Hard stand?! Donald Trump has the same immigration policy as Lindsey Graham

A lot of listeners to the radio show have called in and say they stand with Donald Trump because he says the things other candidates are too scared to say. But when it comes to actual policy on issues like illegal immigration, does he really take a hard stand? Pat and Stu looked past the harsh (and inartful) rhetoric on radio today, and did a deeper analysis on what Trump’s actual policy on immigration reform. SPOILER: It looks a lot like amnesty.

Listen to the segment below:

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

PAT: Hopefully your Fourth of July weekend was a great one. Not so great, I guess, for Donald Trump who continues to get -- I guess he's being bludgeoned, is how I would describe it by everybody, except Ted Cruz. Which is kind of weird.

STU: That's not exactly my favorite moment of the Ted Cruz campaign.

PAT: Mine either. Mine either.

STU: We can go into that in a minute. He didn't say he supported the comments. But he said, I love Donald Trump. I think he's great. You know, we all get worked up about all this, and I like Donald Trump. There's reasons not to like Donald Trump, I would say.

PAT: Yeah. And even if you like him, reasons not to say you do.

STU: Well, that's --

PAT: Do you have to volunteer that information?

JEFFY: Ted's not going to do that.

PAT: I know he's not. But I don't think that's helpful to his campaign.

STU: You know the comments that we're talking about with Donald Trump, where he talked about, you know, the way it's being summarized in the press, to some level unfairly is he called all Mexicans rapists.

PAT: That's really not what he said.

STU: He didn't really say that, but he didn't exactly not say it either. We'll listen to the audio here in a second.

PAT: So you're saying he didn't say it, but he didn't not say it.

STU: Yes, I will say that's a fair way. Because he doesn't do the typical thing that you would do. If you're going to say, look, there are a lot of great people in Mexico. Not everyone who comes across the border are terrorists and rapists or whatever, but there are some. And you know what, we live in a country where we don't need to import crime.

PAT: That would have been a great way to put it. But that's not Donald Trump.

STU: The vast majority of this audience I would say agrees with that statement. But that's not what he said. What he said was the exact opposite, which was: I think there might be a possibility that someone isn't a rapist.

PAT: Now, it's not what he said because that's not how Donald Trump speaks. He's bombastic, and he's --

STU: Let's put it clearly. Dumb. It's a dumb way to put it.

PAT: It is.

STU: And he's now taken the -- as we talked about it, all the oxygen out of this campaign. Every single candidate that is out there, and there are many good ones, are doing nothing, but answering for the dumb things that Donald Trump says.

PAT: Yeah. As we've mentioned many times, there are more great candidates in this race at the same time than have there ever been in my lifetime, I think, in my opinion. And I think includes the Reagan years. That goes back, well, beyond 1960, because that's when I was born.

STU: Reagan, you had one great candidate. And he was a great candidate no doubt about it. And he was a great president. But you didn't this have depth. Where you have legitimately somewhere between six and ten really solid candidates out there. Ones you could see yourself maybe actually supporting and thinking he's going to live up to his principles for once.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I mean, you would probably be wrong. Because once they're in office, they'll screw us as they always do. But at least there's the hope.

PAT: It's amazing how many times that's happened to people we've actually spoken with and warned them about that. And they've promised, oh, that's not going to happen to me. I'm immune to that. I got a force field around me of righteousness, and it can't be penetrated. And then two weeks later, they're on the other side. It's like, what happened?

STU: It's amazing.

PAT: It's incredible.

STU: It's a powerful place. I believe, was it Spider-Man -- I think it was talking about how, with great power comes great responsibility.

PAT: Yes.

STU: Certainly you have the absolute power corrupts absolutely. Clichés become clichés for a reason. And those seem to apply very well. The thing with Donald Trump though -- what amazes me about this conversation is the people that support Donald Trump. The people that say, okay, look, he's being beat up by the press. I'm sick of this PC nonsense. He came out, and he's telling the truth. We've heard this from many members of our audience. Though I will say Trump has not performed well in the polls, as far as the monthly poll we do of the audience. But there are passionate supporters of Donald Trump. And the argument seems to be, he's willing to say the things that are unpopular. He's willing to take the hard stand.

