Gilmore Girls Revival: Last Four Words Were About the Writer, Not the Fans

December 05, 2016

WRITER

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Glenn Beck does not watch the Gilmore Girls.

"I don't know a thing about the Gilmore Girls, other than my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

The premise of the show surrounds a mother and daughter relationship. The mother --- Lorelai --- had her daughter Rory at 16 years of age. The original show celebrates the success of her teen pregnancy. The much-anticipated Netflix revival ended with four words the show's creator, Amy Sherman-Palladino, planned years ago: Mom? Yeah? I'm pregnant.

But it's Sherman-Palladino's comments in recent interviews that have fans scratching their heads. Sherman-Palladino said that abortion could be an option for Rory. That news made Glenn's daughters go ballistic: Rory would never do that!

"If it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice," Glenn noted. "And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out."

Glenn's daughter Hannah also nailed the problem with the ending.

"I thought this was so good. She said, The entire four episodes were about the fans. The four words were about the writer, Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Okay. I don't know a thing about The Gilmore Girls, other than that my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household. As they were growing up, they would watch The Gilmore Girls with their mother every Tuesday night, and they would go over to their aunt's house -- and even on reruns, every Tuesday night, they would watch The Gilmore Girls. And so it was a big deal around my house when The Gilmore Girls decided to reunite and do, what? Four episodes on Netflix. I am proud to say that I have never watched an episode of The Gilmore Girls.

PAT: Yeah, me too. By the way, weren't they paid the most of any actors on television to do those four episodes?

JEFFY: Yeah, like 750,000 for each in an episode.

PAT: Per episode. Yeah. The highest --

GLENN: Were any of them working? I don't even know the cast.

PAT: I don't know. But it was a lot.

GLENN: Were any of them like, "Yeah, I used to be on The Gilmore Girls, but now I'm working at T.J. Maxx." Or are they actors?

STU: I have legitimately no clue.

JEFFY: I have no clue.

GLENN: I have no idea either. So obviously this is not going to be a conversation about The Gilmore Girls, but rather culture and the left. Listen to this. So I'm not going to give you a spoiler alert, because I doubt there's anyone in this audience that is waiting to see The Gilmore Girls.

STU: But if you happen to be that person, this is the time to turn it off.

GLENN: That one. Turn it off for a second. Apparently -- and I don't know the story line at all, except, do you know what the premise is?

PAT: No.

STU: Two girls. That's about where I would go with it.

JEFFY: Two girls.

PAT: The mom and the daughter.

GLENN: The mom and the daughter. Okay. Rory, I think is the daughter -- oh, no, the mom's name --

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: I thought they were sisters.

GLENN: Mom was -- no, they're like sisters.

PAT: Gertrude is the mother. Gertrude.

GLENN: They're like sisters because mom had Rory when she was 16 years old.

PAT: Oh, my.

GLENN: And so --

PAT: So they're good friends. They're just good friends.

GLENN: They're good friends. Stop mocking for a second. Let me get through it. Then you can do all the mocking you want. And I'm not going to stop you on the mocking. It's just to get through it.

So the idea is that this girl's life was so tough because she made the mistake of having sex, she had a baby, they've made it through, and that's what the whole thing is.

STU: She was punished with a baby.

GLENN: No. No. Yes, that's what you could -- stop with the mocking for a second.

STU: That wasn't mocking.

PAT: This is on the new --

GLENN: No, this is the whole premise of the --

PAT: Oh, the whole thing -- of the whole -- oh.

GLENN: -- is they were able to make it. They were alone in the world, and they were able to make it. She was 16. She decided to keep the baby. She was, you know, strong all the way through.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: She raised Rory to be a good girl.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And they're really close. Okay? It's a success story of a teen pregnancy. That's what this is.

Everybody understand that? That's the only premise you need to know.

PAT: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: Success story of teen pregnancy.

Two stories now: One, the reason why people who were big fans of the show were unsatisfied with it -- they liked the four episodes. They didn't like the last four words of the final episode.

Now, apparently -- and I know nothing about this. I don't know why I've just lost my audio. But apparently, the thing that they didn't like is the last four words because the last four words were written a decade ago. And the writer did not -- the original writer and the original person that started the show did not write the last like three seasons back when it was on television. I don't know why. But she was jettisoned.

And she always said she wanted the episode to end -- or, the series to end when Rory was like 21 or 23 years old. And she was going to say the last four words, "Mom, I'm pregnant."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Okay? And that would have been a big deal because she was --

PAT: You used the contraction. That was only three words.

JEFFY: Yeah, but it would have been --

PAT: Still...

STU: I am pregnant?

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

STU: Okay. Got it.

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: I'm just making sure because we'll hear nothing but that, and then they'll lose the point of the story.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you, Pat.

PAT: Glenn Beck said, "Mom, I'm pregnant" is four words. That's all we'll hear.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you, Pat. I appreciate that.

Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: And that would have been appropriate when she was 23 years old and young and unmarried and she's just getting out of college and she's got her whole world in front of her. Okay? Because it's not 16. But in our society, that's still young to be pregnant and unmarried. Okay?

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Well, now, she's not 23. She's 33.

PAT: Rory is?

GLENN: Rory.

PAT: Thirty-three now?

GLENN: Yeah. Because she was -- yeah.

PAT: Wow, has it been that long? Jeez.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. So it's ten years later. When she was 23, they ended it. She's 33 now.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And so now, she's had her life. She's -- you know, she's still unmarried. She's started her career. Et cetera. Et cetera. And 33 is not young to have a baby. Right?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But it changes apparently -- and I don't know, and I'm not going to get into it. It changes the entire story line. It would have been a great ending ten years ago. Everybody is upset because it's like, "That's a bad ending now. That's not -- it changes -- now, that's a setup for a new season. It's not a cap." Okay?

Now -- now, that you understand that, that's the controversy.

But here's the real controversy: I read something -- because Gilmore Girls' fans generally are not listening to programs like this, they may not be getting the political news.

So there was a story on -- that I read -- I don't remember, New York Times or someplace, about the writer and what she said after, on those four words.

She said, "Well, Rory is smart enough to at least consider an abortion."

(chuckling)

GLENN: So I tell my daughters this. My daughters are -- they go -- they go ballistic. They go ballistic. And they start in, like, "Rory's a real person. Rory would never do that!"

(laughter)

STU: That's their complaint?

GLENN: Right. All right.

JEFFY: It's not the character. It's not the life.

GLENN: But, listen, here's how out of touch this writer is. Okay? What is the story?

JEFFY: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: The story is, at 16, a girl made a decision, and it's been the best decision of her life, and she's produced Rory.

PAT: It seems to be a pro-life show, in that eventuality.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Show. If she would have had an abortion, Rory wouldn't exist.

STU: Yeah, real dull series.

PAT: Right. It would just be Gilmore Girl, and it wouldn't be the same.

GLENN: And she wouldn't exist. So it makes the entire story line meaningless.

STU: Right. The premise, as you describe it, these circumstances that are sometimes difficult create these wonderful things.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Right? Like that is exactly --

GLENN: So now imagine being someone who at 16 -- your mom was 16. She gave birth to you. And you two made it. And now you're 33 with all these great memories, and you're pregnant and capable and wealthy enough to be able to have a baby, even by yourself. "I don't know, Mom. I'm thinking about cutting this one out."

JEFFY: Yeah, no way.

PAT: Crazy.

GLENN: Crazy.

PAT: Crazy.

It shows their agenda supersedes all.

GLENN: Everything.

PAT: Absolutely everything.

GLENN: My daughter Hannah said -- and I thought this was so good.

She said, "The four words -- she said, "The entire four episodes were about the fans." And she said, "The four words were about the writer. She had her thing she wanted to do, and it didn't matter if it wrecked it for all of the fans, she was going to be self-centered enough to do those four words because that's what she had planned." And she said, "She announced it ten years ago, those were the four words."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Everybody knew.

PAT: It doesn't even work.

GLENN: And it doesn't even work. So she said, "It became an ego project." And then on top of it, the abortion --

JEFFY: The abortion.

GLENN: I'm going to get my political message in here, which goes against everything in the show.

PAT: It sucks.

You know, J.K. Rowling kind of did the same thing, didn't she? After the fact of Harry Potter, she started throwing in all her little agenda items.

Oh, by the way --

GLENN: What? I don't know this.

PAT: -- Dumbledore was really gay. Oh, by the way --

GLENN: You've got to be kidding me.

