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

Rand Paul Is Still Recovering From Neighbor’s Attack: ‘There Will Be Legal Consequences’

January 12, 2018
Staff

WRITER

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) shared an update on today’s show about his recovery process after being assaulted by a neighbor in his own yard.

“I’m starting to get better every day,” Paul said. He suffered six broken ribs in the attack, describing on today’s show how it still hurts to sit up.

Rene Albert Boucher, who has been Paul’s neighbor for 17 years, allegedly attacked Paul by jumping him from behind and knocking him to the ground. He has pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor assault charges.

“I think in the end there will be legal consequences,” Paul told Glenn on today’s show.

“The machinery of justice sometimes is slow, but I think in the end, there will be a just outcome and some punishment for this.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Senator Rand Paul is joining us right now, a friend of the program, or we're a friend of his, at least. And glad to have him on, and glad to hear that he is able to continue to do work and to be on the phone with us.

Rand, we've been really concerned. This audience has been very concerned about your health. How are you feeling?

RAND: You know, I'm starting to get better every day, and I appreciate that. And I appreciate really -- [indistinct] -- across the country being concerned about my health.

GLENN: You know, I've only had a bruised rib. What, do you have three broken ribs?

RAND: Actually had six broken ribs. Three of them, three of them displaced. Meaning that I --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RAND: -- not really aligned anymore. Fluid on the lung, I had pneumonia twice, and, you know, five or six weeks just to really excruciating pain trying to even sit up. I had to have assistance just to sit up.

GLENN: So, Senator, this has been bothering me. Since this story broke, first it was like, no big deal. Then it was like, oh, maybe a little bit, and then the details started to trickle out.

Why -- what happened with the media where we weren't getting the story? It was -- I mean, did you not know you had those broken ribs right away?

RAND: I think the media was obsessed with sort of trying to make it my fault somehow.

So the major liberal rag in Kentucky, the Louisville Courier, presented stories that Rand Paul is apparently not a good neighbor or sort of had it coming, deserved what he got. And it's really kind of stuff that the left -- [indistinct] -- for victims, until the victims happen to be conservatives.

GLENN: I've never seen -- I've never seen anything like it, and I don't know why this guy -- I don't care -- I mean, I do care if you're a Senator. To me it makes it much, much worse, especially if it was politically motivated. I don't care if you were a guy living on the street. That's a major attack! Why isn't this guy having major legal problems?

RAND: I think in the end there will be legal consequences. The machinery of justice sometimes is slow, but I think in the end it will be a just outcome, and some punishment for this.

But I guess the thing is, and I don't know if you remember, but about a month ago my wife finally just had enough, and she said, I can't stand -- [indistinct].

GLENN: I'm sorry. Your phone is kind of weird. You said she said what?

RAND: She just couldn't stand them attacking me every day. I got mugged once in the yard and then I got mugged by the media every day implying somehow that I sort of had it coming and that violence was justified. I guess they don't realize that it is -- [indistinct] -- think it's kind of funny, but I was on the ball field being shot at by a gunshot, over 100 shots at us, almost killed Steve Scalise, and I was attacked in my yard. And it's not that funny.

GLENN: I cannot believe -- we were on the air. If this would have happened to anyone on the left, the country would have stopped.

And the media just kind of took it like, yeah, well, it was a lawn mower thing.

No, it's not! And even if it was, there's a problem here!

Anyway, yesterday the President tweeted that the FISA thing that was going through the House was the -- the kind of stuff used with the -- he said, bogus dossier from Fusion GPS to surveil him and spy on him, and it was horrible. Two hours later he says, well, I put the right language in there, so it's all good and it's patriotic and you can do this. Let get smart.

I think this is a nightmare.

RAND: Yeah, the people in the swamp I think try to convince the President. The swamp is kind of pushing back. Paul Ryan and others, they push back and say well, we're putting reforms there and all the problems where people abuse the system, to go after -- [indistinct] and their mistress, and Bruce Orr, we fixed that, and it isn't at all. They did fake reform. There really isn't going to be a warrant requirement. So here's this program. It's supposed to be collecting information on foreigners and foreign lands. And I agree with that. Mike Lee and I are the two biggest advocates for getting a warrant, and both of us said we're fine with the program as long as the millions of Americans who are caught up accidentally in this program, those in the database, as long as you don't go trolling through the database looking for IRS problems or looking for campaign, you know, finance problems or looking for just people you don't like because they're the opposite party, and that stuff happens.

Senator Lee mentioned this the other day. He said, since FDR every President has used the intelligence against their opponents, all the way through Nixon. And Obama did it to attack the Tea Party, and they're still doing it now but not at Trump's behest. It's to attack Trump.

GLENN: So is there a chance that you and Mike Lee and I understand there's some, you know, good Democrats that are talking about joining you guys. Is there a chance this doesn't pass in the Senate?

RAND: We had the initial vote and we had four Republicans and 23 Democrats. The Republicans are Mike Lee, myself, Jerry Moran, and Steve Daines. These are the only four Republicans that have shown any interest in trying to stop this.

So to us, the American people, if we asked your audience, I know what kind of answer we'll get. But lets just say we ask everybody, out there listening to public radio we say, do you think that the government should be able to look at your personal information, listen to your phone calls, without a warrant? It would be a hell no from everybody. 80% of the public. But in Washington? The 80% of the public, they just don't listen to us.

