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

Gilmore Girls Revival: Last Four Words Were About the Writer, Not the Fans

December 05, 2016
Staff

WRITER

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Glenn Beck does not watch the Gilmore Girls.

"I don't know a thing about the Gilmore Girls, other than my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

The premise of the show surrounds a mother and daughter relationship. The mother --- Lorelai --- had her daughter Rory at 16 years of age. The original show celebrates the success of her teen pregnancy. The much-anticipated Netflix revival ended with four words the show's creator, Amy Sherman-Palladino, planned years ago: Mom? Yeah? I'm pregnant.

But it's Sherman-Palladino's comments in recent interviews that have fans scratching their heads. Sherman-Palladino said that abortion could be an option for Rory. That news made Glenn's daughters go ballistic: Rory would never do that!

"If it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice," Glenn noted. "And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out."

Glenn's daughter Hannah also nailed the problem with the ending.

"I thought this was so good. She said, The entire four episodes were about the fans. The four words were about the writer, Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Okay. I don't know a thing about The Gilmore Girls, other than that my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household. As they were growing up, they would watch The Gilmore Girls with their mother every Tuesday night, and they would go over to their aunt's house -- and even on reruns, every Tuesday night, they would watch The Gilmore Girls. And so it was a big deal around my house when The Gilmore Girls decided to reunite and do, what? Four episodes on Netflix. I am proud to say that I have never watched an episode of The Gilmore Girls.

PAT: Yeah, me too. By the way, weren't they paid the most of any actors on television to do those four episodes?

JEFFY: Yeah, like 750,000 for each in an episode.

PAT: Per episode. Yeah. The highest --

GLENN: Were any of them working? I don't even know the cast.

PAT: I don't know. But it was a lot.

GLENN: Were any of them like, "Yeah, I used to be on The Gilmore Girls, but now I'm working at T.J. Maxx." Or are they actors?

STU: I have legitimately no clue.

JEFFY: I have no clue.

GLENN: I have no idea either. So obviously this is not going to be a conversation about The Gilmore Girls, but rather culture and the left. Listen to this. So I'm not going to give you a spoiler alert, because I doubt there's anyone in this audience that is waiting to see The Gilmore Girls.

STU: But if you happen to be that person, this is the time to turn it off.

GLENN: That one. Turn it off for a second. Apparently -- and I don't know the story line at all, except, do you know what the premise is?

PAT: No.

STU: Two girls. That's about where I would go with it.

JEFFY: Two girls.

PAT: The mom and the daughter.

GLENN: The mom and the daughter. Okay. Rory, I think is the daughter -- oh, no, the mom's name --

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: I thought they were sisters.

GLENN: Mom was -- no, they're like sisters.

PAT: Gertrude is the mother. Gertrude.

GLENN: They're like sisters because mom had Rory when she was 16 years old.

PAT: Oh, my.

GLENN: And so --

PAT: So they're good friends. They're just good friends.

GLENN: They're good friends. Stop mocking for a second. Let me get through it. Then you can do all the mocking you want. And I'm not going to stop you on the mocking. It's just to get through it.

So the idea is that this girl's life was so tough because she made the mistake of having sex, she had a baby, they've made it through, and that's what the whole thing is.

STU: She was punished with a baby.

GLENN: No. No. Yes, that's what you could -- stop with the mocking for a second.

STU: That wasn't mocking.

PAT: This is on the new --

GLENN: No, this is the whole premise of the --

PAT: Oh, the whole thing -- of the whole -- oh.

GLENN: -- is they were able to make it. They were alone in the world, and they were able to make it. She was 16. She decided to keep the baby. She was, you know, strong all the way through.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: She raised Rory to be a good girl.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And they're really close. Okay? It's a success story of a teen pregnancy. That's what this is.

Everybody understand that? That's the only premise you need to know.

PAT: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: Success story of teen pregnancy.

Two stories now: One, the reason why people who were big fans of the show were unsatisfied with it -- they liked the four episodes. They didn't like the last four words of the final episode.

Now, apparently -- and I know nothing about this. I don't know why I've just lost my audio. But apparently, the thing that they didn't like is the last four words because the last four words were written a decade ago. And the writer did not -- the original writer and the original person that started the show did not write the last like three seasons back when it was on television. I don't know why. But she was jettisoned.

