GLENN: Hello, America. So Bill Maher is on CNN, and he's talking to Jake Tapper. And he says -- you know, they're talking about Hillary Clinton coming out again and whining about why she lost and not having any self-awareness at all. I suck. I suck. Nobody likes me. They like me because of Bill. But if Bill wasn't around, I would have never been a politician or anything that had gone possibly a mayor.
PAT: That would be woke Hillary.
GLENN: That would be woke Hillary.
PAT: But she's not.
GLENN: But she's not woke.
PAT: No.
GLENN: Nobody around her has enough courage to say, "Hillary, you need to let this go, baby, because you played a role in this. Nobody likes you, and you've just overstayed your welcome." And if -- I mean, honestly, we've said this from the beginning, my shoe could have beaten Hillary Clinton. And I think that was proven out with Donald Trump. Somebody that even most people on the right will say, "I mean, I found it really hard to vote for the guy, but I can't go for Hillary." I mean, that's basically saying, "I've got a shoe. And, well, my shoe isn't Hillary."
A lot of what happened here was you had two of the most flawed candidates in American history running against each other. And it was a Sophie's choice in the negative. You wanted to put them both on the train, but you had to select one that stayed with you. And that's what it was.
I want this one to go away, and I don't want to see them again. And that's the way everybody on the left felt about Donald Trump. I'd like to put him on the train, and I never want to think about him again.
So she's not self-aware enough to see, it's just time to go away, Hillary. It's time to go away. You had your chance. You blew it.
And until people can be honest and say, "Look, she was a really flawed candidate," they won't be able to move forward.
Now, listen to what Bill Maher says. This is fascinating.
VOICE: When Bill Maher was asked at the event if misogyny played a role in her loss, she said yes. Do you agree?
BILL: Of course. Absolutely. I think we learned a lot about this country, and we're learning more about it as we watch what goes on with Fox News every day.
VOICE: That is a pretty remarkable turn of event. But you think that's about a misogynistic problem in American corporate culture and not just a few bad apples, I'm guessing.
BILL: Not just corporate culture. You know, I think race is more on the surface, and people talk about it. And there's movements like Black Lives Matter. And I'm glad there are. But I think -- I think we thought we were further along on the woman issue than we are. And I don't think we are.
GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. I just -- I want to point this out that, okay. Maybe we aren't as far as I thought we were with women because we're not as far along as I thought we were on things like the Constitution. You know, we're not as far along as I thought we were on our principles that bring us together. We're not as far along as I thought we were on -- on anger issues and identity politics. I thought that was one side, but it is also the other side. It's our side too.
So maybe he's right. But I don't -- about some of that. That, you know, maybe we're not as far along as I think we are.
However, to condemn America as this blind country, this jingoistic blind race-hating, Muslim-hating country, you have a guy who grew up in -- outside of America. Has the name -- chosen name of Barack Hussein Obama, while we're fighting a guy named Hussein.
STU: And Osama.
GLENN: And Osama. Who is black.
Now, when, you know -- has -- has the prime minister of England been black? Has the prime minister of Italy, Germany, France -- let's use some of their countries. Cuba, Russia, China, have they've had black guys? No.
PAT: Uh-uh.
GLENN: Okay. So here's a country that not only elected a black man and even his most vocal foes, me, when he was elected, the very next day, I got on and said, "Let's just take a minute here and just celebrate the fact that we're not who everybody says we are." I am thrilled that that barrier is now gone. I'd be thrilled for the barrier -- for a woman to be present.
Who thinks that way? Who thinks that way?
STU: Your chosen candidate, the vice president of that ticket was Carly Fiorina.
GLENN: Yes. Yes.
STU: I mean, that was the one you were rooting for.
GLENN: Yes. I mean, you just don't think this -- you don't think this way. I don't think the vast majority. Now, some do. Okay? But there's always a group of people in any size group that have weird beliefs or wrong beliefs on something. But now listen to what he says. Do you have the rest?
BILL: I mean, there's something like 80 countries who have had a woman leader. Pakistan has had a woman leader. But not the United States of us. Somehow we lag behind that. And I know a lot of people say, "Yes. I'd vote for a woman. I just didn't want to vote for that one."
