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

'Globalist': You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

September 22, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Redefining words is a very dangerous thing. It's happened on the radical left for years through political correctness, impacting both society and politics. Old school Blue Dog Democrats didn't see it coming until it was too late, and the entire Democratic Party was taken over by radicals.

The same thing is now happening on the conservative side, with words like "nationalism" and "globalism" being morphed into new meanings.

"I want to show you the first example of me finding it on my own social media," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program. "I contend so many people will agree with a quick reading of this that it seems harmless, but it is absolutely the alt-right. This is the earmark of everything changing in language, and so suddenly that you will not even notice you've been sold into slavery."

It's time to pay attention and read between the lines.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these definitive questions:

• Is "nationalism" tied to improving the lives of Americans or neo-Nazis and racism?

• What does Bob in Pocatello say about the rejection of the virus that is globalization?

• Are iDentists online practitioners of dentistry?

• Do you think the alt-right should produce films on faith for your church?

• Would Thomas Jefferson have been for or against tariffs?

• Is American exceptionalism the same thing as American nationalism?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 1:20:50, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  I want to show you a post on my social media.  And let me just -- let me read it to you.  And don't overthink it.  Just tell me if you are kind of comfortable with it.

We/me is a crackpot theory, saying the we generation and the me generation.  It's clearly not a crackpot theory.  It is very well researched.  But this is somebody who happened to be watching the show from The Vault last night, where I mentioned it.  

And the we/me is a crackpot theory.  Don't accept a binary choice, America.

STU:  Hmm.  I thought we were supposed to -- isn't that we've been told for months?

GLENN:  Listen to this:  American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic-oriented, nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.  Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.  Modern nationalism and populism in America is a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

(chuckling)

American nationalism and populism is a wholesale rejection of the virus that is globalization.

PAT:  This is just written by Bob in Pocatello.  Right?

JEFFY:  Right.

(chuckling)

PAT:  Bob just happened to be watching, and he thought, "You know what, I'm going to pop off something to Glenn."

GLENN:  With no followers.  No pictures.  No friends.

STU:  He wanted to sign up to social networks, just to post that particular paragraph and then never post again.

GLENN:  And then never post again.

PAT:  It's interesting though because you can be okay with all of that, mostly.  Almost all of it, you can say, yeah --

JEFFY:  Oh, on the surface, absolutely.

GLENN:  On the surface.

PAT:  I agree with that.  On the surface, I agree with that.

GLENN:  If you read it again, you're like, "Okay.  Wait a minute.  American nationalism.  No, I'm not for nationalism.  That's not good."

STU:  Right.  But patriotism.  People conflate those two terms.  Those are very different.

GLENN:  Yes.  Yes.  They're very different.

STU:  And we've seen nationalism rise and what it does.  But this is trying to save that term, right?

GLENN:  Yes.  To reintroduce this term.

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  Okay?  To reintroduce it.

STU:  Yep.

GLENN:  Listen to this again.

American nationalism -- it's not racial or ethnic-oriented.  Why would you say that?  Because nationalism is tied directly to neo-Nazis.

PAT:  And racism.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And also, by the way, very specifically the people who are the intellectual heads of this particular movement have very specifically talked in overt terms about race and ethnicity being vitally important to this.  I mean, this is --

GLENN:  No, they're not racists.  No, no.  They're identists.

STU:  Right.  But, I mean, they've said, "We need an ethno-nationalist --

PAT:  They're dentists on the internet?

GLENN:  No, they're identists.  They're identists -- 

JEFFY:  ID.  

GLENN:  No -- yes, they recognize the identity of people, but that's not judging people on race.  It is looking at the identity of people.

PAT:  I see.

GLENN:  So if you want to call it racist, that's an old term.  That's -- that describes old things.  I do believe that we all have an identity that is unique from where all of us originally came from.  And there's nothing wrong with pointing out someone's identity.  You're black.  I'm white.  But I do believe there are specific things that are different in each culture.  And perhaps we shouldn't live together.

STU:  This is --

PAT:  Perhaps we shouldn't live together.

(laughter)

GLENN:  Okay.  Did you hear what I just said?

JEFFY:  Yes.

PAT:  Yes.

