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

Bill O’Reilly Wants to Clear up the NY Times’ ‘Smear Piece’

October 23, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Bill O’Reilly was back in the hot seat on Monday’s show, answering Glenn and Stu’s questions about the latest New York Times piece on his record at Fox News. He clarified what the Times left out of the piece and exactly why he paid settlements after lawsuits he says made false allegations.

“No. 1: I want the story to go away because it’s brutalizing my family, and No. 2: I’m not going to run and hide because I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said.

Listen to O’Reilly in context and in his own words for his answers to these questions:

  • What were O’Reilly’s reasons for settling?

  • Exactly how many lawsuits did he need to resolve during his time at Fox News?

  • Why was the settlement $32 million if the allegations were false?

  • What is O’Reilly’s response to Megyn Kelly’s latest comments?

  • Would he make the same decisions if he could do it over?

So what do you think? Does Bill make a compelling argument?

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Friend of the program and friend of mine, Bill O'Reilly. Welcome, sir. How are you?

BILL: Taking a beating. But still standing.

GLENN: So, Bill, you and I spoke over the weekend.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: And I said to you that I wanted to ask you some honest questions. And just personal for me, because I -- you know, I don't know. And anybody can lie to anybody. But you would be -- I mean, you would be one of the greatest liars ever because of the consistency of your lies, if you were lying to me, and the consistency of your behavior around me and my staff, which we have toured together.

BILL: Sure.

GLENN: I have seen you on Friday nights. I have seen you in hotels. My staff has. And I have women that work for me. And we've never had any problem whatsoever, or an inkling that you might be one of those guys.

BILL: Yeah. Well, I was in the -- I've been in the broadcast business for 43 years. Twelve different companies. Never one time was there any complaint filed against me with human resources or anybody's legal team. Nothing. Zero.

GLENN: Megyn Kelly --

BILL: So I think the track record speaks for itself. And I think that people, when they look at the statement that we have posted on BillO'Reilly.com, when they look at the affidavit, and now the three letters that I sent you -- did you get the letters from Gretchen Carlson?

GLENN: I did. I wanted to know if I were -- was allowed to publish them.

BILL: Oh, yeah. Sure.

So what I'm trying to get across by coming on with you today, are two things: Number one, I want the story to go away. Because it's brutalizing my family. And number two, I'm not going to run and hide, because I didn't do anything wrong.

And I think that the evidence that we put forth is very strong. Very compelling. That the New York Times wants to take me out of the marketplace. This is the second time they've attacked me. And the article on Sunday regurgitated the first article. That was like 75 percent of it. They had to run it twice in case you didn't get it last April. And they know that I'm at a disadvantage, because I can't comment specifically on any case that has been resolved. That's one of the -- one of the --

GLENN: Stipulations.

BILL: -- legal -- legal compelling things, that when you resolve something, it is always done in a nobody says anything. And you know who knows that best? The New York Times. Because they settled a number of harassment complaints, in a confidential way. Yet in their article on page one today, screaming about, well, we shouldn't have this kind of provision, they don't mention that. And they don't mention a lot of things.

So I think -- go ahead.

GLENN: So, Bill, I want to ask you a couple of questions. The biggest question that is on everybody's mind is, okay. You can settle. But $32 million, coming out of your own pocket, nobody does that.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: So did you --

BILL: What do you want to say --

GLENN: So did you --

BILL: The only comment I could make on that issue, without getting the thing back into a legal arena, would be the first article that the New York Times wrote quoted figures and added them up. And it was wildly wrong.

But I can't confirm or deny anything, because once I do that, then it goes back into the legal arena, which you don't want. And they know that.

So they could say whatever they want to say. They know that. They know we're hamstrung, my attorneys and investigative team. We can't.

GLENN: Was this settlement by you alone, or was Fox involved?

BILL: I can't -- Beck, as I told you off the camera -- I know you have to ask some questions for your audience -- I can't comment on any specific case at all. If I could, I would. But I cannot.

GLENN: Can you tell me about the relationship that you had with Lis Wiehl?

