Dinesh D'Souza to lift the veil on the Democratic Party in new documentary film

On radio Monday, author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza joined Glenn to discuss a new film he's creating with Gerald Molen - producer of Schindler's List, Jurassic Park and other classics. The new film, called Stealing America, will open during the Democratic Convention in July, 2016.

D'Souza compared the narrative of the film with his previous documentary, 2016: Obama's America, which he released in 2012 as an attempt to blow the whistle on Obama and expose a side of the incumbent president people didn't know.

"We made some predictions about Obama. And here we are, and I think the Obama we described is the Obama he's turned out to be," D'Souza said. "We want to do the same thing with Hillary. But in the new film, I want to go beyond the candidate, and look at the secret history of progressivism and of the Democratic Party."

He went on.

"People think the Civil War was a war simply between the North and the South. And the South was the pro-slavery side. The North was the antislavery side," he said. "But the northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas were defenders of slavery."

Listen to the eye-opening dialogue below.

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

GLENN: Dinesh D'souza, you know he is -- is one of my favorite writers. He came out with an incredible documentary right before the election last time that really kind of showed Obama's America and what he was planning on doing. And Gerald Molen is a guy that you know his work. You may not know him. Schindler's List. Minority Report. Jurassic Park. Days of Thunder. Rain Man. As executive producer. They are now working on a new movie called Stealing America. Welcome, guys. How are you?

DINESH: Great to be here, Glenn.

GLENN: Dinesh, this is coming out during the Democratic convention, and it is?

DINESH: Yeah. You know, four years ago, we tried to blow the whistle on Obama and expose a side of him that people didn't know. And part of what I wanted to say about Obama is that he wasn't just a bungler. He wasn't just an amateur, someone who didn't know what was going on. He actually wanted to see a shrinking of American prosperity and power. And so he we made a call on Obama. We made some predictions about Obama. And here we are. And I think the Obama we described as the Obama has turned out to be.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: So we want to do the same thing with Hillary. But in the new film, I want to go beyond the candidate, and look at the secret history of progressivism and of the Democratic Party.

GLENN: Love this.

DINESH: Because there's a whole narrative here, the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy. It's the party of progress. It's the party of abolitionism and equal rights and equal opportunity and women.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

DINESH: So the truth is completely different. And this truth is buried. It's not just buried in the media, it's buried in academia so that there's a kind of false narrative out there. And that's all young people are exposed to. So we think part of the decision next year is a decision about -- not just about America, but what really does progressivism and the Democratic Party stand for?

GLENN: And it's unbelievable, because we're working on a new book that will come out right before the election called The Progressives. And it is the same thing, that people don't understand what they're dealing with. They have no idea. What is the -- what is the thing that you have put together so far that you say, "People are going to be shocked when they find out?"

DINESH: We're going to -- we're going to tell a new story about the party system in America. We'll tell you a new story about the Civil War. People think the Civil War was a war simply between the North and the South. And the South was the pro-slavery side. The North was the antislavery side. But the northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas were defenders of slavery.

So in other words, right away, you see that this was not so much a North/South divide, it was a divide between the Republican and the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party, both in the north and in the south, staunchly defending and digging in in to protect slavery.

Now, of course, part of the narrative we'll deal with in the film is just the idea that, "Oh, yes, that's how things used to be. But we Democrats got really enlightened, and we got really smart. And now we're the good guys. And all the Dixiecrats and all the old slavery and segregation guys became Republicans." That is part of the official narrative. So this is part of the intellectual content of this movie. So we'll have a movie about a candidate. And we'll lift a lot of veils to show the candidate behind the mask. But we'll also lift the veils on the party itself.

GLENN: Do you guys think that Hillary will be the candidate? Gerald?

GERALD: I think it's questionable right now.

GLENN: I mean, put a movie in production that has Hillary Clinton as the candidate. I'm not sure. She is -- I mean, I hope she is. She's so wildly unlikable, by even her own party.

GERALD: It doesn't necessarily have to be all about her. The point that Dinesh has made about the -- you know, getting the truth about what the Democratic Party is all about. What they've been about. And about how anything that has become good in America, they have basically stolen. Abraham Lincoln was not a Democrat, even though they want to say so.

GLENN: How do you go from Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, Minority Report, all of these things, and then go to documentaries. Why are you doing that, Gerald?

