What’s Happening in Brazil is EXACTLY What’s Coming to America

April 09, 2024

WRITER

Elon Musk is challenging a Brazilian judge who is trying to clamp down on free speech. The judge has demanded that X take down alleged “far right” accounts or face severe punishments in the country … sound familiar? In its attempt to "prevent" a right-wing “dictatorship,” Brazil’s leftist government has created a fascist dictatorship of its own. And allegedly, the United States played a big role. Glenn breaks down the story and warns that what’s happening in Brazil is exactly what’s coming to America: “If we don’t get out and vote, this is our future in America.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Pat, are you following what's going on in Brazil?

PAT: Not terribly closely.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So I haven't either.

And I just started paying attention to it, over the weekend.

Because of Michael Shellenberger.

He did a video that was just incredible.

And very disturbing.

He's talking about the -- you know, the same kind of corruption, that is happening in our government.

Down in Brazil. Where they are stifling the media. But it's much, much worse than that.

Let me give you a couple of things that we have found during our -- during our research.

Listen to this.

This is from the New York Times.

He's Brazil's defender of democracy.

Is he actually good for democracy?

Alexandre De Moraes. A Brazilian Supreme Court justice. Was crucial to Brazil's transfer of power.

But his aggressive tactics are prompting debate. Can one go too far to fight the far right?

Think of that question.

How unbelievable that question is. Of course. And why is it just the right?

When Brazil's highway police began holding up buses full of voters on Election Day, he ordered them to stop.

When right-wing voices spread the baseless claim that Brazil's election is stolen. He ordered them banned from social media. When thousands of right-wing protesters stormed Brazil's halls of power this month, he ordered the officials who had been responsible for securing the buildings, arrested.

Alexandre De Moraes, a Brazilian Supreme Court justice has taken up the mantle of Brazil's lead defender of democracy.

Using a broad interpretation of the court's powers, he has pushed to investigate, prosecute, and as well, silence those on social media. Anyone he deems a menace to Brazil's institutions.

As a result, in the face of antidemocratic attacks from Brazil's former far right president, Bolsonaro and his supporters, Mr. De Moraes cleared the way for the transfer of power.

Many on Brazil's left that made him the man who saved Brazil's young democracy, yet many others in Brazil say he's threatening it. He kind of has a -- hmm. Heavy hand. These are some of the things, according to the New York Times he has done. He has jailed people without trial, for posting threats on social media. He helped sentence a sitting Congressman to nearly nine years in prison for threatening the court.

He has ordered raids on businessmen, with little evidence of wrongdoing. He has suspended an elected governor from his job. He has unilaterally blocked dozens of accounts and thousands of posts on social media, with virtually no transparency and no room for appeal.

In the hunt for justice after the riot, he became further emboldened. His orders to ban prominent voices online, have proliferated. And now he has the man accused of fanning Brazil's extremist flames. Mr. Bolsonaro in his crosshairs.

Last week -- now, remember this is an old New York Times from about two years ago.

De Moraes, included Bolsonaro in a federal investigation of the riot, which she is overseeing, suggesting the former president inspired the violence.

Sound familiar? His moves fit into a broader trend of Brazil's Supreme Court, increasing its power and taking what critics have called a more repressive turn in the process.

So he is -- he is taking extra constitutional powers. Over the weekend, he said, if you don't give me your data, Facebook, Google, and X, on all of the people that are posting. If you don't give that to me, you're banned from being in Brazil.

A judge. So everybody did, except for Elon Musk. Elon Musk said, the guy is a fascist.

Michael Shellenberger is down saying, Brazil is becoming a fascistic dictatorship with this guy in charge.

Now, if you remember, the left was saying Bolsonaro was a dictator. And so now, to prevent the dictator, they have become dictators.

The exact scenario, that we were worried about here, in America. But nobody seems -- nobody really seems to care.

So there's a guy named Mike Benz, who I'll follow and watch from time to time, he had a really good look at this.

He was down, looking at censorship in Brazil. And he said, I found the United States, all over it.

He said, the United States department funded NGOs. And not just State Department funded NGOs. But National Endowment for Democracy is also down there. He said, you had USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, funding a bunch of domestic censorship groups in Brazil. And he says, it goes back to the beginning of Bolsonaro's reign as president down there in 2019. So the same thing that was happening here with Donald Trump, the United States through NGOs took your tax dollars and started fighting against Bolsonaro.

In June 2019, the Atlantic Council convened a meeting about what to do about the rise of disinformation in Brazil. That was pro-Bolsonaro in nature. What a surprise.

The Atlantic Council panel called election watch in June 2019. Bemoaned the fact that in Brazil, people were paying attention to their own friends, family, and clergy, than they were institutions. Global institutions such as the Atlantic Council, which is a CIA pass through. It has seven CIA directors on its board.

It's annually funded every year by the Pentagon for the State Department. And the National Endowment for Democracy. Which is also a CIA cutout.

In addition to that, a bunch of these university centers in Brazil and civil society groups, get National Endowment for Democracy funding.

So this is the CIA and the State Department, and USA ID, directly funding, in June 29, the censorship apparatus, in Brazil, against Bolsonaro.

In 2019, social media was already censored in Brazil, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were hit hard bit censors. The same way it did in the United States.

So the Bolsonaro supporters switched to WhatsApp and Telegram to spread their messaging, because they were basically kicked off of Facebook.

Does any of this sound familiar?

This is why one of the biggest audiences for Gab, one of the first free speech alternative platform attempts, was the Brazilian population in 18 and 2019, because they were hit with that first leg of the censorship board.

So what the Atlantic Council and a bunch of these other national endowment for democracy-funded CIA proxies did, is they then targeted WhatsApp and Telegram.

And then promoted these activities, these proxies within Brazil, to put pressure on the Brazilian government to take out WhatsApp and Telegram.

So WhatsApp and Telegram then censored populous supporters. Right-wing populous nationalists. Bolsonaro supporters.

This -- this -- this is the United States government.

He goes on to say, let me ask you something. When has an ally ever threatened major corporations?

American corporations, and said, you will give me this stuff. Or you will be chased out of the country.

Since when doesn't our State Department go down and say, excuse me. Really good friend of Brazil.

We've been there for you, forever. We're helping pay for stuff in your country.

You do not hurt American corporations. You don't tell them, what they can and can't do. When it's in violation of your own doctrines.

PAT: Except that sadly, our American government is behind it.

GLENN: Is behind it.

PAT: Yeah. They're pushing it.

GLENN: It's behind it.

PAT: Yep. Because they're doing the same thing here.

GLENN: Exactly right.

PAT: They can't -- they can't win on the battlefield of ideas. So they have to shut down the battlefield.

GLENN: Correct. And I want you to know, what's happening today in Brazil. The Supreme Court, which was messed with. The Supreme Court now has ultimate power, to do everything. There's no checks or balance there, on the Supreme Court.

So the Supreme Court takes over and says, just, we're going to put people in jail without trial. You don't have a right to speak out. We can tell companies exactly what to do.

And in their hunt for dictators, they have become a dictatorship. That's really important for everyone in America, to understand.

Democracy dies in the darkness. Yet, shut everything down, and keep it real dark.

What's happening in Brazil, is what's coming here if we don't get out and vote.

This is our future, in America.

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.