Here’s the Cognitive Assessment Test That Trump Took – What’s Your Score?

It’s customary for the sitting president to undergo a physical exam each year, but President Donald Trump decided to add another test to the mix: one that checks your cognitive abilities.

The White House medical team selected the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a 30-point test that screens for memory loss and dementia. The unusual decision may have been influenced by critics’ accusations that Trump is not mentally fit to be president.

On today’s show, Glenn and Stu looked at the test, and Glenn had “Dr. Stu” check out his mental health. Can Glenn identify a lion, draw a cube and remember five words? Listen to the full clip (above) to find out, and then check out the test for yourself.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So the president had a -- had some -- a series of tests done on him yesterday. And his doctor said he is as strong as an ox. Now, this is not the crazy -- remember the doctor he had on that was like our movie doctor. You're like Dr. What's-his-face from Back to the Future. I would like a real doctor, please.

STU: Oh, yeah. This was during the campaign, you mean? And they were like, yeah, and he's super mega healthy.

Wait. Mega. Did you use the word mega as a physician? It was that type of thing.

GLENN: Yeah. I know you were from Columbia. But he just looked crazy.

STU: And they talked to him. And he didn't really examine him. And he was using strange words. He was using Trump words. It looked like Trump gave him the script to write. And no one, I don't think, really believed he wasn't healthy. But there was speculation in the media for sure --

GLENN: Yeah. I wanted the doctor questioned. Not because I didn't think Trump was healthy. Just because I thought he was nuts.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So yesterday, the president's results -- his test results were released to the press. And first, let's talk about his physical health. Here's what his doctor said.

VOICE: How a guy who eats McDonald's and fried chicken and all those Diet Cokes and never exercises is in as good a shape as you say he's in.

VOICE: It's called genetics. I don't know. Some people have just, you know, great genes.

I told the president that if he had a healthier diet over the last 20 years, he might live to be 200 years old. I don't know.

He has incredible -- he has incredible genes, I just assume, you know. If I -- if I didn't watch what I ate, I wouldn't have the cardiac and overall health that he has.

GLENN: So he is in good, physical health. And you got to believe Donald Trump loves the gene talk.

STU: Oh, yeah. He's big on that.

GLENN: Yeah, he's big on the racehorse theory. Hey, we breed racehorses. Kind of a 1910 progressive eugenics kind of thing. He is all in, and so is the whole family.

STU: I love the, how can a guy eat McDonald's and be healthy? You can actually -- you know what, almost everyone in America eats McDonald's at times. You can be healthy.

It's funny, seeing people that are like, well, yes, I put butter in my coffee, but how can this man eat McDonald's? Well, of course nine stacks of avocado toast are completely fine, along with coconut butter. But how dare he have a piece of chicken.

GLENN: And who doesn't understand the genetics thing, that there are people who can smoke, drink, and eat sticks of butter, and live to 120?

STU: Yeah. Is it a good idea? Does it hurt your percentage chance to live longer? Yes. That does not mean that eating these things -- especially if you eat them without a ridiculous amount, that doesn't mean you're going to be unhealthy at all.

And then they have to throw the, how can he have all these Diet Cokes? I don't know. Maybe him eating zero-calorie beverages is the reason he can have McDonald's. Is that possible?

Brainiac. I hate that stuff. But he did pass the test and did pretty well. I think you could look at him and say, wow, he --

GLENN: I would hope --

STU: You're impressed by --

GLENN: I would hope that I would be as healthy as he is when I'm his age.

STU: Or now.

GLENN: Or now. I would take it five years ago.

(laughter)

STU: Retroactively trying to match a 73-year-old's health. That's good.

GLENN: Yep. I don't have the genetic predisposition to long life.

(laughter)

STU: That's not good.

GLENN: No.

STU: The other thing was -- by the way, we also found out today, apparently Sanjay Gupta, who is -- you know, you might think of him as a TV doctor. But they wanted him to be a high role, I can't remember was it? Attorney general?

GLENN: No, I think it was surgeon general.

STU: Yeah. For the Obama administration. He was their first choice. And he wound up turning that down. Apparently was saying, if you look at the numbers, that guy has heart disease.

Wait a minute. His doctor didn't say he had heart disease. But Sanjay, looking at the numbers, has been able to take the code and suck out heart disease from these numbers, apparently.

