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

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi are idiots

February 11, 2013
Wilson

Writer

This is merely further confirmation of an already well known fact, but we here at the Glenn Beck Program feel it’s important to immortalize the unending insanity and stupidity of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Check out the latest evidence which strongly suggests Reid and Pelosi are very, very dumb human beings. Find out what they did in the clip above from radio.

Transcript of segment is below:

GLENN: Harry Reid has lied now about cutting $2.6 trillion from the budget. Here he is.

REID: The American people need to understand that it's not as if we've done nothing for the debt. $2.6 trillion, $2.6 trillion already we've made in cuts.

PAT: No.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Unfortunately that's so far from being true. It's ‑‑

GLENN: Well, let's go to ‑‑ let's go to the really conservative, I think it's really conservative factcheck.org, really conservative.

PAT: Oh, ultra, ultra rightwing conservative.

GLENN: Right. Right.

PAT: Who calls it a lie.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It almost ‑‑ they say it almost all came from tax increases.

GLENN: By the way ‑‑

PAT: Not spending cuts.

GLENN: ‑‑ factcheck.org is not a conservative organization.

PAT: No. We're being just a tad facetious on that.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: Just a tad.

GLENN: When I say I think it's perfectly rational and right that Stu, who has a baby on Saturday, his wife has a baby on Saturday is not only off today but has taken the entire week off to recover.

PAT: That's facetious?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Really? I wasn't catching any of that earlier today.

GLENN: Really? Okay.

PAT: Huh. That's really weird.

GLENN: So anyway, most of these things that he's talking about, 2.6 trillion comes from tax increases.

PAT: Increases and nothing to do with spending cuts.

GLENN: Because remember they said they are not even going to deal with spending cuts?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Not going to deal with it.

PAT: And Nancy Pelosi just said again, and we played this I think last hour, "We don't have a spending problem."

GLENN: Play that again because that's just so ‑‑

PAT: Crazy.

GLENN: That's just so ‑‑ say it again.

PAT: That's crazy.

GLENN: Say it like Michael Jackson.

PAT: That's crazy.

GLENN: Now say it like Al Gore.

PAT: That's crazy. That's crazy.

GLENN: You've got to say it ‑‑ but you have to say it with that chuckle in the voice where he's like ‑‑

PAT: That's crazy. Just below the surface of the Earth, it's crazy hot. All right. Here's Nancy Pelosi.

PELOSI: Though it isn't as much a spending problem as it is a priorities and that's what a budget is setting, priorities.

GLENN: Yeah.

WALLACE: But you talk about growth, even Christina Romer, the form head of the council of economic advisors for the president says you increase taxes, that also hurts growth.

PELOSI: Well, it's about timing. It's about timing.

PAT: Timing.

PELOSI: And it's about timing as to when you make cuts as well. We ‑‑

WALLACE: But you ‑‑ the fiscal cliff you raised taxes $650 billion right away.

PAT: Listen to this.

PELOSI: Yeah. And that was a very good thing to do on people making over the high end in our population.

PAT: She doesn't have any idea on what ‑‑

GLENN: None of them do. None of them do.

PAT: On who they put those ‑‑ that tax burden to.

GLENN: None of them do.

PAT: She was going to say on people over a million or whatever. She didn't know.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So she had to go on people who are at the high end of our...

GLENN: Do you remember ‑‑

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: I don't remember what the topic was and I think I'd like to stay away from the topic because it might reveal who shared this with us because they have never shared it on the air. But do you remember we talked about ‑‑ yeah, I think I can say it. Harry Reid. And let's just say it was on tax increases. And he was talking to a member and he said, "Harry, we can come together on this because you are ‑‑ you've been the champion of this for ten years." And it wasn't on tax increases. It was something else. But you've been a champion on this. And he actually said, well ‑‑

PAT: Oh, yeah. I have to ask?

GLENN: I have to ask and see if I'm still for that." You have to ask if you're still for that?

PAT: Uh‑huh.

