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

Texas = the opposite of Massachusetts

July 19, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Glenn talked about how thrilled he was to be in Texas - especially considering voters appear to be voting on principle not party politics. In Massachusetts, noted liar Elizabeth Warren is somehow still leading in polls despite being caught in the humiliating ‘Cherokee’ fib. It’s a different story in Texas, where voters are going after the GOP establishment. Glenn interviewed candidate Ted Cruz on radio today for an update on his race.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: 150 hours to go before the very first Restoring Love event and that is Freedom Works. Freedom Works is having their Free PAC event and one of the guys who is going to be there is Ted Cruz. He is running for Senate here in Dallas, Texas. And what is the latest poll, Stu?

STU: The last one I saw was Cruz up 5, I believe.

GLENN: Ted Cruz is on the phone with us now. Hi, Ted. Ted, are you there? Ted's not there.

STU: Now he's only up 4 after that.

GLENN: 3, 2 ‑‑

STU: Oh, gosh, it's slipping away.

GLENN: 1. Ted's gone.

STU: David Dewhurst has won. Wow, it happened that first.

GLENN: His internal poll says he's up by 9 points.

STU: Yeah, he had one that he released an internal poll was up 9. Then I think I saw another poll released after that that had him up 5, which was huge. I mean, people ‑‑ this will be one of the biggest upsets in all of this Tea Party stuff that's gone on over the past few years.

GLENN: This is the biggest, this is the biggest one.

PAT: My internal poll, the one in my head has him up by 47 points.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Does it really?

PAT: 47 points.

GLENN: Yeah. Huh.

STU: Wow.

PAT: In fact, he just won. We've just declared Ted Cruz the winner of Texas.

GLENN: I'm so proud of Texas. You know, I feel the opposite of Texas that I do about Massachusetts. I think what's her face, you know, the Indian squaw, what's her name?

STU: Oh, yeah.

PAT: Elizabeth Warren.

STU: Elizabeth Warren.

GLENN: She's winning. She's up in all the polls in Massachusetts.

PAT: She is?

GLENN: Yeah. She's up?

PAT: She's up?

GLENN: Yeah. In Massachusetts.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Massachusetts, you get what you deserve.

PAT: That is unreal.

GLENN: You get what you deserve.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: The difference here is in Texas they are not going to put Dewhurst in. Let me go to Ted Cruz now. Are you there, Ted?

CRUZ: Good morning, Glenn. Great to be with you.

GLENN: What is your ‑‑ what does the average poll say? We know your internal is up 9. We've seen 7 and 8. Do you know what the average is?

CRUZ: Yeah. Our internal poll has us up 9, 49‑40%. There have been two independent polls. One had us up 91/2, the other had us up 5.

GLENN: That would be sweet. What do you attribute this to? Because I saw the ‑‑ I saw the ad. I saw one of the ads against you on television. It's like ‑‑ it was like, "Ted Cruz is a lying liar that lies all the time."

PAT: And he's a lawyer who lies. That's even worse.

GLENN: He's a liar.

PAT: A lying lawyer who lies.

GLENN: I saw one ‑‑ I saw one of the worst attack ads I've ever seen. I didn't even hear it. It was just on and I look up and it was like, "Ted Cruz killed a bunch of people."

PAT: (Laughing.)

GLENN: I don't think that's true.

CRUZ: Look, I mean, it's ‑‑ at the Republican state convention I joked that by the end of this David Dewhurst was going to tell you that I want to eat your children.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

CRUZ: What I didn't understand is that that wasn't a joke. That is, in fact, just how low they're going to stoop. I mean, they are pulling out all of ‑‑ all of the guns. They're flooding the airwaves.

GLENN: Big time.

CRUZ: With false negative attack ads. You know what, I think those, though, are actually rebounding on them and hurting them. People are tired of the lies and the false character attack ads. You know, we've kept our focus on policy, not on ‑‑

GLENN: Can I tell you something? I think that's the secret with Mitt Romney right now, too. Mitt Romney is running a very positive campaign. He's holding his feet to the fire but he's like, "You know..." it's almost like you're dismissing these guys because they really are. It's time for them to be dismissed. Go away. Go away. It doesn't matter what you say. Oh, really? "Yeah, I eat children at night, you know, for dinner as well as snacks. And my wife yells about it all the time." So anyway, thank you for that cute little argument but here's what we're going to do. And it seems to be working.

Let me ask you a tough question. You have described Chief Justice John Roberts as a mentor and a friend.

CRUZ: Right. I have. And which of many tough questions is coming next?

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: How are you feeling about his ruling there?

CRUZ: Look, it is heartbreaking. I was shocked. I was incredibly disappointed. You know, in the debate Tuesday, the moderator asked, knowing what you know now, would you, would you vote to confirm Chief Justice Roberts. And I tell you it was painful that I had to answer, no, I would not. Because I think the Supreme Court's decision, I think the Court abdicated its responsibility.

GLENN: So what led ‑‑ in your opinion you know, you describe him as a friend. There is a story out that he changed it at the last minute and it's well documented. I mean, the whole thing is written as if he is on the other side.

CRUZ: Right.

GLENN: So he changed it at the last minute. They said he came with red eyes, he really looked distraught while this was going on. Kennedy was pissed at him.

CRUZ: Yeah.

GLENN: What do you ‑‑ you know, in your uninformed, or maybe you have information. In your uninformed opinion, speculate a little bit: What do you think happened?

CRUZ: I have no reason to doubt those reports, and unfortunately what I think happened is I think President Obama's threats to the Court worked. And I think what happened was I think he got nervous about the Court striking down ObamaCare and made effectively a political decision ‑‑

PAT: Wow.