So we'll get more on that as that develops.

GLENN: Well, how old is he? Seventy-two? Seventy-three?

STU: Seventy-three, something like that, yeah.

GLENN: I mean, if you're 73 and you're living like Donald Trump, you know, I think you kind of -- you're kind of like, "A little heart disease isn't bad for me."

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Seventy-three, 75 years old, I'm thinking, oh, I only have a little heart disease. Good.

STU: Exactly. You think the guy has been able to do whatever he wants for how many years. He owns a lot of the best restaurants in America.

GLENN: He never exercises.

STU: Doesn't exercise.

GLENN: He's my hero. He never exercises.

He eats whatever he wants. And he's 4 pounds heavier than he was a year ago?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: God bless him.

STU: Especially going into that job, I mean, I would put on 60 in a week.

GLENN: We would have to have soup makers on constant standby.

STU: At some point, you just start building them with release flaps, where you can just expand --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Just staple. Staple the sides together because you'll need the extra material later.

STU: Yeah, make it for someone who weighs 600, and I'll grow into it. I promise.

GLENN: That's right. That's right.

STU: But the other big thing about this was people wanted him to take a cognitive test.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And to test his brain. Because everybody thinks in the media, apparently, that he is just mentally unfit to be president. Now, mentally unfit to be president is completely different than I don't like his policies, I don't like his character, I don't like his demeanor. Like those are all things that the media obviously doesn't like. But it's completely different than whether he is mentally capable of thinking -- you know, thinking in a normal, human way.

GLENN: I think there are times that he is mentally lazy. Intentionally. He just hasn't thought things through. Just hasn't -- you know, I think he has changed from the personality that if you go back and look at the videotapes in the 1980s and '90s, but I don't think that's a decline in his mental health. I think that's just a -- you know, I haven't thought about it in a while. I'm 73 years old. I'm a little lazy on that.

STU: Right. But none of that stuff you would be able to detect in a mental test. So he took a mental test for the first time ever, apparently. No president has ever had to take one of these tests before. And it wasn't because the doctor was like, well, I'm unsure of this guy. Apparently Trump wanted it done so he could prove that he was okay.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, when you have people around you going, I don't know. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, we could get him out of here. I'm taking a mental test.

STU: Yeah, why not? Let's prove that -- and that's obviously a ridiculous media narrative, right? You know, the idea that he is incapable of thinking like a normal human being is completely absurd.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We do have the test, an example of the test.

GLENN: Yeah. So we thought -- because, you know, when you're given a mental test, I don't know, the president passed it. Could you pass it? We'll give you the mental test they gave the president in a minute.

GLENN: So the president passed his mental agility test. And, you know, they can't use the 25th Amendment against him because he's passed a -- you know, a sanity test, or a mental agility test. I will tell you, I have had these tests before. I've had it at Columbia, and I've had it at the Mayo Clinic. Because for a while, I was testing like I had severe concussions. And they couldn't figure out what was going on. And we were afraid that maybe I was going into early Alzheimer's or something. And so I had these tests.

And they're kind of spooky in a way. I mean, they're -- they're tough. And, you know, Stu won't let me see the paper now, so I'm a little nervous now.

STU: Call me doctor, please.

GLENN: Well, no, I'm the doctor.

STU: Call me Dr. Stu for today.

GLENN: Okay. Okay. Dr. Stu.

STU: Because you're right, I won't let you see it in advance. That will not give us the results we're looking for. I will say this, looking at this test, it is not a test of let's do a deep dive and search to see if there's anything wrong with your thought process.

It's more of a test that you would give someone if you highly suspect they have dementia or they just had a stroke and you want to be able to check whether they're able to complete basic human thought. Right?

It's not a -- it's not a type of test that you're going to read into and be like, oh, my gosh.

You know, it doesn't say --

GLENN: Do you have the whole test? Because the whole test, at least the one I took, took at least an hour.

STU: Yeah. This is one page. We can do it quickly.

GLENN: Oh. Okay. Okay.

STU: It's a basic test though. Your uncle has a stroke. They're at the hospital. Is there major problems with his brain? Here's a cognitive test. You go through it quickly. This shows you can do basic processes. Do you have a pen? We'll do it here?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The first part is, there's three visual tests that won't work particularly well on radio. But we'll explain them. There's a bunch of numbers and letters for the first test and it gives you the beginning of the path. For example, the number one, there's a line drawn to A. Then there's a line drawn to two. You have to complete the pattern.

