Al Gore down with eugenics?

January 31, 2013

Writer

Al Gore has been making the media rounds to promote his latest exciting book about the future or something - but his vision reeks of the disturbing science of eugenics. Yes, the ‘science’ progressives of the early 20th century promoted that featured breeding ‘undesirables’ out of existence - Al Gore is bringing it back!

On Morning Joe, Gore told the MSNBC hosts:

The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, wait a minute, not too fast.

"Do you know what this is? Do you know where this philosophy comes from?" Glenn said. "I can take out the books. You know what? I wonder if I have them here or at the library at home. I can take out the eugenics books that he is quoting, he is quoting from right now. Whether he knows it or not. This is genetics. This is eugenics nonsense that was discredited in World War II. This stuff, this stuff is extraordinarily dangerous."

"This is extraordinarily dangerous. This is the most dangerous ‑‑ look, we've been talking about abortion, we've been talking about the sanctity of life, we've been talking about all these things. But I'm telling you this is a gigantic warning sign. Because now you're ‑‑ now you're taking it on political philosophy. And now you're saying that that is now genetic, and we all know ‑‑ and what he's saying is that if you are a liberal, you want to ‑‑ you want to push forward. But you're an Neander ‑‑ you are born and termed at birth to be a Neanderthal and be a conservative and say you want to harm progress."

"Listen what they're doing. They are devaluing life, they are devaluing all life. You just had last week saying all life isn't equal, all people are not created equal. Already have that. Some people are worth killing. This is all the same eugenics stuff. And now you're born as either somebody who moves us forward or somebody who moves us back. When you know eugenics, when you know the history, you know that that's exactly how it started with Margaret Sanger."

Watch the video of Gore's comments below:

Glenn went into further detail on this story when he came back at the start of the second hour of radio. Below is the transcript of that segment:

GLENN: I would like to be less definitive and more exploratory on this Al Gore statement that I find unbelievably shocking. He was on MSNBC and he's talking about the human makeup, and I'm sorry but I have heard this language before. This is the language of eugenics.
PAT: Margaret Sanger.
GLENN: Margaret Sanger.
PAT: This is ‑‑ and what's‑his‑face, George Bernard Shaw.
GLENN: Get the George Bernard Shaw audio too ready, will you?
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: If you don't know, the progressives are the ones who came up with eugenics, and you have to excuse some of them in the early 1900s because science had just ‑‑ you know, in 1870, 1880, you had people like Edison saying there's no reason to wire everybody's houses with anything but DC battery power, you know, DC electricity because you'll never have anything in your house that is electric really except for lights. I mean, even Edison didn't see what was coming. Within ten or fifteen years, the whole world had begun to change and now there was science and that's where electric shocks came in: Let's do electric shock therapy. And you had Darwin and all these things were happening all the same time. And Marx. So you had Nietzsche, Marx, electricity, technology. Everything was changing and converging into one. So you had a bright, beautiful tomorrow. You had a beautiful better living through eugenics.
I have the books. Tomorrow ‑‑ or I mean, next week we'll do a special show on this because I ‑‑ you have to know this history. And in one of them by the guy who, I'm trying to remember his name. Shoot. It's a phantom, the Phantom Public is the name of the book by Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann is extraordinarily loved by the media. He is the father of modern media. He was one of the fathers of CBS and CBS News. He was part of the Wilson administration. Really dangerous guy. He helped put together the Council on Foreign Relations. And in his book called the Phantom Public, he talks about people who are just too stupid and they'll never get it and they will never ‑‑ they vote and they think they're doing the right thing but they just don't know and it's because ‑‑ because of genetics. Genetics just show that they'll just never get it, and they'll continue to push us into the background.
But he's ‑‑ he talks about how eugenics and scientists are now looking to ways to build the perfect voter, and someday we'll be able to weed out these genetic flaws in people and we'll have people who are all progressives. But in the meantime what we're going to have to do is brainwash and trick some of these people.
This was the great hope of the progressives during the Wilson administration and the Theodore Roosevelt administration from the turn of the century up until it was wildly discredited by the Germans.
We also, I'll bring in next week, letters from the Nazis to the progressives in California saying, "You brought all this progressive stuff over, you brought all this eugenics stuff; you guys, we can't thank you enough. May you never forget what you've done in Germany because you have now put the state on this track, and the things that we're going to be able to do because of what you taught us scientifically will never be forgotten." Oh, that's true. I mean, we even have ‑‑ we even have signs that say "Never forget."
They were responsible. It came. These ideas that happened in Nazi Germany came from the progressive movement in the United States of America, secondarily from the Fabian Socialists in England. It was a poison from the West that went east. And there are those who still believe it.
We had a ‑‑ we told you a story of a big lefty in Salon that wrote just last week that all, all men are not created equal. All life is not equal. She said, "Let's be honest. We all know that a baby is..." she said, "When I was carrying my children, I always knew that was a baby in there. So let's stop this bogus argument. We all know it's a baby. Let's just be up front and let's use the real argument: All life is not equal." That goes against everything that Americans used to stand for. But David Barton gave me an extraordinarily wild fact. Does anybody remember last night? I think it was 60% of the American people that voted didn't know that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, this last November. In exit polls, 60% didn't know. I mean, how do you win? How does America survive if you don't even know, not know the Constitution; not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is terrifying. So not all people are created equal.
You now have the president through executive order doing studies on who should and who shouldn't have guns. He's demonizing anybody who's on the other side, saying there's something wrong, and I will not have these people stand in the way of progress. He's coopting and now controlling our doctors and our hospitals. They have a death panel. It wasn't in the healthcare bill as we told you at the time; it was in the stimulus package. They are right now having a hard time getting anybody to go on this death panel because those are the people who are going to decide who lives and dies. And if you have an attitude that not all life is created equal, if you are funding death camps by the name of Planned Parenthood, forget about your FEMA camp. Your death camp in America is Planned Parenthood. And you're funding it. When the world is going towards no value on life and when your world is going towards a place where it's so egomaniacal, there is no one but them. No one but the individual. No one else matters. "I want mine, Grandma. You had yours. I was promised this." When you have a world that is so inner twined and in five years from now you will not recognize our society. The beginning of the singularity is already here. The merging of man and machine. The merging of reality and total virtual reality, but a reality you will not be able to tell the difference between.
Stu, do you remember when I said to you back in the Nineties there's going to come a day where you won't believe your eyes because they will be able to make any image on camera, any picture? It won't matter? You could just ‑‑ we're there now.
STU: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: Would you agree?
STU: Oh, sure.
