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

TheBlaze TV host Dana Loesch reacts to her most recent death threat

September 30, 2015
Ted Tuttle

Editor

On radio Wednesday, Glenn was joined by Dana Loesh who told Glenn she's been talking to the FBI since receiving a really nasty death threat.

Here's how Dana told the story.

"It happened on my birthday, and Sunday, some dude who was really bad at graphics put up this video where he edited the NRA video that I did, the 'Moms Like Me' video, and it shows this like weird hand coming up, you know, with a Glock in the hand. And it pulls the trigger and shoots me right in the face, and blood splatters on the screen, and I fall over," Dana said.

The video was posted and subsequently shared on Twitter, until Dana eventually saw it while watching a baseball game with her family. The creepy part is that this wasn't the first time the person who posted the video had tried to contact Dana.

"This guy has been trying to get my attention for a long time. Apparently he lives in Illinois. And I've never engaged," Dana said.

She decided to take action when she realized her 14-year-old son had seen the video on Instagram.

"I just thought, 'all right, that's it. I'm done.' And so I'm trying to pursue options and see what happens. Because I'm just done dealing with this," Dana said.

Dana explained she reached out to the FBI and they are now carrying out an assessment of the situation.

"Well, if you just gave up the gun, then you would not have this problem," Glenn said jokingly.

Dana's response?

"That's exactly why I carry because guys like [him] who are bigger than me and stronger than me in a number of different ways are threatening me physically, yes, you're right, that's exactly why I have a firearm. You just proved my point, thank you," she said.

Listen to the full interview or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: You are talking to the FBI because you actually have some really nasty death threats.

DANA: Yeah, it's been fun. It happened on my birthday, and Sunday, some dude who was really bad at graphics put up this video where he edited the NRA video that I did, the Moms Like Me video, and it shows this like weird hand coming up, you know, with a Glock in the hand. And it pulls the trigger and shoots me right in the face, and blood splatters on the screen, and I fall over. And he posted that to Twitter because Twitter has video now. Put it up on Twitter, and it kind of went from there.

So I'm at the ball field. My son plays fall baseball. I'm at the ball field on Sunday, and I see all this weird stuff. You know, I made the mistake of, "Oh, well -- you know, he had a double-header. I'm like, "Okay, we have a break, let's look at Twitter." Which you shouldn't do on a Sunday.

So I open my phone. I look at Twitter, and I see all these weird mentions in my mentions column. And it's this video. And so I play it, and I'm watching it there. And the crazy thing is my oldest son is now aware of it because my oldest son is 14. And he and his friends, they're all on the Internet. He had saw it before -- we weren't even going to say anything to him, but he had already seen it.

GLENN: I remember the first spooky video death threat I ever got were from 9/11 truthers. And they made -- they took the stuff that I had done on CNN and slowed it way down and then put driving rock music behind it, and then a disembodied computer voice said, "All traitors must die." And then they put underneath my face, the word "traitor."

"All traitors must die. All traitors must die." It was the spookiest thing. Now it's kind of like, "Okay, well, it's Tuesday." But it was really spooky.

DANA: Yeah, it was creepy. And this guy has been trying to get my attention for a long time. Apparently he lives in Illinois. And I've never engaged. If it doesn't advance a message I'm trying to get out, then I don't engage.

GLENN: Oh, you are evil.

DANA: If it doesn't serve my purpose in some way, then I never engage that person. And I've ignored him. And this has been going on for a very long time. And then I saw that video.

GLENN: Like, what's he trying to contact you for?

DANA: Oh, just on Twitter, constantly writing stuff.

GLENN: Nasty stuff about you?

DANA: Oh, yeah. I mean, yeah, really ignorant. I mean, really trying to get a reaction out of me. And I ignored it. You know, I just muted him. I don't like to give them the satisfaction of seeing me block them, so God bless the mute button. So I just muted him, and that was about it. And then until this video came out.

And I don't know if it was the combination of me just being crabby, how you should have known it was my birthday. How dare you. You should have waited a day. Or it was the fact that, you know, my 14-year-old son had seen it because he's on Facebook as are a lot of kids who are 14 years old. And he's on Instagram, as are a lot of other 14-year-olds. Maybe it was that and the fact that he had seen it as well. And I just thought, "All right, that's it. I'm done." And so I'm trying to pursue options and see what happens. Because I'm just done dealing with this.

GLENN: Did the FBI reach out to you? Or did you --

DANA: Oh, I reached out to the FBI. I reached out to Cyber Crimes Division in Dallas. I also reached out to the FBI bureau here in Dallas. I heard back from them. I spoke with them today. They're assessing right now. They're in the assessment portion of, I guess, like a pre-investigation. So that's where it stands.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Well, if you just gave up the gun, then you would not have this problem.

DANA: And that's the other thing because I had a number of grown adult males who were telling me yesterday online, yesterday and Sunday, that one of them said that he wants to beat my face in. The other one says that he wants to blank me up because I hide behind my guns. And I'm like, "Yes, that's exactly why I carry because guys like you who are bigger than me and stronger than me in a number of different ways are threatening me physically, yes, you're right, that's exactly why I have a firearm. You just proved my point, thank you."

GLENN: Where do you think this goes? I think we're headed with the Democratic Convention and everything else -- I was just up in the library today, and I was looking at some old Black Panthers stuff that we have up in the vaults in the Mercury library. And they're all old newspapers from 1968 and 1969 from the Black Panthers. It is Black Lives Matter. One hundred percent Black Lives Matter. I mean, word-for-word, Black Lives Matter.

And you know what the country was like in 1968 and '69. And I think we're headed for that. I think we'll see violence in Philadelphia. I hope I'm wrong. I think we'll see violence in Philadelphia and violence next year. Really bad violence. Assassinations I think are on our horizon. Because that's the only thing that hasn't been repeated. That's what happened in the early 1900s. It happened in the 1930s. It happened in the 1960s. And it will happen again. Whenever progressives really take root, it's a pattern. And the only thing we haven't done is riots in cities. We've started it, but not really. Riots in cities and assassinations.

DANA: Right. Right. I hope that's not the case. And I hope that our side can not take the bait on that. I mean, I think that there are people who just want to bait both sides really into exactly what you're describing, unfortunately. But I just -- it's always the people who preach nonviolence and unity that are the most unhinged and they're the most violent. And everything that they accuse everyone else of is everything that they commit themselves. They do all of this stuff. The Occupy -- the Tea Party never did anything bad. It's always been the Black Lives Matter and the Occupy people. They don't know how to live peacefully.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I'm preaching peace and unity. So...

DANA: Yeah, but you're not going out there and like committing acts of violence or using violent rhetoric, or whatever that phrase is. You're not -- I mean, you're actually living it. I mean, you're actually going to help people. And, you know, you're traveling and visiting with people. I mean, it's like a big difference from what these people are doing. They're just there to start riots.

GLENN: Well, some people believe it, and some people use it as a slogan to hide behind.

DANA: A lot of people use it as a slogan to hide behind, yeah.

GLENN: So let's switch gears here for just a second. I don't know if you saw the Carly Fiorina -- or did you meet her when she was in the studio?

DANA: I interviewed her in your office when you weren't here one day.

GLENN: What do you think of her?

DANA: I think that she -- she's impressive. I haven't made up my mind yet because I -- she's impressive. I just have some questions about her business record. You know, I had asked her the question -- it was something to the extent of, "How are you going to be able to persuade Vladimir Putin and the religious leaders in Iran if you weren't able to win over the HP board? You know, how is that going to work out?" So, I mean, I think that -- she still needs to convince people on that end.

Her answer as to how she used to support the mandate for catastrophic coverage, I mean, great, we're all about liberty evangelism, right? If she comes out and says, "Okay, well, I agree with everyone now. I was wrong." Okay. Well, I can understand that. People do. They can become persuaded, and they can come around. I'm just a little hesitant to trust that answer because it seems like she just came around now because she's in the primary. So I think that she needs to persuade people a little bit more that that was a genuine reconsideration.

