HILLARY: Despite all the challenges that we face, I remain convinced that, yes, the future is female. Just look at the amazing energy we saw last month as women organized a March that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world.
GLENN: So which is it? Is there a war on women? Or is the future female? And what exactly does the future as female mean?
Hillary Clinton and others have expended a lot of time and energy selling the war on women. So this new phrase would seem a little out of step with that effort. But it's important to note that this new phrase and effort comes complete with another attempt to pass the E.R.A. the equal rights amendment. The initial effort to get the E.R.A. added to the U.S. constitution never happened. But there are many that would say it wasn't necessary in the first place.
>> If the equal rights amendment passes, we would have no choice. Women would be drafted and forced into combat.
>> And the president is staunchly against it. The club begins a new era. That's era not E.R.A. E.R.A. supporters have a tough time keeping the debate focused on what they see as E.R.A.'s main goal. Economic equality for women who in 1982 earn 59 cents to every man's dollar.
>> As a registered nurse, Carol makes less than men who fix cars, drive buses, or trim trees. That's why Carol wants the equal rights amendment ratified.
GLENN: There were several factors that wound up dooming the movement. First of all, there were already laws on the books that guaranteed women equal rights. In certain circumstances, such as when marriages break up, a case could be made that women's rights were and are superior to men's. Yet the perception on many is that there's an ongoing war on women and women are faring poorly on it.
>> What I would say to women who say there's already equality in our country, is look at our lives. Pregnancy discrimination.
GLENN: By all, please, let's truly open our eyes and look at each of those issues. The never-ending claim of those who are supposedly fighting for women's rights is that women make anywhere from 78 to 87 cents for every dollar a man makes. In fact, the 1982 news report claimed it was just 59 cents on every dollar. If we indeed are going to open our eyes to this issue, then we will find that even the liberal Washington Post has debunked this faulty claim every year since 2012, calling it false.
Study after study has found that when comparing similar experience, education, skill level, and commitment to job length of women and men, there is virtually no gender disparity in pay. None. In fact, in 147 America's largest 150 cities, young women make 8 percent more than men. All right. What about violence against women? Huge increase of rape in America. We're told now that things have gotten so bad that one out of every five women will be raped on a American College campus. If accurate, that would be a higher perjury of rape than what occurred during the Rwandian genocide.
The good news is it's not accurate. It's an outrageous falsehood. Sexual assaults in the United States have actually plummeted since the mid-1990s, falling by nearly 60 percent. Domestic violence is down 63 percent and partner violence has dropped by a whopping 72 percent. As for pregnancy discrimination, I'm not even sure what that is, quite frankly. In general, reproductive rights and pregnancy discrimination are nothing more than euphemisms for abortion on demand. It was about these reproductive rights that a law student Sandra Fluke testified a few years ago.
>> Contraception as you know can cost a woman $3,000 during law school.
GLENN: $3,000? Condoms are like 20 cents a piece. That is -- I mean, if you want to do the math, about 15,000 sexual encounters. Law school generally takes three schools to complete. To pull off 5,000 encounters a year, a woman would have to average almost 14 sexual encounters every day. So let's say 15 on a good day and maybe just 13 on a slow hookup day. Even on the days where you can't fulfill your normal allotment of hookups on tinder, that doesn't leave you a lot of time to study case law.
Now, for those who like to scream about the war on women, nothing gets them more angry than standing in the way of a woman's right to choose to abort her baby. The fact is nothing fits the description of war on women better than the actual killing of female babies. If pro-life advocates had their way, there would be 52 million more people on earth today than there are. Slightly over half of these would be women living, breathing, life experiencing women. Take a moment and hear them roar.
If pregnancy discrimination is really about benefits available for female employees, current U.S. law dictates that a parent, nearly always the mother, can take 12 weeks of leave from her job. Some employers offered paid leave. For others, it's unpaid. But almost exclusively it is women that take advantage of that benefit. Still, it's often claimed that the U.S. has the worst pregnancy benefit of any industrialized country on earth.
However, in a nation built on liberty and person responsibility, it's ludicrous to believe that the government would or should force employers to pay women who leave their jobs for three months, regardless of the reason. It's even more full hearty to expect that in a nation built on liberty that the government would or should impose maternity leave taxes on others. On the childless, on the single adults, on the elderly, on anyone other than those who have chosen to start their family to provide the benefits to the mothers leaving their jobs.
In the 1950s, only 19 percent of mothers with young children worked outside of the home. 81 percent of mothers stayed at home with their kids. The 1960s brought about a sexual and social revolution to the United States and to the American family. Discontented women like Betty began telling moms that they couldn't be fulfilled by raising a family that, in fact, something was wrong with them if that's all they did. Women, stay at homes suddenly under siege for not wanting to be more. They could have it all. But not by raising their family. They had to leave their family and enter the corporate world.
It's truly ironic to note that even as women were being encouraged to leave their homes and enter the world of corporate America, the same feminist movement as with so many other movements at the time quickly became mixed with the need for other women to do something outside the home, the anticorporate message of Marxism was also added to this mixture.
>> How did you account for women subordination? What was your opinion why women were suppressed?
>> We thought it was a mixture of men in capitalism. It seemed to me if you were going to change women's position, you needed to change the society.
GLENN: So somehow doing more than changing diapers became intermingled with Marxism.
>> I was in those small consciousness raising groups. But first with my characteristic arrogance I thought I was in them because I was suppressed. But because they needed real politics. They needed an economic analysis. And thank the goddess they got to me before I got to them.
>> I was in a group which was rather swaty group, actually, because we wanted to read about anthropology, and I had the idea that somehow anthropology provided some mystery key. Anyway, we all sat down and read angles. So we read things and discussed them, and then we would have these heart-rendering sessions about saying we're not a proper consciousness-group like the Americans. We need to talk more personally.
GLENN: So as with many movements in the 1960s and '70s, Marxism and radicalism poisoned the direction that this movement would take. What may have started out as a way for women to discover new talents that they never knew they had, and to spread their wings to fly a little, morphed into yet another way for radicals to infiltrate American society.
For those radicals, this movement had the added benefit of striking at the very foundation of American life. The American family. Whereas in the 1950s, 81 percent of mothers stayed home with children. By 2000, that number had dwindled to 23 percent. And in the meantime with no one, no mother or father in the home full-time, nearly every aspect of American life has suffered as a result.
But there is a silver lining in the story. In the recent years, the downward trend of mothers choosing to work inside the home has been reverse. As of the latest year that statistics are available, 29 percent of American mothers with children have chosen to stay at home and raise their young families. It just may be that a significant number of American parents are realizing that there is a war being waged in this country. And it is a war on children. And that someone needs to fight the battle in the home.
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.