GLENN:  And if you're hearing this from a friend and somebody who you think is a conservative -- and you will.  I'm telling you, this is coming.  You're going to start hearing this from your church friends, people you trusted, and they're going to make a great case because they're changing the language.

STU:  This is Candle In the Wind and Candle In the Wind 1997, where like Princess Diana died, and we're going to release the same exact song with like three different lyrics.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  That is what this is.  It's the same pitch.  It's the same thing that you think it is.

GLENN:  Same song.

STU:  It's just using new terms and trying to overtake old ones.

GLENN:  And using emotions to push it to the top of the chart.

STU:  Yeah, yeah, yeah.  One of the terms that is attempting -- and it's an interesting, somewhat subtle thing that's happened over the past year or two, which is the term globalist -- now, the term --

GLENN:  Uh-huh.

STU:  I would not consider myself a globalist at all.  I mean, for example, we've been doing this show for how long.

PAT:  Why are we globalists?

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  Hang on just a second.  Hang on.  Before you get into this, I just want to set this up.  Globalism is a tripwire of nationalism.  Okay?

Once you hear your friend, who -- why are you hearing the word "globalist" all the time now about people?  Where is that coming from?

STU:  Yeah, all the time.

GLENN:  That's coming from people like Breitbart, who are into the alt-right, and they are poisoning the well.  And globalist is your first sign of warning.  Hang on just a second.  What do you mean by globalist, exactly?  And I'll bet that's what you were going to make the point on.

STU:  That's exactly what I want to go into because we've been doing this show for a long time.  There's been things that have, you know, leaned towards globalism, that the talk radio audience, generally speaking, rejects, as do I.  Things like the United Nations making our decisions on our military.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And, you know, global climate treaties that --

GLENN:  IPCC.  Yeah.  The IPP --

STU:  The Kyoto treaties -- yeah, Protocol.  

PAT:  Nobody has been more anti-globalist than we have.

JEFFY:  Right.

STU:  Exactly.  Having global entities control what we do in our country.

PAT:  Right.

GLENN:  Even some global trade agreements.  We need to have trade agreements.  But are they about -- for instance, the T- -- what is it?  The TPP?

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  The TPP is an Asian global look at things.  And it is an Asian pact that supersedes our law.  

STU:  And there's elements of many of these agreements that we've fought against.

GLENN:  Uh-huh.

STU:  And so the idea that we would look towards global entities to influence our policy and the way we deal with our things here, we reject and have rejected for a long time.  And the talk radio audience, with that definition of globalist, has always been against that.

PAT:  But they've changed it now.  Right?

STU:  But now you notice -- and you say Breitbart.  But really, Alex Jones.  Breitbart and Alex Jones are one and the same at this point.

GLENN:  Absolutely.  Alex Jones is who he is, and everybody knew it.  And now one step closer to the media is Breitbart.  So one step closer to the average person as --

PAT:  And Drudge.

GLENN:  And Drudge.  Anyone want to talk about the new movie Torch Bearer?  Torch Bearer is a new movie, when man stops believing in God, he'll believe in anything.  Sounds really good.  Phil Robertson is in it, everything else.  You know who the producer is?  You know who the executive producer of this film is?

PAT:  Yes.

GLENN:  Who?

PAT:  It's Bannon.

GLENN:  Bannon.

PAT:  Bannon.  What's-his-face, Bannon.

GLENN:  So Bannon, who is Trump's campaign manager, who is, yes, we're providing a platform for the alt-right --

PAT:  Yeah.

GLENN:  -- is now producing films on faith for your church.

PAT:  Unbelievable.

GLENN:  Congratulations, America.  Congratulations.

PAT:  Wow.  Unbelievable.  

GLENN:  You are sliding into a cesspool that you have no idea what is coming your way.

STU:  On the globalist thing, to finish that, the old definition was, you know, international agreements and things that we were skeptical of.  We don't want to be controlled by international bureaucracy.

PAT:  Anything.  We want our sovereignty.

STU:  We want our sovereignty.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And a lot of times that has gone along with having borders and border security.

PAT:  Right.

GLENN:  And we are for Brexit.  I'm for Brexit.

STU:  Yeah.  I believe in sovereignty.  I don't like the European Union.

GLENN:  Yep.  Don't like it.

STU:  What it's now turning into is, do you believe in free trade?  Are you against tariffs?  Are you for or against legal immigration?  Do you think we should have any interaction with -- with our allies?  Do we have any role in the rest of the world?

If you believe any of those things, all of a sudden now you're a globalist.

PAT:  Globalist.

GLENN:  If you don't believe in tariffs -- tariffs are the most destructive thing to the free market, which is what we are based on as conservatives --

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  If you're against tariffs, you're now a globalist.  Well, tell that to our Founders.

PAT:  If you're against Donald Trump, you're supposedly now a globalist.

STU:  Right.  And that's certainly where a lot of this comes from.  

PAT:  Yeah. 

STU:  And a lot of the passion behind it, obviously, because we're in the middle of an election season.

GLENN:  It goes way beyond him.

STU:  But, I mean, look at -- I can't remember -- was it Cruz or maybe Pat Toomey, when they were running, they were running ads against them, saying, "Hey, did you know that -- I can't remember which one it was.  But they were talking about free trade and how it's helped us.  But it's also helped lift billions of people out of poverty.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STU:  And the fact that we've lifted Chinese people, for example -- a billion Chinese have come out of poverty because they've started to embrace a little bit of capitalism and free trade.

GLENN:  Bono just said this.

STU:  It's a great commercial for what we believe.  Rooting for the success of people in other nations, wanting people to not starve to death all of a sudden is some weird definition of globalist.  I mean, these things do help the rest of the world.  I think free trade has been one of the most positive things that has ever happened to this planet, but it's also helped us.

GLENN:  Here's why nationalism is so wrong, and here's why saying that we are a unique country is right, but it is not the people.  American exceptionalism is not the people.  We're no different than anybody else.

Yes, do we have different work ethics?  Did we have different ethics than other countries?  Yes.

Do we now?  Not so much.  Do the Chinese or do the Saudis understand American exceptionalism?  No.  Does that make them different people?  No.  It means they don't buy into the idea of America.

America is not a country.  It's an idea.  It is also a country.  And nationalism glorifies the country and its people.  What patriotism should be is the -- the glorification of the idea that we aspire to.  The idea that we all men could be free, that all -- that all men can pursue their own happiness.  And it's a very subtle difference.  But if you don't get it, you are on the train to hell in these times.

I want to end this segment real quick just by reading this again, and I want to you listen because this is going to become -- I don't know how many people in this audience -- but I am still convinced that this audience is going to be the audience that will be remembered for pulling the republic out of the fire.  I'm convinced of it.  And I don't know when that happens.  And I don't even know if it's because of what you do, other than teaching your children these things.  Maybe it is because of what we do collectively that teaches our children and our children save the nation or bring it back.  I don't know.

But for those with eyes and ears, please hear me.  Let me read this again.  American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic oriented.

Yes, it is.

Nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.

That is true.  That goes to the point on globalists.

Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.

So what they're saying is:  We can keep foreigners out of here, and that's better than -- well, you're giving a binary choice here.

Modern nationalism -- modern nationalism, let me tell you, is exactly the same as old-timey nationalism.  Modern nationalism and populism.

What is populism?  Populism is nothing but tyranny of the majority.

Modern nationalism and populism in America is just a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

Oh, my gosh.  Hello, Germany, 1930.

American nationalism and populism is a whole scale (sic) rejection of the virus -- hello, Goebbels -- of globalism.

Please, please, know the tripwires.  Please know, national -- nationalism is suicide.  Populism is suicide.  That the tripwire of globalism doesn't mean what you think it means.  To them, it means anything other than America, first and foremost, and nothing else.

STU:  It's okay to prioritize America.

GLENN:  Right.  It's fine to prioritize.  

STU:  That's what you should do.  But it does not mean -- 

GLENN:  It means a complete withdrawal and enemy outside -- it is complete isolationist, protectionist, and no trade deals.  Even our Founders made trade deals.  And we protested tariffs.  What do you think the Tea Party was about?  It was a rejection of tariffs.  And that's what nationalism is doing.  And it is coming.  And it is coming beyond this election.  And it will only gain strength after this election, no matter who wins, because this is not about Donald Trump.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Inigo Montoya (played by Mandy Patinkin) from The Princess Bride.

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.