Handicapping the 2016 GOP candidates

On radio this morning, Adam Brandon from FreedomWorks joined the show to run through the candidates. Who does he like? Who has the worst record?

Get the expert political analysis in its entirety below, and scroll past the audio for the transcript of this segment.

Rush transcript of this segment is below:

GLENN: Well, welcome to the program. Last night on television, I had Adam Brandon, the executive vice president, the CEO of Freedom Works on with us. And we were talking during the break about how excited both of us were. And I think for different reasons. Maybe for the same reason. But we were both excited about the future. For the first time, talking politics. I mean, we were together. Adam is here. We were together on Election Day.

ADAM: That's right.

GLENN: With Mitt Romney.

PAT: Oh, man. What a bloodbath that was.

GLENN: And that was a kick in the head over and over again. And then I think we were there together -- or, at least we talked to each other during the last election where, you know, some of our guys were getting their heads kicked in again. And honestly I think most Americans who are of our political bent were thinking, okay, well, I'm going to stop doing that now.

And then you come to me. Yesterday we had Scott Walker on. We felt really good about him. We feel good about Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. We feel like there's something happening here.

ADAM: That's right. In between when we spoke last time and here today, I've been reading up, and I found two headlines that really speak to me about what's happening. The first one comes from CNBC which says the millennial generation's savings patterns closely reflect their grandparents, like there's a fundamental shift in the youngest people in America today in how they view money and savings.

GLENN: Fourth turning.

ADAM: Then the next thing I saw was yet another study showing that more and more Americans are viewing themselves as independent of both political parties. These trends continue. To me, that shows me that the young folks are changing. And our society is changing in how it views politics. These are huge opportunities.

I want to go back to one more meeting we had a few years ago. And I remember, you put up on the chalkboard this long, progressive history and how they took over the parties and their influence. And you said it was a 100-year conflict. And I walked out of that meeting. I never forgot that because I was almost paralyzed by fear. Like, one hundred years? How do you combat something that's been going for 100 years?

GLENN: This is in the days when I depressed everybody and I said, we need a 100-year plan. And everybody was like, I don't think I even want to think about a 100-year plan.

ADAM: But you were right when you were talking yesterday and going over these presidential candidates. We at Freedom Works have been looking at what works and what wasn't work. The different types of organizations you need and the different type of candidates you need. And I would say right now today, heading into 2016, yes, it may take a few generations to turn everything back, but in the next few election cycles, I think we can make a significant advance at turning back the time.

GLENN: I think we have, quite honestly. If you look at the candidates I mentioned. You can add Marco Rubio to that. Those candidates would not exist had the Tea Party not popped up.

ADAM: One thing that the Tea Party is doing to change politics is it used to be enough. We all love Ronald Reagan and stuff. At best, those guys kind of paused the growth of government. It even kind of grew, but it just slowed it down. And those candidates that you mentioned and I think what the Tea Party is demanding, is in this next presidential cycle, not just pausing, but actually reducing government. And a few years ago, I would never have thought that's possible. But with people in the House and Senate and one of those folks in the White House, I think it could actually happen.

GLENN: So who do you think has the best shot?

ADAM: It's not a cop-out. I do believe it's too early to say that.

GLENN: Tell me the strengths of each candidate. For instance, Cruz, show me the strength of Ted Cruz.

ADAM: The strength of Ted Cruz is that he's absolutely fearless. From when he first ran for Senate and got to Washington, possibly the most disliked person in Washington, DC.

GLENN: Does that hurt him?

ADAM: I think it helps him out in real America. In D.C. what it shows, he's not scared of going into a Senate cloakroom and having almost every senator outside of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz --

GLENN: And likely --

ADAM: Giving him just the evil eye. He will fight for what he believes. That will be his strength.

STU: That feels good to us.

GLENN: Can't get anything done.

STU: When it comes down to him getting support to put together a winning campaign --

GLENN: One of the least liked people in Washington, DC, right now is Barack Obama. They're only afraid of his machinery. But he's not getting anything done.

