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

Is MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski Turning Conservative?

November 30, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

An amazing shifting is taking place, and the mainstream media doesn't seem to recognize it. Ironically, the left and the media are sounding like the Tea Party did in 2008 and 2012, lamenting about their constitutional rights disappearing.

"If I wanted to be a jerk, I would say, Really? Can you tell me which rights have disappeared? Because isn't that what they've said to us for the last eight years? We can't play that game anymore," Glenn said Wednesday on his radio program.

Another shift taking place is a new open-mindedness and objectivity among a minority on the left.

RELATED: Former Progressive Caller Josh Reveals His Incredible Transformation After Reading ‘Liars’

MSNBC news anchor Mika Brzezinski has, on several occasions, expressed her concern about double standards on the left while looking for new ways to communicate about and approach issues. Brzezinski recently voiced her displeasure with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), saying she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

Is Brzezinski turning into a conservative? No, of course not. She's just changing her approach, her tone.

"That is critical, just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing," Glenn said.

The bottom line is that we need each other. We need to be approachable to the other side and listen to the opinions of others.

"I don't mean that you change your principles. I haven't changed --- people believe I have --- but I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: This is an amazing thing. I'm now reading articles about how the Hollywood left is -- they're buying luxury bunkers. And what is it that these people know that the rest of us don't seem to know? All of a sudden now preparing is also kind of cool for -- for the left, I guess.

Now there's a reason to hunker down. To me, this says, we can make the case that the presidential powers are far too great. That if half of the country is terrified under a Democrat and then we -- and then we replace him with a Republican and the other half is terrified, would he give you a problem.

PAT: And, gee, who said that, "Don't give those powers to the president because you're not going to like it eventually?"

GLENN: We said that during Bush. We said that during Bush.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: This is the real problem. I want to get into this here in just a second, but I want to start with a phone call that we had yesterday that I think is -- I mean, we had so much mail and so many Facebook comments on this because it shows that, A, there is hope and that people are open-minded if you present yourself the right way.

Listen to this.

CALLER: Let me start off this way, I was a very, very progressive liberal, almost to the point of communism. I believed everybody should be -- you know, in the wage gap and everything. So a buddy of mine that I've known since I got out of the Army, he -- he came to me one day and gave me your book. One of your books. And he says -- he said, "You've got to read this."

GLENN: Which one?

CALLER: Liars.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: And he said, "You've got to read this book." And I said, "Oh, come on. Really?"

And, "No, you've got to read this book. You'll never believe the some of the stuff that's in it."

So he told me the first chapter to go to. And it was in August, so I can't remember, to be honest, what chapter it was.

But it was the part of the book where it talked about how they -- with Prohibition.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And how they put poison in the alcohol to find out the tracking routes of where it was going.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: So I read that, and my jaw hit the floor.

GLENN: You looked it up too, didn't you? You didn't believe --

CALLER: I did. And I finished that book in three days. It was the most amazing book I've ever read. And I said, "I've got to do more research on this, and I've got to find out who this Glenn Beck guy is." So I went to YouTube.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

CALLER: And I searched your name and I found a video that you did on TheBlaze. I don't know how long it was. But you spoke to a guy that was an alcoholic. And you talked to him about some -- I forget who said it. It was to Peter Carr.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And the statement was, "Set reason firmly in her seat, and question with boldness the very existence of God. For if there is a God, he must rather honest questioning over blind-folded fear." I will never forget that statement. Because that statement brought me to Christ.

I was an atheist before that.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Holy cow. So you were a communist, an atheist?

CALLER: Yeah.

PAT: And how long ago was this, Josh?

GLENN: He said August.

CALLER: I got that book on August 15th of this year.

PAT: Of this year! Wow, that's --

CALLER: Yeah, I voted for Barack Obama twice. I'm sorry, but I did.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: Wow.

CALLER: And I would have voted for Hillary Clinton with vigor. However, I pulled the lever for Evan McMullin this year.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: You didn't even go -- oh, my gosh.

CALLER: And I have never, ever, ever -- I'm telling you -- I want to be as serious as I can with you, Glenn, because this is a dream of mine, to speak to you since August. I have never, ever realized the difference -- I thought all conservatives hated me. I thought conservatism was hate -- was complete hate, until I listened to you.

