Race for governor of Kentucky might be a pickup for Republicans

Matt Bevin, candidate for Governor of Kentucky, joined Glenn's radio program Tuesday to share what sets him apart in the race from his Democratic opponent.

"Tell me why - if anybody is listening to us and they're in Kentucky," Glenn said. Why should they vote for you?"

Bevin's response:

I'll tell you what, I'm not a career politician. I'm a guy that grew up in a humble way, in a simple way. I grew up with strong Christian values. I'm a guy who grew up having to make his own way, below the poverty level, but blessed to go to college. Joined the military. A guy who got out and spent 20-plus years in the private sector. A job creator. I'm a father of nine children. Four of my children are adopted. I'm a normal person.

I'm a guy like so many out there who simply want better opportunity for themselves, for their families, for their state and for America, for people that are weary about how the fabric of this nation is being shredded. Used to be a thread at a time. We're seeing fistfuls of it, twisted out of the fabric of who we are as Americans. And for people who want a counterpoint to that, for people who want somebody to fight for them who is one of them, who will be a representative of and by and for the people, like this government was intended to be, I'm that guy. I'm trying to step forward and truly be a public servant.

Later, Glenn asked how this election might also be important to people from other states.

"This is a bellwether for 2016," Bevin said. "This is the only race in 2015 that has the ability to move to conservative hands. It is the only one that could be a pickup for Republicans in this case. And it is the only one that will be a bellwether for Medicaid expansion. It will be a bellwether for school choice. It will be a bellwether for energy policy. And it will absolutely move the needle on discussion in 2016. This race is critical."

Listen to the full segment or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: Matt Bevin, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

MATT: I am doing well. I was doing better prior to Biden Watch 2016, however.

GLENN: Really?

So tell me about your socialist policies for Kentucky.

MATT: I'll tell you who has them is my opponent in this race. Jack Conway is a rubber stamp for Obama. You want to talk about whether it's spending other people's money. He's a career politician. Has never created a job in his life. He's a liberal who supports taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. He wants to restrict people's gun rights. He's pro-abortion. He's anti-coal. He's a rubber stamp at every turn. Heaven help us.

GLENN: Okay. So you won the primary. This is the real deal now.

MATT: It is. He's the state's attorney general. He's a Democrat. And he's a very, very liberal version of that.

GLENN: Okay. So what's -- how are you doing in the polls? And what's the -- we haven't talked to you in a while. How are things going?

MATT: I've begun to feel a little bit personally slighted actually. I miss you guys.

GLENN: Oh, wow.

MATT: You guys have been truly just stellar throughout, and it is truly great to be back on with you. The polls are good. It's neck-and-neck. We have two weeks from day. Two weeks from today is the election. Tuesday, November the 3rd. And we're just trying to fire up the base. It's a sleepy, sleepy electorate. It's an off year.

GLENN: Okay. So let me ask you this. You realize that we're pretty much the kiss of death. Anybody that we like is the kiss of death.

MATT: I'm not going to accept that. We're going to break the right here.

PAT: Good. How is it possible, Matt, that the person you described to us with such socialist policies like that, with such liberal policies, how can he even be in this race in Kentucky?

MATT: It's a good question. I'll tell you what people don't realize about Kentucky. 72 percent of all elected officials in this state are Democrats. 72 percent.

PAT: Wow. Really?

GLENN: It's old-style Democrat.

MATT: It's old-school. But we're a check the box, vote straight ticket state, which I think is usually a disservice. And, unfortunately, many people do that. Only 38 percent of registered voters are Republicans. So it is an uphill slug. We've only had two in the last 75 years that have been Republican, each for one term in the governor's seat.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: Surprising. Really surprising.

MATT: It is. We're different -- I'll tell you, to be in the mix is almost unprecedented. To be tied neck-and-neck --

GLENN: No, no, don't say that, Matt. No, no, no. That's what people who lose the Oscar always says. It's just an honor to be nominated.

MATT: No, no, I'm saying that this is the thing that should give people great hope. Because there are still about 10 percent that say they're undecided. And the 10 percent invariably breaks to the conservative side. This is good for us. I think we'll win this thing by 4 to 6 percent, somewhere in that range.

STU: Matt, is there a third party candidate here that there's a lot of coverage that will screw up your race here?

