The 2016 election will come down to one word: Authentic

Phony politicians have crippled American politics for way too long. They pretend to be grassroots, but really they are backed by corporate elites and donors with endless money to spend on influence in Washington, DC. The apathy the American people showed to Hillary’s announcement is just the latest example. People are hungry for the truth. They want authenticity. And it’s not going to come from the establishment of either party.

2016 election is going to come down to one word, and that word is authentic. I really, truly believe if it doesn’t happen this time, we are done as a nation because people are absolutely starving for something or somebody that’s real. We don’t even have to agree with them all the time. We just have to believe that they’re real. If anybody starts smelling like a focus group or you can tell that they’re just going after polling numbers, phony concern, processed language, anything like that, anything that is fake, it is over that fast.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton got wrecked. She was destroyed because he basically showed up in Iowa expecting to be crowned the nominee. So, now what is she doing? She’s going to be just like you. She’s riding around in a van pretending to be an average person, going to Chipotle, you know, like she always does. Come on. She is so desperate to appear normal when we all know she’s not normal. And that’s okay.

Her first campaign ad was excruciatingly boring, but it was real people. You’re made to believe that they are just regular people. They’re just people just like you doing mundane jobs just like you. But they’re not regular people. This woman, show this woman. This woman here, she’s not a regular person just planting her garden. No, she’s in this for a reason, because she is a big-time former abortion lobbyists who was leading a campaign for Wendy Davis. So, having her in this spot was speaking to all of her supporters—see, we’re just like you. We’re abortion activists.

So now Hillary is riding around in a crappy van, and actually it’s not a crappy van. It’s a $75,000 van. Wait. Dana has a great show. She’s going to be talking about the van tonight. But she’s driving around, she’s talking to people at gas stations. When do you think Hillary Clinton actually got out at a gas station and pumped? By the way, I like the Chairman Mao outfit she’s wearing there, I mean, because that’s what the regular people in Iowa wear are designer Mao jackets like that one.

When do you think she actually was at a gas station and was looking through the beef jerky? Really? Do you think she’s actually gone to the gas station and said, “Man, there’s Duck Dynasty T-shirts and key chains and everything everywhere; these guys really are big”? She’s not hanging out at gas stations. It’s not who she is, and that’s perfectly okay.

She was the first lady back in the 80s. Then she was the former first lady. Then she was a senator. Then she was the Secretary of State. Now she’s running for president again. She’s an elite with access and connections to powers that few in human existence have ever achieved. That’s okay. She used to be poor, and then—because they were both attorneys, I mean, poor is kind of relative here. She did go to Yale, but now they’re mega million dollars rich.

She’s a woman with ambition to be president of the United States. Good. I think she’d have a better chance if she were just honest about it and say look, okay, I’m never really quite comfortable hanging out at the gas station. No one’s buying this rollout, and it’s really laughable. Saturday Night Live, did you see it this weekend, hitting her harder than they did the Sarah Palin? It’s rough, and it’s because she’s a phony, and everybody knows she’s a phony. Just accept who you are and be honest about it.

She can’t even be honest about the fans on her social media sites. A study was done of her Facebook page. Again, we had to go across the ocean. We had to go to I think it was The Guardian in England to get anybody in the media to do a job. They found something odd about her followers. Seven percent of her followers were from Baghdad. That’s not really comforting or real. And on Twitter, it was revealed that 15%, about 544,000 of her Twitter followers, are bogus accounts.

If her team is willing to lie about Facebook and Twitter fans and make people up just out of whole cloth, what else are they willing to lie about? Why can’t we just be honest about what we really, truly believe? Honestly, this is why I would love to see a campaign between Ted Cruz and what’s her name up in Massachusetts, Tiffany? The woman, Elizabeth Warren, you know, Cherokee people?

I’d love to see those guys because except for the “I’m from an Indian tribe,” at least they’re honest. Wouldn’t you love to have a debate—we talked about this on radio today, a debate where Ted Cruz is like this is the Constitution, and this is what I believe because I believe in these founding principles and here’s why. And she says okay, that’s fine and everything, but it doesn’t really work. I’m a Socialist. I don’t believe in communist Russia. I believe in Sweden, and we should be more like Sweden, and this is why it works.

To tell you the truth, I think the Sweden argument would probably win at this point in this country, but I could at least live with it because we’d have an honest debate. And everybody right now is just sick of these lies. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she was asked to answer a simple question on abortion, is it okay or not to kill a seven-pound baby just before birth in the womb? Two networks tried to get her to answer. She danced around this answer every which way so she didn’t have to say yes or no. Watch.

