Who Is the Real Mike Pence?

Atlantic writer McKay Coppins recently published a nuanced account of Vice President Mike Pence’s rise to the second-highest office in the land.

On today’s show, he talked about the interviews he gathered for the article, which is headlined “God’s Plan for Mike Pence.” Coppins shared his theories about Pence’s presidential aspirations as well as what he knows about Karen Pence’s response to that infamous “Access Hollywood” tape.

“It is not a slam on religious people,” Glenn said of the article. “It’s just trying to understand Mike Pence and what drives him. How can he have two masters?”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So there was a -- there's a new book out, The Wilderness. Deep inside the Republican Party's combative, contentious, chaotic quest to take back the White House.

And out of that, the writer, McKay Coppins, has written an article, God's plan for Mike Pence. And if you just look through it, because it's from The Atlantic. The pictures, you know, make Mike Pence look like he's an apostle or whatever. But it is not a slam on religious people. It's just trying to understand Mike Pence and what drives him. How can he have two masters? How can he be the guy who we all think Mike Pence is? But then stomach as much as he has.

And it's a really fascinating look into Mike Pence and especially today, with the -- the president possibly, you know, claiming -- I'll believe it when I see it, but I think he's going to do it. Today, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. So welcome to the program, McKay Coppins.

McKAY: Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. So McKay, first, let's talk a little bit about Israel and Jerusalem. Does this surprise you?

McKAY: Well, it's something that he campaigned on, Trump did. And it's something that I know a lot of people in his orbit have been claiming was coming. But, you know, past presidential candidates have campaigned on this as well and then not followed through on it. It's one of those eternal promises that is made to conservative Christians and conservative Jews in this country, and then it never ends up happening.

I still would frankly be a little skeptical. I think I'll believe it when I see it stance is the right one. They've cautioned this takes a long time. Obviously to build an embassy would take a long time. But, you know, it certainly -- if it ends up happening, it's certainly a victory for a lot of the conservatives who voted for Trump on this.

GLENN: Well, is it a victory just to officially declare it's the capital from the White House?

McKAY: Sure. Yeah. That's more than has been done before.

GLENN: Right. I kind of look at it like the Bear Ears monument, that he can say whatever he wants and say, yeah, we declare. But until you've actually cemented it and there's just no turning back -- as soon as you move the embassy, then it's more than Donald Trump, then it is the United States is on that course.

McKAY: That's right. That's why I think we have to wait to see if the embassy actually gets built, or if actual, tangible plans get announced. And that -- you know, we just don't know yet.

GLENN: Okay. So let's talk a little bit about Mike Pence. Because I think this kind of fits into your -- the way you look at Mike Pence. And that is, he's there because he believes that God works in mysterious ways. And maybe he's just supposed to stand up at some point if the president falls down.

McKAY: Right. This is the thing that I found really interesting about Mike Pence, is that he is, by all accounts, in contrary to I think some liberal caricatures of him, a genuine man of faith. Religion is at the core of his identity and has been at least since college and probably even before that.

You know, he really is motivated by a desire to serve God. And he thinks that he can do that in the political realm. But, you know, it's also kind of tangled up in his personal ambitions as well.

So, you know, when Donald Trump came knocked last year, last spring, after securing the Republican nomination and, you know, said I want you to be my running mate, Mike Pence was kind of faced with the choice that millions of conservative Christians were faced with last year, which is, can we overlook the kind of -- you know, to put it politely, flaws in this man's character, right? Can we overlook this man's character, his values, his perhaps lack of morality. And still support him in pursuit of a broader, and they would say, more important policy agenda. Political agenda.

And Mike Pence made the decision that he could. And so did frankly an overwhelming number of conservative Christians. I think it's still an open question whether that compromise, whether that gamble will pay off, for Mike Pence and for the people who supported him. I mean, they did -- people who video for Trump just because of the policy victories that they want to obtain, they've gotten some things, right? They've gotten the Supreme Court justice, who is a conservative. Just today, like you said, the announcement about Jerusalem, that could be a big victory for them. But at the same time, every compromise has consequences. And Mike Pence finds himself in the middle of this kind of swirling investigation of over Russia. And, you know, while he is, by all accounts, trying to stay aboveboard, trying to keep his hands clean of all of this, when you cozy up to somebody like Trump, a lot of things can happen that you wouldn't expect. I think that's a fair way to put it.