PAT: Wow. That's --

GLENN: This is -- this is a dream come true. This has made the last year totally worth it.

Before we go back to this phone call, because we talked about -- we talked about a few things with him on what -- how -- because that's quite a statement to make. But I want to -- I want to shift gears. And can we go to Mika and what Mika said on MSNBC? Was this today or yesterday?

PAT: I think it was yesterday.

GLENN: Okay. Listen to this.

VOICE: And you have Elizabeth Warren who is stepping out and basically looking like she's going to be the de facto head of the Democratic Party nationally. That is a --

VOICE: Yeah.

MIKA: Do you lead on anger though? Because that doesn't seem very constructive to me.

I got to tell you, I love her. I'm getting tired of this act.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: She's definitely giving voice to the people in the party and in the country who think Donald Trump is a disaster for the country. She's going to be out every day --

MIKA: Yeah. But you know what, there's a huge part of the country that doesn't think so.

VOICE: Right.

MIKA: And she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

I mean, she's just got to stop. I'm sorry. It's getting exhausting. And this was not helpful during the campaign. It wasn't. There was an anger there that was shrill and --

PAT: Uh-huh.

MIKA: -- and a step above what it needed to be, unmeasured, and almost unhinged.

PAT: How about that?

GLENN: Now, listen, what people will want to say, on our side is, wow, is Mika turning a conservative? No. No.

PAT: She's changing her tone.

GLENN: She's changing her tone. That is critical. Just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing. And obviously, at least for one person, it was successful.

We tried to say, "Look, this isn't a Democratic problem. This is a Democratic and Republican problem. And this is not a liberal problem. This is a human problem."

PAT: And nothing proves better what you've been trying to say for a while now better than this. Because how did that make all of us feel? Everybody listen I objecting to that went, "Wow, thank you. Thank you for being a little bit reasonable and seeing the other side."

GLENN: And honest. And honest.

PAT: And honest.

Well, so if we did the same thing, how will the left feel?

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

And you're not going to get everybody on the left. You're not going to get the die-hards. You're not going to get the die-hards. But the die-hards eventually --

PAT: Some reasonable people might be able to come --

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: On both sides.

GLENN: And the die-hards will eventually be the absolute outer fringes that no one will listen to.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Another great example of this was David Axelrod, of all people.

PAT: Right.

STU: Who was in the Obama administration obviously. A real hard-core partisan and hasn't changed his beliefs. But while Trump was getting beat up for not naming his people fast enough in his cabinet, Axlerod came out and said, "Wait a minute. By this time in our administration, we hadn't named anybody, and I don't remember any criticism." We need more of that.

PAT: A little honesty. A little bit of honesty goes a really long way.

GLENN: Right. Right.

And if we can -- if the right can lead the way in this -- if we can not play the same game and not trash our enemies because they're our enemies, but call them as we see them -- not remain silent when an injustice is happening. Let me give you one. Let me show you an example.

Right now, you have Breitbart being boycotted. Well, first of all, I don't believe that Kellogg's was ever a major sponsor of Breitbart. Maybe. But I don't ever remember seeing Kellogg's Corn Flakes all over. And this was done to us.

There were people that would say they were going to boycott us, that never spent money with us. We were never on part of their buy. They never would have.

PAT: And everybody counted it, "That's the 37th sponsor." Yeah, like eight of them. Four of them. One of them was a sponsor before.

GLENN: Right. Right. Really, most of them were like BMW will never advertise -- well, they never advertise on talk radio. They've never advertised with me before.

So, A, I think this is the press doing to Breitbart what the press did to us. What the left did to us. I don't believe that that -- that boycott of Kellogg's is even real. But even if it is, let me make the case -- and everybody knows how I feel about Breitbart and Bannon. So I have nothing to gain here.

Let me tell you why I think it is a problem. I believe in legal boycotts. I believe you have the right to do it. It's a free market. You have a right to spend your money as a business or -- or an individual, any way you want. It's your money. So if you want to do a boycott, you can do a boycott.

But let me show you why it's not good: Breitbart, if the numbers are right -- and I'm trying to look this up. If the numbers were right, in the last 30 days, Breitbart claims they did 45 million next week.

That's a lot of people.

STU: That's a great number.

GLENN: That's a great number. And that's a lot of people.