GERALD: Look, I'm not a kid anymore. I've got grandkids and great-grandkids. And I really, really wanted them to have a little piece of America like I had, maybe the same opportunities that I had. And this guy right here has afforded me the opportunity to step back, and I don't worry about the big films anymore. I think the documentaries have a chance on being bigger because they speak -- if nothing but truth, to life. And I'm just concerned about those kids, and that's why I'm here.

GLENN: When you look at Schindler's List, it's happening all over again now with the Christians in the Middle East. And you would think that that's one of your more important films. But Minority Report, I would make a case, I mean, with exception of the pro cogs that are in the milk bath, that was so far ahead of its time. We're now seeing a lot of the stuff that was in Minority Report. Did you -- when you guys were putting that together, did you think, "Oh, this is total science fiction?" Or did you think, "Parts of this are real that are coming?"

GERALD: I looked it as strictly just --

GLENN: Just a movie?

GERALD: Just a movie, yeah. Just, it was fun and well put together by, you know, the genius himself. I enjoyed working on that film just for that reason.

GLENN: You did a lot of work with Spielberg. How did you get connected?

GERALD: I love him. I worked on a project in 1985 called The Color Purple as a production manager, and our relationship grew from that point on.

GLENN: Amazing. And now you're connected. How did you guys --

GERALD: I keep looking for geniuses.

(laughter)

DINESH: Well, someone told me that if I was going to go from being a writer and a think tank guy and a speaker to making films, that I should find someone who could really help me do that in the right way.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: So they said, "Have you heard of this guy, Jerry Molen?" And I had -- I mean, I knew once I saw his resume. So I went and found Jerry, and I left him a copy of my book. And we talked. And we realized that although we come from opposite ends of the earth, our stories are actually unbelievably similar. By that, I mean, both of us are sort of outside guys who went into something. And we have experienced the American dream in our own life. And ultimately, our politics is based on that.

GLENN: When we're looking at the things that are coming, Dinesh, you and I have talked about the state of our country for quite some time. And I'm to the point to where I'm -- I think we've missed all the exits. We're going to pay a very heavy price. I don't know what that entails, but we're going to pay a very heavy price. And not just us, the entire western world.

DINESH: And the entire world. Because America brought something new into the world. And it's made the world a lot better. It's almost impossible to envision the 20th century without America, what would have happened to World War II. What would have happened to the Cold War? And I think Americans don't realize that for the last 65 years, they've been living in a privileged position, in which American prosperity, American power, the American passport is better than anybody else's passport. So once that goes away, history shows that it never comes back.

I mean, think of the ancient Athenians. Or think even about -- the sun did set on the British empire, and British empire is just never coming back. So America has its moment now, but if we squander it -- and I think what drives me nuts is I think that at the highest level, it's being squandered deliberately. And by deliberately, I mean by an ideological vision that wants America to be subtracted, to be shrunk, to be reduced. And if anyone had said, you know, even seven years ago that the United States would be, in a sense, in an oppositional position against Israel and aligned with Iran, I think even Democrats would have thought that was crazy. That would never happen.

GLENN: And we don't seem to care now. I mean, if I would have said to you ten years ago -- in fact, during the Obamacare debate, one of the deals was, "You're going to be paying for abortions." No, that's outrage that you could even say something like that. No, no, no. Look, now, even the Republicans won't do anything to stop us paying for Planned Parenthood and abortions. I mean, it's insane, where we have end up. And people just seem to be kind of okay with it.

DINESH: Or even the idea that this whole stand -- Shout Your Abortion. The idea of abortion as a positive good. It almost reminds me of the time when, during the American founding, slavery was seen, even by people who had slaves, as a regrettable necessity. Thomas Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the tail. We can't hold it, and we can't let it go." So this ambivalence was there, even on the part of the South and the southern planters. But starting about the 1820s, you had the positive good school of slavery, the idea that slavery was good, not just for the slave owner, but good for the slave.

This was like taking things way beyond -- and no one thought that in the 18th century. Similarly now with abortion, we've gone from sort of safe, legal, and rare, to this sort of idea that this should be promulgated.

GLENN: That this is actually good.

DINESH: A sacrament in modern liberalism.

GLENN: Yeah. You mentioned the youth. I'm torn. There is -- there's two sides. There are those who are completely clueless that have bought into it 100 percent. See America as the bad guy. See capitalism as, you know, a horrible, horrendous thing. And then you see another side, the side generally speaking, I think it's the Christian youth, that are awake and saying, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute." And are active. Which way do they fall? And how does this film actually hit them?

