Bill O'Reilly uncovers new details about Reagan's presidency in new 'Killing' book

It's always a good time when Glenn and his friend Bill O'Reilly get together. O'Reilly called into Glenn's radio program Monday morning to announce his newest book in his series, called Killing Reagan.

Glenn's first question was obviously about the title, since Reagan wasn't killed, was he?

"Here's the most interesting part of the book," O'Reilly said. "Ronald Reagan gets elected and shortly after is shot and is almost killed. He comes out in a robust way. We all remember. His little bathrobe, standing, making jokes, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The president is going to be okay. But he wasn't okay."

O'Reilly went on to explain the detrimental effects, both mental and physical, that the near-killing had on the rest of Reagan's presidency, and how at one point he came extremely close to being removed from office.

"We found out that he was within a whisper of being removed from the presidency and nobody knows that, and the story is so dramatic. And then after he passed the test that they gave him, he made a miraculous comeback mentally because of the Soviet Union," O'Reilly said. "I think is fascinating for anyone who cares about Ronald Reagan."

Glenn agreed.

"There's a lot of great stuff in the book. Including the fact - did you guys know that Ronald Reagan tried to join the Communist Party? He was rejected by the Communist Party," Glenn said.

SPOILER ALERT: "At the end of this one, he doesn't die," Glenn said.

Listen or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: It's always good to have our good friend on our program. Mr. Bill O'Reilly on the show with us. He has a brand-new book called Killing Reagan, which Reagan wasn't killed, but really why be picky on things like that?

PAT: That was a detail. What?

GLENN: Bill, welcome to the program, how are you? Bill, are you there? I'm not hearing Bill O'Reilly.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, no.

PAT: You pissed him off.

GLENN: It's Donald Trump.

PAT: He's angry. Yeah.

GLENN: Guys, in New York, can you tell me what's happening with Bill O'Reilly?

PAT: Hmm. If he's on, we're not hearing him. So that's probably a problem.

GLENN: Okay. Well, tell us when you can get -- tell us when you can get Bill O'Reilly.

STU: I guess this means Reagan is alive.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you think that this was John Hinckley saying, "Bill, I don't appreciate it. I'm going to take you down too. I'm going to silence your voice."

STU: Because you say that Reagan wasn't killed, but he did die.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yes. But he died of something else.

GLENN: Natural causes.

STU: It was a little later.

GLENN: It's actually a very fascinating book.

STU: I will say, this is the most interested I am in the entire series.

PAT: Oh, really?

STU: Yeah, that's fascinating to me.

GLENN: They've been good books.

PAT: Oh, they've all been really good.

STU: I didn't say that they weren't good.

GLENN: Yes, you did. That's what I heard. That's what Pat heard. That's what America heard.

PAT: I heard it.

STU: I can't deal with your incompetent hearing abilities. What I said was I thought --

PAT: You tell Bill he was incompetent.

GLENN: That's what I heard.

PAT: That's what I heard.

STU: I'm talking to America. You are here. Bill is not.

GLENN: Bill is always --

PAT: Wow. You said this is a problem interview.

STU: That's not what I said.

PAT: Holy cow.

GLENN: Holy cow. Bill, are you there? Okay. Well, we're going to have to reschedule. Phones are broken, apparently. We don't have phones that work.

PAT: Why would you have that?

GLENN: Don't worry. This is only a multi -- you know, tens of millions of dollar show. Why would we have a phone that works?

PAT: Why would you have that?

STU: I don't know. I can't answer that question. If I do, you'll just twist my answer, so I won't attempt it.

PAT: So you don't want to talk to Bill?

STU: No.

GLENN: I heard he wanted to twist the knife.

STU: I didn't say that word.

GLENN: It's amazing. It is absolutely amazing.

JEFFY: Write your own book, Killing O'Reilly. Okay.

STU: Wasn't there a left-winger who did say that actually?

PAT: Yeah, there was. I'm trying to think who it was and can't remember right now.

GLENN: Can we play the football player -- let's play the football player. The audio. Can we play the audio --

PAT: No.

GLENN: Can't play the audio. This is a story out of California that is just infuriating. There is a football player at a high school that is there at a high school, and he sees this other kid just wailing -- just wailing on this blind kid. Now, the blind kid can't even defend himself, he's blind. So he's not seeing the punches coming his way.

PAT: This is crazy.

GLENN: I mean, it's really crazy. It's really crazy. So everybody is standing around doing nothing.

PAT: Filming it.

GLENN: Yeah, doing nothing. And finally this high school football player comes up and he grabs the guy who is wailing on him.

PAT: I think he drilled him. I think he hit him in the head, which he deserved.

GLENN: Did he hit him in the head? I just saw him throw him down.

PAT: I think he did. I think he did.

GLENN: Either way, that's fine. He pulls him back, Pat says hits him on the head, and throws him down to the ground.

