Nebraska Senator Questions Donald Trump on Core Principles

Newly elected Senator Ben Sasse joined Glenn's radio program to discuss how the presidential election is shaping up from a Washington, DC perspective Tuesday morning.

Glenn asked about a Twitter campaign the Nebraska senator carried out over the weekend, in which he questioned how Donald Trump would govern, should he become president of the United States.

"I have lots of concerns," Sasse answered. "It's not at all clear what the core guiding principles are of Mr. Trump."

He continued.

"Trump is entertaining. He's a lot of fun. He calls it like it is about a bunch of things that are broken. Now, who is he really? And what would he do if were president?" Sasse said.

Below are some of the questions Sasse posted on Twitter.

Listen to the full interview or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: We have very few friends in Washington, as you might imagine. We don't like a lot of people, especially in the capitol or in the administration. But there is one senator that is a new senator that we really, really trust. And he had an interesting weekend on Twitter. And we're going to start there with some questions that he posed. He joins us from Washington, DC. Ben Sasse, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Welcome to the program. From Nebraska, Senator Ben Sasse. How are you, sir?

BEN: Doing well, Glenn. Good morning. Thanks for invite.

GLENN: How are things feeling in Washington, DC, with the way the presidential election is shaping up? It looks like Hillary Clinton is in trouble. And we may be looking at a Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side and possibly either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. How are people feeling in Washington? What are you hearing in the halls?

BEN: You know, I don't pay a ton of attention to my colleagues' chatter on that stuff. Just to be honest, it's amazing how much there's certainty in Washington, until there's not certainty. And there's another certainty two weeks later. I don't think Washington knows very much about all of life. But what's the old line? Often wrong, but never in doubt. So prognostications, predictions by politicians --

GLENN: But what I'm asking is, you know, the establishment has come out for Donald Trump now, and they're talking about deal-makings. And he's on the road talking about deal-makings with the establishment.

Are they concerned about a Trump or a Cruz presidency? Are they concerned about a -- a Clinton or a Bernie Sanders? I mean, I would imagine if you're the Democrats, you might be a little freaked of the idea of Bernie Sanders.

BEN: Yeah. I mean, Bernie is such a likable guy. But, you know, sometimes it feels like -- the ideas sound like we might have just gotten our finger stuck in a light socket for a moment, so I don't know how seriously many people are often taking that possibility. But I agree with you that Mrs. Clinton's legal predictions look very, very complicated.

But, you know, the whole deal-making aspect of it, you know that I'm new here. I've been here 13 months. I've never run for anything before in my life until I was elected to the Senate. And I still live in Nebraska, and I commute most weeks. I bring a kid back. We have three little kids, and I bring a kid back and forth with me every week. So my community or my neighbors are people at church and at the grocery store back home. And one of the great things to say amid all that is wrong in Washington, is most of America doesn't take this place very seriously. They're not addicted to politics. When I'm back home, very rarely do you find anybody in line at the grocery store saying, "If only there were only more insider deal-making in Washington, that would fix all of our problems."

(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. So why for the love of Pete, it's very dangerous and hazardous to your career and health to take on Donald Trump? This weekend, you went on -- you're not endorsing anybody. But you went on and you started doing a Twitter storm here on -- you said you've struck a cord with the American people, Mr. Trump, if I may quote. I think you've rightly diagnosed much of what's wrong in DC. You're very talented and on a roll. If I were betting, you're likely to be the next president of the United States, and congratulations.

But in our house, we've talked about your phenomenal campaign a lot. Good to see how people are talking directly about DC's big mess. But at the same time, we have questions of how you would govern. We'd like to ask some questions, if you're willing to take them.

BEN: Yeah, this is actually what we talk about in my house, with my family. But also with my dad and my brother and my sister-in-law and my grandpa. And there's a debate about, what does Trump actually believe in a whole bunch of issues? It's clear that he's tapped into a vein that most of what's happening in Washington right now is a mess and is broken and is not headed in the right direction. Okay. Good so far. Now, where do you want to take us?

I have lots of concerns that it's not at all clear what the core guiding principles are of Mr. Trump. And so, you know, if Cam Newton hadn't been so dominant the other night. If Arizona had had any defense, maybe none of this would have happened. But Sunday night, I'm watching the NFL game, and I was just back from New Hampshire. I spoke at the first in the nation presidential primary in New Hampshire, and I heard the same things in New Hampshire that I hear in my house, which is, Trump is entertaining. He's a lot of fun. He calls it like it is about a bunch of things that are broken. Now, who is he really? And what would he do if were president? So we threw a few of those questions.

