Carly Fiorina: It’s 'Men’s Turn to Stand up' Against Sexual Harassment

Carly Fiorina is tired of the excuses we make for sexual misconduct, and in a recent Medium post, she called on all decent men to hold abusers accountable. As a society, we all need to stop overlooking sexual harassment in the workplace and make real progress – and we can’t trust politicians to fix these problems for us.

“Democrats would have us believe that all women are victims and only some sweeping government programs can solve this problem. Republicans would have us believe there is no problem at all,” Fiorina wrote. “Both parties are wrong and neither has any room to lecture anyone else on behavior or to propose solutions.”

Are you sick of hearing story after story about powerful men who used their position to abuse women? You might find catharsis in Fiorina’s chat with Glenn on today’s show. Listen to the full interview (above) for more.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I want to bring in a woman who I really admire. And I'd admire her even if she were a man. I just think she is one of the bravest people that I have met, and forthright. And has just a good head on her shoulders and can think clearly.

Carly Fiorina who, of course, ran for president of the United States. And I hope she does again. Welcome to the program, Carly. Carly.

CARLY: So good to be with you, Glenn. It's good to be talking with you again, my friend. It's been too long.

GLENN: It has been too long.

So, Carly, I read your post in Medium, and I thought it was really, really good. And you talked about how you're tired of the media class opining on this. Politicians and Hollywood and everybody else.

You said a man who demeans, harasses, or abuses a woman has made a choice. It's a personal choice about how to behave. Another man who suspects, who knows, and fears and looks away is also making a choice. It's now time for a man to choose.

Are you going to laugh and look the other way? Are you going to josh that boys will be boys, with a wink and a nod and a choice word here or there? Or will you make it clear that while you love women, you actually don't think that they're capable about whatever you care about most? Are you going to keep quiet when you should speak up?

You said that all men know. And I have to tell you -- and I might just be the most naive man in the world. And my wife says this to me all the time, I don't think most men are like this.

CARLY: Oh, they're not. And I also said that in the post: Most men, the vast majority of men are decent, respectful, and honorable. And many, many, many, many men have lifted women up and helped them. I have been helped by many men in the course of my life. Most men are good men.

But enough men aren't. And, you know, it's interesting. I was listening to your opening comments. And I agree with everything you said.

And the thing that we need to understand about harassment and abuse and disrespect and assault, groping, all these things, it's not an abuse of power.

GLENN: Yeah.

CARLY: And it's why -- it's why, by the way, you see occasions of women abusing their power. You know, we have too many instances of female teachers abusing their power with underage boys.

For example, most of this is about men because men hold most of the power in the world still. But fundamentally, it's about an abuse of power.

And if I have to say it, I have to agree with your wife. I mean, it's hard for me to believe that you've never witnessed this. But I'll take you at your word. But it goes on all --

GLENN: You know, I have to tell you this, I worked at a radio station once. Not that I recall, I have not witnessed this. I worked at a radio station that was run by a woman, and she had hired a -- a whole team of salespeople. And I have witnessed it the other way. I have witnessed that it was kind of a known thing that, you know, you use your beauty. You use your talents. Not in a -- you know, not in a go have sex with people sort of way. But you go use your women wiles and charm the pants off of people. Not literally.

And so I've seen it that way. I have not seen it the other way, at least institutionalized.

CARLY: Yeah. Well, look, let's be honest, it helps to be attractive, whether you're a man or a woman.

GLENN: Right.

CARLY: It helps to be charming, whether you're a man or a woman. I find it interesting that when it's a woman, it's about being wily. But when it's a man, it's just about being effective.

I'm not sure this is ever institutionalized. I do think it's covered up. And I think sometimes we -- we get so used to -- I mean, look, there is no question that whether it was Roger Ailes, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, if you dig into these stories, what you'd find out is that everybody knew. They may not have known the particulars. But they knew the generalities. They knew the generalities.

GLENN: So here's a good example. Roger Ailes, it did not surprise me. I didn't know. But it didn't surprise me. Being around Roger Ailes enough, you were like, you know, I could see that.

CARLY: People suspected it. People understood what the culture was. And I'm not saying that -- the thing that I would say about these allegations is I take them seriously. And, frankly, I believe them. When you have multiple instances of people coming forward and telling the same story, when you have instances in which people shared what had happened to them contemporaneously, when you have other witnesses around saying, well, yeah, you know, now that it's out, I'm really not surprised.

Now, I happen to personally know Harvey Weinstein and knew Roger Ailes. And so neither one of those stories surprised me one little bit.

But I do think sometimes we get kind of used to this sort of joking, joshing stuff in a way that under-- it indicates something deeper. Let me give you an example, Glenn. Because you and I met when I was running for president, really.

GLENN: Yes.

