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

Glenn: For the First Time, I Heard Ted Cruz Calculate

September 26, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Following his interview with Senator Ted Cruz, Glenn shared his impression of the exchange on his radio program Monday.

"For the very first time, I heard Ted Cruz calculate. And when that happened, the whole thing fell apart for me," he said.

Glenn blamed himself for the inevitable letdown.

"It's my fault," Glenn said. "It's my fault for believing that men can actually be George Washington."

RELATED: Glenn Grills Ted Cruz on What It Means to ‘Vote Your Conscience’

He went on to share an idea that would sound "outrageous" to some.

"I am not here to fight for the saving of America. I am not here to fight for the saving of this land. I am not here to save the system that we have built. I am here and you are here --- we all are here --- for this time to save the idea of America," Glenn said.

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

• What is the idea of America?

• What reason should Senator Cruz have given for his decision?

• Should Glenn have supported Marco Rubio?

• Will the two major parties destroy the idea of America?

• Would Glenn still vote for Senator Cruz?

• Has the Republican Party become like PETA?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: For the first time -- and I'm sorry if that was too contentious for people.

STU: It's what we should do, right?

GLENN: And I will tell you, that's not what I expected, but there was something in there. And I'm not going to go into it. There is something there, where I have private conversations with people. And I know private -- I know what was said, and I know -- I know the story. And for the very first time, I heard Ted Cruz calculate. And when that happened, the whole thing fell apart for me. And it's my fault. It's my fault for believing that men can actually be George Washington. It's my fault.

I should have said, "You know who can win? You know who could beat Hillary Clinton? Marco Rubio. And I disagree with him on the Gang of Eight, and there's about 80 percent that I do agree with him on. And he's kind of a politician, but he's a different kind of politician: He's a young politician. He's a Hispanic. He can win. Let's go for it!" Instead, I said, "Let's find a truly honorable man." And that will always let you down. It will always let you down.

STU: Yes. I kept thinking this weekend of like, you know, we keep -- there's a lesson that we're supposed to learn, I believe a pretty important person once talked about it, in that: Don't put your faith in man. That's not the right place.

GLENN: It's not the place. It's not the place.

PAT: Well, and but we thought we were putting our faith in the principles that he held.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: And -- and -- because he led us to believe -- and he did it through his work, that he was going to be a man of his principle. Because he was.

GLENN: Here's how he could have -- here's how he could have addressed this today.

PAT: "You know what, guys, I caved. I need donors. They all left. I caved." Just tell the truth.

GLENN: Yes. Yeah. "Guys, here's the thing: I said -- he's reframing what he did in Cleveland.

PAT: Yeah, you can't say what you're saying now and what you said in Cleveland are the same thing.

GLENN: They're not.

PAT: Everybody knows they're not.

GLENN: One is, vote for Donald Trump. And one is, vote for your conscience. There's a clear difference.

PAT: Big time.

GLENN: But he's recasting that now.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And, yes, was he trying to force Donald Trump and the G.O.P. to come closer? Yeah, I think he was.

PAT: Even if that's what he was trying to do, what have they done to get closer? Nothing! Nothing.

GLENN: So he said -- so he could have come on and said --

PAT: I don't buy it.

GLENN: -- "Look, guys, here's the thing: My supporters are yelling at me." And I know that, because so are mine.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: My donors, who were all in with the G.O.P., they're all saying, "I'll never fund you -- I won't fund you for the Senate. I won't fund you for the run in 2020." And I have to make a decision. So the question is: Do I completely shut myself out of this game, or do I play the game as much as I possibly can? Look, there's nobody that has held out longer than me, he should have said.

STU: It wouldn't be accurate, but it would be close to that.

GLENN: It wouldn't be accurate, yes. They're down to 12.

You know, if you count us and Ben Shapiro and everybody else, they're down to 12.

STU: Kasich is a candidate --

GLENN: Yes. Kasich!

PAT: Ben Sasse.

GLENN: Ben Sasse.

STU: Ben Sasse. Mike Lee. And when's the last time anyone asked Ben Sasse about this? He was able to avoid it completely because he was honest and said what he believed early on.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So people stopped bugging him about it.

GLENN: Yes. So, anyway -- and people would have stopped bugging him about this.

So, anyway, if he would have just come on and said that, I would have had a lot easier time. But to become the politician --

STU: Right.

GLENN: -- is -- is disappointing. Really disappointing.

STU: Well, two things --

GLENN: But I don't want to get into a situation to where -- I think Ted Cruz is still a good man. I I think he's a good man. I do think he prayed on this. And I can't argue with him. I think everybody's back is up against the wall. And so I'm not going to condemn him. He is, still, I believe, a good man. He is just a politician, first. I've never put him into the category of politician, and that's my fault. He is a politician.

STU: Right. And that's not a condemnation of him, it's a condemnation of our decision-making process, I suppose.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: And so two quick things, positive on Cruz: Number one, he's got the balls to come in here and face this.

GLENN: Not a lot of people would do that.

STU: Not a lot of people would do that.

Number two: He'll still be one of the best senators in the Senate. You know, we had this same sort of issue with Rand Paul when he endorsed Mitch McConnell.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And we gave him a really hard time about that, and it's forever changed the general way we think about him.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: He's a good senator. He's right on almost everything --

GLENN: And I still support him. I'd still vote for him.

STU: I still support him. Right.

GLENN: But I know who he is.

STU: I don't separate him from the pack. He's just a good, quality conservative senator with good Libertarian leanings. And he's usually right. And that's what I'll think about Ted Cruz in the future.

