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

Texas = the opposite of Massachusetts

July 19, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Glenn talked about how thrilled he was to be in Texas - especially considering voters appear to be voting on principle not party politics. In Massachusetts, noted liar Elizabeth Warren is somehow still leading in polls despite being caught in the humiliating ‘Cherokee’ fib. It’s a different story in Texas, where voters are going after the GOP establishment. Glenn interviewed candidate Ted Cruz on radio today for an update on his race.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: 150 hours to go before the very first Restoring Love event and that is Freedom Works. Freedom Works is having their Free PAC event and one of the guys who is going to be there is Ted Cruz. He is running for Senate here in Dallas, Texas. And what is the latest poll, Stu?

STU: The last one I saw was Cruz up 5, I believe.

GLENN: Ted Cruz is on the phone with us now. Hi, Ted. Ted, are you there? Ted's not there.

STU: Now he's only up 4 after that.

GLENN: 3, 2 ‑‑

STU: Oh, gosh, it's slipping away.

GLENN: 1. Ted's gone.

STU: David Dewhurst has won. Wow, it happened that first.

GLENN: His internal poll says he's up by 9 points.

STU: Yeah, he had one that he released an internal poll was up 9. Then I think I saw another poll released after that that had him up 5, which was huge. I mean, people ‑‑ this will be one of the biggest upsets in all of this Tea Party stuff that's gone on over the past few years.

GLENN: This is the biggest, this is the biggest one.

PAT: My internal poll, the one in my head has him up by 47 points.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Does it really?

PAT: 47 points.

GLENN: Yeah. Huh.

STU: Wow.

PAT: In fact, he just won. We've just declared Ted Cruz the winner of Texas.

GLENN: I'm so proud of Texas. You know, I feel the opposite of Texas that I do about Massachusetts. I think what's her face, you know, the Indian squaw, what's her name?

STU: Oh, yeah.

PAT: Elizabeth Warren.

STU: Elizabeth Warren.

GLENN: She's winning. She's up in all the polls in Massachusetts.

PAT: She is?

GLENN: Yeah. She's up?

PAT: She's up?

GLENN: Yeah. In Massachusetts.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Massachusetts, you get what you deserve.

PAT: That is unreal.

GLENN: You get what you deserve.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: The difference here is in Texas they are not going to put Dewhurst in. Let me go to Ted Cruz now. Are you there, Ted?

CRUZ: Good morning, Glenn. Great to be with you.

GLENN: What is your ‑‑ what does the average poll say? We know your internal is up 9. We've seen 7 and 8. Do you know what the average is?

CRUZ: Yeah. Our internal poll has us up 9, 49‑40%. There have been two independent polls. One had us up 91/2, the other had us up 5.

GLENN: That would be sweet. What do you attribute this to? Because I saw the ‑‑ I saw the ad. I saw one of the ads against you on television. It's like ‑‑ it was like, "Ted Cruz is a lying liar that lies all the time."

PAT: And he's a lawyer who lies. That's even worse.

GLENN: He's a liar.

PAT: A lying lawyer who lies.

GLENN: I saw one ‑‑ I saw one of the worst attack ads I've ever seen. I didn't even hear it. It was just on and I look up and it was like, "Ted Cruz killed a bunch of people."

PAT: (Laughing.)

GLENN: I don't think that's true.

CRUZ: Look, I mean, it's ‑‑ at the Republican state convention I joked that by the end of this David Dewhurst was going to tell you that I want to eat your children.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

CRUZ: What I didn't understand is that that wasn't a joke. That is, in fact, just how low they're going to stoop. I mean, they are pulling out all of ‑‑ all of the guns. They're flooding the airwaves.

GLENN: Big time.

