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

John Ziegler's Crazy Prediction Comes True (Sort Of): Bush 41 Will Vote for Clinton

September 22, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

John Ziegler with Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on Glenn's radio program last week, suggesting that George W. Bush might endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Three or four days later his prediction came true --- sort of. Another George Bush --- George Bush 41 --- said he was voting for Hillary. 

"Does this count, John?" Glenn asked.

"I'll take it, Glenn. One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition," Ziegler joked.

Standing by his intial prediction, Ziegler said George Bush 43 could still cast his vote for the Democratic nominee.

"If this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president," Ziegler clarified.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these bi-partisan questions:

• What would make Trump winning the White House an unprecedented situation?

• What favor might Bill Clinton ask of his brother from another mother?

• Is Barbara Bush voting for Trump?

• How much would TheBlaze pay for a pay-per-view interview with Babs?

• What did George W. Bush tell Glenn in the Oval Office?

• What one question could Lester Holt ask at the debate to sink Hillary?

• What's with American blue bloods?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN:  John Ziegler from Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on this program last week, and he suggested that George W. Bush might end up endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.  Three or four days after he made that prediction, George Bush 41 said that he was voting for Hillary.  We wanted to get him back on the phone.  

Does this count, John?

JOHN:  I'll take it, Glenn.  One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition.  

I -- just to clarify, my theory when you had me on last week was, look, if this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president.

GLENN:  But who does that -- who do you think that actually helps?  Because you will immediately hear -- a lot of people, even me -- I mean, I'm not a fan of George W. Bush and his policies, you know, with prescription drugs and the border and everything else.  He was not the right guy for many things.  Constitutionally, the Patriot Act.  So does this work for or against?

JOHN:  Well, let's pretend it happens.  

And, by the way, you know, as interesting as 41's vote for Hillary would be, how much would TheBlaze pay for the pay-per-view rights on the Barbara Bush interview on why she's not voting for Trump?  That's what I really want to see.  That's a 29.99 deal right there.  I want to see Barbara Bush's interview because I think she would be the one to tell it like it really is.

GLENN:  Right.  Right.  Yes.

JOHN:  But if this were to happen -- if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, but it's just the beginning -- and if George W. Bush really is willing to grab a bat at the bottom of the ninth inning with the score tied, and Bill Clinton calls him up and says, "Hey, I'm not sure we can get this runner home.  We need your help, George" -- if that happens, you know, from his brother from another mother, then I think it would have an impact.

Now, would it be a complete game-ender?  No.  But the reality, Glenn, is you would then have an unprecedented situation.  You would have a situation where a guy who has never held elected office, never won a major war, and would have every living president from both parties anti-endorsing him.  I'm talking about obviously Donald Trump here.

Now, we live in an era where the establishment is not seen very highly, especially on the Republican side.  But there are still enough furious people out there of both parties, I think, where that would make a difference.

Like, for instance, how he would win -- how Trump would win North Carolina if George Bush did that, I have no idea.  There's a lot of very educated moderates in North Carolina, and I just don't see how he could win that.  I think it would also impact New Hampshire, Maine, where the Bushes are still very well respected

GLENN:  Yeah, well, if he loses the Carolinas or New Hampshire, he's pretty much done.  Is that still true, Stu?

STU:  Yeah.  Carolina, for sure.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STU:  And, by the way, one path to make Trump win North Carolina is have Black Lives Matter burn the cities down in it.

GLENN:  Yes, that is.

STU:  Because you want to see people push back against something, they'll do it there.  

JOHN:  You know, that's an interesting theory, and I've heard people say that.  And it might be true.  

Having lived in North Carolina though, I view North Carolina no longer as a Southern state.  I think North Carolina is very wussified.  I think the white people in North Carolina are as likely to say, "Oh, my gosh, we've got to help this Black Lives Matter thing," than they are to say, "Wow, this is repulsive.  We've got to rush to Donald Trump."  That's just my gut feeling, having lived there.

STU:  Hmm.

GLENN:  So let me go here:  We were talking about George Bush doing this.  And we've pretty much come to the conclusion -- I mean, I sat with Donald Trump -- or, not Donald Trump.  George Bush.  

Do you know George by any chance, John?

JOHN:  I don't.  But my marriage is intact because I somehow got George W. Bush to take a picture with my wife and I backstage at The Tonight Show a couple years ago.  And my wife is a huge fan.  But I do not know the Bushes, no.

GLENN:  Okay.  Okay.  So I don't really either.  But I happened to be in the Oval once where George Bush was in kind of a testy mood towards people who didn't necessarily like him.  And so I had finger pointed in my chest several times.

And he is -- he's rock solid on a few things.  For instance, I made the point off the air that -- that George Bush said to me, "I don't care if I'm the most hated man in the next 50 years, I'm prepared for that because I know this is right."

JOHN:  Right.

GLENN:  However, that being said, that was about terrorism and not about politics.  The other thing that can be said about George Bush is he is G.O.P. through and through.  How would George Bush do that and throw the party and Reince and everybody else completely under the bus?

