Glenn's civil discourse with Sean Hannity over Trump continues

Last Friday, Glenn posed an honest question for prominent small government conservatives, including Sean Hannity, who have voiced their support for Donald Trump. Hannity answered Glenn's question in a rather lengthy reply on Sunday.

On radio Monday, Glenn said he disagrees with Hannity, but - what a shock - they don't hate each other.

"Sean and I are different, obviously. Different people. And we run different shows," Glenn said.

Glenn described Hannity's show as an opportunity for viewers to see as many candidates as possible and make decisions accordingly. As for his own show, Glenn sees his role a little differently.

"There are many candidates that will not come on my show because they don't like me. And they know that I will express and assert my opinion and push back, not in an interview way, but push back as a citizen. That's not what Sean does," Glenn said.

Glenn will join Hannity's show on Fox News tonight at 10pm ET to share his thoughts on Donald Trump, insights on the 2016 Republican field and other issues.

Listen to Glenn's discussion on radio or read Hannity's full response below.

Glenn,

You are a friend and a patriot who has asked an honest and thoughtful question, and I will attempt to answer it in this post.

You asked, "Can we actually have a civil discourse based on facts? Not on emotion or feelings?" Of course we can! For all of you leftists out there in the media and elsewhere hoping this will become a "food fight," you will be extremely disappointed.

Let me first point out that I am personally UNDECIDED as to whom I I will support in the GOP primaries. The good news is the Iowa Caucus is February 1, 2016. That gives us over 5 1/2 months before the REAL process begins in deciding who the Republican presidential nominee will be. Five and a half months is an eternity in political terms.

A lot can and will happen between now and then. Some candidates will trip and fall or stumble. Some will recover and others may not. Polls will shift, debates will hopefully enlighten, and voters (that is, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE) will decide which way this is going to go.

This is not my first rodeo. I began my talk radio journey in 1987. I am about to begin my 20th year on the Fox News Channel. I have followed presidential politics closely since my early teens. I often remind both my listeners and viewers that this is a PROCESS. We do not have to decide today.

As a registered conservative in New York state, I only have one vote. From a voting perspective, I will have no say, really, in deciding who the Republican presidential nominee will be in 2016. Just as I have in past presidential cycles, I feel I can best serve both my television and radio audiences by giving them as much access as possible to all of the candidates so they can make an informed decision in the primary.

For example, in just the last 2 weeks I have had on both radio and TV Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, and Chris Christie.

I have given many of the candidates a FULL hour on my TV show, as well. My plan is to continue to offer all the candidates more airtime throughout the entire process.

As I mentioned, I have two jobs that I love to do every day (which is to build an audience, and to generate revenue), but that is not my primary motivation. As somebody who follows the news closely every day, I am extremely concerned about the direction of the country and the world in general.

In my view, America is at a crossroads -- a tipping point. To me, this election is not about ME OR WHO I VOTE FOR. I personally want the most CONSERVATIVE candidate (because conservatism works) with the best, most inspiring solutions for the country; someone who can passionately articulate those solutions, and win.

Which Republican candidate can offer solutions that will:

1. Create jobs and help the 93 million Americans who are out of the labor force get back to work

2. Help get nearly 50 million Americans out of poverty

3. Help nearly 46 million Americans who are on food stamps get back to work

4. Stop robbing future generations with record debt and deficits. We now have over 18 trillion dollars in debt and over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

5. Balance the budget, force the government to live within its means, and lower taxes by transforming our tax code

6. Save Social Security (because the "Lock Box" has been stolen)

7. Save Medicare

8. Repeal Obamacare, and hopefully replace it with personal healthcare savings accounts

9. Make America energy independent. This would create jobs, lower the cost of energy, and reduce our dependence on imported oil from countries that hate us.