GLENN: Then a line drawn to B.

STU: That's a good. Yeah, why don't I just give you the answers?

So going down to B. Then B would go to three.

GLENN: Then that would go to C. Then it would go to 4. Then it would go to D. And then it would go to 5, and that would go to E. This is not a real --

STU: Let me see -- the next one. It is. This is the test. It's the Montreal Cognitive Test. Now, there's another one that says for Glenn to draw -- copy a box.

GLENN: I'm sorry. But this is a -- this is not -- this is not an invasive test.

STU: What it is, is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and don't -- I mean, you can rush through all you want. I don't know if you're trying to prove something here.

GLENN: No, it's just easy.

STU: Okay. So it's easy for Glenn. So there's three tests here. We'll be posting the results here online. How much time do we have, Sarah? Should we go through the next questions?

GLENN: Did I get those right, Doctor?

STU: I will grade you at the end. Thank you for calling me doctor.

GLENN: All right. I will tell you, I just -- I didn't even read the directions, they're so easy. If I have any wrong, it's because I didn't read the directions.

STU: Wow, President Trump was able to read the directions and get them right.

GLENN: Okay. I'll read the directions.

STU: I'll show you a picture. I'd like you to tell me what that picture is. What is that?

GLENN: That's a lion.

STU: A lion is the answer. Get that to my physician's assistant. The first answer was lion. Next one, I'm showing you a picture. What is this picture?

GLENN: That is a rhino. Rhino.

STU: A rhino. And finally I'm showing you this picture, what is this picture?

GLENN: That is an ostrich, a zebra -- a camel. Trust me, this is not --

STU: Lion, just writing down your answers. Rhino.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And a camel.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Next up. Are you ready?

GLENN: I'm ready.

STU: I am going to read a list of words.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

STU: You must repeat them. Okay?

GLENN: Do I have to wait for a while and then repeat them or just repeat the word you just said?

STU: I'm going to read all five words, you're going to repeat them in that order. Are you ready?

GLENN: All right. Okay. Yes.

STU: Face, velvet, church, daisy, red.

GLENN: Faith, velvet. Daisy, church -- I'm bad at these.

STU: Okay. We're going to try it one more time.

Here is the five words. Repeat them in this order. Face, velvet, church, daisy, red.

GLENN: Face, velvet, daisy -- church, daisy. I can't remember.

STU: Okay. Premiere, we're going need to a new host.

GLENN: Going need to a new host.

STU: We're going to need a new host.

GLENN: I've gone through more difficult tests than these. I have a difficult time with some of them. I have a difficult time with them.

STU: We are learning things -- so far, we've learned many things. In my studies of your test so far, I've learned many things --

GLENN: When you see the lion is actually a chicken, we're -- you'll see how troubled -- how troubled we really are. Back in just a second.

GLENN: Now, I'm under -- I'm under a great deal of stress now.

STU: Welcome to the Dr. Stu Program. 1-800-DR-STU.

GLENN: That's not enough numbers.

STU: We're giving Glenn the cognitive test that the president passed with flying colors yesterday. And we're learning some interesting things as we go through this.

GLENN: Well, now he's telling me that there's certain grades for how well the clock is drawn and stuff. I made a clock face quickly. And just...

STU: Okay. That's --

GLENN: Okay. Here's a picture of a more detailed clock. Here's a grandfather clock. Does that help?

STU: There's an interesting section in the instructions about people who make excuses for their incorrect answers, that we can get into a little bit later.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

STU: We're now in the next section.

GLENN: Yes, next section.

STU: And here is --

GLENN: By the way, the president passed this with flying colors. I'm still in jeopardy here.

STU: I'm going to read you a list of digits. You need to repeat them in four-word order.

GLENN: Digits. Wait. What do you mean in four-word order?

STU: Normal order. The way I'm going to give them. All right. Two --

GLENN: Two --

STU: No. When I'm done with all five of them, you will then repeat the five.

GLENN: All right. Okay. Okay. All right.

STU: Yeah, two --

GLENN: Somebody write them down.

STU: No, you can't write them down. Just saying. Two.

