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

New intel on the San Bernardino killers

December 28, 2015
Lori Hanes

Writer

Filling in on The Glenn Beck Program today, Doc Thompson and Skip LaCombe outlined new details that have emerged about the San Bernardino terrorists, including their ties to a local mosque and the real plan they were hoping to execute in California.

The FBI has questioned Roshan Zamir Abbassi, the cleric acting as spokesman for the San Bernardino mosque where terrorist Syed Farook worshipped, and his claims that he barely knew Farook and didn’t know his terrorist wife at all. However, the evidence casts doubt on this story.

Phone records show a flurry of communication with Farook, including at least 38 text messages over a two-week span in June, coinciding with the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Abbassi, a Pakistani, insists he had nothing to do with the shooting at a San Bernardino County government building five miles from the mosque. While he confirms the text messages with Farook, he claims they were merely discussing food donations for his Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamiya of America mosque.

"Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks?" questioned Skip. "I mean, if that's the case . . . I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than four messages tops."

Doc was more generous, thinking six messages would do the trick.

"You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right?" Doc posed. "Okay, just to confirm one more time how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool, too? Okay. That's like six messages."

More troubling, though, was a plan revealed by Farook's former neighbor who has since been arrested for purchasing weapons used in the deadly San Bernardino attack.

"Their plan---at least one of their plans---was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway . . . that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway," Doc explained. "Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway."

The plan also included Farook walking among the cars and shooting people. The neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway as a sniper to take out law enforcement, security or emergency crews.

This type of plan is shocking and very different from a 9/11 style attack. It's personal and up close, and should be a wake up call for every American.

Listen to the exchange below beginning around 48:28:

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

DOC: By the way, new information on the San Bernardino terrorists. Apparently, the spokesman/cleric for the San Bernardino mosque where Farook, the husband would worship, do you remember when he was supposedly married there and there was some question about that. And he worshiped there. And right after this happened, the mosque was like, "Whoa whoa, we don't know if he was married here." And then they distanced themselves. "We don't know. He could have come here. But we're not part of that." And I get that.

Hey, if you're Muslim in America and you're not causing any problems, you're an American, you just want to live your life and be left alone, yeah, this stuff is pretty annoying when everybody wants to prented or cast you in the light that you're a terrorist as well. So I understand if a mosque is going, hey, that's not us. We don't want any trouble.

I get that. The problem is, the feds have uncovered some things that seem like the mosque knew him pretty well. It seems like -- you know what, I'm going to let you be the judge. I'm going to present you some information and you tell me if, you know, maybe you think they kind of knew each other.

SKIP: All right.

DOC: Because the spokesman said he barely knew Farook. In fact, when he was talking to reporters, he didn't know them better than a lot of the reporters in the room.

So the feds say that the mosque is just 5 miles from the attack site. So it's pretty close and he used to go there.

SKIP: That in itself is probably not too much.

DOC: They have a record of them being married there.

SKIP: Okay.

DOC: That's a little bit more.

SKIP: But I'm sure there's a lot of weddings there.

DOC: You don't necessarily know everybody. Farook was supposedly there all the time. He had been going to pray there at least three to four times a week for two years.

SKIP: Okay. Now you're starting to get a little more familiarity with him.

DOC: Hey, that's that guy that's always here praying. But there's probably a lot of other people praying. Still though, you're adding this up, it's looking kind of rough for them. But still --

SKIP: No like smoking gun yet though.

DOC: This cleric exchanged at least 38 messages over a two-week span in June.

SKIP: Okay. See, that right there, that piece right there, that's going to be damning.

DOC: Skip, it's only 38 messages in two weeks.

SKIP: No, see, any person I've exchanged 30-some-odd messages with over --

DOC: That's not even 20 messages a week. I mean, what is that? Three messages a day if you average it out.

SKIP: Yeah, that's going to be at least a little more familiarity.

DOC: You're telling me that with anybody you've exchanged 38 messages over a two-week span -- text messages with, you know them pretty well?

SKIP: A little more familiarity, I'm going to go ahead and say. I know them pretty well.

DOC: By the way, during this span, this was during the same time period that the attack happened in Chattanooga. The terrorist attack. What's the matter?

SKIP: Those types of attacks. You'll probably be uber aware of correspondence and people you're corresponding with. Particularly in a mosque situation. Because they deal with these types of fears of profiling or being associated with -- yeah, you'll probably have a little extra guard.

DOC: You're thinking that looks bad for him. So during a two-week period in June that was during the time of the attack, the terrorist attack in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which was a Muslim extremist, this spokesperson from the mosque exchanged at least 38 text messages with Farook.

SKIP: Now, what were the texts? OMG. LOL. You see this? WTF. Or what?

DOC: They have not released. I don't know if the feds have the information yet. Theoretically, they would be able to see what the texts were. I have not seen them yet.

SKIP: Of course they would.

DOC: But the cleric claims they were merely discussing food donations for the mosque.

SKIP: Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks? I mean, if that's the case you truly are just trying to get information on, hey, where can I drop off the canned goods? I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than --

DOC: Tuesday at 4:00 here at the mosque. Right?

SKIP: I'll give you four messages tops on that.

DOC: You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right, that's what you said? Okay. Just to confirm one more time -- how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool too? Okay. That's like six messages.

SKIP: Hey, listen, I know you said canned goods, but can I bring some of those pouched goods? Pouched tuna. I know they're not canned though. Is that okay?

DOC: Something like that. Okay. That's like eight messages. What about the other 30?

