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

Another Logical American—A Journalist!—Converts to Conservatism

March 07, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What could more difficult than coming out as a gay man? Easy. Coming out as a conservative gay man.

Chadwick Moore, a journalist who recently published an article in the New York Post titled, "I'm a gay New Yorker, and I'm coming out as a conservative," says it's the hardest thing he's ever done.

Moore joined The Glenn Beck Program to talk about his conversion to conservatism.

"I've had conservative-leaning Libertarian values for a long time, and they've been growing. And even just a couple years ago, you know, I could get into political discussions with people, and it would be very clear that I have these views. And they might not like it, and they might yell and storm out, but you could still mostly have a debate. And now that is not the case," Moore said.

Moore explained it's not his politics that have changed, but rather the line has shifted beneath his feet.

"It's moved me to the right," he said.

Glenn welcomed the opportunity to close ranks with another American using reason and logic over emotion.

"This is happening," Glenn said. "If we don't open arms [to] those who feel like he does --- left or right --- if we don't close ranks and open arms, right now . . . we have a chance to gather so many people, so many people.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Chadwick Moore, a lifelong liberal and journalist who has now written this line in his op-ed: When I was growing up in the Midwest, coming out to my family at the age of 15 was one of the hardest things I've ever done. Today, it's just as nerve-racking to come out to all of New York as a conservative.

Chadwick, welcome to the program. May I call you Chad, or what do you prefer? Chadwick?

CHADWICK: You can call me anything you would like, Glenn.

GLENN: I know. What do you prefer though? Do you prefer Chadwick?

CHADWICK: Most people call me -- yeah, Chadwick is fine, yeah.

GLENN: So, Chadwick, is this harder than -- are the consequences greater than when you came out, or the same, or less?

CHADWICK: The consequences are definitely greater. You know, when I came out as a teenager, of course, it was scary for all the reasons that everyone hears about. You're worried about being bullied. Worried about your family rejecting you. But I had at that time sort of -- you know, I had a fake ID. I was going out to gay bars. I sort of -- I already had the sort of network of friends, gay friends that I had made, or at least accepting friends who I could sort of secretly tell.

This -- I didn't know -- I didn't have any conservative friends. I didn't know anyone, and I live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, which is the epicenter of New York City of sort of the social justice, identity politics brigade.

GLENN: Holy cow.

CHADWICK: Yeah. And -- and so I had -- I was going in completely blind. As we know that coming out as a conservative, you face unemployment discrimination, absolutely, especially in industries like media, which I'm in. We feel this violence in the street. We see people being assaulted and yelled at for no reason. So it was definitely -- definitely more nerve-racking --

GLENN: So, Chadwick, I have a friend who is on the other side of the aisle. I have several of them. And one of them was telling me just the other day that they don't know how to even speak sometimes to their own friends. And they're rock solid liberal. They don't know how to speak to some of their own friends because things are so crazy. And I think it's this way on the right too. That if you're not lockstep against Donald Trump, if you're in a liberal circle, you're -- you're an enemy.

CHADWICK: Oh. 100 percent, yes. You know, I've had conservative-leaning Libertarian values for a long time. And they've been growing. And even just a couple years ago, you know, I could get into political discussions with people, and it would be very clear that I have these views. And they might not like it, and they might yell and storm out. But you could still mostly have a debate. And now that is not the case.

And especially over the last year, if I would start to challenge my friends' political ideas and start to present the other side, you were an enemy. And the next time that person saw you, they would not talk to you.

So it's definitely changed. You know, I'd like to say that my politics has not changed. The line has moved beneath my feet. It's moved me to the right.

GLENN: So what is it -- was it Donald Trump that moved you there? How do you define conservative? Because I'm not sure how to define that anymore.

CHADWICK: Great point. I define -- you know, lots of people can disagree with me on this. I find conservative to be a very useful term, a very useful umbrella term for the sort of diverse political thought that's on the right. So the evangelical Christians, the Tea Partiers, the establishment Republicans, and then people more like me who are the Libertarian classical liberals.

So that's how I use the term "conservative." I find that useful.

