Hope in D.C.? Glenn Interviews Senator Ben Sasse and Arthur Brooks

Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska joined Glenn on radio Wednesday to discuss the outrageous idea he had of putting a complete outsider into position as Speaker of the House.

The "outsider" - Arthur Brooks - joined the call as well.

"I don't think anybody is a better storyteller about the meaning of America right now than Arthur Brooks. I said, why wouldn't the House consider him?" Sasse said.

Listen to the conversation or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: Senator Ben Sasse took to Twitter. And he said, I've been thinking about the House Speaker race, Boner -- Boner.

(laughter)

PAT: Freudian.

GLENN: Yeah, Boehner quitting prompted some remarkably boring and lazy analysis on where we are as a nation.

He said, imagine how much -- amazing how much conventional wisdom gets wrong.

Throughout our campaign, we heard from the DC press, but not from Nebraska voters.

This was the dynamic. Media. Everything is Tea Party versus establishment. Leader versus outsiders. Voters yawn.

No real question about vision. Who has it. Who doesn't.

Press obsesses over bickering. Student council races. Who slighted whom. The voters barely care.

Media framing the Speaker's race is reductionalist choice. Small-ball establishment versus wild-eyed Visigoths who want to burn the government to the ground.

It's a 24-hour news cycle of this junk, and it never ends. He goes on -- and he goes page after page after page of tweets.

And he says, I have an idea, let's elect an outsider. I'm going to let the senator speak, and then the outsider is also on the phone as well. Senator Ben Sasse, how are you, sir?

BEN: I'm doing well, Glenn. Thanks for having me on. When you read someone's tweet after the fact, you know, without all the iconographic ways to get it 140 characters, it makes it sound like I can't even type.

GLENN: You haven't read a lot of other people's tweets. So, Ben, tell us what you were thinking here.

BEN: Well, I mean, I think your audience gets this, right? The media is obsessed with the Tea Party versus establishment narrative. But the fact is that this is really a question of vision. I mean, you listen to the DC press Corp write about anything that's happening on Capitol Hill, and we constantly get this choice between small-ball procedural process-obsessed establishment insiders versus supposedly crazy people who want to just burn down the capitol. And I don't think that's the real choice. And it's not what I hear when I travel Nebraska.

You know, there's a reason that Congress' approval rating is at 11 percent. And Nebraskans are sick of the idea that the only way you should talk about politics is as if politics and DC are the center of the world. I think what the people in my state are worried about is whether or not the people are going to be vital and whether or not civil society will be dynamic and whether or not families are strong and their regulatory environment allows small business people to get a foot in the door and build the American dream. The things that the people of America are worried about and obsessed about are big and important questions. And DC tends to get wrapped around the axle around student council race squabbling. And we can do better than that. And we should.

GLENN: Ben, I tell you, you're one of my favorite senators. You really, truly are. You get it. And every time I talk to you, I'm struck with how in touch with the American people you really are. And that's hard to do in your position. Really hard.

BEN: Well, it helps if you live in a place that isn't dominated by the professions and the professionalization of politics. So we -- my wife and I are blessed to have three little kids. Girls are 14 and 11. Son is four. And we live in Nebraska, and we're raising them because we don't know where they would detassel corn and walk beans in DC. So we fly home every weekend. We're doing a family commute. And so our neighbors are actually real people, who if I talked about process of insider DC baseball all the time, anybody at a high school game or at the grocery store is going to look at me like I have two heads. And that's healthy. It keeps you grounded.

GLENN: Okay. So what is your solution? Because honestly I've talked to a few of the people running for the House Speaker. And I'm kind of yawning. I mean, there's nothing -- I don't see anything that I'm excited about.

BEN: When I read the US Constitution, the first position that's referenced is Speaker of the House. It's the most democratic body because it's closest to the people, and every 24 months you have to get reelected or tossed out. The people can fire the politicians because the people are in charge and the politicians are supposed to work for us. And it's a good thing that the people have the power to fire us. And that Speaker of the House should be a voice, not just for one party, but a representation of the will of the American people in our Madisonian, separation of powers system. So I would love to see a conversation in DC be about something bigger than who is caucused with whom and what professional issue people have been fighting about last week. So it seems to me, if you want to think about the direction of the country, which the people in Nebraska and beyond do, if you want to think about the direction of conservatism. If you want to think about the challenges we face five and ten and 15 years in the future, we should think, who is a happy warrior? Who knows how to celebrate earned success? Who knows how to talk about fighting for people, not just against bad programs? How do we cut through, you know, a lazy media portrayal that the fight is between ostensibly a number of obsessed Republicans versus genuinely compassionate Democrats. That's not the right way to frame the problem. And the guy that kept coming to my mind as I was watching Sunday Night Football is Arthur Brooks, the head of AEI. And so I think that the House Republicans should think about going outside the box. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires you to have a Speaker who is an elected member of Congress. And I don't think anybody is a better storyteller about the meaning of America right now than Arthur Brooks. I said, why wouldn't the House consider him?

