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

Jason Chaffetz announces run for Speaker of the House

October 06, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz joined Glenn on radio Tuesday to share why he wants to run for Speaker of the House.

Glenn introduced Chaffetz as a good friend who he hasn't had a chance to catch up with for quite some time.

"I've kind of lost track of Jason and what he's been up to lately," Glenn said. "We wanted to talk to him firsthand and hear his case."

Listen to the exchange or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: Congressman Jason Chaffetz. He's from Utah. He's a guy who actually sleeps at his office. He's been -- when he was at Fox. He was one of the refounders. He was a guy who was right there on the front lines and has been working hard to change the way things are done in America. Has been a good time -- or good time? Good time friend. A long-time friend and a good friend for quite some time. We haven't -- we haven't had a chance to catch up with each other for I don't know how long. So I've kind of lost track of Jason and what he's been up to lately. But I saw he was announcing he wanted to be Speaker of the House. And we wanted to talk to him firsthand and hear his case.

Hi, Jason, how are you, sir?

JASON: Hey, Glenn. Glad to be with you.

GLENN: Good. Tell me, you've decided to run for Speaker of the House. A, is this real? I'm not putting you in this category. I hear some people are doing it just to get their name out, et cetera. Et cetera. Is this real, and why do you want it?

JASON: You know what, it's time for a fresh start. And when John Boehner was up last time, nobody ran against him. And I thought, "Shame on us." There should be choices. You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem. And so I think if I got better, smarter way to do it, I should throw my name in the bucket. And, you know, guys like me who are underdogs, there's no way we're supposed to be able to do this. But, gosh, you can't win if you don't try. So I'm throwing it all out here. I don't plan to be in Congress for very long. But when I'm here, I'm going to give it everything I got.

GLENN: So, Jason, tell me what the biggest problem, and what you're going to change.

JASON: Internally, we're breaking apart. We don't have the process to allow that groundswell of expertise so that members can represent their own districts and that they can actually bring forth amendments and vote on things that they want to vote on. It's been too much of a top-down process. I'm tired of reading my phone, what the speaker is going to tell me, and then go into a meeting and the Speaker says, "This is what we're going to do."

It's supposed to happen organically from the bottom, up. I also do believe that once the conference gets behind something, we have to go fight for it. We have to take that battle to the Senate, to the White House, and to the American people. We don't -- we're not very good communicators. I actually want to be a Speaker who speaks and goes out and makes the case to the American people why the conservative viewpoint -- why what Republicans stand for is the right thing to do in this country.

GLENN: Okay. So give me a couple of -- the biggest mistakes, the things that we should have done that Boehner just didn't do.

JASON: Well, look, the debt and deficit is right near the top of my list. I was elected same time as Barack Obama. The debt has gone from 9 trillion to $20 trillion.

The president the other day said he's not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. He's not going to negotiate on -- well, what he's saying is, he's okay with borrowing more money from China as opposed to actually fixing the underlying problem.

We were elected not to perpetuate the status quo, to actually fix the problems of this country. And we fixed some of them, but I want to start scoring some touchdowns and putting bills on the president's desk. And that, we haven't done. And I'm not here --

GLENN: Tell me about the continuing resolutions.

JASON: Well, I voted against the last one. That's a terrible way to do business. We want to have more open process so that you can actually go through what's called regular order where members are allowed, page by page, line by line, to offer amendments. And then you vote on those.

And on some of those, we did that. You know, when I was here when Nancy Pelosi was running the place, we never even did that. So we started that process. We came almost halfway. But I'd like to keep pushing that. Pushing that. Because regular order and better process yields a better product. It won't be everything I want or Glenn Beck wants or any other member wants. But it does yield a better, more respectful process. That's what we're here to do.

GLENN: Jason, I will tell you this, based on just your voting record, you're our guy.

JASON: Well, good. I better hang up now.

(laughter)

GLENN: Daniel Webster, however, was on with us, and he was quite clear on the process. Now, he wants to run for Speaker of the House too. According to his voting record, he's not the guy I want. However, when he was talking, he talked solely about the system. And he's like, "Look, the system will work itself out if the system is used." And the continuing resolution is something that is really, really boring to a lot of people.

JASON: Right.

GLENN: But it's probably the most critical thing we have in the process to stop the Republicans from this constant retreat. It's not the way our system was meant to be done. And it's why they always have a government shutdown if you say I want to change The Birdcage paper. Oh, you want to shut down the government. It's because of the continuing resolution. So how can you -- what you just said to me, I want to keep moving forward. No, I don't. I want our government to run the way it was designed. Will you as a Speaker of the House take that stand?

JASON: That's what -- that is what I'm saying. There's a lot to learn from Daniel Webster because what he did in Florida is very important. And he's very smart on these issues. He and I have very different voting records. But I'm not there as the Speaker to impress upon everybody else my political agenda.

The role of the Speaker is to make sure that the process is such that the will of the body actually surfaces. And to that extent, the process is broken. And there has to be changes on how we pick committee chairmen, on how we go through the process of the regional representatives. A lot of the internal structure stuff that no matter where you are on the political spectrum, we have a lot of people that are terribly frustrated.

And if you can get the process right, this is where I think I agree with Daniel Webster. You get that process right. I think then you're going to get a better product. And I want it to be as conservative as possible. But I recognize I'm probably much more conservative than the bulk of other members. And that's okay. But I'm not here just to dictate to them, "Oh, you have to do it my way." I've been on the receiving end of that, and I don't like it.

GLENN: According to my notes, you took Mark Meadows off his committee assignment, presumably for voting against John Boehner. Was that retaliation? What happened there?

JASON: That wasn't the only reason. It was about some other things. But, you know what, I overreached. And, you know what, we all make some mistakes. I would like to think as a leader, I was smart enough and humble enough to listen to my committee members who thought I was too harsh. And it was a good lesson for me, that you're not going to build unity and move the ball forward by breaking knuckles. I overreached. And I shouldn't have done it. And I recognized it. And we reimplemented him a few days later.

And Mark and I have a good working relationship. He has to represent his constituents from North Carolina, I have to represent mine from Utah. If we agree, we agree. But that's a valuable lesson that I learned.

GLENN: May I just delve a little further into that?

JASON: Sure.

GLENN: What -- how did you learn that lesson? Why did you learn that lesson? And when you said there were many things, it wasn't just that, why did voting --

JASON: Not many things, but yeah --

GLENN: But why did the Boehner thing even come into play? Why should anyone be punished for standing up against the leader?

JASON: First of all, I never spoke with the Speaker about this. I never spoke with his staff about it. That was my decision. But I -- I had some discussions, very candid discussions with Mark Meadows, and I think we both are in a good place now. But you learn that lesson.

And partly, it was listening to the 25 -- we have 25 members on my committee. I'm the chairman of the Oversight Committee. Most of them came in. We sat down, and we talked for an hour and 40 minutes. And it was very healthy.

And I said, "All right. Let me sleep on it. I believe in prayer." And I prayed about it. And I came back out of that and thought, "You know what, darn it. I overdid myself. And I shouldn't have done that." And I announced the next day that I would make the change back. They were right. I was wrong.

GLENN: Good for you.

PAT: But Jason you did vote for Boehner last time.

JASON: Yes, I did. Yes, I did.

GLENN: Why?

JASON: Partly because he was the only nominee. We didn't have anybody else. And like I said, here we go again. And, look, I'll support the nominee. And I said I'll do that. But I put myself in the ring now. So if I think have a better way, then you better get in and run. And so I do think I got a better way. I do think I could do some of these things. A guy like me is not supposed to rise up and -- after just -- you know, in his fourth term become a Speaker. I get that. But I think I can do things a little bit better. And so you put your hat in the ring. If I lose, I lose. But now that I'm trying, I'll know that I gave it my best shot.

PAT: That's not entirely true that nobody ran against him. Because Louie Gohmert did. I know a lot of people didn't think he was a serious candidate.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: But I don't fully understand that. Because Louie a pretty strong conservative. And maybe there just aren't enough conservatives in the Republican Party anymore to elect one as Speaker. What is -- is that what it is? And if so, how does that affect your candidacy?

JASON: Well, I don't believe it should be a litmus test on how conservative or how liberal a person is. You're electing a person who is going to speak for the body, negotiate with the White House, the Senate, who is going to be a fair arbiter of the full political spectrum within the Republican conference. And so, you know, I -- I have a lot of respect for John Boehner. And I know a lot of people don't. But John Boehner was very good to me. And I didn't owe him anything. He didn't ask for anything. But of the candidates out there, yeah, I -- I -- I did vote for John Boehner.

GLENN: I will tell you this, think what you want about somebody when they say, I have a lot of respect for John Boehner, but I will tell you that coming on this program --

PAT: And telling us that.

GLENN: And telling us that and telling this audience that, it takes some real balls.

JASON: Well, yeah. Let me tell you why. I fought to get rid of earmarks. And when I first got elected in 2008, everybody else in the delegation was for them. And I went to John Boehner and I said, "Can a guy like me survive here because I'm fighting against earmarks?" And he said, "Jason, I've never asked for earmarks." And I do appreciate that John Boehner, when he actually became the Speaker, you know what he did? He got rid of earmarks. That has been the political candy that leadership uses to coerce votes and get bills passed. It made it easier. And he took it away from himself and took away power from himself. And I do admire him for that.

PAT: He also got none of the things done he said he was going to. He said they were going to get 12 things done in 12 weeks. And none of them -- I think one of them happened.

JASON: I'm telling you --

PAT: One.

JASON: There are a lot of things I like about him. And a lot of things I don't. A lot of things are frustrating. I'm not going to trample on him as he goes out the door. That's just not my style.

GLENN: Yeah, it's not necessary to do that because we're talking about the future. So what will set you apart from John Boehner?

JASON: Well, I want to be a Speaker who speaks and goes out and makes the case to the American people and takes the fight to the president and to the White House. I'm tired of just gravitating to the lowest common denominator. And if Mitch McConnell and the United States Senate can't get something done, you know, we have to figure out where we'll hold the line here.

GLENN: Would you shut down the government over Planned Parenthood?

JASON: Look, the discussion is -- it's not just Jason Chaffetz. It's the conference as a whole. So I've hold the president say things like this. I don't think having $20 trillion in debt is the right solution. I really don't. I think that question is for the president of the United States. Our job in Congress is to get that bill on his desk. And if we can't get that bill on his desk, then we can't even get to that next step. That decision on shutdown is the president's.

GLENN: Jason, we haven't talked to each other for I don't know how long.

JASON: Yeah, it's been a while.

GLENN: How is your soul?

JASON: I'm so comfortable with myself at this point. I have this amazing wonderful wife and family that I couldn't be more proud of. And I know that I'm not -- this is temporary in its time. And part of the reason I'm running, Glenn, is I'm -- I'm fine with losing. You know, I'm okay with losing. Because I'm not trying to be here forever. I'm going to give it everything I got and then go home. That's -- that's where my heart is. My heart is at home.

GLENN: So you're telling me -- are you making an announcement that you will not run for Orrin Hatch's seat when he retires?

JASON: I might make that announcement -- if I wanted to be here for a long time, I would run for the Senate, and I have not. Nor do I anticipate doing that. But I'm not making the official announcement here today.

(laughter)

STU: We're trying to bring some --

JASON: Nice try. But go ahead.

GLENN: All right, Jason. Best of luck. And the vote is on Thursday, right?

JASON: That's the first step. That's the conference vote. But the real vote on the floor, that happens at the end of October.

GLENN: And the best way for people if they choose you or somebody else, what's the best way they can support you?

JASON: Call their members. Find out who are their members voting for. I'm not -- I don't have a formal whip operation. Just call your member of Congress. Figure out who they're voting for.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Jason, thanks a lot. Appreciate it. Buh-bye.

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.