PAT: -- Hermione was supposed to be black. Oh, by the way -- what? Well, then why didn't you do it that way, if that's what it was supposed to be. What are you talking about? Yeah --

GLENN: Where is the tip-off that Dumbledore was gay?

PAT: I don't -- if you go back and look at the movies -- I don't buy into it. I just think it's political correctness on her part now. I just think she didn't have a diverse enough cast and diverse enough story, and so now she's trying to make it diverse. It's pathetic. It's pathetic.

GLENN: I can't take it. I can't take it. I can't take -- look, I know, you know, people who make different lifestyle choices exist. I got it. I got it.

PAT: Yes. And I think we all know that.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: And I don't have a problem. Fine. Whatever.

PAT: I know.

GLENN: Don't force me to marry people in my church, and I won't force you to not marry. Can we just have some perspective and get along and live together?

PAT: It would be great, but no.

GLENN: It would be great. But television is non-stop gay relationships. I mean, it's like -- it just -- it seems like 90 percent of the population is gay and 10 percent are straight and getting married.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Well, this is why the Gaines situation stood out to so many people. Because I guess they didn't -- I don't watch the show.

GLENN: Oh, I do.

STU: I guess they don't have a lot of gay couples on or something.

PAT: Wouldn't that be sort of the balance to the rest of HGTV, which does feature them prominently.

STU: All the time. Just fine.

JEFFY: And they're in Waco, Texas.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: And they're in Waco.

GLENN: And Waco, Texas. Yeah. It's not like we're in San Francisco. We're in Waco, Texas.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And the shows they have in California can feature a lot of gay couples.

JEFFY: And they do. They do.

PAT: They do.

GLENN: Did you hear how Chip Gaines responded?

STU: Gracefully.

GLENN: Really -- I'll give it to you here in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: I -- I know I'm getting yelled at. I can feel the anger from my two daughters as they're yelling at me from home, if they happen to be listening to the show. The mother's name is Lorelai.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Long-term listeners of the show know the importance of that because it is my granddaughter's name.

(laughter)

PAT: Not coincidentally, by the way.

GLENN: Not coincidentally. Not coincidentally.

PAT: They are definitely connected.

PAT: Huge Gilmore Girl fans. Huge Gilmore Girl fans.

I'm going to get to Chip Gaines here in a second. Let me go to Ashley in Georgia. Hello, Ashley.

CALLER: Hey, Glenn. I need to correct you real quick.

GLENN: All right. Yeah.

CALLER: Okay? The last four words actually are, Rory says, "Mom." Lorelai says, "Yeah." And then Rory says, "I'm pregnant." Fade to black. Yeah.

GLENN: Ah. Got it. How did you feel about the ending?

CALLER: I hated it.

GLENN: Okay. And for the same reasons that I described?

CALLER: Yeah, I mean, it wasn't right. Yeah, it wasn't right. Yeah. So, yeah -- I --

GLENN: Did you know -- did you know about what the creator and the writer said about Rory and abortion?

CALLER: I read the article. Yes.

GLENN: You read the article.

Well, you listen to this show, and you're a fan of The Gilmore Girls.

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: How did that make you feel?

CALLER: It pissed me off. You know, but then I got ticked off. And then I was like, you know what, I'm not surprised because these are -- it's a liberal -- if you watch it and follow it, it's -- you know, it's (inaudible) for crying out loud. I mean, it's a liberal show. They live in Connecticut. So, I mean, I wasn't surprised. But I was ticked. And then I was kind of disappointed. That that -- she kind of alluded to, like, if the show had gone on, Rory probably would have an abortion because that would be like the smart thing to do for her.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

CALLER: I don't know. It just was like, are you kidding me?

GLENN: I mean, have you missed the entire point of everything that you've written?

CALLER: Right. And that's my whole thing. I'm like -- and they talk about, "It comes full circle." And I'm like --

GLENN: If you -- if you -- if it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice.

CALLER: Exactly.

STU: Doesn't it also break the circle? I mean, that's the whole point. The circle is over.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's crazy. Ashley, thank you so much. And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out.

Featured Image: The WB Television Network

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.

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?

How America’s elites fell for the same lie that fueled Auschwitz

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

Gilmore Girls Revival: Last Four Words Were About the Writer, Not the Fans

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

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

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

How America’s elites fell for the same lie that fueled Auschwitz

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