Okay. So 45 million people -- Kellogg's, you're going to say, "I don't want any of you. I don't want any of you." Now, Breitbart has said they are the platform for the alt-right. Okay. That's a pretty big choice. To me, I'm not reading Breitbart anymore because I don't want to support something that has -- that says, "I'm going to give this group of people a platform." I don't agree with that. But 45 million people don't care. Forty-five million Americans.

Now, let me just give you this: Remember Richard Spencer. He's the guy who's the leader of the alt-right. He had a big get-together in Washington, DC. This was their big victory lap. How many people showed up?

JEFFY: I think it was like 80 million.

GLENN: Right. 80 million. Well, 45 million, right? Right. No. 275 people.

JEFFY: A little less than that.

GLENN: Yeah. 275 people showed up.

PAT: Yeah. Less than 45?

GLENN: Yeah, it is less than 45.

Now, you don't need 30 percent of the population for a real movement, but you need maybe -- well, definitely more than 275.

JEFFY: Yes.

(chuckling)

GLENN: The point is, Breitbart's audience is not alt-right. And this is the point the press has got to understand. They're all touting -- let me give you this: This is from The Daily Tar Heel. This is the newspaper for the University of North Carolina.

Here's their headline: We can -- this is the editorial board right --

PAT: Are they considered pretty liberal? Yeah?

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. This is the editorial board. We can all learn from Glenn Beck's change of heart.

And it goes in to say we're living in a world that is in perpetual status quo with different ideas for directions on where to go from the norm.

In many cases, the far right and silent majority have won, leaving many of those who generally aligned with that party, to be ecstatic.

It goes on to say -- I'm going to skip a bunch of. Regardless of which side you stand on these issues, let's praise Beck's open-mindedness to new ideas and perspectives.

Now, they are saying that I am praising Black Lives Matter.

PAT: That you've changed on certain things like Black Lives Matter.

GLENN: And I haven't. I haven't.

What I have done is what Mika has done and changed my tone. And I've said, "Let's listen." Not to the people who are praising Fidel and want an end to American capitalism, who are at the top of Black Lives Matter, but instead, the people on the street, who are not violent, who are not calling for death to cops, who just are wound up in this group that I believe is the majority of them. The majority of people that are saying, "You know what, at least Black Lives Matter is stepping up and getting people's attention.

I don't believe they want to destroy America. We need to listen to people who say, "No one is hearing me."

That -- now, by boycotting 45 million people that read Breitbart, what are you doing? You're saying, "You're not even worth listening to. You're not even worth marketing to. I never want to see you again." That's a mistake. Because .00001 percent of the people who read Breitbart are Nazis. Two hundred and seventy-five nazis showed up last week in Washington, DC.

PAT: Well, alt-right people, right?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah, well, I'm sorry --

PAT: I mean, they've got some of those tendencies perhaps.

GLENN: The 275, no, they were giving the Hitler salute. I will call them that.

PAT: Were they?

STU: No, they were saying hail -- hail Trump. That was their big excuse. They're like, it wasn't heil Trump, it was hail Trump.

GLENN: They actually did the Hitler salute and said hail Trump.

PAT: They said heil in English.

STU: Right.

PAT: Okay. Good. Good. That's unique.

GLENN: Completely differently. Completely different.

So I want to go back to this guy, but, again, the point of the phone call that came in yesterday and the point of Mika and the point of Liars, the book -- if you haven't read the book, we worked really hard on it. And it was a best-selling book, and it's really good. Please get it for Christmas, especially if you know somebody who has an open mind.

PAT: Like this guy.

GLENN: Right. And may I suggest that we need an open mind, that we need to be approachable to people on the left. I don't mean that you -- that you change your principles. I -- I haven't changed -- people believe I have. I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places.

We need each other. We need to be able to listen to each other. We need to be able to -- how many of us had a Thanksgiving where we just couldn't stand sitting at the table with our own relatives for political reasons? I understand not wanting to sit at the table for other reasons with your family, but not for political reasons.

Featured Image: Host Mika Brzezinski speaks on stage during the Women In The World Summit held in New York on April 24, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Toth/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?

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

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

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

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

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

Ancient evil, new clothes

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new currency of power

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

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

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

The forgotten way

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

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

Both are traps.

The only way

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A restoration, not a renovation

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

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

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

The selective guardians of history

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

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

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

The real desecration

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

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

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.