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

Paul Ryan and the GOP Make Lindsey Graham Look Like Benjamin Franklin

May 04, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Well, it looks like Republicans are going to pull a Nancy Pelosi with the Obamacare replacement bill. We'll have to pass it to see exactly what's in it. If only we'd elected someone who promised to drain the swamp, destroy the GOP, tear the system down and get the weasels out. Oh wait, we did.

Unfortunately, Trump has failed to deliver on many of his promises --- and it won't be Paul Ryan and the GOP holding his feet to the fire.

"I mean, at first, we liked Paul Ryan. Then we're like, 'Oh, he's a dirtbag, but at least he's not Lindsey Graham.' Lindsey Graham looks like Ben Franklin compared to the GOP now . . . Lindsey Graham hasn't gotten better. The GOP has gotten worse," Glenn said Thursday on radio.

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 4:10 from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. Glad you're here. So the Republicans are looking to pass the new health care bill, and I like the fact that we all know all about it, we've had a chance to debate the bill and talk about it, and they're not just jamming it down and jamming it through.

PAT: No and yes.

GLENN: Look at how twisted he is. No and yes. Which one is it?

STU: Make up your mind, moron.

GLENN: Right. Moron. Moron. Moron. Why do you hate people so much, moron?

Anyway, so we're going to pass it, and we don't really know what's in it, except they're going to cut back on some of it, which will make it even better.

PAT: Well, I think what the Republicans are kind of saying is they're going to get this done, even if they have to pole vault over it, if they have to parachute into it, if they have to bulldoze through it, they're gonna get it done. And then when they get it passed, then we're going to find out what's in it. I mean, shut up.

GLENN: Well, we do know this.

PAT: Right? I'm with you guys now.

GLENN: Make America great. So here's the thing. We're going to -- apparently, this is -- because I've heard this in the media. This is the biggest transfer of wealth in American history.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, wow. That's great.

STU: That's great.

GLENN: They didn't say that when they were taking money from people who were working and then giving it directly to the poor for their health care. That was not -- that was social justice. This now taking the money from the people who have jobs and not giving it to the poor but allowing those people who have jobs to maybe keep a couple of extra dollars that they already earned, that's a transfer of wealth. You're transferring the wealth not from the rich to the poor but you're not transferring it --

PAT: No, you're taking it from the poor, and you're giving it to the wealthiest among us who don't need it.

STU: A huge tax cut for the rich. This is illegitimate their argument. You're not making this up. They're saying as of a few years ago, money was earned by people, and then they passed a bill where the money they earned had to be given to someone else.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: And, by the way. One of the architects of the program said it must be that way.

STU: It must be that way.

PAT: That a health care plan that was fair and just and right must, must redistribute wealth.

GLENN: By the way, it's not just somebody who was part of it, it was the head guy.

PAT: Donald Berwick.

GLENN: Yeah. It was the head guy of ObamaCare. So it was about redistribution of wealth. But, no, everybody called us racists by pointing that out, using their own words. But now the press is saying this is the biggest transfer of wealth of all time. This is a horrible, horrible thing. They're right. Not about the, you know, transfer of wealth. They're right about this is a horrible, horrible thing because all this is going to do is weaken things. First of all, it started out as a 5 billion-dollar pool for those with existing conditions. Well, no. $5 billion? That's going to cover everybody with existing conditions? Probably not. Okay. So we're going to really bulk down, says the Republicans. What we're going to do is we're going to ask for $8 billion. Exactly like Dr. Evil would do. Okay, then it is $8 billion?

CBO estimates, and they don't have anything out on this officially yet. But it will take five times that amount. Could be $50 billion to be able to cover preexisting conditions. Now, if that's what the CBO says, you can guarantee it is at least five to ten times what the CBO says because they always have it wrong. So they're going to take more money and put it into the existing conditions. And the Republicans will say, yes, but at least we're not going to collapse the insurance companies. Yes, you will. You'll be able to find a way to collapse. Believe me. We have no doubt that you can collapse the free-market system.

Make no mistake, the reason why the Heritage Foundation was targeted, remember, if it wasn't for Jim DeMint, you wouldn't have Neil Gorsuch as your Supreme Court justice. You would not have them. It was Jim DeMint that put that list together, that pushed that list, that made sure Donald Trump stayed on that list, and that's why we have Neil Gorsuch. They took him out because the Heritage Foundation at the time was saying "No, this health care bill is just as bad. Maybe it's a little bit better, but this isn't what the American people wanted.

