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

Gov. Scott Walker reveals new details of his tax plan modeled after of that of Ronald Reagan

September 17, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Wisconsin Governor and GOP 2016 hopeful Scott Walker joined Glenn on radio Thursday morning to share his thoughts on the prior night's debate and to dive deeper into some of the policies he has been running on.

Topics ranged from repealing Obamacare to marijuana use to taxes. When Walker expressed frustration that the debate didn't focus enough on the issues, Glenn invited him to set the record straight on radio right then and there.

"You got 10 million people across the nation that listen to this program. So let's take that opportunity right now," Glenn said.

Walker proceeded to explain how his tax plan would follow that of Ronald Reagan, which he said led to the economic boom that occurred thereafter.

"It's pretty similar to what Reagan did. He had two tax rates. Same sort of concept back in 1986. It was 15 and 28 percent. We'd adjust it for current numbers today," Walker said. "We can say to the American people, 'this has worked.' This is not in theory, this is something that has worked."

Listen to the full dialogue or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Governor, how are you?

SCOTT: Hey, I'm doing well. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: How did you feel last night?

SCOTT: Well, really I felt like we had scored some real points, if that's what you call it, I guess, in terms of getting the message out. If you want someone who has been tested, I'm the guy. If you want an apprentice, someone who has never been tested before, then you're likely to get someone like we have in the White House right now.

STU: The apprentice line was fantastic.

GLENN: It was.

SCOTT: And I think we used the limited time CNN gave us, even though we tried to get in there many of times, we used it to the best of our effect to get our message out.

GLENN: When you walked off the stage, did you have one opinion of what happened and then you listened to the people, the press and then saw the reviews and everything else and have another, or did they sync up for you?

SCOTT: Oh, I think I knew going in, we knew the narrative, no matter what happened, they were going to say that Carly had a big night no matter what. And obviously they said that. I think the other impression was -- the feedback I got back from folks, not just from the press but from across the country I talked to was a frustration that there wasn't more talk. I mean, I mentioned I broke in at one point and said, "That's what's wrong with this campaign. We're not actually talking about issues. We're talking about personalities." But it seemed pretty clear that CNN was trying to pit people against each other for ratings instead of talking about issues.

GLENN: I will tell you that I heard you say that and I heard a couple of candidates try to get it back. What are we doing? We're attacking each other and the real challenge here are the policies that are -- well, the policies of Donald Trump and the other side of the aisle.

And I think that actually -- at least for me because it was such a circus at times, for me, I actually found myself saying about people like you, even Chris Christie who I'm not for at all, when he was saying some things like that, "I'm like, yeah, fine. Can we just have an adult conversation here, please?"

SCOTT: Right. Because -- I mean, I mentioned briefly, I would have loved to have them question, push back, put me on the spot, I've got a plan to repeal Obamacare. Literally to repeal Obamacare and to get Congress to have to pass it by signing an executive order that requires them to live under the same rules as everybody else. Ask me about it. Probe me about it. Ask me about my tax plan. Ask about energy independence. Ask about using all of the abundance of energy that we have here in America. Ask about any of those things. But those weren't the questions they were asking. It was, "Well, hey, you said this about this person, or you said that about that person." Ironically, one of my sons pointed out something interesting. He said, "Dad, you didn't get asked any of those questions because you don't attack other Republicans. You just attack Hillary Clinton."

PAT: That's a good point.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, Scott. Let's go through some of these things. I know the tax plan of Rand Paul, which I'm in love with. I know the tax plan now -- I heard for the first time, flat tax from --

PAT: Ted Cruz.

GLENN: -- Ted Cruz, which is great. I heard somebody else say they'll abolish the IRS.

PAT: Huckabee.

GLENN: Was that Huckabee?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What is your tax plan?

SCOTT: You know, we're going to wrought week by week. So we'll wrought in greater detail. But for us, I mean, I wish I would have got more time. It was right in the Reagan Library. Our plan is modeled after the tax plan of '86, what Ronald Reagan did. You simplify the code. You had two rates. Brought about one of the most extended periods of economic prosperity in American history. There is a model there. It is a proven model. It has worked. A simple flat concept that we've done in the past. It didn't just apply to individuals. I think you have to do the same thing to job creators. We did that. We've actually seen more of these jobs that have parked overseas come back to America. Put more of our fellow Americans back to work. But, again, instead of spending a lot of time talking about that, we were asked about who took a jab at whom and what they thought about that. And I hope in the future we'll have more chances to talk about tax policy, true immigration policy, all sorts of other things.

