Important health warning for those experiencing the 'worst headache of your life'

Glenn told the story of Lisa Colagrossi, a well-known reporter in New York, who passed away last year from a ruptured brain aneurysm. Her husband, Todd Crawford joined Glenn on radio to discuss the condition, which is apparently just as prevalent as breast cancer and ALS, but practically unknown.

"The only way you find out about a brain aneurysm, whether you have one, is you rupture and die like my wife did," Crawford said. "Or you go in for another unrelated medical procedure that requires a CAT scan or MRA and the test results come back and say, 'oh, by the way, you have a brain aneurysm.'"

Crawford started a foundation in honor of his wife, LisasLegacy7.org, to promote awareness, education, research and support groups for brain aneurysm initiatives. As its first major initiative, the foundation recently launched a fund-raising campaign called the Lucky Seven Challenge.

"Number seven was Lisa's lucky number," Crawford said. "We're encouraging and making an appeal to everyone in the country to log on to LisasLegacy7.org, make a donation in an amount that has the number 7 in it. Just a minimum of $7. And then take to social media and nominate seven other friends to do the same thing."

Listen to the touching and informative conversation below.

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

GLENN: I want to introduce you to somebody. And I just -- I just want to explain just one day, just one day in your life how many times have you heard your wife or your husband say, "Oh, I got the worst headache in my life?" And you just take that in stride. Worse headache of my life. I know I've had the worst headache of my life too. And after she says it a few times, you say, "You know what, we should get that checked. But it's not a priority because it's just the stress of life. All the things are going on. You're not sleepings well, everything else. Just, I'll get to that tomorrow." Lisa Colagrossi, she was a reporter for WABC in New York. TV. And we've seen her a million times. If you've lived in the New York area, you'd recognize her face in a heartbeat. She goes to work one morning. She covers a fire. She's on her way home, and her son texts her from his school. And she texts him back. And little hearts and smiley faces.

He doesn't know. But that's one of the last things she does because she has a brain aneurysm. Her husband gets a call. He knows she's not going to make it. The kids never speak to their mom again. They have her on life support until everybody can be there to say their last goodbyes and turn the machine off.

This is a horror story. But I want to introduce to you Todd Crawford. His sons Davis and Evan are here. We had them on TV last night. And they told the story. And they're here for a reason. Because this is more prevalent and more likely to happen than you think. How are you, Todd?

TODD: Okay. Thanks.

GLENN: You said that, "Hey, honey, we should have this checked." And she thought it was just a really bad headache.

TODD: She knew it was the worst headache of her life. I mean, that's the way she would describe it. She would walk through the door twice three times a week for a period of about five weeks, leading up to her rupture the morning of March 19th and said, "My head is absolutely killing me. I have the worst headache of my life." And that's the way that everybody describes it the same way. They write that on the emergency room hospital charts, ER doctors do. WHOL because that's the exact same way everybody describes it.

PAT: So had she gone in, they could have detected that and prevented it?

TODD: Yeah. So, I mean, had we known then what we know now, I would have grabbed her by the arm and insisted that we go to the ER and have a CAT scan or MRA, which is a version of an MRI, done. And at that point, because her rupture was underway which is why she was experiencing these God awful headaches, it probably would have required an open brain surgery, craniotomy. There are less invasive procedures if you diagnose it and get it before it ruptures. But there's -- there's a good chance she would not have been able to resume her career either way.

PAT: What is it that ruptures? A vessel?

TODD: It's a good question. A brain aneurysm is a thinner of one of the walls of a blood vessel in the brain.

PAT: Okay.

TODD: As a result of the blood flow pounding over that weakening spot over time so that eventually the wall balloons out and the pressure keeps pounding against it until a rupture occurs.

PAT: So with a MRA, it's not hard to detect. They can spot that --

TODD: MRA or CAT scan. But, you know, insurance doesn't cover MRAs or CAT scans for this.

GLENN: Why?

TODD: There are no routine scans like breast cancer because of the numbers. Because nobody knows about it.

GLENN: Okay. But the numbers. Hang on. Let's get into the numbers. And this is the reason why I've invited you on radio is because there's a lot of people -- I don't mean to be callous, but there's a lot of people who die of a lot of different things and we feel bad about all of these. This one, actually, is really important for people to know. Because the numbers, there are more people that are affected by this than breast cancer.

TODD: So here's what we know today. There are 6 million people walking around with a brain aneurysm today.

GLENN: That we literally know of. That's not a guess. Literally have been diagnosed with.

TODD: That's have been diagnosed. We know about them. Of those 6 million, there will be 30- to 40,000 ruptures a year. And of those 30- to 40,000 ruptures, 50 percent are instantly fatal, and of the 50 percent who survive, two-thirds of them will walk around with a major neurological deficit the rest of their life. I got a note last night of a father in Georgia whose daughter-in-law experienced a rupture, has had two surgeries and she's now in a vegetative state. So this is -- and women and African-Americans are 50 percent more likely to develop brain aneurysms than anybody else. Don't know why because there's no research. There's no money being thrown at this to study it. So based on what we know, it's just as prevalent as breast cancer and ALS. And the only way you find out about a brain aneurysm, whether you have one, is you rupture and die like my wife did. Or you go in for another unrelated medical procedure that requires a CAT scan or MRA and the test results come back and say, oh, by the way, you have a brain aneurysm. So I guarantee that 6 million number is more like 12 to 15 million. Guarantee it.

