The real death of shame

Another off the record conversation Glenn shared on radio today focused on technology. After speaking with a silicon valley power player, Glenn relayed the new way of thinking about emerging technology discussed in the conversation. Basically, no matter how hard government tries, they will not be able to contain advancements. How will this all lead to the real death of shame?

GLENN: Facebook is now cited in a third of all divorce cases.

PAT: That's amazing to me.

GLENN: That is incredible. Now, what does that mean?

Because Facebook is an ongoing log of our lives, the sharing of written posts and pictures many times with geotracking provides a record of activity that is being used today in court cases in divorces. In one-third of all divorces.

If a partner refers to an impending bonus, a new job offer, plans for a holiday, it may provide evidence that they're not telling the truth about their financial pos. At the very least, it could call their credibility into question. It's like having a massive public notice board.

Someone says she's not in a relationship with anyone new, but then posted a message inviting everyone to a house-warming party for her and her boyfriend. Specialists at the firm examined over 200 cases and found Facebook was used by legal teams in a third of the divorce cases.

This is -- this is the new future that I want to talk to you about here.

And I think there are very few people in the world that understand this. And I may come to the wrong conclusions, but I want you to understand this because we should have a debate -- a conversation about what is coming.

I think, and I told you at the time, that the Sony hacking was a massive moment. Was something really, really important. Because I thought it sent a signal -- wait a minute. I can get a company like Sony. I can go in and hack in. I can get a company like Sony to move. Why wouldn't I do that with GM or GE? Why wouldn't I do that with some of the biggest corporations in the world. Why wouldn't I do that with the federal government? And they're now hacking into the federal government.

I've also told you that what you put online and this is one thing -- I said this to somebody yesterday and they looked at me for a second and they said, oh, crap, I never even thought about it that way.

Look at your phone. Your phone has a listening device and an eye. It has -- it has those two things that we would never bring in to -- I'd never say, hey, if I put a -- I was going to put a secret camera in your bedroom and a listening device in there. And you don't know if I'm listening or not. Or somebody else might be listening. Do you mind if I put it in there? Everybody would say no. But because I put it on a phone, you immediately say, oh, I'll do that. And it's unlike a phone that you have in your bedroom now, that doesn't have an eye and doesn't have a receiver end.

This is propped up in a cradle, so as you put it in to the cradle to recharge, the eye is staring right at you in bed. Everything that you look at -- and I don't know if you've ever seen those guys that people hack in and they're online. And all of a sudden porn comes on to the screen and it's people hacking in, and they're putting really inappropriate things up on the screen.

JEFFY: I hate that.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

[laughter]

And you watch their reaction and some people follow the scent of the porn. And that is able to happen without somebody putting the porn on your i Pad. Somebody can be watching what you're doing -- somebody can be watching what you're reading, what's happening. Okay.

Now, we know that all of those things can happen. We know now that Sony has been hacked into. We know that Google has told us -- Eric Schmidt has told us that this generation will have to change their name by the time they're 25 to be able to get away from all of the stupid stuff that is online under their name. Because you just will have too much out there.

PAT: It's already costing kids jobs now because employers are looking at their Facebook posts and what they've done on Instagram and all that stuff and they're saying, no. No. I don't want you.

GLENN: Yeah. So you're an open book.

Now, let's add the Sony factor in. And let's add the future of technology. Phones are going to be everywhere. Phones will be on your watch. You know, some -- or cameras. Cameras will be on your watch. Some cameras will be embedded in your home. Some will be embedded in clothing. And you'll put them on. Your glasses. Did you guys see what happened yesterday with Microsoft? Their new hologram glasses?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Oh, jeez. Go to my Facebook page and see if there's any audio worth pulling up. I pulled it off Microsoft yesterday. They're on -- it's unbelievable. It's absolutely unbelievable. So they're holographic glasses you wear. And it's unlike -- it's more like the Google glass, except it puts in your environment all your apps. You want to watch Netflix, you don't have to have to have TV.

PAT: The HoloLens?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Is it good audio or just visual?

GLENN: I think it's mainly visual. We'll listen to it during the break and see. But it's up on my Facebook page. You should watch it. This is what came out yesterday. That's a two-way street. It's gathering information, and it's giving you information. Whatever you're looking at, it's seeing. Whatever is in the room, it's seeing. It's recording. Two-way information. So when people hacked into Sony, they knew, okay, now we have real power. Governments will be the first ones to say, we have to fight for -- we have to fight for the right to privacy, for them.

