You're Going to Like This Guy: Chris Herrod Looks Like a Good Replacement for Jason Chaffetz

July 25, 2017

WRITER

Chris Herrod, a congressional candidate vying to fill Jason Chaffetz’s seat in Utah, joined Glenn on radio Tuesday to share how he and his wife experienced socialism in Ukraine --- and to warn people never to let it come here.

Herrod, who is running against Provo Mayor John Curtis and businessman Tanner Ainge in the Republican primary, met his wife in Ukraine, and they both know that socialism hurts people instead of helping.

“All that system does is lower the care for everybody,” Herrod said, describing the “horrors” of a system that provided mediocre care without other options. “For me, it’s not theoretical.”

Republicans who are hesitating to repeal the Affordable Care Act need to realize the dangers of socialized medicine and remember the promises they made to Americans. In the 2016 election, GOP candidates up and down the ballot vowed to repeal Obamacare and stop health care costs from rising.

On a personal note, Glenn recounted a touching story about a chance meeting he had with Herrod's young son Dale at a rally in Provo, UT on the presidential campaign trail.

"That's amazing, you know, how life works. Because I just pulled him out of the crowd, and he was just a great, great kid. You could see it in him, he's an amazing kid," Glenn said.

Herrod has been endorsed by both Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

GLENN: Oh, you're going to like this guy. Chris is running for the vacated seat of representative Jason Chaffetz. Early voting begins today and continues until Election Day, which is August 15th. The winner of this GOP primary will face off against the Democrat on November 7th. I have very little trust in anybody going to Washington, but I want you to know this. He is one of the founders of the Patrick Henry caucus. His main mission is to restore the intent of the constitution. And here's my favorite. He spent extensive time in Europe and the Middle East. He taught at two universities in the Ukraine where his wife grew up. He has seen the evils of socialism firsthand and vows that it is not going to happen here.

Chris Herrod, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

Chris: Very good. Thank you for having me on. It's an honor.

GLENN: So tell me about your experience in Ukraine and how you can combat socialism when we're headed down that road fast.

Chris: Well, you know, it's one of those things. Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of Republicans that don't even understand that that system doesn't work. And, for me, it's not theoretical. I mean, my wife has a seven-inch scar that should have been a quarter inch scar. One of the times balk she had a pregnancy and just the horrors of walking into this room with nine women on dingy, gray sheets. And I have horror story after horror story about that system. So it does not work. It is not more compassionate. Everybody will say, well, what about these 22 million that aren't going to be covered?

Well, all that system does is lower the care for everybody. And so, again, for me, it's not theoretical. That's one of the things about my experience in life is I was there when the Soviet Union collapsed and Communism and socialism robbing the individual of full potential. It weakens the family and eventually morally bankrupt.

GLENN: So your wife is over from the Ukraine. Was she a Soviet Union transplant family in the '40s, '50s, '60s? Or is she really Ukrainian?

Chris: Well, no, actually, I finished in 1992, I finished my masters at BYU and didn't want to go to corporate America, so I found a teaching job and stepped off the plane and there was a beautiful woman holding up a sign with my name on it, a sign for the university, and I married her four months later. So --

GLENN: But is she really Ukrainian, or is she a former Soviet Union family? Do you know?

Chris: Her family -- her father is left over from when Genghis Khan came across and then her mother is Ukrainian.

GLENN: Okay. So she must have strong feelings on what is happening in Ukraine, as do you.

Where do you stand on Russia and Putin? Friend or foe?

Chris: Well, actually, my in-laws had their windows blown out two years ago from a bomb. So we're no fans of Putin and the leasts of it. Ronald Reagan said best. The only thing the Soviets understand is brute force, so you have to stand up to them. But you do have to realize that some of the stuff, as long as we're talking about collusion. We're not really talking about Russia has invaded Ukraine. We're not talking about health care or tax reform. So Putin is a chess player. And he outplayed the Obama administration, and he's outplaying the press and the Democrats, some Republicans right now as well. We need to talk about the real issues.

GLENN: Good for you. So let's talk about ObamaCare. It is -- it looks like they're going for the simple repeal, the clean repeal they proposed in 2015. Is that a fix for you? Would you be okay with a simple repair like that? What has to be done?

Chris: Well, you know, I think the confidence in congress has been lost. And 61 times -- over 60 times repeal when it doesn't matter. I'm not for -- get people on record. If they voted for it before now, and then we can start and look at things that we can do to bring the free market back into the system. But, again, that system does not work. Socialized medicine just pushes everybody, the quality down. So, for me, you know, let's have some conversations. But I'm a big believer. You know, I served six years in the Utah legislature. States handle those issues much better than the Federal Government. So, you know, let us have high risk pools here in the state. And, you know, just block grant that money to the states and let the states stick to that problem as well.

GLENN: Ted Cruz and Rand Paul endorsed you. Has Mike Lee endorsed you yet?

Chris: Well, Mike has a strict policy of not endorsing in the primary. But Mike's been very helpful to me.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. That weasel. He asked me for my endorsement. Oh, my gosh.

Chris: Don't be too hard on Mike.

GLENN: I won't.

Chris: But senator Cruz will be here on Saturday for a rally for me, so he's been really great. I met you at the Ted Cruz rally here in Provo.

