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

‘Proven to Work’: FCC Chair Explains Why Net Neutrality Needs to Be Reversed

November 30, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Federal Communications Commission chair Ajit Pai has been under fire after he announced that Obama-era rules for net neutrality would be reversed. He joined Glenn today to explain what undoing the regulation means for the internet.

“All we are proposing to do is to go back to President Clinton’s light touch, market-based framework that was in place from 1996 to 2015,” Pai said. “It’s a regulatory system that has been proven to work; that’s why we have the internet economy that is the envy of the world.”

Here are some of the topics he covered with Glenn (listen above):

  • The protesters who harassed his family over Thanksgiving weekend

  • The FCC’s role in online speech

  • The real effects of repealing net neutrality regulations

Let us know your thoughts on net neutrality in the comment section below.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I've dawn broadcast for 40-some years. And I think this is the only time I've ever liked the FCC chairman. Ajit Pai. Welcome to the program, Ajit, how are you?

AJIT: Pretty good. Thank you for having me on. And for the kind words.

GLENN: Well, you didn't have a high bar. I do not like regulation at all. And that's what the FCC has -- has done. And -- and they have gotten stronger and stronger, and I worry about the internet. And then you come in. And you are now having a -- a real problem because people are -- you're going to -- you're going to repeal net neutrality. And people are coming out and -- I'm sorry for what your family went through. Picketing your house on Thanksgiving weekend.

AJIT: It's outrageous. And, you know, some of the online threats have been even more outrageous. And I think for anybody in public office. And any publicly-exposed position, you should not be threatened. Your family should not be threatened with violence or the like, simply because of the position you hold. And, you know, just simply steels my resolve to keep doing what I think is the right thing to do, and to also keep my family safe.

GLENN: So, Ajit, first of all, I'm sorry for this, but this is what's happening all over the country to anybody. When people disagree with somebody, we -- you know, we just -- all of a sudden, we think it's okay to harass them or terrorize them or offer death threats or whatever online.

Does the FCC have any place in regulating that kind of speech, online or anywhere else?

AJIT: We don't. Obviously, if it threatens violence or the like, we can work with law enforcement authorities. By and large, we have a hands-off rule. We don't regulate the content that goes over the internet.

What I will say is I have tried to speak out about the fact that we need to have a more civil fact-focused discourse in this country. It's one thing to disagree on policy. But if you go out there peddling misinformation, like democracy is threatened, the Internet is about to be broken, and here is the guy who is doing it. Here's his phone number. Here's where he lives. Here's his family. You shouldn't be surprised when people get alarmed and start to take outrageous actions. And so I would hope that we try to focus on the facts, as passionate as people are about this issue.

GLENN: So they are claiming that this is the end of democracy on the internet because you are going to repeal something that Obama put in, net neutrality.

AJIT: And that's the great irony about this. All we are proposing to do is to go back to President Clinton's light-touch, market-based framework that was place from 1996 to 2015. It's a regulatory system that has been proven to work. That's why we have the internet economy that's the envy of the world. And so all of these apocalyptic predictions are simply ridiculous, given the fact that we've lived under these exact same rules for two decades, and the world didn't end.

To the contrary, it thrived, especially for conservatives who have historically been marginalized when it comes to having the ability to express themselves.

STU: It's amazing that they would think that the era of 1996 to 2015 was a bad one for the internet. It changed our world completely.

AJIT: It's incredible. All these people suggesting that we were living in some digital dystopia before 2015, and that's why the government had to seize control of the internet, are completely misinterpreting history. And I think are object oblivious to the fact that these regulations do have costs. And going forward, we want to make sure that we have rules that accurately reflect the market. And promote free speech and expression online as well.

GLENN: So I talked to Ray Kurzweil who is the head of the Singularity University and consultant for Google and everybody else. And we talked about this at one point, kind of half-jokingly, about, you know, if Google can monitor all of the stuff and see what people are searching for, if somebody is searching for a better way to make a Google, why would Google ever allow them to do that? Are you concerned at all about the rise of these gigantic corporations that are bigger than some countries in their power, like Google. Google pretty much wrote the net neutrality bill.

AJIT: This is a growing concern, I think, in some halls in Washington and around the country. And part of the argument I made earlier this week is that you should practice what you preach. If you come to the FCC saying we need these heavy-handed regulations to be applied to one part of the internet economy, but, oh, don't regulate me, you should be consistent in how you operate your business. And that's part of the reason why I've said we need to have a level playing field. Everyone should play by the same rules, and the government certainly shouldn't be picking winners and losers and dispensing regulatory favors to those companies or parts of the industry that it favors at any given point in time.

GLENN: So how does net neutrality benefit a company like Google and hurt the small way?

AJIT: Well, I think the primary way is it's essentially saying, if you're an online content provider, you get rules of the road that will favor you. You essentially have the ability to pursue your business model without regulation. But the companies that run the networks that have to invest in those networks, aren't free to essentially build other networks and manage them appropriately.

And so that's pretty useful, to companies that are sending and receiving a lot of traffic on the internet. My simple point is, let's let the market decide how this works, instead of having the government micromanage it and pick winners and losers.

STU: Ajit, we're talking to Ajit Pai from the FCC.

