GLENN: Hello, America. So Bill Maher is on CNN, and he's talking to Jake Tapper. And he says -- you know, they're talking about Hillary Clinton coming out again and whining about why she lost and not having any self-awareness at all. I suck. I suck. Nobody likes me. They like me because of Bill. But if Bill wasn't around, I would have never been a politician or anything that had gone possibly a mayor.
PAT: That would be woke Hillary.
GLENN: That would be woke Hillary.
PAT: But she's not.
GLENN: But she's not woke.
PAT: No.
GLENN: Nobody around her has enough courage to say, "Hillary, you need to let this go, baby, because you played a role in this. Nobody likes you, and you've just overstayed your welcome." And if -- I mean, honestly, we've said this from the beginning, my shoe could have beaten Hillary Clinton. And I think that was proven out with Donald Trump. Somebody that even most people on the right will say, "I mean, I found it really hard to vote for the guy, but I can't go for Hillary." I mean, that's basically saying, "I've got a shoe. And, well, my shoe isn't Hillary."
A lot of what happened here was you had two of the most flawed candidates in American history running against each other. And it was a Sophie's choice in the negative. You wanted to put them both on the train, but you had to select one that stayed with you. And that's what it was.
I want this one to go away, and I don't want to see them again. And that's the way everybody on the left felt about Donald Trump. I'd like to put him on the train, and I never want to think about him again.
So she's not self-aware enough to see, it's just time to go away, Hillary. It's time to go away. You had your chance. You blew it.
And until people can be honest and say, "Look, she was a really flawed candidate," they won't be able to move forward.
Now, listen to what Bill Maher says. This is fascinating.
VOICE: When Bill Maher was asked at the event if misogyny played a role in her loss, she said yes. Do you agree?
BILL: Of course. Absolutely. I think we learned a lot about this country, and we're learning more about it as we watch what goes on with Fox News every day.
VOICE: That is a pretty remarkable turn of event. But you think that's about a misogynistic problem in American corporate culture and not just a few bad apples, I'm guessing.
BILL: Not just corporate culture. You know, I think race is more on the surface, and people talk about it. And there's movements like Black Lives Matter. And I'm glad there are. But I think -- I think we thought we were further along on the woman issue than we are. And I don't think we are.
GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. I just -- I want to point this out that, okay. Maybe we aren't as far as I thought we were with women because we're not as far along as I thought we were on things like the Constitution. You know, we're not as far along as I thought we were on our principles that bring us together. We're not as far along as I thought we were on -- on anger issues and identity politics. I thought that was one side, but it is also the other side. It's our side too.
So maybe he's right. But I don't -- about some of that. That, you know, maybe we're not as far along as I think we are.
However, to condemn America as this blind country, this jingoistic blind race-hating, Muslim-hating country, you have a guy who grew up in -- outside of America. Has the name -- chosen name of Barack Hussein Obama, while we're fighting a guy named Hussein.
STU: And Osama.
GLENN: And Osama. Who is black.
Now, when, you know -- has -- has the prime minister of England been black? Has the prime minister of Italy, Germany, France -- let's use some of their countries. Cuba, Russia, China, have they've had black guys? No.
PAT: Uh-uh.
GLENN: Okay. So here's a country that not only elected a black man and even his most vocal foes, me, when he was elected, the very next day, I got on and said, "Let's just take a minute here and just celebrate the fact that we're not who everybody says we are." I am thrilled that that barrier is now gone. I'd be thrilled for the barrier -- for a woman to be present.
Who thinks that way? Who thinks that way?
STU: Your chosen candidate, the vice president of that ticket was Carly Fiorina.
GLENN: Yes. Yes.
STU: I mean, that was the one you were rooting for.
GLENN: Yes. I mean, you just don't think this -- you don't think this way. I don't think the vast majority. Now, some do. Okay? But there's always a group of people in any size group that have weird beliefs or wrong beliefs on something. But now listen to what he says. Do you have the rest?
BILL: I mean, there's something like 80 countries who have had a woman leader. Pakistan has had a woman leader. But not the United States of us. Somehow we lag behind that. And I know a lot of people say, "Yes. I'd vote for a woman. I just didn't want to vote for that one."
