Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi are idiots

February 11, 2013
Wilson

Writer

This is merely further confirmation of an already well known fact, but we here at the Glenn Beck Program feel it’s important to immortalize the unending insanity and stupidity of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Check out the latest evidence which strongly suggests Reid and Pelosi are very, very dumb human beings. Find out what they did in the clip above from radio.

Transcript of segment is below:

GLENN: Harry Reid has lied now about cutting $2.6 trillion from the budget. Here he is.

REID: The American people need to understand that it's not as if we've done nothing for the debt. $2.6 trillion, $2.6 trillion already we've made in cuts.

PAT: No.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Unfortunately that's so far from being true. It's ‑‑

GLENN: Well, let's go to ‑‑ let's go to the really conservative, I think it's really conservative factcheck.org, really conservative.

PAT: Oh, ultra, ultra rightwing conservative.

GLENN: Right. Right.

PAT: Who calls it a lie.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It almost ‑‑ they say it almost all came from tax increases.

GLENN: By the way ‑‑

PAT: Not spending cuts.

GLENN: ‑‑ factcheck.org is not a conservative organization.

PAT: No. We're being just a tad facetious on that.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: Just a tad.

GLENN: When I say I think it's perfectly rational and right that Stu, who has a baby on Saturday, his wife has a baby on Saturday is not only off today but has taken the entire week off to recover.

PAT: That's facetious?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Really? I wasn't catching any of that earlier today.

GLENN: Really? Okay.

PAT: Huh. That's really weird.

GLENN: So anyway, most of these things that he's talking about, 2.6 trillion comes from tax increases.

PAT: Increases and nothing to do with spending cuts.

GLENN: Because remember they said they are not even going to deal with spending cuts?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Not going to deal with it.

PAT: And Nancy Pelosi just said again, and we played this I think last hour, "We don't have a spending problem."

GLENN: Play that again because that's just so ‑‑

PAT: Crazy.

GLENN: That's just so ‑‑ say it again.

PAT: That's crazy.

GLENN: Say it like Michael Jackson.

PAT: That's crazy.

GLENN: Now say it like Al Gore.

PAT: That's crazy. That's crazy.

GLENN: You've got to say it ‑‑ but you have to say it with that chuckle in the voice where he's like ‑‑

PAT: That's crazy. Just below the surface of the Earth, it's crazy hot. All right. Here's Nancy Pelosi.

PELOSI: Though it isn't as much a spending problem as it is a priorities and that's what a budget is setting, priorities.

GLENN: Yeah.

WALLACE: But you talk about growth, even Christina Romer, the form head of the council of economic advisors for the president says you increase taxes, that also hurts growth.

PELOSI: Well, it's about timing. It's about timing.

PAT: Timing.

PELOSI: And it's about timing as to when you make cuts as well. We ‑‑

WALLACE: But you ‑‑ the fiscal cliff you raised taxes $650 billion right away.

PAT: Listen to this.

PELOSI: Yeah. And that was a very good thing to do on people making over the high end in our population.

PAT: She doesn't have any idea on what ‑‑

GLENN: None of them do. None of them do.

PAT: On who they put those ‑‑ that tax burden to.

GLENN: None of them do.

PAT: She was going to say on people over a million or whatever. She didn't know.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So she had to go on people who are at the high end of our...

GLENN: Do you remember ‑‑

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: I don't remember what the topic was and I think I'd like to stay away from the topic because it might reveal who shared this with us because they have never shared it on the air. But do you remember we talked about ‑‑ yeah, I think I can say it. Harry Reid. And let's just say it was on tax increases. And he was talking to a member and he said, "Harry, we can come together on this because you are ‑‑ you've been the champion of this for ten years." And it wasn't on tax increases. It was something else. But you've been a champion on this. And he actually said, well ‑‑

PAT: Oh, yeah. I have to ask?

GLENN: I have to ask and see if I'm still for that." You have to ask if you're still for that?

PAT: Uh‑huh.

