THE DOCUMENTS for 'Civil War: The Left's Revolution Playbook EXPOSED'

Photo by Warren Wong on Unsplash

Last week I told you about the growing trend this month, a narrative that the Left is building about how President Trump will lose the election in November and refuse to leave office.

Democrats have been delusional about Trump from day one, so I guess this narrative isn't really surprising.

But the repeated references to this really make you sit up and take notice. Is someone passing out talking points? Because this is remarkably coordinated messaging. And this messaging has a familiar ring to it when you remember the Color Revolutions that happened in Eastern Europe during the Obama administration.

WATCH: Civil War: The Left's Revolution Playbook EXPOSED

Color Revolution might as well be the name of the Left's insurance policy for the U.S. presidential election. They seem to be following the same playbook they used in countries like Ukraine — because they ARE using the EXACT same playbook. On previous episodes, I explored everything the Obama administration did in Ukraine, in coordination with George Soros, through Civil Society 2.0, the “tech camps," etcetera, so I'm not going to revisit those specifics tonight. But if you're not already a BlazeTV subscriber, please join us so you can refresh your memory by watching those episodes on demand. Your support helps us bring you the vital information that no one else is digging up.

The Left is done with regular U.S. presidential elections. 2016 ruined it for them. The coronation for the first female American president was all set, the decorations were ready, the catering was ordered. But when this outsider crashed their party, the Left vowed with remarkable unity — never again.

Now, through the Color Revolutions that the State Department instigated around the world, especially in Eastern Europe, there are American experts in this field of “mostly peaceful" regime change. These Americans are specialists who have developed a systematic approach to Color Revolution. And now, in their desperate hour, they seem to be using this playbook on their own nation.

The Left and the mainstream media have waged a four-year war to delegitimize President Trump with a singular focus on November 3, 2020. In the Left's collective mind, losing this election is an impossibility. But there's still the annoying wild card of American voters. That's where their Color Revolution playbook comes in. Make no mistake – the goal just under six weeks from now is to set the system right, with the ruling class elites back in charge. Democracy is convenient and all when the people obediently elect this ruling class. But when the people wreck the system and put someone like Trump in office? The people have to be put back in their place.

Last week I told you about one of these Color Revolution specialists, Michael McFaul. He was the U.S. Ambassador to Russia under Obama. McFaul wrote an academic paper in 2005 about the “Seven Pillars" a country needs to have in place for a successful Color Revolution. I showed you those Seven Pillars on the chalkboard last week and I'm going to return to the first four a little later. Remember, a “Color Revolution" is not an old-school, banana republic-type military coup. It's a strategy the U.S. has used for regime change in foreign nations with a few main components: questioning the legitimacy of an election; mass street protests and civil disobedience; and relying on Media for positive coverage and promotion.

A year after his paper on the Seven Pillars, Michael McFaul wrote a book titled – Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough. Who wrote the only endorsement featured on the book's back cover?

A guy you may have heard of with a vested interest in these kinds of revolutions: George Soros.

McFaul is just one of several Color Revolution specialists who were diplomats during the Obama Administration. One of the most influential of these specialists is the Obi Wan Kenobi to McFaul's Luke Skywalker, a guy named Norman Eisen. He is a longtime DC lawyer and former ambassador.

In 2003, Eisen co-founded a government watchdog organization called CREW — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Bookmark that one, because CREW will pop up again later.

When President Obama took office in 2009, he made Norman Eisen Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform, better known as the White House “Ethics Czar." I want you to pause for a moment to let it register that this guy was Obama's “Ethics Czar" — that's going to take on a lot of irony after you hear about all that he's currently involved with.

In 2011, Obama appointed Eisen Ambassador to the Czech Republic. So, like Michael McFaul and many other Color Revolution specialists in the State Department, Eisen honed his craft on the ground in Eastern Europe. This Color Revolutionary guard is a relatively close-knit group of people with strong connections to the Obama administration and the Left's top power players. And they all share the common goal of removing President Trump from office.

Norman Eisen actually wrote a 100-page report that is a playbook for the Color Revolution movement. He didn't even try to be subtle about it.

It's titled: “The Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding."

In this playbook, Eisen writes (p. 24):

Opposition leaders may also choose to pursue more extreme institutional measures available to them, such as IMPEACHMENT PROCESSES, votes of no confidence, and recall referenda. To raise the profile of their campaign against democratic erosion, opposition leaders can also utilize extra-institutional tools – engaging in or encouraging, for example, a protest, strike, or boycott, in conjunction with civil society.

