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

Disturbing Details in the Flimsy Case Against Mother Amy Fabbrini

August 07, 2017
Staff

WRITER

The case of Amy Fabbrini, an Oregon mother whose children were taken away after the state declared her IQ was too low to parent effectively, has touched Glenn deeply.

“It's just so outrageous what is happening,” Glenn said.

Jason Buttrill, head researcher and writer for The Glenn Beck Program, met with Glenn last week to “get down to the absolute nuts and bolts” on what exactly is going on with this case.

The state has alleged that Fabbrini and Ziegler aren’t fit, even though there is no evidence of abuse or neglect. According to court documents, Oregon has alleged that Fabbrini doesn’t understand the basic needs of her children and can’t be a safe parent.

After hearing from a listener who works for CPS and digging deep into the court case of Fabbrini, it turns out the case is even worse than they originally thought.

“We have seen all of the documents,” Glenn said.

Buttrill discovered that Fabbrini, along with the child’s father, both graduated in the middle of their class. Beyond that, there are actual quotes from case workers claiming that Fabbrini is “lazy, dirty and retarded.” There is even speculation that one of their children might be diagnosed with autism, therefore the court is hoping to give the child to a family with more means that is better able to take the child to a specialized school.

“This cannot stand,” declared Glenn. “The state cannot take children away because of low IQ. They cannot take children away because of a possible diagnosis in the future.”

GLENN: There is a story out of Oregon we've been telling you about all last week of Amy Fabbrini and her children. They have been taken away from a girl who we have been told, the state says is -- has too low of an IQ to be able to take care of her own children. The more we get into this case, the more we are, like, something is just not right here. And last Friday, I had a meeting with Jason Buttrill, who is with me now, and he's our lead researcher on the Glenn Beck Program, and we had a kind of come to Jesus meeting on Friday because we all had concerns. And we were, like. Okay. We have to get down to the absolute nuts and bolts on this. We need to go up. We need to see everything. We need to meet everybody. We need to know for sure before we go any further on this. Because it's just so outrageous what is happening.

So they were working on that over the weekend, and I get this forwarded to me from Jeffy. Do you know this guy, Jeffy? Or is he just reaching out to you?

JEFFY: No, he was just reaching out.

GLENN: So he's a guy, he wrote, like, five or six pages. I'm just going to give you a couple of highlights. He wrote five or six pages and said, look, I work for child protective services.

PAT: He's an attorney for them.

GLENN: Yeah, and he said I've seen this from the inside and, you know, don't jump on any bandwagons.

So here is word of caution. I want to just take you through this because what he points out were exactly my questions on Friday. And we have an update for you, and it's a pretty stunning update.

He says word of caution. Glenn, I understand your gut reaction is to defend parental rights and be wary of the state, and this is wise. However, the statements you make, the overgeneralizations, and your assumptions are alienated to a whole group of people that have a horrible job.

First of all, I want you to know if you work for CPS, I don't think you're a horrible person. I think you have a horrible job. I really do. I don't know how I would do it. But I want you to know I would bet 95 being probably overgenerous on the other direction, 95 percent of cases that CPS deal with, they probably get right. But when they get those 5 percent wrong, we should all be concerned. This is like death penalty stuff. It's not, like, hey, the electric chair works 95 percent of the chair. 95 percent of the people, they, you know, they were rightly accused and rightly judged and rightly killed.

Yeah, it's that 5 percent that is concerning because this is a death sentence for a family. But I don't think that C PS, the people the people are bad. I've worked in both rural and metropolitan areas as an attorney in child cases. All the sex abuse, domestic abuse, blah, blah, we do not have time -- now, listen to this because he underlined it. We do not have time to worry if someone has a low IQ or wants to teach their children at home. We deal with parents who are the worst of the worst. We try to save those people from terrible circumstances, including sex trafficking, as you do. There are thousands of us who get up every day to save children in horrible situations. Please stop overgeneralizing.

Well, I don't believe I have overgeneralized. I do not like CPS because of the 5 percent of cases that we have dealt with. The -- when there is a problem, it is devastating. Most of us aren't out to get your kids. I don't think you are either. Just like most people are not out to take my guns. But there are those with that agenda, and that is disturbing.