10. Protect our borders from those who do not respect our laws and sovereignty, and those who enter the country to cause us harm

11. Transform a broken educational system and replace public schools with school choice for parents and kids trapped in failing schools

12. End burdensome regulations

13. Restore constitutional order and separation of powers with co-equal branches of government as our founders intended

14. Identify by name our biggest enemy (radical Islamists) and take every step necessary to defeat this evil

15. Undo this horrific, naive, and incredibly dangerous deal with the radical Mullahs in Iran that chant death to America

16. Restore America's sacred and special relationship with Israel

17. Empower moderate nations and people in the Middle East and elsewhere to defeat enemies in the region

18. Confront Putin with strength to stop his geopolitical ambitions

19. Confront China and thwart its geopolitical ambitions and unfair trade practices

20. Commit to the idea that America is the single greatest force for good in the world, and that America's role is to lead the fight for freedom around the world

This is only a short list of challenges we now face as a country. As our mutual friend "The Great One," Mark Levin, says, we are living in a post constitutional America. I have a sense of urgency that I have never had before in my life that the "America" we love and grew up in is slipping away, literally hanging in the balance. Now is NOT the time for half measures It is time, as Reagan said, for a "revitalized second party with no pale pastels but BOLD COLORED DIFFERENCES."

I am extremely disappointed with current congressional "leadership," as they have failed to keep their most BASIC promises. They refused to use their constitutional authority of the power of the purse to defund Obamacare. They caved on their main 2014 campaign promise to stop Obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty. And they are generally weak, timid and afraid to confront Obama for fear they will be blamed for a government shutdown.

With that said I am greatly encouraged by many of the 17 candidates currently running for the GOP nomination.

Sen. Ted Cruz has shown a willingness few in Congress have shown TO FIGHT! His filibuster in 2013 was inspiring, as is his willingness to take on his own party.

Sen. Rand Paul's reminders about limited government and fidelity to the Constitution is similarly refreshing.

Sen. Marco Rubio offers an extremely bright, articulate and friendly vision of conservatism that will inspire many Americans.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum is making a strong push to rebuild the "Reagan Coalition" and is articulating how blue collar voters will benefit under conservatism.

Gov. Scott Walker has shown that a conservative can win in a blue state, and turn deficits into surpluses, create jobs, and he was willing to put his political career on the line for his conservative beliefs.

Gov. John Kasich similarly took record deficits in Ohio and turned them into record surpluses. He also created hundreds of thousands of jobs. While budget chairman in DC, Kasich was the architect of REAL BALANCED BUDGETS.

Gov. Jeb Bush's record in Florida is equally impressive. He created 1.4 million jobs, the nations first school voucher program, and produced balanced budgets.

Gov. Rick Perry, but for his leadership in Texas, America would have experienced a NET loss of jobs in Obama's first term. Obama owes Gov. Perry a debt of gratitude.

Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is young, bright, and vibrant, had massive reductions in the size of government, vouchers, and a proven willingness to take on the status quo.

Gov. Mike Huckabee deserves major kudos for his commitment to religious freedom, the Constitution and the Fair Tax, which, I believe, will transform the American economy for the better.

Gov. Chris Christie deserves credit for taking on the third rail in politics, i.e., ENTITLEMENTS! The bottom line is we have been lied to and stolen from, and unless we deal with these entitlements (which have become the majority of government spending), our kids will not have a future.

Dr. Ben Carson has articulated a version of common sense, conservatism, and courage in confronting Obama that congressional Republicans should learn from. His vision for healthcare savings accounts is the perfect antidote to Obamacare.

Carly Fiorina has been nothing short of inspiring in confronting Hillary Clinton's moral, ethical, and legal deficiencies. Her knowledge of the economy and world affairs has captivated the country.

Now, I could point out areas of disagreement and deficiencies in all the candidates ... but I will leave that to the voters and the liberal Obama-loving media. The Republican field of candidates offer a far more inspiring vision for our country than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. If conservative principles are implemented we can save and preserve the country for our kids and grandkids.

My hope is that the GOP candidates will all push each other to become stronger in their commitment to this conservative vision -- all of which will get this country back on track before we become another version of Greece.

Now to Mr Trump: The first debate attracted 24 million Americans, by far a cable television record. There is zero doubt in my mind that he was a big part of that record breaking debate.

