Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

National Review Online's Josh Jordan breaks down election day stats

November 06, 2012
Wilson

Writer

On radio this morning, Glenn spoke with the National Review Online's Josh Jordan about the latest poll numbers. How did Hurricane Sandy affect the polls? And how is Romney doing with independents compared to Barack Obama?

Check out the transcript of the interview below:
GLENN: All right. We've talked to you about a lot of people who are saying, you know, like Dick Morris who is saying, "Hey, I think this is the way it's going to turn out." We can't get Stu to buy into any of these happy little tales. We can't get him to buy into any of them.

PAT: He's a little black rain crowd.

GLENN: No. No, no, no, let me tell you something. Yeah, but that whole...

PAT: Obama, Obama gets 281 electoral votes.

GLENN: Yeah. Until we came up with Josh Jordan, Josh Jordan apparently is somebody that Stu is like, "Oh, all hail Josh Jordan." So we wanted to get ‑‑

STU: He's my ray of sunshine.

GLENN: I know.

PAT: Our comments and our opinion, dirt.

GLENN: Dirt.

STU: Yeah, this he don't mean anything.

GLENN: Josh Jordan ‑‑

PAT: Refuse.

GLENN: Let's have Josh Jordan take a picture with a halo behind him.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But Josh is from the National Review Online and he is actually one of the credible voices that knows what he's talking about on polls. So we thought we would get him on and make our little black rain cloud called Stu go away.

Josh, how are you, sir?

JOSH JORDAN: I'm doing good. How are you doing?

GLENN: I'm very good. Tell me what you see happening today.

JOSH JORDAN: Well, it looks like one of the things we saw last week was that the race obviously tightened. I think post‑Hurricane Sandy, Obama got a little bit of a boost, and we're seeing a little bit of that fading, which is good for Romney because what we're seeing most specifically is that independents are going right back to Romney's camp, which is where they were about a week and a half ago. So I think of all of the national polls, Romney's up about 8 points with independents and that is what Obama won by in 2008. That flip by itself takes Obama's 2008 win from 7% to about 2 1/2%. So even if 2008 turnout, if independents show up for Romney like the polls are showing, that would cut the lead to a point where Republicans basically just need the turnout to a level of any of the past, you know, five, six presidential elections outside of 2008 when Romney can win this.

GLENN: Okay. Josh, I've been talking to David Barton and Ralph Reed and they all tell me, and I sense it as well, that they have never seen in their lifetime, even with Reagan in the height of the Christian Coalition, they have never seen churches activate like they are right now. Is anyone taking those into consideration?

JOSH JORDAN: And that's the thing that I really don't understand about the polls this year, and we've seen it from, you know, the summer on, you know, all the way into now and I think that you can see the crowds, you can see the enthusiasm, you can see the grassroots from churches, from communities, and it's something that, you know, to a certain extent Obama saw in '08 when he had, you know, the youth vote and all that kind of coming together. And I just don't think that it's being picked up in the same way and I think it's one of the reasons you're going to have a lot of discussions about polling after this election because they are having a hard time kind of grasping, you know, the enthusiasm among Republicans which, you know, if you look at 2010, it translated the votes and it should translate this time as well.

GLENN: But can't we also look at the depression of the voter for Obama? I mean, do you see anywhere where it is in large numbers excited to go out and vote for the president?

JOSH JORDAN: I mean, no. You have enthusiasm among Obama supporters about you when you look at it compared to four years ago, it's way down. And so what you're going to see most likely is that among pretty much all groups, Obama is going to be down with turnout, especially with the youth, and then on the other hand you've got Romney who has built a lot of enthusiasm from ‑‑ obviously from where McCain was four years ago. So really, you know, if Republicans can turn out in numbers anywhere near what Gallup and what Rasmussen have been showing, Romney can have a huge night. And I think that will go into, again, showing that polls are just not able to pick up the enthusiasm in the turnout. It's just almost like a group think that they assume Obama can repeat the turnout he had four years ago.

GLENN: What are some of the signs that we should look for today and tonight?

