Burgess Owens: John Lewis Stopped Being a Leader Long Ago

Sixty years ago, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) was a courageous leader in America's Civil Rights Movement. Today, he silently sits by while policies pass that hurt the black community. For example, during Obama's first year in office, school choice ended for many African-American children and nearly 16,000 were taken out of great schools and put back into America's failing public school system. John Lewis said nothing.

Former NFL great Burgess Owens, author of Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday and didn't hold back when the subject of Lewis came up.

"We need to be honest about this, and we can't charge somebody with being a racist, an Uncle Tom, because we're telling the truth. So, yes, he did great things 60 years ago. Sixty years later is when we need him, and he is not available. He has not been for a long time. As a matter of fact, he's done everything he can to hurt our race: More abortion, less education, less jobs," Owens said.

Is it time for Lewis to retire?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. And welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. As we enter the final days of Barack Obama, let's take a few minutes and look back. And we wanted to do so with Burgess Owens, an NFL great, friend of the program. Author of the book, Liberalism: How to Turn Good Men Into Whiners, Weenies, and Wimps.

And, Burgess, we wanted to take a look at Barack Obama and ask this question: Did he miss the biggest opportunity this nation has ever seen when it comes to healing the divide?

BURGESS: Good morning, Glenn. I'm looking forward to chatting with you about this topic. And the answer to that is absolutely.

Let me just start off by saying that one of the things that I was very fortunate to do was grow up in an era where we really had strong visionary, good, confident people moving forward. And if anybody out there wants to see what I talked about in my book, look at the movie Hidden Figures. You see a community that Americans would love to be a part of.

What has happened in the last eight years is that the black community, those who believe and trusted and gave all their hope to his man, has done so much worse than they have since in my memory.

One thing we've always had, even when things were tough, is we had hope. We worked hard, and we could educate ourselves. We can believe in the American Dream. We can work hard enough to overcome all obstacles.

And Hidden Figures, that movie shows you what happens when people believe that. We have now a community who is more hopeless, more miserable, more angry, and less educated and really believe that they have led to the man, just because of his color, that he is going to take care of them.

So we have a lot of making up to do now.

GLENN: Burgess, does the -- and I know, you know, the black community, you know, it can't be lumped together as much as the white community can't be. Any community can't be. It's not monolithic. However, in its vote, it is pretty monolithic.

Does the black community believe what you just said?

BURGESS: Well, what's happening -- and you hit it on the head. We're very monolithic. The great thing, the president -- with President Obama is that we're beginning to think now as a group, as a race, we're beginning to peel ourselves away and wonder about results now.

You have liberals and Democrats like Jim Brown, who I have a lot of respect for, Steve Harvey, I have a lot of respect for, because they're putting their race above their ideology.

When you have Americans beginning to do that and looking at Americans first, Martin Luther King III made a very strong point the other day: How in this nation can we have between 40 to 50 million people in poverty is -- is ridiculous.

We're now beginning to think and ask those questions. Why? And that's the one thing Obama has done for us, is put us in such -- he's failed in so many different ways, that we're beginning to wonder if his ideology is truly the best for us, and that's a great place for us to be.

GLENN: So are we worse off today, or better off?

BURGESS: All right. That's a good question. We're worse off in terms of statistics. We're better off in terms of the future. We're better off because we're finally asking those questions, and we're finally beginning to talk like we hadn't talked in a while, opening ourselves up. And we're having a dialogue about people, with people like John Lewis. John Lewis is a good example. When I talk about my book, the royalty of black class, he is the type of individual that has been the worst for our race, because he lives in the past. He lives in what he did 60 years ago. And then, meanwhile, 60 years later, people are living in misery. And he sits there and allows it to happen with total silence because of his allegiance to an ideology of socialist versus his race.

So we're -- in a way, our future is brighter, because we have these kind of dialogues. And we're have black men and women standing up finally and speaking against the group think. And we're having white Americans beginning to stop apologizing for themselves. And I think that's a good place for us to be.

PAT: Burgess, if anybody says that -- if a white person says what you just said about John Lewis, oh, my gosh. Oh, the humanity. What a racist. You know.

GLENN: What's amazing about John Lewis is this weekend, the two sides were so split, he was either a God or he did nothing, ever, in his life.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I mean, I heard -- I read so many posts and tweets that said, "John Lewis is a nobody and never really played a role in the civil rights movement." I don't think that's true at all.

Why do we have to destroy everything?

BURGESS: Well, what we have to do is we have to be honest about this process. And let me just use an analogy, guys. Since I played NFL, I can use this and be very confident with it. I played with two great quarterbacks in my career, Joe Namath, last three years with him, and Jim Plunkett. Both the most valuable players in the Super Bowl that they played in. Great athletes.

But guess what great athletes do? Leon Poker (phonetic), what he did is a great CEO. When you get to the point that you can't perform anymore, that you're no longer of value, you retire.

