Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Santorum calls in ... to yell at Glenn?

March 23, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Ok perhaps it wasn’t yelling, but Santorum did call in after hearing Glenn comment on the latest in the Santorm campaign saga which Drudge referred to as ‘Santorum snaps’. Was it an angry rant? Was it a controversial remark? Or one he’s made many times over? Check out the impromptu call in in the clip above.

Rush Transcript of interview below:

GLENN: The headline on Drudge is Santorum Snaps. I thought he sounded sleepy

PAT: Yeah. He didn't sound ‑‑ yeah

GLENN: Santorum snaps. Obama preferable to Romney. Rick Santorum is with us now. Hello, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning.

GLENN: How are you, sir?

SANTORUM: I'm doing great. I'm ready for Louisiana.

GLENN: Have you come down off of your tantrum apparently that ‑‑

SANTORUM: There was no tantrum there. All I was saying was what I've been saying a hundred times. If we have a choice between Twiddle Dumb and Twiddle Dee that the American public is not going to support out nominee. We need a stark contrast. That's all I was saying. I've said repeatedly, as you've heard me said on this program, I would vote for Rick for Republican, I would vote for Ron Paul, I would whoever the Republican nominee is. The point is whether voters will vote for someone who doesn't have a clear contrasting vision for this country.

PAT: Yes.

SANTORUM: And that's the point I was making in that speech. I've made it in every speech I've been given and I'll continue to make that point and governor ‑‑ you know, it's funny. I didn't get one question on that afterward.

GLENN: But hang on. It's not just ‑‑ it's not just the Republican thing. It is ‑‑ there is a difference between ‑‑ I mean, Mitt Romney has ‑‑ is not now and never has been a member of the communist party. (Laughter.)

SANTORUM: Okay. You're right.

PAT: Okay.

SANTORUM: All right. Sorry. Look. What I'm talking about are the big issues of the day which is, you now, Obamacare, cap and trade, the bailouts, government control of people's lives and this is a guy who, you know, who, in my opinion, and if you saw this ‑‑ it was his Etch‑A‑Sketch comment. He'll say whatever he needs to say in front of whatever group he needs to say it in front of to win the election and that's not going to win this election. I mean, you know, pandering to voters and saying what people want to hear is not going to win. What people want is someone they can trust, someone who knows that, you know, that they want to, as I said the other night, tear Washington bureaucracy out by its roots and do some big changes in Washington and that's the kind of contrasting vision we need and that's not what we're getting in the Romney campaign. We get this parsing position that we see on all these positions.

GLENN: Now, let me take this a piece at a time. First of all, on the Etch‑A‑Sketch thing, we're split here in the studio. I think that Romney strikes me as an Etch‑A‑Sketch guy. I mean, I have ‑‑ let me just give you the quote here from Romney. You know, he came out Monday and said, you know, this gas hike trio, the three that are on a mission to drive up the price of gas, lean on energy so they can finally get their solar and their wind and more price competitive, that's what they want to do and then he claimed that people are trying to drive up the price of energy which is absolutely accurate. However ‑‑

SANTORUM: Yeah

GLENN: He said in 2006, I don't think now is the time and I'm not sure there's going to be a right time for us to encourage the use of more gasoline. I'm very much in favor of people recognizing that high gas prices just probably here to stay. So, if that's not Etch‑A‑Sketch, how do I know what he really believes?

SANTORUM: That's the point I was trying to make and I probably didn't say it as articulately as I needed to say it, but I've been saying it repeated ed, that we need someone who you can trust, someone who provides a contrast, not someone who is just ‑‑ I would make the argument he is better on some issues about Barack Obama. There's no question about it but on the big issues of the day, you know, of government, you know, control and crushing our economy and our energy, he has just been wrong so much that it makes ‑‑ it makes it ‑‑ it makes it a hard ‑‑ much harder election than it needs to be.

