Anita Calls to 'Set the Record Straight' on Trump

Anita called The Glenn Beck Program Monday for a fiery discussion on Donald Trump, hoping to show her support for the real estate mogul was based on issues rather than his authoritarian personality.

What was the main reason for Trump getting Anita's vote of confidence? His stance on protecting the border and everything that entails---from crime to job loss in America. Anita also expressed her belief that Glenn hadn't covered the border issue enough, but Glenn quickly countered with the facts.

"I was calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush based on what he was doing on the border," Glenn explained. "So I have a very long, long history on what I believe is happening on the border."

The discussion took a turn south when Anita got personal. She complained about co-host Stu personally attacking Trump and followed it up with several personal attacks on Stu. Huh? Complaints about personal attacks followed with personal attacks?

In addition to the border issue, the topics of Donald Trump's clothing, Stu's high school graduation, abortion, the Holy Spirit and gang rape came up.

"These are the kind of circular arguments that you get," Glenn said about discussions with many Donald Trump supporters.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Laurie is in Delaware, and she's quite upset. And we want to lead with this. Hello, Laurie. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Yes, hi, Glenn. It's Anita. Thank you for taking my call.

GLENN: Oh, I'm sorry.

CALLER: That's okay. And I really want to start out -- the reason why I called was when you were talking about the people that like Trump because he's an authoritarian figure. And I just want to set the record straight on that, Glenn. Because I think you're fair. I think Stu is the ringleader of hating Trump, and everyone else has fallen into -- right in behind him like little soldiers.

PAT: That's us. Yes.

CALLER: However, what Trump is doing right now to Cruz saying that he isn't liked because he can't get along, that's total deception. Cruz actually honors the oath that he took when he was elected into office. He actually obeys our laws, and he does want to serve we, the people.

And the reason why I haven't crossed Trump off the list has nothing to do with him being an authoritarian figure. It had everything to do with the fact that 94-plus million legal citizens are jobless. We are living below poverty level. I don't think that it's fair for people to be here illegally, ignore our laws, which they can't do in other countries, commit a crime, gang rape people -- and Hannity went into great depth on a lot of those people -- and then they're able to flee to sanctuary cities. I don't agree with that.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

CALLER: And I don't think you would agree with that.

PAT: Of course not.

GLENN: Hold on, Anita. Of course we don't agree with that. We never have agreed with that.

PAT: And we've been talking about this --

GLENN: Since George Bush was in office. Early on.

PAT: Longer than Donald Trump. That's for sure.

GLENN: Yeah, we've been on this --

CALLER: Honestly you haven't, Glenn. That's why I get so upset.

GLENN: Excuse me. Hold on just a second. I gave you a chance to talk. Give me a second, please. Let me finish what I was saying.

I was calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush based on what he was doing on the border. So I have a very long, long history on what I believe is happening on the border. None of us are against any of that.

The question is, how do you get it done? Are you going to follow the Constitution, or are you just going to use the pen and the phone, as Barack Obama says?

CALLER: But, Glenn, honestly, I always feel that you listen to the Holy Spirit. And I feel because Stu is such a ringleader of hating Trump and making it personal. That's how he started. He started with putting down Trump's clothing line, his hair, his businesses, his TV show. When Glenn, you're a business owner. You have a TV show. You're going to be making movies. You have a clothing line. You can't -- Trump over those things.

GLENN: Okay. I have no problem -- okay. Laurie -- or, Anita --

PAT: I don't remember Stu ever saying anything about a clothing line. I own one of his ties. I don't have a problem with the clothing line.

CALLER: I'm talking about Stu.

STU: What did I say about his clothing line?

CALLER: Stu, that's one of the first things you said! That's when I thought, "Stu, you're making this personal. Why!"

STU: Wait. Can you explain to me what you're talking about?

GLENN: No, no.

STU: What have I said --

GLENN: Can you remember what he said specifically so we can track it down?

CALLER: Yes. And honestly, please, if there's any way that you can digitally type that in and bring that up.

GLENN: Yeah, if you can quote it, we can.

