Senator Marco Rubio joins Glenn to discuss 2016 presidential race

Glenn introduced Senator Marco Rubio on radio this morning to discuss several key issues concerning his presidential race. While making it clear he has some real disagreements with Rubio, he told his listeners Rubio is "somebody that you should seriously consider and seriously look at."

With the next GOP debate slated to focus on the economy, much of their conversation revolved around economic subjects, such as free enterprise, tax reform and the "sharing economy." Other topics included gun control, abortion, fellow candidates and Rubio's prediction about Russia's involvement in the Middle East.

Listen to the dialogue below.

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

GLENN: I want to introduce you to somebody I think you should get to know. And that is Senator Marco Rubio. He is a guy who I actually have real disagreements on a couple of things. And we'll get into that maybe a little bit here today. But I'd like to sit down with him and have a real conversation. Marco and I met, I don't even remember where it was or where it was. Sometime in the summer. Someplace. Marco, do you remember where that was?

MARCO: Las Vegas, I think.

GLENN: And so we met --

MARCO: Yep. Freedom Fest.

GLENN: Yeah, Freedom Fest, that's right. We spent about an hour together. And I didn't know what to think of Marco Rubio when I walked in. I really liked him and respected him and respected his intellect and his honesty when I left. And he's somebody that you should seriously consider and seriously look at. You may end up disagreeing. But he's somebody that you should take a serious look at.

Marco, welcome to the program. How are you, senator?

MARCO: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. So you were talking about the sharing economy, which I think some people, especially, you know, as you get a little older, sharing -- communist! The sharing economy is something that is actually real and is the difference between my age and the millennials. You want to explain this a bit?

MARCO: Yeah, so I'll give you a perfect example, right? There's a new system out there, a company called Handy. And what Handy does is, let's say that your air conditioning unit breaks down at 11 o'clock at night and you need somebody to come in and fix it because it's just too hot. Handy has somewhere halfway across town there's an air-conditioning repair person who is available to work at 11 o'clock at night. It is an app that you go on your phone and connects you to a needy customer, somebody who needs help. It connects you with a person who is ready to do that service for you. So it's basically a platform where you're sharing, you know, a handyman, or in this case, an air-conditioning repairman to come work for you. You pay them on the app, so it's cashless. And then you rate their work so that future customers can look at it and see who is good and who is not. It's basically free enterprise --

GLENN: Extreme.

MARCO: -- broadened in the 20th century. And why it really works is now suddenly, as an air-conditioning repair person, you can go into business for yourself. You don't need to do advertising. You don't need to have a huge physical plant. You can be in business for yourself because this connects you to customers at a very low cost.

GLENN: And nobody is taking a cut of that. This is the thing that I don't think people understand. I just gave a speech here in Dallas with Allen West. And the question came up from the audience about the economy. And I said, "Most people don't understand. We're on the verge of not the Industrial Revolution, but the Renaissance." People are going to be freed up to do things and to be their own person in ways I don't think the average person can really understand. Is this where you get your hope for the economy and us not being swept away in the dustbin of history?

MARCO: I do. And what gives me concern is that, you know, outdated leaders and particularly believers of big government are the ones that will stand in the way of it. Because their argument is going to be, "Well, that air-conditioning repairman has to be treated as an employee of the company that connected you guys." That means you have to offer them benefits, and you have to pay them a certain wage. And you have to do this, that, or the other. And the thing that really happens, actually, is an established industry. Some big company that does air-conditioning repair. This is a bad example, but I'm just using it. It exists in other realms.

An established industry will hire a bunch of lobbyists to go to City Hall, the State Capitol, or Washington and say, "We need to pass a law to keep people from providing competition to us."

GLENN: Yes.

MARCO: And they'll have politicians that go along with them because they hired the right lobbyists and they raised a lot of money.

GLENN: When you and I were in Vegas, that weekend or whenever that was, I remember walking down the street with my wife, and they were -- they were reaching across her to hand me hooker cards where I could call for a hooker in case, you know, I got tired of my wife. And my wife just snapped. And she's like, "We're getting off this strip. Just, stop it. I can't take this anymore." And I said, "Hang on. I got to call for Uber." And somebody said to me, next to me, "You can't get Uber here." Las Vegas is not cool with Uber, but they are cool with hookers.

