OSU Student: 'Terrorist' Attack (If You Can Call It That) Was a Misunderstanding

The very reasonable and affable Doc Thompson filled in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program to set a few things straight today, Wednesday, December 21.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 2 for answers to these questions:

• How is Doc like Oliver Twist?

• What is RINO Season tweeting?

• How did Obama rig wait times at the VA?

• Are you racist if you don't like Thai food?

• Do Italian and Irish lives matter?

• Is it a misunderstanding if someone purposefully tries to hit you with a car or stab you?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

DOC: Hi, there. I'm Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck. Thanks so much for joining me today. We're taking your tweets @DocThompsonshow, as we do during my regular morning radio broadcast on TheBlaze Radio Network.

More about me, go to TheBlaze.com, click on channels. And if you would, please follow my channel at TheBlaze.com. Just again, right at the top, you'll see channels and scroll down. And please pay no attention to the picture of me.

Somehow, some way of all the press shots that they've taken over the years, they said, "Let's see if we can find the worst possible picture." Now, I'm not saying any of them are really good. I realize you're starting with this. I get that. That's cool.

Kal, have you seen the picture that they have up there on this?

KAL: I did. You look a little -- what's the word?

DOC: I look like I'm begging for gruel, like I'm Oliver Twist.

Please can I have more? Hello. Hello. Can I have some?

KAL: And the smirk on your face, I got to say, it's kind of douchey. You got a bit of a douchey smirk.

DOC: It's a very douchey smirk. It looks like I'm in pain or passing gas, like I didn't hear the question.

What? What?

KAL: Do you get final approval on the photos they use?

DOC: No. They just put it up there. It's horrible. Look at this. It's horrible.

But of all of that, somebody said -- either this was the first one in the whole series of photos, and they just said, "There's the one. Found one of Doc. Good." Or they're like, "Let's go through and find one, and somebody thinks that looks good."

If that somebody is a female around here, I really question your taste. I really -- I'm starting to think that there's somebody working against me in the company. I think somebody is like, "Let's take him down. Do everything bad. All right. First, we'll start with a really bad photo." So, please, pay no attention to the photo. And, instead, just follow the page.

The tweets coming in. It's RINO Season tweeting: And when Obama says the police acted stupidly, he was doing race relations a solid? Is that right?

Yeah, see, that's the point. He has done so many things wrong when it comes to race relations, and now he's suddenly above it, as he's leaving office, that he's done everything right.

One of the comments he made in the interview he just presented was -- and I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something to the effect of: By every measure, everything is much better now in America.

By every measure or metric, any way you could judge America, everything is better now compared to when he took office.

I could come up with a whole lot of things that are not better, a whole lot of things that are worse. In fact, I saw today, the VA -- look at the VA alone.

If he said, "Wow, we put McDonald in, and everything is great. They got those wait times."

First of all, the wait times that they're reporting are not accurate wait times. All they did -- instead of actually lower the amount of times that veterans have to wait, all they did was change the system or way that they measure them, the way they calculate it. So it seems like they're better." The people aren't actually getting in sooner. They just started measuring or counting different.

It's just a different formula that makes them look better. In fact, they rate -- there's a service that rates veterans hospitals. And they rate them one to five stars. Five being the best, one star being the worst. And there are multiple hospitals, veterans hospitals around the country that went from a certain amount of stars to lesser stars.

I know it was, off the top of my head, Albuquerque, and one in Colorado, went from two stars to one star. But by every metric, things are better in America today. Race relations. The economy.

Relations, in general, are they better today? We all getting along much better than we did in 2008? Health care, is that better? More money? By virtually no metric is it better.

I know one metric it's better in America today. It's better for Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. It's better for them. Because they are loaded. Lots of power and lots of money.

All right. Another tweet, @DocThompsonshow from Ken Putt: I'm completely with you, but maybe it's time to switch to APR coffee, decaf.

@APRCoffee is American Pride Roasters. It's the official coffee of TheBlaze. AmericanPrideRoasters.com, they have the gift packets. It's the best coffee in America. Try it.

But he's saying maybe I switched to their decaf. And I'm sorry, it's only American Pride Roasters, and it's the Doc Thompson's Bacon Blast Coffee today. Mmm. That's good stuff.

Okay. Before the break, we had a lady challenge and say, "Okay. What's the solution?" I offered one. We need to stop paying attention to this stuff, start treating people well. And the people that don't treat you well, move on. Stop thinking that they have some ulterior racist motive. Sometimes it's a misunderstanding. But there's another way forward.

Race relations in America -- and I have expressed this on my morning radio broadcast from time to time, could be centered around food.

Who doesn't like food, and who doesn't like ethnic foods? You may not like all ethnic foods. But you're going to probably like some ethnic foods.

Kal, is there any ethnic food that you like that has nothing to do with your ethnicity or ethnic background? Anything at all?

KAL: Of course. My favorite food. Mexican. I love Mexican food.

DOC: You're not Mexican.

KAL: I'm nowhere near Mexican.

DOC: So imagine somebody said, "You know, Kal, you have to accept Mexicans along with Mexican foods. I mean, that's a package deal." Even if you were racist, wouldn't you be like? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and take the food. I'll just go ahead and accept them.

KAL: Why wouldn't I accept them?

DOC: Well, I'm saying if you were a racist.

KAL: Oh, okay. So you're telling me, if I'm a racist, I could eat my favorite kind of food, Mexican food, if I accept Mexicans.

DOC: I'm just saying, you start calling the racists out. And you're like, "Okay. So you don't like certain races, whatever, but you certainly love some of their food, don't you?"

I'm saying, we don't know each other, and we start breaking bread with people -- you don't like Asian people. So you don't like that Japanese cuisine? You don't like Thai food? Really, seriously? You're racist?

See, what I'm saying? Then we get together. We start learning about it. Because food is also culture. So they start learning about people and understanding them. So I'm thinking that's part of the key. Food solves so many other problems.

KAL: Food knows no boundaries.

DOC: Right. Exactly. It solves so many other problems. I think you do, you have the food summits. That's how you need to start leading. And actually that has been the case in some ways throughout history in America.

For example, for many years, most of the immigrants to America were primarily from Europe. They were from places like Italy and Germany and Ireland. Places like this.

And the Irish are always going to fail here because Irish food basically sucks. I mean, by comparison, it's just not good. So maybe it's not going to work so good for the Irish. But -- is there a whole lot of racism against Irish people right now?

I mean, the gingers there are, but that's not exclusively Irish. Right? Okay.

But for years, there was racism against people like from Italy and people from Germany, for example.

After World War II, when you had American soldiers that were traipsing all over Europe as part of their efforts in Europe, they come back to America, and they're like, "Hey, so I have this stuff. It's called pizza, right? You got to try this stuff."

People in America didn't know what pizza was. And then they would go into areas of New York where there were -- or other major cities, where there were Italian communities, seeking out such cuisines, and they got to know about it. And how many real -- real claims of and accurate claims of racism against Italians are there in America today?

Oh, come on. Italian lives matter. You don't have that. What do you have? You have Hispanic and black primarily are the claims of racism in America. At one time, a lot of Italians claimed racism. And maybe there was.

The food helped bring us together.

My father, when he was -- grew up in the hills of West Virginia. And he was probably 15, 14, something like this. Shortly after World War II, his sister took a trip to New York. His older sister. And she came back, and she told him about this wonderful food called pizza. He had no concept of it. And she described it to him. And he said at the time, he goes, "I thought it sounded horrible. It's bread with sauce on it. I don't -- what is -- it sounds horrible." He couldn't -- he like couldn't even put it together in his head.

And, of course, pizza is one of the biggest cuisines in America. We even recognize it as pretty much an American cuisine.

So, Kal, I think that food could be one of those ways forward. Think about all the foods around the world you love. All the ethnic cuisines. That's part of the solution to it.

KAL: Totally. I think we can bring all people together with the food.

DOC: That's it.

I love food from all over the place. If I thought for a moment that it wasn't a package deal, I even learn about the cultures, or you just use food to say, "Hey -- think about all the stuff you learn about China from the fortune cookies when you're eating.

KAL: Before you even start a conversation, just, "Here, try this."

Automatically, they're going to be put in a good mood. Wow, this is really good.

DOC: This is really good. That's right. And you know whose that is? Let me tell you about these people.

So Ireland is at a disadvantage there, I admit it. Ethiopia probably at a disadvantage too.

KAL: What's wrong with potatoes? You can have fried potatoes, baked potato, mashed potatoes?

DOC: Yeah, and some of that is okay. But you got to understand, western European food, they don't cook with a lot of spices and stuff. A little bit bland. There are some exceptions. Not horrible. But, I mean, by comparison -- and, by the way, I'm of Irish and German descent or whatever, so -- but by comparison, they lose when it comes to Italian food. Am I wrong?

KAL: I mean, if you're going on full-on meals, I guess they're not as exciting.

DOC: Kal, let's go out for Irish food tonight. Kal, let's go out for Italian tonight.

KAL: I can go for some corned beef and hash and mashed potatoes. That's good stuff.

DOC: Yes, you can go for it. But, Kal, here's your choice: We go Mexican, we go Italian, we go Thai, we go Irish food. Rate those for me.

KAL: Yeah, okay. You're right. Irish is not going to be the top on the list.

DOC: All right. That's it.

All right. Students at the Ohio State University were asked recently by my friend, Faith Goldy, some questions about the terrorists. Well, of course, we had the terrorist attack in Berlin, which is still continuing to unfold this morning. Quick update on that, before I get to the Ohio State story.

Now it looks like there was two drivers or two people in the vehicle. The gentleman that was killed, likely, possibly, probably was hijacked. He was carjacked. They believe the truck, based on their tracking equipment and computers, that somebody tried to start it a couple of times and failed. Maybe without a key or whatever. Tried to get it started. And then at some point, it ended up starting.

It drove toward Berlin for an hour or so, stopped for a couple of hours, and then eventually plowed through the crowd. And then the Polish gentleman, who was likely carjacked or something, was found dead. We don't know how he ended up -- they haven't confirmed if it was self-inflicted, if the guy who carjacked him or the guy who was with him shot him, if a police officer did. They haven't told us that yet. The other guy is still on the lam. He's still out there. They say he's armed and dangerous. The gentleman that they picked up to begin with turned out to not be the guy.

So this is what's going on. A couple of weeks ago, a few ago -- I guess it's probably close to a month ago now, at the Ohio State University, right around Thanksgiving, a guy in a car tried to pull off a -- well, I guess it was a terrorist attack. He wasn't as successful as some.

And in the car, plows into some people. Gets out of the car. Jumps out and starts stabbing people.

Faith Goldy goes there and says, "In light of what's happened there and some of these other automobile attacks, people using their car as a weapon or vehicle as a weapon, let's go talk to the people and find out what they think about this guy who, based on his rants on social media, what we know about him, and ISIS claiming responsibility for, was likely motivated by extremist beliefs. Extremist Islamic beliefs." Not that all Muslims believe this. Not that all Muslims are a part of this nonsense. They are not.

By percentage, very few are. But it's wrong to ignore the motivations to this stuff.

So she went and said, "Hey, what do you think about this? Tell me about this guy. Do you think this was terrorism?" Ask them all kinds of questions. Here's what some of the students at the Ohio State University had to say when she asked.

VOICE: I'm here at Ohio State University, which has just become the setting of ISIS's most recent terrorist attack on --

DOC: Scroll in just a little bit. Scroll in about 30 seconds or so to this.

VOICE: Multiculturalism.

VOICE: Do you feel safe on campus after the attack this week?

VOICE: Yep.

VOICE: You do?

Would you call it a terrorist attack?

VOICE: Depends on what your definition of terrorism is.

VOICE: According to your definition.

VOICE: No.

DOC: Okay. Wait. Wait. Wait. Would you call it a terrorist attack?

It depends on what your definition of terrorism is.

What -- is there another definition of terrorism I don't know? I mean, is it because he wasn't more successful?

It depends on what your definition of terrorism is.

I assume that there was really only one standard. So you mean my definition, like -- Kal, help me out here.

KAL: I'm guessing, you know, attacking, hurting, killing.

DOC: Yes, he did those things. He did all of those things. Yeah, he was responsible for that. It was based on extremist ideology.

KAL: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Not going to say like tickling falls under terrorism.

DOC: Oh. Is there some way this wouldn't be called terrorism? If he, what? If he wasn't motivated by extremist ideology?

KAL: Perhaps.

DOC: No, it could still be likely terrorism. Okay. A little bit more from the Ohio State University students.

VOICE: No.

VOICE: Would you call what happened terrorism?

VOICE: I don't see -- I don't know what happened. I don't know what it's about. And I think we still have a lot to learn about the incident.

VOICE: ISIS has claimed responsibility.

VOICE: I do realize that. But that doesn't always mean that's what necessarily happened.

VOICE: Would you call this terrorism?

VOICE: I'm not sure.

DOC: Okay. Hold on a second. This guy, he wants to get all the answers. I don't know. I haven't read everything yet. I just want to make sure that I don't say something that's inaccurate. Get all of the facts.

Which I agree with. That's great. I wonder how he feels about Russian hacking during the election. Did he say that as well? Did he also say, "Well, we don't know for sure. Let's wait till all the information comes out?" I would guess probably not. Here's a bit more.

VOICE: I'm not sure. I've been just kind of like keeping updated with the news. I'm not sure like if they've confirmed that --

DOC: Okay. Hold on a second. So she doesn't know because she's been keeping up with the news. Didn't she just say she has been keeping up with the news, but she doesn't know?

So is that a criticism of the news? They haven't given her enough information? Okay. A little bit more.

VOICE: Yeah, so I don't know.

VOICE: Would you call what happened terrorism?

VOICE: No, I wouldn't.

VOICE: No.

VOICE: I would say it was a misunderstanding.

DOC: Okay. There's the one. It wasn't terrorism. It was a misunderstanding. That's all it was.

You know all the times that I have run people over and stabbed them, it was just a misunderstanding. That's all it was. It certainly wasn't terrorism. It was just confusion. I thought it was perfectly acceptable to run people over and stab them.

I mean, Kal, all the times you've killed people, misunderstanding?

KAL: Luckily, I haven't killed people recently.

DOC: Oh.

KAL: But I wouldn't think that that could be something that could be misunderstood though.

DOC: I'm trying to think, what type of misunderstanding could there have been?

KAL: You know, if your wife says, "Hey, pick up some lemons," and I bring home limes. Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

DOC: Right. That seems a little lighter. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

KAL: Although, I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I can't see how running people over and then getting out of the car and stabbing them --

DOC: Maybe. Maybe your wife said, "Hey, can you go to the store for lemons," and you thought she said, "Hey, can you hit somebody with your car and then jump out and stab them?" Lemons. Hit somebody with your car, jump out, and stab them. Very similar. Something like that, you know.

KAL: No. Not really similar at all, actually.

DOC: Hmm. Maybe it was like this --

KAL: I mean, I know there's lost in translation, but this is a bit much.

DOC: Could be. But I'm thinking, maybe it was something like, hey, you know, if you run into Steve today, tell him I said hi. If you run into Janice --

KAL: Oh, I could see what you're saying -- if you translate or misunderstand, you actually literally run into them.

DOC: Right. Literally ran into Paul or Steve.

Can you do me a favor? You know, if you run into Steve, give him this information.

I don't know how the stabbing comes in. Maybe it's, hey, if you run into Steve, jump out of the car and stab him a couple of times. Maybe it's something like that. Hmm. So it's a misunderstanding.

KAL: I don't think this guy knows what the definition of misunderstanding is.

DOC: I don't know how you would ever misunderstand such things.

Okay. I'm going to get a break in. We'll come back with more of what the students of the Ohio State University believe about this terrorist on this the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DOC: Students at the Ohio State University asked by Faith Goldy a bunch of questions about the guy who jumped -- ran people over with his car around Thanksgiving. Jumped out of the car and started stabbing people. Whether or not it's racist. And the last gentleman said, "No, it was just a misunderstanding."

They had this -- as I touched on at the beginning of the show, they had a -- a memorial service for all people of color that have been killed recently, within months or whatever, by police officers. And they said, just because somebody has done something wrong, it doesn't mean that police officers should execute them. Paraphrasing. But that was the point of it. That police shouldn't just try them. But what they're missing about this case was, police weren't just trying him they were stopping him from killing other people. It didn't matter. I'll share that story with you in just a minute. It's Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck at the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn today. Thank you so much for joining me. Coming up on my radio broadcast in the morning on TheBlaze Radio Network, Friday morning, I'm going to let the cat out of the bag and tell a bunch of company secrets.

Until they stop me. So coming up Friday morning -- there's been a lot of questions about what's going on with the radio network. A lot of good stuff. But I'll tell you, some of the stuff going on, cat out of the bag, Friday morning. So please make an appointment now. Friday morning, Blaze Radio Network. 6:00 to 9:00 Eastern time. Just go to TheBlaze.com. Click on radio.

So the Ohio State University Coalition for Black Liberation, whatever that is, headed this memorial for people of color that were killed by police officers recently. And a young lady stood up and read this: She said, in some cases, the deceased may have committed acts of violence against others before they were killed. Perhaps they were domestic abusers. Perhaps they were threatened or killed other people. She said, this possibility is not something to shy away from. The protest against police brutality extends to the innocent and the guilty alike, because we know no matter the crime, justice and due process do not come from a cop's bullet. Which is true. That's the reason that police do not just go out and execute people.

And they didn't execute this guy. The guy who drove his car into a group of people and started stabbing people was stopped by a police officer.

Did she miss that piece of the story? So it would have been better for the police officer to allow him to go on stabbing people, or does she believe they should have subdued him a different way? I love when they say, well, you didn't have to shoot him. You know, like deadly force. Can you just shoot him in the leg? Can you shoot him in the arm or something to stop him? No, you can't.

That's not how it works, folks. Police officers are trained. If you pull your gun and you shoot somebody, you shoot to kill and that's it. There's no wound them. This isn't Hollywood. You watch too many movies.

And if your loved one or you were being stabbed, would you really concern -- now, hang on, police officer. Oh, I'm being stabbed -- hang on. Don't. No, don't shoot him. No, no, no. Try -- just wing him. Hold on. No, no. Use your Taser.

No! You're going to say, "Stop this guy." And that's what they did, and that's what they were supposed to do.

There is an associate professor of English. Her name is (sound effect). She said --

KAL: I'm sorry. What was that?

DOC: (sound effect). That's her name.

KAL: Is that the professional pronunciation?

DOC: Yeah, it's a foreign name, so it's not going to make sense to you. (Sound effect). She said, you can understand where an act of violence comes from without condoning it.

I was like, "Okay. I guess you can understand that. You know, right. Nobody wants to be a criminal. And you could say, hey, this guy (inaudible)."

But that doesn't mean you lead with, hey, this guy had a rough life, don't shoot him. He's stabbing people, so let's think about it before we shoot him.

No, stop him from hurting people. And then you don't lead with, okay. Now let's talk about how rough this guy had it. You talk about what was wrong. What he did wrong. The fact that it was terrorism. The motivation for the terrorism. The victims.

You talk about all these things before you go, "Wow, this guy probably sucked." Right?

Then she called what he did a tragic, tragic mistake. He drove into the people and it was just a tragic mistake.

Stephanie Clemance Thompson -- cousin Stephanie who is an associate director of residency there said that the gentleman in question, the terrorist (sound effect), was a Buckeye. This was --

KAL: Sorry, one more time?

DOC: (sound effect). Again, a foreign name, Kal. You're not going to understand it.

She posted on social media: He's a Buckeye, a member of our family. If you think it's okay to celebrate his death and/or share pictures of his dead body -- if I see it in my time line, I will unfriend you. Because he's a Buckeye. #Buckeyestrong, #BlackLivesMatter.

So that's her concern? That you're posting pictures -- you're mocking him. You know why people are posting pictures and mocking him? Because they're upset, they're frustrated, they're scared, they're angry. All of these things, based on his actions. Not on his race. His ideas. His religion. None of this stuff.

She said, "I pray you will find compassion for his life, as troubled as it clearly was. Think of the pain he must have been under to feel his actions were the only solution."

