CALLER: Hey, guys, how are you? That was such a great interview with Bill. I have to tell you, I've missed his voice. I've missed his take on things, and I would love for you guys to get him on The Blaze.
GLENN: So would I. I would pay him in sandwiches.
CALLER: That's just my two cents on that. But, Glenn, I wanted to ask you something you were talking about a week or maybe two ago about how there's this little blogger guy that was trying to get everybody to boycott fox, the advertisers.
GLENN: Yeah.
CALLER: Couldn't get any traction in the United States, so he went to the British advertisers.
GLENN: Yes. He's now running media matters, isn't he? That's the stop Beck guy. I could be wrong, but he's running one of the big ones. I think it's media matters. But go ahead.
CALLER: Right. And, well, I can tell you this: I am -- I'm not going to boycott anybody and neither are many of our family members and friends, but we have decided since we are the older generation and the money really resides in our pockets and our bank accounts, not in our childrens, that we're going to be paying a lot of attention to who we support, who we spend our money with. Like I said, I'm not going to be boycotting anybody, but I am going to be paying attention to whether or not they appreciate my money.
GLENN: Yeah, I will tell you this. Thank you, Sharon, for your phone call. I will tell you this. ABC is really -- this is an interesting thing. Ben Sherwood is the head of ABC television. He doesn't make all of these decisions, but Ben is a friend of mine. I know him. I really respect him. He's a decent, decent guy. Doesn't hate, you know, Christians are the center of the country. I really think ends all of that and appreciates it. And, you know, one thing that I found amazing at the height of Glenn Beck is the most hated man in the world, I was at a big television conference and all the everybodies were there. Here he is head of ABC Disney, and he sees me across the room, I see him, and one of my guy says you want to go say hi to Ben? And I'm, like, no, he's in a pack of all the big executives from all the big networks. I don't want to do that.
STU: Last thing you want to do to Ben.
GLENN: Ben is a friend. I'm not going to impose myself on him in that circle. Ben looks over and sees me, and I'm across the room. He sees me, I see him say excuse me. He walks over across the room, and I start walking toward him. Halfway there, very crowded with all the it people in L.A. gives me a hug and says -- and as I'm hugging him, I said are you out of your mind? And he said, no, you're my friend.
He's a really good guy. So I don't believe this stuff about ABC firing, you know -- getting rid of Tim Allen because of some, you know, we don't want Christians. We don't want the center of the country. That doesn't make sense in the first place. But, you know, we looked at -- what is that TV gallows? TV Grim Reaper. This guy's usually right about stuff. And he said the Tim Allen show was going to be brought back and was quote on the bubble. But it's a really good performing show.
STU: Look at this. Let me give you basis to this. So this is a guy who does -- it's a site that predicts whether shows will be canceled or not.
GLENN: Uh-huh.
STU: And they do this all the time.
GLENN: Don't you wish you could just make money doing that.
STU: It's based on, like, ratings and ratings relative to the rest of the network. Also really intricate things like once you get to season 5, you are more likely for syndication, so almost everyone renews everything when it gets past season 4. They always get a fifth season.
GLENN: If you get to ten seasons, you've got -- you're in syndication for years and years and years.
STU: Yeah, so they -- they put all of that into a formula and come out with a percentage chance it's going to be renewed. So then they make a prediction. Will it be renewed or not? This is from 2009. They were 63-11. 85 percent correct. 2010, 94 percent correct. 2011, 93 percent. 2012, 92 percent. 2013, 93 percent, 47, 92 percent, 2015, 90 percent. So very accurate over a long period of time with this formula and the way they figure these things out. They run every year, and it's up on the site now, a final renewal cancelation prediction for every show.
GLENN: Do they do it by percentage of --
STU: Yes, how likely is it? For example, just looking at agents of shield is one that they missed with here. But they -- and they do miss, as I just said. About 90 percent right. They had as a 35 percent renewal chance, and it was renewed. The catch on ABC was a 45 percent chance to be renewed. It got canceled. American crime. 25 percent to get renewed. It got canceled. The real O'Neals. 15 percent to get renewed, it got canceled.
GLENN: That's pretty accurate, still.
STU: There's one miss in there. But they thought it was a good chance.
GLENN: But not a huge chance.
STU: Blackish, 100 percent chance renewed, renewed. Goldbergs, 99 percent chance got renewed. Modern family. Got renewed. Goes through all of these, designated survey. 99 percent chance to get renewed. Got renewed. Last Man Standing. 90 percent it would be renewed. Got canceled.
GLENN: That's interesting.
STU: The tweet from the site. This is, again, from TV grim reaper, which I love, was I would say that last man standing was among the most surprising renewal pricking misses in the reaper's history.
JEFFY: Wow.
STU: Again, this is 90 percent accurate, and they miss occasionally. But when they think there's a 90 percent chance of it being renewed. It almost never is canceled. There's only one other show that I found this entire season. There's one 80 percent chance they thought renewed was canceled. It could be that one was also on Dr. Ken on ABC, so it's possible that maybe ABC is very cancel happy this season. I don't know. You could make excuses. But it is a stand out for people who look at this thing for a living.
GLENN: And it's -- it is also a stand out for people who are looking for shows that relate to the center of the country. And quite honestly, if you're programming, you don't -- you don't want to be just on the coasts. You don't want to be a network. You need to connect with the center of the country. This highly successful show on the worst night of the week. It's Friday night. Nobody staying at home watching TV shows on Friday night. It's the worst show of the week, and it is -- it's only -- it was only down 5 percent. Other shows that stayed were down 30 percent. And it just doesn't make any sense. But it doesn't make sense for ABC to cancel it. But I will tell you. If I'm sitting in a room, and I'm the network, there is something that I would sit at that table and say, guys. Guys. This show relates to the center of the country. This show relates like Rosanne did. This show relates to the people in our country like politics. We're having enough time getting people to think that we're not against them. Leave that show on. That's doing well. Even if it was doing worse, leave that show on. It helps us in the long run. It doesn't make any sense.
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.
