkable day in American history because of the way Americans turned a tragic darkness into a hopeful light. On this September 12, Glenn asked his audience to once again think back to 13 years ago, but this time he also asked people to consider what has changed or been gained since then.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

Today is a very important day for this broadcast and for many of our listeners. Today is 9/12. This is the day that we modeled the 9/12 Project after. Yesterday, we spent the whole day talking about the things that we learned from 9/11 and the things that we feel we have lost. Today is the day that we now would like to look at the things that we have gained.

What happened on 9/11 – and in particular for me, 9/12 – that made us better people? You know, the bad stuff happens to everyone. Every country goes through bad stuff. And here's what I've really been concentrating on lately. We're not Europe. We're not like any other nation. And people have always said that about America. People come from overseas and they say, ‘You guys are so different here. You're so open.’ People come from all over the world and they will always walk away saying, ‘There's something different about Americans. They're so trusting.’ That's because we haven't had the world wars here. That's because we haven't had our own people turn against each other and round them up. Well, I'm sorry. Except for Woodrow Wilson and F.D.R. But, generally speaking, our neighbors don't tell on one another. We're not snitches on each other. We don't spy on each other. That's what made what George W. Bush wanted to do and Barack Obama also wanted to do so wrong. That's not who we are.

I was not a huge fan of the Tea Party's original messaging and mission because the original message and mission was taxes, oppression. And I understand that. But if you remember, what everybody was saying at the time was, ‘What have you lost.’ We were projecting. We knew what was coming. It wasn't hard to read the tealeaves, but most Americans still will say, ‘Oh, what have you really lost?’ We've lost a lot. But the rest of the world has already gone through this. Europe has gone through this over and over and over and over again. We never have. It's why we're so blind to it. But we also choose our responses to things.

I think of Dietrich Bonheoffer an awful lot. I've gone the full circle with Dietrich Bonheoffer. At first, I saw his story and I was inspired by it. Dietrich Bonheoffer is a pastor that lived in Germany in World War II. He was a pacifist, and he stood up for peace. At first, he impressed me. Then I thought: Really, he didn't win. And then I realized, no, actually, he did. I really studied the last part of his life, when he was in prison – in particular, the last few minutes of his life when he got down on his knees in the woods as they're getting ready to hang him. They were hanging people one after another after another.

Imagine, he was on the road to escape. They were freeing him. It was 15 days before Hitler was dead, and they were freeing him. But the car broke down. Here are these prisoners on the side of the road with guards, with really no guns and no place to go. And a concentration camp truck comes by and they're like, ‘Hey, we're taking these prisoners and our truck broke down.’ They're like, ‘You know what? We got a camp up here. We'll just put them in the camp.’ So they weren't released. They were put into another camp.

He shared that cell with a guy who had done all of the medical experiments on the Jews because, in the end, Hitler wanted him dead, too. He was with that that guy and a prostitute – a double agent who was a prostitute. I can't imagine what that Nazi doctor and that prostitute were doing in the cell. Apparently, it was extraordinarily vial. And then sitting in that same cell was Dietrich Bonheoffer. He preached to them. He just spoke of love and peace and kindness. I'm sure they didn't really listen to him very much. They were busy with other things. But he never changed. And when it came his time to be executed, they came for him in the morning, and they took him out into the woods. That's when where they had the hanging platform. And he got down on his knees and he prayed. He wasn't afraid. He was praising. He was giving joy. He was thanking God. He got up on to the scaffolding. They put the noose around his neck, and he thanked the hangman. The guy who pulled the lever said, ‘I'll never forget him. There was something different about him.’

It was the same thing with Viktor Frankl. Viktor Frankl was a guy who was in concentration camps. All I ever pray for is just let me accept Your will. I don't care what it is – if I'm rich, if I'm poor, if I'm free, if I'm in prison, whatever. Just let me know that everything is okay. Everything is gonna be great. I'm exactly where I'm supposed to be. Nelson Mandela could have gone into prison, and he could have been more and more bitter every day. But he didn't do that. He chose to change his life. In some ways, he belonged in prison at the beginning. He was a bad guy. His wife, Winnie Mandela, was not a good individual. He could have ripped those people apart when he got out. He could have used anger to get what he wanted. Instead, he chose love.