And I know that a lot of -- even some conservatives that I talk to, see net neutrality as something that's positive because they -- they look at the way they use the internet. They stream Netflix. And Netflix is awesome. Everybody loves Netflix. It's great programming. And I don't want some company telling me that I can't get the speeds I need, so I get buffering and everything else. We need to stop that. What do you tell those people?

AJIT: I tell them two things. First of all, I understand where they're coming from. I love Netflix as well and stream a video all the time.

The problem is two-fold. Number one, the companies that are building the networks, have to be able to have a wide enough road, so to speak, to carry all of this bandwidth. And that road, expanding it, maintaining it, costs a lot of money.

And so the question is, should we allow commercial arrangements where the companies that are occupying a lot of space on the road will share in the cost much maintaining that road? And that's one of the things that the market has been able to traditionally sort out.

My point is that we shouldn't have the government dictating up front that, look, we're going to set the rules of the road, and prefer one part of the industry over the other.

GLENN: Can you explain, because people say by repealing this, it's going to make it harder for poor Americans to afford the internet, which is usually the opposite of what happens when government, you know, doesn't get involved. When government doesn't get involved, the prices go down because there's competition. When the government starts regulating, the prices usually start to go up. Can you help solve this?

AJIT: Absolutely. And this is one of the classic bits of misinformation out there.

These regulations, these heavy-handed regulations, on some of these network operators, have actually led them to reduce their investments in building these high-speed networks, especially in rural and low-income areas. Building these networks is hard. It costs a lot of money, takes a lot of time.

And what I've heard for myself -- firsthand, when I've gone to places like Spencer, Iowa, and Parsons, Kansas, and Reno, Nevada, is that some of these smaller companies, the very companies that are necessary to promote more competition and to reach rural and low-income consumers, they're the ones who are suffering under these regulations.

They've told us on the record that they're holding back on investment, or they can't even raise capital in the first place because companies say there's not going to be return on the investment because of these rules. So the argument I've made is that poorer consumers in particular are worse off because these regulations are standing in the way of them getting internet access or getting more competition.

STU: I think Ajit, there's a strong ideological argument to me that there's no human right, there's no constitutional right to Netflix. That is not what the government should be involved in when it comes to commerce.

But people -- you know, they obviously like it. They don't want these things to happen. And when you have a situation where a company could, in theory, strangle a particular site's bandwidth, people get panicked.

However, is it a real world thing? My understanding is it basically never happens. And if it does, the result after is actually a positive one.

GLENN: Exactly. And this is part of the reason why going back to your earlier question about Netflix, this is exactly the reason why we should let the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC, figure out whether or not any of these arrangements are any competitive.

That phenomena you're just describing doesn't happen in the marketplace today, and if it did, one could imagine that it could be pro-competitive or anti-competitive.

My point is simply the FCC shouldn't preemptively say for all of the 4,000-sum Internet providers and for the rest of time, we know what the market is going to be, and we're going to forbid this or that business practice.

Let's let the anticompetitive authorities -- the competition authorities at the Federal Trade Commission, what could be anticompetitive on a case-by-case basis. That's a much better way of singling out the bad apples, I think.

GLENN: Talking to the chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, about net neutrality.

Ajit, do you look at all the regulations of FDR and see how the big -- for instance, big three automakers put automakers like, you know, Auburn out of business, when they started regulating. I mean, a lot of this stuff as we're growing into a new area of technology, a lot of this stuff we can learn from the past.

Are you examining any of that?

AJIT: Oh, absolutely. In fact, the net neutrality regulations that the previous FCC adopted in 2015, were directly modeled on the rules developed in the Roosevelt administration to handle Ma Bell, the telephone monopoly.

And the argument I've made is counterintuitive to a lot of people, but I think you might appreciate it, which is that these heavy-handed rules from the 1930s, that were designed for monopolies actually benefit some of the bigger companies.

They're the ones who have the lawyers and the accountants and the lobbyists to comply with these regulations. The smaller companies don't. And so ironically enough, these heavy-handed rules that were designed for a monopoly, will end up leading the marketplace toward a monopoly. And that's the last thing we want to see. We want to see more competition, more smaller providers entering the marketplace. And heavy-handed rules are not the way to get us there.

GLENN: Seeing that you are the chairman of the FCC and so much of freedom of speech in some ways, falls under your purview, are you concerned about the direction that, you know, our colleges or our universities, even our media and our politicians, seem to be moving in, where there doesn't seem to be any tolerance for different kinds of opinions.

AJIT: Absolutely. And I just gave a speech about this yesterday, in fact, where I said, there seems to be less of a tolerance for other points of view, and that social media, ironically enough, given the name, seems to be accentuating that problem.

And I'm very disturbed about the future of free speech and expression in this country. I think the harbinger is certainly on college campuses, where you see people not only not wanting to listen to other points of view, they actively want to shut down the expression of other parts of view.

And this is the generation -- these are the people that are going to have to carry the torch for this core constitutional freedom in the years to come. And I've long said that the First Amendment is great. It's nice to have that on the parchment of the Constitution, but it also requires a culture that is willing to defend this principle that we are a pluralistic nation, that other points of view, even if repugnant to you, should be allowed to be expressed. And I do worry that our culture is becoming less and less tolerant of other points of view. And eventually it will have a serious impact, if it's not corrected.

GLENN: Ajit Pai, thank you so much. I appreciate it and appreciate your time. Chairman of the FCC.

Faith, family, and freedom—The forgotten core of conservatism

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?

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.