ADAM: No. But would that help or hurt Cruz? That's why you'll see pretty quickly in the campaign cycle how that plays nationally. Rand Paul, once again, there's a guy who stood up against the NSA on the Senate floor. That's a forward looking thing. Of all these candidates, Rand Paul might reflect the future of the G.O.P. the most. The question is, is he too far ahead? He'll also have to answer, and this will be his opportunity, to talk about things like ISIS and foreign policy and show how he's different from his father.

Then just keep going down to the list. Marco Rubio. Great personal story. Fantastic story about beating Crist when he was running in Florida. The question for him: Is this kind of that Rubio who kind of came in and jumped on immigration in the wrong way, or is this someone who is a little different? Each one we mentioned, there's going to be a strength and there's going to be a weakness.

GLENN: The Marco Rubio thing, I don't think Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or -- well, I guess in some ways Governor Walker has, but not as much that has got something as fundamental as immigration reform wrong. You know what I mean?

ADAM: Right.

GLENN: You can wake me up in the middle of the night, ask me one of the three big topics, immigration will be one of them. For him to get that one wrong and to say, well, I wasn't really -- hello. It shows me that your gut is somehow askew.

ADAM: Right. But that being said, comparing this to the field from previous years, more excited about this field.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Let's go deeper. Carly Fiorina.

ADAM: I'm not really sure what that's all about right now.

PAT: Yeah, we're not either. And we interviewed her last week or the week before. Liked her, but we didn't really get into policy.

GLENN: No. We were talking California policy, and she was right on the money on California. Very, very sharp.

PAT: And the economy she seemed pretty good on. But, you know, we didn't dig into the fundamentals like immigration.

GLENN: How about Ben Carson?

ADAM: Well, Ben Carson has just an incredible personal story.

GLENN: We really like him. We just don't think he's ready to be president.

ADAM: As I was mentioning earlier, one thing I've noticed about him, he's built a good connection with grassroots activists. He'll be a stronger player just because of the network he's been able to build.

GLENN: Mike Huckabee?

ADAM: I look at his record as governor and I'm just moving on. That's old news.

PAT: Thank you. Thank you. Good answer.

GLENN: The guy is a giant progressive.

ADAM: Absolutely.

STU: He will run. You have him. You have Jeb Bush.

GLENN: Hang on a second. Who does Mike Huckabee coming into the race, who does he hurt?

ADAM: Because -- the question for me: Is he going to try to stake out for the social conservatives? Is that the main group he'll reach out to?

GLENN: Yes.

ADAM: If you like some of these other people we mentioned, Ben Carson is there. Rick Santorum. Even Ted Cruz might be there.

GLENN: Ted Cruz. Yeah.

ADAM: When I look at how this horse race might play out --

GLENN: I have a conspiracy theory that I'm never going to share, but I have a conspiracy on Mike Huckabee on being put in this race by some -- by some establishment to really hurt Ted Cruz.

ADAM: That, I could actually buy that conspiracy theory.

GLENN: You probably know the conspiracy theory.

ADAM: Some people run for president not with the end goal of winning.

GLENN: Yes, Lindsey Graham.

ADAM: Run for president, run for vice president to sell books. John Bolton, I think, talks about running for president for, you know, I'm just not sure why. But it's a way for him to inject whatever issue he's most excited about into the race.

GLENN: What are the odds that you suppose that we get to a literal Hillary and Jeb ticket? Not the same ticket, although that would make more sense to me. Hillary versus Jeb Bush.

ADAM: I have a theory that if it's Clinton versus Bush, a third party candidate will win.

GLENN: I have the same feeling.

STU: Wow. It's tough.

GLENN: I have the same feeling. And especially if it's somebody like Rand Paul who seemingly is so different outside the system. You know what I mean? I really think -- I think that Rand Paul could win on a third-party ticket, if it's those two.