So just like Obama, we have to watch what this administration see what the other hand is doing. They told us we're coming after the Freedom Caucus. But instead, what they did is we were rallying around the Freedom Caucus, they took out and took out the Heritage Foundation. Now the Heritage Foundation is in the clutches of the Steve Bannons of the world and the Lindsey Grahams who strangely makes more sense now than people like Paul Ryan. When -- I mean, at first, we liked Paul Ryan. Then we're, like, oh, he's a dirtbag, but at least he's not Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham looks like Ben Franklin compared to the GOP now. That's how far out -- Lindsey Graham hasn't gotten better. The GOP has gotten worse.

So now what they're going to do is they're going to pass this thing and strong arm everybody to vote for it, as Pat said, Nancy Pelosi said during the ObamaCare debacle, we're going to pole vault over the wall, we're gonna drop in, parachute in, we're going to do whatever we have to do, and that's exactly what they're going to do.

STU: Is there room for the argument? And some Republicans are making it, that we all know whatever the house passes. Let's say they pass the perfect health care plan, it's going to go to the senate, and the senate is going to do something completely different, and they're going to have to come together at the end anyway. So is it worth getting something through? You're going to have to go through this process later on anyway with the senate. Get it through, and figure out if you can come up with something good with the senate, and then you'll be able to vote on that. Is it not worth advancing this so at least there's --

GLENN: No, it's not to at least do anything because it's going to collapse, and anything you do ... then the whole damn thing is blamed on you just in time for the Democrats to ride in on their Marxist horse and say "See? They screwed it up. Made it worse. We have to go single pair health care."

STU: What do you do, though? Nothing?

GLENN: No, what you do is you fix the damn thing. You actually fix and allow it to be free market.

STU: But the reality is --

GLENN: That's not going to happen.

STU: The reality is that it's not going to --

GLENN: Yeah, I know that.

STU: So why not advance something? And you're going to have to have this negotiation at the end anyway.

GLENN: You know what? There's -- because there's nobody with a spine, I guess, you know, I could look at that and say, well, I'm paying taxes. I would rather have less taxes take from me for something that I know is a disaster and destroying health care. But at least I'm paying less for it.

STU: So what you're advocating for, seemingly, is a massive transfer of wealth from your paycheck back to you.

GLENN: Yes. I am.

STU: Can you believe this guy? He's saying it out loud. He wants his own money.

PAT: Selfishness. Selfish. Selfish.

STU: Selfish, what a jerk. In reality, I don't know what you do here. I would not want to vote for this. It's a disaster, and it's getting worse by the day. However, with this process the way it is, with the people in office that are in office, I don't know if you just take a 5 percent gain, and it's -- hey, it's 5 percent better than ObamaCare, so take it and go. And maybe you'll have a few years of 5 percent better until the whole thing blows up anyway because keeping ObamaCare, if it's going to blow up with this plan, it's going to blow up with ObamaCare too. It's just a matter of who you're blaming it on. So do you sit here and not do anything?

GLENN: No, because they'll blame that on you. "You knew that ObamaCare wasn't working, and you refused to do anything."

STU: You're going to get blamed either way. We all know this.

GLENN: You know what would have been nice? Man, we should have thought of this. If we would have had somebody that -- what is it? Oh, had principles. If we just had somebody that had principles, you know, because don't get me wrong. This guy, this president, he's going to be able to go in there and is going to be able to destroy the GOP, tear the system down, he's going to get the weasels out, he's going to get those things done, and he can beat the media, and that's why he's going to be able to do it because he doesn't care about the media, and he doesn't care about losses.

So he's going to be able to get that done.

STU: He can certainly have talked his way through the Civil War but not this. Not a GOP congress and repealing.

GLENN: Yes. Right. Right.

STU: That's too high of a hill.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: But certainly would have solved the slavery thing by a little talking if he was around.

PAT: Just exactly like Andrew Jackson did.

GLENN: No, but he didn't.

PAT: No, he did. He fixed all Civil War.

GLENN: And he had a gigantic plantation down in the south. I don't know if anybody noises that. But he had a giant plantation. Of course, he didn't have it when he got into office. He was poor when he got into office, and then he just started taking the land from the Indians, the Native Americans, and he would tell his friends. He set up a little kind of offshore real estate company, and he would look at the map after inviting his friends to the White House and say "And, by the way, I'm about to release all of this land. You might go have it appraised. And then when I release it, the first in the title office, and I had nothing to do with this." That's how he bought his mansion. He left -- he came in poor, and he left one of the wealthiest presidents of all time.

PAT: You have to admire, though, how he broke every promise to the Indians. You have to admire that.

GLENN: You do. You really do.

PAT: You have to say --

GLENN: Well, he had a big heart.

PAT: Huge heart.

GLENN: Huge.

PAT: Huge heart.

GLENN: And he was so upset about slavery, he could have solved it. He was a soldier in the south. I mean, what soldiers in the south back then weren't against slavery?

