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

Dear Netflix, Why Is Racism Against White People Okay?

February 09, 2017
Staff

WRITER

How can you tell if something is racist?

"An easy way to figure out if you're saying something racist is change the colors and see if it feels racist," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Maybe Netflix should have followed that simple rule before before releasing the trailer for its new show Dear White People.

"If it was Dear Black People, and it was teaching lessons to black people who don't understand the real world the way white people do, that would be an issue," Stu said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

PAT: Dear white people, you're evil, and you need to go. That's what I expect this is about, but I don't know that for a fact. I just know that a TV show called Dear Black People probably wouldn't go over that well.

STU: Hmm. Wow.

PAT: Dear Hispanics, Dear Asian People. Why is this okay?

STU: You know, I don't know. I was watching CNN, I believe, yesterday. And they had an African-American guest on. And he was -- I think at least believed himself to be a comedian. I don't know that he actually was.

PAT: Okay.

STU: And he apparently does some show for -- for CNN. And as they were talking about Trump, they -- they said, "Well, we've got a lot to cover today in the news." And he said, "Yeah, we have a lot of white people we got to look out for." I was curious to see how CNN would react if one of their white guests were to say, "Yeah, I know we got a lot of black people we need to look out for." That would be an interesting moment in television history.

PAT: They would be done. It sure would. If they worked for CNN, that would be their last statement on CNN. That would be it.

STU: And people are like, "Well, it's different." An easy way to figure out if you're saying something racist is change the colors and see if it feels racist.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And, you know, if you're saying something like I don't know, all these typical white people who have just this bred into them. If you were to change the wording on that, you would probably have some issues in society.

PAT: Typical black people who have something bred into them. Yes.

STU: You would have issues in society.

PAT: Which is why somebody -- oh, Glenn Beck questioned whether or not there were some issues there.

STU: Right. And that's just a good guideline for everybody. The idea of racism, you shouldn't be generalizing.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You shouldn't be disparaging. There's no reason for it.

PAT: Well, do you remember Jimmy "The Greek," his generalizations of blacks was that -- it was something complimentary too, like they ran really fast.

STU: Like they ran really fast. That doesn't make it right obviously.

PAT: Tried to put forward some reason why they seemed to run faster or whatever. He got fired for it.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: We never heard from him again, and then he died. That was it.

JEFFY: No. Then it was over. Yeah, he was professional gambler. And then, Jimmy who? It was over.

PAT: He was gone.

JEFFY: But the show White People is about a fictional largely white Winchester University, who often rail against the roles they're put in, paving the way to both comedy and conflict in their post racial world.

PAT: Post racial world.

STU: I will say --

PAT: I wish we lived in a post racial world.

JEFFY: Me too.

STU: The issue here is the standard and how it's not applied equally. Not even applied -- not even attempt to apply it at all. I have no problem with a comedy show making fun of these differences and the differences in our cultures. I think that's generally speaking a healthy thing. I mean, you see that from comedians all the time. And there's always these controversies where someone says something that is controversial. And comedians get in trouble for it, and I always side with the comedians.

JEFFY: George Lopez, it just happened to him.

STU: Yeah, it happens -- comedy is supposed to push these buttons. That is point of it. They're trying to put you in an uncomfortable position, to think about something differently. To criticize your own side. To sometimes criticize the other side. That is supposed to be part of it when it comes to comedy. So, I mean, I don't know anything about this show. It is interesting the way this standard is applied. Which you're right. If it was dear black people, and it was teaching lessons to black people who don't understand the real world the way white people do, that would be an issue.

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: However, I could say that same sentence and say, "Well, if it's a story about black people teaching white people about the way of the world, that they don't really understand, that's completely okay."

JEFFY: Completely okay.

STU: And that's just -- just dumb. You should be able in a creative environment to be able to say pretty much anything. I mean, pretty much anything. That is what -- that's -- you get a boring world if you try to apply standards to things like comedy. Just take it out of this weird political context that everything falls into these days. The show starts sucking, right? Look at Saturday Night Live with Barack Obama. They were so terrified.

PAT: Well, they couldn't find anything funny about him.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: He was so perfect. We couldn't find anything to laugh at. The man is so wonderful.

STU: He's so amazingly wonderful. We can't find anything to criticize or make fun of. So what you get is eight years of terrible programming.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: You know, now, gosh they -- you can't get A list stars to that show fast enough. Melissa McCarthy is making 20 million a movie. She's showing up on her Saturday nights to do Sean Spicer. Like all of a sudden they can find comedy everywhere.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And it's like -- then you have Alec Baldwin and Melissa McCarthy like, you know, doing like recurring -- not hosting, recurring episodes, where they're like, "Eh, they're in one episode, and then they're out."

PAT: There was a time too, and it wasn't that long ago -- maybe ten years -- where you could get away with certain things because it was comedy. You know, you could make fun of people. You could do accents. You could say certain things. It was a joke. Okay? We were joking. It was parody. It was comedy. It was satire. And you'd be like, "Oh, yeah, okay. Well, I mean, that was kind of distasteful." But people would move on. Now, you lose your career over that. You just lose your career. You're done.

JEFFY: We're not moving on. You don't make fun of it.

PAT: We don't move on.

STU: And you see this sort of thing as it's applied even surprises some of the comedians.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I remember after Trump was elected, Seth MacFarlane, who is the guy behind Family Guy and Ted and other various projects that you would know from the world of pretty harsh comedy.

PAT: Ted, is that teddy bear thing?

STU: The teddy bear thing with Mark Wahlberg.

PAT: Okay.

STU: Big movie. Made a lot of money. Made a sequel.

PAT: It looks stupid.

JEFFY: It sure does.

PAT: Has anybody seen it? It looks just atrocious.