GLENN: So would you say your impression -- because I just want to give you my impression. I don't want to quote any conversations. But I was around Mike Pence during the run-up, when it was still not clear that Donald Trump was still going to be the candidate.

STU: The Indiana primary, where pence had endorsed Cruz.

McKAY: Right. Right.

GLENN: My impression at the time, in speaking to Mike Pence, was that he knew exactly who Donald Trump was, and it wasn't a guy who he had a lot of faith in, to put it mildly.

McKAY: That is I think an accurate impression.

GLENN: All right.

McKAY: No, Mike Pence was not on the Trump train. Early -- remember when Trump announced the Muslim ban or the proposed Muslim ban in December of 2015, Pence came out in opposition to it. He said that this is an affront to American values or something like that. And he spoke out at other times during the primary.

My impression is that he was fairly clear about who Donald Trump was. In fact, after this story came out -- I haven't shared this yet, but after my profile was published yesterday, I got an email from somebody who was an Indiana delegate, or was slated to be a delegate at the Republican National Convention from Indiana.

And when Trump won the nomination, this person decided they couldn't show up to the convention. And said that, in the run-up to -- during the primary, kind of in the -- when it was still not clear whether Trump would win, this person got a lot of phone calls and emails from people in Pence's inner circle, like, oh, yeah, the governor agrees with you. This is not great. He shares your concerns. And then a few weeks later, was announced that he would be the running mate.

GLENN: So let me ask you about that. Because you -- in this interview, you spoke to his wife. You've done your homework here.

Do you believe that Pence did this for his -- as you said earlier, his political aspirations. Or did he do this because he thought, I may -- you know, it may be, you know, God's will that somebody is standing in that room, that doesn't necessarily agree with him. And I need to hold the line and be there.

McKAY: I actually think that's not -- those two aren't mutually exclusive. My impression from all the interviews I've done, all the people I've talked to close to him is that he got himself to a point, Pence did, where he believed that both, yes, you know, he had political aspirations. He's always believed -- he wanted to be president ever since he was in college. But also, he believed he could do some good there, right?

And, look, this is something that all people struggle with. I don't think that this is uniquely a problem that Mike Pence has faced. Everyone tries to reconcile their ambition with their ideals, right? Whether their religious ideals or whatever else. And I think he's convinced himself that being in the room next to Donald Trump, having the president's ear, is a way to -- to do good. To -- to promote an agenda that will help people, that will, you know, protect other Christians, that will push the ball forward on issues that he cares about. So I think that, you know, part of the reason he's been so loyal to Trump is because of that.

GLENN: Back in a second. Because I want to talk to McKay about his conversation with Mrs. Pence, who had some things that were quite frank in the article. When we come back.

GLENN: McKay Coppins, who has written a great story, God's plan for Mike Pence. In it, he tells a story of the Access Hollywood tape, and what Mike Pence's wife and said what happened behind the scenes. Can you just walk us through this, McKay?

McKAY: Yeah, sure. This is based on interviews with former campaign aides and people close to the Pences or were friends with the Pences. So first of all I should say that after Pence joined the ticket, Trump made an effort to kind of convince Pence that beneath all the made for TV bluster Trumpian bravado, he was actually a good guy with faith in God. Because he wanted Trump to feel comfortable on the ticket and feel like he was doing a good thing.

And, in fact, on the night of the vice presidential debate, Trump left a voice mail letting Pence know that he had just said a prayer for him, which is something that Pence found very moving and really loved.

So fast forward to the Access Hollywood tape coming out, and I'm told that this was a really jarring experience for -- for Mike Pence and, in particular, his wife. One campaign aide told me that Karen Pence was disgusted by the video. And the former campaign aide said that she finds him reprehensible. Just totally vile. That's the direct quote.

GLENN: Could have been quoting my wife.