GLENN: I mean, that's the kind of stuff, these guys are so out of touch. They are not ‑‑ they are really not ‑‑ they are just a face. They are puppets. They are really puppets. They are moving in one direction and it's a big, very big, you know, well thought‑out plan and they are just going for it. They are just sticking together. Nobody's actually engaging their own individual brain. They are acting as a collective. And the Center For American Progress is doing all the planning. I mean, we already know that they did all the stimulus bill. We know between them and the unions that they wrote ObamaCare.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So ‑‑

PAT: And they themselves don't know anything.

GLENN: They don't.

PAT: And Nancy Pelosi proved that a couple of times during this same interview. Listen to see if you can find the one little hair in the ointment.

PELOSI: We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves.

PAT: Anybody see the problem there? We avow the First Amendment there and say that people have a right to own their guns.

GLENN: First Amendment? It's the Second Amendment.

PAT: She doesn't even know what amendment is the gun amendment.

GLENN: Play it again.

PELOSI: We avow the First Amendment.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PELOSI: We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: She just such a ‑‑

PAT: Oh, my gosh. I mean, this was the speaker of the House and she's still one of the most powerful people in America. It's mind‑numbing that she's in that position because she's an idiot. She's an idiot and so is Harry Reid.

GLENN: Harry Reid, I think there might be something wrong with Harry Reid, seriously. There might be, you know ‑‑

PAT: No, I think you're right.

GLENN: I think there's something wrong with him. I think he's ‑‑ maybe he's senile or what. I don't know what's wrong with him but I think there's something wrong with him. And I say that, you know, I don't mean to be rude. And I don't want to be ‑‑ but I think there's something wrong.

PAT: Yeah, you're not being flippant.

GLENN: No, no.

PAT: It does seem like there's something wrong with him.

GLENN: Yeah, we've had conversations with people who have been around him in the last year or so and they all say the same thing.

PAT: Well, and his positions have shifted from 20 years ago.

GLENN: Well, you're ‑‑

PAT: Almost a 180 in some cases.

GLENN: Your positions probably ‑‑

PAT: Which they can change, they can evolve but I mean, he's done a 180.

GLENN: But you know what? Pat, have I done 180 some?

PAT: Well, yeah, but there was reasons for that.

GLENN: Exactly right. So there's nothing wrong with your positions changing over a 20‑year period.

PAT: No, but what was his pivot point that they all ‑‑

GLENN: Exactly right.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: What changed him.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: What changed him. Because they've just, they changed and they flipped.

PAT: Radicalized.

GLENN: And they really haven't been ‑‑ it hasn't been 20 years.

PAT: No, it hasn't.

GLENN: It's been within the last decade where it's just been, "What is this?" From, you look at his positions 2004 and his positions today; they are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. He's a radical. And I don't believe he is a radical; he's just taking positions and protecting the radical positions and I don't think he even understands. I don't even know ‑‑ really there might be something wrong with him.

PAT: And he flat‑out lies to protect those positions too.

GLENN: Yeah. Which is not like Harry Reid the way Harry Reid used to be.

PAT: No, I don't think so.

GLENN: Harry Reid I think used to be an honorable man. But I think, you know, look, I have a very good friend, Chris Stewart. He's gone into congress, and it's a very scary thing I think for Chris' family and his friends because Chris is truly a remarkable man and we all have already had the conversation as his friends and family. We start to see him go to the dark side, we start hearing him say the things, well, now, if I just stay on, if I just compromise here, I can get a position on this committee," we're having a family‑and‑friend intervention. And I've told him, I said, look, Chris, I'll ‑‑ to save you, I will do everything I can to rat you out.

PAT: Because we've seen some really good people do that already.

GLENN: Really good people.

PAT: And within a pretty short amount of time go from where we thought we could absolutely trust them to, not so much anymore.

