Sen. Rand Paul reacts to the latest terror threat

August 06, 2013

Writer

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) joined the radio program this morning to speak about his book, Government Bullies: How Everyday Americans are Being Harassed, Abused, and Imprisoned by the Feds, the current terror threat, and what will be on the agenda in Washington D.C. following the Congressional recess.

Transcript of the full interview below:

GLENN: [Rand Paul] doesn't want to shut down the government. He just wants to defund a wildly already out‑of‑control government program – the universal healthcare program of the president. And I think this is our ‑‑ this is our last chance. This is our last chance. He has a book that's come out in paperback: "Government Bullies: How Everyday Americans are Being Harassed, Abused, and Imprisoned by the Feds." It's stunning, stunning excoriation of what our country has become. And he is on the phone with us now. Senator, how are you, sir?

RAND PAUL: Good. Glad to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: So... Chris Christie ‑‑

RAND PAUL: Oh, don't get me started, Glenn.

GLENN: ‑‑ has said, and he's not alone ‑‑

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: ‑‑ that there's a rising strain of libertarianism and that you are dangerous.

RAND PAUL: Now, you've seen me, Glenn. I'm not that dangerous. I'm not even scary.

GLENN: You're really not.

RAND PAUL: But the thing is that ‑‑ here's the real problem with their analysis is that I believe the most important thing we do at the federal government level, the thing that is absolutely authorized by the Constitution is national defense. And that it takes a priority over really just about everything we do up there. So I would, if I were in charge, do everything possible to find savings in order to preserve national defense. However, if you're a liberal Republican and you think you want all of the pork everywhere that all the Democrats want and you want national defense, it's a little bit hard to argue because there's no money left over for national defense unless you're willing to cut somewhere.

GLENN: I was shocked in two things, first of all, that Newt Gingrich over the weekend was as honest as he was. He claimed that he was a neocon, and anybody ‑‑ and Newt is enough of a wordsmith to know exactly the origins of that word. That means somebody who is a big government progressive liberal that also believes in huge national defense and spreading democracy by force. And that's what the definition of a neocon is. And he said, "I am a neocon, but I've ‑‑ I've started to reconsider. Maybe, maybe some of our national defense stuff is misguided here."

RAND PAUL: Well, see, I think part of the problem is we characterize things too absolutely. I always tell people that are there polls. One is that we're everywhere all the time and one is that we're nowhere any of the time. That would be isolationism. I'm not for nowhere any of the time. I'm for defending the country, protecting the country from attackers. I was for going into Afghanistan. I'm for having robust presence around the world, but I'm not for being in every Civil War. I'm not for arming the Islamic rebels in Syria who are going to be killing and are killing Christians. And so there are debates, but what happens is the other side wants to characterize one side as not believing and defending the country and that's just not accurate.

GLENN: So the ‑‑ we've had prison break after prison break. You know, if you look at Al‑Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood as two rival gangs, which they are. They're the Crips and the Bloods except they're even worse than the Crips and the Bloods obviously, and we have ‑‑ we're not anti‑ ‑‑ we're not anti‑gang. We just picked the Bloods. We just don't like the Crips much and so we've gone after Al‑Qaeda but we've embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is crumbling in the Middle East and in Egypt and now Al‑Qaeda is releasing prisoners by opening up all of the prisons across the Middle East and now we've taken this unprecedented act of shutting down our embassies all across the region. Rand, are we ‑‑ I mean, I've never seen America do this. Al‑Qaeda's not on the run. We're on the run.

RAND PAUL: Well, you know, I still have questions about whether we're adequately protecting our embassies, and I think it really was inexcusable in Benghazi that when Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned them down and then had the gall to say, "Oh, really wasn't my problem. Somebody underneath me made that decision." And I really think that that kind of behavior's inexcusable. And still to this day, you know, they're talking this morning all over the news about how Benghazi's ten times more dangerous than it was. I think the whole country, I think the host country, there may be people there who are willing to protect our embassy but I don't think they have the capability. So I don't think we really should have an embassy there under State Department control. It actually ought to be under military control the way initially things were in Afghanistan and in Iraq, or we shouldn't have an embassy in Libya at all. But you do have to protect your embassies, and shutting them down is not an ultimate answer. I don't want to second‑guess the decision yesterday, reliable information, but I do say we have to have more protection for our embassies.

GLENN: I don't want to put you in a situation to where you're speculating on, you know, whether this is genuine, whether this is just another, you know, this is scare tactic to get everybody talking ‑‑ not talking about Benghazi, which we were again last week or supporting the NSA or anything like that. What I want to ‑‑ what I just want to ask you is how should the American people digest what's going on with this giant terror scare?

RAND PAUL: You know, I think that you can have both security and privacy and obey the Bill of Rights. They make it out like, "Oh, we need these short steps, we don't need warrants, we need to be able to get all of this information from Americans and store it out in Utah," but the thing is almost really every case that they've said, oh, was stopped by using this surveillance, it really isn't exactly true. Every name of every person that they started their investigation with all came from an informant and came with an actual name. They are just using, enable to use this data to find terrorists. They are working from information they get from informants and then they could do it the traditional way and just ask for judges' warrants for their phone records and whoever they link to and we would be able to get terrorists and still would even without, you know, disobeying the Fourth Amendment and invading all Americans' privacy.

GLENN: I have respect for Michele Bachmann, but we have respectfully parted ways on the NSA thing. She is convinced that the NSA has never done anything wrong and, you know, got to work with the evidence at hand, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know why you are building the biggest data collection center the world has ever seen if you're not actually going to store any of that data, but what is your reaction to the House's failure to defund the NSA?

RAND PAUL: You know, actually I was pretty impressed with the effort because first of all, leadership on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, didn't want to have a vote. And they forced the vote and actually almost worked to put controls on the NSA. The problem with not having any controls and expecting the NSA or policemen in general just to pass their own rules, it's sort of like the presidential problem. People who have power think that because they're good, there don't need to be limits on it. So policemen who are good people, I know policemen in my community, I know FBI agents are good people, but they don't want restrictions outside of their group because it just sort of gets in the way of doing work. But increasingly they want more and more power because they say we're good people and we're going to do good things. But then ultimately so much power accumulates that then, like, people in the IRS are able to use that power against their political enemies. Could the NSA be turned on your enemies? Absolutely.

GLENN: Congress is on break right now, but when you come back, there is a push that you're involved in to defund universal healthcare by carving it out of the next continuing resolution. Already they're calling everybody involved an extremist. I personally think that if this would work, you would not only defund the president's healthcare plan and stop it dead in its tracks, I really, truly believe you would see John McCain walk out of the GOP and say I'm going ‑‑ I'm going to do Joe Lieberman, I'm independent because this party has been taken over by extremists and that would be the biggest victory of all. How is the defunding program coming in your opinion?

RAND PAUL: Well, but for a few Republicans who have been critical of it before it got started, you know, I think it would have had more success. What I tell people is that when I come home in Kentucky, everybody's exactly the way they were in 2010. They want us to do something to defund ObamaCare. Medicare's $35 to $40 trillion in the hole, and taking money from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare just isn't going to work. And they want us to do something. We control a third of the government, which means we may not be able to win, but they want us to stand up and try. And if you control a third of the government, shouldn't you use that leverage to at least get rid of some of ObamaCare or try to get rid of some of it? You start out with defunding the whole thing but maybe we just get it delayed. I don't know what the final outcome is because I can't guarantee victory, but I can guarantee you get nothing if you don't try and that's why I think Republicans are hungry for leadership in our party to say somebody stand up to the president. Somebody stand up to ObamaCare and do something.

GLENN: I saw a story from a progressive Democrat that said after this is funded, if you guys lose this fight, and once this thing is funded and on its way, the TEA Party and small government conservatives are over. And they said that it is really one of the last stands here and it's a real fight in the ‑‑ it's just a, it's a fight against American constitutionalists and progressives on both sides.

RAND PAUL: Yeah, but I think the fight doesn't end because I've told people even if we lose this fight on funding it, there's going to be another fight within a year when all the bills come due at the state legislative level because they don't have a printing press at the state capitol and so they will have bills and they're going to be enormous for this thing. And I think also there's going to be a rebellion among the people when they see how much their premiums are and then, guess what, they had insurance before but they lose their doctor, lose their insurance and they are paying more for their premiums. They are going, now, why did I vote for the president on this?

GLENN: Do you think they're going to ‑‑ I mean, to add fuel to the fire, do you think they're going to ‑‑ there's going to be a real movement to bail out Detroit?

RAND PAUL: I think there may. And, you know, I've been talking with my staff about having a Republican alternative to it because I think there is a way in an economically depressed zone to have some tax forbearance, reduce some taxes, encourage businesses, encourage people to come in and take abandoned property.

The other thing I suggested is the money we're sending to Egypt for tanks and planes, we could put it into infrastructure. Doesn't have to go just to Detroit but it ‑‑ across America, it would go into repairing infrastructure. And so I think there are ways that we could do it in a Republican fashion, but I will not be for borrowing any money, you know, from China to try to bail out Detroit, particularly if they continue the same policies. Really bankruptcy is an opportunity to try to get rid of bad contracts, start out afresh and try to maybe pay your workers, have fewer workers but pay them closer to what the market pays them in the private sector.

GLENN: I will tell you that, you know, the boys were talking about, we could buy homes, Glenn. We could buy a home for a dollar. We could buy a whole block for 10. And they were talking about there, you know, some people are going in and, you know, buying, you know, lots of houses, et cetera, et cetera. And I said, "I wouldn't do it because I'm not convinced that I wouldn't be held responsible or liable now for all of the bad decisions that that city makes." You have to have a fresh start. If you had a fresh start, new money would pour in there and people would say, "I've got an idea. I know how we can do this. I know how we can fix this. I know how we can turn it around. But who's going to do that in ‑‑

RAND PAUL: You'd have to bring in new politics, too, that maybe the people who have been voting for the Democrats for 50 years in Detroit who ran the once great city into the ground, maybe they would choose some new leadership in the Republican Party.

GLENN: No, that's ‑‑

RAND PAUL: ‑‑ have a resurgence in Detroit and say, look, we have the ability and the ideas to bring forward a recovery for Detroit. But that may be wishful thinking.

GLENN: Yeah, I think that's ‑‑ I think that's wishful thinking. I think what is a possibility, not now, but what is a possibility is to get entrepreneurs, libertarians, smallest possible government, the kind of guys that are doing the, you know, the cutting‑edge ideas of, you know, what is that sea thing that, they have that big ship out in sea and they're like we're going to try to redesign everything? I mean, you have some real libertarian thinkers, some real big money and some entrepreneurs in there and say, "All bets are off. We want this property to try something entirely different," that I think could excite the minds and imaginations of Americans. And if you just said, "Look, I own it and that's what I'm going to do, and I'm going to take care of it and police it myself and we're going to try some new experiment," that would capture the imagination.

RAND PAUL: You've hit on it because what you have to have is not only tax‑free zones, you need to have regulation free zones. Apparently Detroit, you know, there's 46 pages of regulations for setting up a business and everywhere you go, you're paying off somebody or paying a legalized bribe to get your business license. You have to eliminate all that red tape and so it has to be a low‑tax or a tax‑free zone and a regulation‑free zone and just do it because it's blighted and see if people will come in if you tell them they can just open their business and start tomorrow.

GLENN: Well, the name of the book is Government Bullies: How everyday Americans are being harassed, abused, and imprison by the Feds. And if you ever have a friend who says, "Oh, tell me where the rights have gone away," you just give them this book. I's available now in paperback everywhere, government bullies by senator Rand Paul out today in paperback in stores everywhere. Thank you so much, Senator.

RAND PAUL: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Appreciate it. Bye‑bye.

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

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatism as stewardship

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

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

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

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

Rebuilding what is broken

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

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

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

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

A creed for the rising generation

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

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

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

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

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global reality.

And moral reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our faith is almost gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we open the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not in nostalgia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A conservative in 2025, '26.

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

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

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

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

And one can't be stronger than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

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

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Sen. Rand Paul reacts to the latest terror threat

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

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

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

Conservatism as stewardship

Rebuilding what is broken

A creed for the rising generation

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

Transcript

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

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

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

Ancient evil, new clothes

A time for choosing

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

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

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

The new currency of power

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

The forgotten way

The only way