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

Texas AG Ken Paxton: We Were on the Verge of Losing our Constitutional Government

November 18, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Texas has anywhere between 40-45 lawsuits ongoing against the federal government on any given day. Several of those lawsuits have been won and many could become a moot point with the new administration coming into office in January 2017. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stopped by The Glenn Beck Program to explain how he believes we were on the verge of losing our constitutional form of government, as well as share good news on the topics of amnesty and global warming.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these lawful questions:

• How close were we to losing the separation of powers in Washington, D.C.?

• Why were federal administrative agencies allowed to make 25 times more laws than Congress?

• What was Obama's worst legal defeat in eight years?

• Is Ken Paxton personally responsible for FanDuel leaving Texas?

• Is Ken Paxton for or against Article V and a Convention of States?

Listen to these segments from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Attorney general of the great state of Texas, Ken Paxton, a guy who last I saw -- I think we were in 20 different lawsuits against the federal government, were we not?

KEN: Well, the state of Texas has over 40 -- probably around 45. I've sued them about 15 times in about a year and eight months. So it's hard to almost keep track of how many exactly on a given day we have, but it's a lot.

GLENN: Feel free not to answer this, either way -- you know, either way, but was there ever any serious talk at higher levels -- I'm not saying your level or the governor's level, but at higher levels, did you ever hear any serious talk about, there may come a day where we do need to secede?

KEN: So, you know, it's interesting. You hear Californians talk about that now.

GLENN: Right. Oregon too.

JEFFY: Oregon.

KEN: Certainly when I was out campaigning for attorney general, there were people -- there was a secessionist movement. There were people --

GLENN: Oh, but that's Texas. There's always Texans who are like, "What are we part of this Union for?"

KEN: Sure. You're right about that.

GLENN: Right.

(laughter)

KEN: No. Governor Perry made mention of it one time and got a lot of coverage for it. But beyond that, not much --

GLENN: We were trying to get our gold back at one point. Did we ever get that back?

KEN: I think we were trying to do some bank that had our gold. Yeah, I don't think it's ever happened.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. What a surprise there.

Okay. So tell us the good news. Because you promised me good news.

KEN: So the good news is -- I mean, we were literally on the verge of losing our constitutional form of government, I believe. The separation of powers. The transfer of power from Congress to the courts were going from the administration to all these agencies. He would just issue law, and it would be put through -- instead of going through our representative form of government -- and then Congress would fund it. So we were filing lawsuits, and we were successful in many of these lawsuits in getting preliminary injunctions, which means we stop it for a while. Stays, which means we stop it for a while.

So we stopped, for instance, the amnesty program that Obama tried to put in place at the end of 2014. It was his worst legal defeat in eight years because it slowed everything down. It stopped him from implementing. But the truth was, some of those were really Hail Marys with no receivers out in the coverage. Because if we had lost this election and Hillary had appointed another liberal judge, I'm not convinced that we would have lost many of our freedoms and also this separation of powers. In all these cases where we're trying to control this overreach by the federal government and an out-of-control executive, I think we've had the chance of losing --

GLENN: Tell me how do we -- because I haven't heard anybody talk about this. Right now, the left -- George Soros has called together a convention of the Democrats and the lefties. And basically has said, "How do we stop them from making and reversing all the things that we've done? And how do we get back into power?" Let's just say that Donald Trump is a great president and has eight years, how do we stop this back and forth? Because then what they'll do is then they'll come in and reverse everything that you've done.

KEN: Yeah, I agree. That's a great question.

GLENN: How do we do this?

KEN: So, one, Trump has to immediately rescind these executive actions. That's the first --

GLENN: He said he would do that on day one.

KEN: Right. And that gets rid of our Title 9 issue, the transgendered bathroom issue, that gets rid of the illegal immigration issue that Obama put through. But there's still all these rules that are in place through all these agencies. They have to go back and undo those or at least not defend the lawsuits that they're in.

