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

Signs of Hope: A Millennial Makes Glenn's Day

June 29, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Ready for a spark of hope? Glenn spoke with Carolyn on radio today, an 18-year-old millennial who called from Pennsylvania to talk about her upbringing, interests and plans for the future. Aside from her impressive and exemplary manners, Carolyn calmly and confidently articulated her ideas with thoughtfulness and intelligence.

Speaking about her father, Carolyn had this to say:

"He really is my role model because he always lived a life, he always does live a life of integrity. You know, it's . . . sort of like in Ayn Rand's book Fountainhead, you know, he'll take whatever job necessary as long as he keeps his integrity," she said.

Carolyn also revealed that she began listening to Glenn in the fourth grade.

"She's killing me," Glenn replied.

Having just graduated from high school, Carolyn will attend Hillsdale College in the fall to study politics and history.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: America, I want to introduce you to Carolyn, as we meet for the very first time, calling from Pennsylvania.

Hello, Carolyn.

CALLER: Hi, Mr. Beck.

GLENN: How are you? You can call me Glenn. You're 19 years old?

CALLER: I'm actually 18, sir. I just graduated.

GLENN: Wow, 18. You are so polite. You were homeschooled?

CALLER: Actually no. No, sir. I went to Catholic school.

GLENN: Okay. You were -- you grew up in a military family?

CALLER: No, sir. I grew up --

GLENN: Okay. Wait. Wait. You grew -- I'm just guessing -- you grew up in the South?

CALLER: No, sir. Western PA.

STU: You're doing a good job of cold reading here.

GLENN: I've gone through everything that usually is tied directly to, yes, sir, no, sir. Where did you pick that up? It's refreshing and wonderful.

CALLER: I mean, I grew up with a father who was a small business owner, who taught his sons and daughters from a small age to go in for a strong handshake, look someone in the eye, and say, yes, sir, no, sir.

GLENN: I love your dad.

(chuckling)

CALLER: He's been a very big fan of your show.

GLENN: What does he do? What's his business?

CALLER: Well, for most of my life, my father owned furniture store companies. Though he would sell furniture to people in the local area. But after the crash in '08, you know, things got rough. And he tried and tried again to start something up. But he bit his tongue and just took a kind of different path in life.

GLENN: And what happened? He's selling drugs now?

CALLER: No. He -- he works for the state. He works for -- well, we call it PennDOT. He works for the state as a foreman.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. That must be killing him. That must be killing him.

CALLER: Yes, sir. He's part of a union. And I now kind of see it as a blessing because I now understand, you know, not just the side of the entrepreneur, but the side of the union man. And it's very humbling.

GLENN: Carolyn, I want you to close your eyes right now and put your hand on the radio, and we're going to heal your father from his deep scars. My gosh, I can't imagine what it would be like to join a union after a lifetime of working for yourself. To join a union and then -- and then PennDOT. I used to live in Pennsylvania, so I know.

CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. He really is my role model because he -- he always lived a life -- he always does live a life of integrity. You know, it's not -- sort of like in Ayn Rand's book, Fountainhead, you know, he'll take whatever job necessary as long as he keeps his integrity.

GLENN: Wow, I could talk to you all day. You make me feel good.

So, Carolyn, how can we help you?

CALLER: You posed a question yesterday of how your life has changed since 2006. But I can kind of trace it back a little bit further. I first started talking about politics when I was in kindergarten. I came home -- I came home crying on the bus in kindergarten because in 2004, no one wanted to discuss the Bush versus Gore reelection with me, and I was very, very much so at politics even at that young age. And I actually started watching your show in about fourth grade.

In fourth grade, I had received --

GLENN: She's killing me.

CALLER: Yeah. I had received a B in I think it was my reading class, and so I wasn't allowed to watch TV for the rest of the school year. So every night, my dad would let me sneak in and watch Bill O'Reilly's show, which really got me started. And after that, I would come home after school every day and sit and watch your show at 5 o'clock exactly.

GLENN: Wow. Thank you so much. So that has -- that has damaged you and oppressed you.

CALLER: No. No, sir.

GLENN: Or?

CALLER: It's definitely taught me the importance of principles. You know, I know today in the political climate we live in, especially as a young student, it's hard to -- to be able to see right versus left because it seems as though politics infiltrates not just culture, but the classroom. And what I've learned over time is that, yes, people who are liberals can be friends with conservatives.

The key is that you stand on principles. And not rhetoric. I know after the very -- very scary shooting last week of -- at Capitol Hill, I texted a lot of my -- my more liberal friends, you know, who supported Bernie Sanders, voted for Clinton. And I just said, "Hey, I'm someone who stands on the principle of individuality. And I know that just because one Bernie Sanders supporter did such a terrible act, that does not make all Bernie Sanders supporters terrible people." And I just wanted to remind them that. And that I loved them.

GLENN: And what was their response?

CALLER: A lot of them were just so grateful that I gave -- that I showed love. And they said, Carolyn, you've taught me that not all Trump supporters are KKK members. Or not all Trump supporters are Nazis. Because if you don't show love and reach out during those moments, it would be easy to let the status quo persist. And I just wanted to be able to show, you know, just little acts of live. And it does change people's minds rather quickly when you do that.

