Bill O'Reilly uncovers new details about Reagan's presidency in new 'Killing' book

It's always a good time when Glenn and his friend Bill O'Reilly get together. O'Reilly called into Glenn's radio program Monday morning to announce his newest book in his series, called Killing Reagan.

Glenn's first question was obviously about the title, since Reagan wasn't killed, was he?

"Here's the most interesting part of the book," O'Reilly said. "Ronald Reagan gets elected and shortly after is shot and is almost killed. He comes out in a robust way. We all remember. His little bathrobe, standing, making jokes, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The president is going to be okay. But he wasn't okay."

O'Reilly went on to explain the detrimental effects, both mental and physical, that the near-killing had on the rest of Reagan's presidency, and how at one point he came extremely close to being removed from office.

"We found out that he was within a whisper of being removed from the presidency and nobody knows that, and the story is so dramatic. And then after he passed the test that they gave him, he made a miraculous comeback mentally because of the Soviet Union," O'Reilly said. "I think is fascinating for anyone who cares about Ronald Reagan."

Glenn agreed.

"There's a lot of great stuff in the book. Including the fact - did you guys know that Ronald Reagan tried to join the Communist Party? He was rejected by the Communist Party," Glenn said.

SPOILER ALERT: "At the end of this one, he doesn't die," Glenn said.

Listen or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: It's always good to have our good friend on our program. Mr. Bill O'Reilly on the show with us. He has a brand-new book called Killing Reagan, which Reagan wasn't killed, but really why be picky on things like that?

PAT: That was a detail. What?

GLENN: Bill, welcome to the program, how are you? Bill, are you there? I'm not hearing Bill O'Reilly.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, no.

PAT: You pissed him off.

GLENN: It's Donald Trump.

PAT: He's angry. Yeah.

GLENN: Guys, in New York, can you tell me what's happening with Bill O'Reilly?

PAT: Hmm. If he's on, we're not hearing him. So that's probably a problem.

GLENN: Okay. Well, tell us when you can get -- tell us when you can get Bill O'Reilly.

STU: I guess this means Reagan is alive.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you think that this was John Hinckley saying, "Bill, I don't appreciate it. I'm going to take you down too. I'm going to silence your voice."

STU: Because you say that Reagan wasn't killed, but he did die.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yes. But he died of something else.

GLENN: Natural causes.

STU: It was a little later.

GLENN: It's actually a very fascinating book.

STU: I will say, this is the most interested I am in the entire series.

PAT: Oh, really?

STU: Yeah, that's fascinating to me.

GLENN: They've been good books.

PAT: Oh, they've all been really good.

STU: I didn't say that they weren't good.

GLENN: Yes, you did. That's what I heard. That's what Pat heard. That's what America heard.

PAT: I heard it.

STU: I can't deal with your incompetent hearing abilities. What I said was I thought --

PAT: You tell Bill he was incompetent.

GLENN: That's what I heard.

PAT: That's what I heard.

STU: I'm talking to America. You are here. Bill is not.

GLENN: Bill is always --

PAT: Wow. You said this is a problem interview.

STU: That's not what I said.

PAT: Holy cow.

GLENN: Holy cow. Bill, are you there? Okay. Well, we're going to have to reschedule. Phones are broken, apparently. We don't have phones that work.

PAT: Why would you have that?

GLENN: Don't worry. This is only a multi -- you know, tens of millions of dollar show. Why would we have a phone that works?

PAT: Why would you have that?

STU: I don't know. I can't answer that question. If I do, you'll just twist my answer, so I won't attempt it.

PAT: So you don't want to talk to Bill?

STU: No.

GLENN: I heard he wanted to twist the knife.

STU: I didn't say that word.

GLENN: It's amazing. It is absolutely amazing.

JEFFY: Write your own book, Killing O'Reilly. Okay.

STU: Wasn't there a left-winger who did say that actually?

PAT: Yeah, there was. I'm trying to think who it was and can't remember right now.

GLENN: Can we play the football player -- let's play the football player. The audio. Can we play the audio --

PAT: No.

GLENN: Can't play the audio. This is a story out of California that is just infuriating. There is a football player at a high school that is there at a high school, and he sees this other kid just wailing -- just wailing on this blind kid. Now, the blind kid can't even defend himself, he's blind. So he's not seeing the punches coming his way.

PAT: This is crazy.

GLENN: I mean, it's really crazy. It's really crazy. So everybody is standing around doing nothing.

PAT: Filming it.

GLENN: Yeah, doing nothing. And finally this high school football player comes up and he grabs the guy who is wailing on him.

PAT: I think he drilled him. I think he hit him in the head, which he deserved.

GLENN: Did he hit him in the head? I just saw him throw him down.

PAT: I think he did. I think he did.

GLENN: Either way, that's fine. He pulls him back, Pat says hits him on the head, and throws him down to the ground.

Well, he then goes right over to the blind kid and is like, "Are you okay? Are you all right? Here." And he helps him get out of there. Everyone runs around the bully and is helping the bully up.

