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

'This guy is lying to you': Glenn breaks down the case against Grover Norquist

March 28, 2015
Staff

WRITER

GLENN: So let me make this case for you. And I think this is the most important part of this whole interview with Grover Norquist last night. You want to know who Grover Norquist is? He will tell you that he is a guy who is fighting the bad guys in the Middle East. He started the Islamic Institute. He took two checks of $10,000 each from Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi. A guy who [was sentenced to] prison for 23 years. His sentence has just been reduced to 16 years by the Obama administration.

STU: Oh, that's nice.

GLENN: Yes. Al-Amoudi's number two man is Khaled Saffuri. When Al-Amoudi is known as a guy who is going to jail, Grover Norquist says he distances himself from it. But the number two man for Al-Amoudi is Saffuri. Grover brings him in as the co-founder of the Islamic Institute. Okay?

Doesn't make sense to me. I think you should probably ask a few questions. Now, Grover says, he didn't like Al-Amoudi because Saffuri had told him he was an old-style Muslim. If you remember at the beginning of the interview, he was saying that the problem was the old-style Muslim. So why would you take money from an old-style Muslim? Why would you take a loan from a guy who was an old-style Muslim, who also started many of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups here in the United States? Why would you be involved with him at all, if Saffuri told you that's who he was? Then he gets involved with Sami Al-Arian. He claims, 'I barely knew him. Maybe I sneezed in the same room he was in, but I didn't even know him.'

Then Jamal al Barzinji. Jamal is the father of the Muslim Brotherhood U.S. He is the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood U.S.

Grover Norquist marches him in to the Treasury Secretary's office arm-in-arm saying we have to stop the secret evidence trail. When they were looking to shut down Muslim Brotherhood financing and terror financing and money laundering here in the United States, it was Grover Norquist and Jamal al Barzinji that walked into the Treasury Secretary and demanded that it stop.

Now, last night, he tried to say, 'well, it didn't prove any fruit. There was nobody that was indicted.'

The guy he mentioned that didn't come up with anything, we have the draft subpoena. I think it's 116 charges of money laundering and terror financing. It was the Justice Department under -- who is our current Justice Department guy? Head of the FBI, Holder. It was Holder's office that called it off. So they had the charges ready to go, and Holder called it off. So that doesn't hold any water.

But what did Barzinji do? Well, he also started Muslim Brotherhood front groups or his name is on the roster. He's part of Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Then we got to Suhail Khan. Now, Suhail Khan has worked with the White House. This guy is fully laundered. This is the Van Jones of the Muslim Brotherhood. Everybody trusts Suhail Khan.

Last night I asked him, are you friends with Suhail Khan? Are you friends with him? I'll play his answers in a little while. His answer is stunning. I guess. It's my understanding that he and Suhail Khan are very close. Very close. That these two are joined at the hip. That they are very good friends.

He answered the question, 'I guess.' So wait a minute. What does that mean. Is he a friend? 'Well, he's a friend as much as anybody has a friend in Washington.' What does that mean? So he's not a friend? 'Well, I have a lot of friends in Washington. 150 people in my office every Wednesday, you know, that I have meetings with and I guess they're all friends too.'

So he's distancing himself from Suhail Khan. Why would you do that? If you think this guy is absolutely clean and you are indeed a friend.

Stu, if somebody came to you and said, are you friends with Glenn Beck? 'Yes.'

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Really close friends? 'Yeah, I guess. We've been together for a long time. Know each other really well.; Why? If they smeared all your other friends, I would hope you would say, 'look, I know Glenn. What charges are you making here, he's a good guy.' Right?

He didn't say that. He never said that.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. 'Yes, I'm friends.' That's not a hard question to answer, okay? Especially a guy who has been clean and clear for everybody. He's got the full weight of the White House behind him saying Suhail Khan is a great guy.

STU: You would be proud. You're tying someone who is a good guy to yourself.

GLENN: For instance, he said about al Barzinji, he said, 'what charges are you making against him? He's a good guy.' And I said, 'he was the founding father of the American Muslim Brotherhood. I think that is enough said.' 'Well, I don't think so.'

Okay, so he stands for the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group he says at the very beginning is a bad group.

STU: Yep. Should be opposed.

GLENN: So he should be opposed. But he won't do that with Suhail Khan. He doesn't see my line of questioning. I think he thought I was going for another line of questioning with Suhail Khan. But here was my line of questioning. Remember, you're starting the anti-Klan thing. You're looking for people that can help you get people away from the Klan.

Suhail Khan's parents were Muslim Brotherhood, bad Muslim Brotherhood. They're friends with Al-Amoudi, a guy who is serving a prison sentence. They actually were involved in getting al-Zawahiri in to the United States covertly in the 1990s. Okay? So he could observe. That's the number two al-Qaeda guy under Osama bin Laden and then the number one guy after Osama bin Laden's death. So a really bad guy. They help him get into the United States covertly.

