Glenn responds to an internet troll with total class

Glenn just gave us all a lesson on how to deal with internet trolls with finesse, grace, and class.

Earlier this week, Glenn posted a video on Instagram of his daughter producing her first musical album, complete in a studio with a full orchestra. Most of the comments were encouraging, but in an age where once can hide behind digital screens, unseemly and derogatory comments are to be expected. One in particular caught Glenn's eye.

An Instagram user named Jessica commented: "It pays to have a parent who can publish her music. #privilaged #chosen lol. Not everyone is so lucky!" She went on to make other derogatory comments.

Social media gives people anonymity that often fuels hateful dialogue, and it can be tempting to return hate with hate. But instead, Glenn's direct response to Jessica shows how we can respond to those who accuse us with firmness and truth yet also with understanding and grace. Here is Glenn's letter to his internet troll:

Jessica,

I saw your page and it seems like you work out and are in great shape.

I have two daughters with epilepsy and one with CP who finds it difficult to keep their shape like you can. What a joy for you and indeed a privilege.

One of my daughters has difficulty even opening her hand, and could not lift weights nor work out as you do.

Now, I could talk with you about privilege and how you won in the gene lottery, but I WILL NOT as it is not my place to judge as I do not know the first thing about you. But, I will share also that I am blessed and privileged to witness and learn from both of my daughters who each live their life to their fullest and push past things I am not sure I could.

Chey even pushes herself to perform even though she has dyslexia as well which makes reading -- let alone memorizing lines very difficult.

They are both happy and we love them and are very proud of them. My eldest daughter with CP, holds a meaningful job and is privileged to live in such times where Uber makes her life so much easier.

I wish I could get to know you and the things that you may struggle with. When I get to know someone and ask about their lives, it always seems to amaze me how much we have in common.

I came from a hard working blue collar family, one that suffered from generations of abuse. I don’t know what it is like to grow up in a happy, non abusive, non alcoholic family. Maybe you do, or sadly, perhaps this is where our lives begin to show the same struggles.

In response to the years of damage inflicted on my family especially my sisters, I have worked hard my whole life to break that generational cycle.

It is evil and every man or woman that treats a child or spouse unrighteously will be held accountable. I know that doesn’t help those still suffering, but when abusers die, it is, somewhat, a privilege to know and believe in an Eternally Just God.

Because my father did try not to be his father, without realizing it, he became his mother, My paternal grandmother as he then married an abuser. He told me once that it was my responsibility to "not be like him," to learn a new way to live. I did, and I am happy to report that my children, wife and I are living what so many would call a privilege. A life without abuse.

It is indeed a privilege that not enough families share.

My father was poor when he died, and while we didn’t seem to know it at the time, he was poor his whole life. We didn’t notice, because we never focused on what we didn’t have or covet the life of others. Although, it was difficult to not want some of my friends parents to be my own.

When I left home, I helped for decades to support him and my step mother with whatever I could.

The only thing of value my father left to me, was an idea that IF I SET MY MIND TO IT, I could and SHOULD be a BETTER MAN than he was. Not richer or more successful but a better man.

Both of my parents and maternal grandparents also taught me from birth that it was a privilege to be born and live in America. That here, if you worked hard and for no reason many times other than luck, being at the right place at the right time, you can succeed in however you define that. You may not build an empire like Vanderbilt did, but just because you are poor, disadvantaged or even someone born with CP, you didn’t have to define yourself as such. You could define your own life. That the secret was not in the success, it was in the "pursuit of your happiness."

You may find this "happiness" as you pursue your body building. I would not, but maybe you do. Because you chose to focus on that, you are successful -- and YOU DID THAT (well PERHAPS with a little bit of luck with the gene pool).