We work with parents to get their kids back. We're overworked and have too little resources. We know this is a system that is only a Band-Aid against greater moral and social problems.

Two. I'm sure that there are state workers who are everything you expect them to be. The Fabbrini situation may be the one where you're right. And if you are, I stand beside you denouncing it. However, there are a few red flags that I noticed.

Listen to these carefully. One, this story lies on a conspiracy, the CPS, state, court, the parents' attorneys, possibly the children's attorneys if they were appointed, all know that Fabbrini can care for the children, but simply think she's not smart enough. Is this possible? Yes. However, highly suspicious, even in small town. Maybe this town is rotten to the core and completely corrupt. Again, I don't think so. Being skeptical, how did you know all the individuals are corrupt and Fabbrini aren't being honest? Two, Fabbrini and her friend worked for the state and fired are the ones telling you their children were taken away because their IQ. My guess is you've never seen the filed against her. I would imagine that you have no proof that the state worker was fired for simply standing up for Ms. Fabbrini, unless you have your only getting one side of the story. She may be totally honest in this matter and the can state may state she has a notice IQ but the state has no evidence it affects her ability to parent. I have never heard of such a case. I have had many cases where parents lie about the abuse and neglect, and I must remain silent as to what the true combinations are and the evidence I have against them.

I have doubts, three that Ms. Fabbrini does sound completely coherent. Ms. Fabbrini claims the state won't let her have her kids because of low IQ. She is clearly coherent and articulate. So the premise of her story is that there was never any danger to her children but the state got ahold of her IQ and claimed that based on her IQ alone, she could not care for the children. The court. CPS, state, and attorney then ignored the fact that she is intelligent, articulate, and coherent. Internal Revenue time she brought forward proof just by showing up, they would go back to the IQ. Glenn, this is either absolute evil or ridiculous.

You may hate CPS, but this story is absurd. I may be wrong. I can tell you that in impersonal, there must be more to this story. I would ask you another question. Ms. Fabbrini's story is absolutely true. Why she has not sued the state. Can you imagine the state? State takes be able because fully capable home has IQ over 70. If it was motivate of self interest. Please note that I am just being skeptical. I do not deny that this could happen. We should be wary of a state having too much power. Just don't demonize all of us, blah, blah, blah, this state makes all of us who try to protect children look bad.

STU: That's a great e-mail, by the way. A great listener who is looking out for the show and trying to give us a broader picture. That's --

GLENN: And it's exactly what we were talking about on Friday. Because I said the same thing. Guys, that just doesn't happen. Until I see it with my own eyes, I need to see what's going on. And I need to -- I need to talk to everybody going on.

Jason, I have now seen the documents. Can I read this? Summarize this?

JASON: I would paraphrase.

GLENN: Paraphrase this. They are -- there are four conditions the state of Oregon is going after these child.

JASON: This is their case.

GLENN: This is their case. This is the documents that we have seen from the court.

One, the dad has limited cognitive abilities. Two, the mother is unwilling or unable to be a custodial resource.

Three, the mother has limited cognitive abilities. Four, the mother doesn't understand the basic needs of her child and lacks the skills necessary to be a safe parent.

That's the case. That's the case. So what this guy just said, you know, he's never -- well, you have now. We have seen all of the documents. That is the case, and I'm going to go a step further in a minute. But first, can you go through those four things with us, Jason?

JASON: Yeah, and I -- just like you said. I had the same reservations. I was, like, there's got to be something we're missing. You know, what's being reported is obviously not the story, so I want to go in to see the actual court documents that basically say, no, this is what happened. I'm assuming as soon as we see that, we're going to see some kind of crazy incident that happened. And that's the real basis of the case.

Well, we did some digging around after that meeting, we had a source come forward, and we've seen everything. I mean, everything. We've seen everything from their IQ levels, we've seen transcripts of past educational facilities, we've seen everything.

GLENN: Yeah. Just so you know, they graduated -- both of them graduated in the middle of their class.

JASON: With average grades.

GLENN: Yeah, average grades middle of the class. So if you're too stupid, then why did they get a diploma -- what does that say about all the other kids that will eventually be parents?

Okay.