CARLY: When I was on a presidential debate stage -- now, let's bear in mind that I think there have been four women that have run for president in the United States of America.

There aren't many men who have run for president, and I was on a presidential debate stage. And in the middle of that debate, I was telling the story of how I had come up as a secretary. In the middle of that debate, a radio show host who is very well-known and who shall remain nameless. Because my point here is to make an example. Tweeted out that I had just played the vagina card. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Male politicians pay their stories all the time. He got a little bit of pushback. And so he then went on to say, oh, I really like vaginas. Ask my wife. And the silence was deafening.

Now, here's a guy who think it's okay to reduce me -- I think most people agreed, I was pretty qualified and pretty articulate. Here's a guy who thinks it's okay to just reduce me to literally -- pardon my -- the directness of my language here. But this is the language he used. He thought it was just okay to reduce me to my genitalia.

And apparently, most everybody else did also.

And so that -- that creates an environment where it's okay to be disrespectful. Where it's okay to be disregarding.

And I think we need a mindset shift, as I tried to say in that column. Men and women, particularly men, because men still have more authority and power than women, to say, you know what, we need women to fulfill their potential. We need women to be full participants. Because we're all better off.

GLENN: You know, this is one of the things.

CARLY: Man or woman has that chance.

GLENN: This is one of the things that has been crossing my mind for a long time. And that is, we keep trying to say, it's my way or the highway. No matter what the difference is, women, men, Republicans, Democrats, conservative, liberal, we -- we need each other. We need each other.

CARLY: That's right.

GLENN: And we're not understanding that. We're not coming together and saying, you put your best stuff on the table, I'll put my best stuff on the table, and let's see what we can do together.

That's the way we should be, but we're not headed in that direction.

CARLY: Well, that's right. And I think unfortunately is a failure of leadership in many cases. You know, what is a leader? A leader is somebody who understands that collaboration is critical. A leader is somebody who understands that character counts. A leader is someone who sees possibilities, particularly in other people. A leader is somebody who believes that every life is filled with potential and that we're all better off when each of us have the opportunity to fulfill our potential.

And, you know, I do think that in this nation, serenity rests with the citizen. It's one of the unique qualities of our nation. Serenity rests with the citizen in this country. And so I think each of us, regardless of our position -- and position never defines leadership. An individual defines leadership. Regardless of our position, I think each of us as Americans, as citizens need to lead more. Need to step up and be leaders. And quit waiting for somebody else to do it for us, particularly our politicians. Quit waiting for people in positions of power and authority to lead for us, because too often, they don't.

GLENN: Let me -- let me --

CARLY: And in this regard, we can make a difference in our workplaces and in our lives.

GLENN: Let me take you one more place: I'm concerned that we are just -- everybody -- I mean, I used Garrison Keillor here a little while ago as an example of this.

If what Garrison Keillor said happened, this is craziness. He said that he just patted a woman on the back. They were friends, blah, blah, blah, she later felt uncomfortable. You know, that's not sexual harassment. If that happened the way he said it did. But we're just -- we're painting everyone with the same brush.

And at the same time we're doing that -- and I think in many cases, it's a good thing. At the same time, we're doing that. We are not holding the people in Washington, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Franken, and who is the other one? John Conyers. They're -- they're not out immediately. NBC hears something about Matt Lauer, he's out. These guys, they're not out.

If they don't get out, if we -- if we have credible witnesses and they don't get out, aren't we just going to send a message that you can absolutely do anything probably up to and including killing someone and we don't care?

CARLY: Well, you said a couple things there. First of all, I agree with you that we can overreact and do stupid things. And then, of course, it diminishes the real problems that exist.

GLENN: Correct.

CARLY: So, for example, when the Obama administration overreacted to sexual assault on campus and basically said any woman that accuses a guy is going to be given the benefit of the doubt, even when the case doesn't hold water. I mean, that's -- had a terrible impact on young men's lives in some cases.

GLENN: Yes.

CARLY: So, yes, we can overreact. And, yes, we are in danger of being willing to live with a double standard.

Look, the politicians are so hypocritical here of both parties. They don't have a leg to stand on. If you look at the processes that Congress has put in place, Congress always grants itself an exception.

GLENN: Yes.

CARLY: Whether it's living with the health care rules they pass, or whether it's sexual assault, they always grant themselves an exception. They are hypocrites, in both parties. And part of what I believe we as citizens need to hold our politicians accountable for is, are you a person of character?

It's one of the reasons people are so sick of politics and politicians. It so rarely has anything to do with leadership or problem solving or collaboration or character.

GLENN: Carly Fiorina, always good to talk to you. Thank you so much.

CARLY: Great to talk with you. Thanks, Glenn. Have a great day.

GLENN: Buh-bye. Carly Fiorina. Businesswoman. Wife. Mom. Grandmother.

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.