I am sure you work hard for a living as well. Perhaps this is another place we can find commonality. I have worked for a paycheck since I was 8. My father paid me about 75 cents per hour to sweep and scrape the floors and wash the pots and pans at the bakery. (It was expected of all of us in the family to help and work). Not in an abusive way, rather as a family. Even as screwed up as we were. We did find moments, while working, where we could laugh and act like a normal family.

At thirteen, just before my mother’s suicide, (I hope we do not connect here -- I have now experienced three suicides in my family, and in my 20s a friend saved me from repeating my mother's last and biggest mistake), but again, at 13, I began to work in my now full-time profession.

There was no one more surprised than I when 4 years ago I was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame. We joke about it on-air all the time as frankly, I am surprised at times that people actually listen to my show. While I had earned that award, I guess, there were many more broadcasters that were, in my opinion, more deserving (H/T to John and Ken). It indeed was my privilege to accept that award the year of covid. I was bummed that in 2020 there was no grand induction dinner with those in my profession that so many others for many decades had the privilege to enjoy. But, the honor of being voted in by my peers was more of a privilege than anything else.

As it comes to the time I'm spending with my daughter working on her album....

YOU ARE RIGHT!

I am so glad that you took the time to remind her that she indeed is privileged to do things that not many have done, and to do it with a father that doesn’t abuse, her, instead loves her and as we spoke of just last night, we like each other a lot.

As she is now 18, I have given her this opportunity to select her own music, work with some of the people I have had the privilege to be around and learn from my whole life, to help her record and produce her own album.

Yes, “what a privilege.” And don’t think I haven’t thought about that almost every day of my children’s lives.

In today’s world, let alone America, to have a job -- especially one you enjoy and don’t have to have several others just to able to afford the basics -- is a real blessing and, as you would say, “a privilege.” Due to reckless policies, frankly from both sides of the political spectrum, inflation is getting worse and worse. Do the "privileged" experts that run things like the FED understand how darn near impossible it is for the average family to even afford food?

It is why my wife and I have started and fund many charities, most years we tithe/and give at or above 20% of what I earn to those who need a helping hand. What a joy and privilege. I don’t know, nor care about the motives of others, but we do it, because we remember how hard it was for our parents .

It is funny how "privilege" works. Those who receive some of the blessings that Tania and I as well as thousands of others like you freely give, may feel privileged over those who did not receive, while we feel privileged to help them.

The truth is that actually we are ALL simply blessed to live at this time, with the families and circumstances we are born with. And when we realize how much we each have, not comparing with others, we find ourselves so much happier. I know, as I lost my "fame" and fortune once already due to my alcoholism. I feel privileged just to able to help one another in what ever form that may take. Perhaps someone is reading our conversation and finding benefits in doing so.

Finally, about my daughter's album, one of the goals of this (ad)venture, is to help her learn how to start a business, be responsible with the privilege of earning money, therefore she will take every dollar that it earns to first pay all of the bills from making this album and give the next 10% to those who are truly underprivileged.

Tania and I feel that is an important part of life: Give to others first. And RECOGNIZE that no one gets a free ride, (yes, even my privileged children) but, some do ride with a softer suspension and she indeed is one of those.

Thank you so much again for your reminder, even though she has heard that from me and her mom her whole life, it helps to hear it from another source.

I am so glad you wrote as I just don't think it is a coincidence that just yesterday before we posted those videos, I sat quietly in the recording studio thinking, “how fortunate I am to be to born to parents that weren’t privileged to something like this for me, and here I am in a recording studio, in Prague nonetheless, with my daughter. What a blessing for us both.”

But, in both good and very bad ways, my parents gave me perhaps a greater gift: to break the cycle of abuse and poverty AND build in me the desire to be a better man and father.

I wish you the best on your ventures and all the exciting privileges that you will find around every corner.

We indeed are ALL blessed to make our own choices.

Wow, think of how many billions in countries like China don’t have OUR privilege. Perhaps we should pay more attention to that!!!! Your comment has just been such a blessing.

Glenn

View the full post here.

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.