STU: Well, I didn't say he was going to solve it that way. Maybe he was going to solve it by keeping it. We just said that he was going to solve the problem. We didn't say slavery was going to go away.

GLENN: Yeah, solve the problems of the Civil War.

STU: Civil War.

GLENN: You're right.

STU: Because people ask. Why does Civil War happen? We don't know. Who knows. There hasn't been any thought put into that. No historian has written a book about it. It's just basically someone flipped a coin and said we're going to war. Why do that?

GLENN: They didn't be need to.

PAT: They need to.

STU: That was one of the big issues at the time.

GLENN: Abraham Lincoln, he was more of a war monger. It was Andrew Jackson who was such a decent human being and sometimes the slaves would come in and wipe the tears from his eyes. He was such a good guy. And the Native Americans --

PAT: They loved him.

GLENN: And he loved them. He loved the kerosene lamps that he, the lamp shades made out of Native American skin. It was beautiful. And he had such a heart. And those lamps lit the way for American divine destiny and manifest destiny.

STU: A lot of people blame the Trail of Tears on him and in reality, that was someone who littered and the Indian was looking over the hill and saw the litter and started crying. One tear.

GLENN: Yeah. And they were mixed with Andrew Jackson's tears. He was, like, you're bloodying up this property that I'm about to sell to my friends so that I can be the richest man in America by the end of my term. But who doesn't admire him?

Rage isn’t conservatism — THIS is what true patriots stand for

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatism is not about rage or nostalgia. It’s about moral clarity, national renewal, and guarding the principles that built America’s freedom.

Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?

For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.

Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.

Conservatism as stewardship

In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.

That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.

Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.

Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.

Rebuilding what is broken

We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.

Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.

A creed for the rising generation

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.

Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.

To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.

We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck: Here's what's WRONG with conservatism today

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

What does it mean to be a conservative in 2025? Glenn offers guidance on what conservatives need to do to ensure the conservative movement doesn't fade into oblivion. We have to get back to PRINCIPLES, not policies.

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

  • for Stewardship, protecting the wisdom of our Founders;
  • for Truth, defending objective reality in an age of illusion;
  • for Accountability, living within our means as individuals and as a nation;
  • for Neighborhood, rebuilding family, faith, and local community;
  • and for Duty, carrying freedom forward to the next generation.

A conservative doesn’t cling to the past — he stands guard over the principles that make the future possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm so tired of being against everything. Saying what we're not.

It's time that we start saying what we are. And it's hard, because we're changing. It's different to be a conservative, today, than it was, you know, years ago.

And part of that is just coming from hard knocks. School of hard knocks. We've learned a lot of lessons on things we thought we were for. No, no, no.

But conservatives. To be a conservative, it shouldn't be about policies. It's really about principles. And that's why we've lost our way. Because we've lost our principles. And it's easy. Because the world got easy. And now the world is changing so rapidly. The boundaries between truth and illusion are blurred second by second. Machines now think. Currencies falter. Families fractured. And nations, all over the world, have forgotten who they are.

So what does it mean to be a conservative now, in 2025, '26. For a lot of people, it means opposing the left. That's -- that's a reaction. That's not renewal.

That's a reaction. It can't mean also worshiping the past, as if the past were perfect. The founders never asked for that.

They asked that we would preserve the principles and perfect their practice. They knew it was imperfect. To make a more perfect nation.

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

2025, '26 being a conservative has to mean stewardship.

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

Of a moral inheritance. That is too precious to abandon.

What does it mean to conserve? To conserve something doesn't mean to stand still.

It means to stand guard. It means to defend what the Founders designed. The separation of powers. The rule of law.

The belief that our rights come not from kings or from Congress, but from the creator himself.
This is a system that was not built for ease. It was built for endurance, and it will endure if we only teach it again!

The problem is, we only teach it like it's a museum piece. You know, it's not a museum piece. It's not an old dusty document. It's a living covenant between the dead, the living and the unborn.

So this chapter of -- of conservatism. Must confront reality. Economic reality.

Global reality.

And moral reality.

It's not enough just to be against something. Or chant tax cuts or free markets.

We have to ask -- we have to start with simple questions like freedom, yes. But freedom for what?

Freedom for economic sovereignty. Your right to produce and to innovate. To build without asking Beijing's permission. That's a moral issue now.

Another moral issue: Debt! It's -- it's generational theft. We're spending money from generations we won't even meet.

And dependence. Another moral issue. It's a national weakness.

People cannot stand up for themselves. They can't make it themselves. And we're encouraging them to sit down, shut up, and don't think.

And the conservative who can't connect with fiscal prudence, and connect fiscal prudence to moral duty, you're not a conservative at all.

Being a conservative today, means you have to rebuild an economy that serves liberty, not one that serves -- survives by debt, and then there's the soul of the nation.

