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

A rare books collector exposed one of the biggest progressive cover-ups in history

November 17, 2014
Wilson

Writer

How did a lost letter expose the deception of world-famous author Upton Sinclair? America's first real war on terror was against communist and socialist progressives that engaged in anarchist activity against the United States. In his novel 'Boston', Sinclair told the story of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two men who were tried and executed for murder. The two were heroes of the left, and Sinclair wanted to clear their names in his book. But he did so knowing that the opposite was true, and a forgotten letter revealed the truth. Paul Hegness found the letter, and revealed the story to Glenn on radio.

Order your copy of Dreamers and Deceivers HERE.

Rough transcript of this segment is below:

GLENN: There is one chapter in the book "Dreamers and Deceivers" that is -- is so essential that you read because it's all happening again. It is a story that you will find in the health care debacle that is going on now where the president has lied and we are now seeing all of these tapes where it showed that they plotted out the lie. You're also seeing it on the streets of Ferguson, where the president and others are meeting with the people who are -- are revolutionaries. Meeting with them, telling them, keep the revolution on track. This is outrageous what is happening. But it's all happened before. I'm going to introduce you to two names that you most likely have never heard before. Sacco and Vanzetti. These two guys were really some of America's first terrorists. Yes, I know, your kids are being taught now that the pilgrims were America's first terrorists but these guys were America's first terrorists. They were communist revolutionaries. You don't know their name but they have streets named after them in the former Soviet Union. They have pencil factories. All of the pencils that the kids used as they were taking their tests and doing all of their homework in the former Soviet Union had the name of America's two terrorists. Because they died in vain. They were not -- Stalin was not going to get them die in vain in the Soviet Union. He wanted to make sure everyone knew who these two guys were. I'm going to introduce you to somebody else. His name is Upton Sinclair. He's a guy you probably know. He is a literary giant but he is also a really deeply disturbed man. He wanted a second American revolution in the name of Karl Marx. He was George Bernard Shaw's good friend. When he -- when his wife got pregnant as we outline in the book, he wanted an abortion. But they were illegal. And so he convinced his wife to continually throw herself down on the ground and try to have a miscarriage. Deeply disturbed man. But he is a literary giant. We all love him. He wrote a couple of books that you might know. "The Jungle" is one of them. The other one that he wrote is called "Boston."

And that's the one that we want -- we really want to focus on here. "Boston" is the story of those two men that he tried to make sure that they -- their names were cleared. I want to bring in Paul Haggis. He's the guy who gave us all of the information on this chapter on Upton Sinclair in the new book "Dreamers and Deceivers." He is a collector of history, a rare book collector, and he ran into a box of rare papers that nobody knew really what they had when he purchased them. We'll get to the papers, but first, tell me the story of -- get me to the paper. Tell me the beginning -- it's in the Woodrow Wilson administration.

HAGGIS: Well, the beginning is pretty interesting because of course, we had Upton Sinclair, this world famous author, great socialist. He was a vice presidential candidate for the socialist party. Along with Jack London who was the presidential candidate the same year for the socialist party. He wrote many articles, many books, promoting socialism. He claimed thought to be an anarchist but nonetheless, he protected anarchists. And that was kind of the lead-up to my going to an auction, that my friend of mine, Bruce Lawrence, was the auctioneer at, asked me to come over to the auction which I did, and looking through the various things that interested in me, but there was a box of old letters that attracted my attention. And as I dug through those letters, maybe a thousand or 2,000 letters, and they seemed to be the estate of a fella by the name of John Beardsley who was an attorney in Los Angeles in the '20s and the '30s. And as I dug through those letters, I came upon this letter. And what attracted me is it said, after 10 days returned Upton Sinclair, P. O. box 3022, station B, Long Beach, California. Of course, I knew who Upton Sinclair was because I'm kind of an amateur student of American history. And when I opened the letter, I also knew he had written the book "The Jungle," which led to the formation of the FDA. Also knew that he had written the book "Boston", which was the story of Sacco and Vanzetti, wherein he attributed innocence to Sacco and Vanzetti.

GLENN: Now, what these guys did, these guys went and -- they were terrorists. And couldn't get them on terror rap but they had robbed a payroll of a shoe factory. And there were witnesses to it. And as they were driving away, it seemed like it was a pretty button-upped case. They had a lot of people that say I saw them, and I can't swear to you, but it looked just like them. It may not have been there. Maybe it was their twins. But it looked like just like those two guys. They ended up getting the death sentence and they were both electrocuted. One of them last words was, long live the revolution or some nut thing like that. The other guy kept saying, I'm innocent. I'm telling you I'm an innocent man. Upton Sinclair wanted to make sure, because it was good for the revolution, to make sure that progressives and socialists and communists did not look like violent terrorists. And so he needed to make sure, in his book, "Boston," that he cleared their name. So he -- do you think he believed it at the beginning, that they were innocent?

HAGGIS: You know, the thing about socialists and communists, it doesn't matter whether or not they believe the facts. The issue is they've got to protect the revolution.

GLENN: Right. So --

HAGGIS: And of course, Upton Sinclair was a major proponent of protecting the revolution.

GLENN: Correct. And he had gone and het met with Teddy Roosevelt. Even Teddy Roosevelt hated this guy. Teddy Roosevelt said this guy is so dishonest. And so as he -- he starts to write this book, he wants to clear the two guys and make sure that everybody believes that these -- these socialist revolutionaries certainly weren't violent. It wasn't them. It was the bad evil capitalist system that wrongly put -- put them to death.

HAGGIS: And he claims in the letter that he -- he approaches them as if they were innocent. Which is kind of interesting, isn't it, because how do you know whether or not someone is innocent or guilty until you hear the facts?

GLENN: Right.

HAGGIS: But he had heard the facts as promulgated by his fellow socialists and he intended to prove that these people were in fact innocent.

GLENN: Okay. Now, he writes the book "Boston", clearing these guys' name. It becomes a huge best-seller. It becomes a very big propaganda tool against the capitalist state. And in it he says they are absolutely innocent. He leaves something out in the book. He's talking to one of the prosecutors. What was his name? Moore.

HAGGIS: Fred Moore.

GLENN: Fred Moore.

HAGGIS: No, actually I think Fred Moore was part of the defense team. Not sure --

GLENN: He might have been the defensive.

HAGGIS: I think he was part of the defense team.

GLENN: He is interviewing him and Sinclair says, he's writing this book. He's like, yes, he was defendants, because they were both progressives. And he said, he said, look, he's bluffing. He says, you know and I know. They're guilty as sin. That's when the lawyer says, yeah, you're right. And let me tell you a few things I know about them. And he just unloads. Well, Sinclair now is -- now is -- he's got -- what is he going to do? Everybody knows he's in the middle of writing this book. He's already released some chapters in this book to the press. He's been this big proponent for him. So what is he going to do? Is he going to say, oh, wow, I was wrong? Is he going to hurt the progressive movement? Is he going to -- is she going to just let the book just -- is he going to let the book just fade away and say I don't know anything, or is he going to proceed is lie about it.

HAGGIS: And he decides to proceed and lie.

GLENN: And this letter was written and held for a later date, right?

HAGGIS: Well you know, it what astonished me about the letter as I flipped through it, I went to the conclusion, and as you point out so well in the book, which by the way, I really enjoyed the book.

GLENN: Thank you.

HAGGIS: And all of the various chapters, primarily because I knew Richard Nixon and also Walt Disney.

GLENN: Wow.

HAGGIS: But the book is well written. What I like about it is a series of different stories that are very easy to read and you don't get lost in the book.

GLENN: Right.

HAGGIS: It's really neat.

GLENN: Thank you.

HAGGIS: But as I pulled out this letter, he had written in this letter, this letter is for yourself alone. Stick it away in your safe and sometime in the far distant future, the world may know the real truth about the matter. Well, the implication there of course is they didn't get the real truth from me earlier in the book "Boston" which as you pointed out was a best-seller.

GLENN: Right.

HAGGIS: He said I'm here trying to play my own part in the story and the basis of my seemingly contradictory moods and decisions. And of course, he made the -- he discloses in the letter that he made the affirmative decision not to tell the truth. He had been told by Fred Moore that Moore was one of the people who invented the false story of the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti as part of the defense team and notwithstanding that as a good socialist and a good communist, they let the book go to press and it became a best-seller. It was distributed worldwide. It was very popular book in the Soviet Union. And as you point out, in the book, "Dreamers and Deceivers," one of the people who came to their aid was none other than Josef Stalin. Which ought to tell us something right off the top.