McKAY: Now --

GLENN: And I think most women in the country at that moment.

McKAY: Yeah, probably a lot of women at that moment. Exactly.

So here's -- what's interesting though is that you remember kind of the 48 hours after that tape came out, it was just this moment of total upheaval in the campaign. Republicans were calling on Trump to jump out. There was all kinds of chaos. And I report in the story, in the midst of all that, Mike Pence made it clear to the Republican National Committee, that he was ready to take Trump's place as the nominee.

And, in fact, during an emergency meeting between Trump and his top advisers in the midst of all of this that weekend, Reince Priebus, who was then chairman of the RNC actually said that Pence and Condoleezza Rice were ready to step in to form the new G.O.P. ticket. Now, obviously -- that didn't end up happening.

GLENN: What happened? Bannon!

McKAY: Well, yeah, no. Actually, really, yeah, you're right. I'm told by one former campaign aide, they thought they were going to be able to convince Trump to drop out before the debate that was that Sunday night, that was that weekend.

Instead, Trump was defiant, which as he's often been. And he showed up. And he brought the Clinton accusers. You remember this.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

McKAY: And by the end of that debate, kind of turned things around. And Republicans had stopped calling on him to drop out. And by the next day, Pence was back out on the stump. But the reason I think that story is important and the reason I put it in the piece is because it raises questions especially in Trump's orbit, the people I talk to about how long this loyalty will last from Pence. You know, is Pence really willing to go down with the ship, so to speak, and investigations continue.

GLENN: I find it, McKay, very interesting that now they're starting to say, did Mike Pence actually know more than he said about Russia?

McKAY: Hmm.

GLENN: And the idea -- I -- I think Mike Pence is really smart. And I believe you're right on the direction you're going here. And I think Mike is smart enough to see trouble and say, I'm staying way away from that, to remain clean.

McKAY: Right.

GLENN: To be able to be the guy that can rise up behind.

McKAY: Yeah, that's a good point. I don't know what's going to come out. You know, he was the head of the transition, when all this kind of trouble started, right? But I do think that there -- obviously, we'll see what happens and what information comes out. But I do think that, yeah, Pence -- above everything else, is, you know, careful. He's very cautious. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

McKAY: I think he -- even though he was head of the transition, I can easily see a scenario where he was operating on a kind of don't ask, don't tell policy.

GLENN: McKay Coppins. The article is God's plan for Mike Pence. More in a minute.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro is going to be joining us at the top of the hour. Ben is going to have a lot to say about what President Trump is supposed to or supposedly going to announce today, that the United States is recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Strangely, that's a big deal. A very big deal.

And also, the -- it appears as though -- according to Think Progress, that the case for the people against the bakers in Colorado, did not go well for them yesterday in the Supreme Court. Kelly Shackelford has been there. He was watching the case. And he is going to talk to us. That's also next hour.

STU: We're talking to McKay Coppins from The Atlantic, who wrote the article, God's plan for Mike Pence. One of the reasons I like McKay, and McKay is with us now is he -- unlike many mainstream reporters, I get the sense he has -- gets -- has a much more nuanced understanding of people of faith.

GLENN: Yeah. McKay -- you were -- you were on the Romney bus for that -- that campaign, were you not?

McKAY: Yeah, I was. The only Mormon on the Romney bus as a reporter.

GLENN: And I don't know if the other people knew that or not. But you were -- you were constantly forced to endure religious and Mormon jokes from the other members of the press, is that right?

McKAY: That's true. Although, I wrote about this after the campaign. I didn't think it was necessarily malevolent, it was just kind of born out of ignorance for the most part. People made a lot of Mormon jokes, Mormon underwear jokes. But I will say, by the end of that campaign, I think Mormonism had been demystified for most of those reporters and they had come to respect it more.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That was one of the things I thought was interesting about your story about Pence is that I think to a lot of people who are conservative Christians and had a certain impression of Mike Pence, when the Trump stuff started happening, it surprised a lot of people. It seemed like it was against what he stood for and what his belief system was. He sort of explained that here with his idea of servant/leadership that he really has carried with him his entire life. Can you talk about that a little bit?

