Scott Walker unveils plans to replace Obamacare

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker joined Glenn on radio today to discuss his own health care plan for the country to replace Obamacare. Speaking on behalf of many conservatives and small government constitutionalists, Glenn asked the presidential candidate why even introduce another replacement government plan - shouldn't the free market replace it?

"It follows that principle," Walker said. "It's really about putting patients and families back in charge. It allows them to use the market, to access the market out there in a way that lifts many of the restrictions that Obamacare and, for that matter, other laws of government have put on the free market in the past.

Listen to the full exchange or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors.

GLENN: Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin and presidential candidate, hello, Scott, how are you, sir?

SCOTT: Hey, Glenn. I'm doing well. Thanks for having me on. How are you?

GLENN: Very good. Very good.

You have called Trump's campaign a sideshow. I happen to believe this. And I think the guy is just not healthy for our -- for our country. How long does this sideshow last?

SCOTT: Well, I think the obligation is on those of us running is that we have to lay out specific ideas, specific reforms. You know, one of the things you can't ignore is that he's tapped into something very real. And not just him, but look at some of the other nonelected candidates who are rising in the polls, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump. I think there's a correlation there that people are frustrated. Heck, I'm angry. I'm angry at the so-called leaders in Washington, particularly in the Republican Party who claimed they were going to repeal Obamacare if they got the Senate majority. Who claimed they would do something about immigration. We have yet to see that. There's a very real sentiment of frustration. The positive side of that is that people are is coming out, they're getting engaged. They're not just ignoring the problem. They're looking for someone who can do something about it. And I think in the end, the way someone like me, for example, ends up getting back up in the polls in states like Iowa and elsewhere is to lay out very real plans like we'll do tomorrow about how do we actually do more than say we're going to repeal Obamacare. How do we actually make it happen immediately in the next Congress? And then how do we put patients and families in charge of their health care?

GLENN: Okay. So you have a replacement for Obamacare. And for me, at least and I think many conservatives and small government constitutionalists, they say, why replace it? It should be replaced with the free market. What is your replacement plan? And why do we need government replacement?

SCOTT: Yeah. Without giving out all the details in advance of the announcement tomorrow, but it follows that principle. It's really about putting patients and families back in charge. It allows them to use the market, to access the market out there in a way that lifts many of the restrictions that Obamacare and, for that matter, other laws of government have put on the free market in the past. Part of the problem today is not just Obamacare. But if we went back to the way things were before Obamacare, there were still plenty of regulations and stipulations. There were still problems, for example, even with things like Medicaid that was sent to the state with all these strings attached. Those are the sorts of things we're going to talk about. Is not just going back to the way things were before Obamacare, but going in further to lift all the taxes, to lift the burdens, to put in place a system where patients can use the market to make good decisions for themselves and their families.

GLENN: I will tell you that I think what Donald Trump has tapped into and what Bernie Sanders has tapped into is this desire for Americans -- or by Americans to get out of the mushy middle and to actually -- if you're going to be -- I think what Bernie Sanders and the Democrats are saying is, you know what we're going to be over here, let's just be socialist. And I think on the other side, it is, let's just be common sense. Let's just not this special interest bullcrap out.

SCOTT: I would agree with you. And, again, this is where today I'll number Iowa. But I'll continue to make this case across the country. A lot of great candidates. A number of whom are tapping into that. I feel that sentiment as well. It's why I ran for governor in 2010 because I saw my state, much like I see my nation today, going down the wrong path. And I think if people are looking, not just for someone who shares that frustration, who shares that anger towards Washington, but who wants someone who can actually do something about it, I would say look at what we did in Wisconsin. We fought. We won. We got results. And we did it without compromising our common sense, conservative principles. Think about an issue out there. We didn't just take the unions on. We're not just right to work. We got rid of seniority and tenure. We have expanded school choice statewide. We cut taxes. In fact, by the end of this budget I'm in right now, taxes have been cut $4.7 billion in my state. We defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before these videos. We did castle doctrine and concealed carry. We now require a photo ID to vote in the state of Wisconsin. This is a blue state. A state that hadn't gone Republican for president since 1984. If we can do all those kinds of common sense conservative reforms in a blue state like Wisconsin, I think people can know that when I say we'll do common sense conservative reforms for America, they can take that to the bank. We've done it even with 100,000 protesters breathing down our neck. We did it for Wisconsin. We can do it for America.

