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

Chris Stewart doubles down, returns to radio after "buzzsaw" interview

January 07, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Glenn and Chris Stewart have been friends for a while, so when Glenn got home last night after a contentious interview with the congressman he called him to clear the air. To Chris's credit, he agreed to come back onto the show today and talk through the issues again and defend the job being done by the Republicans in Congress. Glenn's never had a guest come back after walking into a buzzsaw of an interview like that, so regardless of Chris's views, he gets big points for guts.

GLENN: Well, it feels a little bit "Groundhog Day," the movie, because at this time yesterday that a friend of ours, Chris Stewart, called in and received -- was on the receiving end of a pretty bad battering. I felt fine while we were doing it because I know our intent. We love Chris Stewart. He is a good friend. And a long-time friend and a guy I've wanted to work with for a long, long time. Tried to hire him here. But we have felt that we were -- we were concerned about the direction he was going, as along with people that we really respect in Congress.

PAT: Brenner went that way, Jim Jordan. Trey Gowdy said he wouldn't vote for Boehner.

GLENN: And we don't understand it. Last night I got home and watched the interview because Chris is my friend and I watched the interview and I felt it's not my best performance. That's not the way I want to -- that's not the way I want to be. But I still had good intent while trying doing it. So I called Chris last night. We haven't spoken. I left a message on the phone last night apologizing. Telling him that you know, I think he walked into a buzzsaw yesterday. However, I don't apologize for the intent and I don't apologize for having my opinions. And I don't apologize for believing he is absolutely dead wrong on John Boehner. And wrong that we have the facts wrong. We double-checked them yesterday. We're correct. With that being said, Chris Stewart is here because I would like to change the tone. Hello, Chris. How are you?

STEWART: I've got on my body armor, I've got on my combat gear. You can start slaying away again.

GLENN: I will tell you, you deserve a lot of extra points for having the balls to come on yesterday and then again today.

PAT: Again, yeah. No one else would have done that, credit is.

GLENN: No one else.

PAT: I don't think anyone else has ever done that.

GLENN: No, no.

PAT: Newt Gingrich --

GLENN: Newt Gingrich did it once.

STEWART: It's probably against my better judgment, but Glenn, here I am again. I'm actually glad to be with you.

GLENN: So Chris, here's the thing. We want you to prove us wrong in -- let's say by June. We'd like to have you back on where we can say, you know what, Chris? You were right.

PAT: Great agenda.

GLENN: Great agenda. You guys did it. Because I don't understand. There's nothing you can say. We double-checked all the facts on John Boehner and what he's been for and against. And I'm sorry, you're drinking too much Kool-Aid. I'm sorry. We have the facts right. You can't convince me that John Boehner is a good guy, because a good guy yesterday doesn't do what John Boehner does and get up and start punishing the people who ran against him.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: That's breaks.

STEWART: I appreciate the invitation to come back in June. I look forward to that.

I'd love to come back in February and March and do a month-end recap of what we do. Because I think we may not be perfect, and you may not be entirely satisfied, but I think you and listeners by and large are going to see things begin to move you on. And I told someone the other night, the worst-case scenario over the next two years is far better than anything that we've lived through in the last two years. Because we've had Harry Reid who had jammed every piece of legislation that we've tried to do. And we're going to get past that now. We've got friends in the Senate. And the second thing is to your point about John and retribution, I agree with that. I said to the speaker, and I would say this to others, we're better United than we are when we attack each other. Can I just say quickly, the former military guy, it's in my D.N.A. that you stand by your brothers. You may -- you may not like them. They may be different. You may have different opinions. We're in a war, we're in a fight for the heart and soul of our country. And I don't think --

GLENN: That's --

STEWART: Speaker to divide or to --

(overlapping speakers).

STEWART: Attributing retribution against hem. I certainly don't agree with that.

GLENN: That's the biggest point, Chris, I think people like you may be missing because you're inside the beltway. You don't see the frustration outside the beltway. You know, when Elizabeth Warren who's one of the most rad cam people on the planet runs in the Democratic Party, they celebrate. They want her to run for president. But if you stand by the Constitution, you're a radical that's trying to destroy America. And I can get that from CNN. I can get that from MSNBC. I can get that from Barack Obama. I don't need that from the leadership of the GOP.