JOSH JORDAN: Well, I mean, I think one of the early signs will be Florida just because from all accounts that has been a state where Romney has been able to get a little bit of space and I think that if that's called earlier, that's a great sign. That said, I think, you know, networks are going to be pretty cautious, the colony thing.

GLENN: Especially Florida.

JOSH JORDAN: Exactly.

GLENN: Yeah.

JOSH JORDAN: I think Virginia, Virginia's an obvious state to look for. Some would argue Virginia's a little bit tighter because of Sandy.

GLENN: Tell me about ‑‑ tell me about Minnesota. Do you think Minnesota could flip?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Minnesota's one of those states where if Romney has a huge night, it would flip. I think that, you know, you're looking probably at about a 3, 3% deficit for Romney, you know, in a race where it's really close. So I think if Romney were to come out and win, you know, by 3, 4%, it could flip. I think it's kind of one of those tiers of states with Michigan where, you know, if Romney has a huge night, he can flip Minnesota, he can flip Michigan.

GLENN: Wisconsin?

JOSH JORDAN: He can flip Nevada.

GLENN: Wisconsin?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Wisconsin looks good as it is. I think that one of the mistakes of the recall for Democrats was basically forcing Republicans to get a machine to get out the vote.

GLENN: I agree.

PAT: Massachusetts? How about Massachusetts? New York?

JOSH JORDAN: Yeah, Massachusetts is going to be a tall order.

PAT: Going to be tough.

JOSH JORDAN: For Romney.

GLENN: Is Indian squaw going to ‑‑ is she going to win?

STU: Oh, Elizabeth Warren?

GLENN: Elizabeth Warren, yeah.

JOSH JORDAN: You know, yeah, I mean, Scott Brown seems like he's closed the gap a little bit but I think Elizabeth Warren is going to activate her heritage to get out the vote herself.

PAT: Do you really? Do you think she will beat Scott Brown?

JOSH JORDAN: I think it's going to be really close.

PAT: Wow.

JOSH JORDAN: It looks like one of those races again where, you know, some of the polls are anticipating higher democratic turnout because of the presidential election but since it's not close, I tend to think Scott Brown actually gets an advantage there because the Republicans will turn out no matter what. And I think that's going to help them along with independents. So really I think that one's going to be really close.

GLENN: Pennsylvania?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Pennsylvania's got a shot. I mean, you know, you look at the polls tightening, you look at the enthusiasm. I don't think for a second that Romney went there as a head fake. That looks like something they calculated a while ago, kind of a last‑second barrage to try to catch Obama off guard, I think.

GLENN: And Ohio?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Ohio looks pretty close but, you know, I've said since September that I think that Romney's going to win it. I'm still holding strong on that. I think it's going to be close but I think he wins, you know, maybe by a point, point and a half, something like that.

GLENN: Nevada?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Nevada's a tall order. The early vote is the better for Republicans than it was four years ago but it's going to be a huge get out the vote. Which I think that Republicans are much more set up for this year than they were last election. But tough.

GLENN: Iowa?

JOSH JORDAN: Iowa I think goes Romney, very slightly goes Romney.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: And Colorado?

JOSH JORDAN: I think Colorado goes for Romney. I think it's a state that's tightened a little bit. Some of the more partisan polls have Obama with the lead but I think that, you know, overall we've seen a very steady and slight Romney lead. And I think their early voting numbers are way better than they were in '08 and I think that that's going to translate to a victory.

GLENN: How comp ‑‑ how confident in these predictions are you?

JOSH JORDAN: I'm confident. You know, I think the caveat's always, you know, do Republicans turn out the way we think they will but I mean ‑‑

GLENN: So if there's a pretty big turnout, we can come over to your house and kill you tomorrow if you're wrong?

JOSH JORDAN: I don't know if I'm going to go that far, but you guys can certainly ‑‑

GLENN: Put your money where your mouth is.

JOSH JORDAN: ‑‑ hang me for the embarrassment for everybody.

