It’s ‘a miracle’ — Glenn discusses his miraculous recovery

Several weeks ago Glenn revealed severe health issues that he’d been struggling with for years. Glenn posted on Facebook last Friday that doctors declared some amazing news — he was given the medical all clear. They all said it was a “miracle” — Glenn reacts to the great news on radio today.

Start listening below, and scroll down for the rush transcript

GLENN: So I want to talk to you a little bit about miracles. And do you actually believe in miracles? I contend that a lot of people don't. On Friday, I went to the doctor, and I witnessed, and so did my doctor and my wife a full-fledged miracle. In fact, the doctor said to me, there is no way to explain what has just happened.

PAT: Medically. Right?

He has no medical explanation for you.

GLENN: He said, I think we helped. He said, but honestly I was lying to you. He said, I was trying to tell you that, you know, hey, you know, things could get better.

Now, what I wrote on Friday on Facebook: Just got back from a doctor's appointment. Great news. One year ago, I had five different autoimmune disorders. Five autoimmune disorders. I wrote, I had Addison's disease along with a buttload of other things. To be honest with you, I did not have Addison's disease. The reason I wrote that is because the doctor said, I thought you were headed for Addison's disease. You had adrenal fatigue and adrenal failure, and I thought you were headed for Addison's. He said, I thought it was a matter of time before you had Addison's.

He stood there, and he looked at -- I got all my blood tests back. And I've been telling Pat for the last four weeks, I've been coming in in the morning, and there are mornings that I feel like I haven't felt in maybe ten years. And I said to Pat, I think I've been healed. I think I've been healed.

My weight gain is because of all of the medicine that they had me on. All of a sudden my body started working, and so all the medicines they had me on were attacking my body. I didn't need all of that medicine.

So I wrote on Friday: Today, I get my test results back. Zero autoimmune. And adrenal glands, full-force. The doctors told me they've never seen this happen before. I promised God that if he would just heal me to any extent of his will, I would pronounce the miracle.

Last summer, when I got my brain back online, I thought that was a miracle, and I pronounced the miracle. Today, I can rightfully say I have been healed. I want to thank the doctors at Carrick and the Carrick Brain Center, but more importantly, the architect of our body, God.

Believe. God is good. I've spent at least the last four years in hell. I would have given up if it weren't for my wife and my faith. Don't give up. Miracles happen. Life gets better. You're needed in the fight.

That's what I wrote on Friday. 123,000 likes. And how many comments? I don't even know. An absurd amount of comments. 13,000 comments.

But what I noticed in the comments were the number of people that said, this isn't possible. Glenn Beck is lying.

Now --

PAT: About which part? About being sick in the first place? That would have had to have been a lie?

GLENN: Yeah, there were some that came out and said, he didn't have Addison's. There's no way he had Addison's. And I corrected them immediately. I was borderline Addison's. I did not have that. I put that in there. I was writing on the way home in the car. Put that in there because I honestly don't understand what Addison's is.

PAT: I don't know what it is.

GLENN: To the fullest extent. And there is no cure for Addison's. However --

PAT: Except from God.

GLENN: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. If God chooses to heal Addison's, he will heal Addison's. If he chooses to heal anything. There were others that said, he didn't have five autoimmune diseases. Those are impossible to get -- I'll show you the blood tests. I'll show you the tests. For the love of Pete. Well, actually I won't show you the tests, but I could back it up.

PAT: This is kind of interesting. Addison's is a disorder that occurs in your body when your body produces insufficient amounts of certain hormones. Your adrenal glands produce too little cortisol, which you had.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: And often insufficient levels of aldosterone. I don't know if you had that.

GLENN: I don't know.

PAT: But you definitely had the too little cortisol. That was for sure.

GLENN: It's full-fledged adrenal failure. Your adrenal glands completely shut off.

PAT: It sounds exactly like what you had.

GLENN: No. See, I don't know the difference. I know that John F. Kennedy had Addison's. They were afraid when I first came in that I had Addison's. I didn't have Addison's. They said I was borderline Addison's. It's like your skin even changes color and everything else. It's a really nasty, nasty disease. But I would say adrenal failure is a nasty, nasty disease. Adrenal fatigue is a nasty. When your adrenal glands aren't working, it's nasty.

PAT: We should mention because people will probably ask, is the pain completely gone?

GLENN: No.

PAT: So that's kind of weird. But there's still some lingering symptoms from the neuropathy?

GLENN: I don't know.

PAT: Or whatever that was.

GLENN: I don't know what it is.

PAT: You're making it up. It's all in your head.

GLENN: It's all in my head.

PAT: Maybe you should just stop making it up and then the pain would go away.

GLENN: Don't do this, Pat. Pat is only doing this now as you see because a he knows how much I say, I have to be making this up. This is not happening. I'm sitting curled in a ball and I'm saying, it's not happening. I'm fine. I'm totally fine.

[laughter]

No, that hasn't gone away, but everything else has.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And all I wanted, I wanted to be able to think straight again. And I got that back.

PAT: You're definitely doing that now. More energy. Just more you.

GLENN: Yeah. Then I needed my energy back. If I could get my energy back. Most people don't know, I was taking like two-hour naps between the show. So I would do the radio show -- and people have seen it. At times, I haven't been able to stay awake on the radio show. Even recently, I have not been able to stay awake on the radio show. And it's been really, really difficult. It's almost like having -- what is that?

PAT: Narcolepsy.

GLENN: My gosh. I don't know how people do it with narcolepsy. I worked way guy with narcolepsy. Have you ever known anybody with it? Besides you? You are close to it.

PAT: Pretty close.

GLENN: You're pretty close to it.

PAT: I haven't.

GLENN: Oh, it's so nasty. So nasty. I worked with a guy, he was a sales manager. And he had narcolepsy. And we would be in the middle of meetings. Just the two of us talking, then all of a sudden [snoring]. And you didn't know what to do. You would just sit in his office for a while, and then you would quietly get up and walk away. And then he would come back in a few minutes, I'm so sorry. It was so bad. I felt so bad for him.

PAT: That would be a hard. That would be hard.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Really hard.

PAT: Although, on the latest -- your latest plane travel, you didn't have the pain you normally do.

GLENN: No.

PAT: It might be getting better in that aspect, yes?

GLENN: Yes, might be getting better. I mean, I just --

PAT: Have you had since you've gotten back from Las Vegas?

GLENN: Yes. But the good thing is, my energy is back, my adrenal glands are back. I mean, full-force. My adrenal glands are back full-force.

PAT: And producing the cortisol you need and all that stuff?

GLENN: Yeah. All of my autoimmune disorders are gone.

PAT: Wow. Jeez, so great.

GLENN: Five of them, all gone. The -- a lot of the things that I was having problems with, with the food, a lot of that stuff is cleared up. Still can't have bread. Still can't have a lot of things. But --

PAT: Do they think eventually you'll be able to?

GLENN: No. That's it.

PAT: That kind of sucks.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Again, did you tell them what I told my wife, bread, staff of life? Sound familiar?

GLENN: I didn't tell them that. What they said is some people are different. He said -- I said, oh, come on. And he said, some people just can't handle it. Not everybody, but just some people can't handle it. I think you're one of those guys that can't handle dairy products and wheat.

PAT: So still no dairy?

GLENN: No. I was really pissed. Goat's milk came out bad. I'm like, aw, no, not the goat's milk. Come on. And you know something else? No Brussels sprouts. Come on. Brussels sprouts and goat's milk I can't have. You're killing me, Doc.

PAT: Did you used to eat those together a lot for dessert?

GLENN: Breakfast, lunch, dinner. What are you having? I'm having Brussels sprouts and goat's milk. That's what I'm having. Just kicking back. Watching the football game. Having a bowl of Brussels sprouts and goat's milk, but no more. It sucks.

PAT: Those days don't come back.

GLENN: So yesterday, and it was so amazing, Pat and I were sitting in church yesterday and the whole thing seemed to be on miracles, didn't it?

PAT: It was.

GLENN: It was all on miracles. And partly because our church is fasting. Our ward -- our single church is fasting because we have a couple of people who are really, really sick in our ward. And amazing people. Just amazing people. And so we've been fasting, and I think either coincidentally or it was planned that we would talk about miracles yesterday. And the miracles that sometimes don't come. Sometimes don't happen.

And, you know, we go to church. We have this -- we're really fortunate. We get to go for three hours on Sunday.

PAT: That's a lot of fortune right there.

GLENN: Can't our many blessings on that one. So in hour two, we were -- it's like the Godfather, except not as good, just longer.

So in hour two, we were talking about the blessings that sometimes don't come. And --

PAT: Or at least not in the way you want them to. Not the way you expected. Like healings sometimes don't happen.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: And you lose people. And we had somebody like that in our area of the church, and the person who was relating the story said that after this person died, then all the miracles came, and they've seen a lot of them in their life since. Judge.

GLENN: There's a child that died. The family had been praying for other members of the family for a long time. And maybe the child's point in his life, his mission in life, was to help the family because the family has come together like in a miraculous way that no one thought was possible. Pretty amazing. And remarkable.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But you could dismiss those miracles, and you could be mad that you didn't get the miracle you wanted.

Other people -- you know, I -- I said to Pat afterwards, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? I mean, even at that moment, the Son of God asked that question. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? He didn't. He just knew that the biggest miracle was the resurrection and the forgiveness of sins, the atonement. That was the miracle. Not to be taken off the cross. Not to be comforted. Not to have the pain taken away. But the real miracle was yet to come. And so here he is, the -- the icon that we all look to saying, why have you abandoned me? How many of us have our faiths tested? How many of us have said that? Maybe we feel God doesn't hear us, God is not responding. We can't hear him. Maybe we start to question our own faith.

How could there be a God? He's letting all this stuff happen. Where is he? I'm good. I've done everything I'm supposed to do. What have I done wrong? Where is he? If he loved me, he'd be here. He'd at least let me hear him. He'd at least show up just to say, hey, everything's going to be okay. I don't hear anything from him. Why? Why have you forsaken me?

Because the biggest miracle of your life is yet to come. It's just not necessarily the miracle you're looking for.

I put up on my Facebook page another post. It was Saturday. I said, I was reading all of the -- the messages, the good and the bad from the posts that I put up on Friday about the miracle in my life. And I said, I was a little dismayed at the number of people that question miracles. Not possible. Isn't that the point of a miracle?

We're questioning the little ones. The earth does not fly into the sun. It makes a revolution around the sun every year. Same revolution. It doesn't spin out of control. The temperature of space, if it changes by one degree, the entire thing collapses. We don't ever question the miracle of life itself. The fact that the sun is providing light and heat, warmth, life, that the temperature of space doesn't change, that the sun is coming up at the right time tomorrow morning. We never question the big miracles that happen every single day. My gosh, if he can do that, why do we question the little ones?

I've said to you before, you're going to see miracles in your lifetime. I believe we'll need part the Red Sea miracles in our lifetime. If we don't expect them, we will never see them. Teach yourself to believe once again in miracles because they're real. I know I've seen it.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.