Daniel Webster wants to be the next Speaker of the House

Daniel Webster of Florida joined Glenn on radio Thursday to us discuss his bid to become the next Speaker of the House. Not knowing Webster very well, Glenn was very frank that it might not be the most friendly environment for him.

"I don't ever like to set somebody up," Glenn said. "I don't know Daniel Webster at all. I know his voting record. And I know who he's endorsed as president. So it's not somebody I would run home and say, 'Hey, this is our guy.' But I wanted to alert him that he was walking into a tough room. Not an ugly room. But a tough room. And he has been brave enough to join us for the program anyway."

Glenn came away from the interview liking the guy, even recommending him to his audience.

"A lot of our friends in Washington say, 'This is the guy that we should be backing,'" Glenn said. "I'm going to take it under advisement myself. And pray on it. And give the audience my recommendation, but I think everybody can do the same themselves."

After Webster hung up, Glenn listed some of the reasons he came away liking him.

"I didn't feel pandered to. I felt he did understand his faith. And I felt he was a faith-driven guy. And I saw that in Florida with Terri Schiavo," Glenn said.

Listen to the exchange or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: Daniel Webster of -- of Florida joins us now, and I don't ever like to set somebody up. And we tried to alert his staff prior to. I don't know Daniel Webster at all. I know his voting record. And I know who he's endorsed as president. So it's not somebody I would run home and say, "Hey, this is our guy." But I wanted to alert him that he was walking into a tough room. Not an ugly room. But a tough room. And he has been brave enough to join us for the program anyway.

And I appreciate that. How are you doing, Daniel?

DANIEL: I'm doing great. Thanks for having me on. We do know each other.

GLENN: Good. How do we know each other?

DANIEL: Well, I sponsored the first bill that actually saved Terri Schiavo's month for about ten months. And it went all the way to the Supreme Court. And then it was -- it was ruled unconstitutional. Then we came back. Did another -- tried another time. It ended up that bill lost by one vote on the floor. Then we went to the federal court, tried to go to the Supreme Court, and we ended up losing. And then you came down and actually did her memorial service. And I was there at that. I'm good friends with all the people that were involved.

GLENN: Yeah.

DANIEL: Anyway, so --

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, one huge point for you. Because I do remember you now. And that took profound bravery.

DANIEL: Even a lot of conservatives left us on that issue. They did.

GLENN: Yes, they did.

DANIEL: And when she passed away a few weeks later, that was the saddest day of my whole political career. It was.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. So, Kevin (sic), now you've softened me up a little bit. I want to ask you some questions here.

DANIEL: Yeah.

GLENN: You are being pushed by a lot of people in the Liberty Caucus even, some friend of mine from the Liberty Caucus, Massie called and said, "No, you're the guy that we need to have." And my instinct is to say shame on them, this is the best we can do. Your voting record is worse than Kevin McCarthy. You have -- you have endorsed Jeb Bush, who is a progressive at heart. Your votes -- you voted against limiting warrantless surveillance on Americans. You voted for the Farm Bill. You voted for debt limit suspension. The Omnibus Budget Bill to continue student loan subsidies. Voted for more tariffs. Voted against cutting 3.1 from the Energy and Water Appropriation -- I mean, it goes on and on and on. We have an opportunity to get rid of John Boehner who is nothing, but a progressive nightmare. And to actually stand for things that mean something. Why should we go to you?

DANIEL: Well, because I was Speaker of the House in Florida, first Republican speaker in 120 years. And I totally dismantled the way this House worked and turned it around to what I believe is right. The problem is not necessarily that. The problem is that we have a power-based system. And a power-based system is different from principle-based. And so I created their principle-based system. We took up the most important issues first, not like we're doing kind of this week in Congress. We wait till the last minute, and the government is shutting down or whatever. And so we do something to keep it going. Those issues should have been resolved months ago, when the president had no leverage. He has leverage two or three days before the vote or one day before the vote or the day of the vote. You know, all of that is wrong.

And so I believe that a power-based system, a few people at the top of the pyramid of power make all the decisions. What I want to do, and what I did in Florida was push down the pyramid of power, spread out the base so all the people that have amendments that get shut down, not because of anything other than the process, and so they pass a rule. No amendments. They passed a rule. No alternatives. They passed a rule. We're not even taking up your bill.

And instead of having an open process, a process where every member gets to participate. And when that takes place, then many of these things that don't even happen -- or happen right at the end when there's really no other choice is -- is done away with it. We get rid of it. And I did that in Florida. And received some -- most people said that -- you know, the conservatives took over.

GLENN: Tell me where you stand on the continuing resolutions.

DANIEL: Continuing resolutions. That's the problem. And I voted against those. Here's the problem with continuing resolution. It's a picture of what I just described.

The year before I became Speaker of the House, the first bill we took up was the naming of the state pie. And after midnight on the last date, we passed the appropriation bill. We dismantled Department of Commerce. Created a new Department of Health and rewrote the welfare laws. Thousands of pages of bills. And we did it in 15 minutes. I say "we," the Democrats who were controlling the House at the time. And I just said, "We're not going to do that. We're getting rid of that. We're not going to have any meetings after 6 o'clock. We'll do everything in the daylight." And we're not going to do CRs. We take up the bill first so that we can finish our work and so that we can negotiate way before we get to these deadlines, where in a sense, many members look at it and say, "Well, I guess we don't have any other option."

GLENN: So will you put an end to the continuing resolution?

DANIEL: Absolutely. Because we're going to take them up early, and then you start telling the Senate and the President, "No, CRs. No CRs." You tell them every week, every day, whatever. And I'm talking about back in April or whenever.

GLENN: Okay. So, Daniel, how are you going to do this -- how are you going to get this done when you have progressives on the left -- on the right that love it as much as the progressives on the left? This is the way to dismantle our government is through the continuing resolution. How are you going to get the power structure to change -- and, quite honestly, why should I believe that you -- a guy with your voting record is the guy who says, "You know what, I'm going to return us to the Constitution."

DANIEL: Because I did it in Florida. I'm the only person that has ever run a principle-based legislative body. Every one of them -- in every legislative body, the default is power. So a few people are making the decisions you're talking about.

GLENN: Okay. So then let me rephrase --

DANIEL: Then you're actually getting the work done. And you're getting the work done. And then you lead the other body. Not be subservient to them.

GLENN: So, Daniel, I guess the question I have to ask you -- and it might be impossible for you to do is, "Why should I trust you?" I don't trust anybody, quite honestly. I don't trust some of the guys who are supposedly on my side, I don't trust them. They get into Washington. You could say you did this in Florida. But I don't know you in Florida. Except what you did with Terri Schiavo, which was remarkable and took a lot of bravery. But then you -- and it turned out to be unconstitutional, by the way. Then you come up here to Washington. Usually when people go to Washington, they lose their soul. So convince me that I should trust you. That's what you're asking for the American people. Is our trust. To go fight for you to be the guy.

DANIEL: Well, it's because I -- I'll give you a couple of things. And that is this, if you remember at the -- at the last supper, Jesus had his disciples together. And they got into an argument about who was going to be the greatest. And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercised Lordship over them. And those that exercise authority over them are called benefactors." That's the power-based system I'm talking about. And so -- and so what happens, you're in power, and you offer up these -- you're in authority, and they are subservient to you. Members of Congress. And then you offer them subcommittee chairs or other things. And then they become -- you become their benefactor.

That's -- and Jesus said -- and you know what he said, "Ye shall not be so. You can't be that way. That's not the way. The way to lead is to serve." And I've proven, whether it's my (inaudible) or whatever, that I've been a servant leader. And that when I've had positions of authority, I've taken that position and made the membership successful. And not me. Not me passing out favors and buying votes or whatever. And so when you get rid of that, then you have now the opportunity to work on principles. And that to me is what I'm all about. And that's why a lot of conservatives are saying, "Yes, this is right." They were there. Many of them that were supporting me were in the Florida legislature at the time. And so I don't know why I can tell you shouldn't trust me, except for the fact of Schiavo like you said. But I will say this, I've had more pro-life bills, I believe, I ruled unconstitutional -- but I tried -- then the entire total membership of Congress together. And so --

GLENN: Daniel, I will tell you this, you've answered all of the questions at least right enough for me to bring it to God and to pray on it. And I -- we have to trust somebody. And --

STU: By the way, Daniel is the only one who has stepped up.