CALLER: Glenn, that's when I started posting on your Facebook.

STU: Stop.

GLENN: Anita, hold on a second. Please. We're trying to be reasonable. And there's no reason for you to get so upset here. Let's have a reasonable conversation.

If you can give us a quote, we can type it in, and we can find the quote. So do you remember kind of what he said about it?

CALLER: Yes. It was back when all this first started and Trump got in the race. Stu went on about his clothing -- who wants to wear his clothes? And he brought about his businesses. And he also brought up about his TV show. And that's when I actually posted on Facebook and I said, "Stu, you're making this personal. Please pray and ask God to direct you on this." I tried to be reasonable.

STU: Can this be like a debate where I get mentioned and I get 30 seconds to respond? Is that --

GLENN: Let him respond, and I'll talk to you too.

PAT: I need 30 seconds to speak too.

STU: You weren't specifically mentioned, Pat.

GLENN: Come on.

STU: No. The only thing I can ever remember talking about his clothing line, ever mentioning, was when the story came out that it was made in Mexico. That was the only thing I could ever remember --

CALLER: That wasn't the thing you said, Stu. Because that's when I started posting about you being a high school dropout because I got so mad at you over that.

STU: Stop. Hold on.

JEFFY: Am I going to get some time too?

STU: First of all, I made it through high school, clearly.

CALLER: Okay. Then it's wrong about you on Facebook, so you'll want to fix that then. Because that's what they have about you. So just have them fix that for you.

STU: What?

GLENN: Okay. I don't where you would see that. But I don't --

STU: Anyway --

GLENN: As we all learned this weekend, you can't always trust things on Facebook.

CALLER: Okay. But, Glenn, please stop saying that people are for Trump just because we didn't hate him because he's authoritarian. That's not true --

STU: That's not what the story said, Anita. That's not what it said.

GLENN: Anita, that's not what I said.

STU: The study said it was a statistically significant difference. It didn't say everyone who supports Trump believes in authoritarianism.

GLENN: It is a study. I am not saying it. It is a study, and it is significant difference between -- in fact, let me -- let me just quote the study.

Right here. Had been buoyed by Americans with authoritarian -- has been buoyed. Not driven by. Not all of them. Has been buoyed above all by Americans with authoritarian inclinations.

CALLER: Okay. And I go back to, again, Ted Cruz is respected because he honors his oath he took when he entered office.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: He obeys the laws, and he's also for we, the people. Now, that's why I like Ted Cruz. The reason why I like Trump is because he actually had the courage originally to stand up against those that were coming here illegally, which it is against the law -- that's illegal.

GLENN: So have a lot of people.

CALLER: And I don't feel that it's right to commit a crime, gang rape. Set people on fire. Then move to a sanctuary city.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Neither does Ted Cruz.

STU: Bernie Sanders for that matter.

GLENN: Bernie Sanders doesn't think gang rapes are good. I was just understand your -- your passion that is so deep, I can hear it in your voice. You're very, very angry, and you're very angry at us. And I understand, okay.

CALLER: I'm disappointed in you, Glenn. That's the thing. Because I always feel that you listen to the Holy Spirit -- I feel like you're not!

GLENN: Listen to yourself. Listen to yourself. Listen to yourself. You might want to ask, if you believe that I do listen to the Spirit and you're being driven --

CALLER: Holy Spirit.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. It's the same thing. If you believe that I listen to the Holy Spirit and you are being driven here with such anger, that you might want to question if you're hearing the Spirit. Because --

CALLER: Well, again, I don't like when you infer that anyone that was not --

GLENN: I never did. That's what you heard.

CALLER: -- because we like an authoritarian figure.

GLENN: No, that's what --

CALLER: That's so far off base, Glenn. That really is.

PAT: That's not what he said.

GLENN: That's what you heard. And you can have an opinion against this study, but it is a study that shows that -- a number of people, just like Barack Obama, there are a number of people that are the hard-core base -- that wouldn't include you because you say you're not part of his hard-core base. But I would kind of question that listening to your voice.