By comparison, the first Republican debate of the 2012 cycle hosted by Fox News in May 2011, drew just 3.2 million viewers, according to Nielsen. Its highest-rated Republican debate (in 2012) drew 6.7 million viewers.

Kudos to Donald Trump for creating an audience that not only benefitted him, but every other candidate and the entire country. He single handedly made politics refreshingly fun, unpredictable and interesting. That is a great benefit to the country.

Now to your specific points, because you said you "really want to understand."

First you wrote:

"I get that Trump is reflective of what people are feeling; secure the border; fight to win; don't give in to China, etc. I really do understand that he is saying things that people are feeling. Justifiably.

I get the fact that he is saying that America is a great place and that we can be great again. That is rare and refreshing.

I understand that he is seen, and has the proof in New York City, as a guy who can get things done. I understand and like the fact that he just says what he is thinking. No politically correct BS, no focus groups, and he does it with out apologizing."

My only comment to this, Glenn, is ... you are answering your own question in many ways. These are not insignificant things. Why, at this early stage, would you be so dismissive?

1. Fight to win

2. Stand up to China

3. Make America great again

4. Trump has a track record of getting the job done

5. Secure the border 6. Straight talking, non-politically correct politician!

To address what you say you do not understand:

1. "He is part of the problem when he, by his own admission, buys politicians":

How refreshingly honest that he admits what we all know. I asked him about this and he answered by saying he "hates" the system, wants to change it, but as a businessman he played the game. I applaud the honesty and desire to change it.

2. Trump "identifies his policies more as a Democrat; he makes President Obama look truly humble..."

If you are looking for humble, Trump is not your guy.

As for his political views I asked him a number of times about it, including this week. He was clear that he was once a Democrat and changed his views. You will have to decide for yourself how sincere he is. My sense is that he is sincere. He is correct in pointing out that Reagan was was a pro-choice Democrat who also evolved.

Glenn, one of the things I admire about you is how you have changed. Your life story is extremely compelling because of the significant changes you have made in your life.

You are not shy about pointing out how you once led a pretty fast life. (I did, too, when I was young, as we have all sinned and fallen short), how you found your faith, how you changed your politics, and how your thinking evolved by studying our founders and framers. I read that you recently became a libertarian. I like the changes you have made and your willingness to share those things with your audience. Are you a better person as a result of these changes? My guess is you are.

3. Trump was very pro-abortion until very recently.

His answer at the debate was extremely compelling, about how his views changed. He said he changed his mind because of a child that was going to be aborted, but then wasn't. That is believable to me. Do you think he is lying about that?

4. He still says, "Don't defund planned parenthood ..."

I asked him about that this week, and he was very clear that funding would be dependent on whether Planned Parenthood gets out of the abortion business. Personally, with our debt situation, and with what Planned Parenthood has done, I wouldn't give them a penny.

5. Trump is pro- "assault weapon ban ..."

He said to me he that he "was" for the ban, past tense. He now has a pistol carry-permit in NYC and said he believes law-abiding Americans should have the right to "carry."

6. He is in favor of a wealth tax that would just "take money out of people's bank accounts ..."

I also asked him about this earlier this week. He said when he supported this one-time tax on the very wealthy that we were at a point when, if implemented, the tax would have paid off the entire federal debt. He wanted this coupled with a balanced budget amendment. My impression of this was that it would be meant as a patriotic gesture by those who have greatly benefitted from the American Dream. Misguided, well intentioned, perhaps. But he says he is against it now.

7. Trump "says he is for boots on the ground in Iraq, and for 'taking the oil' from the Iraqi people..."

Mr. Trump and I disagreed about the Iraq war; I was for it and he was against it. But I loved his idea of making Iraq pay for its own liberation. I also love the idea of Iraq paying the families of nearly 5,000 Americans who were killed fighting in that war. They deserve that money. They deserve millions of dollars. Similarly, so do those soldiers and families that suffered severe injuries. It's the least Iraq should do for them.

