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

Witch Hunt: Bill O'Reilly Deserves the Benefit of the Doubt

April 06, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Glenn has spent a fair amount of time --- in studio and on tour --- with Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. Not once did he or his staff see anything resembling the accusations being levied at the host of cable news' number one show.

"Not only did we not smell smoke, we never saw smoke. And, quite honestly, when you're out with somebody as famous as Bill O'Reilly, you watch. You want to see their character. Bill O'Reilly was always professional," Glenn said. "[He] deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Somebody that I have known for years and has -- and have really grown to really, truly respect is being raked over the coals in the press right now. People are trying to destroy him by getting his advertisers to run for the hills. Guess who is involved in this, Stu?

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: Color of Change.

STU: Oh, the same Van Jones organization.

GLENN: Yeah, how do we know about Color of Change?

STU: They were trying to lead a boycott against you.

GLENN: Yeah, and how did that boycott work?

STU: Well, they tried to intimidate -- you know, their 14 social media followers would continually tweet, call, and intimidate companies. Companies not wanting to deal with it would just make -- move their advertising from our show on to another show and still pay the same exact amount. And it wouldn't affect the business at all.

GLENN: But that really -- that really was the -- that was the worst of the worst. And there was very little of that, that actually went on.

STU: Yeah. A lot of it -- yeah, that was the most extreme part. Most of it was advertisers that never advertised on the program. They would try to make announcements that they had dropped our show, when they were never on the show.

GLENN: For instance, can you think of a cheese company?

STU: I can think of a cheese company.

GLENN: Would you like to talk about that cheese company?

STU: I can if you want me to talk about the cheese company.

GLENN: That's fine. I just know that Stu has harbored some very deep feelings about --

STU: A particular cheese company.

GLENN: -- a particular cheese company that never advertised on our show.

STU: Yeah. Because I could actually -- and these things are weird. Because companies don't want to be involved in controversies.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Even if they don't believe the controversy is real, they just don't want to deal with it. They make cheese, for example. So I understand sometimes these companies will be like, just don't put me on that show right now. I don't want to be in the news. I get that.

To make public statements in which you are -- well, we cannot be associated with hate, or that type of stuff, which they were doing to us. Many companies are doing the same thing today. That's just infuriating, especially when they know it's not true.

You know, these --

GLENN: No, but -- you didn't know that it wasn't true. Some people still think that I am the reason for all of the hate in the country.

STU: You seem to be leading that brigade lately. But --

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: So, anyway, what when I worked at Fox News -- when I worked at Fox News, this is what the left did to me. They tried really hard.

It actually didn't work. Unfortunately, Fox News tried to make the case after I left that it did. And that's going to come and bite them in the ass now.

But it actually didn't work. When I was there -- and I've said this many times. Bill O'Reilly was the -- it was the most honest, fair, most intelligent and intellectually curious guy in the media I have ever met.

I don't agree with everything that Bill O'Reilly says. I don't agree with some of his stances. He always seems to be behind because he's not willing to predict or project. He's willing to look at what's a fact today. That's what -- I mean, we've had this argument. I'm like, "Bill, come on, man. Look. Here's history. Here are the facts. Where do you think --

He's like, that's not my job, Glenn.

So I don't necessarily agree with him on things. And, quite honestly, I remember the first time I met him and I was on his show. I was just starting Fox. And, you know, he has quite the reputation of being a bulldog. And he is a -- I think he's 6-5 or 6-6. And he's at this little teeny desk. Those studios -- studios and television look a lot bigger. Objects in the mirror appear to be bigger than they are -- or bigger than they are. They're really small. And you're in O'Reilly's face sitting at that table.

And I remember they were counting him down, five, four -- and I reached over and I grabbed his hand and said, "Please don't kill me." Because you don't go into a room with Bill O'Reilly knowing.

And we became friends, but we became friends because we were both intellectually honest with each other. When we were flying on a plane -- and he probably -- well, no, I think he would be fine with this.

STU: These stories always work out well. I don't see why they would have any problem with this. This is a private story that was told in confidence, but let me just say it right now on the air.

GLENN: So we were on a plane, and I said, "Bill, thank you for being so kind to me. There's no reason you need to be kind to me." And he looked at me and he said, "Stop it." And I said, "What?" And he said, "Glenn, you're jet fuel. You're hot right now. That helps me. By having you on the show, it helps me, you know, continue to expand and boost my ratings and expand my audience."

STU: Right. Makes for interesting, compelling content.

GLENN: Right. And he said, "And it's compelling. It's good stuff. I'm not doing you any favor." And I thought -- because I knew that to be true, but I didn't think anyone would ever admit that.

That's the kind of guy I know in Bill O'Reilly. I know he is intellectually honest. And so buttoned up.

PAT: Tough, but fair.

GLENN: Yeah. He does not --

PAT: That's Bill.

GLENN: He gets the reputation of being tough because if you're not cutting it, he is. He's writing every word he says.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: He's doing all the hard lifting on his own show.

STU: It's almost when you talk to him, you're in a zone where there's not spin occurring.

GLENN: Shut up.

So he's doing all the hard work himself that he's supposed to do. If you are not bringing your full game, he's not a fan of yours.

PAT: And we've spent a lot of time with him. We went on tour with him several times. We toured the country with him. Bill O'Reilly never gave any indication that --

GLENN: That there's any of this stuff.

PAT: This kind of behavior.

GLENN: Never. Not only did we not smell smoke, we never saw smoke. And, quite honestly, when you're out with somebody as famous as Bill O'Reilly, you watch. You want to see their character. Bill O'Reilly was always professional.

We talked about this yesterday in a meeting. With everybody -- we have a large team. We did our tours. When Bill and I went out, it was my company that produced those tours. So it was everybody, from the people that took him to the airport, to the people that took him home, to the people that tucked him into bed at night. It was all my people.