Hmm, interesting. “Encouraging protests" sounds like precisely what Democrats have been doing for the past four months, refusing to condemn the violence in the process. It's also precisely what they're gearing up for after November third, broadcasting this idea that Trump will claim victory and refuse to leave office.

It's also no accident that Eisen's playbook mentions impeachment as a viable option.

If the name Norman Eisen rings a bell, you might remember him for another prominent role he played this year — Special Counsel for Adam Schiff's House impeachment committee.

Eisen literally wrote the book on impeachment in July, it's called: A Case for the American People: The United States v. Donald J. Trump.

The Left tried so hard to make it seem like Trump brought impeachment on himself.

But Eisen admits that he had already drafted ten articles of impeachment one month before Nancy Pelosi had even announced an official impeachment inquiry of Trump last year. In fact, as soon as Democrats retook the House in 2018, Jerry Nadler hired Eisen to get ready for impeachment. After all, impeachment is in Eisen's Color Revolution playbook.

Let that sink in for a moment — House Democrats hired one of the architects of Color Revolution to lead their impeachment effort. It was part of the plan from the very beginning. And I mean the VERY beginning.

The weekend of President Trump's inauguration in 2017, David Brock, head of Media Matters, put together a conference with over 100 liberal donors to map out how Democrats would “kick Donald Trump's ass." Media Matters, along with CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) produced another 50-page playbook for the conference. And remember who the co-founder and board chair of CREW is? Norman Eisen.

Here's a quote from page two:

Trump will be defeated either through impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020.

The memo says CREW will be responsible for filing lawsuits against President Trump:

Trump will be afflicted by a steady flow of damaging information, new revelations, and an inability to avoid conflicts issues.

They have certainly fulfilled that pledge. CREW has dozens of pending lawsuits against President Trump and his administration.

What does all this mean? It means that Norman Eisen who wrote one of the Color Revolution playbooks — which includes impeachment as a strategy for regime change — and who was also Special Counsel to the Democrats' House impeachment committee, was planning President Trump's removal BEFORE Trump was ever sworn in.

Well, the Mueller report failed them. Impeachment failed them. The full Color Revolution treatment is all they've got left or everything they've worked for the last four years is a waste. Their whole plan hinges on the November third election. But they've been laying the groundwork since 2017, and their “Seven Pillars" to pull off a successful Color Revolution seem to be in place

Next, I want to take a closer look at the first four of these pillars...

They were already establishing that Donald Trump's legitimate election put the nation "under siege."

So now I've told you about Norman Eisen, one of the key architects of Color Revolution strategy.

He even wrote a Color Revolution playbook that he actually called “The Democracy Playbook." I mentioned how before Trump was even sworn-in as President, Eisen collaborated with David Brock, head of Media Matters, on a written strategy to remove Trump. Right at the top of their 50-page action plan, they write:

The progressive infrastructure groups we've built together were started long before Hillary Clinton ran for president. They were always intended to be the first line of defense — and offense — when we are under siege.

Did you catch that? They were already establishing that Donald Trump's legitimate election put the nation “under siege." It's also disturbing that their “first line of defense and offense" is not voters, not better ideas — it's their AGENDA through the “progressive infrastructure groups" they've built.

Again, quoting from the first page of their action plan:

We have the mandate. Together, we won the popular vote and Democrats picked up seats in the Senate and the House. TRUMP IS THE LEAST POPULAR INCOMING PRESIDENT IN MODERN HISTORY AND THE OUTGOING PRESIDENT AND POPULAR VOTE WINNER ARE AGAIN THE MOST ADMIRED MAN AND WOMAN IN THE NATION. THE COUNTRY DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP-STYLE CHANGE.

That clearly ties-in to the second pillar on Michael McFaul's list of the seven factors that need to be in place to pull off a successful Color Revolution. Number two:

“An unpopular incumbent."

That messaging began the day after Trump's election.

On Inauguration Day, remember how much the media crowed about the supposedly small crowd on the Washington Mall?

Trump's alleged unpopularity has been the standard operating message for four years.

According to the Left and their Media friends, Trump has NEVER been popular.

And of course, when you own the entertainment industry, it's easy to perpetuate the message that Trump is unpopular. Since at least 2008, the Left has elevated Saturday Night Live's election influence to mythic proportions.

So, right out of the gate, SNL went outside its own cast to get Alec Baldwin to play Trump as a nasty moron. Or what about Showtime's new James Comey glorification project? Watch this and see if you can figure out who the villain is...

The Left and the Media have also made a big deal this year out of a group called The Lincoln Project. The narrative here is that President Trump is so unpopular and dangerous, that this group of Republicans organically got together and organized to campaign for Joe Biden instead.

