Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

How bad is the corruption in the State Department?

February 26, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Last night, Glenn was joined by TheBlaze’s Sara Carter to discuss the arrest of Senior State Department official Daniel Rosen. Rosen was arrested Tuesday afternoon for allegedly soliciting a juvenile. How far does the corruption in the State Department go? Sara reveals some of the shocking details she has uncovered as part of the ‘For The Record’ team with Glenn.

Glenn: I want to say a special note to our team in Ohio, our documentary film team for TheBlaze. They are unsung heroes of this network. You don’t really ever hear them or see them. Somebody is always up front presenting the material that they work long and hard year round, and these guys, I have to tell you, depression medication was made for them because they see the worst of the worst and then have to try to figure out how to present it.

Sara Carter is the senior investigative correspondent now for TheBlaze and For the Record. She broke the story last night of Daniel Rosen on TheBlaze. She joins us now from Washington, D.C. Sara, this is not the first time you have worked with our sources on Daniel Rosen. You knew about this guy for quite some time.

Sara: Yeah, you know, this goes back years, Glenn, maybe even more than ten years when I was working with sources overseas that were connected with State Department. There was a lot of concern among many of my sources, some of them whistleblowers inside USCIS which is United States Immigration and Citizenship Services and other departments that there was extensive corruption within the State Department. A lot of these men like Daniel Rosen who was trying to solicit a minor would go overseas and have, according to the sources, sex with minors, solicit prostitution, use of illegal drugs, and you’ve got to think, Glenn, these are the people, just like you talked about, that are negotiating with foreign governments, that are the liaisons between the United States, the information that they are receiving and also our intelligence agencies like the CIA and the NSA. So, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard about Rosen and others like him.

Glenn: Right, and if we know it, certainly our adversaries know this. Now, I want to talk specifically about Rosen because this is rampant in the State Department. There’s a lot of this going on. We have heard horrifying stories of sex with underage boys and underage girls in foreign countries, just truly evil, despicable things that are pushed under the carpet at the State Department. It’s my understanding that the State Department did watch For the Record last year and were kind of shaken a bit by it because somebody is finally onto them, but this guy, he is a counterintelligence guy. So, tell me the danger that he would pose to us had he not been caught by one of our people, instead he was caught, you know, if he would’ve been caught by somebody else.

Sara: Well, we don’t even know. I mean, he’s been in this position for quite some time, since 2008. He is the Counterterrorism Director of the State Department. He is our liaison to our other intelligence agencies when he’s working overseas. How do we know? We really don’t know yet if while he was overseas he was soliciting minors, if other intelligence, foreign intelligence networks gathered that information, and he could have been leaking this information.

Rosen had the highest level security clearance that you can get in the United States. This top-secret security clearance requires a polygraph examination. I am stunned that he actually passed his polygraphs, because one of the questions, and James Clapper talked about this the other day, is have you ever committed a crime? So, it doesn’t say were you ever charged with a crime, have you ever committed a crime, so we would have had to answer that question under a poly by a professional polygraph person.

These people hold onto their jobs, and it’s unbeknownst to me how they can do it. You’re right, this is a direct national security threat. You know, he is not the only one. Other people within the State Department, other whistleblowers have brought forth charges. A lot of these charges are under seal right now, Glenn. We’re not allowed to talk about them. We have heard that they are being held right now. Congress can go ahead and investigate if they so choose. They have not done this yet, but I can tell you this, it doesn’t stop with Rosen.

Glenn: Why, why haven’t they chosen?

Sara: That is the same question I keep asking members of Congress, and I never get a direct answer.

Glenn: Could I ask you this, Sara, could a guy like this, let’s say somebody comes into the country, and he is earmarked a terrorist of the highest level, could he get him in and then remove that earmark from his record, just have that disappear, and all of a sudden all of the stuff that we had gathered on that, let’s say it was a Saudi citizen, is that possible, that this guy could have been responsible?