GLENN: Yeah. You know what, Josh, that's going to be really interesting is if you're right, if we're right, there's a few people who are out on the edge, and I'm farther ‑‑ what a surprise, farther out on the edge than you are. I'm saying that it's going to be over 300 in electoral votes, and I don't believe that it's going to be all that close. I think this is going to end a lot earlier than everybody thinks. The media is going to have a lot of explaining to do. I mean, one of us is going to be greatly discredited tomorrow, and it very well could be me but I mean, really? I mean, there's no ifs, ands, or buts on this one.

JOSH JORDAN: Yeah. And, you know, it's going to be one of those things that's going to be interesting because I think a lot of Republicans feel really strong about this and if you look back four years, people didn't feel strong. And there's a reason that a lot of conservatives feel strong about this one. I really think that, you know, to your point, there is an absolute chance that Romney gets over 300 because you've got party identification surveys showing Republicans outnumbering Democrats in local polls. If that happens tonight, Romney easily gets over 300. Even if Democrats outnumber Republicans by a few percent, Romney wins. So I think there's much more potential for a big Romney win than there is for a small Obama win.

STU: Josh, there's a lot of people, especially online, Democrats have hitched their wagon to Nate Silver from the New York Times who I think is a really smart guy. He was one of the first guys I remember predicting the taking of the House for the Republicans in 2010. So I mean, he's not crazy. But his model is now predicting a 91% chance of Obama winning tonight. And you've gone through and really looked at the model the way he weights polls and everything else. Do you think he has anything ‑‑ I mean, is he leaning this on purpose? Is it just too overly confident in the polling? What's the ‑‑ what's going on there?

JOSH JORDAN: Well, I mean, I think his particular model basically just takes all of the public polling, averages them out and then puts a little bit of kind of a ‑‑ I know people like to kind of make fun of it as being like a secret sauce. But he tweaks them. Personally I think that he puts more emphasis on the polls that tend to favor Obama like the NBC Marist polls get heavily weighted and those have been hugely skewed to Obama this year and, you know, it's kind of one of those things where anyone can look at, you know, the average of polls and make a prediction. I think, you know, the approach I took this year was to actually look inside the polls and say, okay, you know, this poll makes sense because, you know, the turnout looks like it could happen. And I think that's the difference between the way I look at it and the way he looks at it.

As far as the 91% goes, you know, he's kind of hedging that a little bit this morning by saying, "Well, 91%, but it's still going to be really close." I think, you know, it's going to be interesting. You know, if Romney comes out and wins big, I think it's going to kill this whole concept that you can just take every public poll, average it together, tweak it a little bit and then declare yourself ‑‑ declare it a model. I think that's going to change.

GLENN: Does this feel more like 2004, 2008, or 2010?

JOSH JORDAN: To me it feels kind of between, you know, a little bit of all three. I think '04, you know, you had more independents breaking to Kerry but Republicans got out to vote. In '08, you know, obviously it was a wave election for Democrats. And in 2010 you can make the argument it was almost a wave election for Republicans. I think this election you're going to see both parties get out to vote but I think Republicans are much more energized, much more enthusiastic. And then on top of that you have independents breaking to Romney, which is why I think, you know, you might not see that kind of washout that you saw in 2010, but I think you're going to see potentially a more decisive victory than you saw in 2004.

GLENN: I'm in love with you, Josh. I would like to buy you dinner and some drinks sometime and...

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Assuming you're right. Otherwise we come to your house and kill you tomorrow.

JOSH JORDAN: Well, I was just going to say, what are you going to buy me if I'm wrong tonight.

GLENN: Thanks a lot, Josh, I appreciate it.

JOSH JORDAN: Thank you. Have a good one.

GLENN: All right. Bye‑bye. We're going to ‑‑

STU: A ray of sunshine. I feel optimistic after that phone call.

GLENN: Black cloud, shhh.

        Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?
    

        Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
    
A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.
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.
Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.
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.
What Lee actually proposed
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.
The Biden land-grab
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?
American families pay the price
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.
Divide and conquer
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.

        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.