And then Congress -- this is going to all come back to Congress. They need to pass laws that box in these agencies so that if we end up back with another Democratic president and more liberal courts, they're at least boxed in by the language, the statutes.

GLENN: Right. The law needs to be that the agency can work within it. But if you're doing a regulation, the regulation has to come from Congress.

KEN: Absolutely. So we had, in 2014, 3200 pages of laws passed by Congress. Do you have any idea what the administrative agencies -- that's over 80,000 pages. That's like 25 times more laws from the agencies. That can't keep happening.

GLENN: Did you see TARP? Or, not TARP. The stimulus package when it came out. Did you see the actual printed stimulus?

KEN: I actually did.

GLENN: I did. And didn't it happen, Pat, right before inauguration? It was out already. Or right after. It was within weeks of him getting into the office.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And we printed it out. And it was huge. And it was sitting on my kitchen table. And we were all taking pieces of it and reading it. And I said, "This isn't six months of work. This has been in the works forever."

And what they have done -- what we have watched them do has been monumental. God only knows, with a brain like Cass Sunstein, what levers they have pulled, that we don't even know they've pulled.

KEN: No. I think you're absolutely right. And you're right. There's no way they developed that in just --

GLENN: No. Years. Years.

KEN: This was designed, setup -- yeah, and they got power and they just did it. Because we have all three branches of government, the Republicans -- there's an opportunity here to at least put the law -- narrow in what all these agencies can do.

GLENN: Will they do it? You and I both know, there's one thing -- there's one thing that was universal in Washington, DC, at least I believe, when Donald Trump won. And that was, because they held on to power. It wasn't about -- for a lot of people in Washington, it was about the Constitution. But I think even more, it was about power. They will do whatever they have to, to hold on to power.

KEN: Yeah. And I just had a meeting with all the Republican AG's in Texas. I hosted an event. And that is -- that was our focus. We are going to continue -- you know, we've been suing the federal government in groups, en masse. Some of these lawsuits have been in 27 states, 25 states, 21 states. We just had one this week that we argued on overtime, where they made up these new overtime rules that are massively going to affect business. We had 21 states in that.

But our message to Congress is, "Please, for the future of our country, go in and reign in these agencies." Because they're basically taking over the legislative branch of government. And for all effects and purposes, even the courts -- because the courts were giving them deference. They weren't even reviewing what these agencies were doing, as much as what Congress did. So we were -- fundamentally losing one of the most important part of our Constitution, which was this idea of separation of powers. Because, ultimately, the Founders, as you know, did not trust power in the hands of too few people. And if they let that go and they don't fix it now, we will get it -- we were that close to losing it. And that's what I think we need to prevent.

GLENN: So what -- what happens to all of the lawsuits now? Can they just be dropped?

KEN: It depends. So the ones that were done by -- so it's so interesting that Obama did a lot of them by executive order, which is very easy to do because he doesn't have to use Congress at all. Those are the easy one to get rid of. Because now Trump can go back and undo them the same way. So hopefully those just go away. The ones that were put through by agencies, through the Administrative Procedures Act, where they actually passed final rules. Went through a comment period and all that, the agency is going to have to come back and undo that. Or the Trump administration can stop defending those lawsuits. I mean, just say, "We're not defending them anymore." And we'll win.

And then the third is like Obamacare. We have our own Obamacare lawsuit. Because in this process, they created new taxes for all the states, which is not in statutes, costing Texas 120 million a year. So it's costing every state millions of dollars. Not in any statute. We're going to have to go back and have Congress undo statutory changes like that. But there were very few statutory changes made. It was all through agencies.

GLENN: When they say we're going to repeal and replace, I've hated that from the beginning because I want the free market to replace. But Donald Trump is -- and so are the G.O.P., they're still doing -- they want the 26 years old and you're still a kid. And you can't turn away somebody for preexisting conditions. So the government is still going to be involved in there. But it's my understanding that they can't just shut it all down now. It's in and it's never really going away.