BILL: No, I cannot -- what we had -- what we have posted is an affidavit from Ms. Wiehl. It's one affidavit. That's posted on BillO'Reilly.com. That's it. We could post. We did. There it is. And I can't speak to anything other than that.

I know it's frustrating.

GLENN: No, it's really frustrating.

BILL: It's very frustrating for me. You can imagine me, sitting here, all right? Being accused of everything under the sun. And the endgame, let's leave O'Reilly with Harvey Weinstein. Let's make him that. That's what we want to do. All right? So we take him out of the marketplace forever. He never gets to give his opinion on issues again. We take him out because we hate him.

And the New York Times obviously hates me. It's dishonest in the extreme. And it's frustrating for me. But unless I want another seven or eight years of constant litigation that puts my children in the kill zone, I have to maintain my discipline.

GLENN: Okay. So --

BILL: The only reason -- I can tell you this, Beck. In 20 years plus at the Fox News Channel -- how long did you work there, by the way?

GLENN: Four years, three years -- two years. Ten minutes. I don't remember.

BILL: All right. I was there twenty years and six months. I resolved three things. That's all I resolved in 20 years and six months. I resolved three things. And the only reason I did resolve them was to keep my children safe. So I can tell you that.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me go one more place.

STU: We should point out, that's smaller than the reported number, Bill. Are you saying that the reported money is inaccurate.

BILL: All I'm telling you is the truth. Twenty years, six months, Fox News Channel, I resolved three things. That is the truth.

GLENN: Bill, on the -- on the Wiehl affidavit, the New York Times fails to recognize here that this is a legal document. And she is a member of the bar. And that if she signs something that was not true, she should be disbarred. She's not --

BILL: It's worse than that. And I'm not impugning or saying anything, I'm talking in a general sense now.

GLENN: She's not saying this. But the New York Times is just speaking for her. Go ahead.

BILL: Wait. Wait. If any American citizen signs an affidavit that's notarized, all right? It's under the perjury law. So you can be prosecuted, if what you're saying is not true. Which is why the affidavit becomes so vitally important.

And here's the kicker. We gave that to the New York Times. They had that. They did not print it.

Then their weasel reporter, the most dishonest man on the face of the earth, tweets out, "Oh, O'Reilly says we didn't mention the affidavit. And we did."

I didn't say you didn't mention it. I said you didn't print it. And you should have printed it up top, because that's the story. But they didn't want that to be out, because that wrecks their story. Which they had already written, no matter what I said or gave them. And we gave them an unbelievable amount of stuff, from day one of my tenure with Fox News. They know.

But they don't care. Because this was a hit job, to get me out of the marketplace. And then you'll have the left. Paranoid. Okay? You can back that up 50 different ways. Media Matters is involved. CNN is involved. I mean, it -- and it's beyond any doubt -- so, again, I will tell you everybody, we've got our statement posted on BillO'Reilly.com. Would he give you the affidavit posted. We've got letters from Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly to me, posted. Everything is there.

You still want to think I'm a bad guy. Go ahead. The truth is the truth.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on. I have to take a break. And then I want to come back and talk about what Megyn talked about today. Because this is a separate issue. But I think you should address that as well. Coming up in a second.

GLENN: This is Megyn Kelly on today's broadcast.

MEGYN: Malicious smear, claiming that no woman in 20 years ever complained to human resources or legal about him. Maybe that is true. Fox News was not exactly a friendly environment for harassment victims who happened to report, in my experience.

However, O'Reilly's suggestion that no one ever complained about his behavior is false. I know, because I complained.

It was November of 2016, the day my memoir was released. In it, I included a chapter on Ailes and the sexual harassment scandal at Fox News, something the Murdochs knew I was doing, and to their credit, approved.

O'Reilly happened to be on CBS News that morning. They asked him about my book and about Ailes, who by this time had been forced out in disgrace. O'Reilly's response?

BILL: I'm not that interested in this.

MEGYN: No? In sexual harassment? You're not interested in sexual harassment?

BILL: I'm not interested in basically litigating something that is finished, that makes my network look bad. Okay? I'm not interested in making my network look bad, at all. That doesn't interest me one bit.

GLENN: So her complaint, Bill, that she filed was that you made it tough for people to come out against the network, because of statements like that.

