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

Anita Calls to 'Set the Record Straight' on Trump

January 18, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Anita called The Glenn Beck Program Monday for a fiery discussion on Donald Trump, hoping to show her support for the real estate mogul was based on issues rather than his authoritarian personality.

What was the main reason for Trump getting Anita's vote of confidence? His stance on protecting the border and everything that entails---from crime to job loss in America. Anita also expressed her belief that Glenn hadn't covered the border issue enough, but Glenn quickly countered with the facts.

"I was calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush based on what he was doing on the border," Glenn explained. "So I have a very long, long history on what I believe is happening on the border."

The discussion took a turn south when Anita got personal. She complained about co-host Stu personally attacking Trump and followed it up with several personal attacks on Stu. Huh? Complaints about personal attacks followed with personal attacks?

In addition to the border issue, the topics of Donald Trump's clothing, Stu's high school graduation, abortion, the Holy Spirit and gang rape came up.

"These are the kind of circular arguments that you get," Glenn said about discussions with many Donald Trump supporters.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Laurie is in Delaware, and she's quite upset. And we want to lead with this. Hello, Laurie. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Yes, hi, Glenn. It's Anita. Thank you for taking my call.

GLENN: Oh, I'm sorry.

CALLER: That's okay. And I really want to start out -- the reason why I called was when you were talking about the people that like Trump because he's an authoritarian figure. And I just want to set the record straight on that, Glenn. Because I think you're fair. I think Stu is the ringleader of hating Trump, and everyone else has fallen into -- right in behind him like little soldiers.

PAT: That's us. Yes.

CALLER: However, what Trump is doing right now to Cruz saying that he isn't liked because he can't get along, that's total deception. Cruz actually honors the oath that he took when he was elected into office. He actually obeys our laws, and he does want to serve we, the people.

And the reason why I haven't crossed Trump off the list has nothing to do with him being an authoritarian figure. It had everything to do with the fact that 94-plus million legal citizens are jobless. We are living below poverty level. I don't think that it's fair for people to be here illegally, ignore our laws, which they can't do in other countries, commit a crime, gang rape people -- and Hannity went into great depth on a lot of those people -- and then they're able to flee to sanctuary cities. I don't agree with that.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

CALLER: And I don't think you would agree with that.

PAT: Of course not.

GLENN: Hold on, Anita. Of course we don't agree with that. We never have agreed with that.

PAT: And we've been talking about this --

GLENN: Since George Bush was in office. Early on.

PAT: Longer than Donald Trump. That's for sure.

GLENN: Yeah, we've been on this --

CALLER: Honestly you haven't, Glenn. That's why I get so upset.

GLENN: Excuse me. Hold on just a second. I gave you a chance to talk. Give me a second, please. Let me finish what I was saying.

I was calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush based on what he was doing on the border. So I have a very long, long history on what I believe is happening on the border. None of us are against any of that.

The question is, how do you get it done? Are you going to follow the Constitution, or are you just going to use the pen and the phone, as Barack Obama says?

CALLER: But, Glenn, honestly, I always feel that you listen to the Holy Spirit. And I feel because Stu is such a ringleader of hating Trump and making it personal. That's how he started. He started with putting down Trump's clothing line, his hair, his businesses, his TV show. When Glenn, you're a business owner. You have a TV show. You're going to be making movies. You have a clothing line. You can't -- Trump over those things.

GLENN: Okay. I have no problem -- okay. Laurie -- or, Anita --

PAT: I don't remember Stu ever saying anything about a clothing line. I own one of his ties. I don't have a problem with the clothing line.

CALLER: I'm talking about Stu.

STU: What did I say about his clothing line?

CALLER: Stu, that's one of the first things you said! That's when I thought, "Stu, you're making this personal. Why!"

STU: Wait. Can you explain to me what you're talking about?

GLENN: No, no.

STU: What have I said --

GLENN: Can you remember what he said specifically so we can track it down?

CALLER: Yes. And honestly, please, if there's any way that you can digitally type that in and bring that up.

GLENN: Yeah, if you can quote it, we can.

CALLER: Glenn, that's when I started posting on your Facebook.