KEN: Well, I hope that's not true. I think they can over time shut it down. It's obviously not something they're going to shut down in one day. But they need to pass provisions that wean people off of what we have and go to what you're talking about, which is we need to break down barriers across state lines so that we can have competition. We need to do tort reform, like we've done in Texas, which has driven down medical costs in Texas because we don't have these outlandish lawsuits. And we need to have a complete free market reform. Because there is no perfect system. But by far, the best one we have is free market. Nothing --

GLENN: If you were on the other side, what would you be doing right now?

KEN: If I was on the --

GLENN: If you were on the progressive side -- I don't even want to say Democrat. If you were on the progressive, let's destroy the Constitution, and have this an administrative state, what would you be doing?

KEN: Do I have to tell them that?

GLENN: What should we be watching for?

KEN: You know, I would say the key is watching to see if they slow Congress down from making some of these -- Congress doesn't have to do a whole lot to fix this. They can literally just put bounds around what was happening. Because fundamentally Congress was losing all authority.

GLENN: Do you hear anybody in Washington, writing that, talking about that, knowing that, spearheading that?

KEN: I don't know anybody specifically, but they're certainly going to hear from many of the AG's from across the country. Because that's what's we've been fighting for eight years.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: I have one important question I must ask.

JEFFY: I saw this one coming.

STU: This was definitely coming. I want to go to my fancy phone right now, and I want to go and go to my FanDuel app. And I want to enter my FanDuel contest. But when I do that, it tells me I cannot enter in Texas, of all places. The place of freedom --

GLENN: You know what, he would like to do that, and he would like to do that in the Tesla that I can't buy in Texas.

KEN: Sure.

GLENN: Because of the laws in Texas.

STU: Are we getting this stuff cleared up, or what?

KEN: So FanDuel chose to leave Texas. They made a choice based on state law. They were not forced to leave Texas. They chose to leave Texas --

STU: Because they want to be on the right side of you. Right?

KEN: Right. No, not of me.

STU: Not of you. But they want to be on the right side of the government. So they're trying to be as cautious as possible.

KEN: In Texas, you can have a fantasy football league. And you can also have betting in that fantasy football league. But the law is very clear that a third party can't take a cut of that. So that's just Texas law.

my job was to issue an opinion. I was asked, "What's the law in Texas?" And I told them what the law was. None of that is my personal opinion. I write opinions every day that I agree with and don't agree with.

GLENN: So what he's saying is we shouldn't kill him, Stu.

KEN: That's right. Another day.

No. That's up to the Texas legislature. Current law is what it is. And many states have similar laws. So it's not like fantasy sports are outlawed. It's just that you can't have a third party taking a cut.

STU: Okay. So we need to pressure the legislature to change that, and then we can --

KEN: Right. Or just have your own league, where you put your own money in.

GLENN: Are you for Article V? The Convention of States?

KEN: You know what, I'm very open to that. The one challenge though is -- the one challenge I've always wondered about is, if we're not following the Constitution now, what does changing the Constitution -- I mean, how does that fix that? That's my fundamental issue with it. Otherwise, I like it --

GLENN: We would at least be clear on it.

KEN: Look, I love the idea -- I love the balanced budget ideas. I love almost every idea. What I can't figure out is, if you get a president like President Obama who doesn't care about the Constitution, who ignores it anyway, does fixing -- adding some clarity in a certain spot, does that change the fact that he's going to ignore it? We have to have people in office that are going to follow what you write, right? And if they're not going to, how does changing that fix that?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Can we go back to what Glenn brought up? I think we're all stunned that Texas, as free as it is here, doesn't allow a free standing car dealership. How is that possible? How can Tesla not be able to come here and not have their own dealership?

[break]

GLENN: Talking to Ken Paxton. He's the attorney general for the great state of Texas. A really good, straight-shooting guy. And I will tell you, it was people like you that made me want to move to Texas. Because I feel that our state is in good hands and we at least abide by the Constitution.

KEN: We want people like you to move to Texas. So we're happy you're here.

GLENN: Good. So can we talk about building the wall on the northern border? It's time to stop all this riffraff from coming in, you know what I mean? Got to keep those New Yorkers and Californians out of here.