GLENN: Arthur Brooks is on the phone. Arthur responded, quote, normally I trust Ben Sasse's ideas, but is America ready for a bald Speaker? I think not.

Arthur, welcome to the program. Arthur, are you there? We've lost Arthur. He's down. We've got a man down.

BEN: I think we know what he thinks about the nomination.

ARTHUR: Hey, can you hear me?

GLENN: Yeah, we can hear you now. Hi, Arthur, how are you?

ARTHUR: Hi, I'm doing great. How are you doing, my friend?

GLENN: Good. So tell me, how do you take this? Do you take this seriously?

ARTHUR: Well, look, I mean, it's clear that Ben is drinking too much beer when he watches Sunday night football. I think that much is known at this point. But, look, we love Ben Sasse. Because he's -- look, if he decides to stay in politics, he's the future of the Republican Party. He's not an anger guy. He's not an envy guy. He's an aspiration guy. He's somebody who truly understands what it means to be a happy warrior. He gets into this business because he wants to fight for people.

Look, this is what you've been talking about now for more than ten years, Glenn. You got to fight for people, you don't just fight against things. And, you know, Ben lives that out every day, and his frustration is palpable.

I mean, I saw the tweet stream coming because I look at my Twitter too. And I'm thinking, "What is he getting at? What is he getting at?" Then in the end, "Are you kidding me, man?" But, still, I get the basic idea that what he's after, it's boring the kinds of things we're talking about in DC right now. Right?

GLENN: Oh, we had -- we had one of the candidates on for Speaker of the House yesterday. And he's a friend of ours. And we've known him forever. We hung up the phone, we were like -- I'm not. I don't care. I mean, there was no -- there was nothing there.

STU: He didn't seem like he was really totally into running.

GLENN: Right. It was the same kind of stuff.

STU: And the other guy we talked to was basically -- it was a, he's not super conservative, but there will be a lot of procedural things you won't understand that he'll change and he'll be right on.

GLENN: That he'll get right.

STU: Which is not exciting.

GLENN: And then the third guy is a guy who you're like, you have to be kidding me, right?

STU: He's like, we did the Benghazi thing just to screw Hillary Clinton. Elect me.

GLENN: It's just small thinking. There's nobody -- I'm looking for a candidate that is -- on all fronts, that says, you know what, we're not going to play this game anymore. We're just not going to play it. We don't have to play it anymore. The world is changing. The times are changing. The thinking has changed. We'll think way out of the box. And, quite honestly, Ben, that's what I like about this idea.

BEN: Arthur, we could comment a lot about Arthur's hair and the potential if he had some grafting and a combover.

ARTHUR: That would be interesting, wouldn't it?

BEN: It's amazing the stuff -- when you're on Twitter, and you're maybe a little bit promiscuous with your tweeting for a time. The things people send back to me.

Arthur, I got to show you some of the photos after you talked about being bald.

GLENN: Oh, I want to see.

BEN: People Photoshopping everybody else's hair onto you and sending it to me.

GLENN: Arthur, I want to see you with Donald Trump's hair.

BEN: Oh, yeah.

ARTHUR: That's the secret. That's what America needs. But here's why --

GLENN: Let's talk about this -- let's talk about this seriously.

BEN: Yes.

GLENN: Senator, you have bought the domain DraftArthurBrooks.com. Are you serious about this?

BEN: Well, something tells me that Mrs. Brooks isn't too thrilled that I've nominated her husband for the most thankless job in all of Washington.

ARTHUR: Look, Ben, I'll tell you what Mrs. Brooks said. I took it to her on Sunday night. I said, "What do you think, honey?" And she said, "Well, as you know, as Catholics, we don't believe in divorce."

(laughter)

GLENN: That sounds like a yes to me.

(laughter)

PAT: So there's a chance then?

BEN: In all seriousness, I genuinely think that Arthur would be an incredible Speaker of the House because the Speaker of the House should be Congress' chief storyteller. I know that seems provocative to folks because around the Hill, I've heard over the course of the last day and a half, well, that's ridiculous. It isn't the job of the Speaker of the House to cast a grand vision for the American people.

GLENN: Yes, it is.

BEN: The Speaker is supposed to recatalyze (phonetic) us and remind us who we are. The Speaker's job is to sit atop the sausage factory, was a direct quote someone gave me. The Speaker's job is to sit atop the sausage factory, and that's an ugly process. You can't cast a vision from there. Ben, you're confused. You articulated the job of the president.

Well, a couple of things. First of all, in a Madisonian construction of three separate, but equal branches, the article one branch, the legislature is the place that policy is supposed to remain. And that policy should be aligned with a long-term directional sense of where the country is headed. Number two, historically, the founders, a lot of them wanted to conscript Washington and make him into a king even though he didn't want to do it because they weren't sure that a republic would really work.