And she always said she wanted the episode to end -- or, the series to end when Rory was like 21 or 23 years old. And she was going to say the last four words, "Mom, I'm pregnant."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Okay? And that would have been a big deal because she was --

PAT: You used the contraction. That was only three words.

JEFFY: Yeah, but it would have been --

PAT: Still...

STU: I am pregnant?

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

STU: Okay. Got it.

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: I'm just making sure because we'll hear nothing but that, and then they'll lose the point of the story.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you, Pat.

PAT: Glenn Beck said, "Mom, I'm pregnant" is four words. That's all we'll hear.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you, Pat. I appreciate that.

Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: And that would have been appropriate when she was 23 years old and young and unmarried and she's just getting out of college and she's got her whole world in front of her. Okay? Because it's not 16. But in our society, that's still young to be pregnant and unmarried. Okay?

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Well, now, she's not 23. She's 33.

PAT: Rory is?

GLENN: Rory.

PAT: Thirty-three now?

GLENN: Yeah. Because she was -- yeah.

PAT: Wow, has it been that long? Jeez.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. So it's ten years later. When she was 23, they ended it. She's 33 now.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And so now, she's had her life. She's -- you know, she's still unmarried. She's started her career. Et cetera. Et cetera. And 33 is not young to have a baby. Right?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But it changes apparently -- and I don't know, and I'm not going to get into it. It changes the entire story line. It would have been a great ending ten years ago. Everybody is upset because it's like, "That's a bad ending now. That's not -- it changes -- now, that's a setup for a new season. It's not a cap." Okay?

Now -- now, that you understand that, that's the controversy.

But here's the real controversy: I read something -- because Gilmore Girls' fans generally are not listening to programs like this, they may not be getting the political news.

So there was a story on -- that I read -- I don't remember, New York Times or someplace, about the writer and what she said after, on those four words.

She said, "Well, Rory is smart enough to at least consider an abortion."

(chuckling)

GLENN: So I tell my daughters this. My daughters are -- they go -- they go ballistic. They go ballistic. And they start in, like, "Rory's a real person. Rory would never do that!"

(laughter)

STU: That's their complaint?

GLENN: Right. All right.

JEFFY: It's not the character. It's not the life.

GLENN: But, listen, here's how out of touch this writer is. Okay? What is the story?

JEFFY: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: The story is, at 16, a girl made a decision, and it's been the best decision of her life, and she's produced Rory.

PAT: It seems to be a pro-life show, in that eventuality.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Show. If she would have had an abortion, Rory wouldn't exist.

STU: Yeah, real dull series.

PAT: Right. It would just be Gilmore Girl, and it wouldn't be the same.

GLENN: And she wouldn't exist. So it makes the entire story line meaningless.

STU: Right. The premise, as you describe it, these circumstances that are sometimes difficult create these wonderful things.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Right? Like that is exactly --

GLENN: So now imagine being someone who at 16 -- your mom was 16. She gave birth to you. And you two made it. And now you're 33 with all these great memories, and you're pregnant and capable and wealthy enough to be able to have a baby, even by yourself. "I don't know, Mom. I'm thinking about cutting this one out."

JEFFY: Yeah, no way.

PAT: Crazy.

GLENN: Crazy.

PAT: Crazy.

It shows their agenda supersedes all.

GLENN: Everything.

PAT: Absolutely everything.

GLENN: My daughter Hannah said -- and I thought this was so good.

She said, "The four words -- she said, "The entire four episodes were about the fans." And she said, "The four words were about the writer. She had her thing she wanted to do, and it didn't matter if it wrecked it for all of the fans, she was going to be self-centered enough to do those four words because that's what she had planned." And she said, "She announced it ten years ago, those were the four words."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Everybody knew.

PAT: It doesn't even work.

GLENN: And it doesn't even work. So she said, "It became an ego project." And then on top of it, the abortion --

JEFFY: The abortion.

GLENN: I'm going to get my political message in here, which goes against everything in the show.

PAT: It sucks.

You know, J.K. Rowling kind of did the same thing, didn't she? After the fact of Harry Potter, she started throwing in all her little agenda items.

Oh, by the way --

GLENN: What? I don't know this.