McKAY: Yeah, this is a Biblical concept. This was described to me by Mark Short, who serves as the White House director of legislative affairs, but has known Mike Pence for a long time.

And what he told me was that this idea of servant leadership is, you know, it's from the gospels, basically modeled off Jesus who, you know, washed his disciples feet and preached that you had to be humbled before you could be great.

And as early as Pence's first term as a congressman, he was instructing his staffers to have a servant's attitude when they dealt with constituents. That his idea was, we're the servants. And we're serving them. And we should be humble and try to help them as well as we can. And that attitude is kind of extended throughout his career. When he became part of the G.O.P. leadership in the House, he thought it was his job to be a servant to his fellow Republican congressman and congresswoman. And then when he decided to take the job as running mate, as Donald Trump's running mate, he believed his job was to be number two to Donald Trump. To serve Donald Trump. Now, a lot of people point to some of the -- some of the stuff that Pence does or says in defense of Trump, as how can -- how can a good Christian man possibly go out there and spend like this for Donald Trump?

But he doesn't see that as something that's out of step with his view of faith and Christianity. He think that he's meant to be a servant, he's under Trump's authority, and that's his job.

GLENN: So does that mean in his view that -- I mean, you know, we're all sevenths, yes. But when there's unrighteous leadership, I mean, you know, you go back to the Germans.

McKAY: Well, right.

GLENN: Is there a line? Not suggesting that that would be the line that he would ever approach. But is there a line?

Do you think he has a moral line with him where -- you know, for instance, the word is that Trump is now starting to deny that that Access Hollywood was even him.

McKAY: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, I can't imagine coming home to my wife and if my wife said what she did say when that came out, and I defend him afterwards, she would have a hard time stomaching it, as I would. But then if he started to deny, I know my wife would go, really? Really? How much farther are you going to go?

McKAY: Right. Right. That is the question, right? This is why a lot of the people who have known Pence for a long time and who frankly have admired him for a long time, on both sides of the aisle, are kind of alarmed by how far Pence has been willing to go. Because they say, look, I get that you have a job here. I get that to a certain extent, you're going to have to spin and apologize and justify the president's action.

But there must be some line you won't cross, or else, you know, you can justify anything like that. But this is where I think it gets into the broader question of the rest of the conservative Christian community in this country, right?

I quoted -- or I cited a statistic from the Public Religion Research Institute, that found that in 2011, only 30 percent of white evangelicals agreed with this statement, that a public official could commit an act of immorality in his private life, but continued to serve ethically in his public life. So only 30 percent of white evangelicals believed that. Basically, they were saying character counts. It matters.

GLENN: Just for the record, I'm still saying that.

McKAY: Well, yeah. Well, and there are still many who say that. But by 2016, 72 percent of white evangelicals believe that. So now the majority of white evangelicals are saying, look, you know somebody can be a bad person in their private life, but still be a good public servant, a good public official. Now, you can debate that. But that is a sea change in evangelical. And, frankly, political ethics among a lot of conservative people of faith.

STU: You know, reading the piece, McKay, I really -- I wound up kind of liking Mike Pence more and understanding him, I think, a lot more, which was interesting. Though, we did not have time to get to the most damning thing in this article, which is when faced at his college -- when they come and they say, hey, do you guys have kegs? He sells out the fraternity and shows them where the kegs are. Is this accurate?

(laughter)

McKAY: This comes from one of his frat brothers, who, by the way, still likes Mike Pence. But, yeah, he said that the dean showed up and Pence led him straight to the kegs and, yeah, sort of sold his frat buddies out.

STU: I don't think we'll ever forgive him for that part of it. But other than that, it was a really interesting read. It's God's plan for Mike Pence from The Atlantic. And it's from McKay Coppins.

GLENN: McKay, thank you so much. Keep up the good work. God bless.

McKAY: Thanks, Glenn.

STU: You can follow McKay Coppins on Twitter @McKayCoppins. And we'll tweet out the article @GlennBeck and @worldofStu from The Atlantic.

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.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

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.