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

O'Reilly Discusses 'Killing the Rising Sun' and Censored Japanese Atrocities

September 16, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday to talk about his latest book in the Killing series, Killing the Rising Sun: How America Vanquished World War II Japan. The sixth book in the massively popular series sold 103,000 copies its very first day of release.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these scintillating questions:

• Did Glenn take it easy on O'Reilly or make his life a living hell?

• Does O'Reilly have a brown, blue or black belt in karate?

• Did Glenn actually read Killing the Rising Sun?

• What horrific atrocities did the Japanese commit that compare to the Nazis and ISIS?

• Why was dropping the atomic bomb the compassionate way to end the war?

• Which living presidents would or would not have dropped the bomb, according to O'Reilly?

• Will O'Reilly's next book be Killing Harambe?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Let's bring, the one, the only, the legend, the man, Mr. Bill O'Reilly.

BILL: Beck, is that ABBA singing your little theme song there? I thought they were retired.

GLENN: No.

PAT: First thing out of his mouth, right?

GLENN: I mean, right out of the chute.

BILL: I was getting on my dancing machine on here.

GLENN: Look what happens. Right out of the chute.

So, Bill, let me ask you this.

BILL: Sure.

GLENN: I have been threatened by Sean Hannity using his karate on me.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have a brown belt or a blue belt or a black belt?

BILL: Only in intellectual prowess.

GLENN: Okay. So there's no threats coming your way?

BILL: Never, Beck. You know, you're my pal. Why would I do that?

GLENN: Well, let's not exaggerate.

(laughter)

GLENN: So Bill is off killing someone else. A new book. This one is Killing the Rising Sun. He's run out of people to kill. Now he's killing an entire nation of people.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: The hatred never stops with Bill O'Reilly.

BILL: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: The book is Killing of the Rising Sun: How America Vanquished World War II Japan.

So, Bill, what's in here that, you know, makes it worth reading?

BILL: Well, first of all, when the book was released on Tuesday, the first day out, it sold 103,000 copies.

GLENN: A lot of stupid people. Why -- what's in it?

BILL: You said a lot of stupid people?

GLENN: I mean, why -- I mean, what's in there?

BILL: Come on.

GLENN: I mean, you can get -- you know, I know the power of Bill O'Reilly. He hypnotizes you. He looks --

BILL: Look, this is the sixth book in the series. If they weren't any good, believe me, 100,000 people wouldn't be buying them the first day.

Your question about what you learn is a good one because history has been kind of trampled by boring people who just recite things that they've been told.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

BILL: This one puts you on Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Hiroshima. You, the reader, will experience what happened there. And that's the formula that makes the Killing book successful, is that it's just not a resuscitation of facts. It's drama and real people.

And our research centers around Marines and soldiers and Naval people who wrote letters, not pinheads and, you know, who did all this research about -- you know, talking to this one and that one. We got down with the folks.

And one of the compelling stories that I know you'll enjoy once you get around to having someone read the book to you --

GLENN: No.

BILL: -- is how a woman survived Hiroshima by being three minutes late to her job. And that's the kind of stuff we have.

GLENN: Well, I read that story because I did read the book.

BILL: Did you really?

GLENN: No, I'm lying completely.

BILL: Not completely.

GLENN: Right. But I thought I'd give it a shot here for a second.

No, Bill, here's the thing that I really like your perspective on. What is -- why do we not know who the Japanese really were?

BILL: Because it's not politically correct --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But when did that --

BILL: -- for the public school education system to actually tell the urchins the truth about their country.

GLENN: So, but when did that -- when did that happen? Because World War II, you were about 70.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: So what --

(chuckling)

-- when did -- did we know during World War II that they were slaughtering 20 million Chinese, that they were, you know, having games of butchery? Did we know those things at the time?

BILL: Yeah, it was reported in the Chinese atrocities in the '30s, the major newspapers in America did report that the Japanese went in and murdered people, raped women, you know, en masse. That was recorded.

But then when World War II started, unlike the European theater where there was a lot of American reporters, there were very few in the Pacific theater. It was, number one, too dangerous to drop them on the islands. And, number two, MacArthur who was in charge of the Pacific theater as you know, didn't want the American public to see what kind of horror was unfolding on these islands because there were no prisoners on either side. Nobody took prisoners.

So they did not want that reported. And therefore, there was a news blackout. And to this day, people really don't know what happened and how Japan was defeated, which is why I wrote the book.

GLENN: Yeah. We've done an interview on the book before, and a much more serious one than this. But I can't take another 15 minutes of you being serious.

(chuckling)

But you and I did an interview. And I did an episode that's going to air soon on the show that I do called The Vault, where we're talking about World War II and the Japanese. And I don't know if you're aware of Unit 731. Bill, are you aware of that?