PAT: Because he got blasted by the football player. And the football player is yelling, "What are you doing? That's a blind kid you're hitting. What are you doing?" In more colorful language than that.

GLENN: Now, who gets expelled?

PAT: The football player.

GLENN: The football player does. This is insane. Absolutely insane. What's wrong with us?

PAT: Well, Glenn, they have a zero tolerance --

GLENN: Yeah, I have a zero tolerance -- zero tolerance for common sense.

PAT: Yeah, that's what all of those policies --

GLENN: We'll get back into that here in a second. You have Bill back on?

STU: In theory, yes.

GLENN: Bill.

BILL: Beck.

GLENN: How are you doing, buddy?

BILL: Good. I'm glad you guys have telephones finally. Telegraphs.

GLENN: Well.

PAT: Thought we'd join the last century.

BILL: Working phones is really getting tough to do, but I'm glad you have a phone now.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. How are things, Bill?

BILL: Busy. Just like you, you know, trying to change the world.

GLENN: Yeah. So Bill, I have to ask you. We're going to get to your book in just a second. I have to ask you, just because it will be fun to hear the answer. I hear Donald Trump is beating your butt and is taking you out to the woodshed every night.

BILL: How exactly is he doing that, Beck?

GLENN: Well, because he has said that he's not going to do you show anymore. And then you immediately countered with, "Oh, no, no. I don't want you on the show."

BILL: No, I didn't say anything to anybody. And he got into kind of a fight with Fox News hierarchy. It didn't have anything to do with me.

GLENN: Well, that's not the story that we heard in the papers. They were saying that -- I want you to know I believe that you --

BILL: Whoa, whoa, in the papers?

GLENN: I believe that you were the one who said, "I'm not going to put up with this nonsense and have you on the show anymore." But there are a lot of people that believe that Donald Trump came out and said that he doesn't want to put up with your nonsense. Which was it?

BILL: Okay. Number one, you're believing the papers. Is that what you're telling me?

GLENN: I'm just saying, Bill. That's just what people are talking about.

BILL: Okay. Number one, I don't have any beef against Trump. Number two, I didn't say anything about Trump to anybody. Number three, he ran into a problem with the Fox News hierarchy because he was bashing people like Krauthammer and Hume and Will, and those -- he didn't like them because they didn't approve of him. So I think that's the genesis of it. But it didn't have anything to do with me directly?

GLENN: Do you know him, Bill, well?

BILL: Yes, I know Trump well.

GLENN: Is his temperament -- can he be president of the United States with that temperament?

BILL: You know, he doesn't like to be criticized. And if you're president, you're criticized every second on the second.

GLENN: Right. Right. I mean, I don't like being criticized. You don't like being criticized. But it comes with the gig.

BILL: Yeah. And I don't know if he's accepted that reality. And I think that's the problem with him. And I think that's why his numbers are going down. And his poll numbers are going down because, if you're going to run for president, you have to be able to overlook stupid stuff.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Now, if he is attacked unfairly, then there's no -- I have no problem with him fighting back. But certainly on my program, he's gotten a fair shot. And we bring on people who like him and don't like him. That's what we do on The O'Reilly Factor. All sides are heard.

GLENN: Go ahead.

BILL: He doesn't like to hear people say that they don't approve of him, and that's the problem.

GLENN: Yeah, he doesn't like me too much. So I cried myself to sleep last night and I moved on.

BILL: Well, who does? Let's be honest. Who likes you? No one.

GLENN: I know. So my wife watched your show last week or the week before --

BILL: Not you. But your wife?

GLENN: No, it's more of a girl show.

BILL: Yeah, it's like The View.

GLENN: Yeah, it's like The View. And she said she had seen Carly Fiorina on and said that you were quite complimentary of her. Which makes me question her immediately. And said that she really held her ground with you. I'm doing a sitdown with her for today for a couple of hours. And interested to hear your -- your thoughts now after the interview with her. Is she the real deal?

BILL: Well, look, I hit her with some real haymakers about her tenure in the private sector --

GLENN: She handled it well.

BILL: -- at Hewlett-Packard. About how she reacted to various criticisms of her. Some policy situations. And she didn't -- she wasn't in a snit or anything like that. She answered the questions in a very logical manner.

GLENN: Like an adult?

BILL: And I complimented her on that.

GLENN: You don't have to tell me who, but do you see the next president yet?

BILL: You know, I don't see the next president yet. I think the Republican field is narrowing quickly. Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Bush, and Rubio look the -- look to be the only candidates right now that have a chance. Although, John Kasich is doing something very interesting. He's only doing New Hampshire. And if he does well there, he thinks he can break out fast into the other states.

GLENN: Yeah, he lives in a fantasy world.

BILL: He had a really good record in Ohio.

GLENN: I didn't know they legalized drugs in Ohio because he must be smoking some --

BILL: No, they haven't.

