Ryan: Mayor Pete's last night in town

Photo by Kevin Ryan

Pete Buttigieg deadpanned the stage, barely out of view on the eve of great disaster.

For nearly a year, Buttigieg had practically lived in Iowa, as he competed with a veritable boatload of Democratic presidential candidates. Despite the outlandishly crowded field, he had risen from what the Washington Post described as "the most interesting mayor you've never heard of," to a frontrunner in the presidential race, edging his position among the seven remaining candidates.

Super Bowl Sunday. With the first-in-the-nation-vote Iowa caucuses in 28 hours, this "Get Out The Caucus" rally was Buttigieg's last pre-caucus event. Not a parking spot for ten blocks by the time Buttigieg was supposed to have appeared.

A couple thousand people inside the Roundhouse, a gymnasium that resembled an ant colony, with its spiraling dome built in 1965, situated on the campus of Abraham Lincoln High School, with its imposing Collegiate Gothic architecture, hilltopped on the south side of Des Moines, near Gray's Lake, which, on that February 2, 2020, had succumb to Iowa snow and shortened days, so the water was frozen. Not solid, not deep — only on the surface.

Inside the gymnasium, a profusion of red and yellow. Sultry, humid. People sweating. Warmed by a nagging fluorescence. And bustling. Frantic.

Abraham Lincoln High School, home of the Rail-SplittersPhoto by Kevin Ryan

Periodically, the crowd shouted "BOOT-edge-edge" to the cadence of "U-S-A." Some of their far more elaborate chants had surely been scripted.

Then, lightning shook the gymnasium in the form of Panic! at the Disco. An instrumental loop of their once-ubiquitous single "High Hopes," which you have definitely heard. And which turns out to be perfect for Buttigieg and his campaign, especially after this video went viral. The choreographed dance routine became a meme, and more videos appeared of Buttigieg-supporter flash mobs, at parks, in conference rooms, at Irish pubs.

And, just like that, Buttigieg, 38, took the stage. Behind him, a giant American flag and risers full of Pete-gear-bedecked supporters shouting "BOOT - EDGE - EDGE. BOOT - EDGE - EDGE. BOOT - EDGE - EDGE."

The floor rumbled. The bleachers and stairs and blinking scoreboards shook. It was a tribal war ceremony. A pep rally for a game that could cost us everything. Our freedom, our lives, our fast food whenever we want it.

The Maltese Chicken

In many way, Buttigieg represents the anti-Trump.

He's polite. He's intellectual. He's young. A church-going Episcopalian, a Rhodes Scholar, a veteran, a former McKinsey management consultant, a Harvard grad, a piano player. He even once accompanied Ben Folds for a performance of "Steven's Last Night in Town," a song about an enigmatic guy who's always about to leave but never does. Afterwards, Folds said, "It was a very difficult song he pulled off. I'm serious. He's a fine player."

youtu.be

He's well-spoken, decorously well-spoken. Also fluent in French, Spanish, Italian, Maltese, Arabic and Dari, a dialect of Persian that he learned while serving overseas. Oh, and Norwegian.

Like former candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard he's a veteran. He joined the Navy Reserve at 27, achieved the rank of Lieutenant, with a Joint Service Commendation medal. Then, In 2014, he took a leave as Mayor of South Bend, Indiana to serve a seven-month deployment in Afghanistan, where he worked as an intelligence officer as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

"I was packing my bags for Afghanistan while [Donald Trump] was working on Season 7 of 'The Apprentice," he said at a May 2019 rally.In his autobiography, "Shortest Way Home: One Mayor's Challenge and a Model for America's Future," he says that, during his time in Afghanistan, he was mostly "behind a sophisticated computer terminal in a secure area," although he served as a vehicle commander on convoys through Kabul 119 times.

I would heave my armored torso into the driver's seat of a Land Cruiser, chamber a round in my M4, lock the doors and wave a gloved goodbye to the Macedonian gate guard. My vehicle would cross outside the wire and into the boisterous Afghan city, entering a world infinitely more interesting and ordinary and dangerous than our zone behind the blast walls at ISAF headquarters.

Like fellow candidates Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders, and former candidate Kamala Harris, Buttigieg is a second-generation American. His father emigrated from Malta in 1979, became a naturalized American citizen, then taught as a professor. "Buttigieg" is Maltese for "lord of the poultry."