Now, here's the thing, they're not claiming these messages were part of the terrorist attack at this moment. In other words, they're not pointing the finger at the cleric going, a-ha! You were in on the terrorist attack. They aren't doing that yet.

SKIP: I think they're just trying to prove that they did in fact have more of a relationship than he's trying to --

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So 38 messages, even if it's about food donations, you had a relationship with this person. I mean, if you were the cleric and this guy is like -- I'm getting another message from him about the food donations. This is like 14. Hey, Farook is texting me again, Skip. Just look at this. I would be going to Skip. Look at this. How many times do I have to tell him it's canned goods? This is the eighteenth message. Look at this. I would be bitching to you. Right?

SKIP: Yeah. But then again, you would remember that and hold that as well. I mean, yeah, we exchanged blah, blah. You wouldn't have to come out and say, yeah, we were best friends.

DOC: Right.

SKIP: I would be like, yeah, I knew the guy. He was a nut.

DOC: He wouldn't leave me the hell alone. I told him about the canned goods.

SKIP: If anything, that could work in your favor. Yeah, I know him. He was a jackass.

DOC: There's a little more information. This cleric said he didn't know Farook's wife at all. He said he barely knew Farook. Didn't know his wife at all.

There's a long-time member of the mosque.

SKIP: I'm sorry, what's that name again?

DOC: (foreign language). I don't know if that's a man or a woman. Claimed that they prayed shoulder to shoulder with Farook and his wife. And went to the couple's wedding last year at the mosque.

So that would indicate that this cleric knew Farook's wife. Didn't know her at all.

SKIP: At least some familiarity.

DOC: Right? So then you have to ask yourself: Why are you denying this?

I understand that you know people -- I understand being a little paranoid if you think everyone is looking at you even if you're not a terrorist and you happen to be Muslim. I understand that you're -- okay. They all think I'm a terrorist here. So I don't want to do anything. So let me just say I didn't know the guy.

But aren't you smart enough to realize that looks even worse for you instead of being honest and saying, listen. It's one thing to downplay it. But if you exchanged messages like that, there's no downplaying it. People are going to know.

SKIP: No, it just makes you look guilty.

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So let's say the cleric in this mosque had some sort of a relationship with Farook, but not much of one. He could have said, yeah, he worshiped here. I knew him a little bit. They had their wedding here. You know, we had exchanged messages. He tried to come up with some food donations. Whatever. I didn't know him well. I mean, there are many people that come to this mosque that I have a similar relationship with. You know, we didn't see each other outside of the mosque or anything like that. Then I would go, okay. That makes sense. But when you start going, nope. I didn't know his wife at all.

SKIP: Who? Farook.

DOC: Oh, the guy with the canned goods. Right? I mean, at some point it just makes you look guilty.

SKIP: It makes you look guilty, yeah.

DOC: That's not going to be good for him there. You have to wonder, was anybody else a part of this? You know just before we were off for break, so prior to last week, the neighbor -- they finally arrested the neighbor, the one who bought the two long guns and then gave them to Farook, who was planning a terrorist attack with him in 2011 and '12.

SKIP: I would have a hard time believing that. I mean, because of that, because of this neighbor, they were planning HEP an attack on a highway. I mean, that clearly proves to me, I think, that Farook spoke about this stuff with some regularity. So I would have to think, I would be surprised to find out that nobody else in that mosque, that not a single other person knew that they had something planned.

DOC: Interesting thing about this friend, the former neighbor who has been arrested now. He claimed that they had this terrorist plan. The plan they were working on is shocking. And this is the thing that should really frighten all Americans. I'm not somebody that is given into hysterics. I think we have to live our lives or the terrorists win. But it should be shocking when you hear what they were planning.

Their plan, at least one of their plans, was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway. Now, I don't know if it was a particular stretch that they had already planned out for. But they were looking for at least a stretch of highway that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway. Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway. And, again, you wouldn't be able to get off once traffic started backing up.

At that point, Farook was going to walk among the cars and start shooting people in their cars or if they fled. The crazy neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway and began -- begin sniping law enforcement or security or safety or emergency crews as they tried to help people.

This was their plan. Now, why that should be shocking, of course, that's a terrorist attack, so it should be shocking in itself. But when you look and realize that these are the new terrorists many America. Many people, I think including even the president and maybe even George W. Bush before he left office, and many people that are advising them, still believe that terrorism in America is going to come in the form of a plane flying into a building or something similar.

Remember, prior to 9/11, the only fear you had of somebody taking an aircraft or blowing up or terrorism on an aircraft was it being hijacked because nobody would kill themselves. Or planting a bomb on a plane, but they wouldn't get on because no one would kill themselves. That was our thinking.

They would check and as long as everybody got on that planted luggage on the plane, you were good. And then we were like, oh, okay. Now I see that people will actually kill themselves too. Got it. Okay. We were behind.

SKIP: Totally changed the game.

DOC: Changed the game. Well, now we've got a new plan here. Look at the multiple terrorist attacks in France. Look at the Boston bombing. Look at San Bernardino. What do these attacks have in common? They plan a terrorist attack, using explosives, guns, whatever they can find, they don't stick around to be shot or killed. Even if they're willing to die for their cause and will likely die for their cause. They want to cause as much havoc and terror as possible. As much death and destruction. So what do they do? They flee causing more death and destruction. This is the new plan, and we have to wise up. They're willing to die for their cause, but it looks more like this than planes into buildings.

Featured Image: Dar-Al-Uloom Al-Islamia of America mosque in Muscoy, a suburb of San Bernardino.

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.