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

Paris mayor plans to sue FOX News, and the man at the center of the controversy is speaking out

January 21, 2015
Wilson

Writer

A few days ago, Steve Emerson was on FOX News to talk about the attacks on 'Charlie Hebdo'. During an interview, he said, "in Britain, it's not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in." The comments went viral, and now FOX News is apologizing and the Paris mayor is threatening to sue the network for inaccurate reporting. Steve joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss the outcry and the real Islamic extremism issue in Europe.

"[Emerson] immediately came out and he apologized profusely. Fox News gave the biggest apology I've ever seen, and now the mayor of France is saying they're going to sue Fox and Steve Emerson for saying there was no-go zones. Something is not right here," Glenn said.

Steve explained, "n Birmingham I made a total error by referring to the city as totally Muslim. And being sort of a no-go zone. And I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmitigated, unreserved, unambiguous apology," he said.

"The reason it went viral is because...it was a hatred of Fox. The Islamists together with their alliance with those on the ultra left had been waiting 20 years to pounce on me to make a mistake. And this combined to sort of spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder of some sort," he continued.

Below is a rough transcript of the segment:

GLENN: Steve Emerson is one of the nation's best national security correspondents. His investigative work on radical Islamic fundamentalism is absolutely critical to that nation's national security. There is no one who has exhibited the same expertise, courage, and determination to tackle this vital issue, written by the "New York Times" executive editor, A.M. Rosenthal. That is who Steve Emerson is. Steve Emerson is one of the bravest people investigators I believe on the planet. One of the -- one of the few that actually called September 11th before September 11 th happened. One of the few that has been there every step of the way, calling it exactly the way it is. Now, he made a mistake but honestly, it's a mistake that I think many of us could have made, because we have heard for years about no-go zones. And for some reason, France, England, and the left are coming after now Fox News and I believe targeting Steve Emerson. Because he was on the air and he was talking about no-go zones. Well, there are no, no, no go zone. But if you want to talk about political nitpicking, listen to this. No-go zones -- what are you implying with a no-go zone? You're implying that the police just don't go into that area. Well, okay. Is that true? Are there places here in America that either visitors or cops just avoid? There's no place here in America that I know of that the police say, I am not going in there. However, there are sensitive areas and areas so dangerous that you just don't go in unless you have to. The French call it a sensitive urban zone. Not a no go zone. This is -- documentation from the French government, sensitive urban zones. ZUS. I have here -- this is 35 pages of fine print, towns that are -- sensitive -- what are they call them? Sensitive urban zones. We would know them as no-go zones. So Steve Emerson was on Fox News and he made a statement about these no-go zones. And he said, I think the way most people speak without accuracy, and he said, you know, it's almost like completely Muslim or he talked about one place. Almost --

PAT: Birmingham totally Muslim.

GLENN: Totally Muslim. Well, no, it's thought totally Muslim. It's 25 or 30% Muslim. However, what is the culture, I don't know. He immediately came out and he apologized profusely. Fox News gave the biggest apology I've ever seen, and now the mayor of France is saying they're going to sue Fox and Steve Emerson for saying there was no-go zones. Something is not right here. I heard this on Friday and -- or on Monday. And I immediately reached out to Steve Emerson. We haven't had a chance to talk until right now. And he happens to be on the phone now to explain what's going on. Hi, Steve, how are you?

EMERSON: Hi, Glenn. I'm okay. Thank you. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: First of all, thank you for all of the hard work that you have done over the years. You are really truly an American who has risked it all and -- and really, spent a lot of your life, and I would have to imagine you feel it sometimes, there have got to be days you feel you've waste add lot of your life because nobody will listen and they're just trying to torch you. But I want you to know I as an American am grateful for the things that you have done.