PAT: Is he? Is he willing to take a hard stand?

STU: Right. But the question is, hard stand for what? Yes, we all admire someone who will take a tough stand on an issue that is important to them like immigration. But what policy stands behind the tough words of Donald Trump?

PAT: Well, we have a montage to show what Stu is talking about here. And if you listen closely, you'll hear the policy he supports within this montage of saying really hard things against illegals. Saying really I guess outrageous things because the left will crucify you for saying these things. He's saying it. But then listen to his stance here, if you can pick that out.

DONALD: They're sending people with lots of problems. And they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

STU: Some, I assume, are -- it's a throwaway to him, that there could be possibly someone who is a good person/non-rapist.

PAT: I mean, he doubts it. I think. I doubt it. I doubt it. People tell me there are some good people among them. I don't know if that's true. But let's just say it is for the sake of argument.

STU: Right. It's a throwaway. It's in reverse of where it would normally be.

PAT: Mostly though, they're rapists. I mean, it is kind of -- it's a bad statement.

STU: I will say this, if there were 11 million rapists in the country from Mexico, that is the only thing that could possibly justify the statistics that Obama talk about with college rape. Because maybe if there were 11 --

PAT: And they all went to college.

STU: Were all constantly raping. Neither one of those statistics are true, by the way.

PAT: And there's more.

DONALD: I love Mexico. I love the Mexican people.

STU: That's great.

DONALD: Two waiters came up to me tonight, Mr. Trump, we love you. I said, that's great. I love you too.

PAT: Yeah, that happens all the time.

STU: Two waiters.

PAT: Two waiters come up to me and they say, Mr. Trump, we love you.

Where you from?

Mexico.

Well, I love you too. What a brilliant story that is.

STU: Oh, my God. The way he tells it.

PAT: I'm sure, completely true. The way he tells it, it's so compelling. You can feel the love he has for all Mexicans.

STU: Again, that's not policy. That's just, again, him talking about his love of Mexican waiters.

PAT: Yes.

DONALD: These countries aren't sending their finest. They're sending people that are -- like, got a lot of problems.

STU: Okay. Stop. Is that true?

PAT: First of all, they're not really sending them.

STU: Right. The people are coming on their own volition.

PAT: People are coming on their own. But the people coming on their own obviously aren't doing really well in Mexico. Right?

Otherwise, they would stay there. That much is pretty true. Because if you're doing well, you're supporting your family, you love your life, you're not leaving it and sneaking across the US border to get here illegally. That's obvious.

STU: Yeah, I mean -- he goes into this a little bit as this montage goes on. I think you pointed out, Pat. They're not sending Carlos Slim.

PAT: Carlos Slim is not swimming across the Rio Grande to get here.

STU: No. But when you do have a situation where you see high rewards with little risk by crossing the border -- remember, we complain about this. So he we know it's true. That we treat this as a speeding ticket. So Mexicans look at this and say, yeah, is it illegal? Maybe, yeah. But they don't do anything about it. So I might as well go over there and make more money

PAT: Right.

STU: So it's not necessarily the same way it used to be, where it was this incredible risk to cross the border. You're leaving your family risking life and limb to make a little money.

PAT: There's almost no risk anymore.

STU: As we saw with the illegal immigrant who crossed the border and was deported five times before he killed an American citizen. We should get into that later, and Trump has been touting that as another example.

PAT: Horrible story.

STU: And of course there are examples. And he's right, there is crime that comes across the border all the time.

PAT: Sadly, the biggest risk is, to them, getting here in the first place. And we should probably talk about that more. Because they're often -- a lot of these rapists Trump is talking about are these coyotes that sneak them across the border and then do horrible things to the women that they've helped cross the border. We've talked about the rape trees before where they leave the panties in the trees and all that freaky stuff. It's been documented. So part of that is true. It's just he put it so badly. He's just not a good speaker. I don't know how anybody could think this guy has a shot at the presidency.

STU: Again, we're so far talking about how he speaks about this issue, which might be inartful. But we haven't got to any policy yet. So let's keep listening.