STU: Stop.

GLENN: Anita, hold on a second. Please. We're trying to be reasonable. And there's no reason for you to get so upset here. Let's have a reasonable conversation.

If you can give us a quote, we can type it in, and we can find the quote. So do you remember kind of what he said about it?

CALLER: Yes. It was back when all this first started and Trump got in the race. Stu went on about his clothing -- who wants to wear his clothes? And he brought about his businesses. And he also brought up about his TV show. And that's when I actually posted on Facebook and I said, "Stu, you're making this personal. Please pray and ask God to direct you on this." I tried to be reasonable.

STU: Can this be like a debate where I get mentioned and I get 30 seconds to respond? Is that --

GLENN: Let him respond, and I'll talk to you too.

PAT: I need 30 seconds to speak too.

STU: You weren't specifically mentioned, Pat.

GLENN: Come on.

STU: No. The only thing I can ever remember talking about his clothing line, ever mentioning, was when the story came out that it was made in Mexico. That was the only thing I could ever remember --

CALLER: That wasn't the thing you said, Stu. Because that's when I started posting about you being a high school dropout because I got so mad at you over that.

STU: Stop. Hold on.

JEFFY: Am I going to get some time too?

STU: First of all, I made it through high school, clearly.

CALLER: Okay. Then it's wrong about you on Facebook, so you'll want to fix that then. Because that's what they have about you. So just have them fix that for you.

STU: What?

GLENN: Okay. I don't where you would see that. But I don't --

STU: Anyway --

GLENN: As we all learned this weekend, you can't always trust things on Facebook.

CALLER: Okay. But, Glenn, please stop saying that people are for Trump just because we didn't hate him because he's authoritarian. That's not true --

STU: That's not what the story said, Anita. That's not what it said.

GLENN: Anita, that's not what I said.

STU: The study said it was a statistically significant difference. It didn't say everyone who supports Trump believes in authoritarianism.

GLENN: It is a study. I am not saying it. It is a study, and it is significant difference between -- in fact, let me -- let me just quote the study.

Right here. Had been buoyed by Americans with authoritarian -- has been buoyed. Not driven by. Not all of them. Has been buoyed above all by Americans with authoritarian inclinations.

CALLER: Okay. And I go back to, again, Ted Cruz is respected because he honors his oath he took when he entered office.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: He obeys the laws, and he's also for we, the people. Now, that's why I like Ted Cruz. The reason why I like Trump is because he actually had the courage originally to stand up against those that were coming here illegally, which it is against the law -- that's illegal.

GLENN: So have a lot of people.

CALLER: And I don't feel that it's right to commit a crime, gang rape. Set people on fire. Then move to a sanctuary city.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Neither does Ted Cruz.

STU: Bernie Sanders for that matter.

GLENN: Bernie Sanders doesn't think gang rapes are good. I was just understand your -- your passion that is so deep, I can hear it in your voice. You're very, very angry, and you're very angry at us. And I understand, okay.

CALLER: I'm disappointed in you, Glenn. That's the thing. Because I always feel that you listen to the Holy Spirit -- I feel like you're not!

GLENN: Listen to yourself. Listen to yourself. Listen to yourself. You might want to ask, if you believe that I do listen to the Spirit and you're being driven --

CALLER: Holy Spirit.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. It's the same thing. If you believe that I listen to the Holy Spirit and you are being driven here with such anger, that you might want to question if you're hearing the Spirit. Because --

CALLER: Well, again, I don't like when you infer that anyone that was not --

GLENN: I never did. That's what you heard.

CALLER: -- because we like an authoritarian figure.

GLENN: No, that's what --

CALLER: That's so far off base, Glenn. That really is.

PAT: That's not what he said.

GLENN: That's what you heard. And you can have an opinion against this study, but it is a study that shows that -- a number of people, just like Barack Obama, there are a number of people that are the hard-core base -- that wouldn't include you because you say you're not part of his hard-core base. But I would kind of question that listening to your voice.

CALLER: Listen -- read all the comments on your Facebook page. I mean, you got to look at that.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: That's why I prayed over and over again, Glenn, please read. Please read. Ask the Holy Spirit to direct you.