STU: Oh. The second one was not pretty good. The first one was very funny. Very funny. Yes, I thought so.

PAT: Oh, was it really?

STU: And I like Family Guy a lot. And they take -- I mean, they put things on that show -- it's utterly unbelievable the stuff they get away with, not from just the perspective of it's on. Remember, on Fox. It's not on FX. It's not on HBO. It's on Fox the network. The same place that owns Fox News Channel, which they mock relentlessly on that show. But they make jokes about the handicapped. Jokes about races. Jokes about rape, sexual assault, all sorts of stuff on there.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And they push that envelope so far. If a conservative ever tried to do it, they would be thrown out of society. But because Seth MacFarlane is, A, very talented and, B, very liberal. He somehow skates away with most of this stuff. Even he gets some of it sometimes.

But his complaint after the Trump thing -- obviously, he did not want Donald Trump to win. But his complaint to his liberal friends was, look, people are rejecting this world we've created where everyone gets offend over everything. That's what they're rejecting with this election. And I think he's on to something there.

PAT: Yeah, I think so too.

STU: People are sick of this. They understand that, you know, people can say offensive things and we can all move on with our lives. When someone says something -- this is why I'm never for boycotts. If someone says something you don't like, generally speaking, and I know we don't all agree in every instance of this, but it's like generally speaking we come together --

PAT: And in the exception of Jeffy, certainly we would boycott him.

STU: Well, I would boycott him. I'm against all boycotts except for the Jeffy boycott.

PAT: The Jeffy boycott.

STU: But you just move on with your life. You go on to another show.

PAT: I know.

STU: We talked about this with Simon Sinek yesterday who was in here and talking about social media and how ten to 14-year-old girls have this big spike in suicide rate, which is obviously terrifying. And I don't know how this applies to everyone else. I don't know how you get here. But I can tell you, on social media, the way to defeat being bullied on social media is to not care about it.

And I don't -- we are -- we have this gift.

PAT: That's really hard. When it comes to 14-year-olds.

STU: And it's impossible. And I don't know how to apply it. But I can tell you that being here in this job, you get the gift of being assaulted, of being called Hitler so many times.

PAT: Sure. But we're adults. We're big boys. We can take it, and we can ignore it.

STU: Right. I know. But, I mean, adults don't do this well, Pat. This is not -- it's not an adult thing.

I see this with people all the time, that get their lives turned upside down because someone made a comment that disagrees with them on their Facebook feed.

This happens all the time. We've even seen it in this room from Mr. Glenn Beck many times.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: The only cure for it is to not care. People call me the most genocidal maniac of all time. Adolf Hitler. How many times have we been called that?

PAT: Many.

STU: How many times have we been called every nasty horrible word people can come up with.

It never impacts me because I don't care what you think. I don't care if you think I'm a terrible person. I don't care if you think I voted wrong. I don't care if you think I should -- my opinion on red velvet Chips Ahoy cookies is incorrect, which, by the way, is not, they're delicious -- I don't care about anything you're saying when it comes to calling me names. It doesn't impact me because I think we've been so saturated with it because of the business we're in, that we just are able to just toss it off to the side. Most people are not. Most people, you know, get a comment that is distasteful, and it eats them up the whole day.

And I think maybe because we're developing a whole new society here based on social media and outward angry criticism, constantly flowing, maybe at some point, the saturation hits everybody and nobody cares about this stuff anymore. But until then, it's going to be hard for people to deal with

PAT: Yeah, this discussion began with the Dear White People show that's moving to Netflix.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: This is original programming. And I can't -- it seems like we spent some time talking about the dear white people thing on Pat and Stu a while ago. Do you remember this? And I think this all began with some -- I don't know -- just a clip or a trailer of somebody. And then it developed into a movie. And now it's a Netflix phenomenon. But here's the trailer that they've developed for this soon to be Netflix story.

VOICE: Dear white people, here's a list of acceptable Halloween costumes: Pirate, slutty nurse, any of our first 43 presidents. Top of the list of unacceptable costumes: Me.

PAT: She's black.

VOICE: Wow.

PAT: So you can't look like her.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: Nor can you look like the 44th president, Barack Obama. You can look like any of the others. How do you -- how did we get there to that standard?

STU: Would she be able to dress up as Richard Nixon?

PAT: Yes.

STU: Yes, right?

PAT: I mean, the answer is yes.

JEFFY: Yeah, yeah.

STU: The answer is yes under this standard. It's bizarre.

PAT: It is.

STU: I mean, look, I have no interest in going out on Halloween as a black person in the year 2017. No interest at all.

PAT: Still, this culture appropriation stuff is silly.

STU: And this goes back to -- who was it back in the day? It was Ted Danson, famously came out -- remember? With Blackface. And he was very liberal, obviously. So it didn't ruin his career.

JEFFY: Yeah, they even tried to cover him up because Whoopi said she told him to do it.

STU: Yeah, they tried to cover it. Every once in a while, you see something like this. Most people know that these lines kind of inherently -- that doesn't mean you can't say how ridiculous they are. I have no interest in mixing that up. But it is a weird thing.

PAT: It really is.

STU: We see it all the time. I mean, weren't pirates people too?

PAT: Yes.

STU: If you want to talk about the pirates of today, if you wanted to be a pirate today, the most logical costume you would dress up is as a Somali pirate, which would be completely off-limits.

PAT: Right. Off-limits. You can't do that.

And she was saying that being a slutty anything is okay for white girls.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: You go ahead and act like a slut, and that's fine because that's your area.

STU: That's you.

PAT: That's you. That's your culture. You are sluts.

(laughter)

PAT: Is that what that is? That's pretty weird. Pretty weird.

[break]

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.

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.