BILL: Number one, she didn't file a complaint. Not that I know of. Never brought to our attention that Megyn Kelly did anything. All right? So I'd like to see it. Because I don't believe that's true at all.

Number two, what she did not say is that there's an anonymous hotline, and there had been for years at Fox News where anyone could have called up and say, "So-and-so is doing something to me, and you better stop it." All right? That's anonymous. Doesn't mention it.

Number three, I'd like you to read the notes that I gave you, Beck, to your audience from Megyn Kelly to me, the personal notes.

GLENN: Do you happen to have them in front of you? Because my i Pad just went down.

STU: Convenient.

GLENN: Hang on.

So Megyn Kelly wrote to you, "Dear Bill, what a class act you are. Something to my baby -- please come to my baby shower -- no, no, what a class act you are. Thank you for coming to my baby shower."

BILL: Coming to my baby shower. Right.

GLENN: "I was truly touched. I know how busy you are, especially that time of the day. It meant a lot to me and Dory. Thank you for the darling body suits and snugglies. It's kind -- no, it's hard to believe we'll soon have a human being in our lives to fit into those. You've become a dear friend, no matter what they say. And I am grateful to have you in my life, Megyn Kelly."

BILL: Yeah, that's letter number one. Letter number two.

GLENN: Letter number two: Thank you for the -- something on Dory's book --

BILL: Mention. Thank you for the mention on Doug's book. Doug is her husband.

GLENN: Oh, Doug's book. Okay.

I realize you didn't have to do that, especially after mentioning it already. I appreciate how supportive you have been to me over the years here at Fox News. You're a true friend and mentor.

And I want to give one more letter. This is the one -- and these are going to be published up at TheBlaze and GlennBeck.com. This one is from Gretchen Carlson.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: "Bill, thank you for being the calm in the sea. Thank you so much for supporting me. Thank you for being my friend. It means the world to me, G.C."

BILL: Yeah. So, look, I think that anybody -- any fair-minded person -- and I really appreciate you reading those to your listeners -- I think that they can now start to formulate a picture here.

Because the behavior that you pointed out at the beginning of the 11 o'clock hour, Eastern time is on the record. Forty-three years, no complaints. Twelve different companies. And then you, Glenn Beck known me for now, what? Ten years? Twelve years?

GLENN: Yeah, something like that.

BILL: You've been with me on the road. You know who I am. You know what I do. And now with the statement that we provided on BillO'Reilly.com, with the affidavit, this one affidavit, and with these three letters, two by Megyn Kelly and one by Gretchen Carlson -- a picture should start to emerge for any fair-minded person. And that's all I can hope for, that the American people will see that this is an attack on an American citizen, me, for political purposes. And you know what? It's done enormous damage to me and to my family. And it is a horror, and it should never happen in our country.

GLENN: Bill, what happens if companies settle lawsuits and then the affidavits and the nondisclosures don't mean anything?

BILL: Well, it's over now. Anybody who would be settling anything now is insane. Because --

GLENN: So is that --

BILL: In my case, all the confidentiality stuff was violated.

GLENN: You told -- you told me about a year ago, the biggest mistake you made was settling. So is this a good thing or not?

BILL: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

No, if I had to do it all over again, I never would have done it. But you got to understand how much pain this brings children. And I thought I could spare my children that. I would do anything for my children, anything to protect them. I would give up my life for my children. And that's why I did it.

But we actually thought that people would uphold their oath. And what they agreed to. And they haven't.

But let me get back to Megyn Kelly for a moment. I never had any problem with Megyn Kelly. In fact, when she was getting hammered earlier this year, I wrote a column speaking up for her. You know, I don't know why Megyn Kelly is doing what she's doing. I don't know why. I've helped her dramatically in her career. I gave her the name of her show, The Kelly File. She actually did a charity even for me. I mean, it is just incomprehensible.

GLENN: Okay. Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. We'll talk to you again, Bill. Try to have a better day. God bless.

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?

How America’s elites fell for the same lie that fueled Auschwitz

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

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

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

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

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

Ancient evil, new clothes

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new currency of power

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

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

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

The forgotten way

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

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

Both are traps.

The only way

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.