GLENN: I'm telling you now you will not be able to tell the difference between virtual reality, real reality sometime down the future, probably within the ‑‑ in the next ten years. That changes everything. All of this technology that is going on right now, do you know who's teaching ethics on technology? No, that's not a rhetorical question. We can't find anyone. They're not teaching ethics. When it comes to technology, they're not teaching ethics. And so now Al Gore comes out and he says on NBC for all the world to hear, and if you know anything at all about eugenics, if you know about the early 20th century progressives when Hillary Clinton said she is cut from that cloth, "I am one of the early 20th century progressives," all eugenics, all Marxist want‑to‑bes, just they're not Marxists; they just want the Marxist utopia without the revolution. That's the 20th century progressive, early 20th century progressive. And they're almost unanimously cheerleaders for eugenics and weeding out the week. If you know anything about that, listen to what Al Gore just said.
GORE: The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, "Wait a minute, not too fast." And when these natural tendencies are accentuated with political ideologies or for that matter religious factions and the other divides that are sometimes used to ‑‑ for advantage, then it can get out of hand.
GLENN: Can it? And then what do you do? So you are born just only able to understand the future or dragging us back into the past. And then people will put a label on that. You'll either go into religion or you'll become a conservative.
PAT: Well, if you're one of those that are holding us back, of course you'll go into religion.
GLENN: Yeah. Or conservative.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Otherwise you're a Democrat, a liberal, and you're an atheist. You're a scientist.
PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.
GLENN: Extraordinarily dangerous. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Maybe I've read too much history.
STU: I found the story, the study he's talking about. This is ‑‑ it comes from New Scientist, British weekly scientific magazine. The title: Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative. Delves into the research on the formation of political opinions. I remember us talking about the story when it happened because it talks about how conservatives are dogmatic, routine‑loving individuals while liberals come across as free‑spirited and open‑minded.
GLENN: That's how they come across, yes.
STU: Yeah. According to the emerging data, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. These views are deep‑seeded and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be a liberal is like trying to persuade someone to not have brown eyes. We have to ‑‑
GLENN: Oh, let's ‑‑ oh. Maybe we should get some twins.
STU: Then it goes on, dogmatic types, more conservative, those who express interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
STU: And an interest in different cultures.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
STU: People with high openness scores turned out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.
PAT: Openness? How do you describe liberals as open to anything? They're not open.
GLENN: They are not open to ‑‑
PAT: ‑‑ anything but their own opinions.
GLENN: You know, can I tell you something?
PAT: That's it.
GLENN: ‑‑ Penn Jillette is ‑‑ and I'm sorry I keep talking about him but I find him one of the most fascinating men I know. Penn Jillette is just fascinating. When Penn Jillette and I met, and I'll tell you, I say this over again, I really respect him, blah, blah‑blah, but I think he's a bigot. Old information. He's not. He's not. Penn wrote to me last week, last week or a couple of weeks ago. Because we were ‑‑ we have these fascinating ‑‑ I'd love to do a book just on our e‑mail exchanges.
STU: The Penn and Glenn letters.
GLENN: They are truly remarkable because I'm trying to understand his point of view and he's trying to understand my point of view I think. And we're coming back and forth and we have these just all‑day exchanges. I'm not kidding you, one of them was just on that guy in Florida that was having sex on ‑‑ pleasuring himself on a donkey, not in a ‑‑
STU: Right.
GLENN: Okay. And that's how it started, 8:00 on a Saturday. At the end of the day ‑‑ we just kept going back, you know, about, you know, 300 characters maximum and just keep going back and forth on it. Fascinating. At the end I kind of joked with him. I said, you know, I don't know if ‑‑ I don't know if we're closer or farther apart. I'm not really sure. I have to digest this whole conversation over a very long period of time, I said, but then again I'm a guy who would never be invited to your house. Going back to a reference that he said about the second or third time I met him at CNN and he said to me, you know ‑‑ I said, you're fascinating. I'd love to get together with you sometime. And he said, I'd love to. He said, of course you're never coming over to my house. And he was serious. He said, you know, because you're a religious freak. And he said, I'm never going to have you religious people over. He said it's like, why would I put a poison in my house? And I was shocked. And I said, boy, I thought, I thought you were a lot of things but I never thought you were a bigot. And he walked away and we've always ‑‑ we had for a while still a relationship but it was a weird relation ‑‑ it was terse. He wrote to me and he said, I apologize that I have never told you this, he said, but you changed me. He said, yes, I used to be bigoted against religious people, he said, but you've changed me. I'm not. He said, I apologize for all of that and I am sorry and I am trying to fight my closed‑mindedness on anybody that I don't understand or I don't agree with. He said, on all fronts. He said, so I apologize. And now he's become a really, a big defender of people who are religious even though he's not. And he doesn't understand it. That's an open‑minded person. And I'm sorry, that is not ‑‑ he doesn't call people enemies. That is not a liberal. That is not somebody who says, "You know what? I'm somebody who's going to, you know, we've got to wipe these people out or we've got to find out if we can ‑‑ no. I respect them for who they are. Everybody is different. And as long as we try to play nice and I don't try to shut you down or call you names, you don't do that to me. We all live together. It's like a family. Just, there's billions of us. You live in the house and you all try to get along, even though you don't agree with each other. We all try to get along. We don't try to wipe each other out. And I would never as a dad go and say to one of my daughters, "Well, genetically, you know, she's born like that. She only believes those things and she's going to fall into a religion" or she's going to fall into some ‑‑ she will fall into some atheists. If I'm a conservative, she will fall in with some atheists or she will fall into some liberals because she was born that way, you know." Oh, my gosh. What are we turning into?

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep