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 Throws in With Chip and Joanna Gaines in the Fight Against Clickbait Ads

July 07, 2017
Jon Boldt

Writer

After mentioning a salacious ad he saw on TheBlaze claiming Joanna Gaines was leaving HGTV to start her own line of facial cream, Glenn actually got a call from their attorney.

"Well, when I told the story on the air the first day, Chip and Joanna Gaines' attorney called and said we want to talk to you about that ad. And we immediately said we had nothing to do with it. We didn't even know that's what the ad was until it popped up, and we canceled it. They said, 'yeah, we really would like this ad to stop. Can you help us at all?' So I hope that we are assisting them in every possible way because I love these two, and I think what's happening to people --- because it's not just happening to Chip and Joanna Gaines," Glenn said on radio Friday.

Glenn brought in his media attorney Mike Grygiel to talk about what recourse there is and if banding all these celebrities together to fight this type of ad would make a difference.

"I think there's always strength in numbers. I think there is a threshold obligation here too,

Glenn, on the part of the advertising agency," Grygiel said. "That it's authentic and real. Because otherwise, once the genie's out of the bottle so to speak, it's just very, very difficult to prevent this type of thing from spiraling out of control on the Internet. And then once it's out there on all of these websites, it's difficult to get it back in."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America, and welcome to Friday. We are so glad that you have tuned in today. There was a commercial or an ad that was running on TheBlaze, and I saw it, and it wasn't a direct advertiser. It's one of these things, it's complicated to say. But basically, an ad agency represents, you know, all of these different people, so you sign on with the ad agency, and then the ad agency just runs whatever ad. Well, there was this ad that was running, and it was about the new face cream and the headline on the ad was Joanna Gaines leaves the show and Chip didn't even know why. And I'm, like, what the hell is -- Chip and Joanna Gaines? What is this? The lies in this are so amazing, I immediately called our sales manager and said cancel this. What is this? How could they possibly get away with a lie? And actually, I said I don't mind if they sell face cream. But not with lies.

Well, when they said wait a minute, you're telling us -- you're telling us that we have to change our ad copy? Yes, it can't be a lie. They canceled. That's a quarter of a million dollar account.

PAT: A month; right?

GLENN: Yeah, a month. And you see this ad everywhere because people don't care.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: I happen to care. But it's really hard, especially for conservatives who have been blocked out of almost everything to walk away from $250,000 a month. That's a lot of money, obviously. So we've been talking. How does this company get away with this? Well, when I told the story on the air the first day, Chip and Joanna Gaines attorney called and said we want to talk to you about that ad. And we immediately said we had nothing to do with it. We didn't even know that's what the ad was until it popped up, and we canceled it.

They said, yeah, we really would like this ad to stop.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Can you help us at all? So I hope that we are assisting them in every possible way because I love these two, and I think what's happening to people -- because it's not just happening to Chip and Joanna Gaines. It's happening to a ton of celebrities. I want to know what the legal recourse is. How can that ad run? We have one of the best attorneys on the phone with us to answer this question. And we begin right now.

Okay. Let's just read the first paragraph of this ad. Here it is.

PAT: And like you said, this is everywhere. It's all over the Internet. But it starts out by saying it all started last November when Joanna Gaines, host of the popular HGTV show struck a deal with Lori Greiner. Didn't happen.

GLENN: Lie number two.

PAT: The deal states that Joanna's new cosmetic line will be picked up by QVC.

GLENN: Not true.

PAT: Joanna is very proud of her lying.

GLENN: Lie number four.

PAT: There are attributing quotes here. This is more than just a beauty line. This is what every woman has been dreaming of for most of her adult life.

GLENN: Lie number five.

PAT: The rub is HGTV and QVC are rival competitors.

STU: That is currently a lie.

PAT: QVC just bought HSN.

STU: For $2 billion.

PAT: There's a contract that says she's prohibited or promoting any channel or media company. That's probably true. It was later discovered not even her husband Chip knew that she was -- what she was constructing in the background.

GLENN: Okay. Now you're --

PAT: You're starting to get into the relationship.

GLENN: And when I read that, I was, like, no way. No way.

PAT: It goes so far as to say when her secret surfaced it, it caused a rift in her marriage. Jeez.

GLENN: Okay. That does damage. That does damage to their image.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: I mean, I like them because they're such a great family and such a great couple.

PAT: You're talking liable now.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. This is horrible so now we're up to lie seven.

PAT: Because of this, HGTV has decided to carry on the show by himself. In one paragraph.

GLENN: Okay. That's one paragraph. There are more lies to follow.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We cannot figure out. Because this is not just happening to them. This is happening to -- I saw Stephen Hawking and Anderson Cooper are taking a new brain drug that makes them super smart.

PAT: Really?

JEFFY: Yeah, that's been around.

PAT: There's another one involving Michael Jordan and LeBron James, and they're having some kind of feud, and they're selling a product with it.

JEFFY: My free bottles haven't arrived yet.

GLENN: Mike is truly -- he has a national practice on media law, emphasis on defending news organizations from news gathering to publicly-related claims including defamation, invasion of privacy matters. He is one of the best attorneys in America. When companies see him coming and his firm coming, they realize holy crap. We have the big dogs coming after us. He is my attorney, and I can't speak highly enough about him. So we called him up and asked him how do they get away with this? Mike, welcome to the program.

MIKE: yeah, good morning, Glenn, and thank you very much for the kind words. They're much appreciated. Well, the answer to the examples you've raised on the air is that they really are unlawful and the law has recognized what's known as the right of publicity. And really, what that boils down to is each individual person has a legally protectable interest in their name, their image, their likeness, and their voice. So, for example, if I'm selling cars or a product or a service in Dallas Fort Worth metro area, I could not take a picture of Glenn Beck and put it up on a billboard for motorists to see where you're touting the product or service, unless I had your express written authorization to do that. And the reason is obvious. That you have a recognizable brand value and identity that has commercial value in the marketplace, and you and you alone should be able to control the dissemination of your image for commercial marketing purposes, and you should be able to collect and monetize that. You know, typically, of course, this occurs with celebrities and people whose identities have recognized market value, although in most jurisdictions, no one can do that to say me either, although I obviously don't -- do not have a recognized marketability factor or quotient in my own persona.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on, Mike. So here's the thing. I have seen these everywhere and, you know, when I first saw the one about the brain drug, I wrote to Anderson, and I'm, like, oh, so that's what it is, huh? And he was, like, these are so obnoxious. Joanna and Chip, they called our office and said we're going to track these people down because they keep just shuttering their business, and I guess they'll shutter it and then open it up. And somehow or another, they're getting away with it, and I don't know why. And on top of it, institutions like me, like GlennBeck.com or the Blaze, we took this ad unbeknownst to us because it was just in a service that you buy the service, and then they from the ads with what they're selling. When I saw it, we took it down. It cost us a fortune to lose that, and everyone else is taking it. So there's money being made by the people that are doing the face cream. There's money being made by all the media outlets that are taking this. There's money being made by the agencies that are representing this, and they know that there's somehow or another a game being played and all the celebrities that are involved don't want to spend the money trying to track those guys down because there's obviously not deep pockets or the pockets are so well protected in shell companies that there's nothing to go and get. How do you stop it?

MIKE: Well, that's really a difficult question. And I think you're putting your finger on the real problem, Glenn, today for most celebrities who do have recognized commercial value and appeal in their persona. With the proliferation of these examples on the Internet, it's very difficult to monitor for first thing. And then if you are able to discover these types of things, it's an expensive proposition sometimes because they're all over the place. So most of the time if you're able to identify a truly unauthorized ad where somebody is using your image and your likeness for a commercial purpose, you have not consented to or authorized, you can go to court and get an injunction whereby the court would order the person who is displaying this. A website or something to cease and desist to continue to publish the ad. As you correctly point out, however, that can be a not expensive ask sometimes inconvenient proposition that doesn't fully answer the Whack-a-Mole problem. Once you get one of them down, it pops up again some place else.