ADAM: You look at someone like Ross Perot, who came up because there was dissatisfaction. And then something else that I've never forgotten was when Mayor Michael Bloomberg dumped $100 million into his own race. That just shows, it can be done. There is someone who can write a check large enough to jump-start a campaign. Or you could just have -- like you were mentioning Rand. Just people so sick of this. I mean, I would have a hard time voting in a Clinton versus Bush election.

GLENN: I wouldn't. I will vote for third party. I don't care who it is.

ADAM: There you go. That would be such a disservice to our democracy if those are the two names on the ticket.

GLENN: It would. $2.5 billion for Hillary Clinton. What can that money buy? One thing it can't buy. When she launched this campaign. There was a new look to this campaign. One of the issues to the big look, they're not going to do big rallies. Why? Because no one would show up?

GLENN: We talked about that.

STU: Obama had a decent amount of success with big rallies. It's not like, hey, 50,000 people showed up for me thing.

GLENN: Right. That's the one thing you don't have to go to get rid of when you're running for president. The lies. The teleprompter, we've had enough of that. Big, huge problems is not a huge problem.

PAT: It's Journey saying, we don't want to play cowboys stadium anymore.

STU: We're looking for something intimate.

GLENN: It might be that Journey's time has passed or you have the wrong members.

ADAM: This is a shocking revelation about to make. But I do this to check to see what the other side is up to.

GLENN: We're talking to Adam Brandon from Freedom Works.

ADAM: And there's a bunch of progressive groups I donate the absolute minimum to, just to be on their email lists to see what they're thinking and what they're up to.

What amazes me about moveon.org is every email you get from them is run, Elizabeth, run. Run, Elizabeth Warren, run. And this should be Hillary Clinton's base. And they have no interest it seems in supporting her. You have to drag them --

GLENN: I just think that $2.5 million better be spent on buses going to nursing homes and picking them up to vote and then digging people up in cemeteries and just voter fraud. Because there's just no excitement there at all.

ADAM: No.

GLENN: At all. And that's why I think Hillary really wants Jeb Bush, because there's the same amount of excitement.

ADAM: Right.

GLENN: I think that if it's Jeb Bush, you're going to have -- he'll have the hardest time rallying people together and say, hey, will you go door to door? Will you make phone calls for me?

ADAM: I can't imagine any of our activists doing that.

GLENN: I don't know anybody in our audience who would do that.

PAT: You'll have 50 people voting that day judge it would be the lowest voter turnout in American history.

GLENN: It would. And the highest voter turnout. Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, one of those guys, versus someone like Elizabeth Warren.

ADAM: That would be so healthy for our democracy.

GLENN: Oh, it would be so great. And if Elizabeth Warren would just say -- the moderator is like, look, I know you're not a communist, but let's admit it, you like Swedish socialized government. Okay? And if she would have the balls to say, yeah, I do.

STU: You know who has the balls to say that? Bernie Sanders.

GLENN: Just really say, look, the Swedish system works. And here's why. And then having someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz saying, no, this is why I believe this system works if it's done right. And really have an open honest debate of those two choices. That's what we're really doing. We're just not admitting it.

ADAM: It would be TV I would watch every debate. It would be so exciting.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. The whole world would watch that. Back in just a second. I do want to give you some time to talk a little about your Freedom Works PAC. This is something that is actually really going to help the election and people want to know, what can I do to get involved? How can I help? You feel like $2.5 billion, it's not big money. It's smart money. And it's 5-dollar donations, not 100 million-dollar donations. We'll tell you about that coming up in just a second.