CALLER: Listen -- read all the comments on your Facebook page. I mean, you got to look at that.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: That's why I prayed over and over again, Glenn, please read. Please read. Ask the Holy Spirit to direct you.

PAT: I don't think the Holy Spirit is directing us to Facebook.

GLENN: And I don't think the Holy Spirit is directing me -- I don't believe the Holy Spirit would direct me to a man who behaves the way Donald Trump behaves. I'm sorry.

PAT: I don't think so.

CALLER: Okay. Glenn, did it scare you last night listening to the one minute of the opening statements from Hillary and O'Malley and --

GLENN: I don't believe the Holy Spirit plays the game of, "Well, you should be afraid of this person, and that way you should choose this person." The Holy Spirit will always direct you to do the right thing, even if it means your own persecution.

CALLER: Well, again, I believe that the things that Trump is saying about illegals, I'm 100 percent for that. I am. I don't feel that's fair.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: That is good. So, Anita, are you --

CALLER: And go to sanctuary cities. That's wrong.

GLENN: Are you a one-issue voter? And that's fine if you are.

CALLER: Well, number one, for me, not killing our babies and cutting them into pieces when they have a beating heart at 18 days. I'm pro-life.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on just a second, Anita. Anita.

Could you play the audio, please, from Meet the Press on Donald Trump and partial-birth abortion? Listen to this.

PAT: Yeah, listen to this, Anita.

VOICE: Partial-birth abortion, the eliminating of abortion in the third trimester. Big issue in Washington. Would President Trump ban partial-birth abortion?

DONALD: Well, look, I'm -- I'm very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject, but you still -- I just believe in choice.

PAT: Oh.

DONALD: And, again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there's some different attitude and some different parts of the country. And, you know, I was raised in New York. And I grew up and worked and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly for choice, and yet, I hate the concept of abortion.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: What year was that interview? 1997?

PAT: 1999.

GLENN: 1999. And can tell you me --

CALLER: Okay. Do you know why -- I'm going to be very honest? I was married, and I was 26. And I got an abortion. And do you know why? Until I was in college and I actually saw the film, The Silent Scream, and I actually was educated on the truth about partial-birth abortion, I also was pro-choice until God changed my heart.

GLENN: Anita, I think that's --

PAT: You have a pivot point, what's his?

GLENN: Anita, that is a brilliant statement. And I'm glad God changed your heart. And like Pat just said, "You can tell me what your pivot point is." You can describe it. What was the movie theater like? Or where did you see the Silent Scream? Where did you see it?

CALLER: It wasn't. It was actually when I was a student at the University of Delaware, and I wanted to do --

GLENN: Hold on. Please answer my question. Anita, please listen to me. Please just answer the question. Where did you see it? Can you tell me what the room looked like?

CALLER: It was actually at the University of Delaware. They had it there. The Silent Scream.

GLENN: Where was it? I understand. Please.

CALLER: It was called The Silent Scream.

GLENN: No. I know that. Anita, please listen to me. What did the room look like where you saw it?

CALLER: It was in the basement of the library at the University of Delaware.

GLENN: Okay. Were there a lot of lights or not very many lights?

CALLER: No. It was actually me watching it by myself.

GLENN: You were by yourself.

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: And what was the chair like that you sat in?

CALLER: It was a regular chair that you have at a university setting. I don't remember every detail about that chair. All I remember was --

GLENN: Okay. Hold on. Please listen to me. Please listen to me. You remember pretty much everything about that moment. You may not know the details of that chair, but you remember what that room looked like. You can tell me everything about your pivot point. Can you tell me now, Anita, what the pivot point was with Donald Trump, where Donald Trump, just in the 2000s, and I believe right before the election of '08 was still very pro-choice and still after '08 talked about appointing somebody to the Supreme Court that is wildly pro-choice. Can you tell me what his pivot point was that we should now believe? Because I do believe in redemption. I do believe people change their mind. I do believe in pivot points. But you have to tell me what it was. What changed his mind?

CALLER: Okay. What about Ted Cruz's father?

GLENN: No, no. Can you tell me -- I can tell you his pivot point.