GLENN: Tell me because I'm not quite sure where you stand on immigration. You handled a guy who came out and said, why do you want to deport me and my family. You handled that really, really well while on the campaign stump.

But, you know, if you look at what Trump has released this weekend, it's very, very clear. I don't necessarily believe he'll do it. But it's very, very clear. What is yours? Where do you stand?

SCOTT: That's a great point. And you're right. He has tapped into this issue, as well as a bunch of others. He's tapped into a very real passion, a very real concern of folks out there. I mentioned -- in fact, it was one of the times I was on your show, and you weren't on. But guest hosts were filling in months and months ago. I walked through exactly where I'm at and how I got there.

For me, when I talk about securing the border, now having been to the border with Governor Abbott and talking about it with others out there, I see it as much greater than just immigration. We need to have a wall. We need to have the infrastructure.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Let me stop you here. We have heard -- who was it, Pat, from San Diego. Duncan Hunter went on when I was at CNN. He went on and on and on. And I love Duncan Hunter. But he went on and on and on about how he put -- the wall shall be built into the law. And if you know anything about the law, Glenn, if it says shall, they have to build this wall. We've been hearing about this wall forever. President Obama says it's 95 percent complete. How -- how are you finally going to get people in Washington to actually build the wall?

SCOTT: Well, I've been to the border and I can say it's far from 95 percent. That's for sure. I mean, I've seen the opening. The passings. I've seen the problems that are created out there. To me, in a way that's similar to how we'll repeal Obamacare and other things in the sense that when I came to Wisconsin, a blue state, everything was Democrat, went Republican. We didn't just take on the unions. We didn't just take on the Democrats. We took on particularly one of our legislative houses. The Republican establishment that didn't want to do anything. I remember a week after the election, I came in and talked to all the Republicans and said, it's put-up-or-shut-up time. They went from all Democrat to all Republican. I made the point that if we just did a little bit less bad things than the Democrats did, the voters have every right to throw us out. And so we said it was put-up-or-shut-up time. Then we went through with one of the most, if not the most aggressive common sense, conservative agendas in the country. And we did it -- we didn't just do where I got elected three times. We've actually added seats to the legislative majorities in 12 and 14. Why? Because for Republicans, but even for independents, what they want more than anything is not someone to move to the center, they want someone to govern, to lead, do what they said they were going to do. And in this case, I think it's a matter of pushing back the House and the Senate and say, we have to do this.

Israel, I was in Israel earlier this year. They just completed a 500-mile fence. By doing that and staffing it and having the technology to make sure it works effectively, they've seen something like over a 90 percent reduction in terrorist acts in that country that they attribute to having an effective fence. 500 miles. That's about a quarter the size of our southern border. But, heck, Israel is a much, much smaller country. If Israel can do it effectively, there's no reason why America can't. And it's not just because of immigration. It's much bigger than that. We have international criminal organizations penetrating our southern-based borders. If it was happening in our water ports --

GLENN: We have ISIS here.

SCOTT: -- we'd be sending in the Navy. We should do something on our borders.

GLENN: I wrote a piece online this weekend about Mike Lee. There was a -- there was an article in the New York Times about Mike Lee. And it -- it talked about how Mitch McConnell is telling Mike Lee, who is one of the most reasonable, sound thinkers in the Senate.

SCOTT: Yep.

GLENN: How he's got to decide, you know, between these Tea Party freaks and -- and his party. And Mitch McConnell is part of the problem. Will you go so far as saying that there are people in the G.O.P. that are part of the establishment like Mitch McConnell that are part of the problem?