History in the Making

Two types of people at the rally — Buttigieg supporters decked in PETE 2020 gear, and journalists, strutting or looking bored. Meanwhile, I desperately fished through my backpack for my Houston Astros, failing, dropping everything, a human spill. But with a smirk, because the Astros had just been disgraced following revelations that they cheated their way to a World Series win, something about banging a trash can like it was a kettledrum.

All through Buttigieg's speech, various media chattered. With their PETE press badges stuck to their arms, they gabbed like people do at annual conferences or family reunions, indifferent to the presidential candidate 80 yards away.

Chuck Todd, host of NBC's Meet the Press, gabbed right beside us. Media pundits, anchors, columnists, all the important people, had converged on Des Moines.

It was like a journalism catwalk. It was like was Homecoming, for us, the media, the eloquent vultures who stomp around with our wings stretched as a show of dominance or a remedy to fear, compensating always.

FoxNews anchor Bret Baier strutted up the aisle, flanked by an entourage. And it looked like he'd deep-fried himself in orange baby powder. Baier lacked the ordinariness that I'd sensed when I met him in Houston at the third Democratic debate. I liked Baier, even if he did snub me when I told him I write for BlazeMedia. Now, he was a puffin of confidence, resembling some American emperor as he walked, parting the crowd.

Didn't any of these journalists want to know what Buttigieg had to say? Sure, when you cover an election, you hear a stump speech 40 times and it loses its spark. But our whole job was to comb for lice.Buttigieg asked the audience, "So, are you ready to make history one more time?"

They'd be making history, all right, far more than they expected, but not like they'd imagined. By the end of the next day, American democracy would take a pie to the face.

Youth and Inexperience

If elected president, Buttigieg would be the youngest in our nation's history, just two years over the minimum age. He got his start as Mayor of South Bend, Indiana at the age of 29. After serving two terms, he left office on Jan. 1, 2020.

In a field of seasoned, much older politicians, including a former Vice President, Buttigieg has faced relentless scrutiny for his lack of political experience — it has come up every single debate. Most recently, in a now-viral campaign ad from former vice president Joe Biden, who like Buttigieg, coincidentally, entered politics at age 29 when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history.

So much of this campaign has been about age, and not in a charming way, as when a 73-year-old Ronald Reagan responded to a question about his age by saying, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

Buttigieg has often championed the idea of "Intergenerational justice" as a means of establishing an "intergenerational alliance." Connecting the generations. During a May 2019 townhall for FoxNews, Chris Wallace asked Buttigieg about the constraints of age for a president. Here was Buttigieg's response:

youtu.be

Which even caught the attention of President Trump.

At 38, Buttigieg is technically a millennial, and the first to become a serious presidential candidate.

"We're not a generation that feels sorry for itself," Buttigieg told one journalist. "But I think when somebody says, 'Gosh, why are you guys less likely to leave the home?' It's like, well, because college is unaffordable, most of the best opportunities are in cities that are unaffordable. And we graduated into a recession. So what do you expect?"

Politics Politics Politics

Despite all the chaos in the Roundhouse as Mayor Pete chanted to the crowd, I found Justin Robert Young, host of the Politics Politics Politics podcast.

Justin and I first connected last November, after my story on Kanye West's appearance at The Joel Osteen megachurch in Houston. Then Justin had me on his podcast. Immediately, we connected.

The Buttigieg rally was the first time we'd met in person.

Justin gave intermittent commentary into his ZOOM portable recorder, the kind with dual external microphones.

In person, as on his podcast, Justin Robert Young discusses politics with the grace and off-handedness and clarity of a philosophy professor explaining Immanuel Kant. Like a surfer gliding a wave.

But then he throws in some humor. He is what you could call an outcast of the media world. Same as me. There aren't all that many of us. We work for different publications, networks, podcasts — media of every political orientation. But we take umbrage with the politics of new media, it's Trumpian snarl and disdain, it's blunt sense of apathy.

He asked me for my prediction, my "1, 2, 3, 4" on who would win Iowa.

I get asked questions like this fairly often. I don't pretend to be a political expert. But if you're at the horse races, you pick a horse, and sometimes you just go with the horse trotting the wildest and maybe it will win.

"For my number one," I said, "I'd guess Bernie. Two, Biden. Three, Warren. Four, Klobuchar."

"No Pete?" Justin asked.

"I mean, that would really surprise me."