CALLER: -- Jesus his Savior, went and got his son and his wife, and they made it work, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. Exactly right. And what was his pivot point? Can you tell me what Rafael's pivot point was? He met a preacher, right?

CALLER: Who actually told him about Jesus. So why don't you give Trump the same opportunity to say --

GLENN: He's had it. He's had it. He's had it.

PAT: We gave him the choice.

GLENN: He's had it.

STU: In 2015, he wanted to appoint a Supreme Court justice that supports partial-birth abortion.

GLENN: 2015.

STU: 2015. Now, I know that's last year. So maybe we're supposed to excuse that too.

GLENN: There was something big that happened, Anita, between now and 2015 last year that was big enough to say, "I'm not for -- not just abortion, partial-birth abortion is what he was for." Now he's not for that. So tell me what it was?

CALLER: I know God changed my heart on the issue of life.

STU: On 2015, even 2015 we have to make these excuses?

GLENN: So let me say this. And Anita, if this doesn't ring to you, nothing will. And we're wasting our time. And we can bid each other a fond farewell. Donald Trump just said last summer that he hasn't done anything where he had to ask forgiveness for God. Nothing.

CALLER: I remember him saying that.

GLENN: You remember that?

CALLER: Yeah, I remember him saying that.

GLENN: He's never had to ask for forgiveness. If you are for and advocating partial-birth abortion and then you have something happen in your life, which we don't know about -- something happen in your life that is so jarring that in a six-month period, you can say, "I am not -- not only am I not for partial-birth abortion, I'm not for any abortion," something happened in your life. And it would drive you enough to your knees to say, "Lord, please forgive me for advocating for partial-birth abortion and all abortion. Please forgive me." If he can't tell you --

CALLER: Well, would you be willing to have Donald Trump on and say that? What you just said -- would you have him on and say that to him?

GLENN: Oh, dear God, Anita.

STU: We've invited him. He's refused.

PAT: He won't come on the show.

GLENN: He's refused. He won't come on. Because he doesn't have the balls to face actual questions.

STU: Obviously.

CALLER: Well, I don't think that's very Christ-like, you just saying that. And, again --

GLENN: Okay. Anita, I appreciate it.

STU: This is the level.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Anita. I appreciate it. These are the kinds of circular arguments that you get. And she claims not to be a Trump fan.

STU: Good heavens.

PAT: Jeez, man.

GLENN: Listen to what she's willing to accept.

PAT: And why?

GLENN: And talk to me about the Spirit.

JEFFY: The Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit.

GLENN: The Holy Spirit. Where he won't even ask for forgiveness from God. I am being lectured about the Spirit, and she has the full armor for him. It's amazing.

Don't tell me it's not about authoritarianism. She wants someone to pay for what's happening on the border. That's it.

(Later in the program)

GLENN: You found the clothing comment that you made?

STU: Yeah, she was right. I actually did talk about the clothing line, and I had not remembered this.

GLENN: This is a listener that just called in a few minutes ago, said she was very upset at Stu because he made it personal because he was talking about Donald Trump's clothing line, which wouldn't make it personal, would make it about his clothing line. But go ahead.

STU: Yeah. And here's what I -- Pat actually started it off talking about how Macy's dropped his clothing line.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And then Pat said, "I mean, none of this legitimate. None of that should be happening." And then I did chime in there saying, "Right. It shouldn't happen. The second he becomes a Republican candidate, they all boycott him. He was saying this stuff before. Just now because he's a Republican candidate, they were all fired up about it."

PAT: So it's actually us standing up for his clothing line.

JEFFY: Listen to that hate.

PAT: Okay.

STU: We were actually defending him against the boycotts.

PAT: I will say this though, if your main issue is gang rape on the border -- and Anita seemed to be all fired up about gang rape -- maybe your guy is Ted Cruz who actually fought to get a guy who had committed gang rape and murder executed in Texas for it, while Bush, George W. Bush fought against him in the international courts.

GLENN: It was the country -- it was the beginning of my breaking point with George W. Bush was what was happening on the border. But that's a different story.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

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.