Then a few weeks or a few months before the World Trade Center bombing, they have a dinner with the Blind Sheik. So are there parents that are more Muslim Brotherhood than Suhail Khan's parents?

STU: That's pretty hardcore.

GLENN: If these things are contract accurate, that's the hardest core of hardest core. So here's what I asked. 'So you're friends with him. Have you had a beer with him and just shot the breeze?' 'Well, yeah.'

'Have you asked him, what was it like growing up in a household like that? What was it like to have your parents bring in the blind sheik, friends with Al-Amoudi, al-Zawahiri, what was that like?' 'No, I didn't ask that.' Play cut 11.

GLENN: Have you ever said to him, so Suhail, your folks were -- were pretty intense? I mean, your folks were Muslim Brotherhood, your folks just before the World Trade Center bombing had the blind sheik over to the house. What was that like?

GLENN: Listen to this.

GROVER: His dad has been dead for 15 years. Twenty years or something. So I've never discussed his dead father with him. I've heard -- again, I've heard the accusation.

GLENN: I've heard the accusation. I didn't talk to his father, who has been dead for 15 or 20 years, he says. Fifteen or 20 years. Well, I think the pain - it's not like he died last Wednesday. He's been dead for 15 or 20 years. Stu, you're running it. I have the guy whose parents were both grand wizards of the Klan, okay? They brought in the worst of the worst. They made the ropes and picked out the trees. They had David Duke over for dinner. He's out.

Two-part question. The son is out. He is against the Klan now. You're running an anti-Klan thing. Do you say, 'you know, I hate to bring this up because I know your dad is dead and it must have been horrible, but this can really help us, you're a massive asset, how did you get out?' Do you say that?

STU: Not only do I say it, it's the most interesting thing about you. It's literally priority number one to talk to someone like that. This is what my organization is designed to do.

JEFFY: On top of the fact, why do you have to ask that?

GLENN: That's question number two! Can I ask you -- have you ever met David Horowitz?

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: David Horowitz parents were the worst of the worst. They were communist sympathizers. They were part of the undoing of the US during the red scare and everything else. They were spies. You can't shut David Horowitz up. You're like, can we talk about something else besides -- okay. If your parents were Muslim Brotherhood Al-Amoudi, Blind Sheik, al-Zawahiri, and you're now in the White House, you would be the biggest -- people around you would be like, 'please shut up. I get it.' You would be the number one guy ringing the warning bell. They've never discussed it. He is lying.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you would convict on this if you were sitting in a court that makes no sense whatsoever.

STU: I mean, it just makes sense. Here is an example of the exact thing you want. Someone with radical parents to turn around against those organizations. You have that person in front of you as a good friend on a routine basis, and it never comes over a ten-year --

GLENN: Fifteen-year time span. It makes no sense whatsoever. You've never discussed that. Makes no sense.

Now, my question to you is, you didn't accept any of this from the Obama administration. Now, this guy agrees with you on much of the stuff. He agrees with you, lower taxes. He's helping people get elected and everything else. He's on your side. Do you accept it now or are you consistent? Do you have the balls to have the courage of your conviction and say, yes, this might hurt in the short-term, but this guy needs to be out of CPAC. This guy needs to be out of the G.O.P. Who is he meeting with every Wednesday in his Wednesday meeting of 150 Republicans every single Wednesday.

Who is he meeting? What is he saying? Where is he getting his funding from? Who else has he white-washed and put into places that God knows Muslim Brotherhood should not be in?

This guy is lying to you.

STU: And what's important about this is, when we all look at the Republican Party and people working in those circles in Washington and we wonder why over and over and over again we -- we're able to win elections and not get the results that we want, we're able to put -- we have so many people saying the right things, but never doing the right things. Why does this continue to happen? This very well could be the string at the end of this --

GLENN: It is. I'm telling you this leads to Karl Rove. This leads to all of them. You want to know why we played footsy in the Middle East? You want to know why we have the Muslim Brotherhood in this White House and the last White House? Here it is, gang. Now, do you have the courage to look at it. Do you have the courage to stand? He's on the board of the NRA. He was with CPAC. I'll give you the list of all the boards that he was on. I don't have the list right now.

You tell me you think this guy is a good person to have around. He's not. He's not. And I will just say this, I don't know his motivation. I'm not saying he's trying to destroy the United States. My guess is he likes power and money. That's it. There's a lot of money in the Middle East, all you have to do is play footsie. And we'll be fine. And stop being so panicky and little girl. That's what's happening. He's choosing to turn a blind eye. I don't think he's Muslim. I'll just tell you this, his answers make no sense. None.

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.