Bill O’Reilly Slams ‘Corrupt’ Media Backlash Over Trump’s Call With a Gold Star Widow

The Trump administration came under fire this week after a congresswoman spoke to the press about a confidential phone call between President Donald Trump and the widow of a U.S. soldier who died in Niger.

What happened, and is this just another case of people being outraged over nothing again? Bill O’Reilly didn’t hold back in his analysis of the story on today’s show.

“They don’t know what happened,” he said of the media. “They couldn’t possibly know. Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way, and it’s on them.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: The one, the only, Mr. Bill O'Reilly joins us now. Bill, did you see -- did you see the speech from Kelly yesterday?

BILL: Beck. Yes, yes, yes, yes. You left one thing out though, which is really the crux of all the savagery -- and that's the word, "savagery" -- that's going on in this country right now. And that's the media.

What happened was that 24 hours before the president made the call to the widow of the slain soldier in Niger, the family knew the president was going to call, because you have to give them a heads-up and find out where they're going to be and all of that.

Then the family apparently alerts this Congresswoman Wilson. Why? Why?

Would you -- if it were your son, Beck, would you alert any politician?

GLENN: Never.

BILL: That you were going to get a call from the president.

GLENN: Never.

BILL: I would. So who would do that? What's the point of that? So then the call comes in. And they're in the call apparently, on a speakerphone, and the president was disregarding the advice of General Kelly as chief of staff. Because General Kelly said, "Listen, the family is grieving. No matter what you say, it's not going to make a difference. And it's a very difficult situation for any president to be in." But you said to his credit, and I agree with that, but Donald Trump said, "Look, I want to try. I want to try to give them words of sympathy." And it is an honor to get a call from the president of the United States.

GLENN: It is. And I will tell you this as a sidebar, we were all very, very upset -- at least I was -- Taya Kyle wasn't. But I was very upset. And I asked Taya Kyle for a year, has the president reached out at all? I mean, here's this great hero. Has the president reached out at all? Now, she didn't want the call.

But still, it is something that a president should do.

BILL: Well, you're talking about President Obama.

GLENN: Yes, I am.

BILL: Yeah. And he didn't. Because there is no protocol that is in stone. And I think there should be. And that's what I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday. There should a way to handle these kinds of things that always happens.

Now, I don't think that should require a phone call.

GLENN: No, I don't think so either.

BILL: But the president is the commander-in-chief. He has the option to do that.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: So, anyway, so the call comes into the limo. And they're all in the limo. And according to General Kelly, President Trump was trying to tell the widow that her husband was a hero because he voluntarily put his life at risk for his country. That was the theme of the call. He was a hero. He voluntarily. And I guess they used the word signed up. He knew the danger. But he did it anyway because he wanted to protect his country, which is a noble sentiment.

Okay. So then the call is over. Within, what? Ten minutes. This congresswoman is calling CNN. That can't happen spontaneously, Beck. That's got to be planned in advance. You can't just call up a major network and say, "I want to be on your air." They got to vet you. They got to know who you are. All of that.

So you can't tell me that this wasn't a setup. It was an absolute setup. That is a huge story.

The second huge story is, as they always do, the barbarians on cable news and broadcast news, believe every word Wilson says. Okay? Like they were there. Even though Wilson, incredibly, admits while I didn't hear the whole phone call.

How could you not possibly hear the whole phone call, if it's in a car on a speakerphone and you were sitting there?

So right away, her credibility is zero. So I'm watching the cable news, and I'm seeing these hit one after the other after the other. Of, oh, what a disgrace. This is horrible. He's insensitive. He's this, he's that. This is talking about Trump. They don't know what happened. They couldn't possibly know.

Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way. And it's on them. It's on them.

This media we have now is as corrupt as any time in our republic. This is off the chart, from the newspapers, to the television programs, to the internet. It is corrupt in the extreme, and it is harming the United States. No question.

GLENN: Okay. So I want to go back to that. You sound like you're speaking with some passion there.

BILL: I'm really keyed off, Beck.

GLENN: No, I know you are.

BILL: I got to deal with this personally. I got to deal with this kind of crap all the time. You do.

Anybody that doesn't toe the far left line is in danger now. I mean, it's so out of control. So out of control.

GLENN: Bill, I will tell you -- I will tell you, we have spoken off the air about my -- I had a -- I had a day in court in Boston on the Boston bombing.

And, you know, I had good government sources. And the government knew exactly what sources. And some day, some journalists -- well, no, they won't. No, they won't. Some day I'll just write a book, I guess, with this in it. But I have all of the documents. I have all of the transcripts from the trial. I have absolutely everything, including the ability to speak about the trial, because that was part of one of the conditions of the settlement.

