45 years later, Glenn takes a poignant look back at the Apollo 11 launch

On July 16, 1969, Americans gathered around their television sets as legendary broadcaster Walter Cronkite reported live from the Kennedy Space Center. The Apollo 11 was set to launch at 9:32am ET, and the energy was palpable.

Watch Cronkite’s coverage for CBS News below:

45 years to the day later, Glenn wondered on radio this morning what has happened to the ‘anything is possible’ mentality that saw Americans put a man on the moon in remarkably short period of time. Is such a feat even possible anymore? Glenn believes it is, but it will take hard work to get back to the place in which the sky’s the limit.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

Think if I said to you those things today. I mean, think of the schedule that Cronkite just laid out. People that were my age back then did not think when they were growing up that man would never go to the moon. Never.

My father was born in 1926. He lived in a house without electricity, without running water. In the summer months they didn't even wear shoes. He remembers the Great Depression. He remembers World War II. And he told me once, ‘Glenn, nobody thought we could ever go to the moon. We didn't even actually think that. That wasn't possible.’ So the people that were there at the time never thought that that was even possible. But because John F. Kennedy – well, let me start earlier. Because Walt Disney and Wernher Von Braun happened to read articles saying, ‘We can put a man in space. We can put a man on the moon. We can actually go to Mars.’ He got Ward Kimball to animate something in 1955 called "Man in Space."

Editor’s Note: You can watch Man in Space HERE.

Dwight Eisenhower, who couldn't convince the Pentagon that we could go to space, watches it, calls Walt up and says, ‘Walt, you did it. I've been trying to convince the guys at the Pentagon that we could go to space. I don't need to convince them. You just convinced the American people.’ And once the American people were convinced that something great could happen, that we could actually do it, once you laid out the facts in an understandable way... Man in Space explains the physics. It explains exactly how it works.

There's nobody on television that would do anything like that today. Now, you have got to change the picture every 45 seconds. You can't talk about real immigration reform. You can't talk about real economics anymore. You can't talk about money printing or how the Fed works or doesn't work. You can't talk about the caliphate. No one will take the time to explain it to you. Nobody will actually do it because it can't be done. Yet we were on Fox News. We had the number one shows talking about Woodrow Wilson, number one shows talking about Road to Serfdom. And I didn't have the talent or the money Walt Disney had.

Think about how small man is in the vastness of space. Here's Cronkite on television in 1969, just an hour before we launch into the heavens and a week before man touches the moon for the very first time, and he lays it all out. Stage one: It's going to take off at 9:32. Two hours later, another rocket boost will hurl that capsule all the way to the moon. Then they will circle the moon. Then they'll land on the moon. And then on Monday – you want to talk about must-see TV – man will forever be remembered. This one man, just a regular guy from America, will actually be the first man to set foot and touch the face of the moon. And because Americans believed it could be done, they did it. For peaceful purposes, we did it.

Wernher Von Braun, the same guy that invented the V-2 rocket for Hitler, the same technology that was used for death, was used for miracles because he decided to put the Hitler playbook away and start to look at the possibilities. And then we had a president who wasn't mired in the mud, but instead looked up to the sky and was reaching for the heavens and said, ‘We can do this. We are great when we work together. And this is something we can do. And it's worthwhile. We will forever be remembered as doing something that no man had ever dreamt could even be done before. And we can do it within a 10-year period. We can do it by the end of the decade. Imagine.’

And look at what we're mired in now. We can't even have a conversation about whether the border is secure when there are thousands coming across. Forget about the math. Forget about the computers that didn't exist. Forget about the systems that didn't exist. We can't even agree on the mathematics. We can't even agree that the border fence isn't complete. We can't even agree that there's a crisis when the President himself stands in front of the American people and says, ‘There's a humanitarian crisis.’ At the same time, his own party, his own allies say, ‘There's no crisis. What are you talking about? There's no crisis. We just need $4 billion. But there's no crisis. Everything is fine.’

Think about how small man is in the vastness of space. And now think that was 45 years ago when we reached out to touch the face of God. It was 45 years ago. And look how small man has become. Look how small we are now as people. And it has nothing to do with a comparison of the vastness of space. It has everything to do with our ideas and our dreams. It has everything to do with the fact that we won't even face reality anymore. You can't do great things if you don't face reality.

I did an interview yesterday with CNN Reliable Sources. They came down. They spent the day with me yesterday. They asked some tough questions, but it was a fair interview. The host said to me yesterday, ‘So you're trying to be a better man.’ Yes, I am. ‘You're trying not to be divisive.’ Yes, I'm trying to tell the truth, but I'm not trying to be divisive about it. I've never tried to be divisive, but I'm trying to be more careful.

I don't want to needlessly do any more damage. I never tried to do damage. It was not my intent. I really was trying to do basically what Walt Disney did with Man in Space. Give the information in an entertaining way, so people will watch it and consume it. That's an important part of our job – make sure that people will watch it and understand it without dumbing it down. Try to get tough concepts across to people. That's not easy to do. Sometimes you have to put a fish in a blender. Sometimes you have to boil a fake frog. That's part of it.

And he asked me, ‘Why this change?’ And I said, ‘Because this change has been happening to me since I went to the Mall in Washington, D.C., and I stood there at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and I saw those 500,000 people who believed in something and it wasn't me. And I believed in something. And I realized, we all believe in something better than what we have. We all believe in something bigger than what we're currently doing. We all believe in something as grand as the moon shot. And that is: We can live in a world that is much more peaceful. We can live in a world where our neighbors get along, where we respect each other, where we're decent to each other, where honesty and integrity and honor and courage and love make a difference. They play a role. They're a centerpiece.’

And I said, ‘If we don't, we're in real trouble because I believe we are a country at civil war. We just haven't started shooting each other yet. And we have to back away from that.’ And he looked at me and said, ‘How are you trying to be less divisive and you come out and say something like that?’ And it boggled my mind. I'm not rooting for Civil War. I'm not blaming the civil war on anybody. I'll take blame. Go ahead, blame it all on me. History will show it's not my fault. It's all of our faults. We're all doing it. We all have to be careful.

We're all walking around with nitroglycerin. Let's not shake each other. What do you say we don't shake each other? Let's try to be good and decent and better than we were before, and let's try to do it – not before the end of the decade – but before the next election.

What do you think? Can we do that? I think we can. But it's going to require all of us. But it's first going to require all of us to tell each other the truth. Math makes a difference. We would have never made it to space if we would have lied about mathematics. We can't lie to each other. We just have to expect the best from each other. We have to stop blaming each other. We do have to diagnose the problem. If you have cancer, do you smoke? Is it lung cancer? Well, then you've got to stop smoking cigarettes. You got to stop.

There's no hate involved in that. It's just the truth. And hope is found only through the truth.

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.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Here’s what’s really happening.

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

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

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

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

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

Failed management

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s federal land-grab

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

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

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

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

Land as collateral

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

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

The American way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.