CHALKBOARD LESSON: 6 Eternal Truths of Self-Governance

Progressives want you to believe the Declaration of Independence is a worthless document. Why? Because it is the foundation upon which our house is built, and it's a house of freedom, equality and personal responsibility --- not government control.

"The Declaration of Independence tells you six things in the two opening paragraphs that are eternal. It tells you there is a higher law than man's law. There is the law of nature. Does it happen in nature? And if it happens in nature, that's good. Then we know that's a natural right," Glenn explained Thursday on radio.

He went on to detail the other truths established in the Declaration that ensure our rights as American citizens:

1. There is a higher law

2. All men are equal and have rights

3. Our rights come from the creator

4. Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights

5. Government gets all of its power from the consent of the governed (the people)

6. When a government becomes destructive to those ends (protection of our God-given rights) we have the right to abolish or change it, and to institute a new government that will make us happy and secure in our rights.

The Declaration of Independence is what we believe. Combined with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these three powerhouse documents have the ability to restrict the government and restore our Republic.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

The Declaration of Independence tells you six things in the two opening paragraphs that are eternal. It tells you: There is a higher law than man's law. There is the law of nature. Does it happen in nature?

And if it happens in nature, that's good. Then we know that's a natural right.

Now, does God come up above that and say because we're not an animal, we don't have a right to go kill other people for our food?

Yes. He says thousand shall not murder. He tells us what to eat. There's another law that usurps what happens in the animal kingdom.

And those two -- those two are your framework for all rights. It says, "All men are created equal and have rights." These rights come from the higher law. Nature and nature's God.

And the rights are not from any man. They're inalienable. So they come from God, which means no one can change them. Because I hate to break it to Al Gore: You can't change nature.

Rights are from the creator. Four, the government is only instituted -- what's its job? Well, it's got to build roads. It's got -- no, it doesn't. Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.

PAT: Oh, and -- and to make airports nicer.

GLENN: Yeah, no.

PAT: You want to make them really shiny. You want to have a mall.

GLENN: Governments, their main job -- their main job is to preserve the rights that you find in nature and nature's God.

Then the government gets all of its power. It has no rights. It has all of its power from the consent of the governed.

So who is the government serving? The people who are giving it power.

And it has to listen to the consent of the governed.

Well, I contend the Supreme Court isn't doing that. I contend the G.O.P. isn't doing that. The Democrats aren't doing that. Bush didn't do that. Obama is not doing that.

That when a government becomes -- let me get the exact words. When it becomes destructive to those ends -- which ends? To protect your right, which comes from God and nature. Then you have the right to abolish or change it.

But there's more. Everybody -- everybody who is made at the government stops there. We're going to abolish it. We're going to burn it down.

Okay. You have a right to do that. But you'll notice, there's not a period after that line in the Declaration of Independence.

To alter or abolish and -- key word -- and to institute a new government, laying its foundation and organizing powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to make them happy and secure in those rights.

Everybody now is for anarchy. Burn it down. No! You have a right to alter or abolish. But what are you going to replace it with?

And you only have the right to alter or abolish, if that government will hearken to the higher law. Nature's God and nature's laws. And that government is instituted to secure those rights, not to build more hospitals, more bridges. Not to ensure world peace or keep you safe from terrorists.

Now, progressives want you to believe that the Declaration of Independence is a worthless document. Then I contend, we are 229 years old and not 240, which everyone in the -- on the planet will tell you we're 240 years old.

Let me give you an example: The Declaration of Independence is the what we believe. What is it we believe?

Men got together. When you want to build a house, you generally meet with an architect. And the architect says, "What do you want it to be like? Be specific. I want to know, what do you want it to feel like? What do you want it to look like? How do you want to use the rooms? What do you want to see in the windows? Do you -- what do you want?"

And you start generally, "We want something cozy. We want something magnificent. We want something to bring the outdoors in. I want to stop seeing the dreary weather. I don't want to see my neighbor." Whatever it is.

But generally speaking, an architect wants to hear what you feel. What is the point of each room? What is the point of your house, and what should it say?

