Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Bernie's Brand of Socialism Too Revolutionary for Chris Matthews

February 05, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The Context

Bernie's brand of socialism has MSNBC's Chris Matthews worried. The socialist senator's calls for revolution and promises of free stuff is a bit too much, too soon for Matthews' slower-paced progressivism. In a recent interview with Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, the Hardball host asked the former secretary of state how she can compete with a revolution.

Hardball or Softball

In the interview, Matthews set up the former secretary of state as the more sane option to Sanders' left-wing radicalism.

“The only person --- and I want to say this bluntly --- the only person between a confirmed socialist, who is calling for political revolution in this country, winning the nomination of the Democratic Party, which has always been more moderate than that, is you,” Matthews said.

Matthews went on to express his dismay over young people attending a Sanders rally responding enthusiastically to a call for revolution. Most importantly, he asked Hillary how she could win against someone promising everything --- free tuition, free healthcare, more social security benefits without a tax increase.

Oh, the Irony

Isn't that the same question the right has been asking for decades?

“The … question that is being asked here is so damn ironic,” Glenn said on The Glenn Beck Program. “That’s the question the right has been asking for the last 90 years. How do you possibly win when somebody says, ‘I’ll give you everything’?”

Glenn's answer: You don’t.

The Liberal Spectrum

What's in a name? A lot. As Glenn has taught over the years, paying attention to labels and words are important --- and telling.

"There is a Democrat. That's like a Harry Truman Democrat, that just believes in, you know, things that typical [Americans believe] --- my grandfather was a Harry Truman Democrat. Then you have the progressive, which is actually a slowed-down socialist, somebody who believes we have to take it step-by-step, but we're heading towards socialism. Then you have a full-out socialist, and after that, a communist. That's the real spectrum on the left."

What's Really at Stake

Hillary believes "we have an obligation to keep people focused on what's at stake in this election."

Thankfully, so does Glenn.

"Clearly the Constitution of the United States is at stake," Glenn said. "Will you truly have a First Amendment, a Second Amendment, a Fourth Amendment? Do you have those --- the Tenth Amendment --- at the end of the next presidential term? Those could be gone.

Glenn went on to explain the Supreme Court is also at stake, with likely four justices being appointed by the next president of the United States.

"If the Supreme Court is given to progressives that do not believe . . . the Constitution [is] no longer a valid document."

Common Sense Bottom Line

While Chris Matthews may find a revolution distasteful, progressivism is equally so. Both have the goal of controlling citizens lives through the government --- one more slowly and slyly, the other more aggressively and violently.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to the program. So Chris Matthews has been having this conversation. He is fighting hard for Secretary Clinton. And he is at least open about it. He is not a fan of Bernie Sanders. He is a progressive, not a revolutionary. And there is a difference.

There is a Democrat. That's like a Harry Truman Democrat, that just believes in, you know, things that typical -- my grandfather was a Harry Truman Democrat. Then you have the progressive, which is actually a slowed-down socialist, somebody who believes we have to take it step by step, but we're heading towards socialism. Then you have a full-out socialist, and after that, a communist. That's the real spectrum on the left.

Well, we've been warning for a while that you can't put revolutions back into a bottle. Once you open up the bottle of revolution, you can't just take it back out and say, "Okay. Everybody sit down." So Occupy Wall Street and everything else, they've been asking for a revolution. They have been looking at, you know, let's take to the streets and let's have a revolution. This is why the progressives came into existence in the first place.

Socialism and a nonconstitutional and a non-US-constitutional-style government was the goal of the progressives and the communists. Woodrow Wilson is clear. He talks about how he loves communism and how communism was the future. This totalitarian regime is the future, with a strong man. But -- this is a quote -- nobody wants to see blood on the streets. And so you take it one piece at a time so we avoid revolution.

Chris Matthews is not a revolutionary and neither is Hillary Clinton. She's a progressive, so is he. So they talk about this on Hardball. And I want you to listen to what he said. I think we should start -- don't you think we should start with "revolution is not how it begins." Cut 641. Here it is.