DINESH: I think that there's an idealism in young people that's very good. And there's a brand of conservatism that some people have been selling for 30 years, which does not resonate with young people. And that's the idea that, "Hey, you're young and idealistic, and we know that you're a liberal. But wait till you become older and jaded like we are and start having to pay taxes, and then we hope you'll swing over to our side." But that's never going to tap into the idealism of young people. We need a competing idealism.

GLENN: That's right. Are you a little shocked that in the -- we just said it earlier today. That there's not this -- that many of the people who are running today -- I said to -- which candidate was it recently? I said, "Stop with the IRS. What I'm looking for is someone who comes up and says there's a whole new way to do this." Because that's what we're doing with everything else in society. Everything else is, there's a whole new way of doing this. Why are we doing something that was started in the early teens of the last century and saying, "That's a good system." It's not. I'm looking for game-changers. I'm looking for people who say, "I have a completely new way of looking at this, through the framework of the Constitution. But a totally different system." Are you surprised that we're not getting that kind of thinking from very many -- I mean, Bernie Sanders is still looking back at the old system. But Bernie Sanders, that's what is attractive about him to so many people, is he's saying, "This doesn't work. We're going to try something entirely new."

DINESH: Yeah, both sides are actually now in a moment of reaction, in my opinion. We are -- our team is back to the '80s, and their team is back to the '60s.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: Now, when I came to America, this was in the very late '70s, there was a kind of electricity around modern conservatism. It actually didn't come from Reagan. It preceded Reagan. A lot of the ideas that we consider Reaganism were out there. Jack Kemp was talking about supply-side economics. General Daniel Graham was talking about missile defenses. And so there was a whole new way of looking at the world, but we haven't advanced beyond that. And so I think we're back in that moment now when we do need not only new ideas, but new ways of getting those ideas out.

GLENN: Do you see them on the horizon? Do you see -- who are the leaders of tomorrow? Have you seen anybody that -- that you're excited about?

DINESH: Well, let me put it this way. I think that when I look back at Reagan. Reagan came along, and all the ideas were out there. And Reagan said, "I like this. I like that. I like this." And that became Reaganism. So, in other words, it's a mistake for us to look to these candidates and say, "You're going to save us. We're waiting for you to come up with these ideas and then we're going to -- no, the candidates are actually looking to us to generate the ideas.

GLENN: But do you see someone that is capable of selling those ideas? Like my guy is Ted Cruz. But I -- I worry about his ability to sell it to the American people. Do you see a good -- do you see a good person out there? You're going to vote today. Who are you voting for?

GERALD: Today?

GLENN: Yeah.

GERALD: Rubio?

GLENN: Why?

GERALD: Because I like his message. And the more I listen to him, the more I like it. He seems to be able to get across and make his point, I think understood by the people that he's speaking to.

DINESH: It's surprising. And I feel this a little myself. As I talk to people, "Who are you for?" And they're hesitant to say. They're hesitant to say in part because they feel that our field is wide, it's deep, it's diverse, it says a lot of good stuff out there. It's not like previous times, where we want to pull our hair out.

There's an impressive group of guys out there, and gal. But not -- one hasn't come forward, I think where people feel like, "That's our man. That's the guy who is going to take it all the way." And so we're in that shaking out moment. And Trump, of course, is in the middle of it breaking all the toys and kicking everything upside down. I don't think a bad thing, by the way. Because I think the Republican Party has been so sleepy, so out of it, so disengaged, that it takes a little bit of a bull in a China shop to wake those people --

GLENN: I really don't have a problem with him being a bull in a China shop. I'm surprised how many conservatives look at him and say, "Yeah, I'll take him." I mean, I understand he's making things interesting. He's breaking things up. I understand the role he's playing right now. But to look at him and say -- after all we've gone through, with saying, "Constitution, Constitution, Constitution." And then to have a guy who is like really not a Constitution guy.

DINESH: I think it's because people distrust the Republican team from -- look, we had a Republican House and Congress. So the question becomes, "What do those guys do all day?" I feel like Obama wakes up every morning and goes, "How do I put the knife a little more deeply into the other side?" That's his daily agenda. And our side appears to wake up thinking, "How do we prevent the knife from going a little more deeply into our back today?"

GLENN: Right.

DINESH: That's all we do. So people are annoyed, they're frustrated, and they feel maybe Trump will do something different.

GLENN: Dinesh D'souza and Gerald Molen, the name of the next project that is coming out during the Democratic Convention is Stealing America.

Stealing America by Dinesh D'souza. Thanks guys for being a part of 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.