GLENN: That's incredible.

HAGGIS: The murder of 100 million people.

GLENN: Incredible. Did you know the whole story about --

HAGGIS: I knew the Sacco and Vanzetti story. I was particularly interested in American history. And it was fun. I found this letter and of course I'm looking around to make sure that no one see what is I'm looking at because I then quickly slipped the letter back into the box.

GLENN: Right.

HAGGIS: And when the box came up for sale, I raised my paddle and I bought the box for a hundred dollars.

GLENN: A hundred dollars.

HAGGIS: Yeah.

GLENN: So this had been sitting there since 1920 in a vault.

HAGGIS: The letter is dated August 29th, 1929. I found the book in -- or the letter in I think 1997 at this auction. And the letter sat in my collection for a number of years until I was subsequently interviewed by someone in the "L.A. Times" on another subject and we were talking about historical documents and I mentioned this. And that author Jean Pasco of the "L.A. Times," says, gee, I want to do a story on that. So she went to the university of Indiana where the Upton Sinclair collection is kept, authenticated the letter and wrote a story that was front page of the California section of the "L.A. Times." On Christmas Day, maybe five years ago. And it sat there until you discovered this presumably -- that story.

GLENN: Yeah.

HAGGIS: And you know, and I think what's important about your book, not only in the context of the Upton Sinclair story, but you've done a marvelous job of correcting the truth with respect to circumstances in American history that are clearly misrepresented.

GLENN: It's not only -- I mean, you know, that's one of the big things that I want to do, is correct the truth. But not just to, for instance -- I think one of the guys who's been so -- so wronged in American history is Tesla. And that I would like to correct the truth because it's just right. But this story in particular is repeating itself right now. We're watching this play out again in the streets of Ferguson. We're watching it play out in the White House. We're watching it play out in the newsroom, we're watching it play out with the writers of today. We're watching it play out with the -- with the propaganda that's going into our schools. And they know it's lies. They know -- they know these things are lie. But the glorious revolution is more important.

HAGGIS: Well, and if you read the history of socialism in this country, and particularly from the '20s and the '30s, you'll see the goal of the socialists at that time are really the goals that are part of the Democratic Party agenda the Obama Administration agenda. It's curious that as you say, it doesn't seem to matter to people what the truth is and particularly to the socialists. What matters is furthering the revolution.

GLENN: Paul, thank you very much for everything.

HAGGIS: Appreciate it.

GLENN: Really appreciate it. What are you going to do with the letter? What's it worth now?

HAGGIS: Oh, I have no idea. I'm a collector of this, that, and the other and I have a couple of -- of firearms that came off the battlefield at the Little Big Horn and I have an original transcript from the trial of the Roman Catholic priest who opposed the king of England.

GLENN: Holy cow.

HAGGIS: When the -- when the --

GLENN: What's the most shocking thing you ever had your hands on?

Anything you ever held? Somebody just let me hold what's called the Marquette, the actual plaster cast. Of the Lincoln Memorial. He actually handed it to me it's about 12 inches tall. And he handed it to me. And I said, no, no. And he said go ahead. I'd recommend you sit down first. And I sat down and I held in it my lap. And my hand shook. It was remarkable. Have you ever --

HAGGIS: I think about the things that I lost and one of them was something that my wife just wouldn't permit me to bring home. It was a bronze canon that carried the inscription of a presentation from the Marquis de Lafayette to George Washington.

GLENN: Holy cow.

HAGGIS: That was at an auction also.

PAT: Did you file for divorce after that?

HAGGIS: Yeah, I'll tell you.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Why wouldn't she let you bring it home?

HAGGIS: It was about 10 feet long and it weighed probably around four tons.

PAT: Still.

HAGGIS: I just didn't think she would appreciate that in the living room.

PAT: Here's what you say --

[laughter]

HAGGIS: I would have put it there.

GLENN: I would have put it there, too. Thanks so much, Paul.

HAGGIS: Thank you. Pleasure being here.

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.