GLENN: Yeah, these other weasels --

STU: None of them have done anything.

GLENN: Yeah. And this is not going to be an easy thing.

DANIEL: No. I did before -- and I'm down to one committee --

GLENN: So let me ask you this. I usually ask people how their soul is. You're about to go into the -- you're about to step into the darkest place you probably have ever been. You know this to be true. The power that you are going to have at your disposal and the darkness that is surrounding that position, how are you -- how are you going to hold on to your soul?

DANIEL: Well, the key is -- I'll say the key -- number one, I pray every day. But what I found is that the way to give up power is to not grab it to begin with. In that, you begin serving people, not have them serve you. That's number one. And then number two, I think the most important thing is you adopt -- there is an unwritten rule that's a bad rule. And that is, it says the leader can never lose. The Speaker can never lose. The guy in charge can never lose. And I don't believe that. And as long as I can hang on to that, I won't have this pressure to guide things the way I think they're supposed to be as opposed to allowing the free exercise of the votes of the membership of this House of Representatives. And so -- and I also have this philosophy.

America is not broken. Washington is. That's the problem.

GLENN: Grade Boehner for me. Can you grade, Boehner for me?

DANIEL: I felt like John Boehner created -- he didn't create, maybe he just fell into. But he had a system based on power. And I just -- I along with -- I -- I counseled him and others that it doesn't have to be this way. They didn't take my counsel. They decided to go that way. So I believe that in a way, he created much of the problems that we have today.

As far as grading, I'm not a judge. I don't judge people. My religion would tell me judge not and be not judged. But I will say this, I think that we could have -- we could have had the golden opportunity to rebuild the party image if we had only shown ourselves to be leaders -- a different kind of leader. A leader that says, "We're going to listen to the people. We're going to listen to the membership. We're going to give power to the membership, and we're going to get away from this power-based system."

GLENN: Who are the people of the Tea Party? Who are they?

DANIEL: The people of the Tea Party are people. They're citizens of this country. You know, there's just a lot of them that I know that are just citizens that actually probably didn't even want to get engaged. Would rather be home working and doing things and trusting that the government would perform correctly. And it just -- it's almost like that -- the acronym of what it means. It's just enough. They've had enough. And they got engaged. Nothing wrong with that. And so I think that's who they are. They're just regular people who've had enough, and they got themselves engaged in trying to transform government.

GLENN: Representative Daniel Webster. He is running for the -- the Speaker of the House seat. Lot of our friends in Washington say, "This is the guy that we should be backing." Daniel, I appreciate your phone call. I'm going to take it under advisement myself. And pray on it. And give the audience my recommendation, but I think everybody can do the same themselves. I've enjoyed our conversation. You had a lot of right things to say. I appreciate it.

DANIEL: Thank you for letting me be on. I really appreciate it.

GLENN: You bet. Thank you, Daniel.

I like him. I like him. I mean, I don't know what --

PAT: You know, I think it was all fair. But he came into something that wasn't a super loving --

STU: Environment.

PAT: -- environment. And he handled it --

GLENN: No, but I thought it was fair.

PAT: No, I just I thought it was fair.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I think the thing to hit too, the people that have talked to us about Daniel Webster being the guy -- first of all, there's not another choice, besides McCarthy. Second of all, the point was not that he had the best FreedomWorks voting record.

GLENN: No, they all said -- this is where he won me is, I believed his servant's heart idea. I believe when he said I want to reverse the pyramid.

STU: And that's what they said.

GLENN: Yeah, they said structure -- forget about his votes. Structure, he'll do the right thing.

STU: The idea is that conservatives that you might think are even more conservative than Daniel Webster are going to be able to present things, where now they're being squashed. You'll have a chance to get those voices heard, which is important.

GLENN: Right.

STU: The Speaker has so much power, if we can reverse that a little bit even, it would be a step in the right direction. Certainly, the same thing is going to continue with McCarthy.

GLENN: I will tell you, what I liked about him is I liked the fact that he said the right things on that. It was consistent with the guys who I trust in Congress are saying about it.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I also like the fact, I didn't -- I didn't feel pandered to. I felt he did understand his faith. And I felt he was a faith-driven guy. And I saw that in Florida with Terri Schiavo.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And that could hold his feet right to the right place.

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.