The Less-covered Terrorism Threat That Exists Within America's Borders

Sitting in for Glenn on radio Tuesday, John Cardillo spent time discussing a threat he said isn't talked about nearly enough.

"If we sealed the borders tomorrow, if somehow we were able to wave a magic wand and we were able to build a 20-foot wall around the United States and we were able to mine every harbor and do these Draconian unconstitutional things, we still would only make a slight dent in a terror threat," Cardillo said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

JOHN: So we've been talking this hour about terror and some of the false narratives you've been sold by the progressive left, with regards to vetting of refugees, and regards to profiling of bad guys, no matter who those bad guys are, whether they be Islamic terrorists or La Cosa Nostra, the Italian mob. I don't discriminate. Bad guys who want to hurt people are bad guys. I want to deploy the best tactics to stop them.

But one of the things we don't speak about enough -- and I'm guilty of this as well on my show. I touch on it. But I don't touch on it anywhere near enough is a threat that's right here at home.

See, if we sealed the borders tomorrow, if somehow we were able to wave a magic wand and we were able to build a 20-foot wall around the United States and we were able to mine every harbor and do these Draconian unconstitutional things, we still would only make a slight dent in a terror threat.

And you're saying, Cardillo, you're out of your mind, what are you talking about? You sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Well, no, I'm not. Because one of the things you don't hear enough about are the radical converts in prisons.

Remember, we have a very large prison population in the United States.

Now, about a year and a half ago, I had Pat Donely (phonetic) on my show, and he's a world expert with regards to prison conversion to Islam, the radicalization and weaponization of those converts. He spent about 30 years at New York City Department of Corrections. He's written several books on this and then worked with our intelligence community, training special operators on how to identify those who might be converts for America on the battlefield overseas.

And when we first spoke, I said, well, you know, I'm reading that there are about 30- to 40,000 people who convert to Islam yearly in US prisons and jails. Right? Prison is different from jail. Jail is that holding facility for misdemeanors. And before you face trial, prison is where you go after convicted.

So whether it be federal, state, local, about 30- to 40,000 people convert yearly. And I said to him, "Well, you know, how many though do you think would radicalize and weaponize?" And he said, "Oh, it's one percent or sub one percent." And I said, "Okay. Well, that's still a lot. That's still 3- to 400 people. The Orlando massacre at the gay club was carried out by one guy. San Bernardino by two terrorists. So 3- to 400 terrorists, half of which let's say might potentially be released from incarceration is pretty scary. Well, about eight, nine months later, had him on the show again, and that's his day-to-day job. He studies this. He trains our special operations community, our intelligence community.

I said, "So, Pat, is the number still hanging around 1 percent?" He said, "No, that number is creeping up to 10 percent," with the proliferation of ISIS's virtual caliphate and how well they're using social media and how they're spreading their message and going after a younger subset.

And so now let's think about how terrifying this is, right? If tomorrow, we were able to stop, 100 percent of the immigration -- from everybody. Forget even those from the 34 nations -- from everybody. Somebody that isn't in the US as of right now, never stepped foot in our nation and we were able to somehow wave a wand and get rid of everyone who would ever come here who happened to commit acts of terror, we would still be converting in our prisons and jails yearly about 3,000 people with the potential to radicalize and weaponize against us. And, again, I'm being conservative when I say half will be released shortly after that.

The number is a lot higher because our jails are overcrowded and we tend to release prisoners long before they should be. So while we're so focused on the refugee problem -- and we need to be. We need to be diligent. We need to be vigilant.

While we're focused on that, we also need to keep our eye on the ball here at home. Because if we don't do that, if we put ourselves in a position where we ignore the threat that's already here, where we don't put as much money and time and training and resources into the intelligence component of finding how who these people are, what they're doing -- and, again, what does that require when they leave prison? Well, that's going to require profiling and monitoring. And I spoke about it a minute ago, the progressive left doesn't want to do that. So they know full well that there is no mechanism right now to track these people once they leave the facilities.

But one thing I found out about seven, eight months ago -- and, Tiffany, I don't know if you know this: There's a congressman in Tennessee, and I forget his name. I think maybe Fincher. I'm not sure if that's him. But he -- he had sponsored a bill -- I don't know if it's Corker. I think it's Fincher -- something. I'll find that for you.

He is sponsoring a bill to do something that I assumed was being done. And, boy, was I ignorant. And that is to vet clergy that come into prisons. Right now, imams that are coming into prisons who are allowed to speak confidentially with inmates, they have the same confidential privileges as an attorney, they're not vetted.