GLENN: Yeah. And you know what's funny is they know. Because they don't call anymore. They used to ‑‑ they used to call and they used to tip us off and everything else. Not anymore. And they know we know. It's like, I really just think it's like alcoholics. You stay away ‑‑ if you're an alcoholic, you stay away from an alcoholic. If you are ‑‑ if you're lying to yourself again, you stay away from an alcoholic because an alcoholic has played that game before. They know. And so they will just, they will rat you out. And not to anybody else but to yourself. They will just say, "Wow. So how long you been drinking?" "I don't know what you're talking about." "Yes, you do." "I don't know what you're talking about." "Well, whatever. Call me when you're sober. Call me if you need help when you're sober. When you're back on track again, or want to get back on track. Don't waste my time." And the same thing. I mean, I've had conversations with a few of these guys to where they're starting to say those things. I mean, when you hear a guy say, "Yeah, but I can get on the committee. If I just do this, if I compromise here, I can get on the committee. They've promised me a committee."

PAT: Or I can be a ‑‑ I can chair the committee.

GLENN: Yeah. You know they're gone. They're gone. Because all you have to do is start compromising. If you want to compromise on something, just make sure it's not your principles. If it's not your principles, compromise. You have to. To move things forward, you have to compromise, but not your principles. And that's where they get lost. And I really think that once ‑‑ and especially if you go there and you do anything wrong. This is why I ‑‑ you pray for these guys, these new freshmen. Because I've heard really good things about the new freshmen. But they are being squashed and they are going to be either absorbed and brought into the GOP machine and promised all kinds of things; or they'll be destroyed. And the worst thing that happens is they're destroyed and then absorbed. And that means that if you aren't ‑‑ if you don't have the full armor of God on, you are not going to make it. Because there's going to be a temptation of money, of power, of sex. Whatever it is your Achilles heel. We all know. I mean, Pat, you don't have to say it, but do you know what your ‑‑ the thing that you are most tempted by as a man or as a person, what's the thing that you're most tempted by? Do you know what it is?

PAT: Sure.

GLENN: Jeffy, same thing?

JEFFY: One thing?

GLENN: Yeah. You're a nightmare. I do too. And it's ‑‑ and Jeffy's right. It's not just one thing. There's a few things that I have shields up because I'm freaked out by it. And I ask my wife all the time, "Honey, you ever start to see these warning signs, you go. Go, go, go, go, go." And most people will fool themselves. They will say, "Well, I'm going to be strong enough." Or they just don't think about it enough.

If you're going into Washington or if you're going to go on the front lines of the TEA Party or anything else, you better know what those weaknesses are. And you better concentrate on those weaknesses. And he will make weak things strong. On the other side, so will Satan. He will make those weak things strong in you. And that's what I ‑‑ the most dangerous thing is you go to Washington and let's say, you know, you're away from your wife and things are tough and maybe your wife, you haven't been getting along or anything. Is anybody watching Downtown Abbey? I'm watching this with my wife.

PAT: No.

GLENN: It's great. You'd love it, Pat, you actually would. You'd like it. But it's, there's this one part in the ‑‑ we're only on the second season and there's this guy who's really upstanding and really good, it's the end of World War I and his whole life has changed. Everything has changed. And his wife now all of a sudden is, you know, I'm going to go out and, you know, I'm going to go out and do stuff and I'm going to go chair this and I'm going to go work here. And his whole life has changed and he can't make sense of the world. And my wife and I are watching this episode and there's some maid, you know, in his house. And he did something nice for her, and it was totally legitimate, totally fine. And then the next time they see each other, she says, "By the way, thank you for helping on my son." And her husband I think is dead or gone to the war or something. And they just started having a conversation. And he says, I just don't understand my world anymore. And she says, I don't understand mine. Immediately my wife and I went, "Trouble. Trouble." Run for help. Run for help. And that's the way it happens. And once you do that, once you go down that road, in Washington you're surrounded by people that want that to happen. Because they will come to you and say, "Now listen. I can destroy you. But everybody makes a mistake. But if you play ball, I can help get you this position. You'll get this position and you'll be able to further the things you care about. Do you really think you're ever going to put that in the past? Never. The thing you would have to do is stand up and say, "I committed this. And if the people want to throw me out, throw me out because I did this and it was wrong. But I am ‑‑ I've got to get this out. Otherwise ‑‑ because they already have approached me with what I believe is blackmail, and I'm of no use you, I'm of no use if that happens." I'll let the people decide. And I think people will understand mistakes. You're destroyed either way. But at least you get out with your sole and maybe, maybe God can use you in some other position.