Outside the Wire

Buttigieg is the first openly gay Democratic presidential candidate. He came out in 2015, at the age of 33, near the end of his first term as mayor, with an essay in the South Bend Tribune:

Like most people, I would like to get married one day and eventually raise a family. I hope that when my children are old enough to understand politics, they will be puzzled that someone like me revealing he is gay was ever considered to be newsworthy. By then, all the relevant laws and court decisions will be seen as steps along the path to equality. But the true compass that will have guided us there will be the basic regard and concern that we have for one another as fellow human beings — based not on categories of politics, orientation, background, status or creed, but on our shared knowledge that the greatest thing any of us has to offer is love.

Ten days later, the Supreme Court struck down all state bans on gay marriage, making same-sex marriage legal on the federal level. He married his husband, Chasten Glezman, a schoolteacher from Michigan, in 2018. The following year, he appeared on the cover of TIME Magazine, with his Chasten, and the the words "First Family."

The Atlantic said a Buttigieg presidency could "transform the relationship between gay and straight America for the better." One op-ed in the New York Times praised Buttigieg for changing America with what the author called "Mayor Pete's gay reckoning." Another, noted that" Mr. Buttigieg's ascent has made a sudden and unexpected reality of something [LGBT] donors thought was still years away, if not decades." Although the author added that the LGBT community is by no means monolithic.

Any criticisms of his gayness, or his being a white gay man, have come not from conservatives or Republicans, but from the left, from LGBT groups and openly left-leaning activism-journalists — a discord that the right has crudely exploited for their own benefit, with concern-troll schadenfreude. Because most of the writers who've criticized Buttigieg are themselves LGBT, most of the below examples. And, while they may focus far more on differences than unity, it's their prerogative.

Either way, it's complicated. All of it. For everyone. But especially for the people in the middle of the chaos.

The most cited Buttigieg hit-piece is probably the one from The Outline titled "Why Pete Buttigieg is bad for gays."

The author dislikes Buttigieg's ordinariness, his lack of overt gayness, and, finally, his status as a "democratic capitalist." The author concludes,

But it is hard to escape the way that American capitalism and American democracy have worked in tandem both to dissipate and to assimilate the radical democratic energies of queer liberation by giving a very circumscribed sort of gay a conditional membership to the club.

LGBTQ Nation responded with an article titled "Why Pete Buttigieg is good for gays," rebuking the Outline article, "That isn't an argument. That's self-hatred."

A journalist for Slate wrote

in a primary for the overwhelmingly pro-gay Democratic Party, Buttigieg can be more accurately lumped in with his white male peers than with anyone else.

Senior politics reporter for HuffPost Jennifer Bendery wrote

[H]is candidacy is already exposing tensions in the LGBTQ community between gay white men, who benefit from the economic and social privileges of being white men, and all the other queer people who don't.

Buzzfeed, "You Wanted Same-Sex Marriage? Now You Have Pete Buttigieg.

Vice, "Why Do White People Love Pete Buttigieg?"

The Root, "Pete Buttigieg is a lying MF."

The New Republic published an article in which author Dale Peck, who is also gay, referred to Buttigieg as "Mary Pete." LGBTQ Nation called the article disgusting. Within a day, New Republic editors removed it, saying that it crossed the line into "inappropriate and invasive." The removal of the article caused its own controversy.

Buttigieg addressed the negative press on "The Clay Cane Show,"

I just am what I am, and, you know, there's going to be a lot of that. That's why I can't even read the LGBT media anymore because it's all, 'he's too gay, not gay enough, wrong kind of gay. All I know is that life became a lot easier when I just started allowing myself to be myself and I'll let other people write up whether I'm 'too this' or 'too that'.

Negotiating

Outside, among the snow of things and the ice-veiled football field, a vendor wearing a Los Angeles Lakers beanie sold Buttigieg t-shirts and hats, prowling behind two poker tables.

Photo by Kevin Ryan

"Buttigieg gave quite a speech," I said to Justin. "But it was so neat and tidy."

"Nice, is the word," he replied. "What we saw was a coordinated effort to be the nice guy."

"That's not so bad."

Buttigieg has repeatedly championed the importance of dialogue between the left and the right. Which would involve broadening the information we consume. Twitter, obviously, perpetuates echo-chamber tribalism. But the news media are guilty of ideological biases also, so it's a matter of media literacy, what Buttigieg calls "correcting our media diet." He was the first Democratic candidate to appear on FoxNews. He'll negotiate, not above criticizing his own.

