Did Brad Thor predict the Bergdahl prisoner exchange?

The line between fact and fiction is becoming increasingly hard to recognize. No one knows this better than bestselling author Brad Thor, who speaks to people in all areas of America’s intelligence agencies to find out what keeps the people really in the know up at night. But it’s hard to believe that some of the most outrageous story lines from his novels have actually become a reality under the Obama administration. For instance, his book First Commandment depicted the swap of five high value prisoners held in Gitmo. So what’s next? Brad Thor discussed his new book Code of Conduct and much, much more on Thursday's radio show.

MIKE: Welcome. It is the Glenn Beck Program. My name is Mike Broomhead, in for Glenn today. We start things off, the brand-new book. It's called Code of Conduct. I've been told Glenn Beck says it's the greatest thriller ever written. Joining me is Brad Thor, the author of the book. Fourteen in the series. Tell us about the book.

BRAD: Well, Mike, it's good to be with you. Code of Conduct. Glenn says that what I do is faction. Glenn coined this term. Where you don't know where the facts end and the fiction begins.

MIKE: But he says the same things about politicians.

BRAD: He would be correct on that one. But with Code of Conduct, I picked two things that I thought were fascinating, real life things that a lot of people aren't aware of and put them in as the bedrock of this thriller. Number one, down in Georgia, somebody put together. Somebody spent a fortune to erect these huge granite slabs. People are calling it the American Stonehenge. And on them, in 12 languages, including ancient Babylonian and Sanskrit, is written this terrifying agenda for the United States and the rest of the world. It's bizarre. People don't know if it's Ted Turner who did it or what. I've heard about this and investigated and thought, that's a fascinating, fascinating oddity. And I saved it in the back of my mind. And a couple of years ago, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, got together his inner circle and took over the chalet high in the Austrian Alps, sounds like something out of a Bond movie, tons of security. And they got together and said, you know what, let's figure out how to get the United States off the world stage so we can become number one and we can set the agenda for the rest of the world. And their agenda, what they wanted to do, got leaked out of this meeting. And several of the things they wanted matched up with the stones down in Georgia. And I thought, you know what, that's going to be the bedrock for my thriller.

MIKE: Now, watching the video -- the preview of the book. It's about a three-minute preview on your website. You talk about a one-two punch. You know what the first punch was going to be. Can you give us some insight without giving it away? Or can't you do that?

BRAD: No. I can tell you a little bit. So I have developed over the years with my thrillers a great network of active and retired people from the CIA, special operations community, and I like to ping them every once in a while and say, A, how are you doing? And, B, what's keeping you up at night? What are you afraid of happening? And there's something they've been worried about for a long time potentially coming out of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. It is the potential for an attack, a terrorist attack that would be simultaneously kicked off around the world. And it would be so crippling and so devastating that every single country would be affected at the same time and nobody would be able to come to anybody else's aid. So when I talk about the one-two punch in the book, what I do is I set up a particular line, a plot line, and you think you've got it figured out. Just when you think you have it figured out, the characters in the book are starting to tune in, and then this secret thing comes around the side. That's that second punch. Readers that have read the book so far have loved it, and nobody saw that second thing coming. It's a fun thing to do as a thriller writer.

MIKE: So when you write the book -- you say Glenn calls it faction. So tell me where something you've put in the book is fiction has become fact.

BRAD: All right. So several books ago, I wrote a thriller called the First Commandment. The first commandment in the War on Terror is thou shalt not negotiate with terrorists.

So on page one of the First Commandment, the very first page, I have a scene in Gitmo where not four, not six, but five high-value detainees are being released in a swap. That's exactly how many, five, were exchanged for Bowe Bergdahl.

MIKE: All right. So now I'm a little -- that is creepy. Does it creep yourself out yourself? How did you predict this? Or did you just take credit and say you knew it was coming?

BRAD: It's this funny kind of weird thing that I do where I look at the tea leaves and try to see over the horizon. It's one of the reasons that the Department of Homeland Security, I believe, brought me in to help them brainstorm as part of their analytical Red Cell Unit, what future terrorist attacks might look like, where and when they might happen. You know, it sounds conceited to call it a gift. That's not how I refer to it. My wife says I have ESP. If you pay attention, I'm on the Blaze.com all the time. I'm a voracious reader of news and all the articles that are popping. I think when that happens, you can kind of project forward and see what's coming. Maybe not everybody. For me, I can.

MIKE: Number 14 in the series, the book is Code of Conduct. What keeps it fresh 14 books in? How is this different 14 books?

BRAD: That's a great question. Glenn and I have had this talk before. That I'm a small businessperson. So the product that I create, that's my thriller. I'm selling escape to people. This is the kind of book I want to read when I go on vacation. Take to the pool, the lake, the beach. So my goal is to get better with every single book. With Code of Conduct, I set the bar really, really high. And I want to see if I can get over this bar. I want to see if I give my readers something they've never seen before from any other thriller author. It's setting that bar high which really makes it exciting to write and I hope exciting to read. This book is completely fresh because I'm pointing out threats to the readers that I think even they don't know exist. Real life threats that are after the United States, in particular.

MIKE: So you talk about Scot Harvath. And you allude to -- or, in the video you talk about Indiana Jones and James Bond and learning about them as opposed to -- you know, the character development of learning more about them. You accomplish that here in the book?

BRAD: Absolutely. That was another goal I set for myself. What I said on my website in that little three-minute video, describing the book and what people can expect of it, is that we want Indiana Jones to still be Indiana Jones at the end of the book -- or, at the end of the film. We want James Bond to still be James Bond at the end. But a trick for an author who brings back a recurring character -- which I do. All my books are meant to be standalones. So you can read them in any order. You don't have to start with the first one. You can start with Code of Conduct. The challenge is, how do I reveal a little bit more of Scot Harvath my main character in each book. This one, when my wife read it, she's my first reader, when she read it, she came and found me, she said, you know what, I love all your books. But what you did with the character developments, with the surprises on practically every page in this thriller, she said this is the best book you've ever written.

MIKE: On the Blaze tonight, you'll be in for Glenn. Tell us what will be on the show. All the usual outlets to get the book?

BRAD: Amazon with all its algorithms is predicting this will be the best-selling thriller of all time. Glenn was right when he said it was the best. Now Amazon is catching on. Tonight, we'll talk about serious stuff on the Blaze. We'll be discussing ISIS rebuke Iran, and Orwell and how all these things are tying together and why Americans need to be better tuned in to what's happening and what the Obama administration is doing both domestically and abroad and what it means for us as a nation moving forward. It's going to be a fascinating episode tonight.

MIKE: So I want to ask you before I lead into what I'm going to start talking about. I'll ask the expert. When you're looking at the deal that was just cut with the Iranians, as the president tries to sell this to the Congress and the American people and our allies in that region, the alliance now it seems to be between the Saudis and the Israelis. Is that just a small little picture of how dangerous this deal is? And what do you predict the next six to 12 months?

BRAD: Well, I'll tell you, it's amazing that anything could get the Arabs and the Israelis together on the same page. I mean, that's big, big deal.

You know, we talk a lot about if you could go back in time and stop Hitler and the Nazis, would you do it? This is one of those incredibly historic moments, and we made the wrong choice as a nation. Instead of stopping Hitler and the Nazis, we handed them a check for $150 billion and drew them a map straight to Czechoslovakia. It's a bad, bad deal. It's bad for stability in the region, and it's bad for stability overall in the world.

This is something -- the president plays an incredibly short game. He does not look long-term. And I don't think there's been a greater force for destruction in the history of this country than the Obama administration.

MIKE: All right. Well, Brad is in for Glenn. Brad Thor.com is the website. Code of Conduct. Fourteenth in the series. Predicted to be the best-seller ever.

BRAD: Only behind the Bible. That's how many copies they think it will sell.

MIKE: That's a high. You better do something special for number fifteen, right?

Thanks for being here. We'll be back here in just a moment. My name is Mike Broomhead. It's the Glenn Beck Program.

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 began as a political payoff to Socialist agitators

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.