PAT: All those people have it and nobody is studying it. How is that possible? Why? Why is there no money being spent on this?

GLENN: When he says no money, I want you to understand, the NIH and our government spends less than a million dollars. Less than a million dollars.

PAT: Gee.

GLENN: Now, think of that. It's bigger than breast cancer. Less than a million dollars.

TODD: Breast cancer receives by -- from the NIH every year, $6 million a year. ALS receives over 70 million. NIH appropriates over 20 million each for headaches and migraines to study those. By the way, neither one of those have ever killed anybody. Brain aneurysms, about a million dollars a year.

STU: If they do detect it, what can they do to treat it?

TODD: What they can do depends on various conditions and criteria. But there are two procedures that if they feel it needs to be treated, that are much less invasive, where they'll go up through your thigh, into the brain, and they will insert either a coil or a stent, much like a artery in the heart, to block the flow of blood and prevent it from further weakening the wall of the aneurysm itself. So that's -- you're not talking -- it is -- you're not talking about a cure here for this disease. Unlike breast cancer or heart disease. What you're talking about at best is the management of it.

GLENN: Well, there's not even really a cure of breast cancer. Until you wipe out cancer, I don't think that taking your breasts off is a cure. That's not -- you know, that's just slowing things down.

TODD: Right.

GLENN: Sometimes you can get away with, that's it. But, you know, that's what we're doing really with all medicines is just slowing things down, unless you're talking about things like polio, which we have cured.

So, first of all, what do you do for a living?

TODD: Well, I was in finance. But once Lisa passed away, I resigned from my position and have dedicated myself to this cause out of my -- out of the unconditional love that we shared for one another, our faith, and our two boys. To show them that -- how to address adversity head-on. And my mission is to create a parent organization in this country that represents this disease to save other lives. It's too late for their mom and my wife. But we can save countless lives of others across the country and around the world if we have support and raise awareness throughout the country.

GLENN: I wish I would have met your wife. Because just by looking at your eyes yesterday in the interview and again today, you're an exceptional man. Your kids are exceptional. And that's not easy to do in media, in New York, to keep faith and to keep yourself ground. She was a remarkable woman.

TODD: She was the best. I mean, absolutely amazing. And you can't get a sense for how incredible of a woman she was unless you were either married to her or you were one of her sons. And words just don't describe. And her faith meant a great deal to her and was deepening. And the void is huge. There's no question about that. And we're in the process of putting the pieces back together and trying to figure out what our new normal looks like and just adjusting to that.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. So tell me -- we only have a couple of minutes. Tell me how people can get involved and helped.

TODD: So we've created the Lisa Colagrossi Foundation, which can be found at LisasLegacySeven.org. And we hope that that will become the largest private funder of brain aneurysm initiatives around the country in the areas of awareness, education, research, and support groups. And the foundation's first major initiative, we launched the first ever national fund-raising campaign a couple weeks ago called the Lucky Seven Challenge. Number seven was Lisa's lucky number. It happened to be the station she worked at in New York, ABC 7. And the Lucky Seven Challenge is a very simple concept. We're encouraging and making an appeal to everyone in the country to log on to LisasLegacySeven.org, make a donation in an amount that has the number 7 in it. Just a minimum of $7. And then take to social media and nominate seven other friends to do the same thing. It's that simple. If we just get 1 million -- find 1 million people in this country who love God, who have a good heart, who want to get involved with a cause where just a little can make a very big difference, we just need them to donate $7, we'll hit our goal. $7 million in the next seven months. Very aggressive, never been tried before, but God willing, we'll get there.

GLENN: LisasLegacySeven.org. I have a very good friend of mine who -- who wanted me to donate money to a hospital. And I said to him, "I'll do that if you'll do me a favor, and that is teach me how to be charitable. Teach me how to be a more charitable man." And he said, "I'll make that deal. Here's the first lesson, you have to care about all of it." He was at a cancer center. And he said, "You can't just care about cancer. You can't just care about breast cancer or brain cancer. You can't just care about the people that you're trying to save in the Middle East. You can't care about the kids that are being shot in the streets of Chicago. You can't care about people with brain aneurysms. You have to care about all of them." And for $7, that's an easy way. You have seven friends give $7. That's the price of a Starbucks cup of coffee. You have seven friends that this story will touch that you could get them to donate just $7. I want you to go to LisasLegacySeven.org. The number seven. If you would like to hashtag this, it's #lucky7. Take the lucky seven challenge. LisasLegacySeven.org. Thank you so much.

TODD: Thank you. God bless.

GLENN: God bless you.

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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.