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

Samantha Bee Staffer Claims to Hate Woodrow Wilson More Than Glenn (LOL)

December 08, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

This is no laughing matter. There couldn't possibly be anyone on planet earth who despises Woodrow Wilson, our esteemed 28th president, more than Glenn Beck. He's made his case for hating the progressive, racist the past 10 years. Yet such a claim was made immediately following his interview with Samantha Bee, host of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on TBS.

"I walked to the edge of the stage and her --- I think her show runner or her line producer --- came up to me and said, I want you to know, I think I hate Woodrow Wilson more than you do. And I said, What?!" Glenn described Thursday, the day following the interview. "She said, Oh, my gosh, he was the most evil SOB ever."

And get this, she wasn't alone. Another staffer came up and echoed those sentiments.

"Another guy comes up, and he says, It's so great to meet you. I'm in your club with Woodrow Wilson." Glenn said.

If this doesn't provide a glimmer of hope for finding common ground, nothing will.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Why did Glenn stop his second interview with Samantha?

• What's the real reason Samantha wanted to become an American?

• What's the X-factor that makes America special?

• How are Glenn and Samantha similar?

• Could Samantha be a closet conservative?

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

GLENN: You guys have not asked me a thing about Samantha Bee.

STU: Yeah. She was on the show yesterday.

GLENN: I was with her all day. She was here all day. You guys were peeking in the windows.

STU: Oh, I was hiding in my office. I didn't peek out at all.

PAT: We were actually doing a shoot yesterday. But I think you have to know a little something about person in order to be that curious about her. I don't know very much about her.

STU: She's on The Daily Show, right?

GLENN: She's on The Daily Show. She was the main reporter on The Daily Show with Stephen Colbert. With Jon Stewart -- but Stephen Colbert, at the time that he was also a reporter.

PAT: We do know that she's very liberal.

GLENN: She's Canada. She's from Canada.

PAT: Yeah. But how did it go? Was the interview --

GLENN: I'll tell you, it was -- so you remember -- on yesterday's episode here, we didn't really say anything. I was more willing to say things because she was in my space.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so I was willing to ask her questions, and she was like, "You know, yeah. Okay." Because she just didn't know if there was going to be a setup. Or, you know, she didn't know what she was walking into.

STU: I mean, that's how she should be, walking into those moments.

GLENN: She's smart.

And then when the show was over, I walked to the edge of the stage and her -- I think her show runner or her line producer --

JEFFY: Yeah, the show runner.

GLENN: -- came up to me and said, "I want you to know, I think I hate Woodrow Wilson more than you do." And I said, "What?"

JEFFY: No, you don't. That's not possible.

GLENN: And I said, "That's impossible in the first place. But you hate Woodrow Wilson?" She said, "Oh, my gosh, he was the most evil SOB ever." And I said, "I can't -- you're with the show?"

PAT: Did she only hate him because of his racism?

GLENN: No, no. All of it. All of it.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: She knew all of it.

PAT: Is she conservative?

GLENN: No. I don't think so. I didn't talk politics yesterday. We did talk Woodrow Wilson.

She said, "Hey, I'm not alone. Come here." Another guy comes up. And he says, "It's so great to meet you." He said, "I am in your club with Woodrow Wilson."

And I thought at first, "This is a setup. Nobody -- I mean, I said to him, "I can't get conservatives to hate Woodrow Wilson. How do you guys just higgledy-piggledy stumble in and you hate Woodrow Wilson?" And they said, "Oh, no. Worst guy ever." Turns out her show runner was an American historian in school. And she up and down, back and forth, she knows American history.

So we hit it really well. In the interview with Samantha Bee, she hates Woodrow Wilson.

Now, I don't -- I didn't go in-depth because we were on the interview. So I didn't go in-depth, but she hates him because he was a real racist. I don't know if she knows anymore about him.

But, anyway, so I went and I was starting to do her show. And we got about 20 minutes into it. And I just stopped. And I said, "This isn't going well." And she said, "Why?"

And I said, "Because you have show face on." I said, "We were talking beforehand, and the minute the cameras were rolling -- because she was facing all the camera people and all of the producers -- and the minute the cameras were rolling, I could tell when they were rolling because your face changed." She said, "I don't have show face." And I said, "You absolutely have show face. I'm not stupid. I do television. I know what show face is." And I said -- and she said, "Well, what does that mean?"

JEFFY: It's for show.

GLENN: And I said, "It's your show. And I know your style." And you are like, "So -- well, what does that mean, exactly?"

I know exactly what you're doing. You're editing it, and so you have the funny line, and I'm the butt of the joke. And this isn't what we agreed to.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: And it's not what I -- this is not helpful to me. Because what you're going to do is you're going to, A, piss off the audience of mine that like me. And then they'll be mad at your audience because they're laughing at me. And so there's more division.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And on top of it, you will also have my audience say, "What the hell, we could have told you that was happening, dummy. Why are you even talking to her?"

PAT: Yeah. And her audience hates you anyway. So...

GLENN: Right. And I said that to her. I said, "Your audience already hates me. Why don't you do something new?"

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And so she said, "I really thought this was going well." And I said, "Well, I didn't." She said, "So where do we go?"

And so we just had a conversation. And it lasted from that point about an hour. I was four hours behind schedule yesterday because of -- because of the time we had together.

And it changed when I asked her, "Why are you an American?" Because she's Canadian. And this was the first election she could vote in. And I said, "Why are you American? Why did you choose America? What's wrong with Canada? It's like the 51st state." She said, "I love my country of Canada."

