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

Glenn likes a candidate who studied under Cass Sunstein?

April 19, 2012
Wilson

Writer

There are only a handful of candidates that can help turn the country around - and Glenn believes that Dan Liljenquist is one of them. One of three survivors of a tragic plane crash that claimed the lives of several friends - Liljenquist came through the tragedy and realized “we don't have time in this life to wait.” But would you believe that he also studied under Cass Sunstein when he was in law school? It's an unbelievable life story that you have to hear to believe. Watch it in the clip above!

Rush Transcript Below:

GLENN: Dan Liljenquist, he is running against Orrin Hatch for Senate in the State of Utah and, Dan, is your name on the ballot?

LILJENQUIST: Well, the convention is this Saturday, Glenn. We have 4,000 Republican state delegates who will narrow down the field to one or two candidates and ‑‑

GLENN: But is it ‑‑ what I'm asking you, is it going to be a write‑in? Because I'd never be able to spell your last name. It's got a J in it and it's silent.

LILJENQUIST: Yeah, well, my name will be on the ballot if I get reported for the Senate between 40 or over 60, then I will definitely be on a ballot. You will not have to write in Liljenquist.

PAT: And what are the chances of that happening? What are the chances of you getting over the 40% threshold?

LILJENQUIST: We feel very good about our chances. We just completed our 101st delegate meeting since March 15th and we're finding that we have a lot of momentum going into this thing. Look, with a last name like Liljenquist, you have to do a lot of legwork to get people to be able to be even to pronounce your name right. So we feel good about our chances.

GLENN: Right. And you're going up against Orrin Hatch who is a machine. I mean, this guy is an absolute machine when it comes to, you know, winning elections and has all of the power structure behind him and, you know, has served America loyally and faithfully for a long time. I like Orrin. He's a nice guy, but I think that he is ‑‑ it's time for a change in there and somebody that really, truly recognizes what is ‑‑ what we're facing right now. Tell me about what we're facing. Tell me why, why you would be different than Orrin Hatch.

LILJENQUIST: Well, look, Senator Hatch is going to go down in history as one of our greats here in Utah. But we have a fundamentally different philosophy on what the role of the United States Senate is. The United States Senate is meant to be a check on the president's power and on the executive branch and is also meant to be the work for state sovereignty. Now Senator Hatch over the years, I think there are some things I disagree with him significantly on. The role of advise and consent in the Senate is not to be a rubber stamp for the president's appointees. It was to advise and consent or not consent. And with respect to some of the recent appointments of President Obama like Cass Sunstein, I would have not consented. Look, I know Cass Sunstein. I received my law degree from the University of Chicago Law School. I took a class from the man. He is a nice guy, but he's very, very liberal. And since most of our laws in this country are now being written by the executive branch to regulation, that was an irresponsible move to approve of Cass Sunstein and ‑‑

GLENN: I will tell you, Dan, sorry to interrupt you, but I will tell you this, that I called Orrin Hatch while he was, you know, approving Cass Sunstein and said, what are you doing, man? What are you ‑‑ this is crazy. Do you not realize who this guy is? And he said, Glenn, he's assured me that was just all academic stuff, he's not going to move down that role. And I said you're ‑‑ with all due respect, Senator, you're wrong on this. It's not an academic exercise. This man believes these things. So I'm glad to hear that you would go against Cass Sunstein. How would you stop all this regulation?

LILJENQUIST: Look, the regulatory environment, what has happened over the years is congress has outsourced its job to the executive branch. The executive branch is now judge, jury and executioner. They write the laws, they adjudicate the laws, and they administer the laws. That is what's happening. When you have a guy like Cass Sunstein say we don't need any more laws passed by congress, we can do everything we want to do with regulation, you know congress has outsourced a job. There's very simply a couple of things the Senate has to do in particular: One, you do not vote for a presidential appointee that has the influence to change the course of this country as an unelected bureaucrat. You do not vote those people through. You could stop that in the Senate, and the Senate needs to stand up and do its job. But I also think ‑‑ and you're going to need a Republican president to do this ‑‑ that congress has to re‑exert its control over the regulatory environment in this country by doing something, one simple thing, Glenn, and that's this: That no new regulation goes into effect until congress votes on that regulation. They granted the authority to executive branch to write regulations; they can pull it back and have a veto power. That's going to require legislation through congress. But if we have a prayer of ever getting a hold on the regulatory environment in this country, congress has to re‑exert itself over regulations by not allowing any new regulations to go into effect until congress approves of it.

GLENN: Plot to yourself on the ideological spectrum. Are you Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Mitt Romney?

LILJENQUIST: I am probably more along the lines of Jim DeMint for a whole bunch of different reasons. He has been out there saying the spending is reckless, that too much control is in the executive branch, that constitutional government was always meant to be a balance of powers between the states and the federal government. He understands the role of the United States Senate in particular in that balance, and I align much more with, along the lines of Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and, you know, Marco Rubio and others who are taking control over the Senate.

STU: Dan, can you help me explain? Because we were looking at this from outside of Utah. Explain the comments from Orrin Hatch when he's talking about people who are opposing him and thinking that maybe he's not the right guy to go. He says these people are not conservatives, they're not Republicans, they're radical libertarians and I'm doggone offended by it. I despise these people." I mean, this is a guy who told us, this elder statesman, what's going on with him on these, with these comments?