BILL: No, I am not.

GLENN: Okay. This is unbelievable. Unit 731, we're doing the same kinds of things that the nasty Nazi doctors were doing. They were -- they were doing live vivisections.

BILL: This is the Japanese?

GLENN: The Japanese were doing it.

BILL: Right. Right. Right.

GLENN: We excused all of them. And said, "Hey, in exchange for the research, we won't try you." I'm just puzzled by why we don't look at the communists and their atrocities. We don't look at the Japanese and their atrocities. But we focus all on the German and then we call our --

PAT: Us.

GLENN: Us saving the world from those nightmares, atrocities.

BILL: Look, the problem with the reportage after Japan was defeated is that there was censorship. There was censorship in the European theater. But the European theater was so in-your-face when they liberated the concentration camps and then Hitler was this evil icon -- they didn't have that in Japan. MacArthur was sympathetic to the Japanese people. He had a long history with his father of dealing with them.

So he didn't want to crush them like Patton did. He wanted to defeat them. And, by the way, MacArthur was against dropping the atom bomb because he wanted to invade and get the glory of the victory himself.

GLENN: And just to prove to you that I did read the book, you talk about him being in Manila at the time. You want to describe that?

BILL: Right. Well, MacArthur was not a battlefield commander, per se. He stayed behind the lines and was a glory hound. Not like -- it was totally the opposite for Patton, but MacArthur was a good tactician.

I mean, I think Nimitz was probably better. But the combination of the Army and Navy commanders, you know, put the Japanese on the defensive from the beginning.

However, the question is: Why were we leaning towards the Japanese? There's two reasons why the United States, Harry Truman, and MacArthur didn't punish them the way the Germans were punished.

Number one, the Japanese people pretty much cooperated. They didn't give us a hard time. They surrendered. And once it was over, it was over.

Number two, we did execute Tojo and a number of other war criminals, but there wasn't that hunt that there was for the SS. Because, again, they were so demonized -- the concentration camps were so overwhelmingly emotional, that the authorities had to do that. And Patton got in trouble because he didn't really want to go in and take apart the German society.

But in Japan, MacArthur got away with pretty much leaving the status quo. Hirohito actually kept his job as emperor. They didn't remove him. He didn't have any power, but they didn't want any trouble with the Japanese. They wanted them to fall into line.

GLENN: Yeah. And they actually thought -- because the peasants were so convinced that they were winning, that after that last bomb, they actually thought that there was a chance that the peasants would take over the military and continue the war. We didn't know until the very last minute.

BILL: Well, they weren't going to surrender. There's no doubt about that. The Japanese were not going to surrender. And if anybody thinks they were, then you're just a fool. Because even after Hiroshima, they didn't surrender. And they were arming children, women --

GLENN: Right. Yeah, last man --

BILL: Even though Tokyo was destroyed literally by conventional bombing, that still didn't break the Japanese spirit. There still wasn't a coup d'etat against Hirohito. There was an attempt, but it was fought back.

GLENN: Do you think this was -- do you think history is against America or against atomic weapons or both? Because the firebombing -- hang on just a second.

BILL: Go ahead.

GLENN: The firebombing in Tokyo --

PAT: Killed more people.

GLENN: Killed many more people.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: And a group of homeless the size of Chicago came out of that city. A hundred twenty-five miles was destroyed by firebombing, and yet you don't hear that.

BILL: No. Because the other bomb is such a specter.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Uh-huh.

BILL: That people lock into that. And, by the way, when you're hearing North Korea testing and Iranian nukes, the nuclear weapons we have today are 100,000 times more powerful than the atom bomb.

So when you read Killing the Rising Sun and you're imagining the horror that took place there, I mean, it's unspeakable what would happen now if they ever drop these things.

But you basically have -- the reason why I wrote this book was because of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, when he said after 9/11, justifying the attack, that America's chickens have come home to roost because we dropped the bombs on Japan.

That so offended me. I was so appalled, I said, "You know what, some day I'm going to write a book and correct the record on this." And that's how that book got on the board.

GLENN: I will tell you, Bill, it is a fantastic book. And what you've done with the presidents afterwards -- you've gone back to the living presidents. And Bill Clinton wouldn't participate and neither would Barack Obama. But the other ones would participate.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: And you asked them, "Would you have done it?" And you don't believe that Bill Clinton answered that because he doesn't want to have to answer to the left. Doesn't want controversy now.

BILL: Right. You know, I asked five living presidents to give me a personal letter whether they would have supported Truman and dropped the bomb. The two Bushes and Jimmy Carter did. And they all said they would have dropped the atom bomb. Obama did not. Just speculation, just on my part, just speculation, I just don't think he would have dropped it.