CRUZ: With false negative attack ads. You know what, I think those, though, are actually rebounding on them and hurting them. People are tired of the lies and the false character attack ads. You know, we've kept our focus on policy, not on ‑‑

GLENN: Can I tell you something? I think that's the secret with Mitt Romney right now, too. Mitt Romney is running a very positive campaign. He's holding his feet to the fire but he's like, "You know..." it's almost like you're dismissing these guys because they really are. It's time for them to be dismissed. Go away. Go away. It doesn't matter what you say. Oh, really? "Yeah, I eat children at night, you know, for dinner as well as snacks. And my wife yells about it all the time." So anyway, thank you for that cute little argument but here's what we're going to do. And it seems to be working.

Let me ask you a tough question. You have described Chief Justice John Roberts as a mentor and a friend.

CRUZ: Right. I have. And which of many tough questions is coming next?

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: How are you feeling about his ruling there?

CRUZ: Look, it is heartbreaking. I was shocked. I was incredibly disappointed. You know, in the debate Tuesday, the moderator asked, knowing what you know now, would you, would you vote to confirm Chief Justice Roberts. And I tell you it was painful that I had to answer, no, I would not. Because I think the Supreme Court's decision, I think the Court abdicated its responsibility.

GLENN: So what led ‑‑ in your opinion you know, you describe him as a friend. There is a story out that he changed it at the last minute and it's well documented. I mean, the whole thing is written as if he is on the other side.

CRUZ: Right.

GLENN: So he changed it at the last minute. They said he came with red eyes, he really looked distraught while this was going on. Kennedy was pissed at him.

CRUZ: Yeah.

GLENN: What do you ‑‑ you know, in your uninformed, or maybe you have information. In your uninformed opinion, speculate a little bit: What do you think happened?

CRUZ: I have no reason to doubt those reports, and unfortunately what I think happened is I think President Obama's threats to the Court worked. And I think what happened was I think he got nervous about the Court striking down ObamaCare and made effectively a political decision ‑‑

PAT: Wow.

CRUZ: ‑‑ not to do so because he thought it would save the credibility of the Court. I think ironically it did exactly the opposite. I think this decision is going to go down in history as a Cravenly political decision and I think it is undermining the credibility of the court.

GLENN: Oh, big time.

CRUZ: Their job is to enforce the Constitution, not to be political players.

PAT: And if that's your opinion of why he did what he did, then you're doing the right thing in saying that you wouldn't vote to confirm him. Based on what you know now. That's what it's all B. It's about upholding the Constitution, not whether or not this Court has, you know, a legacy.

CRUZ: Well, and that's why they're given life tenure is to make decisions that might be politically unpopular. They might be criticized for. That's the entire purpose of life tenure and I think when they worry about the political consequences of the immediate moment and they don't stand up and do their job, it undermines the entire reason we have the Court in the first place.

GLENN: So what part ‑‑ and I'm asking this because I want to know about your character. What part of John Roberts' character would lead you to that conclusion that he made a political decision? What part of his character or what did you see that would make you say, "Yeah, that's probably, that's probably what he did"? Because that's quite a charge to make that a guy who was in the Supreme Court, is a Supreme Court justice, chief justice, would do that.

CRUZ: Look, I mean, I'm not claiming to have had any inkling of this beforehand. I mean, I was shocked at the outcome. It was not something that had entered my mind as remotely a possibility. But, you know, I base that on reading the opinion. The opinion to me reads like a political opinion. The reasoning trying to contort the statutes and turn it into a tax. Listen, I've read a lot of judicial opinions and it's an opinion that's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and the only reasoning that makes sense is it is he was nervous about the outcome if he actually ruled on what was obvious, that it wasn't a tax because they said it wasn't a tax because they weren't willing to pay the political consequences of calling it a tax. And I think, you know, the gymnastics to turn it into something it wasn't, the only explanation I can come up with because a political outcome.

STU: And, of course, it never would have passed if it was called a tax, which makes it that much more frustrating. Let me ‑‑ go ahead.