GLENN: But we have one right now. Hold on just a second. We have that opportunity right now. You got 10 million people across the nation that listen to this program. So let's take that opportunity right now. And let me go back to tax policy. You know, what used to sound really good to me was the Ronald Reagan plan. That -- and if we could get that done, I'd be happy with that. However, we're in such a place now to where I think the bolder the idea, the better the chance of getting it done. Because people are tired of eating around the edges.

Why not abolish the IRS and give me a flat tax? Russia does it. It's 18, 15 percent. Whatever it is. Here's what it is. How much did you make? What's 18 percent. Put it in an envelope and send it to us.

SCOTT: Well, it's pretty similar to what Reagan did. He had two tax rates. Same sort of concept back in 1986. It was 15 and 28 percent. We'd adjust it for current numbers today. To me, it's essentially almost the same sort of thing you're talking about. But the difference being, we can say to the American people, "This has worked." This is not in theory, this is something that has worked. It brought about this extended -- people talk even last night about the 1990s and the balanced budget. The balanced budget wasn't because of Bill Clinton in Congress. The balanced budget was because we were still benefiting from the economic boom -- the residuals of Ronald Reagan's economic policies, not just with tax benefits, but reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Imagine what we could do if we had a Republican leader who was willing to push in the White House to get both the House and the Senate back on these issues, instead of having a split Congress like Reagan did. We could go even further.

GLENN: I had a hard time listening to the nonsense last night about the War on Drugs. You know, marijuana, smoke it, don't smoke it, that's really not the crux of our problems in America, especially when we're about to vote for a deal that says, "Hey, Iran, we're you're buddy and screw Israel." What do you do as president --

SCOTT: It is unbelievable. I mentioned this last night. I'd love to play cards with President Obama because the guy folds on everything. On this deal, almost all the major things he talked about that had to be in the deal are not in the deal. We have moved to Iran when Iran -- I mean, Iran didn't come to us because they wanted to be really nice people. They came because they were on their knees. They were crippled because of economic sanctions that were in place. They were ready. They were ready to give in. And instead of negotiating on our terms, the United States basically backed up and said, "Do whatever you want. Or do just about anything you want out there." We need to terminate the bad deal on day one. To me, anybody who says that they're not prepared to terminate that bad deal on day one is not ready to be president of the United States.

So I spent the time -- and I got knocked on this. President Obama came out and said that I was -- needed to bone up on foreign policy, to which I laughed saying, "This is the guy who called ISIS the JV squad and Yemen a success story." He wants to talk about boning up on foreign policy. Bottom line is it's a bad deal for America. It's a bad deal for Israel. It's a bad deal for the world.

It doesn't just open the door towards a nuclear race in the Middle East. In the short-term, the money that will be freed up from these sanctions being lifted will go, not into helping the Iranian people who really do want to be free of this oppressive government, it will go into Hamas and Hezbollah, some of the worst terrorist activities in the world that are directly aimed at Israel. And, ultimately, for Iran, who hates us just as much as they hate real Israel. This is a bad, bad deal.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, let's switch over to ISIS. I said six years ago that there would be a caliphate established. It would sweep the Middle East. And then it would begin to destabilize Europe and the western world. That is exactly what happened. We are now in the final stage of destabilizing Europe. It's amazing to me that all of the refugees. I should say the vast majority of refugees that you see that are trying to flee into Hungary and everything else all seem to be 20-something guys. You're the only ones. Really? Just these 20-something guys trying to get in everywhere. This is not the way that you save people. This is not -- you know, Saudi Arabia has room for 2 million people. They can take in all kinds of refugees. They should be taking their own kind. How do we separate the Muslims that you don't know who the good Muslims and the bad Muslims are, how do we separate those guys from the Christians who you do know who they are? And how do we do something to help the Christians who don't have a -- any kind of history of trying to behead people?