 

 

Glenn Beck: Here's what's WRONG with conservatism today

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

What does it mean to be a conservative in 2025? Glenn offers guidance on what conservatives need to do to ensure the conservative movement doesn't fade into oblivion. We have to get back to PRINCIPLES, not policies.

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

  • for Stewardship, protecting the wisdom of our Founders;
  • for Truth, defending objective reality in an age of illusion;
  • for Accountability, living within our means as individuals and as a nation;
  • for Neighborhood, rebuilding family, faith, and local community;
  • and for Duty, carrying freedom forward to the next generation.

A conservative doesn’t cling to the past — he stands guard over the principles that make the future possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm so tired of being against everything. Saying what we're not.

It's time that we start saying what we are. And it's hard, because we're changing. It's different to be a conservative, today, than it was, you know, years ago.

And part of that is just coming from hard knocks. School of hard knocks. We've learned a lot of lessons on things we thought we were for. No, no, no.

But conservatives. To be a conservative, it shouldn't be about policies. It's really about principles. And that's why we've lost our way. Because we've lost our principles. And it's easy. Because the world got easy. And now the world is changing so rapidly. The boundaries between truth and illusion are blurred second by second. Machines now think. Currencies falter. Families fractured. And nations, all over the world, have forgotten who they are.

So what does it mean to be a conservative now, in 2025, '26. For a lot of people, it means opposing the left. That's -- that's a reaction. That's not renewal.

That's a reaction. It can't mean also worshiping the past, as if the past were perfect. The founders never asked for that.

They asked that we would preserve the principles and perfect their practice. They knew it was imperfect. To make a more perfect nation.

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

2025, '26 being a conservative has to mean stewardship.

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

Of a moral inheritance. That is too precious to abandon.

What does it mean to conserve? To conserve something doesn't mean to stand still.

It means to stand guard. It means to defend what the Founders designed. The separation of powers. The rule of law.

The belief that our rights come not from kings or from Congress, but from the creator himself.
This is a system that was not built for ease. It was built for endurance, and it will endure if we only teach it again!

The problem is, we only teach it like it's a museum piece. You know, it's not a museum piece. It's not an old dusty document. It's a living covenant between the dead, the living and the unborn.

So this chapter of -- of conservatism. Must confront reality. Economic reality.

Global reality.

And moral reality.

It's not enough just to be against something. Or chant tax cuts or free markets.

We have to ask -- we have to start with simple questions like freedom, yes. But freedom for what?

Freedom for economic sovereignty. Your right to produce and to innovate. To build without asking Beijing's permission. That's a moral issue now.

Another moral issue: Debt! It's -- it's generational theft. We're spending money from generations we won't even meet.

And dependence. Another moral issue. It's a national weakness.

People cannot stand up for themselves. They can't make it themselves. And we're encouraging them to sit down, shut up, and don't think.

And the conservative who can't connect with fiscal prudence, and connect fiscal prudence to moral duty, you're not a conservative at all.

Being a conservative today, means you have to rebuild an economy that serves liberty, not one that serves -- survives by debt, and then there's the soul of the nation.

We are living through a time period. An age of dislocation. Where our families are fractured.

Our faith is almost gone.

Meaning is evaporating so fast. Nobody knows what meaning of life is. That's why everybody is killing themselves. They have no meaning in life. And why they don't have any meaning, is truth itself is mocked and blurred and replaced by nothing, but lies and noise.

If you want to be a conservative, then you have to be to become the moral compass that reminds a lost people, liberty cannot survive without virtue.

That freedom untethered from moral order is nothing, but chaos!

And that no app, no algorithm, no ideology is ever going to fill the void, where meaning used to live!

To be a conservative, moving forward, we cannot just be about policies.