We all have bad things that happen to us. Something that my father taught me at the bakery was when he lied to me and told me he had bread to make as I was whining to him on the phone. ‘Oh, my life is so tough.’ ‘Yeah, I know. I know it is. Why don't you make a list and call me back tonight. We'll talk about it.’ I didn't realize he was being sarcastic. I didn’t know the life my father had gone through.

My father taught me, make that list. I called him back a couple of minutes later after I looked at that list, and the top of the list was my mom's suicide. ‘Oh, my mom killed herself and it changed my whole life.’ Wait a minute, hang on just a second. Yes, she did. But if my folks wouldn't have gotten a divorce, I wouldn't have moved down with my mother. I wouldn't have started in radio. Then my mom committed suicide, which meant I went back and I lived with my father for a while. And because I did that, I met all my good friends. I met Robert who is my brother. He changed my life. From there, I met other people. And I started working in Seattle. All of these things that I did, I probably would not have done had it not been for my mom’s suicide. So I could wallow, or I could say, ‘Wow, look at what came out of that.’

Life happens. Life sucks a lot. But we can't let it beat us down.

Pat and I have talked many times about, ‘Oh, man, 1970s, those days don't come back. They were simpler times.’ No, they didn't. They sucked. We went from Nixon and Watergate during Vietnam right into Jimmy Carter. We went from the oil crisis to the burning of the helicopters. Those days came right out of the '60s where we had Bill Ayers killing police officers. What are we doing? Those weren't good days. Those were not simpler times.

So what were we thinking? Here's why we look back on those days, whether they were in the '60s, the '70s, the '80s, the '90s, 2002. The reason why we look back at those as simpler days is because we were simpler. We weren't bogged down with the worries of the world. We still had hope that it could change.

Now, what's changed? Has the hope changed? No. We're in the same bad situation that we were in before. Granted, we're dealing with stuff we've never dealt with before. Got it. But why are we hopeless? We're hopeless for this reason: We choose to be. And we choose to be because we think we know.

When you're 20, you thing you’re never gonna die. You just think that you will always be able to go. Unless you are exercising the mind and, especially, the spirit, it ain't gonna work. At some point, it breaks down, and that's what's happening to our society. Our bodies are breaking down because we're eating, and we're not exercising, and we're living the life of Americans. It's not good. Our bodies are breaking down.

Our minds are breaking down because we're no longer challenging them. Political correctness makes it so you don't challenge anything. We should be challenging everything. Question with boldness, even the very existence of God, for if there be a God, He must sure rather have honest questioning over blindfolded fear. Question everything. Question with boldness. Hold to the truth, and speak without fear. And our spirit is atrophying because we are not exercising it. We get tired, and we lose that ability that we had at 20 to bounce back.

When I was 20, I may not have understood everything, but I understood this: It's all going to be fine. It's all going to work out. I'm going to make a difference. That's the thing that we all had. ‘I'm going to make a difference.’ Nobody was 20 years old and thought, ‘I just want to be a guy who's stuck in a cube in an office that nobody really likes.’ Nobody thinks that. That's not what you wanted.

Now, what is it that you wanted? And why? What is standing in your way that stops you? We changed overnight on 9/12. Overnight. That fast. All of a sudden, all of those barriers were gone. All of those beliefs were gone. Everything. We went right back to who we were, real human beings that loved each other. Real human beings that knew the only thing that mattered was our friendship, was our decency, was our humanity, our freedoms.

We don't need a tragedy to change us. But because a tragedy happens, we can choose to wallow in it, or we can – today on 9/12 – say: What have I gained? Who am I? Yesterday, we said to you on the air, ‘Who was I 13 years ago?’ I was a nobody 13 years ago. My job has changed a great deal. Okay. More importantly, I've changed. I've become a much more deeply spiritual person. I've learned so much about American history. I've learned so much. Look at what you've done in the last 13 years. Just do this again in the next 13 years and watch us shine.

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.