SCOTT: Well, you got a combination of things. You've got refugees. You've got people seeking asylum. I think there's a difference in asylum. You have to sort that out. And I said we should be taking in more refugees. Because right now, we've already done a lot. In the last year we've permanently settled something like 70,000 refugees in total in the United States. We spent $4 billion.

GLENN: But, Scott, we picked up whole Somali Muslim communities. We're resettling people who don't want to blend and who are Muslims. And a lot of them are Islamists. We're saving the wrong people.

SCOTT: And when you talk about refugees, that's the issue. To me, a refugee is someone who is fleeing, but who ultimately should be restored to their country, which means you have to fix the real problem as opposed to someone seeking asylum who is fleeing from political and sometimes religious persecutions just like you mentioned the Christians there. There is a distinction. But with the refugees, that's why we draw the line and say, "Until we actually deal with Assad, until we deal with ISIS within Syria, why would we be taking any more refugees when we're not fixing the fundamental problem?" We're only going to exacerbate the symptoms of those problems.

GLENN: Would you grant asylum for those who are being marked for death?

SCOTT: Christians, absolutely. The Christians, Jews, others. For people being targeted and persecuted because of their religious beliefs, particularly in that region as Christian, absolutely.

GLENN: Scott, we have -- three, four months ago, we didn't know who you were exactly. We've had great conversations with you. We knew your record. But we didn't know you. And we've been lied to so many politicians that we don't trust any politician anymore. We have grown to like you. The audience has grown to like you even more. And yet your poll numbers are slipping. What do you think this is? What's happening?

SCOTT: Oh, I think -- you know, it's interesting being in the Reagan Library, being reminded that Reagan, even in September of 1979, had some challenges. He was behind, even days before the 1980 election. He came through. And I think right now what you see amongst a lot of the mix of different conservative candidates out there is that there are so many good candidates, and then there's Trump out there who has kind of gotten all the media attention.

I think for a lot of people -- and I see it not just in the polling. We see it out on the campaign trail. Just in Iowa the other day. People routinely say to us, "I like you. I like what you did in Wisconsin. Like your ideas for America. You're one of my top two or three choices." And so they're still trying to sort out between the mix.

They also say, "You know, I'm not high on the -- I'm not excited about the guy that is the frontrunner right now. I like you." They say, "I like Cruz. I like Carson." Whoever it might be. I think in the end, for us, it's about grassroots. We have a good organization in Iowa. We're going to have to get the grassroots out. That's what will make the difference. And we win in the Iowa caucuses, that's what will take us going forward.

GLENN: I have about a minute. Tell me what you would say to somebody who is currently on the bandwagon and not a -- just somebody who is so far gone. But they're on the bandwagon of Trump. They may have been a supporter of yours or somebody else, but they like the fireworks show. Talk to them right now. Why should they come to you? We have about a minute.

SCOTT: You know, I would say, we had an apprentice. We had a novice, somebody we didn't know who they were, where they were going in the White House, someone who said many things that many Americans liked and it didn't work out very well. We don't need to do that again. If you want to take on Washington, if you really want to shake things up, the best way to do it is to get behind somebody who has actually done it. We took on the machine. We took on, not just big government union bosses, all the liberal special interest groups from Washington who tried to stop us. We didn't back down. We fought. We won. We got results. We did it without comprising our conservative principles. If that's what you want out of the next president, then I'm your guy.

GLENN: Scott, I would like to sit down with you and talk to you specifically about progressivism because you are at the belly of the beast and you have taken it on. So maybe sometime in the future we can actually sit down and have a real conversation about some -- some deep issues about what the country has to choose right now.

PAT: Meantime, where do people go if they want to help out?

SCOTT: ScottWalker.com. ScottWalker.com. We appreciate it. Thanks, guys.

GLENN: Thank you. God bless you. ScottWalker.com.

Featured Image: Scott Walker speaks during the Western Conservative Summit at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver, Colorado on June 27, 2015 in Denver, Colorado. The Western Conservative Summit attracts thousands of conservatives and a number of prominent politicians; this year the lineup includes Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Scott Walker. (Photo by Theo Stroomer/Getty Images)

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?

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.