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

Which Alternate Universe Does Newt Gingrich Live In?

October 26, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

If Newt Gingrich's alternate universe includes a pipe dream in which he outmaneuvers Fox News star Megyn Kelly, he might want to consider changing realities.

In a bizarre encounter with the host of The Kelly File, the former Speaker of the House and Trump devotee got into a sparring match that left him looking petty, angry and unhinged. Kelly, on the other hand, came off as calm, cool and collected.

RELATED: Newt Gingrich and Megyn Kelly Get Into Bizarre Exchange on Live TV

"I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife? You're dead. You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless," Glenn said on radio Wednesday.

Co-host Pat Gray agreed.

"She's completely under control, and he's out of control," he said.

Gingrich's universe also includes the state of Pennsylvania magically allowing early voting.

"They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. ...All I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida," Gingrich claimed.

However, co-host Stu Burguiere made a very salient point.

"We're talking about two alternative universes, and we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania. The other universe is the one we live in, in which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe," he said.

"Holy cow," Glenn replied.

Alternate universe, indeed.

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

• Which candidate is consistently polling ahead in Pennsylvania?

• Do facts matter if you're a Trump supporter?

• Does Gingrich consider Fox News part of the MSM?

• Which three states has Fox News moved to the left as a likely win for Hillary?

• Is it acceptable for a gentleman to publicly accuse a woman of being obsessed with sex?

• Has Trump's crassness rubbed off on Gingrich?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Last night, it was Megyn Kelly versus Newt Gingrich on the facts. It was -- it was quite an amazing thing. And I think Newt Gingrich said everything right towards the beginning when he said, "We are dealing with two alternative universes." And he's right. I think there is the universe that Newt Gingrich is living in and the universe that everyone else is living in. But maybe it's just me.

I want you to listen to this. And we could take clips, but as I was watching it this morning, I thought to myself, "Man, I could stop it at three different points and say, that was incredible. That was incredible to watch."

But wait, there's more. I think you need to hear the whole thing in context. Listen to this.

NEWT: Good to be back.

MEGYN: I mean, with Cook and many other non-partisan, independent pollsters now saying that the Senate is likely lost to the Republicans, what does that say? I mean, if Donald Trump loses this White House race and the Republicans lose the Senate, does that suggest that the Republicans nominated the wrong candidate at the top of their ticket?

NEWT: Well, the next two weeks are a contest of two parallel universes. I just listened to that report.

First of all, I used to hang with Charlie Cook when he would explain that Donald Trump was hopeless and would not get the nomination. I like Charlie. That doesn't mean he's infallible.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second.

I want to just say something here. There's something that I want to get to later. Michael Moore says Donald Trump is going to win. And when you hear his explanation of why he believes he's going to win, I think he has a good point. I think he may be right. And it was what I was talking about yesterday and what I was saying to the people up in New York, who are in the mainstream media. Who say, Donald -- Hillary Clinton is going to win. I'm not so sure of it.

STU: Typical Glenn. Glenn Beck is dumb!

GLENN: You should turn your mic on.

STU: It is on.

GLENN: Oh, it's just not working today? Good. Thank you, guys. Thank you for finally getting it done. Stu's mic is not working.

GLENN: But you need to listen to that. We'll get to that in a second. But I want to point out here that when you're watching this -- Newt Gingrich throws up his hands and shrugs his shoulders when he says -- when Megyn says, "If they lose the Senate, does that mean they nominated the wrong person?" He just shrugs it off as, "Eh, I don't know. We're in two parallel universes." If we lose the Senate or the House, that's a really bad thing. Can we all agree that we're in that universe, that that's a bad thing? Now.

NEWT: Report we just got. Republicans are actually outvoting Democrats in Florida. They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. They've cut the Democratic lead --

MEGYN: You predict a win in Pennsylvania?

NEWT: I think they might.

MEGYN: Really? You think Trump's going to win Pennsylvania.

