What is the security-industrial complex?

February 20, 2015

WRITER

Glenn wrapped up SpyWeek on TheBlaze last night with a chilling look at where the surveillance state is heading next. What sort of world are we creating for our children and grandchildren? One vastly different from ours where all the rules of the game are changed.

Watch a portion of the conversation below:

Glenn: All right, I want to talk to a couple of other people and bring them in. Bruce Schneier is the author of Data and Goliath. Also, Whitfield Diffie, he is an American cryptographer and author of Privacy on the Line. Welcome, gentlemen.

Bruce: Thank you.

Glenn: Okay, so we’re just kind of having an interesting conversation off the air about this is something that everybody should be concerned about, and you were saying that it kind of breaks down to two different groups, people who fear corporations, the people who fear the state, but really both sides should care.

Bruce: I call it the security industrial complex. You know, it isn’t that the NSA woke up one morning and said we’re going to spy on everybody. They woke up in the morning and said, “Wow, all these corporations are spying on everybody. We’re going to get ourselves a copy,” and whether it’s Google or Facebook or your cell phone companies, this data is being collected for persuasion, right, for advertising, and a lot of government surveillance programs piggyback on that.

We just learned today in an article in The Intercept that the NSA broke into the largest SIM card manufacturer—that’s the little card in your cell phone that makes it your cell phone—a Netherlands company and stole all of the SIM numbers or basically all of the keys for everything. Now, we knew they did that piecemeal, but everything? That’s kind of impressive, but they couldn’t do that.

Glenn: What does it mean?

Bruce: You know, we’re still figuring out what it means, but basically each one of your phones has a card in it with keys, and that provides security. What the NSA did, NSA, GCHQ, we’re not sure which, broke into the manufacturer and stole all the secret numbers, and we believe it means they can eavesdrop on any phone. Exactly the details we’re still figuring out, but this is extraordinary, but it was impossible if these phones didn’t have that information in them.

Glenn: You’re a cryptologist. Any way around any of this?

Whitfield: You can look at this from two sides. I think we’re entering a golden age of intelligence. I told that to my Mike Hayden years ago when he was head of NSA, and now I think he knew it already maybe as well as I did.

Glenn: When did you tell him that?

Whitfield: It would be about 2004.

Glenn I talked to the Department of Homeland Security. I can’t remember who was the first guy, Ashcroft? I talked to him right after Department of Homeland Security, and I had my cell phone down on the desk, and he asked for it to be removed. We were on the air, and he asked for it to be removed. When we were off the air, he said to me nobody I know has a cell phone or sends an email. You shouldn’t. That was crazy. They knew.

Bruce: But that’s not a way to live.

Whitfield: You’re not going to turn a profit that way.

Bruce: Right, you have to send email. You need a cell phone. You have to be on Facebook. These are parts of our lives, and turning them off saying we choose not to engage, you’re going to be a freak and a social pariah.

Glenn: But how do you get away from it? They would know, there’s a record now forever for all time that the three of us were together, so you do something, now I’m connected to you for all time.

Whitfield: You might keep it quiet, having a popular show.

Glenn: Yeah, I know, but I mean, everything in your life is connected, everything now.

Whitfield: Well, let me ask you a fundamental question, do you think human autonomy can possibly stand against improving communications?

Glenn: Yes.

Whitfield: I mean, look at everything from a truck driver who used to have 30 years ago his boss said get this load from San Diego to Chicago. You’ve got four days. Truck driver is pretty much his own boss over that period of time to today, the truck is tracked at every instant. It’s not LoJack for trucks. It’s Teletrac. To the top level, you have a commander out in the field, and the notion of the commander and chief power now means that the president can call him up on a secure phone and say do this. You know, time of the Constitution, president’s power was to appoint generals, tell them what he wanted done. When they got back, he could court martial. So, I think everything, your autonomy in general without conscious societal decisions to defend it, will be subsumed in the fact that it’s not so much the NSA can watch you, that your boss can watch you, that your friends can watch you, that your spouse can watch you.

Glenn: Is there going to be or is there even now anything such as privacy?

Bruce: Certainly, there is. Privacy isn’t gone. There’s lots of ways it’s being invaded because there are so many digital intermediaries in our lives. Everything we do largely requires computers. Computers produce this data. You know, we’ve seen as technology improves this data is now cheaper to save, cheaper to store. You talked about the Utah data center. That’s where the NSA store it. Google has their own data storage. Everybody is storing this data, but that’s not inevitable. It doesn’t have to be that way. We can take pains to limit the data we produce, and we can hopefully control both government and corporate collection use surveillance.

Glenn: Who’s going to do that?

Bruce: This is the problem.

Glenn: I mean, I had a guy, former NSA, was one of the guys that they, you know, broke down his front door, came in, and he was in the shower and held a gun to his head because he was against the data collection. He said, “Glenn, you’ll never stop it, because (a) everybody in Washington is in on it, and (b) there’s data on everybody.” Who’s going to stop it?

Bruce: I tend to be short-term pessimistic and long-term optimistic. I think in the near term you’re right that the government is punch drunk on this data. Corporations are punch drunk on this data. There’s so much out there. There’s this belief in big data that it’s valuable, and we should save it. I mean, that’s why it’s being saved. When you talk to people inside the government and counterterrorism, they know these broad surveillance programs don’t work. For them it’s an insurance policy. It’s a very expensive insurance policy. Long-term, though, I think we figure this out. I mean, this is not something that’s inevitable. It might take us a generation, but I actually believe that we will get to a place where privacy is valued and preserved.

Glenn: How?

Whitfield: Privacy is a pretty dodgy concept. I mean, I think people often talk about, you know, about the old days—we lived in small towns and so forth, and then people observe, you know, small towns are not actually that friendly to privacy. Your neighbors know all about you. The critical thing is you also know all about your neighbors. You see them every day. You buy and sell from them. You work with them. They are answerable to you. When these remote big data companies are tracking us, they are no way answerable to us. They can take actions that will affect our lives, will affect whether we can get jobs, affect the cost of insurance, and it’s a great deal of trouble for us even to find out it’s going on, let alone to hold them to account for it.

Bruce: I think that’s important. It’s the power imbalance. When you think about transparency versus privacy, it’s all about the powerful versus the powerless. We like transparency in government. It reduces government power, better liberty.

Whitfield: And the government doesn’t like it for the same reason.

Bruce: Right, and the government wants secrecy which increases the power imbalance. We want privacy of individuals which reduces the power imbalance. How we get there, I think we have to agitate for political change? I mean, this is going to be hard. We’re fighting strong lobbies. We’re fighting strong government interests, and we are producing this data. We’re leaving this enormous data shadow.

Glenn: Okay, so let’s talk about the data footprint and reducing the data footprint, what the average person can do. I know you have some tips, so we’ll go through those and then also, what does advocacy mean? What does stand up for your rights really mean on this? How do you do that? When we come back.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep