New York Times Forced to Issue Correction for Rewriting History

June 15, 2017

WRITER

Hell must have frozen over. The New York Times actually issued a correction for linking the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords to Sarah Palin, a claim soundly debunked six years ago. The outrageous rehashing was included in an editorial regarding the attempted slaughter of House Republicans at a baseball practice yesterday morning.

"It's quite unusual . . . I mean, they do issue corrections, a lot of times on kind of meaningless stuff, but one of the main points they were making is pretty freaking significant," co-host Stu Burguiere said.

Prior to the correction being issued, Glenn made the point that conservatives have plenty of reasons to claim incitement --- although he urged them to take the high road rather than retaliate in kind.

"Incitement? How about holding a picture of Donald Trump's bloody head? Incitement? How about a play this week in New York City making Caesar look like Donald Trump and having a bloody assassination in Central Park, so much so that the sponsor . . . Bank of America pulls out?" Glenn questioned.

The New York Times must have felt the heat from their blatant hypocrisy, not to mention the rewriting of history. The publication issued this correction on June 15, 2017:

An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

Again, before the correction came out, Glenn urged Americans to document the truth.

"Write a diary, because your children have absolutely zero chance of reading the truth," Glenn said.

In point of fact, the Tea Party was the biggest American populist movement in which grassroots efforts changed the course of an election in two years.

"That wasn't even put in TIME Magazine's year in review. Why? Because they don't want records of it. Why put a record of that so we have a hard time diminishing the impact and telling the truth of what really happened. This is a writing and rewriting of American history in realtime," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Today is the New York Times was full-fledged New York Times. Today, the New York Times today MSNBC, today, CNN, they're back to their old tricks. It didn't take them long before they started blaming this on the left -- I'm sorry. On the right. Before they started blaming this on Donald Trump.

Now, if we remember, they blamed the right and Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords, because she had released something about districts that needed to be targeted. "She used the word 'targeted.' In this atmosphere, with what they're saying, of course that's going to drive -- well, the person who used the gun to shoot Gabby Giffords was a lefty -- and nuts! Was not on the Sarah Palin email list. Let's just put it that way. Didn't see the targeting stuff. It wasn't Sarah Palin. And yet, the New York Times wrote this.

Conservative and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to man forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals.

They're right. Though there's no sign of incitement, as direct as in the Giffords' attack, liberals should, of course, hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right. But there is no sign of incitement.

Okay. Somebody puts out a political piece and says, "We have to target these districts." That's incitement. But Kathy Giffords -- Griffin. What is her name?

STU: Griffin. Griffin.

PAT: Yeah, it's Griffin.

GLENN: Sorry. She was never a star in my world. I don't know what she did to think she was a star. But she'll never get her career back of that one gig a night --

PAT: Once a year.

GLENN: On CNN.

Anyway, incitement. How about holding a picture of Donald Trump's bloody head? Incitement, how about a play that week in New York City making Caesar look like Donald Trump and having a bloody assassination in Central Park, so much so, that the sponsor -- what was it, Bank of America?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Pulls out. Unsolicited, pulls out and says, "This is over the top." So much so, that even the New York Times' critic says, "This is over the line."

But there's no incitement there. No, no, no. Nothing as strong as, "We need to target these districts."

STU: And that is legitimately the quote. This is from New York Times, not in 2011, but today. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other --

PAT: Unbelievable!

STU: -- Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

This has literally been disproved and debunked for six years, and today they're still writing it.

GLENN: It doesn't matter. Those -- those elites -- those in the newspaper -- this is why I've asked you for years, write a diary. Write a diary. Because your children have absolutely zero chance of reading the truth.

Remember, the Tea Party, the biggest American movement of -- of -- of a populist movement. A movement where grassroots takes over and changes the course of an election in two years, the Tea Party, that wasn't even put in TIME Magazine's year in review. Why?

Because they don't want records of it. Why put a record of that so we have a hard time diminishing the impact and telling the truth of what really happened.

This is a writing and rewriting of American history, in realtime, as historians go back.

But I will tell you, I've learned more from the lost diaries of the German people, than I have from any history book on what really happened in Germany.

Keep a diary.

So here's the New York Times saying this today and saying there's no link. Write in your diary and cut out any posts that you have, and make sure it's on paper. Cut on any post that you have, and make sure that you have the Kathy Griffin -- Griffith -- Grifford -- that one.

STU: Grifford, that's it. Kathy Grifford.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: That one. Whatever her name is, make sure you have the picture of her holding the bloody head two weeks before this shooting. Make sure you have the story of Shakespeare In the Park, one week, days before this shooting. And then I want you to write this: These things did not cause this crazy lunatic to shoot. It wasn't -- make sure you put that he was a Bernie Sanders volunteer. But then I want you to make sure that you put Bernie Sanders and what he said yesterday. Here's what he said yesterday.

BERNIE: Madam president, I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice this morning is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.

I am sickened by this despicable act. And let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. And I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.

GLENN: Stop. I'm asking you one question -- I want you to listen to this one question and only answer this question. Do you believe that he believes what he just said? Pat.

PAT: Yeah. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Jeffy, do you believe that he believes what he just said? That he condemns violence.

JEFFY: I'm not sure.

GLENN: Wow. Stu.

STU: I mean, his actions from last time this happened --

GLENN: That's not the question.

STU: That's not the doubt. The literal words he says, yes. He does not want violence. He condemns it.

GLENN: He has a long history of condemning violence. However, question number two, is he a political human being? Pat.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Jeffy.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: Stu.

STU: 100 percent.

GLENN: Which explains what he said after Kathy -- after --

STU: Kathy Grifford.

GLENN: Whatever. After what he said about the other shooter.

STU: Yeah, Jared Lee Loughner. He raised money off of it. He said he blamed it on right-wing reactionaries: This horrendous act of violence is not some kind of strange aberration for this area, where it appears threats and acts of violence are part of the political climate. Nobody can honestly express surprise that such a tragedy finally occurred.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

I believe -- I believe that yesterday Bernie Sanders, when he found out that this was one of his guys that was a campaign volunteer, I believe he was horrified that somebody could say that -- not for political reasons. I believe Bernie Sanders would not want somebody shooting at Congress members.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: Period.

Now, we don't get that respect from the press. We don't get that respect. They won't give that to us. They're still relitigating a false claim of -- of a shooting that happened by a crazy person on the left. They're still blaming that on Sarah Palin. And relitigating that today. They're, still, on MSNBC -- there was a tweet that went out and said, "Donald Trump is responsible for this."

I'm going to give you two answers to the question on who is responsible: Who is responsible? I'm going to give you two answers. And both of them are absolutely true. But both of them are separate and apart from each other.

You want to belly up to the big boy table? You want to hear things that -- that everybody will tell you today, to make you feel good, that you should tune to another show -- if you want to hear the truth stick around. I'll share it, next.

Continued in hour 3

GLENN: Hey, before we get into -- before we get into what we can do, could -- I think it's important to start with the correction of the New York Times today. The New York Times has issued a correction to what they had printed about Gabby Giffords. Do you want to go over that? This is unusual and remarkable, I think.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's quite unusual, especially from -- because, I mean, they do issue corrections, a lot of times on kind of meaningless stuff. You know, details -- they do issue a lot of -- to correct one of their editorials, one of the main points they were making is pretty freaking significant. Here's what the correction reads: An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

GLENN: That's amazing.

STU: I don't know how it gets to print. I don't know how they don't that know before they put the actual editorial up.

PAT: Wow. Yeah.

STU: But I'm glad they corrected it. And it is important. There is absolutely zero evidence -- in fact, it is proveable that this had nothing to do with it. You know, to the point of, he was obsessing about Gabby Giffords three years before the ad came out. And, you know, there's -- if he had any leaning, as we said -- an acquaintance called him a liberal. But it was not a political assassination. It was not that.

I mean, this is a guy who believed grammar was a conspiracy.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's almost incomprehensible what --

GLENN: Yesterday, it was a political assassination attempt. Yesterday, it was about politics. But it had nothing to do with Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders rhetoric or anything else. This guy was nuts. This guy believed what he believed, and he's the one who loaded the gun, got the gun. Lived in his van for two weeks. I mean, the guy was nuts, period.

It was politically motivated. Who had anything to do with that? Did Rachel Maddow wind him up?

STU: No, she -- he tweeted about Rachel Maddow. He tweeted about Ed Schultz. He tweeted about all these shows.

GLENN: I will tell you this, if you buy into that, then you better check his Facebook and what he tweeted and what he Facebooked about. A lot of stories from Russia Today.

STU: Yeah, Russia Today is another one.

GLENN: So was he wound up by the Russians?

STU: And I don't know if this was been widely reported, but he was also pretty much -- he was very pro-Sanders. Anti-Clinton, right? Like he was that left-wing socialist, wants Bernie, but not Hillary type of guy.

But he loved a lot of these left-wing shows. Is it their fault? No. Of course not. It is not their fault at all. It's not Rachel Maddow's fault. It's nobody on MSNBC's fault.

GLENN: You could make the case that the uber, uber left, just like the uber, uber right, they do want revolution. And he may have been a supporter of the Antifa movement, I don't know.

STU: There are groups certainly that advocate for violence.

GLENN: That want revolution.

PAT: Wouldn't it be refreshing if the left did the same thing we're doing right now?

STU: Wouldn't it be?

PAT: Wouldn't that be great? Give it -- a balanced look at it. A fair and balanced -- since Fox just dropped that, we can take it from them. We got a fair and balanced look at --

GLENN: Did they say what they were replacing it with?

PAT: I think most watched, most trusted.

GLENN: Isn't the most trusted name in news, isn't that the CNN most trusted --

PAT: I don't know. But Fox has actually won every poll along those lines for years now. So maybe they're going to take it from them. I don't know.

STU: And there were some examples today -- for example, of the Jared Lee Loughner thing, you said, wouldn't it be nice?

GLENN: Yeah, there are.

STU: Chris Hayes, for example, on MSNBC, when that out, people on the right were criticizing. How can you tie this?

And he said, yeah, I'll step up here and say that's completely nuts.

PAT: Wow.

STU: These are tough examples. It's hard to do that when you're on the left in a moment like this, and those people should be given credit. We should also criticize the people who don't -- who don't do that, and who break the -- you know, who create a double standard for themselves and blame the right for 2011 and don't do it here. When here it actually -- there's at least a tie.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Jared Lee Loughner didn't support Sarah Palin. There is an absolute -- that is provable. Here we have a situation where this person did support all these left-wing causes. But that still doesn't make them responsible. That is not the way this works.

GLENN: Right. So it is really easy -- it's really easy on the left to do what the New York Times did at first. It's really hard for them to issue the correction.

It is really hard for people on MSNBC to come out and say, look. Just like with Gabby Giffords, it was crazy then, it's crazy now.

It's really hard for people on the right to say that. And not throw stones. Because everything depends on clicks now. Everything depends on ratings.

I mean, it was really interesting to listen to Bill O'Reilly talk about ratings earlier this week. He's on with us tomorrow, by the way. But when he was on with us, he talked about ratings and how everything is done for ratings.

Well, how do you get ratings? You get ratings by dividing people. You get ratings by calling out a bogeyman. Because that's what -- that's what people want. They want the red meat. So who are we going to be able to work with? Who can we -- who can we trust to give us the news and give it to us straight? Well, people like Jake Tapper, who were consistent then and are consistent now.

Those are the things -- these are the times that we can learn, who is trustworthy? Who is going to say it, when it was tough?

STU: Let me give you a little flashback here, which is perhaps maybe the best example of this. We haven't even discussed since this whole terrible tragedy happened.

This is back in 2010. A couple hosts on the program, Pat Gray, Stu Burguiere, filling in for Mr. Glenn Beck that particular day. And there was a shooting, eight people killed at a workplace. And we talked about it. I said, a guy like that, who is a little bit unstable anyway, can't help but react to the constant pressure of Keith Olbermann on the air on MSNBC, talking about all the racism there is out there. Because that was his complaint.

And then we said, Keith Olbermann was responsible. Keith Olbermann was responsible for the shooting. And Media Matters did a big report about how we --

PAT: That's right.

STU: We -- blaming Keith Olbermann for the shooting. What an unbelievable charge. How dare you.

Of course, they cut out the next paragraph and next few seconds where I said, "Obviously we're making a point here." Let's move that to the case of the Tea Party members. They're constantly convinced the government is after them, and they're going to come take their guns. Well, who is always talking about that? Glenn Beck. So, therefore, he's responsible every time anyone does anything. They actually had to issue a correction because they --

GLENN: Media Matters.

STU: Media Matters issued a correction. Because what we were saying at that time, when it was hard for us, was, you know what, Keith Olbermann is not responsible for a murder. He can say anything he wants in a political context, outside of actually saying specifically go murder people. And it has nothing to do with the shooter.

Media Matters intentionally cut that off and later got caught and had to issue a correction about it. And here we are, years later, where the same crap happens, from many of the same people, and, you know, we have to choose whether -- you know, what kind of people we want to be. Do we want to be the people who actually stand up and say -- and can live with ourselves and sleep at night, knowing that we have consistent principles, or do we just want to throw around the same crappy accusations the other side does in those moments?

Is Socialism seducing a lost generation?

Jeremy Weine / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

The appeal of a broken dream

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

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

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

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

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

The bridge that never ends

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

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

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

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

What young America deserves

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialism does not offer salvation. It requires subservience.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatism as stewardship

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

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

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

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

Rebuilding what is broken

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

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

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

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

A creed for the rising generation

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

What does it mean to be a conservative in 2025? Glenn offers guidance on what conservatives need to do to ensure the conservative movement doesn't fade into oblivion. We have to get back to PRINCIPLES, not policies.

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

for Stewardship, protecting the wisdom of our Founders;
for Truth, defending objective reality in an age of illusion;
for Accountability, living within our means as individuals and as a nation;
for Neighborhood, rebuilding family, faith, and local community;
and for Duty, carrying freedom forward to the next generation.

A conservative doesn’t cling to the past — he stands guard over the principles that make the future possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm so tired of being against everything. Saying what we're not.

It's time that we start saying what we are. And it's hard, because we're changing. It's different to be a conservative, today, than it was, you know, years ago.

And part of that is just coming from hard knocks. School of hard knocks. We've learned a lot of lessons on things we thought we were for. No, no, no.

But conservatives. To be a conservative, it shouldn't be about policies. It's really about principles. And that's why we've lost our way. Because we've lost our principles. And it's easy. Because the world got easy. And now the world is changing so rapidly. The boundaries between truth and illusion are blurred second by second. Machines now think. Currencies falter. Families fractured. And nations, all over the world, have forgotten who they are.

So what does it mean to be a conservative now, in 2025, '26. For a lot of people, it means opposing the left. That's -- that's a reaction. That's not renewal.

That's a reaction. It can't mean also worshiping the past, as if the past were perfect. The founders never asked for that.

They asked that we would preserve the principles and perfect their practice. They knew it was imperfect. To make a more perfect nation.

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

2025, '26 being a conservative has to mean stewardship.

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

Of a moral inheritance. That is too precious to abandon.

What does it mean to conserve? To conserve something doesn't mean to stand still.

It means to stand guard. It means to defend what the Founders designed. The separation of powers. The rule of law.

The belief that our rights come not from kings or from Congress, but from the creator himself.
This is a system that was not built for ease. It was built for endurance, and it will endure if we only teach it again!

The problem is, we only teach it like it's a museum piece. You know, it's not a museum piece. It's not an old dusty document. It's a living covenant between the dead, the living and the unborn.

So this chapter of -- of conservatism. Must confront reality. Economic reality.

Global reality.

And moral reality.

It's not enough just to be against something. Or chant tax cuts or free markets.

We have to ask -- we have to start with simple questions like freedom, yes. But freedom for what?

Freedom for economic sovereignty. Your right to produce and to innovate. To build without asking Beijing's permission. That's a moral issue now.

Another moral issue: Debt! It's -- it's generational theft. We're spending money from generations we won't even meet.

And dependence. Another moral issue. It's a national weakness.

People cannot stand up for themselves. They can't make it themselves. And we're encouraging them to sit down, shut up, and don't think.

And the conservative who can't connect with fiscal prudence, and connect fiscal prudence to moral duty, you're not a conservative at all.

Being a conservative today, means you have to rebuild an economy that serves liberty, not one that serves -- survives by debt, and then there's the soul of the nation.

We are living through a time period. An age of dislocation. Where our families are fractured.

Our faith is almost gone.

Meaning is evaporating so fast. Nobody knows what meaning of life is. That's why everybody is killing themselves. They have no meaning in life. And why they don't have any meaning, is truth itself is mocked and blurred and replaced by nothing, but lies and noise.

If you want to be a conservative, then you have to be to become the moral compass that reminds a lost people, liberty cannot survive without virtue.

That freedom untethered from moral order is nothing, but chaos!

And that no app, no algorithm, no ideology is ever going to fill the void, where meaning used to live!

To be a conservative, moving forward, we cannot just be about policies.

