Did the Russians kill General Patton? Bill O'Reilly explores the fascinating evidence

If there is one person who could give Glenn a run for his money when it comes to a love of history, it might by Bill O'Reilly. In his new book Killing Patton, O'Reilly looks at the death of General George Patton and presents evidence that he wan't killed in an accidental car crash, but his death was orchestrated by Stalin and the Russians. He joined Glenn on TheBlaze TV Wednesday night to discuss the theory, and Glenn had a surprise piece of history to share with him before the segment ended.

Watch the interview below or scroll down to read the transcript of the segment.

Glenn: It’s always a special day when we have Mr. Bill O’Reilly on the program because of our love-hate relationship. I love him, he hates me.

Bill: That’s not true—propaganda.

Glenn: Bill, how are you, sir?

Bill: I’m the same, Beck.

Glenn: That’s sad.

Bill: I actually said very nice things about you today to a number of people, so don’t be spreading this propaganda that I don’t like you.

Glenn: No, I tell you, I said when I went on the radio today I absolutely love our relationship. You have always been the kindest to me, the most professional, and probably the biggest help next to Mr. Ailes of anybody in my career, and I appreciate it. So Bill, I want to tell you, you’re the author of a new book called Killing Patton. I want to get to it, but I also want to save some time because I have some things that even the great Bill O’Reilly does not have that I think you’ll be fascinated when it comes to Patton. We brought it in from the library. So your theory on Killing Patton is the Russians poisoned him.

Bill: Yeah, they killed him because he wanted to fight the Russians after World War II, after the collapse of the Third Reich. He believed that Stalin and the Russian hierarchy were going to try to take over the world and were not going to give up the occupied lands, and he was very vocal about it. And Stalin, weakened after the brutal fight with the Reich, didn’t want that to get out, so the Russians went after Patton, and they got him.

Glenn: Okay, so was this ever investigated at all?

Bill: Yes, it was investigated a couple of times, but after Patton was in that auto accident, the Army totally blew the investigation. Nobody can find the records. No autopsy after Patton was taken to the hospital partially paralyzed. He was talking to the nurses, drinking cognac. He goes to sleep, he winds up dead. Nobody knows why. They put his body in the ground. They couldn’t get it in the ground fast enough. So there’s a lot of suspicious stuff that we lay out in the book.

Glenn: I mean, Bill, I know, you’re going to run out of people, you know, that have been killed or dead here soon with the number of books you put out. It’s shameful, Bill.

Bill: One a year, Beck.

Glenn: Yeah, it’s shameful. But anyway, where did you get this? Who’s your co-author? What’s the researcher’s name?

Bill: Martin Dugard.

Glenn: Okay, and so did he bring this to you? How does this work with you on these killing things?

Bill: No, I select the topics, and I was always interested in this crazy theory that a four-star general is driving down a road in Germany. One day later he was supposed to go back to the United States to do a speaking tour where he was going to expose the Soviet Union and Stalin, and then all of a sudden an army truck smashes into his vehicle in broad daylight for no reason, and all the records disappear of the investigation of the accident. That piqued my interest. So once I got the history books underway, and I wanted to tell the story of the last six months of World War II in Europe, it all came together.

Glenn: So did you get any documentation in the book from the Soviet Union? Did you go through any of the…you know, like the VERONA files, did you look into it?

Bill: A good question, Beck, a very good question. We investigated the plant that they had to make the traceless poison which they used to assassinate a number of people.

Glenn: At this time that’s what they were doing?

Bill: That’s what they were doing. Soviet scientists had perfected this poison that was untraceable and that they had assassinated many people using it. So that’s the angle we took in there.

Glenn: Do you believe you have enough to be able to say…because that’s an important theory and really an important piece of history, and I’ll bet you that the Patton family would agree with this. Just like we did with, you know, Thomas Jefferson, just like we did with Abraham Lincoln, do you think you have enough information to say I think we should exhume the body and take a trace sample?

Bill We are calling for that. We are calling for the investigation into the death of General Patton to be reopened because it certainly…the Army bears a tremendous responsibility for losing virtually every single document associated with that death. So we think it should be reopened, and I lay out the evidence that we compile very vividly. And I could be wrong. I’m not saying 100% certainty, but there is enough evidence in there, compelling evidence, to reopen the investigation, absolutely.

Glenn: What would this have meant, Bill, if he would have lived? What do you think would have happened?

Bill: Well, if he would’ve lived, Patton might have run for president. He wasn’t that political. He wasn’t Eisenhower, but he was fed up. He was fed up with a lot of things. He didn’t feel World War II was fought the right way. He was at loggerheads with Truman. Truman didn’t like Patton at all. So absolutely Patton could’ve come back. He was a national hero. He could have toured the country, and I think he would’ve had enough juice to run for president, and so did a lot of people in Washington.

Glenn: Okay, can I show you some stuff I brought for you?

Bill: Sure.

Glenn: I’m actually coming up to New York. Maybe I’ll pop it on the plane and show it to you, bring it to you.

Bill: Yeah, bring this please.

Glenn: Okay, so here’s a couple of things. This is to the general that he wanted to have follow him into battle. He would be the guy who would sweep up in the campaign in Sicily. He says aside from my personal friendship in taking you through this thing, it is going to hang on a shoestring, and I’m going to have to go ashore in one of the leading waves. I have utter confidence in you and know that on the Flag Ship you’ll see this thing as pushed home in the last extremity that you will lead the last foreign body.

Now, this is he’s asking his friend to be the general behind him and stay on the flagship, but here’s the interesting part, and I thought of you this morning as we talked. He said we have to face the fact we may be repulsed, and I may not come back alive. This is not the first time that he actually hints at I’m not coming back from this. I think he knew one way or another, and I think it was more than just war. He knew he was not coming back alive.