Well, he then goes right over to the blind kid and is like, "Are you okay? Are you all right? Here." And he helps him get out of there. Everyone runs around the bully and is helping the bully up.

PAT: Because he got blasted by the football player. And the football player is yelling, "What are you doing? That's a blind kid you're hitting. What are you doing?" In more colorful language than that.

GLENN: Now, who gets expelled?

PAT: The football player.

GLENN: The football player does. This is insane. Absolutely insane. What's wrong with us?

PAT: Well, Glenn, they have a zero tolerance --

GLENN: Yeah, I have a zero tolerance -- zero tolerance for common sense.

PAT: Yeah, that's what all of those policies --

GLENN: We'll get back into that here in a second. You have Bill back on?

STU: In theory, yes.

GLENN: Bill.

BILL: Beck.

GLENN: How are you doing, buddy?

BILL: Good. I'm glad you guys have telephones finally. Telegraphs.

GLENN: Well.

PAT: Thought we'd join the last century.

BILL: Working phones is really getting tough to do, but I'm glad you have a phone now.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. How are things, Bill?

BILL: Busy. Just like you, you know, trying to change the world.

GLENN: Yeah. So Bill, I have to ask you. We're going to get to your book in just a second. I have to ask you, just because it will be fun to hear the answer. I hear Donald Trump is beating your butt and is taking you out to the woodshed every night.

BILL: How exactly is he doing that, Beck?

GLENN: Well, because he has said that he's not going to do you show anymore. And then you immediately countered with, "Oh, no, no. I don't want you on the show."

BILL: No, I didn't say anything to anybody. And he got into kind of a fight with Fox News hierarchy. It didn't have anything to do with me.

GLENN: Well, that's not the story that we heard in the papers. They were saying that -- I want you to know I believe that you --

BILL: Whoa, whoa, in the papers?

GLENN: I believe that you were the one who said, "I'm not going to put up with this nonsense and have you on the show anymore." But there are a lot of people that believe that Donald Trump came out and said that he doesn't want to put up with your nonsense. Which was it?

BILL: Okay. Number one, you're believing the papers. Is that what you're telling me?

GLENN: I'm just saying, Bill. That's just what people are talking about.

BILL: Okay. Number one, I don't have any beef against Trump. Number two, I didn't say anything about Trump to anybody. Number three, he ran into a problem with the Fox News hierarchy because he was bashing people like Krauthammer and Hume and Will, and those -- he didn't like them because they didn't approve of him. So I think that's the genesis of it. But it didn't have anything to do with me directly?

GLENN: Do you know him, Bill, well?

BILL: Yes, I know Trump well.

GLENN: Is his temperament -- can he be president of the United States with that temperament?

BILL: You know, he doesn't like to be criticized. And if you're president, you're criticized every second on the second.

GLENN: Right. Right. I mean, I don't like being criticized. You don't like being criticized. But it comes with the gig.

BILL: Yeah. And I don't know if he's accepted that reality. And I think that's the problem with him. And I think that's why his numbers are going down. And his poll numbers are going down because, if you're going to run for president, you have to be able to overlook stupid stuff.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Now, if he is attacked unfairly, then there's no -- I have no problem with him fighting back. But certainly on my program, he's gotten a fair shot. And we bring on people who like him and don't like him. That's what we do on The O'Reilly Factor. All sides are heard.

GLENN: Go ahead.

BILL: He doesn't like to hear people say that they don't approve of him, and that's the problem.

GLENN: Yeah, he doesn't like me too much. So I cried myself to sleep last night and I moved on.

BILL: Well, who does? Let's be honest. Who likes you? No one.

GLENN: I know. So my wife watched your show last week or the week before --

BILL: Not you. But your wife?

GLENN: No, it's more of a girl show.

BILL: Yeah, it's like The View.

GLENN: Yeah, it's like The View. And she said she had seen Carly Fiorina on and said that you were quite complimentary of her. Which makes me question her immediately. And said that she really held her ground with you. I'm doing a sitdown with her for today for a couple of hours. And interested to hear your -- your thoughts now after the interview with her. Is she the real deal?

BILL: Well, look, I hit her with some real haymakers about her tenure in the private sector --

GLENN: She handled it well.

BILL: -- at Hewlett-Packard. About how she reacted to various criticisms of her. Some policy situations. And she didn't -- she wasn't in a snit or anything like that. She answered the questions in a very logical manner.

GLENN: Like an adult?

BILL: And I complimented her on that.

GLENN: You don't have to tell me who, but do you see the next president yet?

BILL: You know, I don't see the next president yet. I think the Republican field is narrowing quickly. Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Bush, and Rubio look the -- look to be the only candidates right now that have a chance. Although, John Kasich is doing something very interesting. He's only doing New Hampshire. And if he does well there, he thinks he can break out fast into the other states.

GLENN: Yeah, he lives in a fantasy world.

BILL: He had a really good record in Ohio.

GLENN: I didn't know they legalized drugs in Ohio because he must be smoking some --

BILL: No, they haven't.

GLENN: -- if he thinks -- oh, really? Well, then we should have the state police stop by his house because --

BILL: Do you not like him?

GLENN: No, come on. Come on, Bill, for the leave of Pete, John Kasich?

PAT: Come on.

GLENN: No, no, I don't like him.

BILL: He didn't a great job in Ohio, boy.

GLENN: Oh, that is fantastic.

BILL: Did you look at what he did there? Turning that economy around.

GLENN: Love him. Love everything about his little -- bless his little progressive heart. I just love him.

BILL: No, come on. Look, just look at the state when he got there, and look at the state now. Economically, the guy did a great job. Go ahead.

GLENN: All right. I'm less interested in your book now.

(laughter)

BILL: I'll throw some Muslims in it.

GLENN: How come you don't have that? Killing ISIS, something like that.

BILL: Right. You know, if I had known you were writing that Muslim book, I would have put Muslims in the Reagan book.

(laughter)

GLENN: All right. So tell me the most interesting thing in the book. Because actually, I haven't read it. But I've thumbed through it.

BILL: Well, you should read it or have someone read it to you. You have a lot of servants.

GLENN: I would read it. If it was written by anyone else, I would have read it three times by now.

BILL: No, you wouldn't, Beck. No, you wouldn't. Here's the most interesting part of the book. Ronald Reagan gets elected and shortly after is shot and is almost killed. He comes out in a robust way. We all remember. His little bathrobe, standing, making jokes, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The president is going to be okay. But he wasn't okay. And the White House was able to keep that from the press and able to keep that from the people. He had his good days and his bad days. And we were taking our research from the people who loved Reagan, not from the snipers on the left. Okay? But the people who worked for him for a long time. People who admired him. On his bad days, he would even come down to the Oval Office and watch soap operas on TV. And on his good days, he was brilliant. But there came a point in the second term where his main advisers, Baker was the chief of staff, if you remember, was so concerned about him, that they had a meeting in the Oval Office. And he came into the meeting. And he didn't know that he was being watched, and if he had not performed well, they were going to try to remove him under the Constitution. And vice president Bush would have taken over the presidency.

PAT: But this had nothing to do with --

GLENN: This had nothing to do with the shooting?

BILL: No, it did. Because the shooting changed his physiology and his psychology. You're shot at that level and you almost die, you get that kind of trauma, you're never the same. Never the same. And because of his age, he -- his recovery time while it seemed on the surface was miraculous, it really wasn't. So that he would be in and he would be out. But I'll tell you why, when we were researching this and we found out that he was within a whisper of being removed from the presidency and nobody knows that, and the story is so dramatic, and then after he passed the test that they gave him, he made a miraculous comeback mentally because of the Soviet Union. And we go through that. And it's all weaved together. But the book I think is fascinating for anyone who cares about Ronald Reagan.

GLENN: I will tell you this, Bill, that I actually do find it fascinating. There's a lot of great stuff in the book. Including the fact -- did you guys know that Ronald Reagan tried to join the Communist Party? He was rejected by the Communist Party. They thought he was a lightweight. It's a fascinating read. Bill, before we go -- I'm sorry to cut this short because of the phone thing. But real quick, your thoughts on the pope. You're a Catholic.

BILL: Yes. I like the pope. I think I understand what he's trying to do. The churches are in trouble. He wants to get more people interested in the church so he takes a holistic point of view that, you know, "Look, we are accepting of sinners. Everyone is welcome. Everyone can come back." At the same time, his job on earth is to administer to the poor. And I don't really think he understands the best way to do that because he was raised in the Argentine economic system which is corrupt. However, overall, the pope is a good man. I think he did the Catholic church a lot of good. Christianity a lot of good.

GLENN: Were you at all disappointed that he did not take on the abortion cause in front of Congress or that he -- he lectured about American Catholic communists or the fact that on Saturday at the United Nations, we're talking about doing a gigantic global program that is a power grab? Are you disappointed in any of those things?

BILL: Well, I think the abortion thing he believes is polarizing, and that if he had gotten into it specifically, he would have lost some ears. Then he made a calculated decision. There's no doubt that the pope and the Catholic church are anti-abortion. And they always will be. And I think he made a calculation. Look, I'll avoid confrontation. And I'll be inclusive as I can. I think that I would have played it differently had I been him.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Nobody is perfect.

GLENN: Hang on, that's news. Bill O'Reilly would have gone for the confrontation.

Bill, God bless you, thank you so much. Keep up the good work.

BILL: All right. Thanks for having me here.

GLENN: All right. Buh-bye. The name of the book is Killing Reagan. Bill O'Reilly. The next in the series. I'll give you a hint, at the end of this one, he doesn't die.

Featured Image: Host Bill O'Reilly appears on 'The O'Reilly Factor' on The FOX News Channel at FOX Studios on March 17, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Rob Kim/Getty Images)

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.