We are living through a time period. An age of dislocation. Where our families are fractured.

Our faith is almost gone.

Meaning is evaporating so fast. Nobody knows what meaning of life is. That's why everybody is killing themselves. They have no meaning in life. And why they don't have any meaning, is truth itself is mocked and blurred and replaced by nothing, but lies and noise.

If you want to be a conservative, then you have to be to become the moral compass that reminds a lost people, liberty cannot survive without virtue.

That freedom untethered from moral order is nothing, but chaos!

And that no app, no algorithm, no ideology is ever going to fill the void, where meaning used to live!

To be a conservative, moving forward, we cannot just be about policies.

We have to defend the sacred, the unseen, the moral architecture, that gives people an identity. So how do you do that? Well, we have to rebuild competence. We have to restore institutions that actually work. Just in the last hour, this monologue on what we're facing now, because we can't open the government.

Why can't we open the government?

Because government is broken. Why does nobody care? Because education is broken.

We have to reclaim education, not as propaganda, but as the formation of the mind and the soul. Conservatives have to champion innovation.

Not to imitate Silicon Valley's chaos, but to harness technology in defense of human dignity. Don't be afraid of AI.

Know what it is. Know it's a tool. It's a tool to strengthen people. As long as you always remember it's a tool. Otherwise, you will lose your humanity to it!

That's a conservative principle. To be a conservative, we have to restore local strength. Our families are the basic building blocks, our schools, our churches, and our charities. Not some big, distant NGO that was started by the Tides Foundation, but actual local charities, where you see people working. A web of voluntary institutions that held us together at one point. Because when Washington fails, and it will, it already has, the neighborhood has to stand.

Charlie Kirk was doing one thing that people on our side were not doing. Speaking to the young.

But not in nostalgia.

Not in -- you know, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.

In purpose. They don't remember. They don't remember who Dick Cheney was.

I was listening to Fox news this morning, talking about Dick Cheney. And there was somebody there that I know was not even born when Dick Cheney. When the World Trade Center came down.

They weren't even born. They were telling me about Dick Cheney.

And I was like, come on. Come on. Come on.

If you don't remember who Dick Cheney was, how are you going to remember 9/11. How will you remember who Reagan was.

That just says, that's an old man's creed. No, it's not.

It's the ultimate timeless rebellion against tyranny in all of its forms. Yes, and even the tyranny of despair, which is eating people alive!

We need to redefine ourselves. Because we have changed, and that's a good thing. The creed for a generation, that will decide the fate of the republic, is what we need to find.

A conservative in 2025, '26.

Is somebody who protects the enduring principles of American liberty and self-government.

While actively stewarding the institutions. The culture. The economy of this nation!

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

We have to be a group of people that we're not anchored in the past. Or in rage! But in reason. And morality. Realism. And hope for the future.

We're the stewards! We're the ones that have to relight the torch, not just hold it. We didn't -- we didn't build this Torch. We didn't make this Torch. We're the keepers of the flame, but we are honor-bound to pass that forward, and conservatives are viewed as people who just live in the past. We're not here to merely conserve the past, but to renew it. To sort it. What worked, what didn't work. We're the ones to say to the world, there's still such a thing as truth. There's still such a thing as virtue. You can deny it all you want.

But the pain will only get worse. There's still such a thing as America!

And if now is not the time to renew America. When is that time?

If you're not the person. If we're not the generation to actively stand and redefine and defend, then who is that person?

We are -- we are supposed to preserve what works.

That -- you know, I was writing something this morning.

I was making notes on this. A constitutionalist is for restraint. A progressive, if you will, for lack of a better term, is for more power.

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

But the -- for the American eagle to fly, we must have both wings.

And one can't be stronger than the other.

We as a conservative, are supposed to look and say, no. Don't look at that. The past teaches us this, this, and this. So don't do that.

We can't do that. But there are these things that we were doing in the past, that we have to jettison. And maybe the other side has a good idea on what should replace that. But we're the ones who are supposed to say, no, but remember the framework.

They're -- they can dream all they want.
They can come up with all these utopias and everything else, and we can go, "That's a great idea."

But how do we make it work with this framework? Because that's our job. The point of this is, it takes both. It takes both.

We have to have the customs and the moral order. And the practices that have stood the test of time, in trial.

We -- we're in an amazing, amazing time. Amazing time.

We live at a time now, where anything -- literally anything is possible!

I don't want to be against stuff. I want to be for the future. I want to be for a rich, dynamic future. One where we are part of changing the world for the better!

Where more people are lifted out of poverty, more people are given the freedom to choose, whatever it is that they want to choose, as their own government and everything.

I don't want to force it down anybody's throat.

We -- I am so excited to be a shining city on the hill again.

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

But not in we get bogged down in hatred, in division.

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

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.