CHRIS: -- Democratic Party, your party. Not Bernie Sanders. He's not a Democratic Party member. Your party has produced the New Deal. It produced the progressive income tax, came from the Democrats, from Wilson. Social Security, the greatest antipoverty program ever came from Roosevelt. And Harry Truman started the fight for health care and civil rights and all these good things that led to the Affordable Care Act.

But in every case, you had to battle Republicans who voted against it to the last person. And it's always been a tough fight. And you need 60 votes in the Senate; you need -- what is it -- 218 in the House. And if you don't have them, nothing gets done.

HILLARY: Right. Right. That's right.

CHRIS: Then the Bernie people need to be -- not him. He won't be taught. Can the kids behind him -- need to be told, "This is how it works in our system." You can call for revolution, but it ain't going to happen. There ain't going to be a revolution. There's going to be an election, an inauguration, and then there's going to be a Congress sitting with you, you got to do business with, no matter who gets elected.

HILLARY: Well, also --

CHRIS: Like -- you don't have to worry about logic anymore, just I'm going to have a revolution and pay for everything.

(laughter)

GLENN: He's just -- he's in there swinging. Okay. Again, you can't put the revolutionaries back into a bottle. You can't stoke the fires, which the Democrats did, stoke the fires of revolution and expect them to go back and go back to their home and expect, "Oh, well, it's nothing to worry about. We don't need revolution. We have Secretary Clinton." That's not what they're looking for. That's not what they've been promised.

PAT: Yeah, what was the book we talked about from France a couple years ago?

GLENN: It was the Coming Insurrection.

PAT: Coming Insurrection kind of outlines all that. They're not happy with that. They're not happy with the slow progress.

GLENN: Yeah. They're tired of being told that we're going to have this revolution when they know -- and this is the problem with Secretary Clinton, when they know the people at the top, the ones promising them this glorious revolution are just getting rich themselves. So that's why it doesn't connect with the people who are younger because they're seeing her make $675,000 from Wall Street for a speech, which they know is Wall Street -- that's the part of corruption that they're trying to get -- Occupy Wall Street. That's the part they want revolution on. He goes on. Now, listen to this question and this answer.

CHRIS: The only person -- and I want to say this bluntly, the only person between a confirmed socialist who is calling for political revolution in this country, winning the nomination of the Democratic Party, which has always been more moderate than that, is you.

So when you saw that -- that rally last night that the young people all around Senator Sanders -- when he yelled revolution out there and they all applauded like mad, how do you compete with a person who is coming along in the primaries, however, saying, I'm going to give you all the things you want: Free tuition, more Social Security benefits without an increase in your taxes, health care --

GLENN: Stop. Do you hear what he's saying. What's his question? It's two questions.

PAT: It's, how do you stop a guy who is promising these young guys everything they want? Free everything, where I'm going to give you whatever you want.

GLENN: Isn't that ironic?

PAT: Yes, it is. Yes, it is.

GLENN: He's saying two things. There's two questions. How do you stop a revolution?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Well, you don't start a revolution. This is what I've been saying since the caliphate. You don't start a revolution because they never end the way ours did in America. Never.

They -- the people who started and encourage the revolution are -- is the same Democrats that spoke highly of Occupy Wall Street. You know that Hillary Clinton spoke highly of Occupy Wall Street.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Barack Obama spoke highly of Occupy Wall Street. They all did. Those people are revolutionaries. We warned you at the time, you can't play with matches. And so these same people who were encouraging the revolution are now looking and saying, "Wait a minute. It slipped through the fingers."

What did I say about the Egyptian revolution? When they all said that this was going to be a glorious Jeffersonian revolution, I said, "It never ends with the people who start it." The people at the top that pour the gasoline and light the flames and use the masses, those people who pour the gasoline, except for the American Revolution, are never the people who control it in the end.

So now Chris Matthews who was all for the glorious revolution on the streets of Occupy Wall Street is now saying, "How do you stop it?" Because he's realizing the people like him who started it are not going to be the ones in control.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: They now want something different than his goals were. So there's your first question. And I hate to say I told you so. But I told you so. And I want to say something else. Right now, I know that there are people that literally go in and out of lockdown. They are news people who literally are going into lockdown because of the threats against their lives.