NEWT: Look, all I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida, which is unprecedented.

MEGYN: But all the polls in Pennsylvania had her winning.

NEWT: What?

MEGYN: All of the polls in Pennsylvania have her head.

NEWT: I know. I just told you, we have two alternative universes right now.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So there's one universe where the facts say one thing and another universe where the facts say something else. Stu, can you help me out with the early voting that Democrats are behind and that Republicans are outvoting them?

STU: You know, it's a -- it's an interesting point he's making there. There has been some -- I think Donald Trump's early voting looks pretty good in Iowa, I would say. I would say --

GLENN: In Florida? He's saying that they're --

PAT: Florida and Pennsylvania.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because he said, again, we're talking about two alternative universes.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania.

The other universe is the one we live in, which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe. So --

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: It's going to be -- it would be unprecedented if he was winning the early vote in Pennsylvania.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: Are you kidding?

STU: They don't do it there.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: They don't have early voting in Pennsylvania?

STU: No, that's not a thing.

PAT: What the hell is he talking about?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, he's just --

PAT: You don't need a single fact if you're a Trump supporter. You don't need fact one.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: That's amazing.

STU: That is amazing.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead. So go ahead.

NEWT: I will -- for example, the Democrats are 50,000 votes behind, where they were with Barack Obama in turnout. The governor is very confident we're going to carry Iowa, which Obama carried last time.

GLENN: Do you agree with that?

STU: I actually --

PAT: Wait. 50,000 behind where they were with Obama doesn't mean they're losing to Trump.

GLENN: I know. And it depends also on '12 or on '08. '08 was unprecedented. So being behind in '08 is not necessarily saying --

STU: And those are good things to consider. I actually do think he's going to win Iowa. I could be wrong on it, and it could change. But his numbers are good in Iowa in the early voting. And his polling has been strong in Iowa throughout, as opposed to other states -- comparing it to other states that are similar or ones --

PAT: Isn't that interesting since Ted Cruz won Iowa in the primary? That's interesting.

STU: Yeah. Iowa has been a strong state for Trump polling against --

PAT: Because they haven't been that strong for Republicans lately.

STU: Right.

PAT: And now --

GLENN: They're still not.

PAT: And they're still not.

GLENN: They're still not. They're still not.

NEWT: -- case like this. In Minnesota, we're almost certainly going to win the congressional seat up around Duluth, which is a very Democratic area. But it deeply dislikes Hillary Clinton. And represent --

MEGYN: But let me just ask you -- let me just ask you, because you say it's two alternative universes. I mean --

NEWT: Yeah.

PAT: Why not North Dakota too? There's a guy running for alderman, who may win, and he doesn't like Hillary either.

GLENN: All right. All right.

PAT: Stupid.

MEGYN: These are sort of small examples of how he might be ahead in early voting and so on. But I'm telling you that the Fox News decision desk just moved Iowa that you just mentioned, Indiana, second congressional district in Maine -- all of them moved left, moved more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. And, in fact, all of the moves that have been on this map over the past three weeks, by Larry Sabato, by Cook, by the Fox News decision desks -- these are nonpartisan outlets that are just trying to call the electoral --

NEWT: What? They're not nonpartisan outlets. Every outlet you describe is part of the establishment.

MEGYN: Fox News. Really? Are we? I don't think so.

NEWT: Oh, come on.

MEGYN: Every state they've moved, they've moved it to the left, towards the left, towards Hillary. And you tell me whether that's all made up.

PAT: So he's attacking Fox News who has been in the bag for Trump the entire election.

GLENN: I think he's only attacking --

PAT: He may be only attacking Megyn Kelly.

STU: And the Fox News polls.

PAT: Yeah, and the polls.

STU: He's trying is what he's doing. He's doing his best.

GLENN: He's muddying the waters.

PAT: He's grasping at straws.