SCOTT: Yes. I hear it all the time. And I share that sentiment. This was -- we were told if Republicans got the majority in the United States Senate, there would be a bill on the president's desk to repeal Obamacare. It is August. Where is that bill? Where was that vote? We were told they would do something about illegal immigration. If it hadn't been for me and 24 other governors out there, the president would be able to do what he claimed he couldn't do 22 times before last November and then went off and did it a couple weeks after the election. It's because I and Governor Abbott and 23 other governors went to court and stopped him. At least got a stay from doing that. It's not because the Congress, a Republican-led Congress, did anything to stop him from doing that. This is where the frustration is. This is why nonelected candidates are surging in the polls. It's because people are sending a very clear message to say, you may dismiss this candidate or that candidate, but people are saying loud and clear, do not dismiss my concerns. Do not dismiss the fact that you told us that Republicans stood for something, and it's not happening in Washington. Now more than ever, I think people are yearning. They're crying out. The good part of this is, while they're angry, they're not walking away. What I hear people tell me is do something about it. Do something about it, not just for me. Do something about it for my children and my grandchildren. I think people are still optimistic that there's enough time left to turn this country around. And that's what I want to be a part of.

GLENN: Well, let me ask you this. Because you say it's getting close. How close do you think it is? We're at the third longest bull market on record. The only other two that have been longer than this was 1929, right before the crash, and then right before the crash of the dot-com bubble. We have China in a massive slowdown. A commodity collapse. We have a credit crisis beyond anything probably -- probably 100 times worse than it was in 2008. And all of the signs are pointing towards this is a fantasy economy that we're living in. Do you agree with that? And how much does the fed play a role in this?

SCOTT: Oh, I think there are incredible, incredible concerns. Not just now, but on the horizon. As interest rates change, those debt and deficit problems only get worse out there. There's a lot of things that if things stay the way they are today. And arguably if Hillary Clinton is in, she makes it worse. As much as that's hard to imagine with this president. I think a Hillary Clinton presidency makes it worse. But having a Republican in the White House who is not committed to fundamental reform. Who is not committed to fundamentally change things. I think ultimately that creates a real problem as well because we've got to take dramatic action. We need somebody who will take forceful, immediate actions. I believe we can do it.

Again, parallel to what I did in my own state. We acted not just in the first 100 days. We acted on day one to join the federal lawsuit against Obamacare. We called a special session to get government out of the way to help lift our economy up on day one. We took actions within the first month, month and a half, to take on the big government unions and the other special interests in our state. And we got things done.

Now, it's much bigger, obviously at the federal level, but I have every confidence that if we have a leader in the White House, who is not just a Republican, but a reformer. A common sense conservative reformer, who demands that kind of reform, I mean, to me, that's things you have to do on day one. And you have to start pushing that Congress to be prepared to act on day one as well.

GLENN: Scott Walker, governor and presidential candidate, I have about a minute left here. I just want to ask you one last question. This is from my email over the weekend. It comes from -- it's in Arabic and translated. But it says: The day will come when we capture you cross-worshiping impure redneck polytheists of the United Snakes. Not only will we kill you, but we will take your women as slaves and all of your properties and blood will be lawful. Have patience because the hour will not be established until we have removed your falsehood pagan religion from the world and killed many of you. He quotes from the Koran. This is someone who is living here in the United States. Is this -- will the Walker administration go in and actually go into these mosques and call a spade a spade here in the United States, or will we co-exist and say that all of Islam as it is practiced is peaceful?

SCOTT: No, it's been clear. There's a war going on against Christians, against Jews, against people not only here, but around the world. And it's led by radical Islamic terrorists. And there are far too many people, not only in the Middle East, but around the world, including many places here, and we have to take this seriously. Anyone who doesn't think this is a serious issue is ignoring places like Chattanooga and plenty other places around the country that we've seen as of late. We have to treat this seriously. We have to have leadership in Washington who is going to make sure, increasingly, we take the fight to them overseas before they bring the fight to us. But we have to deal with the challenges we have here in America as well.

GLENN: Governor Scott Walker in Iowa today. Best of luck to you, Governor. Thank you for being on the program.

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.