CRUZ: ‑‑ not to do so because he thought it would save the credibility of the Court. I think ironically it did exactly the opposite. I think this decision is going to go down in history as a Cravenly political decision and I think it is undermining the credibility of the court.

GLENN: Oh, big time.

CRUZ: Their job is to enforce the Constitution, not to be political players.

PAT: And if that's your opinion of why he did what he did, then you're doing the right thing in saying that you wouldn't vote to confirm him. Based on what you know now. That's what it's all B. It's about upholding the Constitution, not whether or not this Court has, you know, a legacy.

CRUZ: Well, and that's why they're given life tenure is to make decisions that might be politically unpopular. They might be criticized for. That's the entire purpose of life tenure and I think when they worry about the political consequences of the immediate moment and they don't stand up and do their job, it undermines the entire reason we have the Court in the first place.

GLENN: So what part ‑‑ and I'm asking this because I want to know about your character. What part of John Roberts' character would lead you to that conclusion that he made a political decision? What part of his character or what did you see that would make you say, "Yeah, that's probably, that's probably what he did"? Because that's quite a charge to make that a guy who was in the Supreme Court, is a Supreme Court justice, chief justice, would do that.

CRUZ: Look, I mean, I'm not claiming to have had any inkling of this beforehand. I mean, I was shocked at the outcome. It was not something that had entered my mind as remotely a possibility. But, you know, I base that on reading the opinion. The opinion to me reads like a political opinion. The reasoning trying to contort the statutes and turn it into a tax. Listen, I've read a lot of judicial opinions and it's an opinion that's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and the only reasoning that makes sense is it is he was nervous about the outcome if he actually ruled on what was obvious, that it wasn't a tax because they said it wasn't a tax because they weren't willing to pay the political consequences of calling it a tax. And I think, you know, the gymnastics to turn it into something it wasn't, the only explanation I can come up with because a political outcome.

STU: And, of course, it never would have passed if it was called a tax, which makes it that much more frustrating. Let me ‑‑ go ahead.

CRUZ: And that's where the Constitution where the framers knew what they were doing. There's a reason taxes are treated differently. When politicians vote for taxes, they tend to get thrown out of office. And the framers understood passing taxes aren't popular and if congress can pass something, not call it a tax and let the Court magically turn it into a tax, that removes one of the most significant constraints on government power there is.

GLENN: Wow, I never thought of it that way.

STU: And that, you want to talk about judicial activism.

GLENN: Yeah, that is.

STU: That is the ultimate. I mean, he changed the actual bill. It's like he changed the text of it retroactively to make it constitutional. I mean, it's just ‑‑

CRUZ: Right, right.

STU: I could whine about that all day. Let me ask you, Ted, about illegal immigration for a second. You ‑‑ there's a story in the, I believe it was the Houston Chronicle that cited a speech from David Dewhurst in which he seemed to back amnesty. What happened the next day on David Dewhurst's website.

CRUZ: No, that's exactly right. So to back up a little bit, in the first televised debate we had in the runoff, Dewhurst looked in the cameras and told everyone he did not support amnesty, he has never backed amnesty, never backed the guest worker program. The next day the Chronicle broke the story that in 2007 he had given a speech where he called for amnesty for every single illegal alien currently in the United States today. And what was astonishing is the Dewhurst amnesty program was broader than Barack Obama's amnesty program. Obama's amnesty just extends to kids who came here illegally. Dewhurst wanted to give a guest worker program to every single person illegally in this country today. And the source of this was the written text of a speech he had given that was on his official lieutenant governor website. So when this broke, obviously a lot of reporters began calling, began looking at the story. And several days later Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst ordered the stay employees who maintain the website to take his speech down, to delete it and, in fact, to delete every speech he had ever given as lieutenant governor. And, you know, it strikes me as remarkable that he is literally trying to whitewash his record and delete his record.

PAT: Wow.

CRUZ: Because he wants to hide from the fact that he advanced an amnesty program broader than Barack Obama's.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: The election is next week. I know you're going to be at Free PAC.

CRUZ: Yes.

GLENN: This, a week from Thursday ‑‑ I'm sorry. It's not next week. It's a week from, is it Tuesday?

PAT: Yeah.

CRUZ: Well, it's actually both.

PAT: The 31st.

CRUZ: So early voting in Texas starts on Monday of next week, and all next week Monday through Friday is early voting. So any Texan can vote any day next week and then election day itself is the next Tuesday, July 31st. And I'll tell you, to win we've got to do two things: One, we need conservatives to show up. I would ask every one of your listeners in Texas please, please, please come out and early vote next week or vote on the and Ist. But number two, Dewhurst is running millions of dollars of false character attack. We desperately need to raise the money to stay on TV. I'll tell you every time you've had me on the radio, hundreds of your listeners have gone to TedCruz.org, have contributed, hundreds of Texans and hundreds of conservatives nationally because every penny we raise goes to being up on television and radio to respond to these attacks. And we're leading statewide but if he's able to dump millions in attacks and we can't respond, what he wants to do is buy this race and I think that would be very, very dangerous and we desperately need the funding to respond.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this: This race is probably the biggest sign of the Tea Party's power and the freedom movement. And if Texas can't do it, nobody can do it. Ted, best of luck and we'll see you next week at Free PAC.

CRUZ: I look forward to it. And thank you for your incredible support, Glenn. And you know what? You're right. If we win, the national headlines will be the Tea Party is transforming the country. And if we lose, every reporter will point to it as proof that the Tea Party is dead and it will hurt lovers of liberty across the country.

GLENN: Big time.

CRUZ: So I am pleased to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and lovers of liberty across Texas and across the country.

GLENN: All right.

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.