In reality, the Lincoln Project has raised over $20 million from Leftist donors to campaign against not just Donald Trump, but Republican Senators who are up for re-election.

According to its FEC filings, the Lincoln Project hired the Katz Watson Group for “fundraising consulting."

Fran Katz Watson who owns that consulting firm is a longtime Democratic operative who used to be the national finance director for the DNC. Her firm's other clients include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The Lincoln Project has also paid consulting fees to a firm run by Adrienne Elrod — she was Spokesperson and director of strategic communications for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.

As if that's not proof enough that the Lincoln Project is just a Democratic opposition campaign in Republican clothing, its communications director is Keith Edwards who was formerly on Mike Bloomberg's presidential campaign staff. The Lincoln Project is the very definition of “Republican in Name Only."

Pillar two is clearly in place — if you hammer home the idea every day for four years that President Trump is wildly unpopular, it helps you create the perception that he could not possibly win a legitimate election. Which helps you develop the fourth pillar on the list:

“An ability to quickly drive home the point that voting results were falsified."

Recently, Democrats spent a couple weeks flooding the airwaves with the conspiracy theory that President Trump is going to sabotage the U.S. Postal Service with cutbacks and closing facilities so they can't deliver all the mail-in ballots on time.

Any time Trump has been critical of mail-in-voting, the Left immediately frames it as “voter suppression." It all seems to be part of their groundwork to deny any positive election result for the President.

Now, just in the past week, we're also seeing blame placed on “right-wing" media — including me — that we're working to delegitimize a Biden victory. It's all part of the narrative that Biden winning the election is a foregone conclusion, and that Trump disputing that result will be fake news.

And of course, social media will jump in and do its part for the cause with their Fact Checks. Because what's a good Color Revolution these days without the aid of social media?

Facebook, for example, is very proud of their third-party fact-checking program. They use fact-checkers that are certified by IFCN – the International Fact-Checking Network. Sounds very official, but what exactly is the IFCN? It's a project of the Poynter Institute. Founded in 1975, Poynter bills itself as:

The world's leading instructor, innovator, convener and resource for anyone who aspires to engage and inform citizens.

One of the major funders of Poynter, of course, is George Soros' Open Society. Poynter also owns PolitiFact. PolitiFact's two largest financial supporters are the E.W. Scripps Company and... Facebook. PolitiFact is also one of the IFCN's certified fact-checkers, which means in essence that the IFCN certifies itself as a legitimate fact-checker. Not sure how that's supposed to fly. But it doesn't matter because it's a Left-wing operation, which means it's automatically trustworthy.

Next time you see a “fact check" from PolitiFact, take it with a tiny grain of salt, since it is largely funded by Facebook.

So, how does election polling play into this narrative that Trump is unpopular and will somehow falsify the voting results? How accurate are these polls that the Media and political class rely so heavily on? In 2016, nearly every poll predicted an easy victory for Hillary Clinton, which made Donald Trump's shock win that much more devastating to Democrats and Mainstream Media. Four years later it seems like déjà vu, because the polls once again indicate virtually no chance that President Trump gets re-elected. What's going on here? Can anyone put any real stock in polls anymore?

The Left MUST make the case that Trump's presidency is at least a semi-autocratic situation.

We're going over the first part of Michael McFaul's “Seven Pillars" list of essential factors that need to be in place for a successful Color Revolution. The first item on the checklist is:

“A semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime."

Obviously the United States is not a fully autocratic regime, but the Left MUST make the case that Trump's presidency is at least a semi-autocratic situation. I'd say they've done a pretty good job staying on message.

They tried so hard pushing the Russian collusion hoax, which was supposed to make their case for them that Trump aspires to be just like Putin. Here is the author of the Color Revolution pillars himself, Michael McFaul, in a BBC radio interview LESS THAN A MONTH after Trump took office...

It's interesting that even now they still try to tie Trump to Russia — which is the one place where the State Department apparently could not get their Color Revolution done. That must be why Michael McFaul lasted just two years as U.S. ambassador to Russia.

Next, any autocratic president worth their salt will have some sort of thuggish force to help carry out their will. Enter Charlottesville.

The tiki-torch-carrying neo-nazis, and the armed white supremacists provided the Left with the perfect visuals they needed to paint this far-out fringe as Trump's wacko militia.

Now, anytime Antifa or BLM instigate some of their famous “mostly-peaceful" protests, we're told the real threat is from Trump's wacko right-wing militia.