This goes back to something I've warned when I was at Fox. You people in the press better pay attention because a revolution is coming and people are going to be so angry at what's going on and so angry at the press, that they will pull you out of your seats. Do you remember me saying this?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They will pull you out of your seats in your own studios and kill you in the streets. We are getting very close to that. There are news journalists right now that have to have massive security. I know, because I've had massive security for quite some time.

Most people cannot afford the kind of security it takes for a journalist or somebody who speaks their mind to be able to actually be secure and not have to worry about it. There are journalists that are in that situation. So you're ratcheting up revolution on both sides of the aisle.

Now, the second question that is being asked here is so damn ironic. Chris Matthews: How do you run against somebody who is promising the world, that I'll give you everything free? That's the question the right has been asking for the last 90 years. How do you possibly win when somebody says, "I'll give you everything?"

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Answer: You don't. You don't.

PAT: Interesting that they're experiencing exactly what we've experienced all this time.

GLENN: Yep.

CHRIS: To death. All the government pain. How do you compete a revolution -- a revolution of promises, really?

HILLARY: I do think that we have an obligation to keep people focused on what's at stake in this election.

GLENN: A revolution of promises. Okay. Stop. What's at stake in this Constitution, Pat?

PAT: The Constitution is at stake in this.

GLENN: Clearly the Constitution of the United States is at stake. Will you truly have a First Amendment, a Second Amendment, a Fourth Amendment?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have those -- Tenth Amendment -- at the end of the next presidential term, those could be gone. What else is at stake? Kind of related to that. Supreme Court.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If the Supreme Court, because there are four justices, if the Supreme Court is given to progressives that do not believe -- no matter what anybody says, look the history up yourself, do not take my word for it. Look at the history of progressives. Hillary Clinton calls herself and she makes pains to point out, "I am an early 20th-century American progressive." She says it that way almost every time.

Those early 20th-century American progressives felt that the Constitution was no longer a valid document. It -- the rights of man did not -- are not held by the creator. They are more in line with Darwin than Newton. So they are not hard, fast, gravitational laws, but they are more like -- they are more along the lines of evolution. So they evolve. That's what a 20th century believed. And that's how she identified herself.

If you put those people on the court, you will lose the Constitution. Also at stake, ISIS. Our very lives are at stake. If we continue to behave like we did in Benghazi, like we have in the Middle East for the last eight, nine years, where we betray all of our allies, where they can't trust us, we won't admit the truth of what Islam really, truly is, and we don't have somebody who really understands the full might and power of the United States military and respects it. And they respect them. You've also lost the country.

Also at stake, the culture. Yesterday, the president came out and said, "By the way, stand up down at the border. Stand down at the border." Do you know why California is red now -- I'm sorry -- is blue now instead of red?

Who was it that did -- I believe Wilson is the one that everybody gives the credit, that he's the one that turned it from Republican to Democrat. It wasn't Pete Wilson. It was a guy who had that same name in his though.

PAT: Woodrow?

GLENN: Nope. Guy named after him. Guy named after Woodrow Wilson.

Ronald Wilson Reagan. It was Ronald Reagan and his amnesty. The thing that he said was the biggest mistake of his entire presidency that changed California from red to blue.

PAT: It sure was.

GLENN: Changed it from a Democratic republic, changed it from a conservative state, to a liberal state. Because there was no -- it flooded new voters in. And it never came back.

With what this president is doing, he knows now, the amnesty thing is in trouble. I've got to flood this country with people. So now he's telling people, "Stand down." And he's flooding our nation. Our culture is at stake. But what does she say is at stake? It's not that. We'll share it with you here in just a second

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidates former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during their MSNBC Democratic Candidates Debate at the University of New Hampshire on February 4, 2016 in Durham, New Hampshire. This is the final debate for the Democratic candidates before the New Hampshire primaries. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/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.