Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Samantha Bee of 'Full Frontal' Talks With Glenn About Bridging the Divide

December 08, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

What does it mean to be men and women of good will? What does it mean to love your neighbor as you would love yourself? What does that look like in action? We need to figure it out because it's the only way we can find peace on earth and peace with each other.

Samantha Bee, host of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on TBS, joined Glenn in studio Wednesday to begin a dialogue about uniting our divided nation. While the two would traditionally be viewed as opponents, even adversaries, based on their political views, they both believe we've got to get back to place where we can listen to others, hear their opinions and be open to different viewpoints.

RELATED: After Winning a Divided Election, Thomas Jefferson Gave a Unifying Message

“People are receiving their news in their own bubble of the internet. It’s very difficult to penetrate that with actual information,” Bee said. “I don’t really know how to penetrate that. I don’t think anybody really does.”

As a result of that information bubble, many people define others by who or what they hate --- and it's no way to come together and find common ground.

How do we heal the divide? It starts one conversation at a time, by taking a risk and reaching outside your comfort zone.

"If we can find honest people who are actually struggling with that --- how we do this without causing more problems --- we will make it. We will make it," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Why did Samantha want to talk with Glenn?

• Does Glenn think Samantha has a potty mouth?

• Should presidents be messianic figures?

• Is Samantha an American?

• Why is civil discourse essential?

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

GLENN: Joining us now -- and she just said, "Wow, this is real." And I said, "No, I think most people would think this is unreal."

SAMANTHA: Maybe.

GLENN: From Full Frontal, Samantha Bee. And we don't know each other.

SAMANTHA: No.

GLENN: We've talked to each other once last night for about 25 minutes.

SAMANTHA: Yes. It was a very pleasant conversation. It was great.

GLENN: It was.

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: Why are you here?

SAMANTHA: I don't know. (laughter)

I don't know. Why are you having me here?

I'm here. We're doing -- well, we're doing a piece -- we're doing a piece with Glenn, and so you generously invited me to be on your show. We are merging worlds in a way.

GLENN: In a way.

SAMANTHA: In a way.

GLENN: Because I'm sure we haven't talked about it, but I'm sure there are many things we don't agree on.

SAMANTHA: I can pretty much guarantee that for sure.

GLENN: Yeah. So --

SAMANTHA: I don't think that's a bad thing.

GLENN: I don't either.

SAMANTHA: I don't see that as -- I don't see that as a bad thing.

GLENN: I think people trying to control people's lives is a bad thing.

SAMANTHA: Yes. I do agree with you.

GLENN: Oh, my -- the first thing off her mouth --

SAMANTHA: What! What!

GLENN: Your world is coming crumbling down.

STU: You are a sellout.

SAMANTHA: Uh-oh.

GLENN: Did you lose some crazy bet? And now here you are.

SAMANTHA: I'm winning the bet. I'm here.

GLENN: Saying I agree with Glenn.

SAMANTHA: It's okay with us to agree with each other on some things. I feel like there's a shared humanity, right?

GLENN: There is.

SAMANTHA: We really literally have to have conversations with people we don't agree with. It's essential.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: And I do feel like -- I'm sure that a lot of your listeners or your viewers have either not watched your show, or they have watched my show and they have not -- and turned it off.

GLENN: Yes. Turned it off in anger.

SAMANTHA: Or, you know, one interesting thing that happened on our show -- we went to the conventions, of course. And while I was at the Republican convention, so many people there came up to me privately and said, "Oh, my God, I love your show. It's really funny."

GLENN: I think you're really funny.

SAMANTHA: Thank you. Well, I wasn't really --

GLENN: You have a potty mouth.

SAMANTHA: I wasn't fishing for a compliment.

(laughter)

Definitely have a potty mouth for sure.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: But people I think -- I think people on both sides of the aisle can appreciate a well-crafted joke. And I do think it's essential to be able to make fun of yourself. It's just --

GLENN: Uh-huh. Is there a problem -- because this is -- you'll notice that -- I mean, except for the conservatives that have a stick lodged someplace.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: Or Al Gore and Tipper, when they were against the -- you know, wanted the parental labels on CDs or albums, I think at the time.

SAMANTHA: Albums, I remember those.

GLENN: Yeah.

The -- most people don't have a problem with The Simpsons because they know The Simpsons might take your guy on and hit him hard in the face.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the very next joke or the very next episode, going to hit the other side just as hard.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you think that comedy -- you know, The Daily Show and your show, do you think you do that? Do you think you hit your side just as hard?

SAMANTHA: I think that we look for those opportunities for sure. I think that, you know, we launched in a very particular moment in American politics. I mean, we launched at the beginning, really, of campaign season. And so there was just a plethora of material.

GLENN: Sure.

SAMANTHA: For us to select from.

GLENN: Sure.

SAMANTHA: I think that moving forward, that will happen more and more for sure. But there's no -- there's...

GLENN: Here's why I ask this question.