We have to defend the sacred, the unseen, the moral architecture, that gives people an identity. So how do you do that? Well, we have to rebuild competence. We have to restore institutions that actually work. Just in the last hour, this monologue on what we're facing now, because we can't open the government.

Why can't we open the government?

Because government is broken. Why does nobody care? Because education is broken.

We have to reclaim education, not as propaganda, but as the formation of the mind and the soul. Conservatives have to champion innovation.

Not to imitate Silicon Valley's chaos, but to harness technology in defense of human dignity. Don't be afraid of AI.

Know what it is. Know it's a tool. It's a tool to strengthen people. As long as you always remember it's a tool. Otherwise, you will lose your humanity to it!

That's a conservative principle. To be a conservative, we have to restore local strength. Our families are the basic building blocks, our schools, our churches, and our charities. Not some big, distant NGO that was started by the Tides Foundation, but actual local charities, where you see people working. A web of voluntary institutions that held us together at one point. Because when Washington fails, and it will, it already has, the neighborhood has to stand.

Charlie Kirk was doing one thing that people on our side were not doing. Speaking to the young.

But not in nostalgia.

Not in -- you know, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.

In purpose. They don't remember. They don't remember who Dick Cheney was.

I was listening to Fox news this morning, talking about Dick Cheney. And there was somebody there that I know was not even born when Dick Cheney. When the World Trade Center came down.

They weren't even born. They were telling me about Dick Cheney.

And I was like, come on. Come on. Come on.

If you don't remember who Dick Cheney was, how are you going to remember 9/11. How will you remember who Reagan was.

That just says, that's an old man's creed. No, it's not.

It's the ultimate timeless rebellion against tyranny in all of its forms. Yes, and even the tyranny of despair, which is eating people alive!

We need to redefine ourselves. Because we have changed, and that's a good thing. The creed for a generation, that will decide the fate of the republic, is what we need to find.

A conservative in 2025, '26.

Is somebody who protects the enduring principles of American liberty and self-government.

While actively stewarding the institutions. The culture. The economy of this nation!

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

We have to be a group of people that we're not anchored in the past. Or in rage! But in reason. And morality. Realism. And hope for the future.

We're the stewards! We're the ones that have to relight the torch, not just hold it. We didn't -- we didn't build this Torch. We didn't make this Torch. We're the keepers of the flame, but we are honor-bound to pass that forward, and conservatives are viewed as people who just live in the past. We're not here to merely conserve the past, but to renew it. To sort it. What worked, what didn't work. We're the ones to say to the world, there's still such a thing as truth. There's still such a thing as virtue. You can deny it all you want.

But the pain will only get worse. There's still such a thing as America!

And if now is not the time to renew America. When is that time?

If you're not the person. If we're not the generation to actively stand and redefine and defend, then who is that person?

We are -- we are supposed to preserve what works.

That -- you know, I was writing something this morning.

I was making notes on this. A constitutionalist is for restraint. A progressive, if you will, for lack of a better term, is for more power.

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

But the -- for the American eagle to fly, we must have both wings.

And one can't be stronger than the other.

We as a conservative, are supposed to look and say, no. Don't look at that. The past teaches us this, this, and this. So don't do that.

We can't do that. But there are these things that we were doing in the past, that we have to jettison. And maybe the other side has a good idea on what should replace that. But we're the ones who are supposed to say, no, but remember the framework.

They're -- they can dream all they want.
They can come up with all these utopias and everything else, and we can go, "That's a great idea."

But how do we make it work with this framework? Because that's our job. The point of this is, it takes both. It takes both.

We have to have the customs and the moral order. And the practices that have stood the test of time, in trial.

We -- we're in an amazing, amazing time. Amazing time.

We live at a time now, where anything -- literally anything is possible!

I don't want to be against stuff. I want to be for the future. I want to be for a rich, dynamic future. One where we are part of changing the world for the better!

Where more people are lifted out of poverty, more people are given the freedom to choose, whatever it is that they want to choose, as their own government and everything.

I don't want to force it down anybody's throat.

We -- I am so excited to be a shining city on the hill again.

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

But not in we get bogged down in hatred, in division.

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

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

New York Times Forced to Issue Correction for Rewriting History

Is Socialism seducing a lost generation?

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

The appeal of a broken dream

The bridge that never ends

What young America deserves

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

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

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

Conservatism as stewardship

Rebuilding what is broken

A creed for the rising generation

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

Transcript

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