JOHN:  Well, his father apparently already is willing to do that.

GLENN:  So you don't buy that this was a Kennedy that was having a private conversation and George H.W. Bush had no intent that that was supposed to get out?

JOHN:  That's quite possible.  But the reality is, there were a lot of people there, and, you know, the Bush team did not deny it.  It's also -- I mean, you know how these blue bloods work.  I mean, that would be a great betrayal if there was not at least some understanding that it was okay for this to get out.  But it's the Kennedys.  So who the heck knows?

So, look, I'm not pretending that -- I do not believe this is going to happen because I don't think it's going to be that close in the closing days.  But I do believe that George W. Bush, to your point, Glenn, is a guy who cares more about the country than he cares about his own personal self-interest or reputation.

GLENN:  Yeah.

JOHN:  And oddly enough, I think the thing that would keep him from doing it is he probably has so much class that he would be -- he doesn't want to be perceived as doing this as revenge for his brother Jeb, or something along those lines.

GLENN:  Yes, yes.

JOHN:  I mean, that's where we are in this country.  As you well know, when an act of courage and principle is ridiculed as somehow not being that because people want to rationalize it in whatever way they can.  And, of course, the Trump fans are, you know, black belts in rationalization.

GLENN:  Well, quite honestly, both sides are.  I mean, Barack Obama supporters --

JOHN:  Oh, absolutely they are.  But I used to think that our side was better, Glenn.

GLENN:  Yes, I did too.

JOHN:  I really did.  But you want to see rationalization, wait till White House spokesperson sean Hannity on a Friday night announces that, "Oh, by the way, the wall isn't going to happen," and the Trumpsters will rationalize that somehow that was a great idea too.  So we're not living in a world where rationality makes any sense anymore.  Has any value.  The facts don't matter.

But, look, so my whole point on this thing is, I think the Bush family cares about the institution of the presidency.  I think they care about the country.  And I think that they know that Donald Trump has no business being president of the United States, regardless of what the other alternative is, when -- as liberal as she is, as horrible as she is, as corrupt as she is, as much of a liar as she is, at least she seems relatively qualified for the position from a traditional standpoint.  And I think that that's where the Bushes are coming from.  And I don't think that's illogical and I don't think that that's a situation where they're trying to pursue their own self-interests or get revenge for Jeb getting crushed in the primaries by this buffoon Donald Trump.

GLENN:  Last question:  You wrote in Mediaite the other day that you thought Condi Rice and Dick Cheney will start to come out.

JOHN:  Well, no.  Dick Cheney won't because his daughter obviously is running.  And he's got his hands tied.  I think that if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, I think we will see Condoleezza Rice take a shot at Donald Trump's lack of foreign policy, jobs.  And I'd love to see that.

By the way, since this is the last question, let me throw out another quirky prediction for you.

GLENN:  Go ahead.

JOHN:  I think that Trump's big chance on Monday and the worse thing that could happen for Hillary is if Lester Holt decides to ask the Colin Kaepernick question.  I think that is potentially deadly on Monday for Hillary Clinton because that is one area where her hands are completely tied, and Donald Trump can hit a grand slam/home run on an issue that I believe the vast majority of the American people are on his side and not on hers.  But she can't do anything about it because of the racial politics involved.

GLENN:  How should she answer that?

JOHN:  There's no good answer.  She's got to give the greatest "I love free speech" answer in the history of the world, and I don't think she's capable of that.

GLENN:  Yeah.  No, we were just talking about this.  This could be game-changing for Donald Trump.  She better have a different strategy if she wants to win than the 17 Republicans that didn't want to hit him.  And I don't know if she's capable of hitting him without looking horrible.

She's so horrible, that I don't know how she does it.  However, I don't know how he hits her without looking like a big man beating up on an old lady.

JOHN:  Well, if I was advising her, I would have one-liners.  And I would -- by the way, if he decides to be presidential, I would hit him with, "It's interesting to see that you've decided to be low energy today, Donald."  You know, go -- basically use some of his own medicine against him to provoke him into being unpresidential, which I think would probably be a tactic that would work.  

But I don't believe that we're a substantive people anymore.  I think substantively, she will win the debate, but it's always about style points in this day and age.  And so who the heck knows.  

I do think the media will protect her from a disaster.  But overall, she'll probably win the debate.  And I don't think it's -- but it probably won't matter very much because very few people are in a situation where they want to change their minds at this point anyway.

GLENN:  John, thank you very much.  Talk to you again.  

JOHN:  Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN:  God bless.  You bet.  

John Ziegler.  

I think he's fantastic.  What an interesting mind he has.  

Featured Image: Advanced copies of '41: A Portrait of My Father,' by Former U.S. President George W. Bush, are stacked in the George Bush Presidential Library Center on the Texas A&M University campus on November 11, 2014 in College Station, TX. Bush gave a talk about the book moderated by former White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., who also served as Secretary of Transportation for U.S. President George H.W. Bush. (Photo by Drew Anthony Smith/Getty Images)

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.