GLENN: You know, it's funny, I was having dinner last night with some Silicon Valley and some Hollywood lefties. And as we were -- we were talking, a couple of them sounded very much like people that -- one person in particular that I spoke to yesterday to, on the radio, a woman called, and she was very animated. And felt that --

CALLER: Sir.

GLENN: I was, you know, betraying the cause by -- by saying that we have to be -- we have to change our language and we have to be very aware of how we're talking. Because we can make an impact for the good as opposed to just building up more walls.

And -- and most of the people that were at dinner with me last night, they felt the same way. And they were looking for a way to start talking to people. And not necessarily about politics. Just talking to people. And one of the guys said something along the lines of, you know, we need to fix things politically. We need the government to -- to fix all of these things. And, you know, the language is not going to break through.

And I have found -- I mean, I -- I am sitting with you guys. Because I changed my language. And I haven't changed a thing in my policy and my principles. But we're talking. So how can you not say that it doesn't work? It does.

CALLER: I -- I -- I whole-heartedly agree with you, sir. I think it's very interesting that you're discussing, you know, the idea of care versus harm, liberty and oppression. Because last summer I was actually sitting in a lecture where we were discussing, you know, political campaigning and the such. And the speaker put up on the screen this chart about how liberals use certain words and they react to certain words versus conservatives. And it was the same kind of idea of liberty, care, harm, justice.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: And I just sat there, and I thought, you know, that's it. That's the secret.

And so ever since then, I've been able to engage some of my liberal friends on things such as Planned Parenthood and being pro-life and really some hot button topics. But if you go in and speak the language and you go in with genuine love and intellectual curiosity, which most of my liberal friends are curious, they want to know what a conservative believes. Why we believe what we believe. They don't just want to label everyone. They do want to know. And if you go in from that approach, they are much more open and much more understanding. They may not change their minds, but they want to understand, the same way we should want to understand.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. And it's really amazing -- and I have example after example after example of this -- people don't know how to be able to have that dialogue. But they want that dialogue. And if you will model it, they will fall into it.

And it's -- you know, the -- one of the -- one of the guys that was there last night said, you know, I read a book. And he said, "It totally changed my mind. Totally changed my mind."

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: And he said, "It is the Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt."

CALLER: Hmm.

GLENN: Which is the book that really takes the care and harm and liberty and oppression and is teaching me -- has totally changed the way I view things. And you can. I spoke at a table with 20 Silicon Valley liberals last night. One Libertarian.

And we spoke about abortion. And I talked about how they see oppression of women, and they all shook their heads. And I said, "We see sanctity." And I could feel their eyes roll up. And I said, and that's a word that you guys don't speak. So let's just talk about harm to women. And we had this conversation.

And it was -- I don't know if anybody changed their mind or anything, but at least it didn't devolve into where it usually devolves.

I mean, one of the guys who was with me, he sat back from the table, and he said -- I said, "What did you notice about things?" And he said, "I was watching people and listening." And he said, "As you were speaking, I heard so many people say, huh. Wow."

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: And that's the beginning of it. Just opening people's minds to, that's not what I thought at all.

CALLER: Yeah. Exactly. And I think as soon as -- as soon as that spark kind of goes off in someone's mind and the wheels start to turn -- it's not that you should go in with the approach of you want to change their mind, but you just want to understand and they want to understand, that's when real change happens.

GLENN: Yeah. The problems that I have with talking people is when they say, "How do you win?" Or they're trying to win the argument.

There's no -- Martin Luther King said -- and he is absolutely right. Winning assumes that there's going to be a loser. And you want everyone walking from the table feeling that they've -- that they've won, that they've reconciled with somebody else.

CALLER: Exactly.

GLENN: Because we're going to have to -- if you play this out in your head -- if the Democrats get absolutely everything that they want, and let's say they rule for the next 20 years and they get this socialist utopia. Well, there are going to be people like me and maybe you that -- no. Never. I'm not going there. I won't buy into it. I'm not going to speak that language. I'm not -- I will not go over the cliff with the rest of humanity because it's easier. I will stand for what I believe is the truth.

So what do they do with that ten to 30 percent of that population that doesn't comply? Well, usually, it's round them up and kill them or put them in a training camp or whatever.

That's what happens. And the same would happen if you are a big government person on the right. What are you going to do with the people that disagree with you that will never change their mind? You have to reconcile with them and live in peace. And that has to be done before we talk about any policies. We have to start trusting each other.

Carolyn, quickly, what do you want to do for a living?

CALLER: I've not thought that far. I will be attending Hillsdale College in the fall, where I'll be studying politics and history.

GLENN: Good choice.

CALLER: And I know I -- I joke with my mother, I was adopted from South Korea -- so I can't run for president. But I love to joke with my parents that I would like to find a way to be First Lady.

GLENN: Oh, that's great.

CALLER: The same way Jackie Kennedy went in and sort of restored the White House with interior design. I would say I would like to restore it with making it the people's house again. Allowing -- allowing people from all over the country to come in and, you know, have lunch with the president or the First Lady and just spend hours talking and really knowing what they want to hear.

GLENN: Carolyn, I would love to spend more time with you. I would like to have our producers grab your phone number. I would like to have you on at least once a year to see that you have held the course all the way through school. And if you're ever looking for an internship, I would love to have you intern directly with me. So I want to put you on hold. We'll get the phone numbers. Thank you so much. And say hello to your father and your mother.

CALLER: Thank you, sir.

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.