Bishop Jim Lowe gives Glenn an update on the latest happening in Birmingham

Bishop Jim Lowe of Guiding Light Church will be hosting Glenn on 8/28 in Birmingham, Alabama for the five-year anniversary of Restoring Honor. Ever since Glenn made the announcement on Monday, people have been flooding the church's phone lines to get more details and make it known they will be there. The event is already starting to get bigger than anyone anticipated, and Bishop Lowe gave Glenn the latest information on what's been happening in Birmingham since the announcement.

Find out more about the 'Never Again Is Now' campaign from Mercury One.

GLENN: Bishop Jim Lowe is our guest. I wanted to get him on the phone and find out how things are going in Birmingham, Alabama, where we'll be at his church, Guiding Light Church, on August 28th. The five-year anniversary to Restoring Honor. Bishop, I have a feeling this thing will grow a little out of control in a good way.

JIM: Well, it looks like it's doing that already. We're getting a lot of people asking questions from all over the nation.

So we're ready to try to see what we can do in order to make this be a great event and to have people come together.

GLENN: I have a feeling. It will be Friday and Saturday.

JIM: Yes, sir.

GLENN: And let me tell you what happened at 8/28, five years ago. We went and we rented the Kennedy Center, and we did a deal at the Kennedy Center. And I had all the pastors and everybody gathered there. There was about -- what was it? 3,000 people that went there?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The next day, we did something open for everybody at just an open space in the mall. There were 500,000 people that were there. I don't think we'll hit that or anywhere close to that. But I have a feeling there will be a lot of people there. A lot of people.

JIM: The phone lines have been lighting up. And like I said, got people coming from all over. This looks like it will be a great thing to do when people come to Birmingham, where -- you know, this is where the civil rights struggle was. The struggle for civil rights. And now as we're coming together, we're talking about all lives matter. And the rights of every human being. This seems like this is a good place for that.

GLENN: It sure does.

JIM: To launch forward.

GLENN: So, Bishop, I did notice that you posted something on Facebook. And I know you had a meeting either tonight or last night. With your -- with your congregation because it seems to me that -- the post I read on your Facebook page, seems to me you're getting pushback on being with -- well, with me and apparently I have a Klan mask someplace, so...

JIM: Well, is it in your pocket? Do you have it in?

GLENN: Well, I don't actually have one.

JIM: They say all kinds of things. Quite frankly, Glenn, I don't care about that. What I'm concerned about is the fact that we're unifying together on a principle that we can agree upon. I think people have to recognize and stop looking at one another by the color of their skin or even by what their thought processes may be. We have to learn to join together for principles that are greater than our things that separate us. This thing about all lives matters is what's important. We can agree on that whether you're black or white. If I could get a Klansman to agree that my life is important, I mean, that's good.

GLENN: Okay. I want to make it clear. I'm not a Klansman.

[laughter]

GLENN: So, Bishop, let me ask you this, because this is on your Facebook page, and I don't know why you meant by this.

The question may be asked why I, Jim Lowe, a black man with my background would be willing to work with Glenn Beck, a white man, with his background. My first and most accurate response is, as Jim Lowe, the black man, I would not. But the truth is, I refuse to be defined by the color of my skin and see myself defined by any other man.

Explain that a bit. What do you mean by this?

JIM: Well, listen, Glenn, here's the problem. When people start putting labels on people, they define them. And if you define somebody and a person believes what you define them to be, then their destiny is based upon how they're defined. If I'm told by my parents that I'm dumb. I'm not going to be anything. Then my destiny is affected by the thoughts they have created in my mind. If you can label me and get me thinking that I won't amount to something because of some name that you'll give me. Then that limits me because of how you define me. I refuse to be defined by what some individual wants to call me. I have been defined by my Creator, my God who has created me. And only he has a right to determine what I am to become. No one else. And so if I'm defined by people to be a black person, a black man, then I'm limited to what the concepts of what are acceptable norms for black people. I refuse to be put in a box and be labeled by what humankind says I am, when I have a divine kind that has proclaimed that I'm much more than what man can say I can be. Does that make sense to you?

GLENN: Yes, it sure does. Bishop, let me -- what do you think -- what do you think is happening here? Because I think -- you know, you're -- I've done this. And so I know this audience. And I know what's coming. And I just know how this will work out. But that's not the world you live in. What do you think is happening? What are you feeling?

JIM: Glenn, I believe that God has a purpose for all of us. And I believe that this message that the love of God must be heard and it must be heard at times like these when our streets are -- are being torn up by riots of people talking about justice. No -- no justice, no peace. You cannot do things like this if you expect there to be justice. The message of the truth of the Gospel of the Word of God must be preached. And people must hear. The pulpits must proclaim it. People must speak out for what the truth is and be unashamed of the Gospel. I'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the answer that is the answer to the problems of the world today. I'm more intent on being biblically correct than politically correct. And if that means that some people will be challenged by the things I say, so be it. Because I'm not defined by a political doctrine. I'm defined by what God says.

GLENN: You and I both know that I didn't pick Birmingham, and you didn't pick me.

JIM: No. No.

GLENN: You and I were both there. And thank goodness we have witnesses of it because it sounds nuts.

JIM: It does.