GLENN: Okay. Let me ask you this: Jim DeMint came out yesterday and said he's excited, excited about the idea of Romney being the candidate

PAT: He's the first person ‑‑ he's the first American known who have said excited and Mitt Romney in the same sentence. That's the first time that's happened in a country of over 300 million people and now we're putting him in the Guinness Book of World Records and ‑‑

GLENN: And that's a pretty big piece. He's ‑‑ I mean, here's a guy who the Tea Party ‑‑ I mean, what happened there?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Was he excited when Mitt Romney went down to Puerto Rico after I said that Puerto Ricans have to learn English in order to be a member of the ‑‑ be admitted to statehood, since only 15% of Puerto Ricans speak English and Mitt Romney who believes that English should be the official language of our country and is against bilingual education went to Puerto Rico and in order to get 20 delegates said he would admit Puerto Rico into the union even if nobody spoke English?

PAT: Wow.

SANTORUM: This is the problem. That's what he said. He said, no, there's no English language for the people of Puerto Rico in order for him to support statehood. Now, how can you ‑‑

PAT: That got very little coverage. That got very little coverage.

GLENN: It will get coverage.

SANTORUM: It got huge coverage in Puerto Rico and the reason he got 80% of the vote is I stood up and said what was the truth which is there's no way that any state is going to be admitted to the union if people don't speak the language of the country and that's not that they don't ‑‑ they can't speak another language but they've got to be able to speak English.

GLENN: Yeah, but you had your shirt off by a pool.

SANTORUM: Wait a minute. (Laughter.)

GLENN: Okay.

SANTORUM: 15 minutes I laid on that. 15 minutes.

PAT: You can't do that.

GLENN: Can I tell you something? I saw that photo ‑‑ I saw that photo because, honestly, I went to ‑‑ for Christmas I went to Hawaii with my family. I did not go ‑‑ we stayed right at a hotel right there at the beach and I did not go to the beach without my shirt on ever because I knew ‑‑

STU: The people there thank you for that, by the way.

GLENN: No, no, no. I know what I look like without a shirt on and I saw that picture of you ‑‑ I saw that picture of you and I thought, oh, that's unfortunate. That's just ‑‑

SANTORUM: Yeah, it was.

PAT: It wasn't that bad.

SANTORUM: I'm worried about the gastric distress I might have caused people with that photo.

GLENN: All right. So, let me share something with you that I haven't even shared with the guys here. In the last three weeks, a very, very prominent person approached me, mainly because he certainly doesn't know me if he approached me with this and he said, Glenn, you could be the guy that could be the turning point in this election and you could really help, you know, pick the next President if you could just convince Rick Santorum to drop out because you and I know it's time for him to drop out and just convince him to drop out and I said, A, I think you're ‑‑ I think you're overestimating my Jedi mind trick and, also, I believe in divine providence. Right. I believe in divine providence. I believe that if it's supposed to happen and we're living our lives the way we're supposed to, it will happen, but convince the average person that, you know ‑‑ and don't bring in Newt Gingrich because I love the way nobody's saying this about Newt Gingrich. Just you. Convince the people that this is the right thing to do, for you to stay in and not start to unify the country behind one candidate.

SANTORUM: The best thing we can do right now is to nominate a conservative against Barack Obama. That's what we need to do. That's the best chance for us to win the election, No. 1. No. 2, the ‑‑

GLENN: Wait, wait. Explain that for anybody ‑‑ hang on just a second. Explain that again why you say that for anybody who just doesn't understand that.

SANTORUM: Well, one time in the last 100 years a Republican has defeated a Democratic incumbent, once, and most of the time when we've run against Democratic incumbents, we tried to run moderates because we had to win and, of course, we've only one won once, Ronald Reagan, when we provided that clear contrast and that's what we need in this election. You can't win this election unless you get your base and the people of our party, like in 2010, excited about who the nominee is and that the people who are in the middle, if you will, are ‑‑ can share that excitement and like the person they're voting for and relative to the person they're voting for. That's what happened with Reagan. He had a clear vision. He had someone who was out there who was ‑‑ they had trust in, that they could relate to and that's, you know ‑‑ unfortunately, you know, you look at Governor Romney and he's having troubles on all those fronts and Governor Romney ‑‑

GLENN: Excuse me. I have a lot of ‑‑

SANTORUM: Because he's overwhelmingly spending whoever he's running against. That's not going to happen in the general election

GLENN: You know, you can't say you can't relate to him. I'll have you know I have many friends who have $50 million houses who enjoy him he very much. (Laughter.) I have friends who own cars and car dealership and car companies and race teams that relate to him a great deal.