GLENN: Two. All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead -- I got the first --

STU: I'm about to subtract some points. Listen to the five numbers. Two, one, eight, five, four.

GLENN: Two, one, eight, five, four.

But I would like to say, that it is five, two, one, eight, five, four. Because you said five several times before.

STU: I said two many times because you kept interrupting me.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. And two, two, two. Five, five, five -- it's actually five, two, five, two, five, two.

STU: Sir, we can remove you from office.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

STU: There's a silliness clause in this test.

GLENN: All right.

STU: I would like you to repeat these numbers in backward order. Put your pen down, sir.

GLENN: In backward order. I'm just finishing clock face.

STU: Put your pen down. You've already failed the clock test. Well, we'll see how you did on the clock. Repeat these in backward order. Seven --

GLENN: Backward order. Sorry.

STU: Seven, four, two. There are three numbers I just gave you.

GLENN: Two, four, seven.

STU: That is correct. You'll be getting the full test results here in just a moment.

GLENN: See, this is not like a real test. Is this really the one they gave the president?

STU: This is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and, yes, this is the test.

GLENN: Because I will tell you, I've had these before, and here's how they usually go, I'm going to give you five numbers. Okay. Let me give them to you here, Stu. Let me see if I can do this with you.

STU: He is stalling to get out of it. I'm getting that from my physician's assistant here in the other room.

GLENN: No. Seven, 14, 21, eight, three. Say them.

STU: Wait. You didn't tell me what we were doing.

GLENN: I'm saying. I'm giving you five numbers, you repeat them back. Seven, 14, 21, eight, three.

STU: Seven, 14, 21, eight, three. So you're saying the test designer has a problem?

GLENN: Yeah, he's a little insane.

STU: Is that the issue here? Are you trying to delay so we don't get to the end of the test?

GLENN: No, no, no.

Five numbers. Ready?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Five, three, 17, 40, nine.

STU: Five, three, 17, 40, nine.

GLENN: Give me the first five numbers that I gave you.

STU: Seven, 14, 21, eight, one, three.

GLENN: Okay. So the real tests, they keep doing this. They just keep adding five numbers. And they'll give you five numbers. Five numbers. Five numbers. What were the first five numbers?

STU: That would be impossible. And, again, that's an interesting distinction between the tests. The one you're talking about is, let's do an incredibly deep dive to see if we can find any hint of anything that's at the very beginning stages.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: What this is, you just had a massive stroke. Can you do the basics? That's what the president passed.

GLENN: In this test, they had the president draw a three-dimensional box. In the test that I've seen, they'll show you something like this.

STU: Where you're seeing like a rectangle, circle, square --

GLENN: Like a little antenna thing coming off the end. And then it comes out and it juts out. And they don't make any sense. And they show it to you for like are five or ten seconds. Say, remember this. They put it away. Now, draw it.

STU: Right. Much more challenging.

GLENN: And you have to draw it. Because it's very intricate. And there's no rhyme or reason to why it's built that way.

STU: And, Sarah, you would say this is a delay to not get to the answers in the test.

SARAH: Absolutely.

STU: Okay. Thank you. Okay. There you go. I would like you to clap your hands. Okay. Thank you. Here you go --

GLENN: You didn't say stop clapping.

STU: Please stop clapping your hand. Okay. Now, every time I say the letter A, I would like you to clap. Okay. That's it.

GLENN: That had A in it.

STU: When I say the letter A, you should clap. Ready?

GLENN: Got it.

STU: F, B, A, C, M --

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: -- N, A.

GLENN: A. A.

STU: J.

STU: K. L, B, F --

GLENN: Now, is this the letter -- because they sound --

STU: F, A, K, D, E, A --

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: A, A, J, A, M -- this is harder than I thought.

GLENN: Well, because the K and the J, if it's not in the letter, it does have J-A-Y. So it has an A in it. I'm just saying.

STU: Now, the next question, you specifically warned me not to give you any math questions, which is not something you could ask the doctor. You can't say anything, but blood tests. You can't do that.

GLENN: Yeah, I didn't ask the doctor to not --

STU: I'm going to give you a number. I would like you to subtract seven from that number.

GLENN: Seven.

STU: Okay?

GLENN: Fourteen.

STU: I haven't started yet.

GLENN: All right.

STU: The number is --

GLENN: Twenty-one.