Bill: Well, we document in the book that he told his daughters that. The last time he met with his daughters, he stunned them by saying, you know, I think this is the last time you’re going to see me. And there were two blatant assassination attempts on Patton. Now, you expect that in war, but one of them was from a British Spitfire, and nobody ever figured out why the British plane was firing at Patton’s plane. We have that one in the book as well.

Glenn: Why do you call that one an assassination attempt? Because you know friendly fire happens all the time.

Bill: Look, there’s no record of that British plane landing anywhere or doing anything, and it attacks Patton’s plane. It was only because of the skill of Patton’s pilot that he survived. It wasn’t like a German plane attacking them. It was a British plane. Now, the British lent some of their planes to Polish pilots and to Russian pilots, but there’s no—and we document this very thoroughly in Killing Patton—no record of that plane. So Patton knew there were guys out to get him. There’s no question.

Glenn: And is your theory that this was a British plane taken by the Communists?

Bill: We don’t know. We just don’t know.

Glenn: Did Patton ever talk about that?

Bill: Oh yeah, Patton, he knew he almost lost his life. In fact, he tried to take a picture of the plane attacking his plane, but his hand was shaking so much that he couldn’t get the lens cap open. Again, that’s what the micro-detail that we have in Killing Patton. It’s just…he knew that he was in danger.

Glenn: But here is what you don’t have. You don’t have the buttons off of his uniform right here. I have them.

Bill: You’re right, Beck. I don’t have those.

Glenn: These are the buttons off of his uniform here. This is a letter, a Christmas letter to his mother where he says hey mom, we went out, and we looked at the tanks this morning, and it’s crazy, the six inches of mud, we couldn’t get anything out.

And this flag here, Bill, this is the flag that flew at his funeral, and it was also the flag, and it’s kind of in question on was this with him during the campaign or was this just at his funeral? And historians have come down to they didn’t make this flag in three days, because, like you said, he died, they threw his body in the ground so fast, they didn’t make another flag, so this was the one that was with him.

Bill: There was very little ceremony.

Glenn: And that’s unusual, isn’t it, Bill?

Bill: Well, here’s another interesting wrinkle. There was very little press around where he was because all the press was in Berlin, because Berlin had been divided into four sectors, all kinds of trouble there. Patton was in Western Germany and about to come back to the USA. There were only a few reporters nosing around, all right? So there wasn’t a lot of press, and everybody accepted the official Washington version, Army version, you know, he died in an automobile accident.

And believe me, when you see this evidence, anybody reading this book, and I’m not a conspiratorialist, you know that. I wrote Killing Kennedy, where I debunked all the conspiracies. So this evidence and the book that we put together, I think every American who cares about their country and World War II should take a look.

Glenn: Okay, so Bill, let me change the subject here with you. We just have a couple of minutes left. How much trouble do you think we are in with ISIS?

Bill: Not with ISIS in particular. I think we’ll be able to degrade and put them on the run, but worldwide terrorism, the jihad isn’t going to stop if you nail the ISIS leadership. They’ll get Baghdadi, and they’ll get the guy who cut the throats of the three, two Americans and the Brit. They’ll get him, but that’s not the point. The point is we’re fighting a worldwide war on terror just us, just the United States. We’re funding everything.

Glenn: But, you know, you laid out, I think, a very good solution basically of a private army, and I wondered if it was even constitutional. I looked it up, and we talked about it after you left. And I think it is actually constitutional.

Bill: It’s absolutely constitutional, and that is the solution for the ground situation, all right? And it doesn’t diminish the United States Armed Forces. It stays the same, all right? But to put together a 25,000 man elite mercenary force paid for by the so-called 50 nations that President Obama tells us are united against the Islamic Jihad, all right? They can easily fund that and to have it under the NATO and American command with oversight from Congress. That means you have a force that can go in rapid deployment anywhere in the world and kill these bastards, all right? Right now we don’t have that, and they know it, so they can get away with murder, literally everywhere, and we don’t do anything about it.

Glenn: And quite honestly, the guy to fight this is Patton. Patton would’ve actually put these people…because the only thing they respect is power.

Bill: That’s right. But we don’t have a general like Patton because our political system won’t tolerate that, and so we don’t have those people. Can you imagine how livid Patton would be seeing Americans beheaded on camera? Can you imagine that? He’d waltz into Syria with the Third Army, and I mean, those guys, they’d be done in a month and a half.

Glenn: Let me tell you something, you don’t need Patton. I know, my grandfather was not a, you know, was not a general. My grandfather would be livid that we are behaving the way we do right now, and quite honestly, it’s an insult to all of the people in the military the way we have hamstrung them and tied their hands.

Bill: And putting the whole world in danger because these people, these jihadists, whether it’s ISIS or Al Qaeda, whatever stupid group you want to mint, if they can weaponize a nuke, which Iran is absolutely trying to do, you’re going to see cities go, and the world better wise up and wise up quick.

Glenn: Let me just make a real quick prediction so you know that I said it. We are going to cause the fall for Assad. Assad will fall. It will only make things much, much worse, and I’m telling you that ISIS is a problem here in the United States. I think we’re headed for something really nasty. Bill, thanks a lot. God bless you.

Bill: Thanks for having me in, Beck.

Glenn: You bet. Name of the book is Killing Patton, available everywhere, Bill O’Reilly. Back in a minute.

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

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

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

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

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

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global reality.

And moral reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our faith is almost gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why can't we open the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not in nostalgia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A conservative in 2025, '26.

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

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

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

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

And one can't be stronger than the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

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

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

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

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

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

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

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

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

Ancient evil, new clothes

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new currency of power

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

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

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

The forgotten way

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

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

Both are traps.

The only way

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.