MARCO: Yeah. And, again, that's because the established taxicab industry has gone to the commission or the local government and said, "Don't allow these people to operate here." And that happens in industry after industry. It's why -- people don't understand. To be for free enterprise does not mean to be for big business. Big business and established industries are actually often an impediment to free enterprise because they want to keep their hold and they don't want to allow any competitor to enter the space.

GLENN: So you are the -- the next debate is really about the economy. What is your focus on the economy? What sets you apart?

MARCO: Well, again, I think most of us are talking about some of the same issues. I think the argument that I've used that others haven't is, there's no reason why America can't be better in the 21st century economically than it was in the 20th. We should be leading in all these things. But we have to be competitive in order to make that happen. That's why we need tax reform. That's why we need regulatory reform. That's why we need to balance our budget. And repeal and replace Obamacare and fully utilize our energy resources. If we can do those things, the private sector, the American innovator, the small business person out there starting their business, they'll take care of the rest. They'll create the great companies, the great ideas, and the great-paying jobs. We just need a government that gives them a chance to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy.

GLENN: So you're a Catholic. The pope was just in the country. Do you think he missed the opportunity to shut down Planned Parenthood when he spoke in front of Congress by really not standing on that issue?

MARCO: Look, obviously if I had written the speech, it would have focused more on protecting life and a little bit less on some of the other issues. But, ultimately, he did mention the value of life at every stage, and I thought that was important. Maybe he chose not to get involved into our internal political debates in this country. And in fairness, he didn't do that the other way either. He talked about, you know, supporting and protecting the environment. He didn't say, "And, therefore, pass Cap and Trade." Or "Thank you, President Obama, for signing all these executive orders on coal and so forth." So I understand. He's a spiritual leader. He didn't want to get into the details of a political debate. But he did mention life.

But, yes, I mean, that's got to be -- for me, the issue of life is not a political issue. It is a human rights issue, and it's one that I think deserves the priority.

GLENN: So Hillary Clinton said just the other day, "How many more innocent -- how many more of our innocent children have to be slaughtered before we say enough is enough?" And she was talking, of course, about the slaughter of the children in Oregon, not in Planned Parenthood.

MARCO: Yeah. And, again, terrible tragedy of what happened in Oregon. But you're right. Every single year, unborn children in this country are killed legally through laws that allow that to happen. And, look, I recognize this is a tough issue. And I actually do believe that a woman has a right to choose with her body. The problem is that when there's a pregnancy, there's another life involved, and that life has a right to live. And so as policymakers, we have to choose between two competing rights. And I've chosen, as a matter of principle, to err and to choose the side of life in that debate. And she, on the other hand, she supports abortion on demand at any stage. For example, she voted against the ban on partial birth abortion, a particularly gruesome way of aborting a child. She voted against the ban. One of the few people did and actually justified it. Said it was a fundamental right. She has extreme positions on the issue of life. And I hope we'll have an opportunity to talk about those in this campaign.

GLENN: Let me talk about Oregon a bit because they are, again, doing everything they can to -- the president at least is getting close to being honest. He said last week that it's time to look at countries that have done something like Australia and England. And what Australia and England did was confiscation of all guns.

How do we stop this insanity? We're headed for a really bad place if this is really what the left is pushing for.

MARCO: Yeah. By pointing out that the things they're advocating would have done nothing to prevent these things. For example, they advocate for an assault weapons ban. Well, the last two instances that have been high-profile didn't use assault weapons. They talk about background checks. The last two instances we saw are people that would have passed background checks or did pass background checks. So the point -- the problem with gun laws is they're not very effective. Because criminals are the ones that commit crimes with guns. And criminals don't care what the law is. They don't follow the law because they are criminals. By definition, they ignore the law. So if you pass strict gun laws, law-abiding people adheres to those laws. And then they will be unable to protect their families.

GLENN: The father of the killer said, "Well, how could he have -- how could he have had these guns, you know, if they just weren't on the streets, if those guns were just not available, my son wouldn't have killed all those people."