Donald Trump was definitely a huge -- you know, I feel like his rise -- and a lot of people who identify more Libertarian on the right, their visibility, has really shifted the borders of conservatism and been more welcoming to people like myself who are disaffected liberals who are against the leftists.

And Donald Trump has really sort of -- you know, no longer is this base of conservatism, these kind of Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan types, who I would have just as little in common with I think as I do Hillary Clinton, even though I've held my nose and ticked her box last November.

GLENN: So, Chadwick, so we're probably then in the same category of conservative. I don't relate to the big government people at all. And I want to leave people alone. I was -- you know, I didn't have a problem with gay marriage, you know, long before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I just don't think the government has a place in anybody's marriage, left, right, gay, straight -- it doesn't matter. They just don't have a place there.

And so you're more of a Libertarian small government, leave people alone, kind of constitutionalist?

CHADWICK: Absolutely. Yes. Firm, staunch believer in first, Second Amendment. Absolute constitutionalist.

GLENN: Did you have a problem with the Obama administration on the First Amendment?

CHADWICK: You know, they didn't really say anything. With the press, you know, everyone likes to think that Trump is this authoritarian person. But, you know, Obama was going after journalists left and right.

PAT: Uh-huh.

CHADWICK: And, you know, the Democrats are sort of -- his administration, you know, they didn't really get much done. But the sort of liberal base then under his administration seems to have been galvanized in this radical, awful way. And the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton and the DNC have never called them out or try to reprimand them. They've just let them run wild.

So I think in that sense, I think Obama -- yeah, he never tried to stop this, this radical push to the left that his followers have undergone.

GLENN: Talking to Chadwick Moore. He's a journalist out of New York. He was known as a liberal. He's now a conservative. A Libertarian, small government conservative, constitutionalist.

The -- I have said this to my inner circle that I have met with a bunch of people that have, in fact, given lots of money to the Democratic Party who have now woken up for the first time to the fact that, wait a minute, my party is really pretty extreme. They're embracing this authoritarian kind of idea. And they rejected that serious Marxists -- and people who really didn't like the Constitution or didn't like the free market system. You know, had a real serious place at the table. They knew they were in the party. But they didn't have a real serious place at the table.

And they've opened their eyes. Now, many of them haven't been strong enough as you are now. But they have told me behind the scenes, "I'm not with the Democrats either." Do you think there is -- that you're alone. Or do you think that there's a lot of people like this, that are feeling the way you did?

CHADWICK: Oh, Glenn, I know for a fact that there are a lot of people. And the evidence is in my inbox. I've gotten thousands of messages from people since that post ran. And I would say legitimately 50 percent of those messages are conservatives from all walks of life, evangelicals to Libertarians, the other half I would say are disaffected Democrats who have been saying to me, I feel the exact same way you do. I'm scared to come out. I don't agree with this. I consider myself a moderate, but there's no place for me in the party anymore. I'm scared if I speak up, I'll lose my job. That's a big thing. I'll lose clients. You know, I'm an independent contractor. And I don't know what to do. And people have said, like, thank you for being a vessel for this voice of reason. You know, especially coming from the left.

And what you said about -- it's like President Reagan said, if fascism comes to America, it will be in the guise of liberalism. You know, it will be private ownership with absolute government control.

GLENN: Yeah. How do we grow this? Because, Chadwick, this is something that I have been, you know, working towards for a while and felt really alone for a long time, that there would be strange bedfellows, that we're not going to agree on everything, and we're going to come from the left and the right. And we're just going to stand for basic principles. And people will say, what principles would we have in common? We could start with just the Bill of Rights. And if you could give me nine out of the ten of the Bill of Rights, I think we have enough to build strong coalitions. And I don't think it's that hard.

How do we empower the people on both sides that are afraid to come out? Because I've seen it on both sides. It's -- it's bad.

CHADWICK: Yeah. And that is an excellent question and an excellent point. I agree with you that -- that the strongest weapon we have is the Bill of Rights. It is the Constitution.

