Presidential Hopeful Darrell Castle Seeks 'Bloodless Revolution' in America

November 01, 2016

WRITER

Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday for a deeper dive into his policies and beliefs.

In a nutshell, Castles platform includes abolishing the Federal Reserve, withdrawing from the United Nations, fighting Agenda 21, supporting pro-life beliefs and adhering to the U.S. Constitution.

Castle is officially on the ballot in 24 states and a registered write-in candidate in 23 other states. For more information on Darrell Castle, visit Castle2016.com.

Read below, watch the clip or listen for answers to these questions:

• Why does Castle oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

• Would Castle use ground forces to fight ISIS?

• Does Castle believe Putin is a friend or foe?

• Is Castle opposed to the U.S. constantly intervening militarily?

• When did Castle help found the Constitution Party?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Darrell Castle.

DARRELL: Oh, thank you very much. I'm glad to be with you.

GLENN: The platform in a nutshell, as I understand it -- I'd like you to go through it. Audit the fed, withdraw from the UN, fight Agenda 21, be pro-life, and adhere to the US Constitution.

Pretty simple. Do you want to expand?

DARRELL: Well, except -- except for auditing the fed, you're exactly right.

GLENN: Oh, you don't want to audit the fed?

DARRELL: No, I want to end the fed.

GLENN: All right. All right. End the fed.

You want to expand on any of these?

DARRELL: Well, I'll expand on anything that you would like me to expand on. But I've done numerous podcasts and so forth on all of those positions in the last few months.

GLENN: So let me play devil's advocate. End the fed. How -- how do you think you could possibly as president end the fed?

DARRELL: Well, I couldn't. It would take an act of Congress. It would be very simple. Congress would just have to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and it would be done. And obviously, they would be forced to return to the Constitution and retake control of the monetary system themselves.

But if -- if I were elected president, I mean, it's quite obvious what I stand for. So the people would have to -- to rise up and turn up the heat on Congress. As Harry Truman said, "When you turn up the heat, they see the light." But I couldn't do it by myself. No, Congress would have to act.

GLENN: Darrell, I'm currently being called a globalist by those who are supporting Donald Trump. I couldn't be further from a globalist. I believe in free trade. Do you?

DARRELL: Yes, I do.

GLENN: Okay.

DARRELL: And I can explain that, if you would like.

GLENN: Go ahead.

DARRELL: I believe in free trade. I believe that the United States should -- should trade freely with Mexico, Chile, and other countries that it does now.

I just don't believe in free trade agreements. Unlike like your friend, Evan McMullin, I'm opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other free trade agreements because they transfer American sovereignty to bureaucracies and corporations totally unaccountable to the American people. I don't think that's necessary or wise.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That is my belief on TPP as well. It is transferring too much sovereignty.

The -- you want to withdraw from the UN. Is there no reason to have an international body and an international community like that?

DARRELL: Well, there may be plenty of reasons to have an international body. But the United Nations does some really horrible things. It's not compatible with the American way of life. Agenda 21, it's depopulation. Many things like that. I just want this country to be free and independent again and be able to chart its own course in the world.

Like I said before, I'm all for trade. I believe trade brings friendship, and it brings economic prosperity and so forth for people around the world, all up and down the economic spectrum. So I'm all for interacting with the world, just not in a situation where the American Constitution is called into question and actually superseded by international bureaucrats. I -- I'm about tired of that.

Plus, the United Nations has had us almost continually at war since 1945. And we haven't won very many of them. So I'm for ending -- I'm for a different way of life.

PAT: Darrell, you also seem to be the strongest candidate who is running for president on immigration. Tell us your stand on the border and what you would do with the 20 million illegal aliens that are here. And what would you do on the border?

DARRELL: Well, on the border, it's my position that we should force the immigration laws that we have now in an effort to secure the border. I would do, as president, whatever it took. I just consider it my sworn duty as president of this country to secure the border, by whatever means proven necessary.

And I think before we start doing radical things like building a wall -- and I will say, I would do that, if that's what it took. But just enforce the immigration laws that we have in place right now and empower the -- the Border Patrol and so he had authorities to -- to secure the border. And once we do that so that we know who is coming across, we could admit as many people as we want. But we would hopefully know whether those people are terrorists or not.

GLENN: The situation over in the middle east with ISIS, Darrell. What do we do?

DARRELL: Well, you know, I've read where Donald Trump constantly keeps saying he wants to -- he wants to destroy ISIS and so forth. And, I mean, that's fine. Who doesn't?

Mr. McMullin says he would commit ground forces in an offensive against ISIS. I wouldn't do that. I mean, I don't really understand the entire mentality that we're applying in Syria. I mean, number one, what business is it of ours, who runs Syria? The Assad family has run Syria for some 50 years now. But all of a sudden, we cannot tolerate this man Assad, a day longer.

And if the Russians want to fight ISIS, I mean, who cares what -- why not? But I'm not in favor of -- of ground troops in Syria. And I'm not in favor of what Mrs. Clinton called for, a no-fly zone. She tried to walk that back a little bit in the last debate, when it was pointed out that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that would mean war with Russia. You always have to ask yourself what the endgame is going to be when you have to confront Russian aircraft. All these confrontations and so forth, it seemed to me are unnecessary. We could devote a whole show sometime to talking about Russia, if you wanted to.

But the long short of it is, I'm not in favor of -- of committing ground troops to Syria right now. I don't see the need for it.

GLENN: Is Putin a friend, a foe? What is he?

DARRELL: Who knows, you know? What was it Winston Churchill said about Russia...

But, I mean, I don't know if he's a friend and a foe. I know he seems to love his own country and trying to protect his own country. And I know that -- I have a certain degree of sympathy with that because of Russia's history. You know, they -- every time they look to the West, they see tanks. And they remember the German invasion and many, many, many before that. And now German tanks are messing around on their border again. I don't blame them for being nervous about that. It's not Russia that's in Mexico. It's not Russia that's in Canada. But NATO and the United States and the European Union are at Russia's border. Who wouldn't be nervous about that?

GLENN: Well, I mean, when Poland asks NATO and the United States to be there --

DARRELL: Yeah.

GLENN: Because they're afraid.

DARRELL: They always do. They always ask. And I -- I've gotten a few calls in the campaign from Polish people who are very nervous about it.

But, you know, those types of things are easy to manipulate. I -- you know, the first thing we think about is confrontation and war. I just suspect that Poland would be sitting there just as happy as they could be if NATO and the union had not pushed to the borders of Russia, which we promised them we wouldn't do when Reagan and Gorbachev had their meeting.

But nevertheless, that's the way I see it. I mean, I would take whatever action necessary to protect this country. But right now, you know, I think these constant confrontations with sanctions and pushing the Russian economy to the brink and so forth, as Roosevelt did with the Japanese -- and I'm not saying that wasn't necessary. I'm just saying, it oftentimes leaves a desperate country with only one choice.

And you always want to leave your opponent a way out.

PAT: Other than trade, would you consider yourself isolationist?

DARRELL: No, I wouldn't.

GLENN: What would you consider yourself? What's the difference between you and an isolationist?

DARRELL: Well, isolationist, you know, let's withdraw to the borders and build fortress America. But the opposite of that -- people often accuse me of isolation because I don't choose war.

The opposite of war is peace, not isolation. I don't want to withdraw to the borders in this totally interconnected world with instantaneous communication that we have now. It's ridiculous to -- to think of such a thing. But neither do I -- I mean, would you -- any of the countries around the world who don't have the military power that the United States has, they'll constantly intervene militarily every time they see a rattlesnakes nest in some other part of the world.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Darrell, every conservative or someone who thinks themselves conservative wants to lower taxes in some way. We'll hear either lowering rates or we'll go to a flat tax or a consumption tax. Your tax plan is different than all of those. Can you kind of explain it and walk through it?

DARRELL: Yes. My tax plan is different. And it seeks to free the American people to keep all their income, and that would be pretty sweet.

STU: Yeah.