MATT: It won't hurt me actually. I think it will actually help me, if it ends up being a factor. He was a liberal Democrat up until a few months ago. He's voted for Obama twice. He's even more -- he's like our version of Bernie Sanders a bit. And to that end, he's now pretending to be an independent. I'm not sure exactly what his thinking is. He's a good guy. But he's not going to have any chance of winning. And he will pull votes, but probably more from the other side.

GLENN: So, Matt, tell me why -- if anybody is listening to us and they're in Kentucky. Or hell, they're dead in another state.

Why should -- why should they vote for you?

MATT: I'll tell you what, I'm not a career politician. I'm a guy that grew up in a humble way, in a simple way. I grew up with strong Christian values. I'm a guy who grew up having to make his own way, below the poverty level, but blessed to go to college. Joined the military. A guy who got out and spent 20-plus years in the private sector. A job creator. I'm a father of nine children. Four of my children are adopted. I'm a normal person. I'm a guy like so many out there who simply want better opportunity for themselves, for their families, for their state and for America, for people that are weary about how the fabric of this nation is being shredded. Used to be a thread at a time. We're seeing fistfuls of it, twisted out of the fabric of who we are as Americans. And for people who want a counterpoint to that, for people who want somebody to fight for them who is one of them, who will be a representative of and by and for the people, like this government was intended to be, I'm that guy. I'm trying to step forward and truly be a public servant.

PAT: We're believers, Matt. And obviously there's mattbevin.com, I'm guessing.

MATT: It's still there. When it ain't broke, my friend.

PAT: Yeah. Go fix it. Go fix it. So can they get involved on a volunteer basis as well and help you out with the campaign? Go door to door too? All that kind of stuff too?

MATT: We need all of the above. Yes, if people would go to Mattbevin.com. M-A-T-T-B-E-V-I-N.com. We need time, talent, and treasure. The time and talent: Door knocking, phone calling. They can come into our offices. They're all over the state. They can also do it from home. We can provide them with lists. We need people to make contributions. If they're able and willing, any amount will help us to stay on-air. Liberals are pounding the snot out of us on the airwaves because that's the only thing they have. We're excited though, just last night, the RGA put in a significant buy. They're getting back into this race in a significant way. They've been in and out. They're all in, all the way through to the end. So that bodes well for us as well. I'm excited by this.

GLENN: We'll be watching this. As you know, Matt, we're very big fans of yours. And we expect big things when you become governor. We really expect you to really hold fast to the promises that you've made and make Kentucky an example in the rest of the country on what can be done when you have good, solid principles and you live by those principles and you don't become a crony capitalist or just a dirty politician.

PAT: We also want really good tickets to the Kentucky Derby.

MATT: I can promise you the former. I can't promise you the latter. But I will tell you, in all seriousness, guys, the first and last line of defense against overreach by the federal government, overencroachment on our constitutional rights, the first and last line of defense -- and you know this -- is the governor's seat. It is what happens at the state level. The Tenth Amendment still means something. It's still truly a powerful tool, the sovereignty of a state. And I absolutely intend to make Kentucky a beacon for the rest of America.

GLENN: If somebody is listening, because we've actually had other people that have listened to governor races, et cetera, et cetera, and they've gone -- Scott Walker was one of them -- they've gone from California and they've driven across the country to help in the campaign.

Why is your election important to somebody in another state?

MATT: This is a bellwether for 2016. I mean, heaven help us if we have to listen to Biden Watch 2016 with anything other than a joke in our minds. Because whether it's Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, that is the worst thinking of American political -- of the American political scene. This bellwether for this race, what happens with even with the message on the Republican side is going to be driven by what happens in this race. This is the only race in 2015 that has the ability to move to conservative hands. It is the only one that could be a pickup for Republicans in this case. And it is the only one that will be a bellwether for Medicaid expansion. It will be a bellwether for school choice. It will be a bellwether for energy policy. And it will absolutely move the needle on discussion in 2016. This race is critical.

STU: You know, if you become governor, is there some sort of a retirement plan you could recommend to Mitch McConnell?

MATT: I will tell you what, I made a pledge myself that I will not participate in any kind of a taxpayer funded retirement plan. I will let others speak for themselves as to what they will do. I will not participate.

(laughter)

GLENN: Matt, always good to talk to you. And, by the way, I am a Kentucky colonel. So at some point, I can marshal the troops.

MATT: Please do. Rally the troops. And ride into town. We need all the reinforcements we can get. I would be great grateful. I really would, guys. Good to talk to 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.

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.