PAT: -- Dumbledore was really gay. Oh, by the way --

GLENN: You've got to be kidding me.

PAT: -- Hermione was supposed to be black. Oh, by the way -- what? Well, then why didn't you do it that way, if that's what it was supposed to be. What are you talking about? Yeah --

GLENN: Where is the tip-off that Dumbledore was gay?

PAT: I don't -- if you go back and look at the movies -- I don't buy into it. I just think it's political correctness on her part now. I just think she didn't have a diverse enough cast and diverse enough story, and so now she's trying to make it diverse. It's pathetic. It's pathetic.

GLENN: I can't take it. I can't take it. I can't take -- look, I know, you know, people who make different lifestyle choices exist. I got it. I got it.

PAT: Yes. And I think we all know that.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: And I don't have a problem. Fine. Whatever.

PAT: I know.

GLENN: Don't force me to marry people in my church, and I won't force you to not marry. Can we just have some perspective and get along and live together?

PAT: It would be great, but no.

GLENN: It would be great. But television is non-stop gay relationships. I mean, it's like -- it just -- it seems like 90 percent of the population is gay and 10 percent are straight and getting married.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Well, this is why the Gaines situation stood out to so many people. Because I guess they didn't -- I don't watch the show.

GLENN: Oh, I do.

STU: I guess they don't have a lot of gay couples on or something.

PAT: Wouldn't that be sort of the balance to the rest of HGTV, which does feature them prominently.

STU: All the time. Just fine.

JEFFY: And they're in Waco, Texas.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: And they're in Waco.

GLENN: And Waco, Texas. Yeah. It's not like we're in San Francisco. We're in Waco, Texas.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And the shows they have in California can feature a lot of gay couples.

JEFFY: And they do. They do.

PAT: They do.

GLENN: Did you hear how Chip Gaines responded?

STU: Gracefully.

GLENN: Really -- I'll give it to you here in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: I -- I know I'm getting yelled at. I can feel the anger from my two daughters as they're yelling at me from home, if they happen to be listening to the show. The mother's name is Lorelai.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Long-term listeners of the show know the importance of that because it is my granddaughter's name.

(laughter)

PAT: Not coincidentally, by the way.

GLENN: Not coincidentally. Not coincidentally.

PAT: They are definitely connected.

PAT: Huge Gilmore Girl fans. Huge Gilmore Girl fans.

I'm going to get to Chip Gaines here in a second. Let me go to Ashley in Georgia. Hello, Ashley.

CALLER: Hey, Glenn. I need to correct you real quick.

GLENN: All right. Yeah.

CALLER: Okay? The last four words actually are, Rory says, "Mom." Lorelai says, "Yeah." And then Rory says, "I'm pregnant." Fade to black. Yeah.

GLENN: Ah. Got it. How did you feel about the ending?

CALLER: I hated it.

GLENN: Okay. And for the same reasons that I described?

CALLER: Yeah, I mean, it wasn't right. Yeah, it wasn't right. Yeah. So, yeah -- I --

GLENN: Did you know -- did you know about what the creator and the writer said about Rory and abortion?

CALLER: I read the article. Yes.

GLENN: You read the article.

Well, you listen to this show, and you're a fan of The Gilmore Girls.

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: How did that make you feel?

CALLER: It pissed me off. You know, but then I got ticked off. And then I was like, you know what, I'm not surprised because these are -- it's a liberal -- if you watch it and follow it, it's -- you know, it's (inaudible) for crying out loud. I mean, it's a liberal show. They live in Connecticut. So, I mean, I wasn't surprised. But I was ticked. And then I was kind of disappointed. That that -- she kind of alluded to, like, if the show had gone on, Rory probably would have an abortion because that would be like the smart thing to do for her.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

CALLER: I don't know. It just was like, are you kidding me?

GLENN: I mean, have you missed the entire point of everything that you've written?

CALLER: Right. And that's my whole thing. I'm like -- and they talk about, "It comes full circle." And I'm like --

GLENN: If you -- if you -- if it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice.

CALLER: Exactly.

STU: Doesn't it also break the circle? I mean, that's the whole point. The circle is over.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's crazy. Ashley, thank you so much. And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out.

Featured Image: The WB Television Network

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.