Hard stand?! Donald Trump has the same immigration policy as Lindsey Graham

A lot of listeners to the radio show have called in and say they stand with Donald Trump because he says the things other candidates are too scared to say. But when it comes to actual policy on issues like illegal immigration, does he really take a hard stand? Pat and Stu looked past the harsh (and inartful) rhetoric on radio today, and did a deeper analysis on what Trump’s actual policy on immigration reform. SPOILER: It looks a lot like amnesty.

Listen to the segment below:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

PAT: Hopefully your Fourth of July weekend was a great one. Not so great, I guess, for Donald Trump who continues to get -- I guess he's being bludgeoned, is how I would describe it by everybody, except Ted Cruz. Which is kind of weird.

STU: That's not exactly my favorite moment of the Ted Cruz campaign.

PAT: Mine either. Mine either.

STU: We can go into that in a minute. He didn't say he supported the comments. But he said, I love Donald Trump. I think he's great. You know, we all get worked up about all this, and I like Donald Trump. There's reasons not to like Donald Trump, I would say.

PAT: Yeah. And even if you like him, reasons not to say you do.

STU: Well, that's --

PAT: Do you have to volunteer that information?

JEFFY: Ted's not going to do that.

PAT: I know he's not. But I don't think that's helpful to his campaign.

STU: You know the comments that we're talking about with Donald Trump, where he talked about, you know, the way it's being summarized in the press, to some level unfairly is he called all Mexicans rapists.

PAT: That's really not what he said.

STU: He didn't really say that, but he didn't exactly not say it either. We'll listen to the audio here in a second.

PAT: So you're saying he didn't say it, but he didn't not say it.

STU: Yes, I will say that's a fair way. Because he doesn't do the typical thing that you would do. If you're going to say, look, there are a lot of great people in Mexico. Not everyone who comes across the border are terrorists and rapists or whatever, but there are some. And you know what, we live in a country where we don't need to import crime.

PAT: That would have been a great way to put it. But that's not Donald Trump.

STU: The vast majority of this audience I would say agrees with that statement. But that's not what he said. What he said was the exact opposite, which was: I think there might be a possibility that someone isn't a rapist.

PAT: Now, it's not what he said because that's not how Donald Trump speaks. He's bombastic, and he's --

STU: Let's put it clearly. Dumb. It's a dumb way to put it.

PAT: It is.

STU: And he's now taken the -- as we talked about it, all the oxygen out of this campaign. Every single candidate that is out there, and there are many good ones, are doing nothing, but answering for the dumb things that Donald Trump says.

PAT: Yeah. As we've mentioned many times, there are more great candidates in this race at the same time than have there ever been in my lifetime, I think, in my opinion. And I think includes the Reagan years. That goes back, well, beyond 1960, because that's when I was born.

STU: Reagan, you had one great candidate. And he was a great candidate no doubt about it. And he was a great president. But you didn't this have depth. Where you have legitimately somewhere between six and ten really solid candidates out there. Ones you could see yourself maybe actually supporting and thinking he's going to live up to his principles for once.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I mean, you would probably be wrong. Because once they're in office, they'll screw us as they always do. But at least there's the hope.

PAT: It's amazing how many times that's happened to people we've actually spoken with and warned them about that. And they've promised, oh, that's not going to happen to me. I'm immune to that. I got a force field around me of righteousness, and it can't be penetrated. And then two weeks later, they're on the other side. It's like, what happened?

STU: It's amazing.

PAT: It's incredible.

STU: It's a powerful place. I believe, was it Spider-Man -- I think it was talking about how, with great power comes great responsibility.

PAT: Yes.

STU: Certainly you have the absolute power corrupts absolutely. Clichés become clichés for a reason. And those seem to apply very well. The thing with Donald Trump though -- what amazes me about this conversation is the people that support Donald Trump. The people that say, okay, look, he's being beat up by the press. I'm sick of this PC nonsense. He came out, and he's telling the truth. We've heard this from many members of our audience. Though I will say Trump has not performed well in the polls, as far as the monthly poll we do of the audience. But there are passionate supporters of Donald Trump. And the argument seems to be, he's willing to say the things that are unpopular. He's willing to take the hard stand.

PAT: Is he? Is he willing to take a hard stand?

STU: Right. But the question is, hard stand for what? Yes, we all admire someone who will take a tough stand on an issue that is important to them like immigration. But what policy stands behind the tough words of Donald Trump?

PAT: Well, we have a montage to show what Stu is talking about here. And if you listen closely, you'll hear the policy he supports within this montage of saying really hard things against illegals. Saying really I guess outrageous things because the left will crucify you for saying these things. He's saying it. But then listen to his stance here, if you can pick that out.

DONALD: They're sending people with lots of problems. And they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

STU: Some, I assume, are -- it's a throwaway to him, that there could be possibly someone who is a good person/non-rapist.

PAT: I mean, he doubts it. I think. I doubt it. I doubt it. People tell me there are some good people among them. I don't know if that's true. But let's just say it is for the sake of argument.

STU: Right. It's a throwaway. It's in reverse of where it would normally be.

PAT: Mostly though, they're rapists. I mean, it is kind of -- it's a bad statement.

STU: I will say this, if there were 11 million rapists in the country from Mexico, that is the only thing that could possibly justify the statistics that Obama talk about with college rape. Because maybe if there were 11 --

PAT: And they all went to college.

STU: Were all constantly raping. Neither one of those statistics are true, by the way.

PAT: And there's more.

DONALD: I love Mexico. I love the Mexican people.

STU: That's great.

DONALD: Two waiters came up to me tonight, Mr. Trump, we love you. I said, that's great. I love you too.

PAT: Yeah, that happens all the time.

STU: Two waiters.

PAT: Two waiters come up to me and they say, Mr. Trump, we love you.

Where you from?

Mexico.

Well, I love you too. What a brilliant story that is.

STU: Oh, my God. The way he tells it.

PAT: I'm sure, completely true. The way he tells it, it's so compelling. You can feel the love he has for all Mexicans.

STU: Again, that's not policy. That's just, again, him talking about his love of Mexican waiters.

PAT: Yes.

DONALD: These countries aren't sending their finest. They're sending people that are -- like, got a lot of problems.

STU: Okay. Stop. Is that true?

PAT: First of all, they're not really sending them.

STU: Right. The people are coming on their own volition.

PAT: People are coming on their own. But the people coming on their own obviously aren't doing really well in Mexico. Right?

Otherwise, they would stay there. That much is pretty true. Because if you're doing well, you're supporting your family, you love your life, you're not leaving it and sneaking across the US border to get here illegally. That's obvious.

STU: Yeah, I mean -- he goes into this a little bit as this montage goes on. I think you pointed out, Pat. They're not sending Carlos Slim.

PAT: Carlos Slim is not swimming across the Rio Grande to get here.

STU: No. But when you do have a situation where you see high rewards with little risk by crossing the border -- remember, we complain about this. So he we know it's true. That we treat this as a speeding ticket. So Mexicans look at this and say, yeah, is it illegal? Maybe, yeah. But they don't do anything about it. So I might as well go over there and make more money

PAT: Right.

STU: So it's not necessarily the same way it used to be, where it was this incredible risk to cross the border. You're leaving your family risking life and limb to make a little money.

PAT: There's almost no risk anymore.

STU: As we saw with the illegal immigrant who crossed the border and was deported five times before he killed an American citizen. We should get into that later, and Trump has been touting that as another example.

PAT: Horrible story.

STU: And of course there are examples. And he's right, there is crime that comes across the border all the time.

PAT: Sadly, the biggest risk is, to them, getting here in the first place. And we should probably talk about that more. Because they're often -- a lot of these rapists Trump is talking about are these coyotes that sneak them across the border and then do horrible things to the women that they've helped cross the border. We've talked about the rape trees before where they leave the panties in the trees and all that freaky stuff. It's been documented. So part of that is true. It's just he put it so badly. He's just not a good speaker. I don't know how anybody could think this guy has a shot at the presidency.

STU: Again, we're so far talking about how he speaks about this issue, which might be inartful. But we haven't got to any policy yet. So let's keep listening.

DONALD: That makes sense. I basically said this. We need to strengthen our borders, and they said I'm a racist.

STU: Sure, strengthening borders.

DONALD: To get the cars and trucks and everything over here, let the illegals drive them in. They're coming in anyway.