DARRELL: But it also empowers the states, which the original intent of this Constitution and this union that the states entered into originally, it returns sovereignty to the states because the taxes, the budget would be apportioned like the census to the various states. So if your state of Texas, for example, add 5 percent of the nation's population, it would -- Texas would be required to produce 5 percent of the budget. And Texas could do that as it saw fit. It could exploit its own best resources, its natural resources or it' -- you could build a toll road across the state and charge tourists a dollar and charge Texans ten cents, or however it wanted to raise that money.

And each state could do that as natural resources in Alaska, tourism in Hawaii and Florida, gambling in Nevada. And each state could raise the money as it saw fit.

And the states -- their representatives would be under pressure from the people to hold down the federal government, not make it bigger. And every time the federal government decided that they wanted to go fight somebody somewhere, they would have to tell the states, "Look, folks, we're going to need another trillion dollars to go fight these people."

And the states might say, "Well, let's take a hard look at whether we really need to fight these people or not." Because the pressure would be on a lower budget, not a higher budget. And the states would be free. The federal government coming to them for the money, rather than the other way around.

So to me, it seems like a wonderful system, especially when you consider my overall platform, that there would be so much less government to fund.

GLENN: Darrell, the reason why I -- and I've got about 90 seconds to answer this.

The reason why yesterday I said, I don't know who I'm going to vote for. Because I said that I was probably going to vote for you. Is because I didn't think you were serious about really running. This -- you've dedicated your life for how many years to this. And where are you going to be, you know, on -- what are you going to be doing on November 9th?

DARRELL: Well, I'm going to be sitting in my law office like I am right now, practicing law and taking care of my clients and so forth. That's what I do for a living. But -- and that's where I personally am going to be, unless I'm elected president.

And if I do, I'll probably be -- well, I don't know. That would be a whole 'nother thing. But I -- I mean, I'll just go back to my law practice, assuming I don't win the election.

GLENN: You're one of the founders of the Constitution Party, right?

DARRELL: Yes, I am.

GLENN: And what drove you to that how many years ago?

DARRELL: Well, we founded it in 1992. Started in the latter months of '91.

What drove me to it? I was planning to not vote in that election. And a dear gentleman who became a good friend of mine convinced me that his efforts to start a third party could meet with some success. We thought that when people saw our platform and who we were and what we were trying to do, they would leave the Republican Party and join us. But we didn't -- we kind of underestimated the enemy's strength, I guess. But we did it because we believe that the Democrat/Republican Party would never take the nation where it needed to be. And that it would gradually, little by little, election by election, get worse and worse. We were right in that regard.

GLENN: That hasn't happened. No, that hasn't happened at all. I don't know what you're talking about.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Darrell, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Are you on the ballot in all 50 states?

DARRELL: No, I'm not, Glenn. I'm on the ballot in 24 states as a name. And I'm on the ballot in 23 other states as a registered write-in.

GLENN: Okay. So you can write-in or you can -- or you can pull the lever because it will be on the ballot.

PAT: And how can people help? Where do you go if you want to donate or volunteer?

DARRELL: Well, you can go to my website, which is Castle2016.com. And that will give people an opportunity to send me money, which is always welcome.

(chuckling)

DARRELL: And they can go out on the 2016 Election Day, as I hope you will do, and do the right thing and vote for me. Because this country would be in far better shape if most people would do that. And I could wake up on November 9th and actually be president and this country -- the people of this country out there listening right now could in effect start a bloodless revolution.

GLENN: Yeah.

DARRELL: Even our own revolution was bloody, but this could be bloodless. And the world would never be the same, I can assure you. And everybody would be happy. All right. I know I got to go.

GLENN: I appreciate it. No, no. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Darrell Castle from the Constitution Party. Don't throw your vote away. If you believe somebody, then vote for them, no matter who they are. Hillary people, you look at it, write in Bernie Sanders, go for Jill, go for the Libertarian -- write in or vote your conscience. He's right. It just gets worse and worse and worse.

Featured Image: Screenshot from C-SPAN

Shocking shift: America’s youth lured by the “Socialism trap”

Jeremy Weine / Stringer | Getty Images

A generation that’s lost faith in capitalism is turning to the oldest lie on earth: equality through control.