GLENN: I mean, that's the kind of stuff, these guys are so out of touch. They are not ‑‑ they are really not ‑‑ they are just a face. They are puppets. They are really puppets. They are moving in one direction and it's a big, very big, you know, well thought‑out plan and they are just going for it. They are just sticking together. Nobody's actually engaging their own individual brain. They are acting as a collective. And the Center For American Progress is doing all the planning. I mean, we already know that they did all the stimulus bill. We know between them and the unions that they wrote ObamaCare.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So ‑‑

PAT: And they themselves don't know anything.

GLENN: They don't.

PAT: And Nancy Pelosi proved that a couple of times during this same interview. Listen to see if you can find the one little hair in the ointment.

PELOSI: We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves.

PAT: Anybody see the problem there? We avow the First Amendment there and say that people have a right to own their guns.

GLENN: First Amendment? It's the Second Amendment.

PAT: She doesn't even know what amendment is the gun amendment.

GLENN: Play it again.

PELOSI: We avow the First Amendment.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PELOSI: We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: She just such a ‑‑

PAT: Oh, my gosh. I mean, this was the speaker of the House and she's still one of the most powerful people in America. It's mind‑numbing that she's in that position because she's an idiot. She's an idiot and so is Harry Reid.

GLENN: Harry Reid, I think there might be something wrong with Harry Reid, seriously. There might be, you know ‑‑

PAT: No, I think you're right.

GLENN: I think there's something wrong with him. I think he's ‑‑ maybe he's senile or what. I don't know what's wrong with him but I think there's something wrong with him. And I say that, you know, I don't mean to be rude. And I don't want to be ‑‑ but I think there's something wrong.

PAT: Yeah, you're not being flippant.

GLENN: No, no.

PAT: It does seem like there's something wrong with him.

GLENN: Yeah, we've had conversations with people who have been around him in the last year or so and they all say the same thing.

PAT: Well, and his positions have shifted from 20 years ago.

GLENN: Well, you're ‑‑

PAT: Almost a 180 in some cases.

GLENN: Your positions probably ‑‑

PAT: Which they can change, they can evolve but I mean, he's done a 180.

GLENN: But you know what? Pat, have I done 180 some?

PAT: Well, yeah, but there was reasons for that.

GLENN: Exactly right. So there's nothing wrong with your positions changing over a 20‑year period.

PAT: No, but what was his pivot point that they all ‑‑

GLENN: Exactly right.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: What changed him.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: What changed him. Because they've just, they changed and they flipped.

PAT: Radicalized.

GLENN: And they really haven't been ‑‑ it hasn't been 20 years.

PAT: No, it hasn't.

GLENN: It's been within the last decade where it's just been, "What is this?" From, you look at his positions 2004 and his positions today; they are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. He's a radical. And I don't believe he is a radical; he's just taking positions and protecting the radical positions and I don't think he even understands. I don't even know ‑‑ really there might be something wrong with him.

PAT: And he flat‑out lies to protect those positions too.

GLENN: Yeah. Which is not like Harry Reid the way Harry Reid used to be.

PAT: No, I don't think so.

GLENN: Harry Reid I think used to be an honorable man. But I think, you know, look, I have a very good friend, Chris Stewart. He's gone into congress, and it's a very scary thing I think for Chris' family and his friends because Chris is truly a remarkable man and we all have already had the conversation as his friends and family. We start to see him go to the dark side, we start hearing him say the things, well, now, if I just stay on, if I just compromise here, I can get a position on this committee," we're having a family‑and‑friend intervention. And I've told him, I said, look, Chris, I'll ‑‑ to save you, I will do everything I can to rat you out.

PAT: Because we've seen some really good people do that already.

GLENN: Really good people.

PAT: And within a pretty short amount of time go from where we thought we could absolutely trust them to, not so much anymore.