STEWART: Glenn, listen, you know my family. And I go home every single weekend. I spend every moment that I can out of D.C.

I'm anything but an inside the beltway guy. But believe me, when you say that I don't see that or I don't hear that, I mean, believe me, Glenn, I do. I hear it. I see it from my own wife, I hear from it my children, I hear from it my brothers, my sisters, and I hear it from every person that I meet back in the district. I hear it all the time. And I agree with it all the time.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what the plan is, because I don't understand this vote. So what is -- what is it that they said yesterday that made everybody fall in behind John Boehner? What is the great change that has coming that John Boehner --

STEWART: It was nothing that was said yesterday. This this is a battle that's been going on for months. It's an ongoing battle. Just like every two years I know I'm going to be challenged. I know this seat is not a guaranteed to me. I'm going to be challenged and expect to be challenged every two years. I think the speaker expects to be challenged and they should be challenged. I support that.

GLENN: No, he doesn't expect to be challenged. Otherwise, he wouldn't be punishing people. But let's not focus on that STEWART: I think any speaker would. They know there's some people that are going to be unhappy with the way regardless of who they are and there were some viable alternative candidates. But none of them stepped forward. Trey Gowdy, for example, he's one of those who nominated speaker in November. And I tried to make this point yesterday. Louie Gohmert is a friend of mine. And I have tremendous respect for him. He's one of the most clever and one of the most articulate members of the House, but he is not the person to unite the House. And I think we saw that in the vote yesterday. He only got two votes and --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: That's fine. That's fine. You could have voted for a cat. Let's please -- let's not concentrate on this. Let's concentrate, please, on what is the plan now?

STEWART: And I'm glad you asked that, because that is the primary thing that I think we should be talking about. And that's what are we going to do moving forward. I could talk to you -- I'm developing -- we're in the process of merging with other people. We call it 12 and 12 plan. 12 weeks, 12 major pieces of legislation. We start with Keystone, which is very important in energy independence and also job creation. But we can't go to our summit or move anywhere else beyond next week without coming back to border security and looking at what we did with defunding amnesty, what the president did is clearly unconstitutional. That's not a partisan opinion. It's clearly unconstitutional what he did with amnesty. We have to find a way to defund that and we have to do it early. Can't wait wait till February or even -- even late January. I want to move that legislation --

GLENN: But you -- you left on the table the defunding of Homeland Security and you gave him everything else. Do you really think that president doesn't want to have that fight? Doesn't want to get on television say, they defunded Homeland Security.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: You immediately lose. Because the American people see the threat of terror and -- and he will spin it. You've taken away all other tools except for Homeland Security.

STEWART: Well, he will spin it. There's no question and the press will back him up on that. And our intention isn't to defund all of Homeland Security. Our intention is to defund every part that deals with his executive amnesty and to fund every other part of Homeland Security, including attaching to that the border security bill that I helped right that is for the first time in a generation truly committed to securing borders. But I don't think the question is not defunding the entire program or Homeland Security. Clearly we want to fund those parts that are important as you said, Glenn. People understand that terrorism is a real threat. But we have to in my opinion defund the amnesty part to that.

GLENN: Can you just sequester that money?

STEWART: Yes.

GLENN: You can just do it, just taking away this line.

STEWART: It's part of the appropriation process. Now that we have united House and Senate, for the first time in Barack Obama's presidency, we have an appropriation process that will work where you can specifically identify pieces of legislation for funding and not fund both.

GLENN: All right. Now, let me ask you this. John Boehner is, you know, best buddies, tongue down each other's throat with Jeb Bush kind of people and Jeb Bush does not -- will not agree on the amnesty thing. He just started the, you know, reach for the stars no matter where you're from, hey, everybody can be equal here in America kind of crap yesterday. Do you really think the progressive Republicans are going to be on board for actual border security?

STEWART: Yes, I do. I do. And by the way, Jeb Bush is not our nominee, thankfully.

GLENN: Yet.

STEWART: And I think his stand on immigration and Corpus Christi and other things will probably preclude him from ever being our nominee, thankfully, because I disagree with him on those issues. But he's not the leader of the party and there are others who have a strong voice in this that you know and that I know. But yes, I think we can have some progress on that. And it's not -- it's not up to the speaker. It's not up to leadership. It's up to the Conservatives in Congress and there are enough of us that we can push that legislation.

STU: Isn't the issue that you have a lot of conservatives who are really about border security. You obviously have another portion of the Republican party that is not so aligned with your views on that. And when you have a person like Boehner as you kind of described, his job is to unite the party and that's what frustrate people like us because you see people -- you want a strong border bill and then the effort is to unite the party with the people who don't want a strong border bill and then what you get is crap.

GLENN: Ted Cruz said it best. It's always next time. Well, next time is now.

STEWART: Yeah. I agree with that, Glenn. And I've been saying that for months now. I've been saying next time is now, since before the election. That is the reason we needed the election, to make it now. And coming back to the border security, because I really think that's an important point you're making, and that is, things have fundamentally changed on the border security bill over the last two years, in the two years I've been in Congress. And part of it was what we saw with unaccompanied minors last summer. The tragedy that happened and the atrocity where because of Obama's policies that encourage this idea, that if you're an unaccompanied minor, many of who were not truly minors anyway, but you would get across the border and find sanctuary. And there are other elements of that where the opinion of the Congress has significantly shifted to the right on border security.

GLENN: I believe it when I see it, okay, so that's one of your 12 points. Okay, so Chris, give me just -- I've only got about a minute left. Give me the 12 topics that you want to -- that you say you're putting together with a group of people that you're going to be able to get through in 12 weeks or you hope to get through in 12 weeks. Give he the 12 points.

STEWART: Let me go through them quickly. Keystone Pipeline, border security, Reins Act, which is to pull back the regulatory agencies and who have become the most powerful force in Washington. Tax reform. I want to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, Lois Lerner and others -

GLENN: Boehner was against it.

STEWART: We'll continue to work to repeal ObamaCare and also have a replacement for that expecting and hoping the Supreme Court actually finds the exchanges are unconstitutional, that they're not within the language of the law. Unborn Child Act which is prohibits abortion for those children unborn children who actually can feel pain. And we know now scientifically that they do. Audit the Fed. Some reforms in the EPA. And finally, the Antiquities Act which deals with federal land out here in the west and the president's ability to use a law that have nothing to do with that in order to claim for federal land.

GLENN: So you -- if you get all that done, I will throw a parade for you.

STEWART: Will all right, gets let some confetti.

GLENN: Yeah. You'll get more than confetti. You get all that done and -- are you working on the Senate with that, too?

STEWART: Yeah. And we have this historic opportunity and I wish I could just help people understand that. And it really is historic --

GLENN: No --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: Chris, Chris.

PAT: People understand that. They just don't believe it because they've seen it before.

GLENN: We saw it under Bush.

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: And we saw it with the same people, the same promises, the same bull crap. We're done.

STEWART: I agree. We did see it under Bush. I agree. I understand that. But what I was saying is that there's this opportunity with the House and the Senate we're having a summit next week for the first time, I don't know that we've ever done that, where we have the House and the Senate together for two days to do one thing and that's to define this agenda. How do we move this legislation in the first 12 weeks, maybe four months, of our term in power and I'm so confident that when we've done this and the American people see what we're trying to do and what we're able to do, it's going to eliminate some of the frustration of so many --

GLENN: I will promise you that as you get these done, we will check them off and 12 weeks -- we'll check them off week by week or however -- you tell us what it is. But you give us the date, we'll check them off and we will make sure that everybody knows, at least in our audience, that these things are being done. I have to tell you, between John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, I think you are in some sort of an acid trip that you think you can get this done. But I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong.

STEWART: Well, Glenn, we're going to try. We're going to try and I think we're going to have success. I really do, maybe not a all of it, but we're going to try and get as much done as we can and I want to go for all 12.

GLENN: Chris, thanks a lot. God bless you. Thank you, bye-bye. He's a good guy.

Featured image courtesy of the AP.

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.