Now, I mentioned the Brock Turner thing. Do they say the same thing when it comes to Brock Turner or rapists? Do they ever say, "Wait a minute, let's give the racist some credit here. I'm sure they don't want to be racist. What are they going through in their life? They must have really been jonesing for some strange in order to go out and rape somebody, right? They were just looking for a hookup." No, they don't say that. They say, "No, it's wrong. No means no." They never say nice things about it, "Let's take their past into consideration." They never say any of that stuff. They say simply, "It's wrong." Why the double standard? Because it doesn't fit the agenda.

These people say they need safe spaces from perception. Their perceptions of you and me and things you say. Perceived slights. Perceived insults. No, I mean, sometimes they actually are insults. But their safe spaces have not been strictly limited to that. And many times, in many cases, they'll say, "Well, I think he meant this, or I believe that, or I thought I heard."

So they need safe spaces from the perceived harsh words that you or somebody else present. But terrorists, they don't need safe spaces from that. He needs to be understood. Don't shoot him because that's just executing him.

So their safe spaces are for words. Meanwhile, when they are actually in danger and in jeopardy, they don't need a safe space, it's good.

What kind of twisted logic is that? What kind of nonsense is that?

I cannot wrap my head around it. So I was taught sticks and stones break my bones, words won't hurt me. Theirs is completely flipped around. It is: Words will hurt me, and a knife and a car will not. Vehicular assault, that's good. That actually won't hurt me. Come on, kids.

You were just run over and stabbed. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off. What do I tell you? Words and names may cause you pain, but cars and knives, they won't hurt you. So just suck it up.

It's just bizarre.

Hey, did you see the Oscars have a possibility, for the first time in history, of having somebody win both the male and female best acting categories?

(laughter)

Somebody has been nominated for both the male and female best acting category. Kelly Mantle was born a male, but plays a transgender prostitute in Confessions of a Womanizer. Whatever that is. And Mantle calls himself an actor on Instagram, but also appeared in RuPaul's Drag Race. Whatever that is. And has also said that he -- she is gender fluid. Not just transitioning. Because transitioning would say, "I was born a man, but I've always known I'm a woman." So he would only be by their progressive Hollywood logical a female and, therefore, eligible for the female category.

But he's gender fluid. So at any given moment, he could be male or female. He just vacillates back and forth. So I imagine if they nominate him for both categories, at any moment, he may not fit that category. But he may again in a minute, a day later. So I imagine it would go like this.

He -- this person is in the audience. Right? Okay. The best actress award goes to -- and at that moment, he's probably female, making him eligible to win. And then he would win it. And, yes, I won. But then as they get ready to read the male winner, probably gender fluid over to the male category. He's gender fluid.

Producers say they weren't sure what category to put him in because when they years ago split the reminder list -- this is a list that they send out to all the people that vote in the Academy, this little controlled group, into male and female categories. And he fits both since he's gender fluid.

So they said, "Just put him in both. Just easier. Just put him in both since he's gender fluid. We don't know what he is today. Throw him in both. And who knows, he may fit that."

You know, I don't agree with or fully understand people that say they are transgender. I try to, and I say, "Wow, that must be really horrible, if you feel this -- you know, you've always been trapped in somebody else's body." I can empathize -- sympathize with them and say, "That sucks. I don't wish you any ill will. You have a right to live your life. I don't want to keep you down. Go forth with personal freedoms and personal responsibility and live your life. And if you grant me the same respect, we'll have a fine relationship."

I can -- it must suck if you want to go into a certain restroom. I get all that. The simple solution to restrooms are you just make them all unisex. One person. One bathroom. And there you go. Move on. So we can move on.

But gender fluid, I got to call foul on. That one I'm calling foul on. That's BS. That is definitely BS. If you're gender -- let me help you out, if you're gender fluid or believe you're gender fluid, you're female. No, no, if you cannot make up your mind, you're female. Guys can make up their mind. No guy is saying, "You know, today, I'm just feeling kind of effeminate. Today, I just need help. Today, I just need some understanding and chocolate, okay? I just need that. I'm not looking for you to solve my problems. I just want to you listen." No guy is saying that.

