The RNC's Problem: We have a great product, but the people in DC have no idea how to sell it

Now recently, the RNC unveiled their 100-page, 219-point plan for winning the youth and saving the party. Count ’em, these are 100 pages, 219 points. Now the RNC Chairman, Reince Priebus, ordered this report, what many are calling an autopsy report, to examine what went wrong last November. Now, he told me at CPAC, don’t call it an autopsy report. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t modify your strategy, it’s gonna be.

Not one point of this 219-point plan mentioned how to better use blogs for messaging. In fact, blog wasn’t mentioned at all, and social media was only mentioned once, and that was only in the context of fundraising, not as a platform for messaging or marketing. These omissions show me that the RNC still doesn’t get it.

And while the Peacock Press routinely trashed our candidates and our ideology all around the web, blogs and social media became the battlefield where narratives were born and where narratives died. It was the denizens of new media who fact-checked the press and made famous those reporters who grew fat and lazy off the scraps of DNC press releases. The best chance at equal treatment for our candidates came from new media. An entire generation changed its news consumption.

Now, there was a discussion on ideological purity and messaging and growing the base within this report, although I kind of get the feeling that the authors of this report, most of whom are former Bush aides, simply just had a one-sided conversation with one another on the definition of purity. In fact, they write in here, I think it’s on page eight, “Our standard should not be universal purity, it should be a more but welcoming conservatism.”

Now, the authors are correct. I’ll give some credit. They are correct in that the GOP needs to personalize policy, but on page eight of this report, they give more attention to the government as a trampoline rather than taking a moment to really light a fire and encourage the private sector to stop outsourcing the stewardship of their fellow man. Now, what a way to personalize policy and change the narrative of safety nets in one fell swoop.

Now, speaking of messaging, in an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the RNC Chairman gave the impression that he holds the few idiotic remarks during the election cycle as the sole reason for GOP losses. He admitted that the RNC outreach after these remarks was insufficient, which is examined in the earlier pages of that report. Now, again, they just don’t get it.

If the party was a healthy party, if the party wasn’t already rotting away from within due to the decay of moderate constitutionalism, manifest in policies like No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, TARP, et cetera, it would’ve been much more difficult to topple the party’s electoral chances based on a few stupid remarks. Now, people can forgive a dumb comment when the offender apologizes, but they can’t forgive the increased nationalization of their education and additional entitlement programs while the offenders behind those programs insist in telling us that it’s compassionate conservatism.

Now, here’s where the report was correct. It noted that the demographic of the country has changed. The electorate has changed. More youth than ever are voting. Romney lost the under-30 vote by more than 5 million; however, the solution isn’t to water down Conservatism, because watered-down Conservatism never works at the polls. When faced between the choice of a Democrat or a Republican trying to be a Democrat, voters are always going to choose a Democrat.

Give voters a choice. Give us a choice, politicians. Don’t cede your principles because your stuffed shirts on K Street can’t figure out how to sell liberty for the six figures you pay ’em. We need to become better marketers. Now, the president has a logo for everything, even his recent trip to Israel. Look, I bet he even has an official Obama logo for when he eats breakfast. I’m not even certain that that isn’t his logo.

Being a Democrat has become a lifestyle brand, much in the same way that people but Apple stickers on their cars or purchase a Harley. Brands are now self-expression. Brands identify people without needing a single conversation. Luxury labels, like Louis Vuitton, hire famous people like Michael Phelps or Angelina Jolie to appear alongside their products with the hope that the stars’ allure will rub off on the product.

Fashion companies send their products to celebrities hoping that paparazzi will capture an image of them with their product, and in turn the public will see this, and it’ll drive up demand. Politics is the exact same way. Democrats hobnob with Hollywood to borrow legitimacy and allure. Sometimes it’s symbiotic. Jay-Z pops some tops with President Obama, Obama looks cool and connected to culture, Jay-Z looks like his influence extends outside of the entertainment industry.

Chris Dodd is on the board of the Motion Pictures Association of America for crying out loud. Hollywood has its own lobbyist in the Senate, and of course we can’t forget First Lady Michelle Obama presented the best picture award at the Oscars this year.

Do you remember the Apple versus PC commercials? This is how the left markets. Guess which one of these guys is perceived as being GOP? The left gets branding; we don’t. They’re so good at marketing and branding that they’re able to sell federal servitude. They have a horrible, horrible product, and that’s half of the battle right there. And on this, we got ’em beat.

We, on the other hand, have a great product, but unfortunately we have a bunch of people in D.C. that have no idea how to sell it, and it’s sad, too, because there are so many conservatives who’ve cut their teeth on marketing and new media and so much more who would just love to help steer the current winnable party into a new direction. Unfortunately, I personally know several instances where younger more connected new media wunderkinds were rejected by politicians in favor of those outdated K Street brokers.

These stuffed shirts run a consulting racket, ORCA, anybody? I mean, the ultimate fail whale, and they create ads that fall into one of two categories, the I love my country ad, and the look at how bad this other guy is ad. Now, the first is devoid of a great pitch, and the second just makes candidates look like whiny, negative Nancys with no solutions. I mean, honestly, who doesn’t love their country and think that the other guy is worse?

Democrats were sprinting away from ObamaCare; yet, I don’t recall a single major Republican ad that used Nancy Pelosi’s famous sound bite:

VIDEO

Nancy Pelosi: But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.

Dana Fog – Yes, the Akin sound bite was stupid, but I didn’t see a single GOP rebuttal which asked, what is the real stupidity, a comment with no impact or choosing to not offer rape survivors protection against having the details of their case made public via vote as one former Illinois senator did? I sometimes feel like the RNC has bought into the left’s stereotype of Conservatives and through this perspective tries its outreach.

Now, I don’t agree with Paul Ryan on everything, but when he walked out on stage in Ohio to AC/DC, I almost straight up fell over. And when Marco Rubio personalized his family story and sold voters on the renewed American dream, I saw some hope, real hope. It’s not hard to sell liberty folks, not hard at all. Do you want the mediocrity of slavery or the rich opportunity of freedom? And that, ladies and gents, is the thing on which the RNC should focus.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?