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

"He's a good friend and a good guy": Glenn talks to congressional candidate Dan Bongino

October 27, 2014
Wilson

Writer

On radio today, Glenn introduced listeners to several candidates who have expressed support for constitutional values through their words and values. One person Glenn has had onto the show several times is former Secret Service Dan Bongino.

Bongino is running for U.S. Representative of Maryland's 6th Congressional District.

Watch the interview below:

GLENN: We have Dan Bongino. Dan is a former Secret Service guy. A really fine upstanding guy. Really gives me hope that there are good people that are in Washington who wake up. He was standing listening to some meetings after watching my program on Fox and at one point it was like I don't think these guys make any sense at all. What am I doing. And got out and decided that he was going to run and has put his whole family at risk quite honestly, put his family in financial risk. Walked away from everything to be able to run. And doesn't -- doesn't find anything but honor in running for the office. I don't think Maryland could have a better Congressman. Dan Bongino, welcome to the program.

BONGINO: Hey, thanks, Glenn, I appreciate all those kind words that. Means a lot, thank you.

PAT: Dan, there's no real polling on this race, there seems like. Where do you stand? What kind of sense do you have? Do you have any kind of internal polling over when are are you right now.

BONGINO: We did, I'm almost afraid to tell you, because we had $6,000 worth of our signs stolen last weekend and my opponent dumped about a quarter-million negative ads in my head. One poll had us up by six. So why no one is paying attention to this case except for TheBlaze family and a couple of other talk radio hosts out there with an audience is beyond me. It's not even that far of a democrat-leaning district. It's just a slight tilt.

GLENN: Who else is paying attention to it? What other hosts?

BONGINO: Well, Sean, who's obviously a friend of yours. Mark Levin has been good to me as well.

PAT: Good.

BONGINO: Rush gave us a shout-out about a year ago when I spoke out about Benghazi. But outside of that, Glenn, I mean, listen, I'm known you for a long time before I decided to run for office. I'm probably here because of passion and appeal you gave on your old Fox News program one time that made me go look at "Road To Serfdom" and read through it. It's probably the reason I would say I'm doing this.

GLENN: Tell me the -- tell the audience the pivot point. What was it.

BONGINO: Well, were you given this argument and the gist of it was that this is going to require some sacrifice. Obviously I'm not quoting you directly. I have it on T i V o upstairs, the actual episode, so I'm hoping I can take the actual box with me when I leave. But it's an older one and the division is the what did you think this was, goes to be ease?

Listen, the folks, the fights we're undergoing now are not the fights we were -- you know, having even a hundred years ago. These are now fights against people who are saying things like, businesses don't create jobs. You know, you didn't build that. I mean, this is a far different fight than arguing over a 19 or 20% tax rate. But the sacrifice theme you had made me ask myself, what in hades am I doing here. I'm just throwing the Nerf football at the screen collecting a government paycheck as a Secret Service agent. There's tons to do and not talk.

GLENN: So you're a fair tax guy. Can you tell me why -- I'm a flat tax guy. I don't understand the fair tax thing.

BONGINO: You know, I've got issues with both. The fair tax had some issues as well. It's a consumption tax. The reason I like it is because of the incentives or disincentives. The fair tax tax is consumption, it's a sales tax. Whatever you earn you take home. There are no federal sales tax at all. It doesn't disincentivize this thing we called work that conservatives really like. We should work. We work, we produce. We produce, we're wealthy. People's prosperity is measured by what they have. You know, their food, their cars, things like that. So it doesn't disincentivize work. The flat tax I like the idea as well, but the flat tax is still an income-based tax. But both of them have issues. I'm thinking we may be able to move towards more of a hybrid scaled program, flat tax to fair tax later, but they both have pluses and minuses.

PAT: The thing that scares me about tear fax and we're going to get a billion calls, so please don't.

PAT: The fair tax requires that you get rid of the IRS, which is just a monumental undertaking.

GLENN: I'd love to do it, though.

PAT: I'd love to do it, I just don't know how you do it.

GLENN: Needs to be done.

PAT: Do you think it's possible, Dan?

BONGINO: I hope it's possible, because as we've seen, whether it be Nixon who tried it or this administration that successfully implemented, you know, using the IRS as a -- you know, political attack dog program as their own 501( c )(3), something has to be done with our tax enforcement. One of the issues of the fair tax as well, is I think as -- I had a conversation about it this weekend with someone. They may be underselling the evasion rate. And you do need some semblance of revenue neutrality to sell it to people. You're going to have to get some people on the other side to go along or else you're never going to get it passed. So there are definitely issues with both. And I agree. I know when you mention that word, I'm totally with you guys. My Twitter feed will go crazy, too. But we have to be realistic and we can't pretend that there's some kind of -- panacea out there to solve all our tax problems. There's not.

GLENN: So the president printing up nine million green cards. They won't -- they won't verify. They won't talk about something as meaningless as what color the paper is that they're printing in Washington. That's almost a quote. What do you think it means and what do you do?

BONGINO: Well, I think we all know what it means. We're all terrified to say it because we're afraid we almost might incentivize him to do it. Do you know what's amazing about this administration, Glenn? They always pick the issue that really annoys Americans the most and then they poke and prod. Even when it comes to judicial nominees, it's like when they have this -- this portfolio of people and they're like, okay, let's rate them 1 to 100. A hundred meaning the most vile that conservatives will go crazy about. That's my guy. So with this thing I always fear the worst, because with this administration the worst always comes true. This is going to be a massive, lawless, completely lawless amnesty where people who just walked into the country -- by the way, my wife is an immigrant. We did it the right way. I always ask, do I --

GLENN: Why do you hate immigrants.

BONGINO: We paid to be legal immigrants. Do we get refund physical they're going to declare amnesty of of course they're going to do it after the election, which is amazing.

GLENN: Why do you hate Mexicans?

BONGINO: Of course, that's got -- you know, it's funny you say that, because my opponent ad doesn't like -- he eats them after he doesn't like them. So -- did you see that clip with the female candidate running for office who goes off the war on women and the audience starts cracking up like they can't control themselves anymore?

PAT: Yeah.

BONGINO: It's gotten so absurd on the left.

PAT: It's you can blink.

GLENN: It really has. Dan, five years ago when you were first listening to me and I said things are going to be upside down. You won't recognize your country. And up will be down, down will be up. What was liquid will be solid. You never really thought we'd actually get there, did you? Because I only halfway did. And I was the one saying it.

BONGINO: I remember reading on my time when I had a personal Facebook feed all of the -- the left wing Bloggers who would say, this guy is crazy. But you notice none of them are saying that now, because they're afraid to reprint and link to the old articles where the stuff actually happened. The dark money you were always talking about between tithes and Soros, funding these campaigns. And they do the little -- dipsydoo fliparoo, the left. Dark money, the Koch brothers. The Koch problems 15th in the country in donations behind all these left wing people who are out there pumping money with the campaign. All the stuff you talked about undo influence of our government and total evaporation like an Alka Seltzer tablet of liberty is now sadly coming true and Americans need to wake up and the independents among us and the moderate Democrats need to wake up too, that don't think they won't come after you next. Remember, there are Democrats who have been targeted too by this administration. Just ask people at the chase bank and other folks who have been -- and the guy in the -- HHS and the IRS who were Democrats who were gone after the administration after they spoke out.

PAT: Dan, what's going on -- you're for -- I think most people in our audience understand this and know this, but you're a former Secret Service agent. What has happened? I mean, as we watch the meltdown of the Secret Service agency, how -- what is going on with them? Do you have any sense of what's happened there?

BONGINO: I'll give you the Reader's Digest version. When we transferred from Treasury to Homeland, it became just a bureaucratic mess, just about like everything else in the government does. When you expand and grow bigger. The layers of management grew and they became insulated. In my opinion, there was a small group, not all, there are a lot of good managers there, but a small group of innings whose incentives then became to look for security jobs after their retirement with these Homeland Security personnel. They were now almost in bed with now that we from in the department of homeland security. That wasn't the case with treasury. The Secret Service wasn't going to leave with Tim Geithner to evaluate black shows derivatives. That's not the way it works. So the over bureaucratization of the agency created a perverse incentive to abandon the rank and file Secret Service agents for management. It really all comes down to that. And someone said to me you can't blame poor management for the fence jumper. No, you can't. I'm not absolving them of this catastrophic failure of course, but there were people there on the front lawn of the White House that had six months on the job because the uniform division can't retain anyone because they're led by really terrible managers. That does have something to do with it. You can't view in it a vacuum.

PAT: Where were the dogs that night? Because --

(overlapping speakers).

PAT: Well, the Secret Service did. The second time. But the first time, no one let the dogs out. Do you know what happened there?

BONGINO: Well, from what I'm hearing, I saw it in a couple media reports and a couple of my friends give me an inside scoop on it. That the handler was apparently afraid that a couple of the folks that were chasing them, that they would be the ones targeted by the dog. I don't know about that. These dogs are pretty well trained. I was in our train center, I was an instructor there and these dogs are pretty well trained to discriminate amongst targets. I don't know. I don't know if he just dropped the ball. There's no question it was a catastrophic mistake.

PAT: Bizarre.

BONGINO: You had some asking why didn't we shoot the guy, which I find absurd. You -- this is the United States. We don't shoot trespassers. It just doesn't happen. Then they --

PAT: Even when they're trespassing on the White House lawn? I would think you would. When they're trespassing on the White House lawn --

GLENN: Or --

PAT: Or inside the house. He took down one of the agents.

GLENN: We paint the front door because it's been stained a little bit.

(laughing).

BONGINO: I don't agree. No, here's the thing. If he had a weapon in his hand, if he vocalized the threat, you would be absolutely correct.

GLENN: Dan, Dan --

BONGINO: But remember the south grounds incident with Miriam Carey when the woman with the car went on the --

GLENN: They shot her in the head, right.

BONGINO: Right.

PAT: That we didn't agree with it.

GLENN: But she wasn't inside the White House. We shot somebody outside of the White House gates.

PAT: In a car.

GLENN: In a car. And we just let somebody run into the White House. I mean, it's insane. Just -- here's the thing, Dan. On this, because you and I agree on everything. Just remind me if I ever become president, you're not the head of treasury.

(laughing).

BONGINO: All right, I'll remind you.

GLENN: Or as long as you just say, yes, sir, Mr. President, when I say, I don't mind repainting the front door. Keep my family safe.

PAT: Don't worry, Dan, that's smog you'll ever have to worry about.

GLENN: You'll never have to worry about.

PAT: You don't have to consider it ever.

GLENN: Dan, best of luck to you. And we're really counting on you to do great things when you get to Washington. We're just really excited for you. And I just -- I can't endorse you any higher than I have. In fact, I never endorse candidates. What the hell, I just did.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: He's a good friend and a good guy. And I wish you all -- I wish you all the best.

PAT: How do you help if somebody wants to jump in and help out?

BONGINO: Thanks. Bongino.com. And I really, really appreciate that, Glenn. I hope you can hear the emotion in my voice. I mean it. You've been a good friend to me and I really appreciate that. Good to know there are people out there willing to take a chance.

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.