EMERSON: I appreciate the kind words, you know. I'm only doing my job and I started doing it 20 years ago because I felt nobody was looking at the real aspects then of the first World Trade Center bombing in February of '92. And then -- I'm sorry, February '93. And then of course, the 9/11 attacks occurred. So I established a nonprofit looking at what the government wasn't looking at, which was the political slam, radical Islamic activities of the mosques, of the Islamic groups that pretended to be moderate or civil rights groups but were in fact conduits for radical Islamic activities. Even terrorist activities. So that's what I've dedicated my life to. And yet I did -- as you pointed out, I made a serious error when I referred to Birmingham -- I was talking about no-go zones, which by the way is not a formal reference. I mean, governments don't recognize that term. But it's an informal reference where -- in which policemen or firemen or government agencies won't go in to areas where there are dense Muslim concentrations for fear of their lives. And it's been reported on since 2002 of all places, the "New York Times" -- which referenced it. Now, having said that, in discussing it, I discussed it in England where I talked about the sharia police in parts of London that had -- basically attacked non-Muslims for not wearing the right attire. And this was reported in the BBC. It's reported in London newspapers. And yet I was attacked by the BBC for saying it. And in Birmingham I made a total error by referring to the city as totally Muslim. And being sort of a no-go zone. And I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmid gated -- unmitigated, you know, unreserved, inambiguous apology. I put out my website.

GLENN: Steve, Steve, Steve. Tell me what's really --

EMERSON: Made any mince about it, okay?

GLENN: Tell me what's really going on.

EMERSON: The reason it went viral is because the reason -- it was a hatred of Fox. People -- the Islamicists together with their alliance with those on the ultra left had been waiting 20 years to pounce on me to make a mistake. And this combined to sort of spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder of some sort. The irony, of course, that the mayor of Paris, where -- Paris being symbolically now the top city in the world where you would think it reigns has this symbolic city of free speech, having seen the massacre of people protecting -- trying to exercise free speech, is now going to sue Fox for emphasizing free speech? Which is actually true. I mean, I'd like to see the portionan mayor suing Fox or suing me. On discovery they wouldn't get away with it.

GLENN: No, I'm sitting here with 30 fif page of something called sensitive urban zones, which is what -- we, you know -- in colloquial terms call no-go zones. That's what they call them. Sensitive urban zones. It's the same thing, is it not? Or am I wrong on that?

EMERSON: It can be. It's an amorphous determine and I think it fluctuates from area to area, so I think that, again, no so against is an informal determine that the governments don't recognize. They don't recognize as a formal term, which is why Fox actually issued a second apology on Saturday night saying you know, there's no such thing as a formal, you know, recognition of no-go zones. And we -- you know, we apologize for using that term. But again, there is no formal designation of no-go zone. Those are -- the French map listed areas where there are -- what they called sensitive urban zones, where there are areas that the police or firemen or areas where government agents won't go in. And it -- the difference -- there are differences in each different zone, but certainly those zones are designated as such because of the refusal by various government agencies or services to go in for fear of their lives.

GLENN: Steve, are we --

EMERSON: BriMerrill Muslim, they're all Muslim. And in some areas they have sharia courts, not ought necessarily. But this goes beyond necessarily those areas. Some areas, it's very, very -- you know, no go, which means nobody goes in. And in some areas they do go in when they have to go in. So I think that the definition varies. On the other hand, you have mayors. You have chiefs of police. You have chiefs of firemen. You have journalists, French journalists, all -- documenting and talking about no-go zones for years.

GLENN: Right, I know.

EMERSON: As well as an article in the "New York Times" or "Newsweek" going back to 2002 and 2005. So the notion somehow this was just an invention of Fox is ludicrous.

GLENN: So Steve, let --

EMERSON: -- only because, as you pointed out, a desire to get at Fox. Or desire to get at me.

GLENN: Okay. Let me ask you this. If this is where France is after, you know, after this attack, and they are so hyper focused on political correctness, and they care this much about destroying somebody like you and Fox, is your -- do you think Europe has a chance of recovering from the radicalism that is infected, and I mean radicalism from both the Islamic side and the fascistic side? There is a fight for who's going to control the populace. Which fascism, Islamofascism or the new neo-Nazi fascism? Does it have a chance of surviving?