GLENN: So that's what I want to -- I want to concentrate on that for a second. What they do, I'm sure, and I don't know the case of this company. But what it appears to be is, you know, they'll just make a quick 501(c)(3) or whatever -- is that the right thing? Yeah, a corporation, an S Corp, a quick S Corp, a shell corporation of some sort, they'll put limited resources in it, they'll buy it, but they won't keep any money in it. And then if you sue that company, there's nothing really to win. And the people just leave to go do it again under some other company name in some other way. How do you get to the people when you know their intent is bad, you know? You want that. You want that protection from a corporation in some cases. But when you have really bad guys using the system, is there anything to get to the actual perpetrators?

MIKE: It can be really difficult, and I had a case a few years ago for a very prominent professional athlete, a tennis player. And his name and image was being used to promote a rather unsavory product. And he in no way authorized this. He did not want the association with his identity in the market embezzle that it devalued his own sponsorship abilities, and we ended up tracking this down, and it was some company offshore, you know, down in the Cayman Islands, and, thankfully, we were able to get the ad shut down on the website because we got a court order and went to Internet service providers like Google and said you can't display this anymore. But being able to recover actual financial damages from the perpetrators is extraordinarily impractical and very unlikely.

GLENN: So, Mike, let me just ask you an off the wall question. And you know me. I don't need another project, and I don't need -- I just don't need more hassles in my life. But this is -- this is something that really bothers me because when I saw it on TheBlaze, if we don't have a way to say to agencies "You cannot lie. These things are just going to keep coming through and slipping through the cracks, and it hurts my credibility as a news organization.

MIKE: Sure.

GLENN: Most people don't care. It also bothers me that people like Chip and Joanna. If people don't say anything and try to help these guys, the Tom Brady's and Michael Jordan and Anderson Cooper and even Stephen Hawking, the next people will be us. And is there a way -- would you be interested to see if we reach out to all of these people? I would like to as a media company just be a part of something that is trying to enforce truth in advertising. Is it possible? Would it help if everybody got together and tried to stop it?

MIKE: I think there's always strength in numbers. I think there is a threshold obligation here too,

Glenn, on the part of the advertising agency. They should have some up front ability --

GLENN: Oh, they didn't care.

MIKE: Before placing an ad.

GLENN: They didn't care.

MIKE: That it's authentic and real. Because otherwise, once the genie's out of the bottle so to speak, it's just very, very difficult to prevent this type of thing from spiraling out of control on the Internet. And then once it's out there on all of these websites, it's difficult to get it back in.

GLENN: Mike, if you could do me a favor, independently like to reach out to these people and see if they're interested in working together. And I don't want to lead it or anything else. But if you are so good. And if it's not you, maybe you know who is that somebody can make a dent. Because if it is the advertiser, we have to go after the ad agencies. Somebody needs to protect truth.

MIKE: Yeah, there should be accountability here and substantial measures often happens with technology. Sometimes things outstrip or outpace the ability of the legal system to provide an effective remedy. And here I think it's probably a situation that merits consideration from those that are involved because for a -- someone who has really worked hard, achieved success to be associated with an unauthorized product or service that may actually be disreputable can obviously cause damage to that person's market value and reputation. And the legal system should be able to find a way to stop that sort of thing from happening.

GLENN: Mike, thank you so much. I appreciate it, Mike.

MIKE: Yep. Appreciate it, Glenn. Take care.

GLENN: My attorney on first amendment and speech and investigative issues Mike is just fantastic. Now this. By the way, chip and Joanna, we love you, and we want to help you any way we possibly can.

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.