"I also think sometimes there's a sense of condescension coming from our party," he told Bill Maher. "I think a lot of people perceive that we're looking down on them." Which can lead to radicalization. A loss in the sense of belonging.

After graduate school, I happen to have wound up at a conservative news site, but I could just as easily work at a left-leaning or mostly-center outlet. I will, at some point. I hope. Because I'm a journalist, not a politician or an activist. And it's time to make the border between left and right more porous. Especially in the media. Both sides are to blame.

Truth

Later, Justin and I drank cheap beer and watched the Super Bowl at Beechwood Lounge in Des Moines' Historic East Village, with its boutiques and microbrews and pedestrians. Hell of a place to watch the Super Bowl. That long narrow room, steep, a revamped house of some kind. Low lighting. No frill from the bartenders, just abrupt conversation so you know they meant what they said. Home to fashionable outcasts, such as ourselves. The less militant kind with their passion and their certitude, the profound disquiet, a disgust with the status quo.

Photo by Kevin Ryan

Toward the end of the night Justin raised his finger, squinted his left eye, and said, "For your series. You should find a universal truth. Something everyone knows but hasn't said or can't express. Give them a universal truth."

On the flight to Des Moines, I read Forrest Gander's Pulitzer-prize-winning poetry collection "Be With." All, week I kept thinking about one line. A seeming non sequitur. A sentence fragment. "Intuition of the infinite."

Is that truth? When we discover truth, are we grasping something infinite? A constant strain. Reaching for feathers as they float through the breeze. Chasing a rabbit near a busy road and all you want to do is save a creature but it's just too fast and now the danger has spread. Still, in the words of Robert Browning, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"

Our era had already resigned itself to a life of mistruth, the Age of Fake News Supreme. We know the chaos of doubting whether something is the truth or a lie. A pattern that seems to worsen each day. So it has become harder than ever to apply a universal truth to hundreds of millions of people. But I would do it.

"You're going to see some ads saying there's only two ways to go," Buttigieg had said earlier that day at the rally. "Either you're for a revolution or you're for the status quo. But the good news for Americans today is we have a historic majority ready not only to rally around what we're against to get a better president, but to come together in the name of what we are for as a country."

During an appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Dr. Phil perfectly described how this is possible.

"Why do you think that nobody can talk to each other anymore," asked Colbert.

"You know, to tell you the truth, I don't think anybody's trying to get along right now," said Dr. Phil. "Everybody is pissed off and it's like they don't want to get along. If I'm negotiating with somebody — if I'm negotiating with you, the first thing I'm going to do is figure out how to get you the most of what you want I possibly can."

Colbert recoiled. "Is negotiating all about winning?" he asked.

"Certainly you want to win," said Dr. Phil, "but you gotta define 'win'. If 'win' is all one-sided, that's not gonna last very long. If you and I make a deal and I say, 'Okay, here's the deal, you do all the work and I'm gonna get all the money,' I might talk you into that today, but three-four days later you're gonna go, 'Excuse me, can we — kiss my ass, I'm not doing that anymore. Nobody's gonna go along with that, you've gotta have a sense of saying, 'All right, let's start by saying, what do we agree on?"

"Okay, that's it," replied Colbert. "What do we agree on? Because it seems like, right now, during the campaign and right now, too, people are having trouble agreeing on reality. People are having trouble agreeing on what is a fact, what is an alternative fact … Why is this happening, Dr. Phil?"

"Any time there's a dispute, the first thing I do is say, 'Okay, let's figure out what it is we agree on, because we might agree on more than we think, and then we can have these things over to the side that we disagree on.'"

He added, "So. What do we agree on? Everybody agrees that we're all Americans, that we all enjoy the freedoms that we want, we all want to be safe — everybody agrees with those things, right? If you say, 'What do we not agree on' — okay, now we're talking about the disagreements, but we at least have some common ground. Nobody's talking about that."

New stories come out every Monday and Thursday. The next few will take you through the chaos of the Iowa caucuses. Check out my Twitter. Send all notes, tips, corrections to kryan@blazemedia.com

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

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatism as stewardship

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

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

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

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

Rebuilding what is broken

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

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

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

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

A creed for the rising generation

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

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

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

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

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global reality.

And moral reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our faith is almost gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we open the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not in nostalgia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A conservative in 2025, '26.

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

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

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

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

And one can't be stronger than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

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

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

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.