MARCO: Yeah, look, again, I know the arguments that people are making. And the bottom line is, if someone intends to acquire a weapon, they're going to acquire a weapon. Whether it's legally or illegally, they're going to do it. And the only people that will be impacted by these gun laws are people that follow the law. And so what you'll have is a country where law-abiding people are unprotected, are unable to protect themselves, the property of their family. And people who are intent on committing a criminal act, accessing explosives, a gun, or whatever else they want to use to kill people.

GLENN: Marco, I want to ask you, I saw a clip at the Value Voters Summit of Donald Trump where he called you a clown. And he was -- he was booed for that. What do you think -- what do you think it says about America that we're -- that we're embracing this kind of nonsense?

MARCO: You know, I think there's a tremendous amount of frustration, rightfully so with the political class. It's a disconnect between Washington and the struggles of daily life that people are facing. And I think he's hit upon that to some extent. And we can't ignore it.

But, ultimately, this campaign has to be about the big issues confronting our country. Look, we're now at a point where we are either -- over the next four years, we'll have to decide, we're either going to leave our children as the most prosperous and freest Americans ever, or we'll be the first generation of Americans that leave our children worse off than ourselves. That's the only two ways forward. And if we don't make the right choice in this election, if we have another four years like the last eight, we are going to be the first Americans in our history to leave our children worse off than ourselves. This has to be a serious election about serious issues and real solutions. And I think increasingly, the campaign is becoming about that. I really do. And I'm glad that it is. Because our nation and our people deserve that. At least from my campaign's perspective, that's what we'll be about.

GLENN: We'd like to sit down with you and talk about some things we disagree with, the immigration and also disagree with the NSA. And you and I both had I think a very logical and heartfelt talk about those issues privately. And I'd like to have those publicly at some point down the road.

MARCO: Sure. Absolutely.

GLENN: But I would -- I guess I would just end with this.

You brought up -- you know, you're talking about Donald Trump. You said, "You know, people are very frustrated." And they are.

MARCO: They are.

GLENN: They're attracted to Donald Trump and they're attracted to Ben Carson because they're completely out of the system. And I say this, you know, with -- you know, I support Rand Paul, I support you, I support Ted Cruz. But you guys are all in the system. And I think that's playing against you. Why should anyone trust any of you guys who are already in the system?

MARCO: Well, first of all, the names you've just mentioned, we've been there about four years. In the case of Ted, a couple years less than that.

I ran for office against incredible odds five years ago against the sitting governor of Florida with the entire political establishment supporting him. And the reason why I ran is to change this stuff. And I realized -- one of my great frustrations about the US Senate is the lack of urgency about any of these issues. No one talks about the debt anymore, for example.

We still have a debt that's almost $19 trillion. And no one -- this wasn't even a topic at the three-hour CNN debate. And there's no sense of urgency about these things. And I just concluded -- you know, we really want to change the direction of the country, we don't just need a House and Senate, we need a president, and that's why I chose to run for president.

So the truth is that one of the reasons I'm running is because I share that frustration. It's the reason why I ran for the Senate four and a half years ago. And I've had a front row seat unfortunately to see some of this lack of action on some of these issues. And it's that frustration that leads me to seek the highest office in the land now because I know it's going to take a president to undo the damage done by this president.

GLENN: I will say, you should just take a quick victory lap here before I let you know on the prediction you made on the last debate where you said exactly what Putin would do. This president and our State Department has no idea what they're dealing with. And you called it. And it was an astounding prediction.

MARCO: And I think you'll continue to see more of those things. You know, his goal is to continue to drive us out of the Middle East and reposition himself as a geopolitical force, on par with the United States. And so you're already seeing more and more of that. And I think unfortunately we were right about that. And we'll be right about it in the future. Because this president is weak and he's seen that way by our adversaries.

GLENN: Yeah. Marco Rubio. MarcoRubio.com, if you want to support. MarcoRubio.com. Marco, we'll see you again. And thank you so much for being on the program.

MARCO: Yes. Thanks, Glenn. Thanks.

GLENN: Running for president, Senator Marco Rubio. MarcoRubio.com.

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.