Now, what's happened with John Lewis is he should have retired a long time ago because he's not been doing the things for the black community. He sits over a community that's been going downhill fast and being very quiet.

I look at something like -- for example, there's 2,000 black kids, with the very first year that Barack Obama came to office that were taken out of great schools and put back into the failing schools because they decided to get rid of choice. That's 16,000 black kids impacted. John Lewis said nothing.

So, yes, 60 years ago, he did a great thing. He was very courageous. But leaders either maintain their courageous acts, or they stop being leaders. He has stopped being a leader for a long time. We need to be honest about this. And we can't charge somebody being a racist, an Uncle Tom, because we're telling the truth. So, yes, he did great things 60 years ago. Sixty years later is when we need him, and he is not available. He has not been for a long time. As a matter of fact, he's done everything he can to hurt our race: More abortion, less education, less jobs.

You go to Libya (phonetic), what socialists do to black people, and he's been at the very head of that, as he continues to get elected and lives like a king.

So I don't have a lot of respect for what John Lewis has done today. He did a great thing 60 years ago. When I was in the seventh grade, I was also demonstrating, along with thousands of other Americans all over the country. A lot of us demonstrated. A lot of people got bloodied. But we moved on with life and tried to make an impact and help our race in the future

GLENN: Burgess, you said in some ways, statistically, we're not better off. You were talking about the black community. Let's talk about the community at large.

Tensions are at I think record highs since the 1960s. I've never seen it like this. We do have a great opportunity, but this window will close.

How -- how do we -- if -- if the Democrats decide to sharpen the knives and go after this president and -- and have no self-reflection and the Republicans take this win without any self-reflection and they just sharpen their knives, we're not going to come together.

Do you see hope for us on the horizon coming together? Are there enough people saying, "I'm tired of this game?"

BURGESS: Well, yes, I do. I think the key to this is -- first of all, the Democrats will sharpen their knives. That's what they do. That's part of their nature.

Now, it's going to be up to the Republican -- the conservative branch of the Republican Party to very simply keep their word.

One thing that I'll say -- and when you have people who I respect, Jim Brown, Steve Harvey. Again, totally different ideology. But they're sitting down with Donald Trump and talking about how to work with the inner city. At the end of the day, it's all about people. If we allow and focus as a middle class country, that most -- that so many of us are and use the empathy that's always been part of the middle class, we're going to start focusing on our kids in the middle -- in inner city -- and poor kids around the country, to become educated.

Education is the strongest tool to keep a country free. You're going to have kids and young people getting jobs. Having a job and understanding the work ethic and the pride that comes from that is one of the greatest things to keep a country free.

We're going to start putting the value of life -- once again, having a debate about Planned Parenthood. What they are and where they came from. So educate people. So, yes, we have a tremendous opportunity. And I personally believe that American people will step to the plate once again. We voted for -- we voted against Hillary for a reason. We voted for our future and self-empowerment for a reason. And I believe we're going to step to the plate and demand that these guys keep their word and the poorest of us and those that are the most vulnerable will be taken care of and we're going to feel good about ourselves and move forward with that.

Democrats will never have that power over us again.

GLENN: What is your sense of Donald Trump? What are you hoping for, and what are you expecting over the next four years?

BURGESS: It's been a very pleasant surprise. I was not a Donald Trump fan, initially. But I will tell you, that morning, November 9th, I did wake up more hopeful than I had been in a long time because at least we have a chance. I believe at that point that Heavenly Father hasn't given up on us. They give us a little more time for us to get ourselves together.

And the people that he's surrounding himself with right now, I'm very, very excited about. So the most important thing -- and, you know, I grew up -- my great hero was Ronald Reagan. He was the first conservative that really got my attention, that I really understood. He was a great articulator. He was a -- he had a way of getting around the media.

It is scary at times to see Donald tweet, but I'll tell you what he's doing, he's getting around the liberal media like no one else has ever done before. And it's actually what had to happen for us to be able to connect. And for those to get away from the messaging that's been done in the last decade, we need to find a way for us to get some truth. And hopefully we can get that. So I'm hopeful in the short -- long answer to a short question, I'm very hopeful for what will happen in the next four years.

GLENN: Burgess Owens. Author of the book Liberalism. Or How to Turn Good Men Into Whiners, Weenies, and Wimps. This is an extraordinarily brave book and a look into the things that need to be said in America to all races. Burgess, it's always good to have you on.

BURGESS: Can I say this real quick?

It's all about team. All about team. Look right now, Glenn, we take what we have -- the talents we have, and together, message, debate, think through, and just make sure that we get the very best out of the whole process. We don't have to all agree. We just have to, first of all, believe our country, love our country, and try to do our best as individuals. We'll make this thing happen.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Burgess, appreciate it.

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.