Something is breaking in America’s young people. You can feel it in every headline, every grocery bill, every young voice quietly asking if the American dream still means anything at all.

For many, the promise of America — work hard, build something that lasts, and give the next generation a better start — feels like it no longer exists. Home ownership and stability have become luxuries for a fortunate few.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them.

In that vacuum of hope, a new promise has begun to rise — one that sounds compassionate, equal, and fair. The promise of socialism.

The appeal of a broken dream

When the American dream becomes a checklist of things few can afford — a home, a car, two children, even a little peace — disappointment quickly turns to resentment. The average first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old. Debt lasts longer than marriages. The cost of living rises faster than opportunity.

For a generation that has never seen the system truly work, capitalism feels like a rigged game built to protect those already at the top.

That is where socialism finds its audience. It presents itself as fairness for the forgotten and justice for the disillusioned. It speaks softly at first, offering equality, compassion, and control disguised as care.

We are seeing that illusion play out now in New York City, where Zohran Mamdani — an open socialist — has won a major political victory. The same ideology that once hid behind euphemisms now campaigns openly throughout America’s once-great cities. And for many who feel left behind, it sounds like salvation.

But what socialism calls fairness is submission dressed as virtue. What it calls order is obedience. Once the system begins to replace personal responsibility with collective dependence, the erosion of liberty is only a matter of time.

The bridge that never ends

Socialism is not a destination; it is a bridge. Karl Marx described it as the necessary transition to communism — the scaffolding that builds the total state. Under socialism, people are taught to obey. Under communism, they forget that any other options exist.

History tells the story clearly. Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba — each promised equality and delivered misery. One hundred million lives were lost, not because socialism failed, but because it succeeded at what it was designed to do: make the state supreme and the individual expendable.

Today’s advocates insist their version will be different — democratic, modern, and kind. They often cite Sweden as an example, but Sweden’s prosperity was never born of socialism. It grew out of capitalism, self-reliance, and a shared moral culture. Now that system is cracking under the weight of bureaucracy and division.

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

The real issue is not economic but moral. Socialism begins with a lie about human nature — that people exist for the collective and that the collective knows better than the individual.

This lie is contrary to the truths on which America was founded — that rights come not from government’s authority, but from God’s. Once government replaces that authority, compassion becomes control, and freedom becomes permission.

What young America deserves

Young Americans have many reasons to be frustrated. They were told to study, work hard, and follow the rules — and many did, only to find the goalposts moved again and again. But tearing down the entire house does not make it fairer; it only leaves everyone standing in the rubble.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them. The answer is not revolution but renewal — moral, cultural, and spiritual.

It means restoring honesty to markets, integrity to government, and faith to the heart of our nation. A people who forsake God will always turn to government for salvation, and that road always ends in dependency and decay.

Freedom demands something of us. It requires faith, discipline, and courage. It expects citizens to govern themselves before others govern them. That is the truth this generation deserves to hear again — that liberty is not a gift from the state but a calling from God.

Socialism always begins with promises and ends with permission. It tells you what to drive, what to say, what to believe, all in the name of fairness. But real fairness is not everyone sharing the same chains — it is everyone having the same chance.

The American dream was never about guarantees. It was about the right to try, to fail, and try again. That freedom built the most prosperous nation in history, and it can do so again if we remember that liberty is not a handout but a duty.

Socialism does not offer salvation. It requires subservience.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Faith, family, and freedom—The forgotten core of conservatism

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Presidential Hopeful Darrell Castle Seeks 'Bloodless Revolution' in America

Shocking shift: America’s youth lured by the “Socialism trap”

A generation that’s lost faith in capitalism is turning to the oldest lie on earth: equality through control.

The appeal of a broken dream

The bridge that never ends

What young America deserves

Faith, family, and freedom—The forgotten core of conservatism

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

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.

Conservatism as stewardship

Rebuilding what is broken

A creed for the rising generation

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

Transcript

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

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 wins when good people mirror its rage.

Ancient evil, new clothes

A time for choosing