SAMANTHA: Yeah. Are you going to show a little bit of our show to acclimatize people to the tone?

GLENN: Uh, no.

SAMANTHA: You don't need -- that's okay. I promise, some of you will really like it. It's very edgy.

GLENN: No. I -- I like it. It is -- it is -- I used to -- I was much more of an artist with the F-word than you ever will be.

SAMANTHA: Okay. Oh. Oh.

GLENN: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Okay.

GLENN: And then I found Jesus and all of that stuff.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: So I've cleaned up my act. And so it is a little assaulting for viewers that are not used to that -- you know, Mike Huckabee will watch it and say, "I've never heard a woman use the F-word before."

SAMANTHA: Well, he would 100 percent find me to be nasty.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: Yes.

GLENN: He might go farther than that.

SAMANTHA: He would go further than that.

GLENN: You may be from the underworld.

SAMANTHA: Definitely from the upside down.

GLENN: But, anyway, I find you very, very funny.

PAT: We actually have played clips of your show.

SAMANTHA: Which -- I was curious about that because you mentioned that last night.

STU: We can play -- as you might know --

SAMANTHA: In like a favorable way, right?

STU: Yes. No, actually --

PAT: Donald Trump can't read.

JEFFY: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Trump can't read.

STU: We thought that was really funny.

PAT: And -- that was very funny. And the trolls in Russia. We played --

JEFFY: Yeah, the hacker.

GLENN: We spent an hour talking about the trolls in Russia.

SAMANTHA: Did you?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That was really interesting. How the heck did you find those people?

SAMANTHA: Well, you know, we have an incredible research team.

STU: Yeah, ours sucks.

JEFFY: Yeah, no kidding.

GLENN: We got this guy.

STU: We have that guy. He just sits over there and types --

SAMANTHA: Oh, boy. That's it. The whole team.

GLENN: Well, he ate the whole team.

(laughter)

SAMANTHA: You know, we have -- yeah, we have an -- we have just an amazing team of people. And we had one woman who was able to -- she just ended up in I don't know chat rooms. I don't know what she did to kind of infiltrate that world. But she ended up chitchatting a paid Russian troll. And, you know, the story was born out of that. And then it just kind of grew and grew. And then we decided it was worth it to go to Russia and speak to them in person.

PAT: Did you ever at any point believe they might be not the real thing?

SAMANTHA: Not real.

PAT: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: Well, you know, you have to treat them -- you have to -- obviously, you have to be very suspicious.

PAT: Yeah.

SAMANTHA: I think we did our absolute best due diligence with them.

PAT: Uh-huh.

SAMANTHA: And we determined that we were comfortable -- we were comfortable believing that they were real. And I believe that they were real.

PAT: It sounded like they were.

SAMANTHA: Since the story aired, Russian media has tried to discredit the story in various ways. But that's kind of what they do.

JEFFY: They do.

GLENN: So is it disturbing to you at all because we've been on this Russian thing for, four years? Three years? About the influence of Russia and Putin. And it's interesting because a lot of people that were -- were okay with that in saying, "Yeah, okay. I believe you. Yeah, that's wrong. That's bad. That's dangerous."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: In the last year, many of them have said, "That's propaganda. That's crazy. That's not happening." Or it's, "So what?"

SAMANTHA: Right.

GLENN: Does it bother to you that we seem to be playing musical chairs, that under the last president I was freaked out and thinking, "Oh, my gosh." And now, under this president, you're saying, "Oh, my gosh."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Well, it's not just me saying it. There are a lot more people.

GLENN: No, no. I am saying it -- I'm saying it as well.

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: But the point that at least I have been trying to make and many people in our audience have been trying to make -- and we were never taken serious is no president should ever make you feel that way. Not because we elect the great guys. Our Founders knew, they're going to elect bad guys. It's the balance of power. No man should have so much power that he can reach into your life and change our culture and change everything.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you see that? Or?

SAMANTHA: I -- you know, I guess fundamentally I don't really trust anyone. I don't really --

GLENN: We don't either.

SAMANTHA: I don't really -- I just don't see presidents or -- I don't -- as these messianic figures.

GLENN: Right.

SAMANTHA: I just don't think that any one person or leader is going to be everything to everybody. And, of course -- you know, the pendulum swings.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: It --

PAT: Uh-huh.

SAMANTHA: It's -- I think what we're going through right now feels very different to me, in my experience, which is limited because, remember, I'm an immigrant. And this is the first election that I was able to vote in.

GLENN: You're from, where?

SAMANTHA: So that was -- I'm from Canada, you guys.

GLENN: Oh, that's not an immigrant.

PAT: Oh.

STU: I'm a Bluejays fan.

SAMANTHA: That's a total -- my immigrant experience, I came across with my babushka. You know.

GLENN: Yeah.

