Unbelievable Netflix documentary exposes amateur porn industry

June 05, 2015

WRITER

Stu watches a ton of documentaries, but the last one he watched left him more than a little concerned as a father. A new documentary on Netflix called ‘Hot Girls Wanted’ exposes the twisted world of the amataeur porn industry. How does a teenager go from being a cheerleader in Texas to sex on the internet? It’s much easier than you expect. Stu and Glenn discuss the documentary and debate some of the more questionable scenes on Friday’s radio show.

Watch a trailer for the film below, and scroll down for Glenn and Stu's analysis:

Below is a transcript of this segment:

STU: There is a new documentary on Netflix. It's called Hot Girls Wanted. And I actually did know it was a documentary before I opened it, I promise.

JEFFY: I didn't.

STU: It was Rashida Jones, who was on The Office. She's Quincy Jones' daughter. She's involved in the project. And it kind of chronicles these 18, 19-year-old girls that answer Craigslist ads for modeling or a free ticket to Miami. They go on these trips and wind up after a couple of half steps in hard-core pornography on the internet. And they're -- their transition, it's so sad and depressing. You want to talk about a movie that will make you want to lock up all your children and never let them out, it's that one. You know, there's this girl. Captain of the cheerleading team. Sweet girl from Texas from right around where we are. And, you know, she -- a couple of bad decisions, and she's in dozens of movies that will never go away.

GLENN: Okay. What are the decisions that get you from sweet, stay-at-home, pure as the driven snow cheerleader. Give me the two steps that get you to hard-core porn.

STU: She's unsatisfied with her hometown. She feels like there's no adventure there. You know, she sees the glitz and the glam of Miami. She gets a free ticket there. Lots of money thrown at her. And she's around -- and then she gets down there. She's around these other girls who are already doing it, who have all made these decisions and can all justify them because they've gone through this process in their over and over again. And all of a sudden, there she is. And they show the interactions with this one particular girl from Texas with her mom, when she kind of finds out about it.

GLENN: Oh, jeez.

STU: And, you know, she kind of takes that approach of, you know, you can tell it's killing her. But she's trying not to never talk to her daughter again. You know, she's trying to not blow up in her face.

GLENN: She's trying not to say, you whore!

STU: She's trying.

JEFFY: Wait until I tell your father.

GLENN: He's going to say, you whore!

STU: The other side of it that is really tough, especially as a dad, is seeing this girl go with her dad out shooting. Their little activity they always did together.

GLENN: No, no, no, no, no. Don't. I don't want to hear it.

STU: She has to tell her dad.

GLENN: She tells her dad at a shooting range? What kind of sick movie is this? Yeah. And here's what you'll do. You'll tell your father while he has the shotgun in his hand.

STU: That is a really good point.

GLENN: It didn't occur to you?

STU: No, I didn't think of -- I guess the part of it that's --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, you don't want to tell me that sweetheart while I have a gun in my hand. Not that I want to shoot you, I just want to shoot somebody else.

STU: Maybe this explains what happened in this situation, that she never got the courage to tell her dad in that particular moment, which is probably smart.

GLENN: Of course not. Can you imagine dad -- you tell dad, and dad is standing there. And some stranger just goes, hey, I've seen your daughter before.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: At the --

[Gun goes off]

-- supermarket.

STU: One of the most depressing parts -- and there's lots of depressing parts of this movie. But one of the worst is, at the shooting range, he doesn't know. And she's supposed to tell him, but doesn't. And they're having these nice father/daughter moments where she's kind of trying to inch it into the conversation.

GLENN: Does she have cameras following her on this?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: This is cruel. Is she telling him like, oh, dad, I made a huge mistake, or is she like, hey, and I have to tell you about my new career?

STU: She goes through I would say the entire range of it. I think at times she thinks she thinks she'll become a celebrity and marry a rapper.

GLENN: That's another reason to shoot somebody.

STU: Well, it's -- it's like -- just to see though this -- hey, my daughter is away. I don't know. She's with her friends somewhere in Miami, I guess. And, hey, she's back for the weekend. We should go shooting. And he seems like this really nice guy. And he's just sitting there not having this knowledge that, of course, you know as a viewer. And it's just --

GLENN: Why would you watch this?

STU: It's a fascinating story. We should pull clips from it. You would be absolutely fascinated by it. And it's so depressing and scary that it's something that I think the audience would like too. There are times I warn you -- there are some scenes that are pretty rough, if you can't handle Jeffy explicit type material. There are a couple of moments. Not like a lot of nudity. But there are some moments in it that are really hard to take.

GLENN: Oh, so they made this almost impossible to watch now. A hot cheerleader having sex. You're going to have to try to get through that if you really want to see this. It's really -- oh, come on.