GLENN: But when I saw you in an audience that I was speaking to, I knew I had to talk to you. And I didn't know -- do you remember what I said to you when I first walked up to you?

JIM: Yes. Like, I don't know what I'm supposed to say to you. But I feel like the Lord is telling me I need to talk to you.

GLENN: And you said back to me, well, I just wrote you a letter because the Lord told me to write you a letter and I didn't know I was going to be here.

JIM: No, I didn't know that. It was my surprise that we wound up being in your studios. I didn't know that. I didn't control that.

GLENN: Right. Right. And so -- and I still haven't seen your letter. So I don't know what you even wrote to me.

JIM: Glenn, I didn't even mail it. I was thinking -- I thought to myself -- I mean, when I heard you speak about things you want to do, I felt something saying, you need to talk to this man. You need to meet him. And I'm saying, okay, yeah, really, Glenn Beck? Then we wind up getting an opportunity to come to Dallas. Then we wind up that I'm going to be in your studios. I didn't plan that.

You know, the thing about it is that we have a choice in our destiny of what we want to do. But God, he's the one that works the purposes out. He's the one that fulfills our plans, who orders our steps. I was sent there to you by God.

I know people think that's crazy, but that's okay. I'm a man of God. What else do you expect me to say? All glory and honor to God.

GLENN: That's right. And I will tell you this, Bishop, there are -- there are plans and things that I saw in my own head that I don't have the capability, I don't have the staff, I don't have the finances, and everything else to do the things that I want to do. And you and I, through our people I guess, have been talking back and forth. I know what's happening in your city now, and I think exactly what I thought was going to happen -- what I think I've seen is going to happen now, and there's no way I could have pulled it off myself. There's no way any of that. And here you are a guy who is saying, hey, I think we should do this. You're putting something together that I've already seen without knowing what I am seeing. Why do you suppose that God picked Birmingham, Alabama, and your church?

JIM: Listen, Birmingham has been known -- it's known a lot of times because of the racial strike that occurred in the '60s. And it's been known because it's one of the places that they talk about. They always talk about the firehoses and the dogs and everything. My father grew up in this city. And I grew up in this city. I'm familiar. I saw the firehoses. I saw the dogs.

I made mistakes sometimes of going to a white fountain, and my mother hollering at me, move -- you can't go there. You can't go there. I've had to go to the bathrooms that were the colored bathrooms. I know about all of that. That's what our history is of Birmingham. But I choose not to remember that history. I choose to remember that we've overcome those things. That we've achieved a great mighty things in the city of Birmingham. We have a black mayor now. We have city council predominantly black. We do things. We're excelling. We're moving forward.

We don't need to always look back at our past and point the finger at somebody. We need to look at the future and look at how we can come together. And what I believe, it's through the love of the Lord that we come together, that we join hands.

If you came to Birmingham now, if you look for it, you may look to find trouble and racism. But you know what, I live here. I don't see that much of that. There may be others that do because they look for it. But I look for the human beings that are here, that have a heart, that are looking to make this city better. And that's what Birmingham is becoming. That's what Birmingham can show the world.

GLENN: I find it remarkable that the guy who walks in to my studio is the guy who is not only at the city where Martin Luther King began, but also at a time when the country is pulling itself apart, was the epicenter of some of the worst stuff of the 1960s. And we're going to be able to show an explosion of black and white and love coming together. I mean, I think only God could design something like this.

JIM: I give credit to him. I give that glory to him. And to be able to be a part of this is an honor to me. But all I want to do is to let people know, even for my city, I want them to know that it is because of Almighty God that we've been able to hold together. You haven't heard anything like what happened in Ferguson or Baltimore. You haven't heard of that. In most of the South, you don't hear of it. Because what we have in our churches, in our black churches and our white curches, most of all, you're getting taught the Word of God. You're not getting the watered-down mixture of what God says or what some man feels. You're getting the truth. And it's that truth that holds us together. That's what unifies us. When we begin to understand the brotherhood of mankind that all people, black and white, whatever, Asian, Hispanic, that we're all creatures of God and all of our lives we've been created by God for a purpose. And when we honor that, we fulfill what God has for us to do. We learn to work together. To share together. To build together. Because God put us here together.

If he didn't want us to be together, he would not have put us together. And that goes for you and me, Glenn.

GLENN: Bishop Jim Lowe. He is from Birmingham, Alabama. The Guiding Light Church, where we'll kick off a tour and a speaking engagement all around the country. This is the only one that we've announced, and this is the first one. And this is going -- I believe this is going to become historic. All part of our Never Again is Now campaign to bring attention to wake up our churches and bring attention and aid to those in the Middle East who are being slaughtered in Allah's name because they either don't worship Allah, they don't worship Allah enough. They worship a Christian God, a Jewish God, or they just live a different lifestyle than what ISIS says is acceptable. That must stop. And we must stand together as one.

JIM: We must stand together for what's going on in the streets of America too. We must stand together and evergreens that the lives of those blacks and whites and policeman, they all matter also. Listen, if I can rise up above -- in the -- in my church where above, they tried to kill me and how many others there, and I'm ready to still stand together in love for other people, all lives matter. If I can overcome it, others can overcome.

GLENN: Bishop, I love you. Thank you very much.

JIM: God bless 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.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

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.