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

PART 2: Glenn Talks With Independent Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin

August 11, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Evan McMullin, a former CIA agent, officially entered the presidential race on Wednesday as an Independent candidate, hoping to offer Americans an alternative to what he believes are two terrible choices. He joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday to talk about why he's qualified to be president, the three major issues he believes America faces and why he's far better suited for the presidency than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Following the interview, Glenn asked his co-host what they thought about McMullin.

RELATED: PART 1: Glenn Talks With Independent Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin

"Generally liked him. He's better than some of the other choices," Stu said.

"Liked him," Pat said.

While McMullin appears to be a serious, worthwhile candidate, Glenn identified his biggest challenge:

"Is there enough time for people to listen to him and get comfortable with him? You know, let's see him in a debate. Somebody like that has got to be tested some way or another," Glenn said.

Listen to Part 2 of Glenn's interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We're talking to Evan McMullin from EvanMcMullin.com. He's running for president of the United States.

Evan.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: Are you going to get on the ballots?

EVAN: Yes, we've got a multi-pronged strategy. I've got a phenomenal team who has been working on this for months to prepare for this, to prepare for a time at which they had a candidate to run.

We are going to be getting on ballots here in the near-term. We'll be rolling those out. We're excited about that. There are a number of ways to get on ballots. There's a lot of misunderstanding about that. People think that it's only via petition. But there are actually a number of other ways. And we're going to compete across the country.

GLENN: How do you respond to people who say you're a spoiler and you're going to cause Hillary Clinton to win?

EVAN: I would just say this: I mean, look at the numbers, Donald Trump, when we entered the race three days ago, was down 10 percent against Hillary. So he's losing already to a super weak candidate.

GLENN: Yeah, but those numbers are probably going to come back. They usually do, after, you know, somebody else's convention. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

EVAN: Sure. Sure. Yeah, well, what I would say to that, sure, Donald Trump could, you know, rise in the polls a bit. But listen, Donald Trump has alienated so many groups in America. I mean, you just look at the numbers, and, you know, you can find them where he's polling so terribly among women and Hispanics. You name it. I mean, he's just alienated so many Americans. He just can't win that way.

PAT: He does have 1 percent support among blacks.

EVAN: What's that?

GLENN: He does have 1 percent --

PAT: He does have 1 percent support among blacks.

GLENN: So he's got that going for him.

EVAN: Well, that's good. He should be given a certificate.

GLENN: Yeah. Give me -- tell me what you think the biggest crisis that is coming our way.

EVAN: Well, I wish I could -- I wish there were only one, but I think there are three.

GLENN: Give me two. Three. Okay. Go ahead.

EVAN: Can I give you three? I'll be quick.

GLENN: Sure, yeah.

EVAN: Number one is we absolutely just must defeat Islamist terrorism. I know how to do it. I've been there, done that. We have to do it. And let me tell you something, and a lot of people don't think about it this way: We have to beat Islamist terrorism because the more we allow that threat to metastasize and expand, the more our civil liberties here at home come under threat. So it's not only the attacks and the lethality of those attacks, which is also obviously a priority, to prevent that, but the greater the threat is, the more the government needs to say, "Okay. Well, we're going to do this for security. We're going to do that for security." And our civil liberties start to get peeled back.

And so we have to go on the offensive and destroy these evil threats abroad before they -- before they do that to our country. And so that's one.

Number two is I think we need more economic opportunity in this country. We need to be better about fighting -- smarter about fighting poverty as an issue. I'm very passionate about. We need to be smarter about creating an environment here where -- where -- where companies thrive so that people and families can thrive. So that there's jobs and growth and all of this. The government is in the way of all of this. We need to get it out of the way. That's another thing.

GLENN: Can you give me any specifics on that?

EVAN: Well, yeah, for example, you know, it's true that our trade deals have resulted in sort of some shifts -- some industries shifting from one place or another, and jobs can be lost and all of that. And also due to automation and new technologies, some people are losing their jobs. I think we -- we need to -- we need to listen -- to listen to that reality. It's happening.

And we need to do better -- we need to be better at helping -- helping people be retrained and find new opportunities and continue on. And so one idea that I've had that has worked well elsewhere is to use apprenticeship programs, so maybe we give an incentive for companies to say, "Okay. Well, this man or woman lost their job in this factory because it moved somewhere else, but, you know, I'm making microchips. And I'll bring them in, and there's some incentive to do that. I'll train them up, and they can -- they'll get on-the-job training while they're working, and then we help those people move forward. We help the economy, and we help these families. So things like that, I think we need to do. But it's also about lowering taxes, simplifying the tax code.

PAT: Yes.

EVAN: And most importantly, just cutting back on our -- just -- there's just so much overregulation and such little due process that -- and such -- and such uncertainty, regulatory uncertainty that's a real big challenge that companies face. We've got to limit that.

GLENN: Your third problem that you think we might hit?

EVAN: Government reform. We need to transfer more power back to the people. And that has everything to do with federalism and the Tenth Amendment. We must do this. We live in a large -- there are 330 million people here in this country. It's a big country, geographically. The idea that a centralized government in Washington is going to be able to serve well and be accountable to the people is just fantasy. There needs to be more power to the states, and the people's representatives in Congress also need to have their rightful Article One authorities restored.

GLENN: Can you tell me -- Mitt Romney has made some disparaging comments about the Tea Party. Where do you stand on the Tea Party, the values of the Tea Party?

EVAN: Well, listen, I stand with anybody who understands the -- again, federalism. I stand with anybody who understands and supports the Tenth Amendment, anybody who understands that the power of the government comes from the people and only from the people. And therefore, the government is accountable to the people.

This is -- Glenn, this is something I'm passionate about. Our Founders founded this country with the why, as Simon Sinek, the commentator says -- he talks -- every company needs to have a why. That why for our country was the pursuit of happiness.

If people are going to pursue happiness in their way, they need to actually have a -- a say in their government. And that power needs to be close to them, even though they may delegate it to their representatives. So it's a pursuit of happiness thing for me. That's what federalism is about. That's what the Tenth Amendment is about. We've got to get back to a system that allows people to pursue happiness the way our Founders intended.

GLENN: Pat has probably the best question of the day.

PAT: Well, I mean, I'm glad we've talked about some cute little subjects, but can we get to the real issue?

EVAN: Oh, boy. Here we go.

PAT: I'm wondering if, as president, you would seek a constitutional amendment and maybe even an executive order in the meantime, pending a constitutional amendment, to force your will in making BYU a part of the big 12?

EVAN: Yes, I will absolutely do that.

PAT: You will do that?

EVAN: Yes.

PAT: You have my vote.

EVAN: Okay. Good. All right.

GLENN: What a surprise.

EVAN: I got one. That's great.

PAT: You've got at least one vote.

STU: Wait. You're not voting for yourself? Shouldn't you at least have two?

EVAN: Oh, that's true. That's true. That's right. Yeah, I'm in too.

PAT: Are you married? I mean, hopefully we can at least get a family vote going there too.

GLENN: Are you married?

EVAN: I'm not married. But I want to promise the American people, since I'm making important campaign promises right now, guys -- thank you for that -- that I will not leave America without a First Lady if I'm elected. And it is my biggest aspiration in life to be a husband and a father, and I'm working on it.

(laughter)

PAT: Is there anybody --

GLENN: So, yeah. Is this like the Oval is the greatest chick magnet of all time, or is there somebody that you're thinking about?

EVAN: I really --

GLENN: Is there an announcement you'd like to make here?

EVAN: I really do not want to -- can I just not answer that question? Have mercy, please.

(laughter)

Yeah. That's a tough one. I just better keep my mouth shut.

PAT: So seriously, Evan, the deadline is tomorrow for Utah. Right? For ballot access.

EVAN: The 15th.

STU: The 15th. Okay. So you've got a few more days.

PAT: Okay. So you've got four days. You can make it in four days?

EVAN: Oh, yeah.

STU: A thousand signatures there. Right?

EVAN: Oh, yeah, we've got an army of volunteers out there taking care of this. The threshold of a thousand --

PAT: And what do you do in a state like Texas where the deadline has already passed?

EVAN: We'll probably file a legal challenge there.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Do you -- do you have the money to do this?

EVAN: Money is pouring in. Pouring in.

PAT: Is it really?

EVAN: Yeah.

PAT: I mean --

EVAN: Yeah. Yeah. From small donors, regular people who are just so frustrated. I'm telling you -- and you know this, 70 percent of Americans are just unhappy with the direction of the country. They think it's on the wrong track. And then we have two candidates that are historically unpopular and profoundly unprepared to face the challenges that this country faces now.

Americans want something else. So, yeah, I mean, the metrics are unbelievable. I mean, people are helping out. They're chipping in. But, also, we're getting major mega donor interest. We've already had some really critical meetings on that. I'm going to be in New York next week for some -- you know, some follow-up meetings. You know, we're -- we're getting some good signals there too. So we're very excited, and we feel good on that end.

GLENN: Where is the Republican Party falling short?

EVAN: Well, let me say this: I -- I think that the Republican Party is certainly doing a lot more that's right, right now, than the Democratic Party. And I'm not trying to -- I don't desire to be super partisan here.

PAT: That's not saying much.

EVAN: The Republicans are at least trying to return power to the people, the Republicans in the House. So they got -- they have that going for them.

But I would say this: I think that it is time for the conservative movement to be more tolerant of people of variety of faiths and a variety of ethnicities and nationalities. Conservatism doesn't have to be sort of the Trump bigotry. And that's -- conservatism has nothing to do with --

GLENN: So hang on just a second. Do you think Trump is a conservative?

EVAN: I do not. But there are a lot of people who say that they're conservatives who are supporting Trump.

GLENN: Yes, okay.

EVAN: Yeah, no. I appreciate that clarification. He is most certainly not a conservative. And I feel like -- I feel like he deceived America by claiming that he is. People are so desperate in America for change, that they're willing to believe a total -- I mean, Donald Trump is a con man. I spent ten years in the Central Intelligence Agency. I know a con man when I see one, and I see Donald Trump coming from a mile away.

STU: How about the -- one recent specific policy proposal from Trump and Clinton -- Clinton proposed a 275 billion-dollar stimulus program to -- for our infrastructure. Trump when asked about that proposal said, "That's not enough. We need to double it. Actually more than double it."

EVAN: Wow, okay.

STU: Do you feel the need to -- what's your stimulus plan idea? Do you have a number? Do you want to triple Trump's? What's your --

EVAN: Yeah, no. Look, I think my stimulus plan is getting the government out of the way of free enterprise. That's my stimulus plan.

PAT: Thank you. That would be nice.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: I like that.

PAT: So if people like what they've heard, Evan, how do they help out?

EVAN: Go to EvanMcMullin.com. Chip in if you can. Every little the bit helps. You'll be joining many, many Americans who are doing the same. Sign up so that we can -- we can contact you and get you involved if you want to volunteer. We'd love that. Share -- share things about us on social media. You know, obviously we've entered this race late, not because we think that's the ideal way to do it, but because nobody else was going to and it was the last minute, so we jumped in. So we need to raise awareness as quickly as possible, so people can be helpful on all three fronts.

GLENN: At what point are you going to name a vice presidential candidate?

EVAN: Well, we're looking at people now. I mean, not in the extremely near-term, I think. We're getting some bases covered here as we launch at this early stage. But what we're looking for is somebody who understands what makes America special on a profound level, something that neither Hillary Clinton nor Trump certainly do.

GLENN: Will it be somebody that has some governing experience? I mean, you know, it's a pretty big job to take on and just go, "I got it."

EVAN: Yeah, no, I agree with you. I agree with you.

But, hey, listen, I'll say this about this: Our Founding Fathers had the -- the way they did it is they would tend to their fields, and then they would serve from time to time. And I'm -- I'm a big believer in that model. I think we need people with practical experiences and know-how to help America overcome its challenges. And the other thing I think we need --

PAT: So are you promising to also farm if you're elected president?

EVAN: I would love that. I would --

GLENN: You've got a date, you've got a farm. I mean, holy cow, you got a lot on your plate.

EVAN: Yeah. Yeah, I would love that. But I guess I'm just pushing back on the idea that it's got to be a career politician who has sort of worked their way up.

GLENN: Sure.

EVAN: I just don't think we need that. I think we need new ideas. And we also need -- we need leaders that put the interests of the American people before their own and that will have some character around that. And I just don't think we have that, clearly, in these two major candidates.

GLENN: Evan McMullin, thank you very much for being on the program today. Appreciate it.

EVAN: Thank you, Glenn. Thank you, team.

GLENN: Best of luck.

EvanMcMullin.com. EvanMcMullin.com.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin announces his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/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.