PAT: I don't think the Holy Spirit is directing us to Facebook.

GLENN: And I don't think the Holy Spirit is directing me -- I don't believe the Holy Spirit would direct me to a man who behaves the way Donald Trump behaves. I'm sorry.

PAT: I don't think so.

CALLER: Okay. Glenn, did it scare you last night listening to the one minute of the opening statements from Hillary and O'Malley and --

GLENN: I don't believe the Holy Spirit plays the game of, "Well, you should be afraid of this person, and that way you should choose this person." The Holy Spirit will always direct you to do the right thing, even if it means your own persecution.

CALLER: Well, again, I believe that the things that Trump is saying about illegals, I'm 100 percent for that. I am. I don't feel that's fair.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: That is good. So, Anita, are you --

CALLER: And go to sanctuary cities. That's wrong.

GLENN: Are you a one-issue voter? And that's fine if you are.

CALLER: Well, number one, for me, not killing our babies and cutting them into pieces when they have a beating heart at 18 days. I'm pro-life.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on just a second, Anita. Anita.

Could you play the audio, please, from Meet the Press on Donald Trump and partial-birth abortion? Listen to this.

PAT: Yeah, listen to this, Anita.

VOICE: Partial-birth abortion, the eliminating of abortion in the third trimester. Big issue in Washington. Would President Trump ban partial-birth abortion?

DONALD: Well, look, I'm -- I'm very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject, but you still -- I just believe in choice.

PAT: Oh.

DONALD: And, again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there's some different attitude and some different parts of the country. And, you know, I was raised in New York. And I grew up and worked and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly for choice, and yet, I hate the concept of abortion.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: What year was that interview? 1997?

PAT: 1999.

GLENN: 1999. And can tell you me --

CALLER: Okay. Do you know why -- I'm going to be very honest? I was married, and I was 26. And I got an abortion. And do you know why? Until I was in college and I actually saw the film, The Silent Scream, and I actually was educated on the truth about partial-birth abortion, I also was pro-choice until God changed my heart.

GLENN: Anita, I think that's --

PAT: You have a pivot point, what's his?

GLENN: Anita, that is a brilliant statement. And I'm glad God changed your heart. And like Pat just said, "You can tell me what your pivot point is." You can describe it. What was the movie theater like? Or where did you see the Silent Scream? Where did you see it?

CALLER: It wasn't. It was actually when I was a student at the University of Delaware, and I wanted to do --

GLENN: Hold on. Please answer my question. Anita, please listen to me. Please just answer the question. Where did you see it? Can you tell me what the room looked like?

CALLER: It was actually at the University of Delaware. They had it there. The Silent Scream.

GLENN: Where was it? I understand. Please.

CALLER: It was called The Silent Scream.

GLENN: No. I know that. Anita, please listen to me. What did the room look like where you saw it?

CALLER: It was in the basement of the library at the University of Delaware.

GLENN: Okay. Were there a lot of lights or not very many lights?

CALLER: No. It was actually me watching it by myself.

GLENN: You were by yourself.

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: And what was the chair like that you sat in?

CALLER: It was a regular chair that you have at a university setting. I don't remember every detail about that chair. All I remember was --

GLENN: Okay. Hold on. Please listen to me. Please listen to me. You remember pretty much everything about that moment. You may not know the details of that chair, but you remember what that room looked like. You can tell me everything about your pivot point. Can you tell me now, Anita, what the pivot point was with Donald Trump, where Donald Trump, just in the 2000s, and I believe right before the election of '08 was still very pro-choice and still after '08 talked about appointing somebody to the Supreme Court that is wildly pro-choice. Can you tell me what his pivot point was that we should now believe? Because I do believe in redemption. I do believe people change their mind. I do believe in pivot points. But you have to tell me what it was. What changed his mind?

CALLER: Okay. What about Ted Cruz's father?

GLENN: No, no. Can you tell me -- I can tell you his pivot point.

CALLER: -- Jesus his Savior, went and got his son and his wife, and they made it work, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. Exactly right. And what was his pivot point? Can you tell me what Rafael's pivot point was? He met a preacher, right?