Sara: Yeah, Glenn, I’m going to tell you that’s not only possible, I believe it’s happened in the past. I was privy to an alien file which was a document that was a screenshot from the Kansas City, Missouri processing center. This is where we give people visas. You know, they of the list of people that are applying for visas. I actually saw documentation that showed that a contractor was changing people’s A-Files from visitor visas and student visas to full citizenship. That’s impossible to do unless you have access to these systems. So yes, I don’t know about Rosen, I don’t have evidence that Rosen did this, but it is definitely possible. This is the seriousness of these charges. Not only is it abhorrent behavior that we look at it, and it’s inhumane, it’s wrong, it’s despicable.

Glenn: No, it’s evil. It’s evil. When I heard the charges, not just necessarily from Rosen, I’ve heard them on the other charges, and I know you’ve seen them as well because you guys have been investigating this for over a year. I mean, honestly, Sara, it makes me say there’s no way for our country to survive. If we put up with this kind of evil in our people’s name, and we are abusing children, underage children, there’s no way we can survive. I don’t believe in my country anymore, because if the State Department won’t do something, who will? They look the other way.

Sara: I’ll tell you who will, well, but the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department should be applauded here, and I’m going to tell you why they were able to get Rosen. They were able to nab their guy because they did not inform the State Department that they were conducting this investigation. This is an independent law enforcement. This is what we need to look for, our independent law enforcement.

The Child Exploitation Unit at the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department said we’re going to go after this guy. We have evidence that this guy is soliciting minors. We don’t care if he’s the counterterrorism director. In fact, we care more that he is, and we’re going to find out if this guy’s doing this. When they brought him into questioning yesterday, they picked him up at his home, they took him away. They were questioning him. They had a warrant, and they took his other devices, because one of the questions that I asked and they haven’t been able to answer me or maybe they just can’t right now, was was he using government devices to contact these children? Was he in contact with pedophiles? Are there others in his department that are emailing with him? They weren’t able to answer all these questions.

Glenn: Sara, when you have a culture that will overlook things like this, these people start to congregate. I mean, I can’t imagine the rat’s nest, and Clinton knows about it. Obama has to know about it. Kerry knows about it. They have to know about it, and they look the other way.

Sara: That’s right. So many charges have been dropped on very significant senior people in the State Department or investigations are ongoing. I know there’s an investigation against the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, allegations that he was soliciting minors, and that is an ongoing investigation, and they returned him back to his post in Belgium. So yes, you’re absolutely right, they are turning the other way, and you made a very good point. I talked to some intelligence sources before coming in to talk to you today. This is exactly how things are set up, so that when you have corruptible people in high-level positions, you can use that against them to get your way because now you have evidence. So, not only can the bad guys, but the bad guys within your own government are using them as well.

Glenn: Yep. Okay, real quick because I’ve got less than a minute, two things: Have you talked to anybody on Capitol Hill today that was like, “Oh my gosh, this is great news, and we can go for it”? And two, how are the whistleblowers? How are their moods today? Is this good news for them? Are they still being hammered?

Sara: You know, Rick Higbie was a whistleblower that will be in tonight’s episode of For the Record, a long investigation with our team in Ohio. He is suffering from some serious medical conditions right now. He hasn’t been able to go back to work. He’s on emergency medical leave. Otherwise, he would have been with you today. His daughter, Logan, suffered another seizure last week, but he said he is not giving up this fight.

Glenn: They’ve destroyed him.

Sara: They really did. They destroyed him and his family, but guess what, they haven’t destroyed his spirit, so he’s still moving forward. And as for Capitol Hill, yes, I heard a senior senator is looking into this. He has information now, and he is considering taking this to an investigative level on the Hill. So, this is very, very important news, and, you know, we just hope everyone watches the show tonight. I think that for those who haven’t seen it and for those that have, this is just going to show you how Pandora’s Box opened, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to this story.

Glenn: It is. Thank you, Sara. I appreciate it. Thanks for all of your hard work, and thanks to for everybody at For the Record. I will tell you, Sara is right when she said it’s just the tip of the iceberg. I was disappointed a little bit in this episode because I know the things that we are also investigating that were not in the episode, and I’m telling you, you will lose your faith in your country.

We must stand together on this, and we must stand to do the right thing. Pray for your country, and pray that good, decent Americans stand up to stop the nightmares that are being perpetrated with our flag and our people’s name in the room.

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.