GLENN: Stop. Hold on just a second. Have they had a Christian leader? Have they had a Jewish leader? Has Pakistan had a white leader? Have they had an Indian leader?
I mean, I just want to throw out.
PAT: A Jewish leader.
GLENN: A Jewish leader. This is our world. That's their world. Well, they've had a woman leader. Okay. They've had a woman leader.
STU: We've never had a Pakistani leader. But Pakistan has. Yeah, so?
GLENN: You're not comparing -- it's culture to culture, dude. Culture to culture.
STU: Ridiculous.
GLENN: Now, listen. There's more.
BILL: Well, let's see next time when there's another woman put up for president, and I don't know how -- I don't know when that's going to happen. It doesn't look any time soon.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina.
VOICE: Well, it might be Elizabeth Warren, we don't know.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina. Now, stop, stop. Instead of Carly Fiorina, it might be Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren, another person that even people not on the hard left, but on the Democratic side, say is too hard-core left.
STU: Uh-huh. Bernie Sanders. But, you know --
GLENN: Bernie Sanders, who is a woman, and younger. There's a lot of people who think Bernie Sanders is too far. Go ahead.
VOICE: 2020 possibilities, any Democrats that you like that you hope get into the race?
GLENN: Listen to the sexist.
BILL: I still like Bernie Sanders.
GLENN: Okay. Stop. What an unbelievable sexist.
PAT: Everyone else is a misogynist, but he still wants Bernie Sanders. He didn't name a woman.
GLENN: Now, if there was a race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton --
PAT: Oh, man.
GLENN: Oh, wait a minute. There was. Who was he pushing for?
PAT: What a misogynist.
GLENN: Was he pushing for the old white guy?
STU: So great.
GLENN: Or was he pushing for Hillary Clinton because he's not a misogynist.
STU: That's awesome.
PAT: No, he is a misogynist. He pushed for the old white guy.
GLENN: I mean, it is amazing. Completely amazing.
PAT: Complete unawareness too. They are so self-unaware. It's --
STU: By the way, Bernie is only eight years older than Elizabeth Warren. So I think you would have a very similar profile.
GLENN: No, I'm just saying the old white guy.
STU: It's -- yeah.
GLENN: I mean, I'm tired of the old white guy.
STU: I'm just saying the age isn't too much of a factor.
GLENN: Right?
Oh, my gosh. Stu, why do you hate --
STU: You said younger. I guess technically. Yeah, eight years.
GLENN: Eight years.
And why are you always defending the old white guys? You just want a culture full of old white guys, started by old white guys.
PAT: He's a misogynist.
STU: Well, what candidate would you like if you had a choice of any candidate?
GLENN: I would like -- I don't know if you have met Rodgey Hussein Mao.
(chuckling)
STU: Uh-huh. I haven't.
GLENN: But it is a wonderful unit. I don't want to say person.
STU: Sure, of course not.
GLENN: And I'm going to assign gender. But that's my -- that's the one that I think if America wants to prove itself.
PAT: Uh-huh.
GLENN: And redeem itself, it will vote for that.
STU: Okay. Good. Okay.
GLENN: Okay. So there you go.
Now, there's more because what I want to show you is they're overplaying their hand. While they're overplaying their hand, they are saying they're overplaying their hand. Do you have the other piece from Bill Maher? Now, listen to this.
PAT: Yeah.
VOICE: So what should Democrats do to win over Trump voters?
BILL: Well, I was just going to say, a bit of it is ease up on the identity politics.
GLENN: Okay. Now, he just played identity politics.
PAT: Identity politics.
GLENN: And then he's saying we should ease up on it. Now, when we come back, I'm going to show you culturally, comedy, television shows, art, that always leads the way. It always -- when you start to see art going a certain way -- and I use art to cover a lot of things -- you see culture start to move. Culture is always ahead of politics. And I want to show you a couple of things that show, again, the culture is being moved away from the identity politics, all of the political correctness, all of the things that you could be woken up in the middle of the night and ask a question and went, "What? What are you talking about? Go back to sleep. You're not making any sense." You in a dead sleep could be able to say, "You who are supposedly awake aren't making any sense. Go to sleep." They're overplaying their hand. And the culture is starting to change. We'll give you that here in a second.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