But I will tell you, it's not just the media, it is the government that is corrupt. You cannot defend yourself if the government won't respond and abide by the constitutional constraints. And they don't.

You have no way to defend yourself.

BILL: The only -- and I sympathize because you were at Fox News Channel when you broke that story. And I am familiar with the story. And I know you didn't make it up. And I know you were going on people in the government telling you certain things. So that's absolutely true.

But I don't have any expectation the United States government would do anything for anybody at any time. Zero expectation on that.

But what we have here is, the -- the president of the United States is now in a position where the media, about 80 to 90 percent of it wants to destroy him.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: When has that ever happened? How can you run a democracy when the media doesn't care about the truth or any kind of accurate reportage? Their whole bent every single day is to destroy the leader of the country.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't know how you can run a democracy, let alone a republic like ours.

BILL: I mean, it is shameful and disgraceful. And the politicians on both sides, you know, they're scrambling for cover. They go, I don't want to be in this.

You know, I give Kelly a lot of credit. I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday, look, you expect the chief of staff to defend his boss, the president. You expect that. Okay?

So we have to listen to what Kelly has to say very closely, as you pointed out. But what he brought to the explanation was logic. Here's what was said and why it was said. And then his disgust with this congresswoman trying to -- who hates Trump. Trying to make it a political issue. But he didn't take it a step further. Is that the media immediately grabbed on to this corrupt congressman, congresswoman, and ran with it. They always do. And it's just sickening.

GLENN: So, Bill, here we are, we're looking at this corrupt media. Do you see a way out of this?

BILL: I don't. I don't. I mean, I've been in this business 43 years. And, you know, I try to run an honest program. As do you. I wouldn't be appearing here every Friday if I thought you weren't. I'm trying to run an honest enterprise at BillO'Reilly.com. And look at things and verify things and check things out. And if I can't get it, I don't say it.

But you put on these cables, and they don't -- I'm not going to use an obscenity, but you know what I'm talking about. They couldn't care less. It's, we're going to get Trump. Going to get him today. Here's how we're going to get him. Tomorrow, we'll get him this way, and we'll get O'Reilly, we'll get Beck, we'll get Limbaugh. We'll get Hannity. We'll get anybody we disagree with. We'll get them.

GLENN: So do you believe that the right is -- some people in the right are engaging in this same behavior? We'll get the left. We'll get the media. It doesn't matter who they are, or what they've done.

BILL: Certainly they're -- in the Hillary Clinton situation, there's an element of that. And I'm not sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton, okay? I'm not. I think she's an imperious woman -- word of the day "imperious" -- who lost the election because people flatout didn't like her. And I really -- I mean, if there's one person I would not want to dine with, it would be her. Okay? I just don't have any use for her at all. But there is an element on the right, that incorporates some of these scorched earth, I hate you tactics. But it's not nearly -- it's not even in the same universe as organized and funded as it is on the far left. It's individuals on the far right, okay?

So you can't make the comparison. Because they don't have the megaphone, number one. They don't have the organized cabal. And, you know, there are various websites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and some of them like that. They do their thing. But it's not nearly the way it is when you have Comcast, NBC, NBC. CNN. I mean, these are huge, huge conglomerates. So I don't think it's any comparison.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com, talking about General Kelly's speech yesterday. And, Bill, I want to hit one more thing here before we move on. And that is, his question, is there anything sacred anymore?

BILL: You know, I don't think that's a question that can be answered in a specific way. I mean, I think most Americans are decent people. And to them, there are things that are sacred.

But, you know, I hate to keep going back and being boring, but to the media, you know, no. There isn't. Politicians, again, it's a case-by-case basis. But there are good people, and there are people that understand that the world is not a place where trying to destroy people should be your main focus.

And I think folks are getting disgusted. I'm waiting for the backlash, Beck. I'm waiting for the backlash. I think it's going to come against the media.

GLENN: And how would that manifest itself?

BILL: Well, it will be ratings. You're seeing it in the NFL. The backlash against the NFL. You're seeing the ratings down, fairly significantly. And also, marketing and merchandising.

I think you're going to see a backlash against the media because people are disgusted with it.

GLENN: So what is the replacement? Because I'm afraid that the backlash comes and then you just don't believe anything or anyone, and so you just unplug. That's not good.

BILL: No, it's not. And, you know, I think people will, what they call look in. They'll look in on occasion. The newspaper industry is dead. Good. TIME Magazine, Newsweek, dead, good. Television is still there, but declining.

