Anti-abortion activist Lila Rose tells Glenn how to fight Planned Parenthood

Glenn will be the first to admit that wants to just be a lazy slug, so the fact that he's planning to get active in the fight for the lives of the unborn shows a unique level of passion. After all, this isn't just talking about high taxes and bad healthcare policy - these are human lives being destroyed by Planned Parenthood. But where does one get started? Glenn invited pro-life activist Lila Rose onto the show to explain how people can start taking a stand today.

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

GLENN: Let me go to Lila Rose. She's from liveaction.org. This is a topic that all of us have been on radio for a very long time. None of us have ever really talked about abortion on the air because that's just -- there's no -- there's no faster way to drive listeners to drink or to another station than to talk about abortion. And we've never talked about it up until the last few years. Now it is -- to me, with what's happening with Planned Parenthood, this is such a clear sign of, you're on the book of life or you're on the book of death, that I can't not talk about it. I have to -- I met with my family last night and said, we have to become activists. But I don't even know what that means. And so I wanted to get Lila Rose on. She's with liveaction.org. And she is -- if you don't know who she is, she's one of the more incredible activists. How old are you, Lila?

LILA: I just turned 27. I'm getting up there, Glenn.

GLENN: I know. You're an old lady.

When you were in college, your face, and I think it still is, is put in every Planned Parenthood location as watch for this girl. Because you were making recordings of them. You would go in as an underage girl and show that they were doing illegal things. Right?

LILA: Right. I mean, some of my first investigations of Planned Parenthood exposed their rampant sexual abuse cover-ups of minor girls. So I posed and then later on we trained investigative teams to pose as underage girls or as the abusers of underage girls, including the pimps and the sex traffickers of minor girls. And Planned Parenthood clinics across-the-board in dozens of situations agreed to cover up the sexual abuse of minors or aid and abet sex traffickers. And we also documented many cases where there is actual ongoing lawsuits where young girls were settled out of court -- young girls sued Planned Parenthood for the sexual abuse cover-up that they endured because the best friend of a pedophile or the best friend of a statutory rapist is a reproductive health clinic, quote, unquote, an abortion facility that will deal with the evidence of their crime, that helpless unborn child. And so it's in their best interest to get that little girl a secret abortion so that no one ever knows about the attack against her.

GLENN: That's phenomenal. And you were doing this when you were, you know, a relative kid. Now you're 27. And you have taken the fight against abortion to new levels. I want to ask you as someone who has never been involved in this stuff before. How can I get involved? What do we do as people?

LILA: Thanks, Glenn. I think there's absolutely work for people to do. And there's a few steps. There's some immediate more simple steps. And then there's the more day-to-day grind steps, which takes patience and persistence.

First of all, immediately, we're dealing with the defunding fight on Capitol Hill. We have two Democrats in the Senate, ten more votes that we had in 2007, in the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood. We're five votes away -- five votes away from success. So this is a fight that we have now. We have petitions going.

I know people are like, well, what does a petition do? Your name does count. Our goal is to get to a million signees by the end of August. We're working with other groups, even potentially some other campaigns behind the scenes to get petition signees all together in a database so that we can rally troops.

And right now we're at -- Live Action's petition alone is at 160,000. That should be -- there's no reason that shouldn't be in the hundreds of thousands. We're trying to get up the numbers of people who can get behind defunding Planned Parenthood to show that the country is not only ready for this to happen, but the country demands that we stop funding the abortion industry.

GLENN: So how do we sign that?

LILA: So that's at PlannedParenthoodExposed.com or .org. PlannedParenthoodExposed.org. It has a petition on there. It has information on there that you can share about Planned Parenthood's atrocities. Facts you can share with friends, family, people that may not know the facts. That's the first thing. The second thing is to be bold about speaking about this. Posting about this. Talking about this with friends, family, neighbors. Not shying away from the issue. Because it's too late to shy away from the issue. This is prepped up in our own communities. They're butchering children. They're selling their body parts in an industry making millions of dollars across the country.

The government is funding this on both sides. The government funds Planned Parenthood a half of a billion dollars a year, 1.4 million a day. And then they're funding the National Institute of Health over $60 million for fetal tissue research. So on both ends of the spectrum, the government is paying for this. So talk about it in our communities.

And the last one. This is where the persistence and the day-to-day grind happens. Is get involved. There's work to be done on the pro-life movement. It needs people from all walks of life, all political backgrounds. Every kind of -- every kind of person can be involved in one way or another. There's the compassion side of the movement, making sure that you have the highest and the best technology in your local pregnancy care center. You're caring for women in tough pregnancy situations. You're marketing to them in your communities to make sure that they hear from pro-lifers and those that will help them before walking into an abortion clinic. Praying and counseling outside of abortion clinics. Working with your local community to make sure that the zoning laws or the -- or the regulations for your community or city don't allow Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics to set up shop. Getting Planned Parenthood out of your local schools.

It's amazing to me how many parents are unaware of the way that Planned Parenthood is active to our nation's kids in our own communities at our own schools. And sometimes even contracts with private schools. So working to find out -- get to the bottom of it. Is Planned Parenthood allowed in any way, shape, or form in my school? Making sure that they're not. And then, of course, getting involved politically in our states and then at the federal level. Making sure that we have 110 percent politicians. That we won't stand for anyone who will even be halfway.