STU: Didn't she also say I didn't necessarily want to say this -- so I just want to classify as you're about to say it on the air --

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: Now I can't say anything because I was going to leave out the things that she didn't want aired. But it was nothing bad. It just -- I was going to leave some of that out. But now I can't say anything -- now I'm in an awkward situation. Now what do I --

STU: I'm trying to save you from another awkward situation that you've been in many, many times.

GLENN: I know. I know.

She understands -- I sent this to her last night in my Facebook post about her love for the country. What she -- how she loves America -- and this is nothing about her country.

STU: No, no.

GLENN: She loves Canada.

PAT: Well, it's the curling capital of the world.

GLENN: Shut up.

She said, "There's something about the American spirit that you don't find anywhere else."

STU: Yeah, we've heard that from Daniel Hannan. Who loves England.

GLENN: Yes. Loves England. Everybody -- it's not a slam on their country.

STU: Right. Of course. Of course.

PAT: Right. Right.

JEFFY: Clearly we like Canada, we have one of their sports celebrities on the broadcast.

STU: Thank you, Jeffy.

PAT: That's right.

GLENN: So she said, "Americans -- there's this flame about America that you -- you help each other, and it's just -- it's different." She said, "America is -- or, she said, "Canada, I could have lived there my whole life and could have been happy, and it's great. But there's something -- an X factor in America." And when she's talking about that, I'm like, "Yes. Yes. Yes." Now, we didn't get to this part in our conversation, but hopefully we will. That's called a lack of socialism.

(laughter)

GLENN: That is called personal responsibility.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That X factor is created -- and, again, don't tell her -- let me break it to her slowly, that X factor is the personal responsibility of people saying, "I've got to do something for my neighbor."

PAT: When the government doesn't do everything, the responsibility falls to us, right? It's our responsibility to begin with.

GLENN: Now, I assume -- we didn't talk about politics -- I assume she likes all the big government socialism stuff of Canada. I'm assuming she likes all of that.

PAT: Probably.

GLENN: But what she said about America -- I said to her, "You realize you're describing de Tocqueville." I said, "What makes America great? What is it that makes America great?" Assuming she knew the phrase, well, America is good. She didn't. She's Canadian. She didn't know. She didn't know who de Tocqueville was.

And I said, "Why is America great?" Because she said, "How do we fix this problem?" And I said, "It's really simply. What made America great?" And she said, "I -- I have to say it's that the people here are really kind. And no matter where you go and no matter what they believe, they want to help each other, and they -- they hold on to each other. And nobody sits back. They see somebody in need, and they go." And I said, "In other words, America is great because America is good?"

Yeah.

Yes, Samantha Bee -- and I told her, I broke it to her, I said, "I hate to break it to you, but you're sounding like me."

And she said, "Oh, no, don't say that to me."

And I said, "Let me ask you a few questions: You know how to fix it, make America good."

Yes, that's me.

Are you suddenly afraid that maybe the president of the United could become a dictator?

Yes.

Hmm. That sounded like me. Are you suddenly worried that maybe a president could do something that could affect the economy and we could have a huge global economic crash?

Yes.

Oh, that sounds like me.

PAT: Huh.

GLENN: It's amazing how liberals have suddenly found these things, but want to stake out, "Well, you thought them about Barack Obama." Yeah, I did. And now you think about them about Donald Trump.

PAT: And, by the way, they were true about Barack Obama. It's not like he's been exonerated from all the things we were worried about. He was as bad as we feared. I mean, he did --

GLENN: No, he's not as bad as I feared. Come on --

PAT: We survived him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: We really didn't --

GLENN: Right. And we didn't believe that there would be prison camps, but some people believed --

PAT: However, he fundamentally did transform the United States of America in a bad way.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, he did. In our opinion, in a very bad way. In their opinion, in a very good way. And that's why they're so freaked out about Donald Trump. Because they think he'll reverse all of that and transform it just as much in the other direction.

STU: And before we go too far in all this talk about survival, the guy is still in office. We should remember that.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. I know. Well, I've heard -- I've read at USAToday.com.co.ca.au.

PAT: There will be no inauguration.

GLENN: There will be no inauguration.

STU: What! Oh, my gosh. And I believe it immediately.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. He's going to declare marshal law before January 1st.

Anyway, so...

PAT: I've already checked that through Snopes, by the way, and the FBI confirmed it.

GLENN: So Snopes.com.ca.eu.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So, anyway, we had a really good time not talking about politics, but finding things that we agree on that were big principles. Like -- we went through the Bill of Rights. She didn't -- I didn't specifically call out the Second Amendment. But I said, "Do you agree with the Bill of Rights?" And she said, "Yes."

And I gave her -- I said, "I'm going to give you the Second Amendment. I'm going to give you the Second Amendment, that maybe you don't agree on that one. And we can argue about that one. How about the other nine? They're all good, right?"

I was actually for the Patriot Act, and then I woke up and I'm like, "Good Lord, how stupid was I, during the Bush administration." And then I was against it. And I was against with George Bush and against it under Barack Obama.

The left was only against it under George Bush. Barack Obama expanded it. And this president -- and it would have been any president, I think, unless it were a strong constitutionalist, they're going to expand it again. Why don't we stand on that one?

She couldn't -- she -- I think she came in with a whole different attitude and left with a different one. And I have great hope that we will maybe never agree on policies or vote the same way, but we can demonstrate that America can be good doing it together with people who strongly disagree with each other. I like her.

STU: That's cool. And she's on -- that's the 19th that airs.

GLENN: December 19th.

Featured Image: Samantha Bee, host of 'Full Frontal with Samantha Bee' on TBS on 'The Glenn Beck Program', December 8, 2016.

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.