We have to defend the sacred, the unseen, the moral architecture, that gives people an identity. So how do you do that? Well, we have to rebuild competence. We have to restore institutions that actually work. Just in the last hour, this monologue on what we're facing now, because we can't open the government.

Why can't we open the government?

Because government is broken. Why does nobody care? Because education is broken.

We have to reclaim education, not as propaganda, but as the formation of the mind and the soul. Conservatives have to champion innovation.

Not to imitate Silicon Valley's chaos, but to harness technology in defense of human dignity. Don't be afraid of AI.

Know what it is. Know it's a tool. It's a tool to strengthen people. As long as you always remember it's a tool. Otherwise, you will lose your humanity to it!

That's a conservative principle. To be a conservative, we have to restore local strength. Our families are the basic building blocks, our schools, our churches, and our charities. Not some big, distant NGO that was started by the Tides Foundation, but actual local charities, where you see people working. A web of voluntary institutions that held us together at one point. Because when Washington fails, and it will, it already has, the neighborhood has to stand.

Charlie Kirk was doing one thing that people on our side were not doing. Speaking to the young.

But not in nostalgia.

Not in -- you know, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.

In purpose. They don't remember. They don't remember who Dick Cheney was.

I was listening to Fox news this morning, talking about Dick Cheney. And there was somebody there that I know was not even born when Dick Cheney. When the World Trade Center came down.

They weren't even born. They were telling me about Dick Cheney.

And I was like, come on. Come on. Come on.

If you don't remember who Dick Cheney was, how are you going to remember 9/11. How will you remember who Reagan was.

That just says, that's an old man's creed. No, it's not.

It's the ultimate timeless rebellion against tyranny in all of its forms. Yes, and even the tyranny of despair, which is eating people alive!

We need to redefine ourselves. Because we have changed, and that's a good thing. The creed for a generation, that will decide the fate of the republic, is what we need to find.

A conservative in 2025, '26.

Is somebody who protects the enduring principles of American liberty and self-government.

While actively stewarding the institutions. The culture. The economy of this nation!

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

We have to be a group of people that we're not anchored in the past. Or in rage! But in reason. And morality. Realism. And hope for the future.

We're the stewards! We're the ones that have to relight the torch, not just hold it. We didn't -- we didn't build this Torch. We didn't make this Torch. We're the keepers of the flame, but we are honor-bound to pass that forward, and conservatives are viewed as people who just live in the past. We're not here to merely conserve the past, but to renew it. To sort it. What worked, what didn't work. We're the ones to say to the world, there's still such a thing as truth. There's still such a thing as virtue. You can deny it all you want.

But the pain will only get worse. There's still such a thing as America!

And if now is not the time to renew America. When is that time?

If you're not the person. If we're not the generation to actively stand and redefine and defend, then who is that person?

We are -- we are supposed to preserve what works.

That -- you know, I was writing something this morning.

I was making notes on this. A constitutionalist is for restraint. A progressive, if you will, for lack of a better term, is for more power.

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

But the -- for the American eagle to fly, we must have both wings.

And one can't be stronger than the other.

We as a conservative, are supposed to look and say, no. Don't look at that. The past teaches us this, this, and this. So don't do that.

We can't do that. But there are these things that we were doing in the past, that we have to jettison. And maybe the other side has a good idea on what should replace that. But we're the ones who are supposed to say, no, but remember the framework.

They're -- they can dream all they want.
They can come up with all these utopias and everything else, and we can go, "That's a great idea."

But how do we make it work with this framework? Because that's our job. The point of this is, it takes both. It takes both.

We have to have the customs and the moral order. And the practices that have stood the test of time, in trial.

We -- we're in an amazing, amazing time. Amazing time.

We live at a time now, where anything -- literally anything is possible!

I don't want to be against stuff. I want to be for the future. I want to be for a rich, dynamic future. One where we are part of changing the world for the better!

Where more people are lifted out of poverty, more people are given the freedom to choose, whatever it is that they want to choose, as their own government and everything.

I don't want to force it down anybody's throat.

We -- I am so excited to be a shining city on the hill again.

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

But not in we get bogged down in hatred, in division.

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.