NEWT: No, I think they're two alternative universes. You have a poll which suggests that she's going to get a Barack Obama turnout among African-Americans. I don't think that's going to happen. You have a Washington Post/ABC News poll when where they took out eight percent of the vote because they didn't like the way it voted.

Look, I've been around long enough. I remember when the Detroit liberal newspaper, on the Sunday before the election, said John (inaudible) would lose by 14 points. He won the governorship that year. I don't take polls as seriously as people who have never run for office.

MEGYN: But your candidate -- your candidate loves them and has touted them from the beginning. And he's been behind in virtually every one of them, out of the last 40 polls that we've seen over the past month. That's the reality.

STU: The important point to remember here -- because I think a lot of Trump people realize this, but in case you're on the Newt Gingrich bandwagon, the issue with the problem with the primary was not saying the polls were wrong and Donald Trump was losing and then he wound up winning. It was that he was winning the whole time. And people, like myself, for example, gave you reasons why the polls probably were not going to work out in Donald Trump's favor. And they did. He wound up winning. But he was winning the whole time. So now the same people that were questioning the polls and saying -- or, questioning the polls now that they were saying they were right then. The point here seems to be that the polls are right. The polls have done a pretty good job in predicting these things.

GLENN: Well, the polls showed him winning at the time against his candidates. But they showed him losing against Hillary.

STU: The same polls.

GLENN: The same polls.

STU: The same methodology. The same organizations.

GLENN: Right. It's why we were saying during the primary, stop looking at those polls. He's telling you he's winning in everything. He's losing in all of the critical polls which show the head-to-head against Hillary. He was the only one that was losing every single time to Hillary Clinton.

Now, those were the same polls that showed him winning against Marco Rubio, against Ted Cruz. But losing at the same time to Hillary Clinton.

STU: The margin increased, not decreased, but increased as Trump won the primary.

GLENN: Yes. Increased. Yes. Yes.

PAT: Which is a point we tried to make a million times here.

GLENN: Yes. It was going the wrong direction.

STU: The wrong direction. And it's like, to believe that, you have to believe that part of the poll done by the same organization was biased. But the other part of the same poll done by the same organization is not biased. These are not -- these are not, you know, intellectually consistent arguments.

GLENN: No. Because they were done at the same time. It's not like these polls -- it's not like the polls showed him winning against Clinton during the primary. Those same polls showed him losing against --

PAT: I don't think he won a single one during the primary.

GLENN: I don't -- not that I remember. Stu, you'd be better at that.

PAT: Did he win a single poll, head-to-head, during the primary, against Hillary?

STU: I can get you the numbers on that, but I think he did win a couple. All of those that he -- I think he won a couple by one or two points.

GLENN: It was like 51 polls or something --

STU: I think it was over 100.

PAT: It was more than that. Yeah, he had lost 118 out of 120, or something like that.

STU: I can find it.

NEWT: Do you want to assume the election is over? Skip the next two weeks and we can talk about the future.

GLENN: Now, listen to this.

MEGYN: I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you whether you believe your candidate is behind based on these numbers and what it says about the down-ballot races.

NEWT: I believe the odds are at least one in three and maybe better than that. But the difference in intensity and the difference in determination and the degree to which Hillary Clinton is clearly the most corrupt, dishonest person ever nominated by a party, all mean that the odds are pretty good she's not going to win.

Now, I actually believe that. This is not just because I'm for Donald Trump. I actually believe the American people are sickened by this.

MEGYN: So let me ask you --

NEWT: Sure.

MEGYN: Let's assume she is corrupt. Right? She was just as corrupt three weeks ago and three months ago. And she would have been corrupt and collapsing physically on September 11th of this year and her poll numbers tanked. But then you know what happened: He had a rough first debate. He took the bait on Alicia Machado. He stayed in that trap for a week. The Access Hollywood tape came out, which was not produced by Hillary Clinton. That was Trump, on camera talking about grabbing women --

NEWT: That was -- Megyn, I just heard -- look, I just heard you go through this with Governor Pence. I get it. I know where you're coming from. Let me point out something to you.