But to the degree that they decided to make this gamble, they thought a couple of things. One, they didn't even call the guy president in some of their early drafts. Sometimes he was just this presiding officer term. Used to be called the administrator, in some people's terms, because the idea was, anybody who is elected to represent the people is absolutely supposed to have a fundamental sense of the American idea. And the American idea is about the fact that we as a people, we as a nation, are much bigger than the compulsory tools that are the powers of a distant federal government. And so the storytelling aspect a fundamental part of this job. And I just truly think, who could be better at this than Arthur? And if you got somebody, great, nominate them. But let's not start with a passive assumption that whoever has caucused best over the last four months to align themselves for this next career move, that that's the important question. The important question for the people in Nebraska is who has a vision for where the country is headed.

GLENN: So, Arthur, do you --

ARTHUR: I mean, let's think about in a big way of what Ben is really talking about here. Ben is not talking about being Arthur Brooks. Ben is talking about what the leadership should really look like that's a step away from the presidency of the United States.

The Speaker speaks for the American people. What do the American people care about? They care about four things. Faith, family, community, and work. Those are the four things that gives people's lives meaning. Those are the four things that government should be getting out of the way of. We need a Speaker. We need a Congress. By the way, Ben correctly points out that Congress' favorability is at 11 percent. And I will remind our listeners that Kim Jong-un is at 12 percent. 11 percent is not very high. And the reason for that is this whole concept that they're not fighting for me. That doesn't mean they want more free things. That doesn't mean they want more benefits.

They want somebody who says, "Yeah, this Congress, this Speaker, people who want to be president, are warriors for the things that I really about and that I want to pass on to my kids." And let me you, right on this call, if we spent an hour, which we won't, but if we wanted to, we could come up with ten ways that the government in the next year will get out of way of faith and religious freedom. That will make it easier to set up traditional families. That will stop fragmenting communities. And that is going to become warriors for meaningful work for Americans.

Look, just with those four things. If that's what the vision is for a better Congress -- if that's what the vision is for a better state, imagine the happiness of the people. Imagine what we could do. And that's Ben's point. It's not about me. It's about actual leadership.

GLENN: You know, you would think that actually the Republicans would kind of like this, except that they're all camera hogs. You would think they would actually like this because you could actually go outside and hire somebody who is just great at articulating a vision. That's not elected -- doesn't have to worry about being elected again. Doesn't have to worry about any of the game playing. Can just be somebody who is telling the vision of America and keeping -- and really -- I mean, it's almost like a PR guy. Is it not?

ARTHUR: Marketing is a lot of it, guys. Marketing is a lot of what the president does. And there's nothing wrong with that. See, the actual work of making America work -- that's not the government's job. That's the citizen's job when they take care of their kids, when they go to church, and they go to Little League, and especially when they go to work every day.

But the government's job is making sure that basic functions function, that we have a safety net for people, and that we get out of the way when they're trying to live their lives. That's the vision of what it's supposed to be. And that's exactly what we're not doing.

GLENN: So, Arthur, because you do what you do at the American Enterprise Institute, you're following this game. Is there somebody -- we have really been at a loss for telling people who they should get behind. Who should they get behind? Is there somebody that you see? Is there some plan that you see? I just see small vision after small vision after small vision, and it's killing me.

ARTHUR: Well, it's an iron cage is what it is. So it's a competition of relatively small visions. Because it's almost as if break out with something bigger, it gives you a competitive disadvantage.

And here's the good news, Glenn. The good news is the Republican Party is a better ecosystem than it's been in a long time. I know there's a lot of infighting. I know there's a lot of bad blood. I got that.

But if the Republican Party, if they can get somebody like Ben Sasse to run for Senate and win on a walk, I might add, and a few other guys like Cory Gardner and Tom Cotton and the new generation, James Lankford, the new generation of guys who are in the Senate, that's a Republican Party that's a pretty healthy ecosystem. What that means, the people who are running can be really good. We don't actually have to find the new bald think tank president guy. We need to urge the people who are really running to talk in terms of the bigger vision. To use the metaphor of Sunday night football, to throw a long ball.

GLENN: Ben, in your own -- in your own circle with the Senate, what do you say, you know, you slip a roofie of some sort with Mitch McConnell and --

STU: This is not a good direction.

BEN: I don't even know what that means. I'm sure I'm not -- I don't even know what that means.

(laughter)

GLENN: I have to wrap it up, so we'll leave it at the roofies you'll slip Mitch McConnell.

(laughter)

God bless you, both of you. Thank you very much for having the conversation. And, Ben, please hang on to your soul because you're really, truly the good guys, as are you Arthur Brooks. Appreciate it. Thank you. Buh-bye.

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.