It doesn't matter if that imam preaches Islamic jihad, hellfire and brimstone, night and day, calls for death to America, death to infidels, they can walk into a prison and speak unmonitored, unrecorded, whether it be audio or video, to these prisoners. They're allowed to walk into that prison, radicalize and weaponize inmates. And think about inmates, they're already prone to violence. They already hate the government because the government incarcerated them. And they're pre-disposed to hate Americans that they've committed crimes upon.

And we don't have one mechanism in place to vet these people. On the federal level, on the state level, or at the local level. And I believe that law would only apply to federal prison, which would still leave all of the state prisons and all of the local jail facilities open and vulnerable to conversion.

And it really is so dangerous. And we're not hearing enough about this. I went back through archives, CNN never -- maybe they did. But I couldn't find -- let me preface this by saying, I couldn't find one CNN story on this, in-depth. I couldn't find a Fox News story on this.

I saw pieces on blogs touching on this. But I could not find an ABC story, an NBC News story, a CBS News story on this.

The mainstream media is ignoring this. And they have the intelligence. They're being advised by their contributors, their security, their intelligence -- contributors are telling them about this. They're not running the stories.

And it goes back to ideology, right? It goes back to the ideology of the radical Islamist and the people that they are taught.

When they're radicalized and weaponized, they're not just taught to hate people in general. They're taught to specifically hate Christians. And, Tiffany, you have family in the Middle East. I mean, you have experience with this.

TIFFANY: Yeah, my family survived Islamic persecution in Iraq. I mean, they fled. They were forced to be refugees. My father fought in the Israeli War of Independence in '48. So he fought them during a Polgram (phonetic) in Baghdad as a child and then again in '48 in Israel.

And what a lot of Westerners don't understand is that this is truly systemic. Even if a minuscule portion of the world Muslim population will actually pull the trigger and become terrorists, the greater number actually harbor these very radical ideas that are rooted in the Koran.

I mean, there are numerous Koranic verses and hadis (phonetic) that I could quote that talk about the subjugation and hatred for Jews -- and to a lesser extent Christians. But definitely Christians as well.

And this is systemic in Islam. There is a tribal mindset that the western world really grapples with and has a hard time understanding.

But people who come from the Islamic world like my family -- and be they Jews, Christian, Yazidi, anyone who is persecuted -- and there are obviously wonderful Muslims. I don't want to always have to add that qualifier. Of course, there are.

But by and large, there is a tribal mindset that is taught to hate and is taught to basically, you know, oppress and subjugate those who aren't like them.

JOHN: Well, and let me put this in perspective. Because you touched on an interesting point and a critical point, right? There are good people around the world -- no matter your faith, your orientation, your race, your creed.

And so let's be very, very generous here. There's 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Let's say -- now, even the most progressive analysts will say, and only 1 percent will radicalize and potentially weaponize as terrorists.

Well, that's 17 million.

So let's you and I be a little more generous. Let's say half a percent. That's eight and a half million. No. Let's say a quarter percent.

4.25 million Muslims around the world, a quarter percent, where one-fourth of what the progressive analysts even will acknowledge.

That's 4.25 million terrorists. The combined strength of the United States military, all services, and the active law enforcement community, as we sit here today is about 3 million. They still outnumber us by 1.5 million. To me, that's scary. And that's a number you don't hear.

TIFFANY: Listen, even Pew research did extensive studies. I mean, we're talking about Muslims who want Sharia as the law of the land. This is in countries that aren't even as radical as Saudi Arabia. The majority want Sharia to be the law of the land. In Egypt, 85 percent support the executing of apostates. Those are infidels. Those are non-Muslims.

JOHN: Oh, yeah.

TIFFANY: Jordan, 82 percent. Palestinian territories, 66 percent. Those are being Islam --

JOHN: So we're being incredibly generous with our quarter percent number.

TIFFANY: Absolutely.

I mean, just because you won't put on the suicide vest yourself, doesn't mean that you don't support it emotionally and otherwise.

JOHN: Sure.

Even in our military, in our law enforcement community, for every man and woman in the field or on the street, there's a support network behind them. You can't exist without that.

It's terrifying. But, again, we talked about this pretty much throughout the show today. It all goes back to academia. It's what you learn and where you learn it.

And Harvard University -- Harvard University, right? That shining light. That beacon on the hill that everybody looks to and is guided by in academia, Harvard University is now assisting this.

Featured Image: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

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.