GLENN: I think I met your son Dale; right? He was the kid that just pulled up out of the crowd, unbeknownst to you or me or him; right?

Chris: Yeah, that was -- that's kind of the highlight of his life so far and his political career. So thank you very much for that.

GLENN: That's amazing, you know, how life works. Because I just pulled him out of the crowd, and he was just a great, great kid. You could see it in him. He's an amazing kid.

Chris: Well, you know, I -- because we're fighting for them, I've tried to involve, you know, my kids in the process to let them know what we're fighting for. And I do. This isn't cliché. I truly fear what they're going to face between the debt and our younger generation isn't being taught how great this country was and the founding principles that made it great. And they're taught to hate this country and then hate -- they think that the new socialism is not that bad. But it's never worked anywhere else in the world and, unfortunately, people don't seem willing to call it out saying that it's not compassionate.

GLENN: Chris, can I speak real Frank to you for just a second and just get your response. I have good friends who have gone to Washington. I have some who succeeded and some who have failed miserably. Some who have failed miserably is because they had a moment of weakness or they had something to hide. Or they just really for a second just thought you know what? If I help them, then they'll help me. I have not met a person that has gone to Washington and left a better man. Are you prepared for what is coming your way much faster than what is coming your children's way in society.

Chris: You know, I mean, it's one of those things here. I've taken a difficult stance. I mean, here in Utah, you know, I wrote a book called the forgotten immigrant and how tolerated illegal immigration hurts immigrants. I was attacked, called all sorts of names, I even had my faith questioned. And so I -- it hasn't been easy for me to get to this point. But I am very firm in the positions. And it's one of those things I want to go back and make a difference. And if I don't last long, that's okay. Too. I think that's one of the things that helps you being willing if you're not -- I know my core principles. I know what's true. And like I said, it's not -- I don't need to be there for decades or anything like that. And so I believe -- it's always harder than what it is. But I have endured serious criticism and the establishment's coming after me now. And so, you know, it hasn't been an easy ten years, you know, here in Utah for my political career. So I -- you know, I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade, and that sometimes gets you in trouble, as you well know.

GLENN: And your soul is intact.

Chris: Yes, it is. It still is.

PAT: Chris, at one point, there were 22 people. Is it still that crowded of a field? Like, 15 Republicans or something.

Chris: Yeah, well, I won the convention route, so I took on ten other people, so I'm one of the 11 there. Two other people gathered signatures. We have, you know, people are trying to get rid of the caucus convention system. We call it weighted vote. So I just have the two Republicans now, and then I have one Democrat. And I think there's a Libertarian party and American new party or a couple other minor parties like that.

But so for the most part, I've kind of got through the heavy lifting and this is kind of the big name, you know, the chamber is back. One of the other candidates. But this is the primary. So I've already kind of gone through the caucus convention system, which that's where they truly vet you, and you can't get away with sound byte answers.

GLENN: And that's actually the -- I think it was Orrin Hatch who tried to change that recently.

Chris: Well, the Romneys have basically -- when Mike Lee got elected, I was heavily involved in helping get Mike Lee, and they did not like that.

PAT: No, they don't.

Chris: And, you know, what's the worst thing that we got after Bennett? It was Mike Lee. Republicans won one, conservatives won one, and it's a few money brokers who are going to choose.

GLENN: Is there somebody else in hit of. Not Jesus. Is there somebody in history that you look to and say I would like to be remembered as. I would like to try to pattern myself after him.

Chris: Well, obviously, you look at George Washington. For me, that experience he could have been king, and he resisted that. There's a number of people. You look at, for me, Poland who paid a high price for, you know, freedom. I sponsor and professor when I was in the former Soviet Union, she at the age of 21, she spoke English very well. And the KGB asked her to sleep with foreigners, and she refused. And her -- she was personned for a year. Her husband lost both parents. I am surrounded by a lot of people who paid a high price for freedom. So, for me, the sacrifice of being called names, you know, it is tough. My wife is just wonderful. She has been very supportive of me. I served in office. But, you know, they paid the great prices. Being attacked is a relatively minor sacrifice compared to what many of my friends have sacrificed around the world.

GLENN: Chris, I wish I could tell you that I thought that being called names would be the worst that you and your family would face, but we are in perilous times, unless more people like you get in. Hold to principles and never let go. Chris Harrod is his name. Early voting begins in Utah today. It continues until Election Day, which is August 15th. The winner of the primary will face off against the Democrat on November 7th, and we wish you the best of luck, Chris.

Chris: Well, we have a website Harris for congress.com. I love donations or additional support. But thank you very much. And, Glenn, thank you very much for what you have done. I know you paid a high price. I really appreciate the perspective you've given on Islam. I would love to have some time a further conversation of that. But thank you for everything that you have done.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Chris. I appreciate it. Bye-bye. Chris Herrod. If you're in Utah, please consider him to replace Jason Chaffetz. He has been endorsed by Ted Cruz and . . .

PAT: Rand Paul.

GLENN: Rand Paul. And, you know, working behind the scenes is Mike Lee.

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.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

You're Going to Like This Guy: Chris Herrod Looks Like a Good Replacement for Jason Chaffetz

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Peace through strength

Names matter

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity