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

Did Muslims play a role in the founding of the country? Here's what David Barton found...

February 20, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Has Islam been woven into the fabric of the country since it was founded? That's what President Obama tried to say in a conference on countering violent extremism. Glenn couldn't believe it, so he invited the expert on the Founders: David Barton.

 

Read the rush transcript below:

GLENN: We heard from the president yesterday that from the very beginning of our country, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our nation. The founders were, of course, huge.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. All of them were --

GLENN: Fifty-two of the 56 signers --

PAT: Like 19 were Muslim clerics. And 52 were full-on Muslim.

GLENN: Yeah. David Barton is here to fill us with his no-they-weren't-all-Muslim lies. Welcome to the program, David.

DAVID: Hey, guys. So glad we're going to talk. This is great.

GLENN: So when you heard the president say yesterday that from the very foundation of our nation, Islam has been critical and integral to our founding and our nation, what were your thoughts?

DAVID: Oh, I just expected it. I laughed. It was really pretty ridiculous. I have since then actually tried -- because in all the reading I've done, you know, thousands of books, there's nothing there. You and I know some of the stuff that's out there, I mean, we know that Muslims were the folks who captured the slaves sent to America largely out of Africa. The Dutch would hall anything they were given. They were traders. The Muslims who did the slave hunting and the slave trading, et cetera. The first Muslims came to America as a result of the Muslims capturing them and sending them to the Dutch traders. We know beyond that we had a 32-year war with Muslims. At first American edition of the Koran, the editors said, you guys have to read this. This is crazy stuff. You'll understand why we've had 32 years of war with these nuts. I mean, those exactly are contributions that would jump to mind. That's about all you can point to back then. So I spent a little bit of time to look up.

If you go to a website called Islam101.com and look at the contribution of Islams to America. I'm telling you, bro, we're really sparse here. 1732. Here's a contribution of a Muslim to America. 1732, a Muslim is set free by James Oglethorpe, who is the founder of Georgia. He's set free and given passage to England. That's what they consider a contribution to America.

1790. It says, well, Muslims are known to be living in Florida. Oh, yeah, that's a Spanish possession of Florida. And Moorish Muslims occupied Spain, so no surprise there.

Then, 1807, it says a Muslim is set free. He buys shares in a bank. Now, we have someone who actually bought stock in America.

PAT: Now, you're talking -- this is really woven into the fabric.

GLENN: When was the stock purchase?

DAVID: 1807.

GLENN: Okay.

DAVID: I have two more for you. Here's another one. In 1828, the governor of South Carolina, soon to be governor, John Owen, actually visited a Muslim in jail and took him to his plantation. That's another Muslim contribution. Add it to the governor. Here's what I love. This is actually kind of fun.

In 1856, the American military is engaged in all sorts of Indian wars in western lands. They're trying innovative new things, and the secretary of war at that time was Jefferson Davis. Five years later, he would become part of the secession and the president of the Confederacy. But at that time, he's secretary of war. What they did was they hired a Muslim to raise camels in Arizona because the cavalry said, you know, instead of using horses across the desert, let's try these camels. So across the southern part of the country, across Arizona and Mexico, Texas, the cavalry actually used camels at that point in time. So they hired a Muslim to raise camels. That's a contribution of Muslims to America.

GLENN: This is the fabric. I mean, it's practical the whole blanket.

PAT: Yeah. Well, so we were confused because the story of Jefferson's Koran, Salon.com says he had that 16 years before he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

GLENN: And we had always heard, David, that he had asked, who are these Muslims, what do they want? That's when somebody said you have to read the Koran. And he said, can you get me a copy? And he sent over to England for a copy. Which is true?

DAVID: Well, some of both. I mean, he was particularly interested in it. Once he had the idea of, know your enemy. I mean, who are these guys? Because he's one of the first three American diplomats to have to negotiate with Muslim terrorists. So he was really interested at that point. But like most other people in that day, they read most -- from a politics standpoint, you want to know what other people believe so you can argue your own case. So it was not unusual at all to be familiar with the writings of Muslims, to be familiar with the writings of Hindus or others. They studied other religions. If you want to -- they had comparative religions. And that helped them better know what they believed about their own faith and how to talk to those of other faiths. So that's not at all incompatible with Jefferson or that day.

Now, the real interest came when he had to start negotiating with them, and now I have to take this stuff a lot more seriously. It was an academic inquiry before, but now this is a policy matter now. So it's really some of both that goes with it. It's a 1746 copy of the Koran that he got from London.

So that's much earlier. But at the same time it was one of those apologetic things that you learned in academics back then. Part of what they did.

GLENN: And he was just very far ahead in looking in all religions. If the Dalai Lama had been around at the time, he would have had dinner with the Dalai Lama, and he wouldn't have brought him behind the house with the Dumpster.