DONALD: That makes sense. I basically said this. We need to strengthen our borders, and they said I'm a racist.

STU: Sure, strengthening borders.

DONALD: To get the cars and trucks and everything over here, let the illegals drive them in. They're coming in anyway.

(laughter)

I do great with Latino voters. I employ so many Latinos. I have so many people working for me.

PAT: Some of my best servants are illegals.

STU: Two waiters, I employ them.

PAT: I employ them. Waiters. So he's very much talking down to and about --

STU: Maybe we're just too sensitive, Pat. You know, because these people who are really tough on the border are going to say, you know what, it's just too sensitive. Let's listen to some policy, shall we?

DONALD: Common sense. They don't want these people, so they send them to the United States. Because the United States is run by stupid people. Some are good and some are rapists and some are killers, and we don't even know what we're getting.

I'm not just saying Mexicans. I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists.

I've taken a lot of heat. And it's very unnecessary -- very unfair heat. Because, first of all, I love the Mexican people. How can I not love people that gives me tens of millions of dollars for apartments? You have to love them.

(laughter)

STU: How can you not love people who give you tens of millions of dollars --

PAT: For apartments.

STU: For apartments. Again, inartful.

PAT: Really bad.

STU: I'm going to say yes on that one.

PAT: Are you really? You're going out on that limb.

STU: On that limb. So waiters. My employees. And people I sell apartments too.

PAT: Crazy.

DONALD: I love them for their spirit. And then I talk about Mexico. And I love Mexico. But every time I talk about it, they accuse me of being a racist. You have illegals that are just pouring across the borders. I was really criticized for the border. But the truth is, it's true. They think it's Mother Teresas coming across the border. Well, I said drug dealers, I said killers, and I said rapists. And they made the word rapist -- they really picked that up.

I tell you, I love the folks from South America. They're friends of mine. Many work for me. Many are friends. Many buy apartments from me.

I have great love for the Mexican people. And I always have. And they like me. No apology because everything I said is 100 percent correct. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now today, I hear it's 11. But I don't think it's 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a pass, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed.

PAT: Wait. What? Hold on.

STU: Whoa.

PAT: Because there's 30 million illegals here. You have to give them a path. A path to what?

STU: The path to what. Because it's interesting, the people who support Trump seem to be the ones toughest on the border because they like the tough talk. Yet what they're getting is the tough talk with the Lindsey Graham policy, with the Jeb Bush policy.

PAT: It's so weird.

STU: He's saying he wants a pathway to citizenship.

PAT: It's amnesty.

STU: It's the thing that every one of the people that likes Trump -- call it amnesty. It's the same thing. And we have other clips to support this as well. Maybe we can do them on the other side. The issue here is what you're getting, all the problems with tough talk out of Donald Trump, and then you're not even getting the tough policy. You're getting the Jeb Bush/Lindsey Graham policy. Why would anyone want that combination of two things?

PAT: I don't know.

STU: Tough talk with crap policy? If you're going to get someone who will get in the news all the time for saying things that are controversial, at least they should have the best policy for what you believe in.

PAT: Yes.

STU: People are out there -- I can't believe Jeb Bush. He's criticizing Trump. They have the same idea as how to deal with this problem. Except Trump is saying things that get him into more trouble. Is that what you want?

PAT: And Trump is saying things that fire up those of us who want something done about the out-of-control illegal border crossing situation.

STU: Obviously it's out of control.

PAT: It needs to be fixed. We need to shore up the border. Now, there's not a single person alive who do not say that. Everybody says that, including Barack Obama. Says we have to shore up the border. He just doesn't do it. So everybody agrees we have to say at least that we'll shore up the border. So everybody says that. There's nothing there to this Donald Trump thing, except pissing people off.

STU: At the end of it, what did you get? You get a pathway to citizenship -- that's what John McCain was pushing. Now, you'll get that plus the tough talk. I don't understand the combination thing. We'll get into more here in just a second.

Featured Image: US presidential hopeful Donald Trump delivers remarks at the Maryland Republican Party's 25th Annual Red, White & Blue Dinner on June 23, 2015 at the BWI Airport Marriott in Linthicum, Maryland .PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

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.