Guys know -- males know, even women who say they've been transitioning to a male always felt like they were trapped in a female body, but they identify as male, they know. They know they're male. Women don't know. Women are the ones who, "Today I just need to be held." The other, "You know, if you think you can keep me down, what do you think I need a male? I need a man like a fish needs a bicycle." You're the one vacillating. Right? That's what I'm saying.

If you believe you're gender fluid, help me out, you're female. You're gender female. That's just how it is.

Kal, based on your experiences as a married man, do you dispute what I say?

KAL: No. No, not at all. Pretty much -- you nailed it down right there.

(laughter)

No misunderstanding.

DOC: No misunderstandings.

Does your wife ever not fully have an answer, or is she ever undecided, Kal?

KAL: No.

DOC: Does she ever change her mind? Is she ever fluid about where you're going to go to dinner, where the couch in the living room should go, what you're buying for Christmas, where you're vacationing, how to rear the child?

KAL: If she's asking that question, no, she always knows. If you're asking that question, eh, sometimes there's some variations. There's some questions.

DOC: Uh-huh. So today she knows exactly how she wants the living room setup, right? The couch goes in a certain corner.

KAL: Yes, she does. Uh-huh.

DOC: Is that static? Will she have that same idea six months from now?

KAL: No. She will --

DOC: So she is feng shui fluid?

KAL: Yes. Very feng shui fluid.

DOC: Okay.

KAL: Feng fluid.

DOC: She is interior design fluid?

KAL: Yes.

DOC: And what about what you should be consuming and what she is going to consume, what you're going to have for dinner tonight? Is she ever -- is she always static about her decisions?

KAL: No.

DOC: Okay. See, same thing. Hence, women don't make up their mind. They're fluid about many things. If you believe you're gender fluid, you are simply gender female. Quick break. Back with more on this. The Glenn Beck Program.

(OUT AT 9:50AM)

DOC: Hey, if you would, please follow me on Twitter, it's @DocThompsonshow. I'm pretty active on Twitter, so I'll engage with you, even after the program. @DocThompsonshow. Please follow me. Mickey Dunn tweeting, @DocThompsonshow and @Kal79. That's K-A-L79 for Kal, who is the producer today in New York.

Clearly, the students at Ohio State misunderstand what terrorism is. Yeah, they've had a misunderstanding -- which is more likely, they misunderstand what terrorism is, or the terrorists misunderstood? Yeah.

@DocThompsonshow from inseparable on Twitter. Women have the ability to ask what you want for dinner and inform you that you are wrong at the same time.

Yeah, that's true. How many times have you had this conversation, Kal? What do you want for dinner? I don't care. I don't care. So you're like, "Okay. I'll make a decision. How about we just go get that?" No, I don't want that.

KAL: That's every night.

DOC: I know. It's like -- I will -- I just tell her, "Whatever you want. Whatever you want." And finally, if she keeps saying -- I finally go, "Okay. Do you want me to make a decision or not? I'll make a decision."

KAL: I get this. She'll pick something, and then we'll go. And maybe it's not the greatest. And she's like, "This is why I don't pick. See. Because every time I pick, it's something bad."

DOC: Okay. But does she always automatically go along with what you say?

KAL: No. No.

DOC: Exactly. That's what I said. They're fluid when it comes to that.

MacAvoy tweeting: RuPaul's Drag Race has nothing to do with fast cars.

Can you imagine how confusing that would be? If I was RuPaul, I would actually invite friends to a drag race, to a NASCAR -- no, NASCAR is not drag, I guess. But to a car race.

KAL: A literal drag race.

DOC: A literal drag race between race cars and say, "Meet me down -- I had no idea this is what you meant."

KAL: They show up dressed up, it might be --

DOC: They look fabulous though. By that, I mean fabulous!

Micky Dunn @DocThompsonShow @Kal79, I feel like I'm a rock, but I'm trapped in the wrong body. I blame Krispy Kreme.

Yes, I have the same trouble. The same trouble.

All right. Calls coming up. We got a bunch of people that want to chime in. We'll get to your calls next. It's 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. And also, a way that you can help out the little snowflakes who have been so upset since Donald Trump got elected. The ones who need those safe spaces. A way that you can help them out. You are going to love this.

Featured Image: Getty Images

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.

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.