STU: It's one of those things where I feel like these cries of unify feel to me ‑‑ and let me know if you agree with this, Rick. Does it feel to you the same way as right now we're saying unify but it's unify around one. In 2008 the country said change but change to what? You can't just rally around the verb. You've got to ‑‑

PAT: And forget that the election in 2008 between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went down to, what, June?

GLENN: June.

PAT: It was June and nasty and they were tearing each other up and they won

GLENN: And they were saying the same thing.

PAT: And they won and they were saying the exact same thing. So, tell people to shut up.

GLENN: The Drudge will report that as him snapping.

SANTORUM: We have to realize the shorter the race is, the better it is for the Republican party. Why? Because Obama's going to have the media and a huge money advantage and he will not be able to unleash that money advantage or the media on the nominee unless ‑‑ until we have a nominee and once we ‑‑ once a nominee is, quote, decided and if it's decided early, then Barack Obama has literally hundreds of millions of dollars he can start just pounding away at the Republican candidate and that Republican candidate is going to be shooting back with a pea shooter. We wait until the fall to have a nominee and we'll have all of our forces and all of their forces. Yeah, they'll be able to outspend us, but will be diminishing returns after awhile. There will be so much money concentrated in such a short period of time, in a sense, their money advantage is negated, their media advantage is negated. We want this election. We want this election to be short. We want it to be two months. We want it to be focused instead of a drawn out process where they can just destroy the Republican nominee over the course of the next five months.

STU: But, really, do you think you can do better than Joe Biden as a VP if you were to win?

SANTORUM: You know, I seem to do worse.

GLENN: (Laughter.)

PAT: No. I don't think he can.

GLENN: I wanted to really put some thought into that, but, no, I don't think you can. Thank you very much, Rick. Best of luck to you this weekend.

SANTORUM: Yes.

PAT: Going to win Louisiana tomorrow.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. You could help him do that by going to RickSantorum.com.

STU: Do you have to end every interview by giving his website?

GLENN: This is the worst. This is the worst.

PAT: Somebody has to. He didn't do it. So ‑‑

STU: It's true. He's not shilling for himself enough apparently

GLENN: It really bothered me when this individual came to me and said, you know, you do that. Isn't that the kind of stuff that we hate? Isn't that the kind of stuff that is bad, the back room deals?

STU: It does happen. Everybody knows that, but I feel like, A, it's someone who doesn't know you well enough to know that you would never do that and it also is someone who doesn't know Rick Santorum well enough because he's not going to listen to you or anybody else

GLENN: No.

STU: He's going to stay in the race as long as he feels like it's the right thing to do

GLENN: That's one reason I like him, because he did go down to court Puerto Rico and he did say that because it's consistent, that's what he believes, and so he said it. Even though it cost him the race, that's what he did.

STU: Yeah. You know, this is what sucks about primaries, because I like Mitt Romney. He seems like a nice guy. I think he's really smart. I think he does a lot of good thing. I like Rick Santorum. It's like everyone just gets in these fights where it's just constant everyone going back and forth.

GLENN: We're really not enemies.

STU: Not at all

GLENN: Although I think we've created some which is not necessarily ‑‑ but you know what? Rick can't be the President because we like him and there's just no way that we could have a President that actually likes us.

PAT: Now we're setting a new precedent here. This is a brand new precedent we're sitting

GLENN: We were at the airport yesterday and we were talking about the race and I just looked and Pat said, Romney will hate us by the time he would get into office. So, you know he's got to be the guy. He's just going to hate us with by that time.

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

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatism as stewardship

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

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

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

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

Rebuilding what is broken

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

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

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

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

A creed for the rising generation

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

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

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

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

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global reality.

And moral reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our faith is almost gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we open the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not in nostalgia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A conservative in 2025, '26.

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

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

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

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

And one can't be stronger than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

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

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

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

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.