So they'll look in on their machines, on their devices, on the internet. They'll look in. But I really think that people have had it.

GLENN: Well, people in Media Matters are already in the halls of Facebook and Twitter and everyone else. Google.

BILL: Yeah, you're never going to get a square play on the net. It's just a convenience thing. I mean, I go -- just so people know, I go to CBSNews.com in the morning. Because they give me a headline service that's useful. Sometimes their articles are ridiculous. But I know immediately when I'm getting conned. I go to theHill.com to get the Washington stuff. I write for them. And they're fairly fair. They have both sides.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: And that's about it.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: That's about it for me.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. More of the news of the week and his perspective without the spin. BillO'Reilly.com. Coming up, more in a minute.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com is joining us.

Bill, let me give you something from the Wall Street Journal. Now, the Wall Street Journal is the most liberal paper in America. I mean, mainstream paper. When it comes to the news. However, its editorial section is not.

And in the editorial section -- I don't know if you saw this, Donald Trump may be following Palin's trajectory. And I'd like to get your thought on this.

BILL: I didn't see the piece yet. So just tell me what the theme was.

GLENN: Okay. So here it is: In this day, like Sarah Palin supporters, who saw her intellect polish as proof of her sincerity -- but in times, she lost a place through antic statements, intellectual thinness, and general strangeness. The same may happen or be happening with Donald Trump.

And what they're saying is, you know, what you liked about Sarah was she was just, you know, one of us. Saying it like it is. And then after a while, that started to wear really thin. And you're like, I don't think there's anything behind this. And then the -- the theatrics and everything else. And it just wore thin. And she's nowhere.

BILL: All right. I know both people pretty well, particularly Trump. I wouldn't say I know Sarah Palin very well. But I've been around her enough to be able to evaluate her.

GLENN: Yeah. I do too.

BILL: It's an unfair comparison. There's no similarity and intellect between Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Trump has a much wider frame of reference than Ms. Palin. There is similarity in that they're both populists, and they both tailor their message to the folks, and they both can't stand the media. So they're similar.

But if the Palin thing was going to happen to Trump, it would have happened already. All right? Trump's problem is that his wording sometimes is imprecise. All right? It's not as exact as it has to be for a president. He just wanders too much.

Ms. Palin didn't really know that much as far as history is concerned or, you know, her country. And when Katie Couric asked her about what she read, she couldn't really articulate that.

So there's a big difference between Trump's life experience and what he's accomplished and what Sarah Palin has accomplished.

GLENN: Next story. Transgender Wyoming woman convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl inside a bathroom.

Michelle Martinez, known -- formerly known as Miguel Martinez, before identifying as a female, found guilty first degree and second degree sexual abuse of a minor. Could face 70 years in prison.

Martinez, who was a family friend, invited the girl into the bathroom on March 23rd. Touched her. Penetrated her. The girl told her mother immediately.

Martinez, when questioned by police, became notably hostile and defensive. Said the girl was just talking crap before denying being a child molester. He is also calling accusations a publicity stunt. He has pleaded not guilty on both counts.

BILL: You know, what do you want me to say -- you know, this is a heinous thing. All Americans should want justice. So let it play out. There's really -- you know, I don't think you can take one or two situations and make any general points. What I will say is that the pressure from the politically correct precincts and the ACLU, to force public schools and public facilities to allow people who were born one gender to go into a locker room of another gender is insane.

And there is an easy solution, whereas you make a third facility for transgendered people to use. And you would think that they would want privacy anyway. So make a facility. It costs a little money. But in this PC world, that's the solution to the problem.

So I'm not big on generalizing from specific heinous situations. I don't think that's fair. And I want to be fair.

But I think that this movement for America to do things that are not in the best interest of children and are not based in common sense, common sense says you build a third facility. So that's my take.

GLENN: President Trump releases petition requesting support on standing during the national anthem.

I read this, this morning, and he came out yesterday and said, I want to know who is patriot enough to stand and pledge to stand during the national anthem. I want -- I've issued a petition.

And I thought it was a little strange. And then I saw where the URL leads, and it's to the GOP. This --

BILL: I'm going to comment on that. But I want you to answer the next question on Killing England, my number one book, because it plays into this. And I don't want your audience to think I'm crass in using the question about the anthem to promote my book, okay?

GLENN: All right. All right. Well, you're not the boss of me.

BILL: I want you to set it up.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

BILL: Rather than me be a doofus.

GLENN: This is probably -- if this is the way we're going to run this show, this is probably something you should have said before we went on the air. It's a little -- it's a little less crass.