CRUZ: And that's where the Constitution where the framers knew what they were doing. There's a reason taxes are treated differently. When politicians vote for taxes, they tend to get thrown out of office. And the framers understood passing taxes aren't popular and if congress can pass something, not call it a tax and let the Court magically turn it into a tax, that removes one of the most significant constraints on government power there is.

GLENN: Wow, I never thought of it that way.

STU: And that, you want to talk about judicial activism.

GLENN: Yeah, that is.

STU: That is the ultimate. I mean, he changed the actual bill. It's like he changed the text of it retroactively to make it constitutional. I mean, it's just ‑‑

CRUZ: Right, right.

STU: I could whine about that all day. Let me ask you, Ted, about illegal immigration for a second. You ‑‑ there's a story in the, I believe it was the Houston Chronicle that cited a speech from David Dewhurst in which he seemed to back amnesty. What happened the next day on David Dewhurst's website.

CRUZ: No, that's exactly right. So to back up a little bit, in the first televised debate we had in the runoff, Dewhurst looked in the cameras and told everyone he did not support amnesty, he has never backed amnesty, never backed the guest worker program. The next day the Chronicle broke the story that in 2007 he had given a speech where he called for amnesty for every single illegal alien currently in the United States today. And what was astonishing is the Dewhurst amnesty program was broader than Barack Obama's amnesty program. Obama's amnesty just extends to kids who came here illegally. Dewhurst wanted to give a guest worker program to every single person illegally in this country today. And the source of this was the written text of a speech he had given that was on his official lieutenant governor website. So when this broke, obviously a lot of reporters began calling, began looking at the story. And several days later Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst ordered the stay employees who maintain the website to take his speech down, to delete it and, in fact, to delete every speech he had ever given as lieutenant governor. And, you know, it strikes me as remarkable that he is literally trying to whitewash his record and delete his record.

PAT: Wow.

CRUZ: Because he wants to hide from the fact that he advanced an amnesty program broader than Barack Obama's.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: The election is next week. I know you're going to be at Free PAC.

CRUZ: Yes.

GLENN: This, a week from Thursday ‑‑ I'm sorry. It's not next week. It's a week from, is it Tuesday?

PAT: Yeah.

CRUZ: Well, it's actually both.

PAT: The 31st.

CRUZ: So early voting in Texas starts on Monday of next week, and all next week Monday through Friday is early voting. So any Texan can vote any day next week and then election day itself is the next Tuesday, July 31st. And I'll tell you, to win we've got to do two things: One, we need conservatives to show up. I would ask every one of your listeners in Texas please, please, please come out and early vote next week or vote on the and Ist. But number two, Dewhurst is running millions of dollars of false character attack. We desperately need to raise the money to stay on TV. I'll tell you every time you've had me on the radio, hundreds of your listeners have gone to TedCruz.org, have contributed, hundreds of Texans and hundreds of conservatives nationally because every penny we raise goes to being up on television and radio to respond to these attacks. And we're leading statewide but if he's able to dump millions in attacks and we can't respond, what he wants to do is buy this race and I think that would be very, very dangerous and we desperately need the funding to respond.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this: This race is probably the biggest sign of the Tea Party's power and the freedom movement. And if Texas can't do it, nobody can do it. Ted, best of luck and we'll see you next week at Free PAC.

CRUZ: I look forward to it. And thank you for your incredible support, Glenn. And you know what? You're right. If we win, the national headlines will be the Tea Party is transforming the country. And if we lose, every reporter will point to it as proof that the Tea Party is dead and it will hurt lovers of liberty across the country.

GLENN: Big time.

CRUZ: So I am pleased to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and lovers of liberty across Texas and across the country.

GLENN: All right.

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

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

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

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

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

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global reality.

And moral reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our faith is almost gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we open the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not in nostalgia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A conservative in 2025, '26.

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

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

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

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

And one can't be stronger than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

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

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

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

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

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

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

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

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

Ancient evil, new clothes

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new currency of power

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

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

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

The forgotten way

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

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

Both are traps.

The only way

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.