VIDEO

Megyn Kelly: At what point is it appropriate to say it’s no longer just between a woman and her doctor?

Wasserman Schultz: What is appropriate from our perspective, I’ll speak for myself, but I think I can speak for most of my party, and that is that a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body should be between her and her doctor, and that in terms of personal liberty, we definitely have a different opinion, Rand Paul and I do. And there is a Supreme Court decision though that answers those questions for us.

Megyn Kelly: But that Supreme Court decision, Casey, says the state has a say.

Wasserman Schultz: That’s right, and states have done so.

Megyn Kelly: But what it recognized is that it’s not just between a woman and her doctor; that the state has a right to step in on behalf of the fetus and say at some point that fetus does obtain rights. You know, you would admit that you can’t have women aborting third-trimester babies just on a whim, right?

Wasserman Shultz: Certainly not on a whim.

Not on a whim. Okay, stop. Okay, so she’s fine with killing a seven-pound baby if the mom and the doctor say it’s okay. All right, what’s the problem with that? I disagree with it, entirely disagree with it, but what is the problem with that? The problem is that third-trimester abortions is only popular with about 15% of the American people. You’re down to—let’s be really, really overly fair and say cut that number in half, 7% of the American people would be okay with what she just said. That’s why she’s not saying it, but that’s what she means.

She’s totally fine. You want to kill the baby, if the doctor and the mom say I want to kill it instead of giving birth to it, they’ll kill it right before birth. That’s fine. She is all in favor of giving somebody that choice to commit murder. Okay. But that’s not the way the game is played. She can’t be who she really is because she’s playing politics. The inner conversation that she’s having in her head when they ask that question is if I say something wrong, then the pro-choice people will be mad at me. If I say it’s okay, then I’m okay with killing a baby, so I’ll just really say nothing. I’ll let people read between the lines, and then you get those fake answers—oh, it’s choice, choice, choice.

It’s a bunch of phonies. And this isn’t merely a Democratic problem. This is a political problem. This is a problem that we have accepted. This is all Astroturf. And here are the people that really know it and are not going to put up with it anymore—the college age. If Jeb Bush decides to run, trust me, you are going to see a similar reaction to Hillary’s announcement. Nobody is buying into the organic grassroots Jeb Bush campaign. I’m not falling for it. I don’t think anybody else is.

But the media is all about the establishment. Did you see them today running after Hillary? This is the most amazing video. Okay, here they start running because her van just passed. She’s going to the back. She’s going to the back. Oh my gosh, look, there she goes. There she goes. Quick, everybody grab your cameras. We’ve got to get her out of the car. We’ve got to get that shot. It’s crazy. There are no actual literal people there, just reporters falling all over themselves, and they fall over Jeb Bush too.

But they crucify people like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, even though there is genuine excitement for those guys. Let’s talk about Ted Cruz here for a second. Say what you want, but the guy is not establishment. That much is really clear. They hate his guts. Now, how much of that is resonating with the public? Well, I think pretty well.

I want you to listen to an answer that Ted Cruz gave that I think is the right answer to give. Now, he happened to give this at an agricultural summit in Iowa, and it would have been very easy for him to give another answer, but he didn’t because it’s not what he believed. This is him saying he was against ethanol with a bunch of farmers in Iowa. Watch.

VIDEO

Ted Cruz: Look, I recognize that this is a gathering of a lot of folks who the answer you’d like me to give is, “I’m for the RFS, darn it.” That would be the easy thing to do. But I’ll tell you, people are pretty fed up, I think, with politicians that run around and tell one group one thing, tell another group another thing, and then they go to Washington and they don’t do anything they said they would do. And I think that’s a big part of the reason we have the problems we have in Washington is there have been career politicians in both parties that aren’t listening to the American people and that aren’t doing what they said they would do.

That is exactly the problem, and it’s exactly what we’re tired of. Most politicians would be too afraid to do just that. It was not that hard. Just tell the truth. He was applauded for telling the truth. That is what people are hungry for, starving for, to be truthful. We’ve had our share of career politicians who have come into office saddled with political debts that they have to pay, and I have to ask you a question, how’s that working out for us? Working out well? The president, no matter which side, the president gets in office, and he’s handcuffed. The country ends up paying the ultimate price because the politicians are too afraid of special interest groups—too many conflicting debts that they have to pay.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.