Not one person said anything about Bill O'Reilly, other than, that guy is a professional.

STU: To be clear, none of our people tucked him into bed at night.

GLENN: That was probably a poor choice of words there. But we were with him. Somebody from my staff was with him the entire time.

STU: Well --

GLENN: And no one said anything, but, "Wow, he's buttoned up."

STU: And we've seen -- you hang out with -- we're doing business with a lot of different people. I mean, think of one recent example that we all dredged through of one particular person on a bus with Billy Bush. And that sort of commentary, that --

PAT: That kidding around kind of -- blue humor.

STU: Yeah, we never saw anything like that. Not even jokes. Not even passing comments.

PAT: No.

STU: Nothing like that at all.

PAT: Uh-uh.

GLENN: You notice that I never said anything in defense of Roger Ailes. I never made the statement about Roger Ailes.

STU: Roger Ailes, yeah.

GLENN: Because, A, I never saw it, but it did not surprise me. Let's just put it that way. Because there was enough joking and conversations that I thought, eh, that one kind of made me a little uncomfortable. It did not surprise me.

Bill O'Reilly, I will be shocked, of course, disappointed, but shocked if he was engaged in any of the kind of monstrous stuff that he is being accused of.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I know what it's like to be attacked. And I am not doing this as a favor to him. I'm not doing this because I'm a friend of his. I believe he's a good man who is being attacked.

I could be wrong. But never an indication from us. Settling a lawsuit is not an admission of guilt. Let's make that one really clear.

Because you settle a lawsuit -- for instance, I can tell you I was in a lawsuit recently. How hard did I fight not to settle that, Stu?

STU: Very hard.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Knowing everyone around you.

GLENN: And who was I fighting against?

STU: Your own companies and people that were associated with you. Because they all wanted to --

GLENN: Right. I have several contracts with several big companies, and they were like, just settle the damn thing. Make it go away. The main argument came from the insurance company.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Just settle it. Just settle it. We can settle it for a fraction of the cost.

But it's wrong. Just settle it.

So because you settle does not make -- is not an admission of guilt. It's usually a way to just spend less time and money.

Just move on with your -- with your life.

Now, as a guy who drives about $100 million in revenue every year, that makes you a target. I know it. Because people do not understand that -- when they come to work for us at TheBlaze. They'll be like, oh, no. It's easy. You just do this. No, no. We call it jokingly the Glenn Beck tax. No, you don't understand. You're working with Glenn Beck. There's no -- there's no, like, oh, no, we can do this. No, no. Because we're a massive target.

And people don't understand that until they work here for a while. As a guy who has been number one for 20 years on cable news, do you think some people are going to try to take him down? Especially on the Fox News network. Especially that he is viewed as if he leaves, Fox is destroyed? Without Roger Ailes, who was the bulldog at the door -- like him, hate him, whatever. He was effective. And he kept the vampires at the door, sucking the blood out of -- the lifeblood out of Fox News. How it survives without Roger Ailes is beyond me. How it survives without Bill O'Reilly -- and you don't think the left understands this? The media is never going to give Bill O'Reilly or anyone with his effectiveness and his point of view a fair shake.

I would like one from time to time. I am being accused now that I am stomping on people's freedom of speech. That is so far out of every reality, and my -- and some, very few, claim -- listeners, people that claim to be my listeners believe that. Well, you were never my listener if you believe that. Because you cannot doubt -- you knew nothing about me.

PAT: Why don't you ask Amy Holmes about that?

GLENN: Yeah. But that's the way the world works. That's the way this press works. That's the way the left works. And, quite frankly, that's the way the right works when they want to destroy somebody, but the left is very, very good at it.

STU: And you're not -- this is not you taking -- you know, going after people who are making accusations.

GLENN: No.

STU: This is -- this is just you talking about someone you know. You don't know everything about every person and every interaction obviously. And it's not to -- it's not to go out --

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

STU: He gets it from me, surely.

PAT: Yeah, innocent until proven guilty.

GLENN: Yes. Until it has been proven guilty.

PAT: That's certainly not the assumption here by many.

GLENN: No.

STU: Well, and to be fair, it's because --

PAT: Maxine Waters said last night he should go to jail.

GLENN: To go to jail.

PAT: Are you kidding me?

GLENN: To go to jail.

STU: And a lot of this has to do with the stuff that happened with Roger. Because people now see Fox as anything you say about them and that atmosphere will be believed. And that's not fair. You have to look at it honestly.

GLENN: There are things that I saw and I witnessed. And things that happened at Fox that truly turned my stomach. Truly almost destroyed my hope in people. But I will tell you, if it wasn't for Bill O'Reilly, I think it would have been destroyed.

I walked in hearing all these stories about Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly is none of those things. Bill O'Reilly was buttoned up and professional every step of the way. He is uber, uber smart. Now, maybe again -- I don't know. I'm not with him every second of the day. I have no idea. But, boy, the Bill O'Reilly that I know and that I saw working, side by side for a long time, there is no doubt in my mind that he's just smarter than that.

And I would hope that even though I disagree with Bill O'Reilly, particularly on Donald Trump -- and he has said things about, you know, Never Trumpers, or whatever the category he might put me in, and he has not even had me on his show since the Trump thing began. I don't care. I don't care. I know who he is.

He did not ask me. I did not engage with him. So, Bill -- it doesn't matter.

We have to stand up for what we believe is right, and we have to stand up for people who are coming under fire, until they prove otherwise.

By the way, for the record, there are far more facts and witnesses and issues about Bill Clinton, who seems to get the benefit of the doubt all the time.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Good luck, Bill. Stay strong.

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.