GLENN: No.

PAT: I don't either.

GLENN: I don't either.

JEFFY: No way.

PAT: Do you think Bill Clinton would have?

BILL: Yes. But I didn't -- you absolutely hit it. Clinton didn't want to, you know, raise any controversy on the left by saying that. And so he passed.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know, it is -- and you point this out in the book -- it was the compassionate thing to do. Millions would have died on both sides. Millions.

BILL: Yes. No doubt.

PAT: Didn't they estimate 4 million Japanese -- four million Japanese were saved by a non-invasion?

BILL: Yeah. Because they were -- you have to understand the mindset. It was a lot like the Nazi mindset.

GLENN: More like ISIS, I think.

BILL: Well, it's the same thing. I always say ISIS is the Hitler-lite. I mean, that's what they are. There's no difference between the Third Reich and the SS and all that and ISIS. There's no difference.

But the mindset is, look, we're willing to give our life for the emperor, Hirohito, living god. And wait until you see this guy. When you read the book, what Hirohito is really like -- and this is the living god? I mean, it's worse than Henry VIII, founding a religion in England. I mean, come on.

GLENN: No. It's pretty nuts.

STU: Bill, you bring up the Nazi side of this. And, you know, Hitler thought, as we're losing -- as we're retreating, I want the bridges blown up. I want all of our infrastructure destroyed so the enemy doesn't get a hold of it.

And there were people there, like Albert Speer, who said, "Hey, wait a minute I'm not going to do that," and defied his orders at the last minute, even with all that dedication. Were there people like that on the Japanese side?

BILL: Not that we know of. Because it was -- the Japanese secret police were more effective than the Gestapo. And if there were any dissenters, they were beheaded immediately.

GLENN: It was bad.

BILL: You know, that society was so tight and so closed.

But one of the interesting parts about Killing the Rising Sun is the reason that FDR fast-tracked the atom bomb research in New Mexico was because Hitler was doing it. And they feared -- they being the American authorities, they feared the Third Reich would get this bomb. And, of course, if they had gotten it, they would have used it. And that's why Hitler was allowed to hang on by his generals. Because his generals knew that they had these super weapons in development. And that would turn the thing around, which is why they fought harder than they might have.

But the Japanese were a different story. The Japanese were so fanatical and so crazy that they were going to die for the emperor because that's their code, Bushido, you know, you have to die for the emperor. And they were. And that includes little kids, women, everybody.

GLENN: Bill, always good to have you on. And, well, no, it's not. But this time, it was good to have you on. And I appreciate it.

BILL: You know, I really appreciate you having me on your fine program, and I want you to do me one favor. Will you do one favor?

GLENN: Thanks, brother. I'll try.

BILL: All right. Say hello to ABBA for me. I really am a big fan.

GLENN: All right. Bill O'Reilly.

STU: So you actually did read the book this time?

GLENN: Not one word of it. Not one word. And I didn't want to break my record of Bill O'Reilly books at this point.

PAT: It sounds great. It sounds great.

GLENN: Oh, it is. It is. I've read enough of it. And he was on with me. We're doing a deal on The Vault, where he's a guest on The Vault. And we're talking about this. And I have artifacts that he had never seen. We took him out. We have 8,000 artifacts, historic artifacts in The Vault. And next week is the premiere episode. Next Wednesday on TheBlaze TV.

And in an upcoming episode, we talk about this. And when you hear who the Japanese were -- you've never heard these stories before.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You've never heard them before. And there's -- if you knew them, there would be no -- not a second of thought about, should we have dropped the bomb? And one reason -- he wrote this book. The other reason why -- it's the same reason I'm doing, like, The Vault and His Story. I'm doing these two shows because your kids are going to go into class, and they're going to have to -- they'll be asked this question. The only thing on Common Core is about the United States dropping the bomb. That's all they included in the Common Core tests for World War II.

PAT: And no context.

GLENN: No context at all.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Your kids have to have context. And they will not find it in schoolbooks. So Bill O'Reilly's book and also The Vault that's on Wednesdays on TheBlaze TV.

PAT: And get this one. Because Bill is running out of dead people to kill. So...

GLENN: Oh, no. His next thing -- I don't know. Who is he going to be killing next? What country? What continent?

JEFFY: Milky Way.

PAT: He's killed all the people, now he's killing entire countries. It will have to be the planet.

GLENN: The death ray -- the death star of books.

STU: I believe he's going to be killing Harambe. That is the next book.

JEFFY: Oh, nice.

GLENN: All of a sudden we're all going to say, "I feel like there were millions of voices that just cried out." Yeah, Bill O'Reilly just published another book.

Featured Image:

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.