You know, a few months ago, you know, I was thinking, this country is either on the verge of a bloody civil war or a really radical wonderful political enlightenment and it looks like staunch constitutionalism. And I think that's what you see happening. I think there are tons of people like me, who -- you know, the sort of liberal I was, was what this term -- a lot of people are using now called the "classical liberal," which is a constitutionalist. It's someone who supports free people, free markets, free speech, free thought. And I think that is -- nobody disagrees with that. So I think that you're right, that that is the greatest weapon we have.

And the sort of authoritarian element on the left, I still believe, is so small and so fringe. But they're so violent. And their biggest weapon is their -- is their, you know, racist homophobic Nazi bigot. That's all they can say because they have no argument. And nobody wants to be called of those things. So if you challenge them, they throw those words at you. Shut up! And that's why the media doesn't challenge them because the media doesn't want to be boycotted. They don't want to be this and that. I think most people in the media are terrified of these people too. But I think there are signs that that's no longer working. People see that Donald Trump isn't, you know, a white supremacist. So I think it's beginning to crack. And I think you're right that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, is the greatest weapon to unite the most patriotic and fair-minded people in this country. Because our country, if you look at Europe, how authoritarian the culture is becoming in Europe, we really are the last hope for the sort of great idea of free people and free markets and individual responsibility.

GLENN: How do you argue with people who will say this to a Republican? They said it under George Bush. And they will say it again because of Donald Trump. And they say it to people like you, who voted for Barack Obama, assuming that you did, voting for Barack Obama, supported or was relatively quiet during Barack Obama. What do you say to those people that say, "Well, where were you as a staunch constitutionalist when X, Y, or Z were happening?" And you could say that to both sides. How do we tell people, "The past is the past, and I'm sincere in standing with the Constitution?"

CHADWICK: That's another great question. Right. So I was thinking about this just the other day. You know, when Obama was president, it was very much like, I'm just going to close my eyes and let him take the wheel. I think a lot -- you know, if I just speak of my own personal experience, people are allowed to make mistakes. I didn't know any better. And also, at the time, I just felt I didn't have -- it's strange because I've been on both sides now. I didn't feel I had a choice. Especially when the religious right was in control of the Republican Party, and as a gay person -- and the sort of very anti-gay, non-Libertarian rules they were trying to enforce, you just feel like you didn't have a choice. So you were like, "Well, these are my people. I'm a Democrat. I have to be a Democrat."

And this is what we were saying earlier about the sort of lines being changed. And Donald Trump -- Donald Trump is the first president to take office being for gay rights, Democrat or Republican.

And so it's -- now that the culture has shifted so rapidly, I think a lot of people don't feel like they have to find blindly with their party affiliation because the other side is evil. Because they're just being told that.

So I think that most people in this country have just been falling into party lines. But now there's such an anti-establishment vigor amongst the people in this country, on the left too.

That's why Bernie would have been the nominee. He was a nationalist. He was anti-establishment. He would have been the nominee if the Democratic Party had not colluded against him and all these other things. And the superdelegates and all this other stuff. So I think most people are on our side. And it's just the misbehavior of the establishment that's finally reached a breaking point where people can actually come together.

GLENN: Chadwick, I'd love to talk to you some more. I think you're fascinating and extraordinarily brave. Extraordinarily brave.

CHADWICK: Thank you.

GLENN: And congratulations on sticking to your principles and come what may. It's -- it's a rare thing.

CHADWICK: The exact same to you, Glenn. Great admirer of yours.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We'll talk again. Thank you.

STU: It's interesting to hear that --

GLENN: This is happening. I'm telling you, if we -- if we walk together, if we don't open arms, those who feel like he does, left or right, if we don't close ranks and open arms, right now, we have a chance to gather so many people, so many people.

STU: I really like the -- his answer to, well, wait a minute. What about when this side did this and this side did this? Well, you know, maybe I made a mistake. I didn't have all the information, and now I do.

GLENN: I really like him a lot.

STU: That sort of attitude is so missing from our society that you can admit that, you know what, maybe I had the wrong perspective back then, and now I have the right one.

GLENN: Yeah, like him a lot.

STU: Yeah.

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.