GLENN: Yes, yes. Yes. Yes.

STU: He's Rand Paul, and that's okay. He's still going to be one of the best senators.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: But this idea that now he's bringing to us the binary choice argument --

PAT: I hate that.

STU: -- is so --

PAT: That drove me nuts more than just about anything in that conversation.

STU: Oh, just about anything. It's so ridiculous.

PAT: It's a binary choice? No, I thought it was vote your conscience.

STU: Conscience and principles.

PAT: Those are mutually exclusive. I'm sorry.

STU: And if you haven't heard the binary choice argument before --

GLENN: Everybody has.

STU: Well, but just to review.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Basically, Hillary Clinton is going to be bad on 100 percent of the things. We know she's a liberal and she's nuts. On the other side, you're going to have someone who might be good on some things. Maybe he's at least saying he's for a flat tax and the IRS --

PAT: And he gives us no indication to think he will be better on anything.

STU: Well, let me finish. Maybe he's better for more localized education. Maybe he's better on campaign reform term limits. Maybe he's better on foreign policy that's a little bit more sensible. Maybe he's better on monetary policy. You know, better on the fed. Maybe he would give us better Supreme Court justices.

What I just described to you is straight off the David Duke website. That is his platform. Those things are his platform. So if we had a binary choice between David Duke -- who would be better than taxes than Hillary Clinton -- he would be better on localized education than Hillary Clinton. Are we to cross the line and vote for David Duke because, "Well, he's better on X, Y, and Z?" And to me, that's why it's not a binary choice.

GLENN: Binary choices as we said, last hour, lead you to a kakistocracy.

STU: Kakistocracy.

GLENN: Say it.

STU: No.

GLENN: You can't, can you? Nobody can.

STU: The point is --

GLENN: But it is a government run by the worst people of society. Because everybody keeps saying, "Well, it's the lesser of two evils." And eventually you get down to Pol Pot or Mao.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I mean, eventually you get there.

Now, we're not anywhere close to that.

STU: Right. And obviously --

GLENN: But you are on that road.

STU: Obviously, Donald Trump is not as bad as David Duke.

GLENN: No.

STU: But the point is, there has to be a line of principle. And obviously Cruz is saying here that Trump doesn't violate that line. Because I think every mainstream Trump supporter would say, "I'm not going to vote for David Duke in that scenario."

GLENN: Correct.

STU: However, every argument they make about Donald Trump could be applied to David Duke.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: You could get anyone that isn't Hillary Clinton, you could apply these arguments to.

GLENN: See, this is the problem: The problem is we have divided ourselves in teams, and it doesn't matter if your team is inflating the ball or not. If the other side is inflating the ball, you cry bloody murder. If your side is inflating the ball, it doesn't matter. That's the problem. We're all wearing jerseys, it doesn't matter what is happening anymore. I'm for my team.

This is -- this is exactly what our Founders warned us about. George Washington was clear. Thomas Jefferson was clear. Adams was clear. They were all clear!

This is the end of the republic if you just play teams. And that's the problem. We're playing teams.

Look, I want you to listen very carefully to me because this is going to sound pretty outrageous: I am not here to fight for the -- for the saving of America. I am not here to fight for the saving of this land. I am not here to save the -- the -- the -- the -- the system that we have built. I am here and you are here -- we all are here for this time to save the idea of America.

America is no more than that: an idea, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. And among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That you have charge over your own life and you only answer to God, and God gives you those rights, and you give some of those rights to the government for protection. And the minute that that government begins to infringe on any of those rights, it is not just your -- not just your willingness, it is your duty to overthrow anyone who would take those rights away.

Those rights are what have us say, "I can do this. I can build a better mousetrap. I could be president. I could build a rocket and go to Mars. I can be left alone. I can participate. I can not participate." It's an idea that had never, ever happened before.

And right now, what we are arguing about is the -- is the destruction of our banking system. The destruction of our two-party system. The destruction of our capital. The destruction of law and order, whatever the hell that even means anymore. The destruction of our culture. The destruction of our churches, whatever the hell that means anymore.

I don't care if my children are more rich or less rich than me. I don't care. I don't care.

What I do care is that my children are free to be able to chart their own course, free to be able to work or not work and starve. My children have a right to worship in the way they see fit and to move as their conscience tells them to move.

Right now, we have become PETA. Shame on all of us. Why not -- just if you won't vote for Hillary our you won't vote for Trump, why not just cover me in a bucket of blood? Why not just shame me in the public square? Why not run them out of business? They're climate deniers!

There is no difference between the two teams anymore. Oh, sure, one's for a little lower taxes. One is the for border, one is not. One is for international rule, one is for national rule.

Which one is for the idea that all men are created equal, that all men have a right to pursue their own happiness and make their own goddamn decision? Which one? Which one?

I contend neither of them. And so we will just soak each other in buckets of blood. We'll be a happy little bumper sticker community that shames one another into making sure you walk in goose-step with all the other Hillary supporters or walk in goose-step with all the other Trump supporters. Because she's going to mean the destruction of America. No, no, says the Hillary supporter, you must vote for us because he means the destruction of America.

I contend they both mean the destruction of the idea.

[break]

GLENN: So I apologize for my outburst in language. I don't apologize for the thoughts behind it. But sometimes, when you're doing four hours a day live, that's what happens. Welcome to the program. Welcome to real life.

When we come back, next hour, the debates.

STU: Oh, good.

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.