Our sponsor this half-hour is Zip Recruiter. Zip Recruiter is for anybody like me who runs a business and you have a hard time finding the right candidates. And when you're looking to hire people, you can post on 100-plus job sites. With Zip Recruiter, you can post with one click on 100-plus job sites. Instantly matched to that perfect candidate from over 4 million resumes. You post once. And within 24 hours, you can watch the candidates roll into Zip Recruiter's easy-to-use interface. We just hired a guy because of Zip Recruiter. And it was the easiest way to find somebody. Literally, I've told this story before. The night before, what are we going to do? Where will we find anybody? Post it on Zip Recruiter. My response, what the hell is Zip Recruiter? Something new. We're trying it. Next day, we had eight candidates that people were excited to interview, and we just hired somebody. Zip Recruiter, try it for free today. Go to ZipRecruiter.com/Beck. ZipRecruiter.com/Beck. Try it for free today.

(OUT AT 8:23AM)

GLENN: Talking to Adam Brandon, the CEO of Freedom Works. And he has started a new PAC. FreedomWorksPAC.org. They're not looking for millionaires. They'll take millionaires. But they're looking for 5-dollar donations. I wanted him to be on the air to explain specifically what this PAC is and why it's important.

ADAM: Thank you very much. It's actually FreedomWorksPAC.com. But when we looked at what worked and what didn't work in previous election cycles, there was a couple of elections we left on the table. Clint Didier out in Washington State lost by 2,000 votes. McDaniel won his race before he lost it. But one thing we missed was that final push. That ability to inject money into these campaigns that desperately needed it at that time. Yes, you're right, it's about the size of the community. Rounding up as many five, 50, 100-dollar checks as possible to really help these candidates that will make a difference.

GLENN: So what you're doing with this PAC is you're coming out with all the research on why you like these guys. Right?

ADAM: Going forward, we'll put up on a website. It will be all these different races. You pick and choose the ones you want. But we'll make sure that everyone who is listening right now will have fantastic research on the positions that matter to our community.

GLENN: So I think this is really important. Because you know when you write a check to the G.O.P., you don't know where your money is going. You write a check for the G.O.P., and it could very well be going to John Boehner.

ADAM: That's right.

GLENN: And I don't want that. So what you're doing, you can give it a general fund. But you can also say, no, I want it to go to this specific guy.

ADAM: Right now, you just have to give to Freedom Works PAC. There are not that many candidates in the race. But we'll also be incentivizing people like Matt Salmon to jump in against John McCain. We'll try to incentivize people like Congressman DeSantis to jump in in Florida to take over for Rubio's place. Rather than waiting and hoping for the right candidate, we want to put some resources together to get them in the race.

GLENN: Tell me about Salmon.

ADAM: Salmon has a 100 percent voting record with Freedom Works. 100 percent. He's one of those people you want to see in the race. When you look at a candidate, number one, they have to be right on principle. Number two, they have to run a competent campaign. And number three, if they do those other things, there has to be a path to victory. So every candidate we endorse, they'll be solid on principle, they'll be able to win, and they're going to have a path to victory.

GLENN: With a Freedom Works PAC, we could have gotten Lindsey Graham out.

ADAM: Well, that was one of the races I looked at. How did we not have a candidate in that race? There was like five candidates --

GLENN: If we can take out John McCain in 2016, that's a huge takeout.

ADAM: I think it would send a message to everyone.

GLENN: If this PAC could have existed, do you think we could have won Kentucky?

ADAM: We could have gotten closer. We could win Mississippi. I could go through three or four House races, we would have won. Legally, we didn't have the ability to put money and resources to come on and say, in 72 hours, these are the three people who desperately need this help.

STU: What I like about this idea, it's not giving money to a person or party. It's giving money to an idea. You'll find the people with the ideas, and they'll have the fuel to go through that campaign.

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

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

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

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

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

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global reality.

And moral reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our faith is almost gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we open the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not in nostalgia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A conservative in 2025, '26.

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

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

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

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

And one can't be stronger than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

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

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

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

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

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

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

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

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

Ancient evil, new clothes

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new currency of power

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

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

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

The forgotten way

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

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

Both are traps.

The only way

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A restoration, not a renovation

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

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

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

The selective guardians of history

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

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

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

The real desecration

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

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

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.