(laughter)

I do great with Latino voters. I employ so many Latinos. I have so many people working for me.

PAT: Some of my best servants are illegals.

STU: Two waiters, I employ them.

PAT: I employ them. Waiters. So he's very much talking down to and about --

STU: Maybe we're just too sensitive, Pat. You know, because these people who are really tough on the border are going to say, you know what, it's just too sensitive. Let's listen to some policy, shall we?

DONALD: Common sense. They don't want these people, so they send them to the United States. Because the United States is run by stupid people. Some are good and some are rapists and some are killers, and we don't even know what we're getting.

I'm not just saying Mexicans. I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists.

I've taken a lot of heat. And it's very unnecessary -- very unfair heat. Because, first of all, I love the Mexican people. How can I not love people that gives me tens of millions of dollars for apartments? You have to love them.

(laughter)

STU: How can you not love people who give you tens of millions of dollars --

PAT: For apartments.

STU: For apartments. Again, inartful.

PAT: Really bad.

STU: I'm going to say yes on that one.

PAT: Are you really? You're going out on that limb.

STU: On that limb. So waiters. My employees. And people I sell apartments too.

PAT: Crazy.

DONALD: I love them for their spirit. And then I talk about Mexico. And I love Mexico. But every time I talk about it, they accuse me of being a racist. You have illegals that are just pouring across the borders. I was really criticized for the border. But the truth is, it's true. They think it's Mother Teresas coming across the border. Well, I said drug dealers, I said killers, and I said rapists. And they made the word rapist -- they really picked that up.

I tell you, I love the folks from South America. They're friends of mine. Many work for me. Many are friends. Many buy apartments from me.

I have great love for the Mexican people. And I always have. And they like me. No apology because everything I said is 100 percent correct. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now today, I hear it's 11. But I don't think it's 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a pass, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed.

PAT: Wait. What? Hold on.

STU: Whoa.

PAT: Because there's 30 million illegals here. You have to give them a path. A path to what?

STU: The path to what. Because it's interesting, the people who support Trump seem to be the ones toughest on the border because they like the tough talk. Yet what they're getting is the tough talk with the Lindsey Graham policy, with the Jeb Bush policy.

PAT: It's so weird.

STU: He's saying he wants a pathway to citizenship.

PAT: It's amnesty.

STU: It's the thing that every one of the people that likes Trump -- call it amnesty. It's the same thing. And we have other clips to support this as well. Maybe we can do them on the other side. The issue here is what you're getting, all the problems with tough talk out of Donald Trump, and then you're not even getting the tough policy. You're getting the Jeb Bush/Lindsey Graham policy. Why would anyone want that combination of two things?

PAT: I don't know.

STU: Tough talk with crap policy? If you're going to get someone who will get in the news all the time for saying things that are controversial, at least they should have the best policy for what you believe in.

PAT: Yes.

STU: People are out there -- I can't believe Jeb Bush. He's criticizing Trump. They have the same idea as how to deal with this problem. Except Trump is saying things that get him into more trouble. Is that what you want?

PAT: And Trump is saying things that fire up those of us who want something done about the out-of-control illegal border crossing situation.

STU: Obviously it's out of control.

PAT: It needs to be fixed. We need to shore up the border. Now, there's not a single person alive who do not say that. Everybody says that, including Barack Obama. Says we have to shore up the border. He just doesn't do it. So everybody agrees we have to say at least that we'll shore up the border. So everybody says that. There's nothing there to this Donald Trump thing, except pissing people off.

STU: At the end of it, what did you get? You get a pathway to citizenship -- that's what John McCain was pushing. Now, you'll get that plus the tough talk. I don't understand the combination thing. We'll get into more here in just a second.

Featured Image: US presidential hopeful Donald Trump delivers remarks at the Maryland Republican Party's 25th Annual Red, White & Blue Dinner on June 23, 2015 at the BWI Airport Marriott in Linthicum, Maryland .PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

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

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

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

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

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

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

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

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

Negotiating with radicals

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

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

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

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

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

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

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

What we really celebrated

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

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Architects and operatives

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

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

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

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

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

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

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

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

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

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

The funding networks behind the machine

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

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

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

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

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

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

Federal funding pipelines

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Not just domestic — but global

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.