LILJENQUIST: That's a pretty ‑‑ it's pretty remarkable environment. You know, as I go around the state, universally people in Utah, everybody I talk to is concerned about debt and spending. And the groups that are involved in this race, my preference is that everybody would stay out so that we could run our own race, but we can't force them to do that. But the groups are involved in this race who are opposed to Senator Hatch are deeply concerned about debt and spending. I am running personally because Senator Hatch could be chair of the Senate finance committee, not in spite of it. He's had 18 years on that Senate finance committee and in that time we have expanded and he has used the power of that committee to expand government programs. Not retract them. And so the people involved who are involved in this race really want government spending under control and want congress to stand up and do its job to think about the future of this country and not just the next election. So there's a whole bunch of people who are disappointed with the record of congress and not just Senator Hatch's record but Republicans and Democrats over the last 40 years who got us into this mess.

GLENN: All right. Dan ‑‑

LILJENQUIST: So, you know, those are the words I would not have chosen but I understand that's how he speaks.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't ‑‑ I don't understand that the libertarians are offensive and ‑‑

STU: Despise them?

GLENN: And despise.

PAT: I believe he feels that way.

GLENN: Oh, I know he does. I know he does.

PAT: He believed that when Bennett was booted out two years ago that he was next and it scared the crap out of him.

GLENN: Oh, I don't think he ‑‑

PAT: And so he ‑‑

GLENN: Unless Dan ‑‑ unless Dan wins on Saturday, he's not next.

PAT: Thought at the time.

GLENN: Orrin Hatch goes back. That's really ‑‑

PAT: At the time with the Tea Party the way it was and the political environment the way it was, he was afraid he was next.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: And so he lashed out and still continues to lash out at people who are more conservative than he is.

GLENN: I will tell you that ‑‑ I will tell you, Tea Party, if you don't organize and come together behind a candidate and Orrin Hatch gets in, he is not a guy who forgets, and he's not going to forget. He's not going to forget. And if he's ‑‑ if he thinks that you're despicable or he despises you now, he will despise you then and just recognize the power we're giving people in Washington.

All right. One last question, Dan, because the first time I talked to you, I talked about your soul and your condition of it and why anybody who was decent would want to go there, and you told me about the experience that really led you here was a plane crash. Can you explain?

LILJENQUIST: Yeah. Glenn, it was in 2008. I had been ‑‑ I was running for the state Senate. I had won my primary and I was heading to the general election in the fall. In my company, we do a lot of humanitarian work. We were on a humanitarian trip to Guatemala. Got on a plane with 14 people, took off on a beautiful, beautiful Sunday morning to fly to this little town in Northeast Guatemala, and about 45 minutes into our flight, our engine burned up over the middle of nowhere. I mean, I had four minutes sitting in the back of that plane to really think. And I'll tell you where your mind goes to. Your mind goes to the state of your own, your own soul but also you think about your family. And I ‑‑ I realized at that moment that it was my life came down to that moment. I know everybody on that plane felt like they were going to die, and 80% of us were right. But I came through that. But for when we crashed and ‑‑ crashed into this field, it was when I was sitting on the plane that really saved my life, but also two farmers who saw us falling, ran around the corner and pulled me out of the plane. I was on fire, my leg was burning, my legs were shattered, but they came to me first, risked their lives to pull me from that plane. All four of my dear friends and employees died on that plane. I spent five weeks in a hospital bed, in a wheelchair, in a walker and met with each one of these families individually and, you know, I realize that we don't have time in this life to wait. And it's important, if you feel motivated to do something, to do it now. I'm running for the United States Senate because this time and history of this country, we are on the edge of a knife. We can either fall one way and complete the job of moving to a federalized executive branch‑driven view of the world, or we can have the United States Senate stand up and do its job to rebalance our constitutional government and to take control of what they granted too much power to federal governments to take the lead. And I'm running for the Senate to do that. I don't feel like we have time to wait and I feel like this is the election. With elections like mine and Ted Cruz in Texas and John Mandel in Ohio and Richard Mourdock in Indiana and these good people who are standing up all over the country to take control of the Senate, whether or not we survive as a people may just depend on this election cycle. And so I'm standing up and running. I'm very motivated to do it. People said you're crazy to take on Senator Hatch. We have been outspent 30:1, but we are a couple of days away from forcing him to a primary for the first time in 36 years and we think we're going to do it. So make every day count is the message.

GLENN: The web address is DanforUtah.com. DanforUtah.com. This is a very important battle in Utah and in America. Do we send Senator Hatch back or not send Senator Hatch back? It's up to the people of Utah. You've ‑‑ you had a chance to weigh things out. It is critical, critical that you get involved and don't just pass this election by on Saturday as, oh, just something that, you know, whatever. DanforUtah.com. Thank you very much, Dan. Appreciate it.

LILJENQUIST: Glenn, thank you. We'll see you.

GLENN: You bet. Good luck. I have to tell you I talked to him a few weeks ago. I hadn't really talked to him before. I talked to him a few weeks ago and I think the guy is genuine and what really got me was the, you know, eight out of ten people die right next to him and he's pulled out and he asks himself, why am I here. Why am I here. What am I supposed to do? We're all born for a reason. We all have time on Earth, and anybody who sees this may be my last day and I'm going to do something important and right and righteous and stand up for the truth and I'm not going to back down, because I've already faced death. I've already been in the death plane. Nothing frightens me anymore. I am going to use every day that God has given me to do something right. That got me.

Sponsor ‑‑

STU: We need to start having our politicians get involved in fake plane crashes like scare them, like they get into a plane, they think they're on a plane and, oh, my gosh, oh, wow, looks like it might crash, everybody. And then, you know, of course everything's fine and then it will just scare them and then they will be great politicians.

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.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.