For instance, a friend of mine suggested that we put a camera on a politician all the time. That they have to wear a camera. You want a candidate that says, I have nothing to hide. He has to wear a camera all the time. So you see what he sees all the time. If there's anybody who should not have privacy, it's the people who work for the public. But they'll the first ones to say, no, no, there has to be secrets. The next ones that will say that are the corporations. We have no power, no money, we're last on the food chain. Whatever it is that will protect their information, it will trickle down to the private individual.

Here's where it gets good, there is no way to protect the privacy. At this point, there's nothing to protect the privacy. And things will get so bad. What's going to happen is, something called the death of shame. Now, I think we're already at the death of shame. That people just don't have -- there's no shame anymore.

But once there are cameras everywhere, recording everything, once everybody can see what you look like in the bedroom, everybody can see -- I mean, think of this. How many of us -- how many of us even charge our phones there at the bathroom sink? So there you are in all your naked glory, brushing your teeth.

PAT: I'm never naked when I brush my teeth. I put clothes on as quickly as I possibly can so I don't have to look at anything.

GLENN: I do too.

STU: Unless you're in really good shape. Because things are jiggling.

GLENN: Anyway, so -- how many of us have that exposure all the time?

When you have that kind of exposure, when you're seeing the things that people are posting online, and when it is out, whether you want to post it or not, now, everybody is shameful. Now everybody is like, holy cow. That came out about you. Don't worry about it, Bob, you should see what came out about me last month. So shame dies in our society.

What is that like? When there is no shame.

How do you have self-regulation?

Right now, shame is meant -- is used to hold together and keep our feet on a course. And the more that shame dies, the worst it gets.

Okay. So what do you do?

As shame is dying, secrets are opened. Somebody is going to need something where they can embed secrets. Where you have privacy again.

I believe bitcoin is the future of that privacy. Not just for money, but for information.

I was talking to somebody yesterday at Silicon Valley, and they were talking to me about bitcoin. And we talked about the ability for bitcoin, that blockchain, to be able to have information. Because what I was talking to him about was the rise of fascism. And I said, how do we fight against the rise of fascism, when these global governments start to block the way?

And he said, you're not going to be able to -- you'll have to shut down the entire internet. You won't be able to do it. The faster fascism rises, the faster this change will come. The way to do it, is blockchain, he said.

And that is the way to transfer money in bitcoin. He said you'll be able to do it in packets of information. Right now, they can see what you're writing and watching online. But if you encode everything with blockchain, which is the way it's going to have to be done because the giant corporations will need to be able to keep their servers protected. They're going to need to have their money protected. The only way to do that is through a blockchain.

And so he was suggesting that you embed in the blockchain, that's also the way you deliver pacts of information. So all your emails will be individually encrypted and individually opened. If you go online, they won't be able to follow you on what you're watching online. What you're doing online because you'll have an individual blockchain.

If that is true, that solves a lot of the things we're worried about. If that is true, you cannot put the genie back into the bottle. Because what I've been afraid is, do they cut off the supply of information? Can they track you and your every thought?

The answer is yes. However, if you introduce the blockchain, freedom comes with that. Freedom of money -- freedom is money. The more money you have, sometimes, the more free you are. You can go do things.

But money is also freedom of speech. And what that means is, that blockchain, that bitcoin blockchain will protect your freedom of speech, and it will protect you having money. Because you go -- you go across the border now and they'll say to you, you have $10,000 -- you have $10,000? You carrying any currency across the border? Nope. But the minute I cross the border and I have bitcoin and a blockchain, if I have the code in my head, yes, I'm carrying more than $10,000 cash. I'm carrying everything across the border. And there's nothing they can do with it. So they can no longer stop people. You no longer have to smuggle money. You no longer to have smuggle things because it's all in your head. And as long as you have your blockchain memorized, you're fine.

That's a significant development. And for me, at least, significant hope that we have really weird times coming our way. Really weird times. The death of shame. That's going to be an interesting ride.

However, because of technology that is right over the corner, right over the horizon, we have the possibility of being more free than we've ever been before.

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.

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.