As far as Trump's plan against Isis of creating a perimeter around the oil fields, which is their main financial source for terror? I like that idea, if it is a part of a more comprehensive plan of defeating them. Americans died in Mosul, Ramadi, Fallujah and Tikrit, cities now controlled by Isis. They are modern day Nazis and are getting stronger and richer and more evil every day. I have one caveat: IF AMERICA FIGHTS ANY WAR, WE MUST WIN IT AND WIN IT QUICKLY. NO MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT WARS THAT ARE POLITICIZED AND THEN ABANDONED.

This out of the box thinking is refreshing. Why didn't Iraq pay our military heroes?

8. Trump is a progressive "Republican ..."

He says he is a conservative. It's up to you as to what you want to believe.

9. He says single payer healthcare works; he would give people more than just Obama care ...

Again, this week, in his interview with me, Trump went into great detail about how he supports healthcare savings accounts to replace Obamacare. I have been an advocate of healthcare savings accounts since reading the book by the Cato institute, "Patient Power." A GREAT IDEA.

10. The First Lady would be the first to have posed nude in lesbian porno shots ...

I thought you were libertarian? Also I go back to the fact that you have changed. Trump's wife is a mother and what she did in the past doesn't make my top 10,000 list of problems we face as a country.

11. He said he keeps all the Bibles he is given in a "special place," outside the city -- and he only goes to church on Christmas and Easter ...

I have met atheists and agnostics who seem more in awe of and dazzled by the majesty of God's creation than those who can cite every chapter and verse. To me, religion is a deeply, deeply held personal issue that involves the heart. I am a Christian but a deeply flawed one who regularly needs forgiveness. Having been raised a Catholic, I also have issues with the "church" since sex scandal. I have never lost faith in God. The Bible does say, "... The Kingdom of Heaven is within us," and instructs us to "go into our closets and pray." I hope for Trump's sake, and for everybody's sake, that he has peace in his faith; I know I do.

12. Trump is generally not a likable guy ...

The polls show Republicans like Trump at this moment more than the other candidates. I have known him for years and have found him to be extremely likable and engaging.

13. He has around 16 percent favorability with Hispanics ...

I also saw a poll where he was leading with Hispanic voters in Nevada. IMHO, it's too early to conclude where that settles out.

14. He has gone bankrupt four times.

I thought his explanation at the debate was extremely solid. He never went bankrupt personally, and of the hundreds of business deals he has been involved in, four of them didn't work out well. Shouldn't that be balanced out with all of the deals he has made that have been successful? I think that is only fair. How many jobs has he created over the years? How many careers were made because of his risk taking. Also the proof is in the pudding. He has by every measure been an extremely successful businessman who has made billions of dollars. Not something many people can pull off. I admire success stories. If Trump was president, and he made hundreds of decisions and only four of them went badly, we would likely be in pretty good shape.

15. Just based on his favorability ratings, he could never win in a general. Research shows that he may be near his ceiling now ...

In the end, that's up to the American people to decide, not us.

In conclusion, Glenn, I repeat ... I am personally undecided at this point. But I am glad Donald Trump is in this race. I like his straightforward outsider's view of politics. His personality and background are impressive and refreshing. I like anybody who is not politically correct.

I hope his outspokenness and his courage rubs off on his fellow Republicans, who have all become stale, timid, weak, and generally (especially in DC) useless. Many Republicans can learn a thing or two from Trump.

We have 5 1/2 months until the Iowa caucuses. My promise is to dig deeper into the questions you and others have raised that deserve answers. I also promise to give Mr. Trump and every other candidate a fair shot to explain their views in detail. I think a FAIR SHOT is the best way to serve my audience. Then it's up to the American people, as it should be.

My hope and prayer is that we elect a bold, inspiring conservative visionary who will undo the damage caused by Obama and leftist politicians, and that we can work together to save the country we both love.

Best always,

Sean

Featured Image: NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 21: Host Sean Hannity on set of FOX's "Hannity With Sean Hannity" at FOX Studios on April 21, 2014 in New York City. (Photo by Paul Zimmerman/Getty Images)

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.