MEGYN: Sure.

NEWT: The three major networks spent 23 minutes --

GLENN: That no one watches.

NEWT: Attacking Donald Trump that night and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton's secret speeches. You don't think this is a scale of bias worth of Pravda and Izvestia. I mean, you want to know why Donald Trump has had a rough time --

MEGYN: If Trump is a sexual predator, that is --

NEWT: He's not a sexual predator. You can't say that. You could not defend that statement.

MEGYN: Okay. That's your opinion. I'm not taking a position on it. I am not taking a position on it.

NEWT: I am sick and tired of people like you, using language --

GLENN: Like you.

NEWT: -- that's inflammatory that's not true.

MEGYN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. You have no idea whether it's true or not. What we know is that there are at least --

NEWT: Neither do you.

MEGYN: That's right. And I'm not taking a position on it, unlike you.

NEWT: Oh, yes, you are. When you use the words, you took a position. And I think it's very unfair of you to do that, Megyn. I think that is exactly the bias people are upset by.

MEGYN: So what I said -- incorrect.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: I think that your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir.

What I said -- no, no, let me make my point, and then I'll give you the floor.

What I said is, "If Trump is a sexual predator, then it's a big story." And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will. That's what we saw. Then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied actually doing it at a debate to say, "That was untrue. He did it to me. He did it to me." We saw reporters. We saw people who had worked with him. People from Apprentice and so on and so forth. He denies it all, which is his right. We don't know what the truth is.

PAT: Newt knows -- Newt knows her. He should know better than this. You don't take Megyn Kelly head-to-head like this.

GLENN: All I can think of this whole time --

PAT: What are you doing?

GLENN: All I can think of -- I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, "Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife. You're dead."

PAT: Bad idea. Bad idea.

GLENN: You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless.

PAT: She's completely under control, and he's out of control.

GLENN: And he's out of control, and he's about to really lose control.

MEGYN: To you, as a media story, we don't get to say the ten women are lying. We have to cover that story, sir.

NEWT: Well, sure. Okay. So it's worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover that story, and Hillary Clinton in a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her 225,000 saying her dream is an open border where 600 million could come to America, that's not worth covering?

MEGYN: That is worth covering. And we did.

NEWT: You want to go back to the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated about sex, and you don't care about public policy.

MEGYN: Me? Really?

NEWT: That's what I get out of watching you tonight.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: You know what, Mr. Speaker, I'm not fascinated by sex. But I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we're getting in the Oval Office. And I think the American voters would like --

NEWT: Okay. So we're going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing because, after all, you are worried about sexual predators.

MEGYN: Yeah. Listen, it's not about me. It's about the women and men in America. And the poll numbers show us that the women in America, in particular, are very concerned about these allegations. And in large part believe that they are a real issue. And don't dismiss the --

NEWT: You want to comment -- do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

MEGYN: We, on the Kelly File, have covered that story as well, sir. I will tell you the polls --

NEWT: No, I just want to hear you use the words. I want to hear the words "Bill Clinton, sexual predator." I dare you. Say "Bill Clinton, sexual predator."

GLENN: Out of control.

MEGYN: Mr. Speaker, we've covered -- excuse me, sir.

NEWT: Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. $850,000 penalty.

MEGYN: Excuse me, sir. We, on the Kelly File, have covered the Clinton matter as well. We have hosted Kathleen Willey.

NEWT: Try saying it.

MEGYN: We've covered the examples of him being accused as well, but he's not on the ticket. And the polls also show that the American people is less interested in the deeds of Hillary Clinton's husband than they are in the deeds of the man who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump.

We're going to have to leave it at that, and you can take your anger issues and spend time working on them, Mr. Speaker.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Kelly File

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.

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.