JASON: So the limited cognitive abilities right off the bat. That's two of their main cases and actually their main case on this is completely out the window. If you're basing it off of their IQ, which some psychologists that tested them just gave them this number. I mean,ios how that's admissible in the court, and I also see that it's completely refuted because they graduated in the middle of the class, just like I graduated in the middle of my class. Am I a case worker at this place as alleged to have said, am I retarded? Can I not care for my children?

GLENN: So imagine a case worker, and we have the actual quotes. Imagine the case worker saying this person is lazy, this person is a mess. What was the second one?

JASON: Lazy, dirty.

GLENN: Dirty.

JASON: Retarded.

GLENN: And f'ing retard. Now, imagine, that's the case worker who's writing this up. And followed it up with quote I will never -- I will never let this person have their child. I will never allow them to have their child. Okay? After calling somebody an f'ing retard, I will never allow them -- and, by the way, when that was said, Jason, what else was happening with the case worker? What was he doing?

JASON: He was outlining for the parents, setting up -- so, yeah. And I just want to add in that this -- what this was said is potentially very explosive. It's an alleged statement, and we're actually following up to get more background on this specific person and his statements. But at the same time, this allegedly was said, he or she is putting out a plan, like he's supposed to do by the state, to give them their kids back. So the statement is "I will never let this person have Eric have his kids. But at the same time, he's saying, well, look, complete this class, complete this class, have these visits, and we will reunify your children with you."

GLENN: Now, the reason why he says that's explosive is because this person has allegedly, we have -- this isn't allegedly, but we have not gone into their cases yet. But we have had others step up who happen to have the same case worker who are saying I am not willing to go on the record, unless you guys are seriously going to finish this because this guy will never let us have our children. We have the same kinds of problems with this case worker.

Several parents, several people going through it, same exact case worker. They didn't know who the case worker was. We do. They don't.

JASON: So that points -- those are the biggest points. One and two. So basically your worst fears about this case, it just couldn't be about IQ. No, we're looking at the documents right now. We can tell you that is their case.

Now, point three, which I noticed you did give me a look on one of them. She's unwilling or.

GLENN: Unable to have custodial resources.

JASON: I thought that was odd, so I made a follow-up call on that. That stems from the interview where the case worker said that Amy wanted to put the kids up for adoption. But that is refuted, and it's very obvious now that she's not willing to put the kids up for adoption. She's not willing. She's fighting.

GLENN: So then there's this:

The mother does not understand the basic needs of her child and lacks the parenting skills necessary to safely parent the child.

Now, this is marked new allegation.

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Can we talk about this?

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead.

JASON: This is the most frightening thing in the case, in my opinion.

GLENN: Terrifying.

JASON: This was added in as a new allegation, and it says in the documents new allegation in parentheses. They have no cases to stand on at this point. So now they're prolonging this out. It has been four years that he's been with the foster care parent. So this goes to -- they had some doctor say that the kid -- and I think this is brand-new information that he might be diagnosed with autism.

GLENN: Might.

JASON: Might. They're not sure because he's still so young, they won't be able to really tell for another couple of years. So they don't really know. But he might. So in that case, because of the means of the family, they're not the richest family. Because of that, they think that, well, he'll be better off with a family with more means. That has the means to send them to, you know --

GLENN: A special school.

JASON: So he can develop at a faster rate. It's an allegation. It's alleged. None of this is -- I cannot believe this is even in a court Doc.

GLENN: And since when have we turned into a country that says a parent has to give up their child, even if they do have autism and give that child with autism with a wealthier family because they'll be able to provide. I feel horrible for the foster parents. I feel horrible for the foster parents because they've done the right thing, and now they've bonded with this child. I feel horrible for the child. But this cannot stand. The state cannot take children away because of low IQ. They cannot take children away because of a possible diagnosis in the future

Faith, family, and freedom—The forgotten core of conservatism

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatism is not about rage or nostalgia. It’s about moral clarity, national renewal, and guarding the principles that built America’s freedom.

Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?

For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.

Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.

Conservatism as stewardship

In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.

That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.

Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.

Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.

Rebuilding what is broken

We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.

Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.

A creed for the rising generation

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.

Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.

To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.

We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.