The Left has tried building the case from day one that Trump is an aspiring dictator. But the Covid pandemic has exposed the inconsistency of their scheme.

Their constant attack against the President for six months is that he hasn't been autocratic ENOUGH in addressing the pandemic.

Why on earth, they wonder, won't the President declare a national mask mandate? I don't know, maybe because he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so? Isn't forcing every citizen to wear a mask EXACTLY what an autocratic ruler would do?

Trump has resisted the kind of heavy-handed responses to the pandemic that Democratic governors around the nation embraced without flinching.

Naturally, they get praised for it, while Trump is blamed for the deaths of 200,000 Americans. THAT is insane.

By the way, Joe Biden now says that if he's president, he'll have the authority to create a national mask mandate. Autocratic for me, but not for thee!

Speaking of that, Barack Obama's presidency proved that any degree of autocratic is not really a concern for the Left as long as it's THEIR guy in charge. It's so nonsensical.

  • Spying on the Associated Press and threatening reporters with jail on issues of identifying sources.
  • Using the IRS to target Tea Party members.
  • Attempting to force nuns to grant access to birth control.
  • Going around the Constitution's treaty provisions to make the disastrous Iran deal.

Who did all that? President Obama. And that's barely scratching the surface.

Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by simple decree than Barack Obama. By Executive Order, he decreed the U.S. joining the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan, and transgender restrooms. Through Obama's 276 Executive Orders, he instituted 560 major regulations — classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having “significant economic or social impacts."

Regardless what you think about President Trump's comments to the media, or his tweets, or any of his impulsive tendencies, those things are not what makes an autocratic ruler. Being autocratic is working to expand your power beyond the Constitutional limits. Obama clearly did that, A LOT. And Trump has not.

The end-result of the Color Revolutionaries trying to establish Trump as a scary authoritarian ruler is their conclusion that he will refuse to leave office when he loses the election. There is no actual proof that Trump would refuse to leave office. And even if he tried to refuse, they haven't really explained how he would pull off such a feat.

As for Pillar Number Three: “A united and organized opposition" — this is the Left's specialty.

They've been united and organized since before Day One of Trump's presidency. I've already mentioned the David Brock and Norman Eisen conference on Inauguration weekend that brought together 100 of the most powerful Leftist donors to map out a plan for removing Trump.

Then there is the Transition Integrity Project, headed by Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff John Podesta. Note how the “Transition" is basically assumed. A Biden win is their foregone conclusion. The TIP conference invited 100 current and former government officials, academics, and journalists to wargame various election outcome scenarios.

It was started by Rosa Brooks who is a Georgetown law professor. She served as special counsel to George Soros' Open Society Foundation where she is also on the Advisory Board. It's hilarious that every mention of the Transition Integrity Project in the media calls it “non-partisan." Look at this quote from a Washington Post article Rosa Brooks wrote weeks after the TIP war games:

A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis.

Sure, it doesn't get much more bi-partisan than that. Does that not sound like a veiled threat to vote for Joe or face street-violence?

The conclusions of the TIP report make it clear that any effort by Trump to stop the street violence using the National Guard, or to have Attorney General Barr investigate voter fraud will automatically be seen as election interference by Trump. Which would then just reinforce Pillar Number One that Trump is a power-mad autocratic monster.

Self-fulfilled prophecies are the darnedest things.

The Color Revolutionary guard is so united and organized, that one election war gaming conference wasn't enough. A coalition of 50 Left-wing organizations held a Zoom conference earlier this month called the “Democracy Defense Nerve Center." One participant told the Daily Beast that they strategized about practical matters, like how to "occupy s--t, hold space, and shut things down, not just on Election Day but for weeks."

Classy.

Participants in the Democracy Defense Nerve Center say such a large number of groups has never coordinated so closely before. Really — who could've possibly seen that coming?

Rahna Epting — executive director of MoveOn was in the conference and said:

It is very obvious that Trump is laying the groundwork for claiming victory no matter what... we will fight to protect it [our democracy] from what we truly see as a president who has gone off the rails and taking this country down an authoritarian fascist path.

I don't know what kind of Disney version of authoritarian fascist leaders these people have studied, because if they knew anything about ACTUAL fascist governments, they would know that their Lefty Election Fight Club Meetings, their books, and tweets, and hundreds of millions of dollars in fundraising WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED. They would all be canceled, thrown in prison, executed. That's what happens under normal dictatorships.

If Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist, then every one of these Color Revolutionary clowns should fall on their faces and THANK GOD ALMIGHTY that they would be so lucky to live under such oppression.


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.