So it's not that -- the thing that I think we can unite on that I -- and it seems -- it seems almost eye-roll stupid, but it's not, is the Bill of Rights.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The Bill of Rights -- we all agree -- you know, I was dumb enough in 2003 to go, "Oh, George Bush, he'd never misuse the Patriot Act." By 2006, I'm like, "Oh, my gosh, how stupid was I." Then -- and left -- you know, the people on the left were right there.

And the reason why a lot of us didn't listen to that warning was because, "You're just the other side. You're just against George Bush."

Oh, my God, shut up.

And now, under Barack Obama, it expanded and got worse. And under this guy, it's going to expand and get even worse.

SAMANTHA: Do you feel like the world is going to be -- or our world -- at least I feel -- and this is part of the reason why we're here today is because I do think that it's important for us to kind of redraw the lines a little bit. I don't think that it's as clear-cut as left and right or liberal and conservative anymore. I feel like --

GLENN: True liberals --

SAMANTHA: -- you need to form alliances in a different way now. I think that, you know, there are things that are imperiled now, or certainly there feels like there's an urgency and there feels like there's violence in the air to me.

And I think that it's going to be more important than ever for people to kind of reach into areas where they wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable and hold hands with people --

GLENN: I agree.

SAMANTHA: -- in a different way.

And I think -- you know -- and it's more about -- and it's more than just talking, too. It's actually more than just civil discourse.

Civil discourse is really, for me, just the beginning of change.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: You know, that's a nice place to start. It's a very privileged idea that we can all sit here and go, "We should speak to each other nicely. We should actually be civil."

GLENN: Yes. We should do more -- we should also listen to each other.

SAMANTHA: Speak nice. Speak -- you know, speak properly to each other.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: Listen to one another. But then there's an action moment too, where you have to -- you have to defend people. You have to stand up for people who are imperiled in this new world. You have to take action. I don't know what the action moment is. We do have to find it.

GLENN: It will come. It will present itself. Don't look for trouble. It will come. Be prepared for trouble.

SAMANTHA: This is all so comforting.

GLENN: No, no. But don't you --

SAMANTHA: Yeah.

GLENN: You just prepare for it. And then if it doesn't come, it doesn't come. But if it does, we'll know it when it comes. And then we are prepared and united to stand on common principles.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But no one wants to talk about common principles. Everybody is talking about policies. And that's been our problem -- that's been my problem. I wanted you here because I think you felt -- you feel right now like I felt -- not in '08, but in '12.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Where I thought, "Okay." For instance, TIME Magazine just made Donald Trump person of the year.

SAMANTHA: Sure.

GLENN: And in the headline, it says, "President of the divided states of America."

I completely agree with that. But there's a lot of people that will look at that and go, "Really? Slap across the face." Where Newsweek, in '08, ran the headline and the cover, "We're all socialists now."

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Dismissing the good portion of the population that was like, "No, I'm not a socialist. I don't want to be a socialist. No."

So one side just dismissed the other. And we're still doing that. Just dismissing.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: In '12, I'm -- I was shocked that the American people could know all of this information and still vote for him because of, I thought, lies, of doctors cutting off of feet, and everything else. And you feel that way now about Donald Trump. So do I.

SAMANTHA: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But you kind of lost faith in, "Crap, it's not just the president, it's the people around me too. I don't understand how they're disconnecting from truth. They're just accepting it." Do you understand what I'm saying?

SAMANTHA: I do. But I'm not sure I know what the question is.

GLENN: So my question is: How do we take on -- how do you take on your side and say, "You know what, there are some things that -- lying about Benghazi did matter. It did matter."

SAMANTHA: There are consequences to lies.

GLENN: Right.

SAMANTHA: I think we are seeing that. I don't really know how to --

GLENN: How do you mean that? We're seeing that?

SAMANTHA: When you -- well, there are just false narratives. There's -- I mean, we've all been talking about fake news. We were talking about it on the show the other night.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

SAMANTHA: There's so much distrust. There's so much -- we -- you know, people are receiving their news in their own bubble of the internet.

GLENN: Yes.

SAMANTHA: It's very difficult to penetrate that with actual information.

GLENN: On both sides.

SAMANTHA: I agree.

GLENN: We're self-selecting out.

SAMANTHA: Well, of course.

I don't really know how to -- I don't really know how to penetrate that. I don't think anybody really does.

GLENN: But that's what we're here for.

SAMANTHA: But that is why we -- that is why we need to be so vigilant and so diligent and do things in a different way and take ownership of those.

GLENN: We're going to spend some more time together. I'm doing something for your show.

SAMANTHA: No. Delightful.

GLENN: And then we're going to spend some time on Facebook.

But -- look at that look. "Delightful."

SAMANTHA: No, it is. It's going to be delightful.

GLENN: Look at that look. I saw that look.

SAMANTHA: Don't -- don't read anything sinister of that. It will be fun, I promise.

GLENN: All right. It is nice to meet you.

SAMANTHA: It is so nice to meet you.

Featured Image: Samantha Bee, host of 'Full Frontal with Samantha Bee' on TBS on 'The Glenn Beck Program', December 8, 2016.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

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.