STU: I haven't started yet, so you can't --

GLENN: Seven. Six, five, four, three, two, one.

STU: I think we lock you up after this. Okay. One hundred. Subtract seven.

GLENN: Ninety-three.

STU: Subtract seven from that.

GLENN: It would be 93. Ninety-two, 91 --

STU: You can use your fingers. It doesn't say you can't.

GLENN: Oh. Ninety-three, 92, 91, 90, 98 -- no, that the be right. Eighty-nine, 88, 87, which would be wrong.

STU: See, in the test materials, there's no point, where it recommends the doctor harass the patient to try to pressure him into correct answers, but that is what I'm too good.

GLENN: Okay. Seventy-one.

STU: All right. We're going to move on. Repeat the sentence.

GLENN: Twelve.

STU: I only know that John is the one to help today.

GLENN: I only know that John is the one to help today. But the trick is repeat this sentence, because that's what you just said. So it's a trick question.

STU: Okay. Here's another one I'm going to give you, and I would like you to repeat it. Here it goes: The cat always hid under the couch when dogs were in the room.

GLENN: Here it goes: The cat always hid under the couch when dogs were in the room.

STU: Okay.

Let's see.

GLENN: Twenty-nine.

STU: I don't even understand that question. Okay. Let me ask you this one. We're looking for similarity here. For example, a banana and an orange. The similarity would be they are both --

GLENN: Round.

STU: Fruit. Okay.

GLENN: Colorful.

STU: Similarities between trains and bicycles.

GLENN: Both have wheels.

STU: Okay. Of course, obviously not true.

GLENN: Yeah, but trains have wheels, bikes have wheels.

STU: I'm not here to judge you, sir, except for --

GLENN: Both are made out of metal.

STU: Okay. A watch and a ruler.

GLENN: A watch and a ruler.

STU: What's the similarity there?

GLENN: I'm trying to think of something that just doesn't work. They both have numbers. They're both measurement.

STU: Don't try to justify --

GLENN: They're both round.

STU: Okay. Now, I earlier on gave you five words --

GLENN: Oh, you --

STU: If you get one of these --

GLENN: It is that.

STU: That is in here.

GLENN: Yeah, it was. Face, velvet -- all I can think of cake -- so I think automatically cake.

Face, velvet. I don't remember.

STU: Okay. And -- all right. And then what -- well, I'm not going to give you the date, month, year, all that stuff. You know where you are. Date.

GLENN: Do not ask me that. I really don't know the date.

STU: I don't know it either.

GLENN: I don't know the date. The 18th?

VOICE: It's Wednesday, January 17th.

STU: Thank you. We have it at the beginning of every show.

GLENN: It's Wednesday, January 17th.

STU: What year?

GLENN: 2018.

STU: What's today?

GLENN: Wouldn't it be great if it was -- if one of the real legitimate questions, who is president? You would be like, me.

GLENN: Me.

STU: What place are you in?

GLENN: A chair. Studio.

STU: What city?

GLENN: Las Colinas. Earth.

STU: City, you got that.

VOICE: You're listening to the Glenn Beck Program.

GLENN: Okay. Got it.

STU: We'll take a break. And I will go through and grade this for you.

GLENN: Could you kick me off the show? Is there the 25th Amendment that you could just kick me right off --

STU: This has been a giant ruse to make you take this test and see if you're mentally fit to do this program.

GLENN: Wow. I will tell you, that is -- with the exception of one of the last questions of, oh, and what was those five words? That was not --

STU: Not hard, right?

GLENN: Yeah, not hard. You know --

STU: You could easily screw one of them up. You could easily have a problem here or there. Now, Trump did very well on it. But, again, he also knew, if he got anything wrong, it would be a major news story. So he maybe focused a little bit more than you. However, we could make it a major news story too.

GLENN: No, I don't think so. I think somebody questioning your mental agility, if you're taking it seriously, that's a lot of pressure.

STU: Okay. We'll hold you to the same standards then. I was going to give you a break, but we'll be happy to hold you to the same standard as the president. I think that's fair.

GLENN: That's not what --

STU: I'll go through a little grading here. And you do the commercial, if you can get through it.

GLENN: Face, velvet, cake. Orange. Trapdoor.

STU: Is this the commercial? Or are you --

GLENN: Just trying to remember what those words were.

STU: Got it.

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.