Observations of an Irishman: Lessons from the abortion referendum

ARTUR WIDAK/AFP/Getty Images

A couple of weeks ago, the Irish people held a referendum to legalize abortion and unless you have been living under a rock, you know the abortion side won in a landslide gaining over 66 percent of the vote. Regardless of your feelings and opinions on abortion (I am an Irishman and I am proud to have voted to say all life matters and should be defended), there are several lessons we can learn from this referendum and specifically from the abortion side.

Winning the Argument

Today's political climate around the world is all about winning elections and gaining power — based on no actual substance other than the "fact" we are better than the other party. America will experience this over the coming months where the discussion seems to be about whether there will be a blue wave or if the GOP will hold onto the House and Senate. But how many issues will actually be discussed regarding the future of the nation? Will the Constitution be discussed? Will liberty and what makes America different even be considered? Or will it be based merely on not letting the other side have power?

The sad truth about the Irish abortion referendum is that the result was never really in doubt and was always seen as more of a formality. The only questions were how many people would actually vote and the margin of victory. Why? Because whether they knew it or not, the abortion side followed the advice Margaret Thatcher gave several decades ago:

First you win the argument, then you win the vote.

The proof of this is the exit poll conducted on the day when 75 percent of people said they always knew how they were going to vote.

Over the years, the people of Ireland (as in many parts of the world) have accepted abortion as part of our everyday lives. We think of abortion as a choice and we know life is filled with choices. Should I go out with my friends next Saturday night? Should I order dessert? Should I leave my job or not? Should I keep my baby or not?

The ironic part of those who are pro-choice is that so few realize their own double standard, as 99 percent of them love telling people how much money they are allowed to keep, what car they can drive, how fast they can drive it — dictating what they can buy and when they can buy it, deciding their employment terms, etc.

No Science, no Emotion

The second successful step to acceptance of abortion was the complete removal of both science and emotion from the subject. If you read any literature about abortion, you will rarely (if ever) see the word baby. A baby is gorgeous, sweet, needs a name, requires lots of love and attention and is totally defenseless. The pro-choice side successfully changed it to a fetus, which is a group of cells that could turn into anything. Is a group of cells gorgeous or sweet, do you name it, and does it require any love?

The third step has been the successful creation of the narrative around abortion. It is a choice, it is the caring and compassionate choice for women — after all, it is her body and she can do whatever she wants with her body. If you dare disagree with this narrative, you are deemed anti-choice, a hater and oppressor of women.

Chosen Ignorance

The last step to winning this argument has been chosen ignorance. Have you ever watched an abortion? Did you watch until the end or did you switch it off? Have you ever tried showing or explaining what happens during an abortion to people? If you have, how far did you get?

  • Did you get to explain how they remove the limbs from the baby?
  • Did you get to explain how they break the baby's neck?
  • Did you get to explain what they do with the baby parts in America?
  • Did you get to explain we are now using abortion as a way to "solve" Down Syndrome?

Or did you get the common reaction, "STOP, enough, I do not want to hear or see anymore"? Discussing abortion is hard because it requires people to self-reflect, witness pure evil and do their own homework. Then, it requires them to act. However, if you are ignorant, you don't have to self-reflect, witness evil or act, and you can go on living your life.

Credibility

The second thing everyone can learn from the Irish referendum is how critical your credibility is in society. Ireland has historically been a Catholic country but over the last few decades that has been changing. It is easy to blame the media and the spread of secularism for this change. The truth is the Catholic Church is also directly responsible for losing its credibility to many people because of their own actions or inactions.

When priests do inhumane and barbaric things to young boys, when the Church covers that evil up, and never really comes out in the strongest possible terms to condemn those actions and fire each of those priests, how is it possible to have any credibility in society. Why would anyone ever listen to you?

Now, if you add in the media, which flat-out hate religion, and declining numbers of those who are actually Catholic, you find a perfect storm of why the Church has so little impact in Ireland today.

Impact of Churches

One of the biggest differences, historically, between the Church in America and the rest of the world has been the role of America's pulpits. When the Church is at its best, its pulpits are alive, filled with passion and inspiring a generation to be better. The American Revolution may have officially started in 1776, but the truth is it started 20, 30 or even 40 years prior with preachers on their pulpits spreading the laws of nature that were self-evident for all to see.

The sad truth is the pulpits in Ireland are either silent or are spreading modern-day talking points. I grew up a Catholic and I do not remember a time when they were alive. I grew up in a Church where the sermon was not judged by its content or topic, but rather by the length. I have seen first-hand people go crazy when a priest talks for more than 10 minutes during a sermon. I have seen first-hand people switch off during sermons and treat it as an opportunity to read the newsletter.

(Full disclosure, I have done this many times myself as I have sat through sermons explaining was Jesus was a socialist, how Israel is the problem and how global warming is going to kill us all. I even started a discussion a few years ago as I walked out of church on Christmas Day three words into a sermon. Those three words were "Jesus the Palestinian.")

Churches in Ireland have major problems with attendance. In the same exit poll I mentioned before, only 30 percent said they attended church every week, 14 percent once a month and 27 percent a couple of times a year. Of those questioned, 74 percent were Catholics.

Principles

Since the vote on abortion, there has been much analysis in Ireland about what this means, and a popular conclusion is that Ireland has filed for divorce from the Catholic Church. For many living in society today, they see life as a religious issue. It is not. Religion does not own life. It is not even a Left vs. Right issue. Life is a human issue.

In a world of partisan politics, life should be the one issue we can all come together on — that life has meaning and is valuable. Does it really matter if God, religion, Allah, logic or common sense got you to that point of view? Would it matter if someone said a rock told them that? No, because life is a self-evident truth — at least it used to be

Conclusion

Our actions or inactions right now will determine the world we live in and the one we pass onto the next generation. I know many want to think this world is doomed and that freedom is dead. While true for nations like Ireland and Europe — we know nothing but the tyranny of man's law — that is not the case for America. The track record of America is making the impossible possible. America has the map that leads to success, we just need to follow it again. So what is that map?

It is through churches, families, communities and schools sharing the message that America's founders shared over 250 years ago based around the laws of nature and nature's God — and those principles are the same for everyone. While elections hold an important place in society, it is critical to focus our time on winning the argument explaining why America is different from the rest of the world — why it is exceptional, why it has prospered like no other nation in the history of the world and why simply leaving people alone and not taking their stuff is such a wonderful and simple idea.

We also must do everything we can to be people of good character and do nothing that can damage our credibility. This is true for everyone in society and not just those in power. We must understand that America's founders were ahead of their time and remember the principles they placed special emphasis on as they pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor as they signed the Declaration of Independence.

If we follow that roadmap, combined with the advancements of society including technology, we really can live in a society that enjoys more freedom than even America's founders could have envisioned.

Editors Note: Jonathon hosts a weekly show called Freedoms Disciple exclusive to The Blaze Radio where he focuses on highlighting the principles of American exceptionalism. You can listen anytime, for free on TheBlaze Radio, available on SoundCloud, iTunes, iHeart Radio, Google Play, Stitcher and OMNY FM.

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.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

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.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

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.

Failed management

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?

Biden’s federal land-grab

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.

Land as collateral

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.

The American way

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.