GLENN: Yeah. And you know what's funny is they know. Because they don't call anymore. They used to ‑‑ they used to call and they used to tip us off and everything else. Not anymore. And they know we know. It's like, I really just think it's like alcoholics. You stay away ‑‑ if you're an alcoholic, you stay away from an alcoholic. If you are ‑‑ if you're lying to yourself again, you stay away from an alcoholic because an alcoholic has played that game before. They know. And so they will just, they will rat you out. And not to anybody else but to yourself. They will just say, "Wow. So how long you been drinking?" "I don't know what you're talking about." "Yes, you do." "I don't know what you're talking about." "Well, whatever. Call me when you're sober. Call me if you need help when you're sober. When you're back on track again, or want to get back on track. Don't waste my time." And the same thing. I mean, I've had conversations with a few of these guys to where they're starting to say those things. I mean, when you hear a guy say, "Yeah, but I can get on the committee. If I just do this, if I compromise here, I can get on the committee. They've promised me a committee."

PAT: Or I can be a ‑‑ I can chair the committee.

GLENN: Yeah. You know they're gone. They're gone. Because all you have to do is start compromising. If you want to compromise on something, just make sure it's not your principles. If it's not your principles, compromise. You have to. To move things forward, you have to compromise, but not your principles. And that's where they get lost. And I really think that once ‑‑ and especially if you go there and you do anything wrong. This is why I ‑‑ you pray for these guys, these new freshmen. Because I've heard really good things about the new freshmen. But they are being squashed and they are going to be either absorbed and brought into the GOP machine and promised all kinds of things; or they'll be destroyed. And the worst thing that happens is they're destroyed and then absorbed. And that means that if you aren't ‑‑ if you don't have the full armor of God on, you are not going to make it. Because there's going to be a temptation of money, of power, of sex. Whatever it is your Achilles heel. We all know. I mean, Pat, you don't have to say it, but do you know what your ‑‑ the thing that you are most tempted by as a man or as a person, what's the thing that you're most tempted by? Do you know what it is?

PAT: Sure.

GLENN: Jeffy, same thing?

JEFFY: One thing?

GLENN: Yeah. You're a nightmare. I do too. And it's ‑‑ and Jeffy's right. It's not just one thing. There's a few things that I have shields up because I'm freaked out by it. And I ask my wife all the time, "Honey, you ever start to see these warning signs, you go. Go, go, go, go, go." And most people will fool themselves. They will say, "Well, I'm going to be strong enough." Or they just don't think about it enough.

If you're going into Washington or if you're going to go on the front lines of the TEA Party or anything else, you better know what those weaknesses are. And you better concentrate on those weaknesses. And he will make weak things strong. On the other side, so will Satan. He will make those weak things strong in you. And that's what I ‑‑ the most dangerous thing is you go to Washington and let's say, you know, you're away from your wife and things are tough and maybe your wife, you haven't been getting along or anything. Is anybody watching Downtown Abbey? I'm watching this with my wife.

PAT: No.

GLENN: It's great. You'd love it, Pat, you actually would. You'd like it. But it's, there's this one part in the ‑‑ we're only on the second season and there's this guy who's really upstanding and really good, it's the end of World War I and his whole life has changed. Everything has changed. And his wife now all of a sudden is, you know, I'm going to go out and, you know, I'm going to go out and do stuff and I'm going to go chair this and I'm going to go work here. And his whole life has changed and he can't make sense of the world. And my wife and I are watching this episode and there's some maid, you know, in his house. And he did something nice for her, and it was totally legitimate, totally fine. And then the next time they see each other, she says, "By the way, thank you for helping on my son." And her husband I think is dead or gone to the war or something. And they just started having a conversation. And he says, I just don't understand my world anymore. And she says, I don't understand mine. Immediately my wife and I went, "Trouble. Trouble." Run for help. Run for help. And that's the way it happens. And once you do that, once you go down that road, in Washington you're surrounded by people that want that to happen. Because they will come to you and say, "Now listen. I can destroy you. But everybody makes a mistake. But if you play ball, I can help get you this position. You'll get this position and you'll be able to further the things you care about. Do you really think you're ever going to put that in the past? Never. The thing you would have to do is stand up and say, "I committed this. And if the people want to throw me out, throw me out because I did this and it was wrong. But I am ‑‑ I've got to get this out. Otherwise ‑‑ because they already have approached me with what I believe is blackmail, and I'm of no use you, I'm of no use if that happens." I'll let the people decide. And I think people will understand mistakes. You're destroyed either way. But at least you get out with your sole and maybe, maybe God can use you in some other position.

 

 

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.