STU: I'm warning our audience who does care about such things.

GLENN: I do care. I'm not going to watch that because of that.

STU: But it is a good title.

GLENN: You're trying to do good, you don't show her in that --

STU: I don't know if I buy that.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: Look, the idea of a good documentary --

GLENN: Jeffy, you have no place to talk here. Yes. You're right. He should show -- I wanted more of that.

JEFFY: I mean, you have to show what she's going through. Right?

GLENN: Shush.

STU: Look, a great documentary works that way well. You know, when you're drawn in by something, you might find it enticing. You might like porn. And you go on the site. You watch these girls go through this, and it's difficult at the end to like it. I'll tell you that.

GLENN: Let me ask you this: How does the producer of this film live with himself?

STU: What are you --

GLENN: Seriously. No, seriously. No, no, seriously. Stu, think of this.

STU: Wow. I don't understand this argument.

GLENN: Just this of this.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know that one of my daughters -- let's make up Hildegard. So we're not talking about any of my daughters. Hildegard is --

JEFFY: Frightening name for porn, actually.

GLENN: It is. Hildegard. She's witchy.

STU: Not very marketable.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. So Hildegard is in a porn, okay?

Do you in your wildest dreams, not because of any other reason other than I cannot do that to Glenn say, Hildegard, wait, let's get some cameras and let's capture this while on camera.

STU: Well, you're a friend of mine. I wouldn't do it to you.

GLENN: Okay. But as long as you don't know the person, you're fine.

STU: In a way, yeah.

JEFFY: That's the process.

STU: News cameras --

GLENN: Aren't we supposed to have a heart?

STU: That's ridiculous. So you can't have an interview with someone who is going through something you disagree with.

GLENN: Come on. You know -- you both know, there's something different about your daughter and your relationship with your daughter, and your daughter comes and tells you something like that. Is there a worse place in your life?

STU: No.

JEFFY: Why are you bringing my daughter into this?

STU: Your daughter Hildegard.

GLENN: Beatrice.

STU: But that's not your responsibility.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Seriously, is there anything worse than --

JEFFY: No.

STU: Terrible.

GLENN: -- other than your wife or one of your children has been raped or killed, that is up there with that.

STU: Sure. One of the worst experiences you can experience as a father.

JEFFY: No question.

GLENN: So you're sitting there, and you think you as a producer, I don't care how much good you think you're doing --

STU: Oh, I totally disagree with that.

JEFFY: I disagree with that.

GLENN: You really think so?

STU: I honestly straight-out think that the movie did something positive, which is you're informing people. As a parent, I am damn sure glad I know this stuff is going on. I -- I mean, obviously you imagine that this stuff does occur. Somebody is getting into those videos. Right?

These guys, they show clips of it. They post an ad on Craigslist. Hey, free flight to Miami. Next morning, wakes up, he has seven 18-year-old girls from all around the country in small towns wanting to come down and get into porn. Like, that's how crazy it is. One of the really crazy parts about the movie is they show -- you think, okay, you'll get into porn. You'll sacrifice whatever you're sacrificing to get into it. But at least you'll walk out of that rich. No. There's so much supply of 18-year-old girls from around small towns in America, that these girls aren't even making money out of it. They're walking out of it with almost nothing.

The girl from Texas goes through this. Does three months. She's only able to stay in it for three months. Three months of porn. Films a few dozen movies and makes $25,000. She's done all this for $25,000. Gets home after all expenses with two grand in her account. All of this for $2,000.

GLENN: When we come back, I want to hear what dad's response was.

[BREAK]

GLENN: So we were talking about this Netflix show that Stu wants to -- to not show me, but take me through next week. So maybe next we'll do it. It's a sad tragic story about these girls who are 18 years old. They get out of high school. They want to have an exciting life. Craigslist says, hey, free tickets to Miami. Two moves later, and they're in hard-core porn films. And we were talking about the dad, this documentary shows her coming back to her dad and telling her dad.

STU: Or trying to.

JEFFY: Trying to.

GLENN: So what is the dad's reaction?

STU: They actually don't show it. Which I assume means he was, of course, devastated.

GLENN: Of course, he was.

STU: And did not want to show it. To respect him.

GLENN: How would you react to it?

STU: If I didn't kill myself, I would probably just sob in the corner.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I would be hostile at the cameras first.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Get these cameras out of my face.

JEFFY: That's why these cameras are here. For that?

GLENN: Right? Are you kidding me? You thought this was a good idea?

STU: You would be pissed at your daughter for allowing it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. You would be so angry. And then I would just do nothing, but weep. Holy cow.

JEFFY: Hopefully in the end you would be able to embrace it.

STU: No. No, Jeffy.

GLENN: No. Jeffy. You're misunderstanding.

[BREAK]

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.