GLENN: Stop. Hold on just a second. Have they had a Christian leader? Have they had a Jewish leader? Has Pakistan had a white leader? Have they had an Indian leader?
I mean, I just want to throw out.
PAT: A Jewish leader.
GLENN: A Jewish leader. This is our world. That's their world. Well, they've had a woman leader. Okay. They've had a woman leader.
STU: We've never had a Pakistani leader. But Pakistan has. Yeah, so?
GLENN: You're not comparing -- it's culture to culture, dude. Culture to culture.
STU: Ridiculous.
GLENN: Now, listen. There's more.
BILL: Well, let's see next time when there's another woman put up for president, and I don't know how -- I don't know when that's going to happen. It doesn't look any time soon.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina.
VOICE: Well, it might be Elizabeth Warren, we don't know.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina. Now, stop, stop. Instead of Carly Fiorina, it might be Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren, another person that even people not on the hard left, but on the Democratic side, say is too hard-core left.
STU: Uh-huh. Bernie Sanders. But, you know --
GLENN: Bernie Sanders, who is a woman, and younger. There's a lot of people who think Bernie Sanders is too far. Go ahead.
VOICE: 2020 possibilities, any Democrats that you like that you hope get into the race?
GLENN: Listen to the sexist.
BILL: I still like Bernie Sanders.
GLENN: Okay. Stop. What an unbelievable sexist.
PAT: Everyone else is a misogynist, but he still wants Bernie Sanders. He didn't name a woman.
GLENN: Now, if there was a race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton --
PAT: Oh, man.
GLENN: Oh, wait a minute. There was. Who was he pushing for?
PAT: What a misogynist.
GLENN: Was he pushing for the old white guy?
STU: So great.
GLENN: Or was he pushing for Hillary Clinton because he's not a misogynist.
STU: That's awesome.
PAT: No, he is a misogynist. He pushed for the old white guy.
GLENN: I mean, it is amazing. Completely amazing.
PAT: Complete unawareness too. They are so self-unaware. It's --
STU: By the way, Bernie is only eight years older than Elizabeth Warren. So I think you would have a very similar profile.
GLENN: No, I'm just saying the old white guy.
STU: It's -- yeah.
GLENN: I mean, I'm tired of the old white guy.
STU: I'm just saying the age isn't too much of a factor.
GLENN: Right?
Oh, my gosh. Stu, why do you hate --
STU: You said younger. I guess technically. Yeah, eight years.
GLENN: Eight years.
And why are you always defending the old white guys? You just want a culture full of old white guys, started by old white guys.
PAT: He's a misogynist.
STU: Well, what candidate would you like if you had a choice of any candidate?
GLENN: I would like -- I don't know if you have met Rodgey Hussein Mao.
(chuckling)
STU: Uh-huh. I haven't.
GLENN: But it is a wonderful unit. I don't want to say person.
STU: Sure, of course not.
GLENN: And I'm going to assign gender. But that's my -- that's the one that I think if America wants to prove itself.
PAT: Uh-huh.
GLENN: And redeem itself, it will vote for that.
STU: Okay. Good. Okay.
GLENN: Okay. So there you go.
Now, there's more because what I want to show you is they're overplaying their hand. While they're overplaying their hand, they are saying they're overplaying their hand. Do you have the other piece from Bill Maher? Now, listen to this.
PAT: Yeah.
VOICE: So what should Democrats do to win over Trump voters?
BILL: Well, I was just going to say, a bit of it is ease up on the identity politics.
GLENN: Okay. Now, he just played identity politics.
PAT: Identity politics.
GLENN: And then he's saying we should ease up on it. Now, when we come back, I'm going to show you culturally, comedy, television shows, art, that always leads the way. It always -- when you start to see art going a certain way -- and I use art to cover a lot of things -- you see culture start to move. Culture is always ahead of politics. And I want to show you a couple of things that show, again, the culture is being moved away from the identity politics, all of the political correctness, all of the things that you could be woken up in the middle of the night and ask a question and went, "What? What are you talking about? Go back to sleep. You're not making any sense." You in a dead sleep could be able to say, "You who are supposedly awake aren't making any sense. Go to sleep." They're overplaying their hand. And the culture is starting to change. We'll give you that here in a second.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