GLENN: All right. So here are the questions. You want to go through them, one by one?

BEN: Sure. Let's do it.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

BEN: Well, first, he has advocated for single-payer health care before, which I think is term for it was government pays for everyone. The government will pay all the bills.

GLENN: So you know, he said that just last year. He said that in September of last year.

BEN: And so now he's campaigning as a conservative. And I don't know of anybody who holds the conservative principles that most of life should be lived outside of Washington that thinks the best thing you can do is insert government bureaucrats between doctors and nurses and sick people in America. That's not a conservative position. And if he doesn't believe in single-payer anymore, that's great. I would be glad. I -- there might be a legitimate conversion story there, but I'd like to hear it. And I think people in New Hampshire and Iowa and certainly in my state in Nebraska people would like to hear it. If you don't believe in single-payer health care anymore, when did it change, and why did it change? And what are you precisely for?

GLENN: Next question.

BEN: There's some video out there that I've seen on the internet. I'm a big defender of the Second Amendment. It is my right because God made me a dad and a husband, to defend my property and my wife and my kids. No government gives me the right to defend myself.

And so we're big Second Amendment people in our family. And I've got a brother who pretty much if you rank ordered 100 different issues on earth and then you gave him 100 marbles, he'd put all 100 of his marbles on the Second Amendment and nothing else matters to him. So he asked the other day, what does Trump think about guns? Because there's this video going around where he's on 60 Minutes or somewhere saying I hate the concept of guns. I believe he's advocated for different kinds of assault weapon bans and things in the past. And so if he doesn't hold that view anymore, if he actually affirms the Second Amendment, how does he understand the Second Amendment? When did his view change? Why did it change? You know, what are his fundamental positions on that?

GLENN: I was in Iowa this weekend, and this is kind of what I said. I said, "Look, I understand people changing their mind. I understand people changing their opinion. I believe in redemption and forgiveness. I believe people can make mistakes. I'm the king of redemption. I needed it more than most. So I understand that. But my problem is, I haven't heard when these things have changed for him." And like you said, there might be a really great reason, but because of this administration, is not -- you know, because, "Well, the country is not going in the right direction or because Obama is doing these things or because it's not working," is not enough of a pain to make you fundamentally transform on government health care and "I hate the concept of guns," I'm totally behind the Second Amendment.

BEN: Right. And let's be clear. I want to underscore your point about redemption. I'm a big believer in sin. It's at the core of my identity that I'm a sinner and Jesus is my savior because of the fact that I'm a sinner. So I believe that. I believe you can change views. But you have to be able to explain it. You have to be able to walk people through a process that is coherent, other than saying, "Hey, there's a big constituency out there, and it appears they have a different view than mine, so now I'm going to adopt their's." That's not leadership. That's running in front of a mob. And maybe it's genuine. But I'd just like to hear the story, and I have not heard it.

GLENN: This is one of the reasons, I think, he doesn't want to appear on this program. When we asked him was after months and months of questioning, and we started asking him in late August, early September if he would come on the show. We asked him three times. And the reason why we wanted him on the show was, maybe he has a good reason for all of these things. Let's hear the reason for all of these things. And that's when he didn't want to appear on the show and all the trouble started.

BEN: Thanks for clearing that up, Glenn, because I actually thought it was because you had no audience. I thought there were four people listening and you were going bankrupt. And I was just here as a social call frankly for you and your loneliness.

GLENN: Gosh. Darn it. You let the cat out of the bag.

We're talking to Ben Sasse of Nebraska. Senator from Nebraska. One of the good guys. Number three.

BEN: Where does he stand on taxes? What is his view -- goal of trying to shrink government? We have a government that is out of control. We have 18 trillion dollars of debt. We've got something like three times that much in unfunded obligations that that the government lies about and keeps off their books in our entitlement programs in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. And a few years ago, Mr. Trump had a proposal that he thought he could address a lot of this. By raising taxes $6 trillion. Trillion with a T. That's not even stuff that Bernie Sanders dreams of.

So I'm just curious as to what his view is on taxes in the future. And, frankly, does he agree with Vice President Biden who said, "Higher taxes equal more patriotism?" If you have a view that there's a way to solve our problems by just raising taxes exponentially, I think that would collapse the economy. But I'd love to understand your position because I think most the people that are supporting him don't know he advocated for a 6 trillion-dollar tax increase.

GLENN: Number four.

BEN: Number four. I'm going to read this precisely because we got hit a lot in the press for this. People saying we said things that were quite different than the actual point we were making.