CALLER: Who actually told him about Jesus. So why don't you give Trump the same opportunity to say --

GLENN: He's had it. He's had it. He's had it.

PAT: We gave him the choice.

GLENN: He's had it.

STU: In 2015, he wanted to appoint a Supreme Court justice that supports partial-birth abortion.

GLENN: 2015.

STU: 2015. Now, I know that's last year. So maybe we're supposed to excuse that too.

GLENN: There was something big that happened, Anita, between now and 2015 last year that was big enough to say, "I'm not for -- not just abortion, partial-birth abortion is what he was for." Now he's not for that. So tell me what it was?

CALLER: I know God changed my heart on the issue of life.

STU: On 2015, even 2015 we have to make these excuses?

GLENN: So let me say this. And Anita, if this doesn't ring to you, nothing will. And we're wasting our time. And we can bid each other a fond farewell. Donald Trump just said last summer that he hasn't done anything where he had to ask forgiveness for God. Nothing.

CALLER: I remember him saying that.

GLENN: You remember that?

CALLER: Yeah, I remember him saying that.

GLENN: He's never had to ask for forgiveness. If you are for and advocating partial-birth abortion and then you have something happen in your life, which we don't know about -- something happen in your life that is so jarring that in a six-month period, you can say, "I am not -- not only am I not for partial-birth abortion, I'm not for any abortion," something happened in your life. And it would drive you enough to your knees to say, "Lord, please forgive me for advocating for partial-birth abortion and all abortion. Please forgive me." If he can't tell you --

CALLER: Well, would you be willing to have Donald Trump on and say that? What you just said -- would you have him on and say that to him?

GLENN: Oh, dear God, Anita.

STU: We've invited him. He's refused.

PAT: He won't come on the show.

GLENN: He's refused. He won't come on. Because he doesn't have the balls to face actual questions.

STU: Obviously.

CALLER: Well, I don't think that's very Christ-like, you just saying that. And, again --

GLENN: Okay. Anita, I appreciate it.

STU: This is the level.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Anita. I appreciate it. These are the kinds of circular arguments that you get. And she claims not to be a Trump fan.

STU: Good heavens.

PAT: Jeez, man.

GLENN: Listen to what she's willing to accept.

PAT: And why?

GLENN: And talk to me about the Spirit.

JEFFY: The Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit.

GLENN: The Holy Spirit. Where he won't even ask for forgiveness from God. I am being lectured about the Spirit, and she has the full armor for him. It's amazing.

Don't tell me it's not about authoritarianism. She wants someone to pay for what's happening on the border. That's it.

(Later in the program)

GLENN: You found the clothing comment that you made?

STU: Yeah, she was right. I actually did talk about the clothing line, and I had not remembered this.

GLENN: This is a listener that just called in a few minutes ago, said she was very upset at Stu because he made it personal because he was talking about Donald Trump's clothing line, which wouldn't make it personal, would make it about his clothing line. But go ahead.

STU: Yeah. And here's what I -- Pat actually started it off talking about how Macy's dropped his clothing line.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And then Pat said, "I mean, none of this legitimate. None of that should be happening." And then I did chime in there saying, "Right. It shouldn't happen. The second he becomes a Republican candidate, they all boycott him. He was saying this stuff before. Just now because he's a Republican candidate, they were all fired up about it."

PAT: So it's actually us standing up for his clothing line.

JEFFY: Listen to that hate.

PAT: Okay.

STU: We were actually defending him against the boycotts.

PAT: I will say this though, if your main issue is gang rape on the border -- and Anita seemed to be all fired up about gang rape -- maybe your guy is Ted Cruz who actually fought to get a guy who had committed gang rape and murder executed in Texas for it, while Bush, George W. Bush fought against him in the international courts.

GLENN: It was the country -- it was the beginning of my breaking point with George W. Bush was what was happening on the border. But that's a different story.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

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?

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

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

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

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

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

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

Ancient evil, new clothes

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new currency of power

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

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

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

The forgotten way

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

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

Both are traps.

The only way

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.