Keep in mind, under George Bush -- and I love, you know, President George Bush. I think he had a lot of good things -- I think he had a good heart. But under his administration, four and a half years of a Republican-controlled Senate and House, they still funded Planned Parenthood in the '90s. I was in high school. I wasn't on Capitol Hill the way I'm able to be now. But they were funding Planned Parenthood. So don't think that just because there's an R next to the name of the politician, our answers are going to be -- we're going to have our solution. We need to be active in pressuring and pushing for folks in office to do their job and getting the right people in office. Those are just a few thoughts.

GLENN: I think I have asked that question from people on this show over and over again, and it's always bullcrap answers. That's probably the most complete answer I've ever received from anybody.

LILA: Well, let's do it. Let's do it.

GLENN: Lila, how do you feel -- I mean, you are optimistic. I looked at this do-nothing Congress couldn't even stop the funding of a slaughterhouse. And I look at that as a horrible sign. You actually -- you actually have hope.

LILA: I'm a realist, Glenn. I like you. What I'm seeing though is change. And that's what gives me the hope. I see real change.

Again, in 2011, 42 votes in the Senate, no Democrats to defund Planned Parenthood. Two Democrats now. Fifty-two. It would have been 54 if McConnell and Lindsey Graham had shown up to the vote. That's a whole other story. But McConnell only didn't vote because he wanted to retain the ability to bring the vote up again. So we basically had 54 votes. There's a lot of work, and then there's an independent we need to move and then five more Democrats. There are pro-life Democrats though who voted to protect Planned Parenthood funding.

There's work that can be done behind the scenes here. People's voices do matter right now. I think the worst that the killer of the pro-life movement -- the killer of this country is the idea that people don't change, and things can't change. And that's why our rallying call from the beginning, when we first started doing investigations, before 2011, in 2011 -- yes, we know a Republican-held government funded Planned Parenthood in the '90s. Yes, we know that we've always funded Planned Parenthood for over two dozen years, and it was actually Republicans and Democrats for the architects from the Title X funding that now goes to the abortion industry. Yes, we know those things. But that can change.

The Republican -- not the Republican -- the establishment. The Washington machine, as Ted Cruz calls it, the control, the cartel in D.C. they do not have all the power we think that they have. They are sensitive to the outcry of the American people because they don't want to lose their positions. So don't lose hope and realize that we can make a change. I think that needs to be our message. And we're seeing its success already.

GLENN: Can you address -- because I think most people who are in this audience, they haven't watched the videos. And they don't want to watch the videos. Because they already know it's going to be horrible. And they don't want to -- they don't want to be the person that's posting those videos. They don't even want to think about it. But they support you.

Can you explain why these videos are important? To be shared and to be seen by everybody.

LILA: Yes. And I'll use -- I'll sometimes use this analogy. Every era has its own injustice. And you've talked about this before, Glenn. Every era has its own injustice. And we look back at the atrocities of history and we wonder, how could that have happened amongst good people who were surrounding it?

Nazi Germany. There were some good Germans who were just kind of allowing it to happen. And the trains would roll by with the Jewish prisoners off to their death. And there would be silence in the community, or there would just be inaction from the community. They didn't agree with the regime of the Nazis. But they allowed it.

In our country, slavery, we knew that it was happening in the South. We knew that it was sometimes happening in our own communities. We were uncomfortable. But what did we do to stop the incredible injustices perpetrated against our own brothers and sisters?

Today is no different, except I would argue today is the worst that our country and I believe in many ways human history has ever seen. Because the largest number of the most weakest members of our society are being destroyed by the thousands each day. Over 50 million children since this became legal in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. This is of incredible -- this is of epic proportions, and the crisis intensifies every day it continues, as more people are wounded in the wake of the killing.

So if that's not enough to give people courage -- and I think it is enough to give people courage. If you need a little more courage. Give yourself the encounter to inspire you. To touch your heart with the humanity of a child and the inhumanity of an abortion. By having the courage to watch one of the videos of what Planned Parenthood is doing in our own communities, near to our churches and schools.

I mean, I think that is just a simple plea. I think millions of people have responded to that plea. These videos have been viewed millions of times now. Videos of Planned Parenthood and their abuses have been viewed tens of millions of times, and these ones are making incredible progress, showing Planned Parenthood covering up, Planned Parenthood negotiating -- bartering the sale of baby body parts.

Give yourself that opportunity to be cut to the heart so that you can feel as well as you may know the passion or the -- the realization of what's happening so that you can feel inspired to do something more. We are human beings. We're mind and heart. We're emotions and intellect. We need to be connected to this because it's so sanitized. It's so hidden. It's so full of false rhetoric. It's so politicized. We need to get in touch with what's really happening. And these videos are a door, a window into the facilities that are doing the killings to give us that opportunity.

GLENN: Lila, thank you very much. Appreciate it. And we pray for you.

LILA: Thank you.

GLENN: You are really truly a warrior. God bless you. Lila Rose. She is with liveaction.org. And follow her advice. Follow her advice.

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

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

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

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

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

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

Peace through strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names matter

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.