KEN: I'm kind of with you.

PAT: So on Tesla. Back to Tesla now.

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: This is really a hot topic for the two of us. We can't believe we live in Texas of all places, and you can't cowboy enough to say, "I want to open up a dealership for Tesla."

KEN: You've got the legislative process to get through.

PAT: It really is illegal to have a free-standing car dealership? How is that --

KEN: So my understanding -- I'm not an expert on this issue.

PAT: Okay.

KEN: My understanding, the manufacturer can't directly sell to the consumer in Texas. I think that's similar to a lot of other states. If people want that -- if they want that changed, the process is set up for the legislature to make the change. But it has to go through --

GLENN: But that was really put -- that was a favor at some point done for the dealerships.

PAT: Yeah. Some massive dealership lobby.

GLENN: Yeah, some massive -- yeah, that came in and said, "Hey, let's make sure that nobody can come in."

PAT: That's crazy.

GLENN: Yeah, it's really foolish.

PAT: Crazy.

STU: In Texas.

PAT: I mean, why?

KEN: But it's around -- it's been around for --

GLENN: Does that make it right, Ken?

KEN: No, I'm not saying it does. No, it's not. I'm just telling you it's been around for a long time. And there is a process --

GLENN: So has cancer.

KEN: Exactly. I'm not disagreeing with cancer.

GLENN: Boils have been around for a very long -- scurvy was with the pirates.

STU: But do you get that a lot though because, you know, I think this is going to happen with Trump too. People are going to be tempted to use all the crazy things that Democrats have done for the past eight years.

GLENN: Just to fix it with a pen.

STU: Do you get that a lot? Do you get people --

KEN: A lot of people want me to do things that is not within my constitutional authority to do because they want me to go fix something. And even though I agree with the topic, I -- it's not my job to fix certain things. My job is to represent the state of Texas in legal actions and to defend the Constitution.

GLENN: That's what -- it, you know, bothered me when I saw that 26 percent of everybody who voted on this last election wanted a strongman. That scared me. We don't want a strongman.

KEN: We had one of those. And he's leaving office.

GLENN: Yeah, we want a strong constitutional viewpoint. We want a strong balance of power.

KEN: We want a strong leader, but we want a strong leader that believes in the separation of powers and does his job in that role. Nothing more, nothing less.

GLENN: How concerned -- how concerned were you with the way the Department of Justice and Comey and everybody else handled this Hillary Clinton thing? I mean, from the outside, it -- I can't understand how somebody who took pictures of their little hovel inside of a submarine went to prison and Hillary Clinton, nothing was wrong. I --

KEN: It's...

GLENN: It was concerning.

KEN: It's hard not to have a lack of trust in the justice system when you see somebody like her not even have a real investigation. You know, he basically came out and said, "Yeah, we are looking into this." And suddenly, they went through 650,000 emails in like, what, two or three days? That's not a real investigation. And so it's hard to trust -- I think that's going to be one of the big functions of this new administration, is dealing with the Department of Justice and fixing some of the corruption --

GLENN: Got to clean it out.

KEN: We have to have confidence in the rule of law, that it's going to be applied fairly to everybody.

GLENN: If the Justice Department -- for the Republicans or the Democrats, anybody, becomes just a tool to persecute or protect, we got nothing. We have nothing left.

KEN: Absolutely. I totally agree with that. Americans know that we've got a problem, I think. I think that may be why we had a change.

GLENN: Thank you so much.

KEN: Absolutely.

GLENN: Thank you for all of the things -- say hi to your wife.

KEN: I will. And y'all have a great Thanksgiving.

PAT: You too.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Okay.

Featured Image: Getty Images

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

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatism as stewardship

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

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

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

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

Rebuilding what is broken

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

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

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

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

A creed for the rising generation

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

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

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

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

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global reality.

And moral reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our faith is almost gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we open the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not in nostalgia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A conservative in 2025, '26.

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

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

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

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

And one can't be stronger than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

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

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.