EMERSON: The correct dynamics. Which is -- you see a rise of this -- you know, of a right wing -- sometimes very fascistic reaction to the emergence of these radical Islamic zones. And self-declared sovereignty. The sharia courts that have been enabled by European governments. The fact that -- in many countries, in Sweden as well, you will find higher rates of rape and theft and crime associated with dense Muslim migration. And I want to be very clear that I'm not saying that Muslims are responsible for all crimes or anything like that or they're responsible for all terrorism.

GLENN: I'm going to let do you that, but you don't have to on this show. We're all adults.

EMERSON: I want to be very clear in stating that.

GLENN: No, I know.

EMERSON: And I'm not associating Islam with terrorism itself, but there is a -- and it is radical in Europe. And I say statements with Mr. Cameron, who called me an idiot. But Mr. Cameron himself said ISIS and ISIL all these groups have nothing to do with Islam and they're just monsters. I could I is a that statement is more idiotic than any statement I've ever made.

PAT: Yep.

EMERSON: It doesn't necessarily mean they're equal to Islam, but it these do with the interpretation.

GLENN: They're quoting.

(overlapping speakers).

EMERSON: We have to recognize to the extent we don't recognize it is going to fester and grow.

GLENN: They're quoting the Quran. They're doing it in the name of Allah and the holy Prophet Muhammad. How much more Islamic do you need to be?

STU: That's what's amazing to this.

EMERSON: When you have a group called the Islamic Jihad and then you have the president or John Brennan, the CIA director, saying Jihad means peace and moral struggle, are we supposed to rename the Islamic Jihad the movement for peace and struggle? It's a group that carries out murders, stabbings, and decapitations. So it's absurd for us to deny the connection between Islam and these Islamic terrorist groups. Again, it doesn't mean that every Muslim is a terrorist, far from it. It's a minority, very small minority, but they have a dis-- especially the extremists, have a disproportionate control over the majority because they occupy the leadership position, the Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, as you know, Glenn, is the parent group of almost every single Suni terrorist group in the world from ISIS to Al Qaeda to Hamas, the Islamic Jihad. Every single group like that pays its homage to the Muslim Brotherhood. And you know what? The only country in the world that had the courage, the bravery to name the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups in the United States, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, which was named a front group by the F.B.I. as a front group for Hamas, the only country in the world that named and designated the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as terrorist groups was a Muslim country, the United Arab Emirates. And who came to the defense of CAIR? The United States.

GLENN: Steve, I just want --

EMERSON: I'm ashamed of what the U.S. State Department did.

GLENN: I think the State Department -- the State Department is one of our biggest problems and the incoming president, whoever it might be, the best thing he could do is fire every single person at the State Department. Steve, I just wanted to get you on. I wanted to hear what your point of view was on this and I appreciate. I want you also to know, there are millions of Americans who -- who know you and who have learned a lot from you. And who support you. And I know that you're -- your organization takes donations and when you're up against all the powers of the world, I know how difficult it is. And I wanted to make sure that people understood that you could donate and you could help Steve at InvestigativeProject.Org. You can also go there and learn an awful lot of information that quite honestly is very politically incorrect and they have been trying to get this guy for 20 years. And he is really truly one of the American heroes that should be remembered in history as one of the guys -- as one of the Bohnhoffers that stood when no one else would stand. InvestigativeProject.org. Steve Emerson, thanks so much for being on the program.

EMERSON: Glenn, thanks for your very kind words.

GLENN: God bless you.

PAT: And instead of all that, they've turned it around in him in the midst of 12 people being murdered at the hands of extremist radicals. Now he's the problem, not they. Unbelievable.

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

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatism as stewardship

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

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

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

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

Rebuilding what is broken

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

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

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

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

A creed for the rising generation

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

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

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

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

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global reality.

And moral reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our faith is almost gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we open the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not in nostalgia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A conservative in 2025, '26.

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

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

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

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

And one can't be stronger than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

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

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

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.