Glenn: Mitch McConnell and John McCain involved in "shameless grab of power" in Patriot Act battle

Below is a transcript of Glenn's opening monologue from Monday's TV show

I want to tell you about the dog-and-pony show that is continuing now in Washington DC as the progressives, make no mistake, progressives in both parties, are fighting to make sure they can continue to collect as much of your own personal data as possible all in the name of security, of course, the Republicans, John McCain, a progressive himself, fighting for extensions of the sections in the Patriot Act that expired last night.

Three sections are done for, temporarily anyway: Section 215, the lone wolf provision, and the roving wiretap provision. Each part is important, but section 215 is the most critical because it is what the government has used to justify the bulk data collection on millions of innocent citizens.

The wording in that section is vague. It gives the government power to use all relevant information to stop terrorist attacks, and the government has interpreted relevant to mean anything and everything on anybody. Rand Paul has set himself apart from the progressive Republicans giving voice to the cause of liberty on this. He is receiving the usual flak for it. I asked him about it on radio earlier today, and here’s what he said:

VIDEO

Glenn: Do you actually believe they’ve actually stopped collecting information today?

Sen. Paul: You’ve got to be careful how they parse their words. They might have stopped one program, but they’ve probably got ten others doing the same thing. They have an executive order called 12333. Under that executive order, we really don’t know everything they’re doing, but they’re doing bulk collection under that. They may well be doing more bulk collection of data under that then they are doing under the phone collection program.

They also told us and informed us that in the previous Patriot Act there’s a provision in there saying that they can continue any investigation that was already ongoing. So, my guess is that since the bulk collection investigation, so-called investigation, was collecting everyone’s records, they could simply say well, we started doing that before, so that’s an ongoing investigation.

So, are they stopping it? I don’t know. I mean, that’s the whole problem with trust here on this. The president’s number one man over there, Clapper, lied to us and told us the program didn’t even exist, and now we’re supposed to accept that they’re telling us the world will end and the sky will fall if it ends. We’re doing it now. We’re shutting it down. I don’t know. There’s a certain lack of trust I have for this administration.

I have a lack of trust for any administration. The establishment Republicans who first claimed they had nothing to do with the Patriot Act are now clamoring to defend it, and they’re defending it to the teeth and warning that we are going to open ourselves up to attack if we don’t pass this. Mitch McConnell accused Senator Paul of demagoguery and disinformation.

VIDEO

Sen. McConnell: We shouldn’t be disarming unilaterally as our enemies grow more sophisticated and aggressive. And we certainly should not be doing so based on a campaign of demagoguery and disinformation launched in the wake of the unlawful actions of Edward Snowden, who was last seen in Russia.

Oh my goodness. Now, McCain told reporters that Senator Paul places “a higher priority on his fundraising and his ambitions than on the security of the nation.” But does the fight even matter? The Second Court of Appeals recently ruled that the vaguely worded section 215 doesn’t authorize the government to unleash mass data collection in the first place. But they’re doing it.

So, here’s Congress arguing for a new bill. This one’s called the USA Freedom Act. Now, the passage may or may not be directed at the NSA bulk collection, the data collection, but may I first start with the names of the ultra-PC bills, the Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act? I personally think we should give names to these bills ourselves that probably have more accurate names, like the Trading Freedom for Despotism Act or Take Your Freedom and Shove it up Your Act Act.

Despite some opposition, it is expected to pass in a day or two. Proponents will claim it will end bulk data collection but keep other key security provisions in place. But remember, section 215 led to the NSA’s bulk collection thanks to a few vaguely worded sentences and dirtbags in Washington.

Does anybody believe that a bill that keeps almost every government data collection tool in place is going to change anything? They’ve just built a massive million-square-foot facility in Utah solely dedicated for mass data collection. The government will not give up this much power easily. This is going to be a long, drawn-out battle over probably several sessions of Congress and the next president.

But DC politics has reduced this to a ridiculous fight about security. Of course they want to make it about your security because if you’re afraid of an imminent terrorist attack or something happening in your security, all the dummies around you will hand their freedom much more readily. History has proven this time and time again.

When America entered World War I, Woodrow Wilson immediately labeled German-Americans enemy aliens, and the progressives rounded them all up. FDR did the same thing with the Japanese-Americans. The progressives rounded them all up in World War II. One month after 9/11, with a nation still reeling, the Patriot Act was rushed into being. No politician would dare stand against something called the Patriot Act just a couple of weeks after 9/11.

By the way, does anybody know where the Patriot Act—how did they have such an amazing bill, huge bill, all ready to go just a couple of weeks after 9/11? They must’ve been very sleepy. No, the Patriot Act was written prior to 9/11. It was on the shelf waiting to be dusted off. That is what led to the hyper-surveillance state that we’re now living under, not 9/11, politicians writing it in advance. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes because gee, what else do you think they have just waiting on the shelf? It’s not an elf, I bet.

We cannot afford to keep electing the same spineless politicians who trade bits of freedoms in the name of our perceived comforts.

VIDEO

Sen. McConnell: We’re left with option two, the House-passed bill. It’s certainly not ideal, but along with votes on some modest amendments that attempt to ensure the program can actually work as promised, it’s now the only realistic way forward.

Which pretty much puts me against it. This is a premise we cannot accept blindly. The only realistic way forward is to go back to our principles. We had this debate over 200 years ago. Everybody knows the phrase taxation without representation is tyranny, but do you know where that came from?

Do you know the man behind the phrase? His name is James Otis, Jr. He was born in Massachusetts, a colonial. He went to Harvard. He became a lawyer, and at the time, the colonists, our Founding Fathers, were subject to the whims of what the king called writs of assistance. What writs of assistance, they were kind of like our warrants, except anybody could write them.

Basically the British authorities had power to go into anybody’s house at any time for any reason. There wasn’t such a thing as probable cause. For nearly five hours, Otis argued against these writs in court on behalf of dozens of colonists who were baselessly accused of smuggling. They would have their homes searched and ravaged, and even if nothing was found, the government wasn’t responsible for any of the damage.

Otis lost the case, but his challenge to authority inspired some young men, including a guy named John Adams. Adams later said of Otis’s speech, “The child independence was then and there born.” Otis ignited what eventually became the American Revolution. It was his battle against these writs, these warrantless searches, that laid the foundation not only for the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but arguably for the entire revolution.

Our right of privacy is a cornerstone of the American foundation. Why on earth would a people so easily give this up? For security? Mitch McConnell said that if the Patriot Act lapsed even one day, we’ll be in danger from ISIS and other terrors. I for one am really tired of this argument because I know if the John McCains and the Mitch McConnells of the world, if they actually believed that we were in danger from terrorists and they believed it was their job to stop it, they would’ve done simple things like secured our borders first.

This is nothing more than a shameless grab of power. Yes, we are in danger, but they are only orchestrating more power for themselves. My question for Washington is if the Patriot Act makes us so secure, why did the Boston bombing happen? We should have been able to hear those phone calls. Hey, why do we worry about what Hillary Clinton did in her 501(c)(3)? Why do we care? She erased her hard drive. Don’t we have all of that data collection?

Why did Benghazi happen? Why don’t we know about the phone calls and the emails that happened the day after? Shouldn’t those have been stopped? How am I supposed to feel safe when the very government claiming they’re using all of the necessary tools to keep us safe will not look into a single radical mosque but will monitor Aunt Judy’s phone call discussing important deviled egg recipes?

How am I supposed to feel safe when the director of the National Intelligence Agency says the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular—Muslim Brotherhood? How could I trust our CIA Director, John Brennan, who says ISIS is not Islamic when Islamic is the first “I” in ISIS?

What is comforting in any way about our administration running guns through Benghazi to Syrian rebels or how our own government, John McCain included, met and posed for pictures with the free Syrian Army who we later found out was working with the radical groups called ISIS? And the same people that told us yesterday that we can’t live a day without this were exactly the same people who lied to us just a couple of years ago and said this technology doesn’t exist, and it’s outrageous that you would even ask us if we would use technology like that. Of course, we don’t use that.

Our government is incompetent. Our government is corrupt. Our government, on a charitable day, is misguided. By the way, a story we reported on radio today, the government just ran an internal investigation to see if they could get weapons onto airplanes now. You know, they’re frisking everybody. We’ve used all of this great technology. We’ve got the best people on the job, so they tried to smuggle 70 knives, fake bombs, and items like that on board. They only managed to get through 67 out of 70 times.

So thanks, federal government, for your offer to have me trade my freedom for some of your yummy security, but I think we’ll pass. No thanks.

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.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.