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

U.S. won’t grant visa for Iraqi nun

May 01, 2015
Staff

WRITER

As an Iraqi Christian, Sister Diana Momek has seen her fair share of persecution. She was shocked, however, when the U.S. government refused her visa after she requested to visit the United States. Their reason? They’re afraid she’ll never go back. Since when has the amnesty touting Obama administration cared if immigrants ever go back? Ridiculous.

WATCH:

Glenn: This is going to really kind of hack you off. This week, Sister Diana Momeka was denied a visa by the US Consulate office in Erbil, Iraq. Now, this is the denial letter. Remember, we are just letting people in who come across the border. We don’t care. We just turn them away. Somebody comes in with a reason, there’s a reason to come into the country, we don’t let them in. It’s not even signed.

The reason that they won’t let her in is she wasn’t able to provide enough evidence that she would actually return to her home country, this, despite having a letter from her superior—she’s a nun—that she has been employed since last February at the local college and is contracted to teach there next year. Sister Diana joins me now from Iraq. Hello, Sister. How are you?

Sister Diana: I’m good. How are you? Thank you for having me.

Glenn: I’m good. Sister, I have a hard time sometimes. I so want to be more Christlike. I so want to be more like Mother Teresa and Gandhi, but sometimes I hear stories like this, and man, it’s only the table turning over part of Jesus that comes out in me. So, I’m going to try to be really calm here because this drives me crazy. As we are trying to get the word out about the plight of Christians in Iraq, you asked to come over to meet with whom, exactly?

Sister Diana: Well, the truth is many organizations have come to Erbil when we were forced to leave our homes and so the situation or the displacement actually, and we’ve been working at Dominican Sisters underground since the displacement. So, we’ve met lots of friends that they came through organization, NGOs especially, the 21st Century Wilberforce and the Institute of Global Engagement. When we met with the members of these two organizations actually and they learned a lot about the situation of the IDPs, they suggested if I can come and speak about our work or experience as IDPs and the crisis and challenges that we’ve been facing since August 6 up to this day. After thinking about how to do this, I said yes, and they sent me the invitation letter through the two NGOs that are very considerate and the US that I know, actually. Besides, I have a support letter from a congresswoman and an issue supporting that I’m coming to speak about our situation.

Glenn: Right. I have that you were going to meet with the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committee, the State Department, US Aid, and various NGOs. You have more than one sponsor in Congress, and the State Department is calling you a liar basically.

Sister Diana: Well, I was quite shocked actually because I had lived in the US for almost over than six years, and I had my masters there. I had my doctorate there. I was so surprised that I was denied for one reason because I have all the supported letters. I didn’t expect that answer that it hurt me bad that it’s not enough that I am an IDP, but to said in my face when they told me, when the consular told me your visa has been denied,. I asked for the reason. He said just because you’re an IDP. I questioned myself, IDP is not a human anymore?

Glenn: An IDP, so people know is internally displaced person, so in other words, a person with no home.

Sister Diana: Yes. He said I can’t grant you a visa until you return home, and my answer was right away but we don’t know when are we returning home. Maybe that will be in 10 years or 20 years. Does that mean I’m not allowed to travel anymore? So, that was quite a shock for me. How would I do that, you know? To say it in my face because I am an IDP with all these supported letter that I handed to the consular to look at. So, that’s what shocked me the most. It just makes me question, aren’t we human that we are without home? But we still have dignity, you know? I am so honored to be an Iraqi Christian who has been persecuted, but I just felt I was so persecuted by this answer, to tell you the truth.

Glenn: Sister, I just got out of our screening room before I came on set here. I saw the last ISIS murder, and I’ve got a couple of guys on staff that were dissecting their message for me. What they have come up with, and we’re hopefully going to be releasing this next week, the media has this all wrong. We believe that ISIS is actually terrified of these Christians, and we’ll explain it next week, because of the faith that they have. They have not encountered people that will not pay a tax. They have not encountered people who say I’m not going to kill you, but kill me if you must; I will stand with Christ. They’re freaking out. They don’t know what to do. Would you agree with that?

Sister Diana: I totally agree. I would say Middle East has been suffering from the first century from persecution, and this has been strengthening our faith actually because we have three choices. We have either to convert to Islam or to be killed or to pay taxes, and we refuse to do either one of them because we want to keep our faith, and we are so honored to be Christ’s, you know, power. So, we’ll keep doing that as much as we can, even in the face of death. Lots of people stayed in our hometowns because they did not know that, and they were asked to convert or to get killed. They chose to get killed, but then they released them after they tortured them very badly, and they kept their faith. They did not want to convert to Islam or even to pay taxes or ransom, what you call it or whatever.

Glenn: Sister, you have right now an open microphone and video where you’re looking people in the eye, and this is a very engaged audience. They care. What would you tell them? What can we do? What do they need to know on what’s going on?

Sister Diana: You know, the message that I always carry in my heart and tell the people who really care that you have brothers and sisters in Iraq who have been many times abused. They need to feel that they are loved, they are cared for in so many ways, you know, now especially that we don’t know if we have any future anymore because our children are without proper schooling. Our students are without universities.

So, what I would like to say to people who care about us really that please, please, please, keep us in your prayers as we are facing a very, very difficult time. If any way that you can help us, remember, there are lots of people or many thousands of families that still live in prefabs. Actually now I am talking with you, I’m sitting on my prefab. That’s where I live. It’s a container made from a sandwich panel. That’s how I live. It’s very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter, and that’s how people are living.

Some, they are living in warehouses that they don’t have any heat or air condition in the summer. Lots of families, let’s say three or four families, they are living in one house without any privacy. So, any way that you can help, your heart tells you, please do for your brothers and sisters, please.

Glenn: Sister, I’m going to be real honest with you. I don’t think I’m alone that we know what’s going on. We know that God won’t hold us blameless. But we feel ill-equipped. Every day I come into the show, and I do this show, and I feel like—I mean honestly, I’m watching you in a monitor, and I see the camera take the angle from our jib operator where I’m sitting in this nice chair in this air-conditioned studio, and I’m talking to you and I’m thinking to myself—honestly, part of your comments I wasn’t even listening to you because I’m thinking to myself, What the hell are you doing? You should be out helping. But I don’t know how to help, and I think that most of our audience feels the same way. We know what’s going on, Sister. We just don’t know what to do. Pray for us, will you?

Sister Diana: Pray for us that we could return to our homes, because without our homes, we become people without identity. And if we lose our identity, it’s so easy to lose our humanity. The simple example that I can recall again is when I was told in the US consular that I can’t have a visa because I’m an IDP. This is a simple example, and there are many that I can’t mention, you know? So, if you keep praying and tell the world to find some ways to help us to return to our towns, to our churches, to our schools, to our universities, to our, lives this is the most important thing.

Glenn: Sister, I want you to know that there are millions of people that are praying for you. My family is not alone in praying for the people of Iraq and Syria and the Middle East of all religions that they may stop seeing the evil that they’re forced to see and live with every day. If you would just pray for us, we’ll continue to pray for you. Know that you are loved, and we will talk again, Sister. God bless you.

Sister Diana: Thank you. Thank you.

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.