Greece and European Union reach deal that will tick off everyone in Greece

Remember how the Greek people held a referendum just a few days ago to overwhelmingly reject the austerity measures presented by the European Union? Well, the two sides finally came to a deal over the weekend to avoid financial collapse - but it’s way worse for the Greek people than they were expecting. Pat and Stu had the story and reaction on radio.

Listen to the story in the opening minutes of today's podcast:

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

PAT: It's Pat and Stu in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. 877-727-BECK. 877-727-BECK.

Imagine how pissed off you would be if you had a nationwide referendum. And you voted 61-38 against some sort of proposal, and everybody is celebrating and you think it's great, and a couple of days later, the opposite of what you voted for just happened after you promised that, no, no, I'm all about not doing this thing. If you tell me not to, we'll not do this thing. And then the president of your nation does that thing.

STU: Can we throw in more details?

PAT: Go ahead.

STU: Number one, the president was arguing that they should vote down the deal.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: So he was on the side of no deal.

PAT: Right.

STU: Then the deal that they passed is not the deal that they rejected, but the deal that has actually gone through today is much, much worse than the deal that they just rejected. And the president was cheering on for them to reject a couple of days ago.

PAT: I mean, will this guy be the president of Greece tomorrow?

STU: Two months, tops.

PAT: It has to be soon, right?

STU: It has to go through their Congress. Then they can request new elections which is the weird thing that other countries do. Oh, it's time for new elections. Tomorrow! Run to the polls!

PAT: Yeah, the parliamentary system is weird.

STU: It's weird. I don't like it at all. Ours is better. Look, we're about to have a 17-person field where we'll have debates.

PAT: It's still better.

STU: Look, tomorrow, let's do new elections. I like that part of it here much better than there. Still, if you're going to have a referendum, one of these things that the president was secretly hoping that they would take the deal so he wouldn't have to do it himself. This is the last-ditch effort. If you're going to encourage people to reject the deal, they come out and reject it, then you'll face the negotiators within a week and then say, okay, we'll take terms that are far worse.

PAT: Yeah. Did you not understand what the European Union was telling you to begin with? Did you not get that the IMF was serious? Did you not understand that all your creditors wanted payment and they happened it now? And so if you can't give us that payment, then we'll have to have other measures to show us that you're serious about paying back this debt?

JEFFY: But my people said no.

PAT: Yeah. Well -- and not only that, he encouraged his people to say no.

STU: That's the weird part of it. If he was on the side of saying, we must take this deal. It's the only thing we can get --

PAT: That's one thing.

STU: They rejected it and make it worse. He would come back to the people and say, look, I told you we need to take that deal.

PAT: Right. That's not the way it went down.

STU: But he encouraged them to say no to it. So now they have -- parts of this deal is unbelievable, in which, again, with, they have to take it, right? I guess. They got themselves in this situation. I do not feel bad for Greece at all. This is a government problem. A problem of a corrupt government over a long period of time. A problem that is our problem, if we continue to do what we're doing. Thinking about things like giant union giveaways. Ridiculous pensions. Retiring at 52 years old. Creating 13 and 14th months to pay their friends more through the government. I mean, ridiculous corruption over a long period of time. I do not feel bad for them in the slightest. But part of this deal is that they have to take $50 billion of their stuff, their assets and put it in a fund for the rest of Europe to sell. They just get to take $50 billion of their stuff throw it in a fund and Germany auctions it off on e Bay. That's part of this deal.

PAT: That's amazing.

STU: Wow.

PAT: Yeah. On the streets, many ordinary Greeks were dumbfounded over the spectacular U-turn.

Well, yeah. It was the big vote, you know, that was proclaimed worldwide. Everyone knew the Greeks rejected this. All right. Now you'll get what's coming to you.

And instead of that, apparently Cypress (phonetic) had some sort of revelation in the meantime and thought, oh, my gosh, yeah, we -- wait. That was the wrong vote. So now we'll have to take what we can get, because otherwise our economy crumbles and people will be starving.

JEFFY: He played chicken and lost, right?

PAT: Yeah. It kind of seems that way. So, anyway, they will now have to accept the package that's much harsher than the one rejected to the tune of about 4 billion euros. So that's 6 billion dollars-ish.

STU: Five.

PAT: Or 5 billion. Yeah, it's a little lower than it was. And according to one 20-year-old, he said, I voted no. And, of course, this new proposal doesn't correspond to that no. Vasilis Seeka (phonetic), who is 20 and unemployed said, I feel like a slave. They do what they want, and we can't participate.

That's how you would feel after that vote, right?

STU: And also, just for media purposes, after you put a name and then 20 years old, you don't need to put unemployed in Greece. That's just assumed. We can just assume he's unemployed if he's 20 in Greece.

PAT: Is it 54 percent unemployment in Greece?

STU: It's over 50.

PAT: Yeah, it's massive unemployment for, you know, like 16 to 24-year-olds. Massive. Like hardly anybody has a job who wants one in that age range. I mean, it's pretty tough country-wide, but at least for the 50 and 55-year-olds, they have pensions that they can't get.

STU: Which is great.

PAT: Which is great. You know, when you're expecting that pension, at least you know that you can keep expecting it. It's never going to come, but you can keep expecting that all you want.

STU: That's always nice. At least you have that going on for you, which is nice.

PAT: Has the bank reopened today?

STU: Supposedly that will happen.

PAT: I would think so.

STU: Look, the euro, some of this talk is boring as anything. And I understand that. The interest, of course, here is, what does it mean here for us? And I think, A, you have the situation where when you build the European Union, you don't let countries out of it. Basically under any circumstances. Because you didn't build this thing to make trade easier. You didn't build this thing to compete with the United States. Although, that's all part of it. You built this thing for power. You built this thing to be able to dictate terms to countries that before you could not dictate terms to. So they're not going to let this thing fall apart. And that's the reason for my believing that they'll come up with a deal eventually. Which now they have. Which is at least patchwork as far as this negative effect goes for us. At least the assumption is, we have a couple of years at least before this thing rears its ugly head again. And, you know, the problems start popping up. Though, any of these countries, this could happen to at any time. Italy is in the situation. Spain is in the situation. Portugal is in the situation. They all have these massive problems. And if one of them does go sour, then it really could affect the markets. It could affect our lives in a real way. The thought is that this pushes it down the road yet again a little way.

PAT: And I guess we'll all take it. Isn't that what we're all hoping for? Just push it down the road a little bit? That's what we hope for in this country. That's what we continually get with the printing of a billion dollars a month. A trillion dollars a year.

We're just pushing things down the road. Yeah, just keep bringing the money. Then we'll keep the interest rate low, and then we'll just worry about it later on and hope that something good happens. You know, maybe we -- the mall of the USA and we start selling goods to the world and then we pay for the debt that way. Except for the fact that we don't make anything anymore, so there wouldn't be anything to put in the mall. So I don't know how you work your way out of the problem. I mean, we're in a serious situation as well. Not quite to the extent of Greece. Because our debt ratio to GDP is only around 90 percent. Right?

Ninety, 95 percent. There's is at 175 percent to 200. We had the figures last week or the week before. And it seems like it was 175 or 200 percent over GDP. That's not a good ratio.

STU: You know, we're on the same road.

PAT: We are.

STU: We can see the tail lights of Greece. It's a little bit in the distance, you know, but you could see it. And that's what's scary. There's a fundamental thing in this country I think that holds us back.

We were a country built on capitalism. We're a country built on a free market. On personal responsibility and all the things we talk about. And we constantly are upset at the idea that those things are going away. But in Greece, they never were. In countries like Greece and others, they never had those principles. There's not that fight. I think we talked about that book. Michael Louis' (phonetic) Boomerang. And in the book, he talks about the financial crisis. And just the experience of each individual country. It goes through Iceland, Greece, Ireland. All these different countries that had major collapses through the 2008 thing. They're fascinating stories and they all kind of happen for different reasons. But in one of the chapters, I can't remember which one it is, it talks about how the country doesn't have a Glenn Beck. They don't have a voice of opposition fighting to make sure these things don't happen. These countries don't have -- and we're obviously on the Glenn Beck Program here. But that's the one he specifically mentions by name. And Michael Louis is not a conservative author necessarily, if you know who he is, by any means. He's just a high-profile guy. He's written all sorts of big financial books. He wrote The Blindside, as well, if you know that movie. He's a great, great writer. One of my favorite writers.

But when he talks about that, it's a situation we take for granted here. There's always people, oh, my gosh, we have to stick to these principles. These principles are important. Other countries don't have that. They have, our culture is important. Or they have certain things that they fight for. But they don't fight for those sorts of principles. And even though we've gone down this road so far with terrible presidential choices, terrible senators, and terrible things we've done, we still have those principles that draw us a little bit back towards some sort of sanity and keeps us a little ahead of the rest of the world. That's not a lot to say for a country anymore. I'm not proud to say that's what we have. But at least it's something

PAT: The other thing that I think is going sort of unnoticed here is that Greece, you know, one of the cradles of democracy is still practicing direct democracy. And they just did with this referendum. And this is what democracy looks like. Okay. The people voted. And their leader just said, nah. That was cute. Nah. That's what democracy looks like especially when you have a country like Greece that's somewhat socialist. And then they mix in a little democracy. I mean, democracy has really become code word for socialism.

STU: Yeah, democracy might work a little bit better if you have a country like we're talking about, that has some principles of individual responsibility.

PAT: That would be nice.

STU: When you have a socialist country with how much can I give people for free.

PAT: Doesn't work.

STU: You have democracy, wow. By the way, this deal has a bunch of this in there, which is huge tax increases for the country. It's not going to help their economy.

PAT: Oh, this one does too?

STU: Yeah. These people will get beat up from this thing.

PAT: Wow, it just keeps getting better. 877-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program with Pat and Stu next.

Featured Image: ATHENS, GREECE - JULY 13: A man sits alone with his thoughts as protesters gather outside the Greek parliament to demonstrate against austerity after an agreement for a third bailout with eurozone leaders on July 13, 2015 in Athens, Greece. The bailout is conditional on Greece passing agreed reforms in parliament by Wednesday which includes streamlining pensions and rasing more raise tax revenue. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

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.