GLENN: No.

BEN: Number four was, you brag about affairs with married women. The key verb here was "brag." Have you repented, not only to the harm to children, but to the spouses that you stole from? And do you think any of this matters?

GLENN: Hang on. I don't know of these stories where he's bragging about having affairs about married women.

BEN: So I read a piece by Lash over the last week that summarizes some pieces of different books he's written. And I guess along the way -- and then I went and looked up one of them. He says, "I've had all kinds of women." And he sort of lists out categories. But one of the categories are beautiful women, famous women, women you would know, pro athletes, or whatever. I don't have the quote in front of me. But along the way, he said single women, married women. There's a sort of bravado about this that lots of guys have done in locker rooms since we were 17 and 24. And men often say and act stupidly.

But there's something quite different than just a question of whether or not certain aspects of fidelity and infidelity are private or public matters. There are reasonable debates to be had about a lot of that. It's something different to brag about having married women. So I'm just curious as to whether or not he thinks relationships and oaths and vows mean anything. Because I'm setting up the next tweet, which is going to be about the Constitution. The commander-in-chief and the president of the United States takes an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. And I'm curious as to his view of both.

GLENN: Have you had any response?

BEN: You know, strangely there's this thing called Twitter. I don't know if you've heard of it. But it turns out, on Twitter, if you ask a question and some people don't like it, they're able to create these computer programs called bots. And you can create news by having gazillions of people retweeting that I maybe stole a car or I stole some land, I evicted an old lady. Maybe I was involved in physical violence or sexual violence.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Well, that's why we had you on, on this washed up show that only has four listeners. We thought you had evicted and abused a little old lady, which was my grandmother, I hear. That's not true?

BEN: I've never been in politics before. You know this. Let's be clear about that. I mean, I am anti-establishment. That's not enough. You have to be more than that. I'm not skeptical of nonpoliticians trying to serve the American people by defending the Constitution. I'm raising my hand here on radio to say, "I've never run for anything before in my life, until a year ago when I was elected to the US Senate. I was a college president for the last five and a half years and a business guy for, you know, a decade and a half before that. So I'm all for lay governments of America. I am against the permanent professional, political class. So that is not my gripe with Mr. Trump.

GLENN: Oh, is that what they're saying about you? You're part of the political class now?

BEN: Oh, I'm sort of -- I don't even know.

GLENN: It's funny. It's amazing. Michelle Malkin. I just talked to Michelle Malkin yesterday. Michelle Malkin is stupid. She's one of the smartest women I know. I'm a washed-up loser has-been, which actually is pretty darn close to being accurate, compared to all the other things he says. But I've sold out. I'm betraying the Constitution. I'm betraying the conservatives. I mean, it's amazing --

STU: You can't even vote in Texas' open primary.

GLENN: Yeah, I can't vote in a Texas open primary.

BEN: You're a Canadian, aren't you? Glenn, I'm trying to level with you.

GLENN: It's amazing how many people we now have to hate if we're on the Trump bandwagon.

BEN: Well, I don't want to go too far afield and get accused of being too much of a nerd here, but it really is worth going back to the Founders for just a second and remember that America is fundamentally about a certain kind of anthropology, a certain kind of belief about human dignity. We are frail, and we are fallen, and we are broken. But we believe in the potential of self-restraint, of growth and discipline and local community and human dignity. And the reason you want self-restraint is because I don't want the government restraining everything. There's so many things that can go wrong in the world, but I don't want more power to try to compel all of life. I want more persuasion. I want more conversion. I want more voluntary engagement. But when you look at Twitter, you realize what some of the Founding Fathers were a little bit worried about --

GLENN: There's no self-restraint. Ben Sasse, thank you very much for talking about us. We appreciate it. I know you have to do something, probably evict an old lady. But we certainly appreciate it. Have you selected a candidate yet, or are you going to?

BEN: No, I don't expect that I will. Who knows where it will end at the back end. But I don't think Nebraskans elected me because they need a lot of advice on who to vote for. But I do think it's a wonderful thing that the Republican Party has a whole bunch of candidates that believe in the Constitution. We already have one party in the country that's gone basically post constitutionalist. If the Republican Party does that, where will we reform from in the future?

GLENN: Good for you. Thank you very much, Ben Sasse. Senator from Nebraska. And really, truly one of the really good guys.

Featured Image: Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) (L) is ceremonially sworn in by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden with Sasse's wife Melissa Sasse, son Augustin Sasse and daughter Elizabeth Sasse in the Old Senate Chamber at the U.S. Capitol January 6, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

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.