When you finish that and they finish the document, you engage him to do it, and you sign a contract. Everybody in the room signs a contract. This is what we want. We're going to build that.

Then you have to go get a builder. And the builder comes in. And you say, "See this? I want to build this." And he says, "Okay. Well, to build that, I'm going to need this amount of money. I'm going need to these things. We're going to have to do this. We might have to change your vision a little bit here or there."

All men are created equal -- you got some slavery going on here. We might have to change some things. But I understand your intent.

Are all people going to be equal? Are you telling me that all the kids can use any bedroom at any time?

Yes, the baby's room can't be a baby's room the whole time. The baby is going to grow up. So, yes. We said that that's the baby room, but it has to be a room that a teenager could be in too.

Okay. Just want to make sure. Because you said it was the baby's room.

Yes, but things will change.

Okay. Great.

And you all sign that document.

Now, if you've had a problem with a contractor, like everybody has, you might also do a third document that says, "Oh, by the way, I've been burned by some contractors before, and you will not do these things." I know you're the contractor, but you do not have the right to do these things to my house or my property or my money.

Now, you know who didn't sign something like that? The builder of the Guggenheim. The builder of Falling Waters. Frank Lloyd Wright. He didn't care what you wanted.

In fact, he -- he went so far as one of his houses, the woman said, "I collect art, and my art is really important. And I want art on all of the walls." It pissed him off so much, that she would dare tell him what to do, he made it impossible for her to hang any art on the wall of her home.

Instead, he built a special room with little easels and a stairway to a loft up above, where she could walk up the stairs and look down at the easels at her art. That is what you get from working with Frank Lloyd Wright. That's a guy that you would have a third Bill of Rights -- yeah, you can't do these things.

This is the Declaration of Independence. What do we want the house to feel like? The Constitution is how do you build that? And the third one is, you can't do these things. The Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights restricts the contractor so you don't end up Frank Lloyd Wright. If you take away, what do we want it to look like? That's the architect's renderings

PAT: And, again, that's exactly why the Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties. It tells the --

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: It tells the builder what he cannot do to the house.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: Because if you tell him the things he can do, anything that's not spelled out, he'll believe is his right.

GLENN: His right to do.

PAT: And he can go ahead and do it.

GLENN: Right. And so they say, we want to make it clear. It's in the first document that among these things -- put we just want to make that really clear.

PAT: These aren't the only things.

GLENN: We know that that's in the draft here. We know that the architect has put that in. So you can see the pretty picture and it's in the plans, but we want you to know: Those aren't the only things. There are also these things that you cannot do to the house.

And if you don't have the architectural drawings, the builder doesn't know what the hell he's even building.

That's the problem. The progressives, the first thing they did was get rid of the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't make any sense. What did Martin Luther King say? What stopped us? It wasn't the Constitution.

It was -- it's about time this country starts living up to its ideals, that all men are created equal.

Well, if the Declaration of Independence is worthless, then why should we give a flying crap about that?

Because we hold that truth to be self-evident, that's why. Because that's the house that we built. That's the image of who we are. The machinery with the Constitution may have gotten lost because the builder is no longer even using it as a reference point anymore.

And, in fact, the builder is saying, "By the way, I think those warnings that you said that I can't do those things, that third document -- I don't even think that third document, I can interpret that. And believe me. I've got nine other contractors over here, and they've looked at your -- your building plans. You can't build a house that way."

Well, wait a minute. I'm sorry. You get your power from the consent of me. So I guess your nine little men over there don't count over my vote. Because I got my family -- my 330 million people together, and they outweigh your nine freaking people, Mr. Contractor. So you're going to leave it there.

But we do what most people do when they're building a house: I knew that was wrong. I didn't want to say anything because I thought they knew better. And then you're living in a house you hate.

That is the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Restore that, and you won't have a problem with globalism. Because the house was never designed to be globalist!

Follow these three things, and we won't have a problem with poverty. Because it says we have the rights and the responsibilities to care for each other, not the government.

Follow those things, and we're going to be okay.

Featured Image: The Glenn Beck Program

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.