GLENN: -- if he thinks -- oh, really? Well, then we should have the state police stop by his house because --

BILL: Do you not like him?

GLENN: No, come on. Come on, Bill, for the leave of Pete, John Kasich?

PAT: Come on.

GLENN: No, no, I don't like him.

BILL: He didn't a great job in Ohio, boy.

GLENN: Oh, that is fantastic.

BILL: Did you look at what he did there? Turning that economy around.

GLENN: Love him. Love everything about his little -- bless his little progressive heart. I just love him.

BILL: No, come on. Look, just look at the state when he got there, and look at the state now. Economically, the guy did a great job. Go ahead.

GLENN: All right. I'm less interested in your book now.

(laughter)

BILL: I'll throw some Muslims in it.

GLENN: How come you don't have that? Killing ISIS, something like that.

BILL: Right. You know, if I had known you were writing that Muslim book, I would have put Muslims in the Reagan book.

(laughter)

GLENN: All right. So tell me the most interesting thing in the book. Because actually, I haven't read it. But I've thumbed through it.

BILL: Well, you should read it or have someone read it to you. You have a lot of servants.

GLENN: I would read it. If it was written by anyone else, I would have read it three times by now.

BILL: No, you wouldn't, Beck. No, you wouldn't. Here's the most interesting part of the book. Ronald Reagan gets elected and shortly after is shot and is almost killed. He comes out in a robust way. We all remember. His little bathrobe, standing, making jokes, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The president is going to be okay. But he wasn't okay. And the White House was able to keep that from the press and able to keep that from the people. He had his good days and his bad days. And we were taking our research from the people who loved Reagan, not from the snipers on the left. Okay? But the people who worked for him for a long time. People who admired him. On his bad days, he would even come down to the Oval Office and watch soap operas on TV. And on his good days, he was brilliant. But there came a point in the second term where his main advisers, Baker was the chief of staff, if you remember, was so concerned about him, that they had a meeting in the Oval Office. And he came into the meeting. And he didn't know that he was being watched, and if he had not performed well, they were going to try to remove him under the Constitution. And vice president Bush would have taken over the presidency.

PAT: But this had nothing to do with --

GLENN: This had nothing to do with the shooting?

BILL: No, it did. Because the shooting changed his physiology and his psychology. You're shot at that level and you almost die, you get that kind of trauma, you're never the same. Never the same. And because of his age, he -- his recovery time while it seemed on the surface was miraculous, it really wasn't. So that he would be in and he would be out. But I'll tell you why, when we were researching this and we found out that he was within a whisper of being removed from the presidency and nobody knows that, and the story is so dramatic, and then after he passed the test that they gave him, he made a miraculous comeback mentally because of the Soviet Union. And we go through that. And it's all weaved together. But the book I think is fascinating for anyone who cares about Ronald Reagan.

GLENN: I will tell you this, Bill, that I actually do find it fascinating. There's a lot of great stuff in the book. Including the fact -- did you guys know that Ronald Reagan tried to join the Communist Party? He was rejected by the Communist Party. They thought he was a lightweight. It's a fascinating read. Bill, before we go -- I'm sorry to cut this short because of the phone thing. But real quick, your thoughts on the pope. You're a Catholic.

BILL: Yes. I like the pope. I think I understand what he's trying to do. The churches are in trouble. He wants to get more people interested in the church so he takes a holistic point of view that, you know, "Look, we are accepting of sinners. Everyone is welcome. Everyone can come back." At the same time, his job on earth is to administer to the poor. And I don't really think he understands the best way to do that because he was raised in the Argentine economic system which is corrupt. However, overall, the pope is a good man. I think he did the Catholic church a lot of good. Christianity a lot of good.

GLENN: Were you at all disappointed that he did not take on the abortion cause in front of Congress or that he -- he lectured about American Catholic communists or the fact that on Saturday at the United Nations, we're talking about doing a gigantic global program that is a power grab? Are you disappointed in any of those things?

BILL: Well, I think the abortion thing he believes is polarizing, and that if he had gotten into it specifically, he would have lost some ears. Then he made a calculated decision. There's no doubt that the pope and the Catholic church are anti-abortion. And they always will be. And I think he made a calculation. Look, I'll avoid confrontation. And I'll be inclusive as I can. I think that I would have played it differently had I been him.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Nobody is perfect.

GLENN: Hang on, that's news. Bill O'Reilly would have gone for the confrontation.

Bill, God bless you, thank you so much. Keep up the good work.

BILL: All right. Thanks for having me here.

GLENN: All right. Buh-bye. The name of the book is Killing Reagan. Bill O'Reilly. The next in the series. I'll give you a hint, at the end of this one, he doesn't die.

Featured Image: Host Bill O'Reilly appears on 'The O'Reilly Factor' on The FOX News Channel at FOX Studios on March 17, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Rob Kim/Getty Images)

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Here’s what’s really happening.

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

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

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

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

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

Failed management

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s federal land-grab

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

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

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

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

Land as collateral

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

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

The American way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.