BILL: No, but I want to be honest here. I want them to know the interaction is genuine.

GLENN: All right. All right. All right.

BILL: Okay. National anthem. No question Donald Trump is using it for political benefit. Everybody got that? Because he's already come out. He's already said he believes that everybody should respect the flag and the anthem. Most Americans concur. Word of the day "concur."

GLENN: No, the other was the word of the day.

BILL: And he won. He won it, okay? So he's on the side of apple pie and goodness and flag and anthem. Okay. Enough. Enough. You're the president. We need the tax cut. All right? You don't have to keep going back. We don't need a petition. We don't need to go trick-or-treating, dressed up like the flag, okay? We don't need it. We got it. You won. There's my take.

Now, Killing England. Go.

GLENN: You're not the boss of me.

The budget that they passed yesterday, only one G.O.P. person voted against it. Rand Paul.

BILL: Of course.

GLENN: There's no cuts. Real cuts to this. How do you feel about the Republicans?

BILL: Yeah. I'm not surprised. Because the Republican Party knows there's only one thing that's going to save it at this point, and that's the tax revision. And the working people getting the 4,000-dollar average into their pockets. So if they have to spend more money to get that -- which is what the trade is, okay? They're going to do it. So there's no surprise here.

GLENN: I don't think there's any trade.

BILL: Because it's all about tax cuts.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't think there's any trade.

Okay. Tell me about Killing England.

BILL: England. England. Okay. Number one book. Knocked off Hillary Clinton in the New York Times Best Seller list. Three weeks running, which is amazing because I don't have the platform I used to have to market the book.

GLENN: (clearing throat)

BILL: Well, your -- and you've been generous, Beck. You really have. I have to say.

GLENN: All right.

BILL: And there's no kickback. Although, I did send Beck a free book.

GLENN: I don't believe -- I don't believe you did.

BILL: No, I did. I sent you a free book.

GLENN: Did you sign it?

BILL: Yes, I signed it.

GLENN: You did not.

BILL: I think I just put one N in Glenn. No, I spelled your name correctly.

But, look, the reason I'm trying to get people's attention on this is because I obviously want the book to be successful, but I want you to compare George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, the three central characters in our revolution, to what we have now. To what we have now.

I mean, it's unbelievable, the difference in -- in every single way. Intellect. Character. Courage.

And right down the line. When you get through reading about these men who gave us this unbelievable freedom that we have, that's now being abused, by the way. But we have it. When you read about the suffering they went through -- the suffering, and what they actually did. And you compare it to these weasels that we've put into power -- I mean, across-the-board. There's some good people. But most of them are just -- are just ugh. Glenn.

GLENN: Also, the weasels that we have become. I mean, we don't really demand the highest standards from ourselves anymore, as a people.

BILL: Well, you're generalizing though. I'm going back to, there are people who do that. And it wasn't uniform back in 1775, '76.

GLENN: No, I know that.

BILL: Half of the colonists wanted to stay with the insane king.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: And they wanted to do it, most of them, for money reasons. Not because they believed in the monarchy. They were cowards.

So human nature is human nature. I always say that. But I think the majority of Americans do want high standards and are good people. I don't know if I differ from you or what on that.

GLENN: I'm not sure anymore. I would have said yes to that. But I'm not sure anymore. I'm not sure that we're much different than we were in the colonies, with the exception of that we are also -- we have -- you know, there was an overwhelming understanding back then of some morality. Some things were sacred, to a majority of people. And I don't know if that's true at all anymore.

BILL: Well, we're certainly more fragmented and scattered. And our focus is not on other people.

I mean, I did a thing last night for a Philadelphia radio station, where the subject of religion came up. Because religion is under fire in this country, as everybody knows. If you're a believer and you live in Los Angeles or New York, they think you're a kook. You know, if you go to church every Sunday, people look at you like, what's wrong with you?

Certainly, back then, that was not the case. And so there is a big difference. The secular progressives have power. They have power. And they're using it because the media sympathizes with them, and they get their message out. And it's easy for them to get their message out. So you're right in that sense, that there's been a big erosion in, you know, treating your neighbor as yourself, putting other people ahead of you. How often do we hear that these days?

GLENN: Yeah, not very often as well. Bill, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

BILL: All right, Beck. I did send you a free Killing England. So you find it in all of your stuff. You find that book.

GLENN: Right. Right. I'll find it after you send it.

BILL: Oh, man.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly -- Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. Number one book, three weeks running in the country, is Killing England.

Bill O'Reilly, thanks for joining us.

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.