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

You Have No Right to Protest American Laws If You're Here Illegally

May 30, 2017
Staff

WRITER

A ruckus broke out at the Texas State Capitol building after protestors --- many of whom claimed to be illegal --- filled the rotunda on what is typically a calm and ceremonial last day of the legislative session. The protestors took exception to Senate Bill 4, legislation already signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, which requires local cities and counties to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and uphold federal law.

RELATED: Republican Lawmaker: I Called Immigration Authorities on Capitol Protesters

"If you're on American soil illegally, you're not an American. You have no right to protest American laws. Period. I don't care if what you're protesting is moral, you have no legal right to do so. This is so infuriating to me," Doc Thompson said Tuesday, filling in for Glenn on radio.

State Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) notified ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) of the hundreds of illegal protestors at the Capitol, enraging Hispanic legislators which led to an altercation that included threats and violence.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

DOC: You have no right to protest American laws on American soil if you are not here legally. If you're on American soil illegally, you're not an American. You have no right to protest American laws. Period. I don't care if what you're protesting is moral, you have no legal right to do so. This is so infuriating to me.

BRAD: But they keep getting away with it.

DOC: There was a ruckus at this Texas statehouse over the weekend. It was their final day of their session, and they passed a piece of legislation that would ban sanctuary cities in Texas and then punish any local communities who acted as a sanctuary city. And that is not only a good thing, it's -- it shouldn't even have to get to that. There should be no sanctuary cities. I don't care what you're sanctuarying against, wrong. It's not the law. If you don't agree with the law, then work to change the law. So if you want to say "Well, I don't agree with antimurder laws, you ought to be able to murder people. You don't harbor murderers. You're in violation of the law. What you do is work to make murder legal, if that's what you support.

BRANDON: Right.

DOC: So what happened was a bunch of illegals pile in, and they're in the rotunda and protesting. Some of them having signs and shirts saying I am illegal and here to stay. Admitting that they're in the country illegally. Maybe some of them were wearing the shirts and that in solidarity. But I would venture with that many people piled in there, some of them were being honest.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: Hell, we had President Obama bring one into the capitol during one of his state of the union addresses.

BRANDON: Yes.

DOC: This has happened. Admitted illegals being sheltered by people. They're harboring people who are violating the law, and it's not a one-violation their very existence continues to violate the law every second. If I go out and shoot somebody and somebody harbors me, they're harboring me as an illegal being on the run.

BRANDON: Right.

DOC: If -- but it was only based on one crime being on the run. They're continuing to violate the law every second that they're here.

BRANDON: Uh-huh.

DOC: Every day saying I'm here, and I know I'm doing wrong. So they have the shirts, they're wearing them, they're protesting. So what should have happened is they should have come in and rounded them all up and taken them away. Show me your papers. Prove that you're here illegally. You're admitting. You're telling law enforcement and everybody else by your shirts and signs you're legally.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: This is like saying to a cop as he walks by, I have pot on me. That's probable cause. I just beat the hell out of some dude in that alley. I just raped a woman. Whatever. That's probable cause. Cops didn't do that. So a Republican representative Matt Renaldi put on Facebook and then said to one of his Democrat colleagues that he called ICE on them.

BRANDON: Okay. Yeah, okay.

DOC: You guys aren't upset about this?

BRAD: Nope.

BRANDON: No.

DOC: Okay. Neither am I. That's what I should have done. In fact, Matt, the sad thing is that nobody else called ice.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: All of your other colleagues should have. Everybody else in the statehouse, they should have done it. Even the Democrats. This should what should happen. They're in violation of the law. Instead, he claims two Democrat colleagues, one of them physically assaulted him and the other verbally assaulted

him.

BRANDON: Really?

DOC: That one of them -- and he didn't go into detail of what the physical assault was that I know. But this is what he claimed happened, which caused a ruckus amongst the legislatures as well. So you have all of the illegals back and forth and the protesters and everything else that actually ends up causing because of this dispute between the two guys or three guys more ruckus on the floor of the house. So they get into it as well.

So then, Matt posts kind of an explanation on Facebook. He said representative Pancho Nev·rez threatened my life on the floor after I called ice on several illegal immigrants who held signs in the gallery. When I told Democrats I called ice, representative Raymond Romero physically assaulted me and other Democrats were held by colleagues.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: During the time Pancho told me he would "Get me" on the way to my car. He later approached me and reiterated that I had to leave at some point, and he would"Get me."

BRANDON: Wow. Okay.

BRAD: Welcome to Texas.

DOC: Right. In addition to the guys who assaulted him that he named, he's saying that other ones -- they had to be held back. What did he do, leftists? What did he do, Democrats? He called police.

BRANDON: He had the law enforced.

BRAD: On the dreamers. That's the problem.

DOC: How is he wrong? Even if you think that the cops strangely should not enforce the law, why was he wrong?

BRAD: Because these people are just here because they have a dream. They want to live the American dream. Why are you such a hater?

DOC: But I get the argument with that. But why did he do wrong by calling the police? If you see something, say something.

BRAD: It's mean to do that.

BRANDON: Yeah, and that's what it boils down to right there. We're dealing with the marginalized community. How dare he act against them. How dare he. It doesn't matter that what they're doing is illegal. It doesn't matter that many of the -- let's be honest, many of these people who come over here are committing crimes. They're not put back all right? They're here to stay. All right? It doesn't matter if that's who they're defending. All right? No, don't get me wrong, I don't want to say this is all who they are. But at the same time, you have to -- these people are causing major problems.

DOC: And the percentage, even if lower of illegals that come, that commit crimes versus regular populous, which there's no way to determine that. First of all, people on the left will be the first ones to tell you these people live in the shadows, and they don't like to report crimes. Well, they're not going to report crimes that happened in their community if it's committed by people like them, illegal, you would never know. But even if you can prove a tenth of the amount of crime committed by the people already here, that crime still would not exist if they were not here.