GLENN: I had a great conversation with her yesterday on the TV show. And I like her a lot. I'm still -- I'm hesitant to pull the trigger as well and say, "You know what, I back you 100 percent." She hasn't said anything that turns me off.

DANA: Right.

GLENN: She said many things that I really, really like.

DANA: Right.

GLENN: I think she's honest. At least that's the feeling I got from her. I'm just not sure on her pivot point on some of those things. She claims that she hasn't had those extreme views on very many things. But she did actually -- and I was surprised she didn't play this card. But she has had a massive pivot point in her life. You know, losing her child, and breast cancer in 2009, 2010, she -- that was a pretty major pivot point. She didn't tie that to anything, which surprised me.

DANA: I've appreciated how she hasn't really played the gender card because that would have been a huge turnoff.

I do think she has a commanding presence. You can tell she's a boardroom person.

GLENN: She is good.

DANA: When you meet her and she looks at you, you can tell that she's making some judgments right when she's looking at you and she's sizing everything up.

GLENN: Do you trust her?

DANA: I don't trust any of them, really. Honestly. Can I be honest?

GLENN: Who is your candidate?

DANA: I don't have one.

GLENN: You don't have one?

DANA: I do not have one.

GLENN: Not one that you're even, eh, you really like that person --

DANA: I mean, I like some of them, and then I really don't like some of them.

GLENN: Tell me the people you like.

DANA: I like Ted Cruz. But I'm not like endorsing Ted Cruz. I mean, I like Ted Cruz. I think he has the most small government record. He doesn't have a perfect record. But, you know, I like him. There's a few of them that I -- that I kind of like. All of them --

GLENN: How about Rubio?

DANA: I don't like him on amnesty. I don't like him on amnesty. That's a big thing with me.

GLENN: Have you sat down and talked with him?

DANA: No, I have not. He and Jeb Bush, shockingly, and John Kasich. I haven't spoken with those guys.

GLENN: There's only one of those three that I have spoken to and want to speak with. I had an hour sitdown with Rubio. Just without a microphone or camera, just two men sitting there talking.

I came away really liking him. Really respecting him. He's thought things through. He just disagrees with us on a few things, like the NSA. But he's -- he's worth -- he's worth looking at. I don't know if I trust him. You know, I don't know where his --

DANA: Right.

GLENN: -- where he really is when it comes down to the Constitution. But I think he's generally okay. He bothers me with his big government solutions on the war and --

DANA: Yeah. I don't know if it's an issue of trust. Or if I'm interested to see how easily they can be persuaded. Each one of these candidates can be persuaded to do the right thing by the Constitution and limited government.

GLENN: Do you think that's what the problem was with Rand Paul? That he started --

STU: You're talking about him in past tense. This is not a good sign. He's still in the race.

DANA: I know. But what is he? He's barely at 1 percent. He's not going make it after the next debate, if he makes it to the next --

GLENN: He's not going to make it.

DANA: And that's not to say that he's a bad person. He lost that momentum.

GLENN: No, I love him.

DANA: He lost the momentum.

GLENN: I think what happened with him is he shot himself in the foot by making that deal with Mitch McConnell.

DANA: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: As soon as he made that deal with -- he was -- for instance, Ted Cruz, with an exception of that one thing that he flip-flopped on, what was it?

PAT: It was TPT -- TPP or TPA.

GLENN: Right. He flipped on that. Everything else, he's been, nope, this is where I'm at. It doesn't matter. And I'm not playing ball with anybody. And that I think goes a long way with people. Rand Paul, I think the mistake he made is he shot himself in the foot by cozying up to Mitch McConnell.

DANA: Yeah, that was the start of it.

GLENN: Yeah, the minute he did that, you're like, "I don't know if I can trust him."

DANA: Right. And I understand why he did it. Everybody wants to have that backup. Everyone wants to have their little caucus, but there's a cost.

GLENN: Yeah. So Dana, you can listen to Dana on her radio program. And, of course, she follows my program on TheBlaze TV at 6 o'clock, Eastern time. You don't want to miss it. Thanks, Dana. Appreciate it. Stay safe.

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.