DAVID: It was not unusual. That was very much an academic practice back then. Academics looked at other religions, other faiths, other countries, other beliefs, and they talked about that, even in the Constitution. We've looked at every other republic that's out there to see how their government works so we know what works and what doesn't. So you have these guys writing about Muslims early on because they want to know what people believe and what it did to their culture their practice, their behavior, et cetera. Jefferson is one of many guys. Not unusual to look at other religions. That was a standard practice for most of the founders.

PAT: Did you say he obtained his copy in 1746. He would have been three years old?

DAVID: No. The Koran he obtained was a 1746 edition of the Koran.

PAT: When did he come by it?

DAVID: Gracious.

STU: Eleven years before he wrote the declaration.

PAT: Eleven years?

DAVID: And I think that's right. Because at that point in time, tensions with Great Britain are starting. But at that point in time, he's more of a student too. Remember, I mean, from his age at that point, he was more into his academic inquiries. And 1765, he had just become a member of the Virginia legislature. So he's a brand-new legislator. And Virginia is where you have a lot of Muslim slaves in the state. So that's where slavery is first introduced or reported to be first introduced --

GLENN: And these are the slaves just like we have ISIS enslaving Muslims now. These are the slaves that they said at the time, were not Muslim enough. Right?

Over in --

DAVID: Overseas, yeah.

GLENN: Yeah, overseas. The Muslims -- the ISIS of their day would have scooped these guys up and sold them to the slave traders because the Koran calls for that and says as long as they're not Muslim enough.

DAVID: That's right. They were apostate Muslims, so you can ship them off into slavery.

GLENN: So what's amazing is, the Muslims that would have been here would have been the Muslims that would have wanted to be the reformers.

DAVID: Yeah, that's right.

GLENN: They would have been the ones we would have liked.

DAVID: And you look at that point in time, Muslims took 1.25 million slaves in that point of time. We look at the Founding Fathers, in that three decades or so, 1.52 million slaves that were calmed by Muslims. This is a big part of what their faith was.

GLENN: Then the president is right then. They did -- they were important to the fabric of early America. They were the actual slave traders that sold the blacks into slavery to the Dutch trading companies?

DAVID: There you go. That and their terrorism. The jihadism against Americans overseas. Those are the two biggest contributions.

GLENN: That's amazing.

DAVID: The guys who raised camels. I have to give him credit. That has to be tough raising camels in the Arizona desert.

PAT: The rest of the cavalry laughed at him, so they stopped using them.

GLENN: Where did they get the camels?

DAVID: Watch the movie Hawmps! H-A-W-M-P-S. It was slim pickings. Done back with that thing with Jeff Davis. They got the word hawmps because the cavalry looked and said, those are just horses with hawmps. What are those? So that's what they used for several years. And the Indians laughed at them when they tried to chase them down with camels.

JEFFY: Yeah, the military wouldn't ride them anymore.

DAVID: Exactly. It was a short-lived experiment. I have to credit their technology. If you're going to be in the desert chasing folks, why not use the animals that will go for several days, rather than several hours. But they were just so slow, they couldn't keep up with the Indians.

GLENN: David, thank you very much for enlightening me on this. I think this is the headline: President Obama is correct. Muslims provided most of the slaves for America.

STU: Jeez.

DAVID: Yeah.

GLENN: Is that accurate, David?

DAVID: I can't say that's accurate, but I can say they supplied more than any other entity, but -- the Portuguese traders, the Spanish traders, there were a bunch of traders that went there. But the Muslims were the chief ones in Africa that were able to sell slaves and those who wanted to sell slaves.

GLENN: Okay. So it would be accurate to say, most African slaves or most slaves from Africa --

STU: A plurality of slaves.

DAVID: Has been obtained by Muslim enslavers. Spanish, Portuguese, or the Dutch, or whoever else, the greatest supplier of slaves would undoubtedly have been Muslims.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Thank you very much, David. That's -- that's a story. Blaze has to write that story.

STU: That's an amazing --

GLENN: That's a great story.

STU: I assume the president is talking about this argument from Salon, it's a book called Thomas Jefferson's Islam: Islam and the Founders. Listen. Even in this argument on Salon, a left-wing website, says this -- talking about how the founders of the time were talking about Muslims being tolerated and given rights like other religions --

GLENN: Of course. Every religion was.

STU: They did so not for the sake of actual Muslims because none were known at the time to be living in America. Instead, Jefferson and others defended Muslim rights for the sake of, quote, imagined Muslims, end quote. The promotion of whose theoretical citizenship would prove the true universality of American rights. Indeed, the defense of imagined Muslims would also create political room to consider the rights of other despised minorities whose numbers in America though small were quite real, namely Jews and Catholics.

Rage isn’t conservatism — THIS is what true patriots stand for

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatism is not about rage or nostalgia. It’s about moral clarity, national renewal, and guarding the principles that built America’s freedom.

Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?

For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.

Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.

Conservatism as stewardship

In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.

That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.

Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.

Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.

Rebuilding what is broken

We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.

Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.

A creed for the rising generation

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.

Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.

To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.

We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.