In fact, when they hear that, they do what is very common in Washington, they did fake reform. They do some stuff -- [indistinct] -- fix the problem. In realty, this bill is worse than the current law. You should this bill, they say that data that is collected on foreigners that accidentally gets Americans can be used against Americans in a court of law. So imagine this. Imagine they just feel like they can go through there, and they -- [indistinct] -- office you brought home and painted your house, this would be a tax violation because you deducted the paint for the business. All of a sudden, they can -- it can be used in court now. That's what this law says. And I think it is worth filibustering. The Bill of Rights, the fourth Amendment, your right to privacy, so sacred and important, and it's what John Adams said it was the spark that led to the revolutionary was James Otis fighting against General Lawrence --

GLENN: Yep. I will tell you this. That I think -- I've been asking for a while, E Pluribus Unum. What's our unum anymore? It's really is the Bill of Rights. Those common sense things that you ask yourself, you know, should the government be able to just spy on you and listen to your phone calls? The unum is, no. We all agree. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, independent, left, right. 90% of Americans would say, no, they don't have a right to do that that's our unum. And we've taken our unum, our Bill of Rights, and we're just dismantling it, to have a group of Republicans and Democrats stand up in the Senate and filibuster on that right, on that unum, I think we'll connect.

RAND: And here's the good way to look at it, a lot of people get sort of -- they get caught up in this, and they're not sure which way to think, because they think, I know my local policeman and FBI agent, and they're good people. I would say exactly the same thing. Every individual nonagent I've met out in the field has been a good person that I think tries to apply the law. The local FBI agents and the local police understand the Fourth Amendment much better than Washington. But what should scare us all, we see Strzok, his girlfriend's -- mistress talking to somebody named Andy, which is probably the second in command at the FBI and plotting at work, their work phone, on how to stop Donald Trump being President and then talk about some kind of insurance policy. And then you flip over the Department of Justice, and the Bruce Orr's wife works for the opposition research that hired a British spy that is paid for by Hillary Clinton and all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that all these people are angels and they're not going to spy on us, if we don't have extra scrutiny on what they do?

GLENN: [Sighs] There are so many distractions now, that it's hard to concentrate on the important things. We had another one yesterday. A lot of people said what the President was doing two days ago when he was sitting down with members of Congress and saying I trust you guys to come up with a plan, a lot of people who supported him said he's just playing Congress and he's playing the media and he's going to play, you know, good cop. Well, he just flushed all that down the toilet last night with the comments being released, you know, why do we let all these people in here from craphole countries. I personally am just disgusted by that.

Any comment on that, Senator?

RAND: Not that in particular. But I would say that I think something is going to come out of this. And I've always blamed -- [indistinct] immigration, when it's border security or figuring out who can come to the country. And the Democrat's unwillingness to compromise. Right now there's a bunch of kids, and I do have symptom for the DACA kids, and I -- [indistinct] compromise. The democracy -- [indistinct] they're going to have to vote in favor of having a more merit based where we admit the people to the country who need, want, and will work. And then we -- I think the chain migration is going to --

GLENN: You know, that is the defenders of Donald Trump on the craphole country thing, which I'm sorry I don't buy into any of the discussions, but what we'll say, we need to know if these people are any good because they come from a craphole country. You can come from Denmark and still not want to work and still want things for free. Denmark is giving away things for free much more than Haiti.

RAND: -- justify that --

GLENN: -- no, no.

RAND: Can't have all 700 million. And here's the thing about merit based. We need people who are -- [indistinct] -- years and EMT -- workers. If we had no immigration into our country, if some of the people want to close the borders, we have no tomatoes, we had no vegetables, we have all of the things that have to be picked in the field. Unfortunately, we have destroyed the work ethic in our country. And the people who are --

GLENN: Yes --

RAND: -- for nonwork, but our country would come to a standstill without allowing some immigration. It can be a strength. It needs to be done legally and appropriately. I'm more for legal immigration and less illegal immigration.

GLENN: I agree with you on that, and I want to point out that I think what you were saying was, that the Democrats will have to compromise on merit base, which every country on the planet does, except for us.

And do you think that they will actually go and look -- I mean, we need -- we need AI visas. We need a Manhattan project, quite honestly, for safe ASI. We need the greatest minds to come here so we can develop that and it's not developed over in China or elsewhere. But that requires merit-based stuff. Would the Democrat ever do it?

RAND: I think part of merit-based applies, and one of the things that we need to do that we used to do, we should link it to work and sponsorship. When my wife's grandmother came over here from Ireland in the 1920s, she came over, and -- [indistinct] -- she was required to work. And if she didn't work she was sent back. We had some tough rules, but people knew they wanted to come, and people did. They were hungry for work. And hard work at the lower wage was better than the other country, but there's a hope of progress, a hope of success and moving up the socioeconomic ladder.

GLENN: Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. We're glad you're feeling better. If there's anything that any of us can do to help you, let us know, besides our prayers. We appreciate the hard work you're doing, and thanks for joining us. God bless.

RAND: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: By the way, just want to point out, he said his grandmother, in the 1920s came from Ireland. At that time, many said Ireland was a craphole country, and why are we letting those people in?

Well, because some of them turn out to be really good Constitutional Senators.

Rage isn’t conservatism — THIS is what true patriots stand for

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.