BRANDON: Enforcing the law.

DOC: And it's still irrelevant. It's a violation of the law.

BRANDON: Exactly.

DOC: So your argument is we don't like the law, so the law should not be enforced.

BRANDON: Uh-huh.

DOC: That's wrong. You should enforce the law. But even if your argument is it's so important what these people are going through to get them help that it trumps the law or whatever, let's talk about that for a moment. The argument constantly is these people just want a better way of life.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: Well, first of all, there's the hypocrisy of many of the people that support them because they lock their doors. They won't let me come in for a better way of life. How many millionaires and billionaires support illegal immigration? They don't let me take into their house. Their house is going to be a hell of a lot better than my life. I want a better life, don't you?

BRANDON: Oh, yeah.

DOC: Hey, Zuckerberg has actually built a wall around his property. It might be the property -- it's either Hawaii or the Hamptons. I can't remember which. He was in a dispute with neighbors because he wanted to build a higher, more complete wall. And he's one of the biggest supporters of illegals.

BRANDON: Steven king, beating this drum. Illegals need to be welcomed. But have you ever seen his property? It's massive. It has a huge wall around it. He doesn't let anybody in.

DOC: Right. So give away your money and tear down your wall and let me flop at your house and give free stuff and redistribute your wealth, or you're hypocrites. But that aside, what is the best way to deal with the people around the world that are poverty stricken? Can we -- would we be able to simply open our borders and say come on in. We have to help all of your people. No. America would no longer exist. It would overwhelm us. It's the drowning man thing. If somebody is drowning, you can't just jump in and drown him? Now, I'm a Christian, I believe in helping people. There's a right way and a wrong way. The right way is not support people violating the law, support us not knowing who people are, open borders we would never be able to protect America and help people in the future. Or condone illegal bad behavior. The way to help people is allow people to legally emigrate here every year, which we do a million people alone. And to help as best we can people to make their country and local communities better.

BRANDON: Which is where we should start.

DOC: Which we do.

BRANDON: I forget who said this. But it used to be easier to emigrate here. People would get off a ship. What's your name? We have to make it easier. We didn't have entitlements back then. And that's the crux of everything here. We cannot have all of these people who are primarily poor come in, get on the government goal because that's just going to skyrocket taxpayer like what we have to pay into entitlements way beyond anything that we can possibly imagine, and our economy would crumble. This is why we can't have open borders. Look, this is just -- I get the sentiment. I do. I feel bad for those people. They're living in hell holes where their lives are ruled by drug lords, you know? They live in these poverty-stricken neighborhoods, they want to come here for a better life. I understand that. And I feel for them. I really do. But if they all come here like they want to, they're going to wind up in the same exact place that they left.

BRAD: And the cynical side of me says it's not about helping them. It's another voting block. It's each -- and Democrats and Republicans, they both do it. You get this big lump of votes.

DOC: George W. Bush even did it.

BRAD: Exactly.

DOC: So you think they're disingenuous in helping people.

BRAD: Yeah, I think in a lot of cases.

DOC: But even those who truly want to help people, you can't tear apart their families, and you're willing to forget that I didn't can a us their problems. I didn't cause the possibility of their families being split up. They did when they came here illegally and brought their families or had kids, knowing that they could be split at some time. That was a choice they made. But even if you're saying we need to care for them and that matters most, then let's take this piece by piece. I have somebody who I am staunchly against illegal immigration and powerfully in favor of legal immigration, as many as we can bring to America without hurting America. If it's 10 million a year, 500 a year, whatever it is. Powerfully in favor of legal immigration, controlled. Let's stop with comprehensive immigration are he form where we throw everything together. There's three main phases. Border security, legal immigration reform, and what to do with the illegals that are here. Fix the border first. All separate bills. The only reason you want comprehensive plans is because you want to tack on the illegals being legalized somehow.

So let's take them apart. We can solve a lot of this right off. Let's fix the border. Great. Done. Let's reform the legal immigration system and what it should be is controlled so we know who people are. But the big problem with legal immigration is the expense. For about $20,000 in total is what it takes to legally emigrate here by the time you navigate the legal system. So you have people who are likely poor coming in paying $20,000 they don't have. I think I just checked recently and to file the form for your citizenship once you meet every other standard is about 1,000 bucks. That's a lot of cash for me, let alone someone coming here poor. So make that cheaper. Make it easier to understand. Not necessarily easier but easier to understand. I'm fine with all of that. Great, we can do that. If you want to fix the visas, fine. Boom, done. So we've just solved most of the issues we have with immigration, as long as we separate them. And then what do you have left? The illegals that are here, and you have two. Two types. Those that are here illegally and those who were brought here illegally. I reluctantly am willing to say the kids didn't violate the law. They didn't bring them here. Who violated the law? Although they're illegal, they didn't do it. Their parents or guardians brought them here. Okay. I'll reluctantly meet you halfway and say we can come up with something -- stop calling them dreamers. Knock that crap off.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: And I'll meet you and say fine. But I can't -- I cannot abide by legalizing pathway to citizenship people who broke the law when so many other people didn't. And if you're saying Doc or whatever, I told you I'm willing to be compassionate. But the people who came here legally who are out $20,000 like my mother-in-law and my wife, are they going to reimburse the $40,000? I could use 40 grand right now, guys, just so you know. Are you going to give that money back to us?

BRANDON: No. And they know how to gain the system. 62 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant receive some form of welfare.

DOC: Right. They know how to game it because legally the Federal Government is not allowed to give people here legally free stuff. But they find a way to give free system and if you're a child in America, regardless of all else, you are entitled to a free education.

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.