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

Ben Carson's Allegations: Much Ado About Nothing

February 03, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The Context

Following the Iowa Caucus, presidential candidate Ben Carson said that, "Dirty tricks were used in Iowa." He made the charge that Ted Cruz's campaign knowingly and deceitfully told caucus goers that Carson was dropping out of the race.

"I was reasonably happy today, until I, you know, discovered the dirty tricks that were going on and people spreading rumors that I had dropped out and that people should caucus for someone else," Carson said to multiple news outlets.

He Said, CNN Said

It all began with a news report from CNN stating Ben Carson was going to take a few days off, not go to New Hampshire and possibly make a big announcement next week. The Cruz campaign passed on this news to caucus goers in Iowa. Once Carson's allegations became public, the Cruz campaign also addressed the issue head on.

"On the Ben Carson allegations, it's just false. We simply as a campaign repeated what Ben Carson had said --- had said in his own words. He said after Iowa he was going to go back to Florida for a couple days, and then he was going to go to D.C. for the Prayer HEP Breakfast," Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler said in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "And what that told us was he was not going to New Hampshire. That's not a dirty trick. That was really surprising by a campaign who was once leading in Iowa, saying he's not going to come to New Hampshire. I mean, that's a news item."

Context Matters

Put into context, the CNN report more than implies Carson would be suspending his campaign --- and that's exactly what CNN speculated.

"On CNN they were speculating that he [Carson] was going to drop out because nobody in their right mind does that, especially with the excuse that Ben Carson gave to the press," Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "You're running for president of the United States. You have to go to New Hampshire. Everybody got on their plane the next morning and flew to New Hampshire."

Excuses, Excuses

While Glenn and his co-hosts greatly admire Dr. Carson, his excuse for not going directly to New Hampshire just didn't hold water.

"He had to go get a set of fresh clothes," Co-host Stu Burguiere revealed.

Can you hear crickets chirping?

"That's just an unreasonable statement," Glenn said. "You could say this, 'I have personal issues I have to deal with. I just have to go home for two days and be with my wife. I just need to be at home with my family for two days. I'll be back in New Hampshire in two days.' Not, 'I'm going home because I have to get a fresh pair of clothes. And then I'm going to a prayer breakfast in Washington. We'll check back with you.' That's ridiculous."

Common Sense Bottom Line

Ted Cruz apologized to Ben Carson for the confusion surrounding the CNN report --- and the Cruz campaign's subsequent response. However, there were no "dirty" dealings.

"If there's a chance that somebody is dropping out of the race, you're darn right I'm going to get my people on and say, 'Go over and get those Ben Carson people because they identity with us and they're good, and if he's dropping out of the race, let's get them.' There's nothing wrong with that," Glenn said. "That's not a line. That's not cheating. That's not thievery. That's not dishonest."

Listen to this complimentary segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: All right. Let's start with the audio where Ben Carson says, "Dirty tricks were used in Iowa." It's cut 542. Listen to this.

BEN: I was reasonably happy today, until I, you know, discovered the dirty tricks that were going on and people spreading rumors that I had dropped out and that people should caucus for someone else. I mean, do you think that that's something that is acceptable?

PAT: I don't think that's something that happened.

GLENN: Okay. Let's explain. Let's explain what happened. He made this charge. And he was making the charge that Cruz played a dirty trick, and what Cruz did was tell the caucus goers that -- not Cruz. Not Cruz. Cruz campaign people and the local or state people, right? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. His name is on it. So it doesn't matter.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: So the Cruz campaign said that he was going to drop out and so -- next week he was going to drop out. In fact, I want to get this right. The press release that they released to their caucus goers said that CNN reported that Ben Carson was going to take a few days off next week and not go to New Hampshire, and then had a possible big announcement next week. So they should convince caucus goers for Ben Carson to come over to Cruz. When that was found out, Carson said, "Dirty tricks were used." And here's the response from the Cruz campaign.

VOICE: On the Ben Carson allegations, it's just false. We simply as a campaign repeated what Ben Carson had said -- had said in his own words. He said after Iowa he was going to go back to Florida for a couple days, and then he was going to go to DC for the Prayer HEP Breakfast. And what that told us was he was not going to New Hampshire. That's not a dirty trick. That was really surprising by a campaign who was once leading in Iowa, saying he's not going to come to New Hampshire. I mean, that's a news item.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, it's not them reading into this. This is what CNN reported. And on CNN, they were speculating that he was going to drop out because nobody in their right mind does that, especially with the excuse that Ben Carson gave to the press.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you know what the excuse was?

PAT: I -- I don't know.

(laughter)

STU: Oh, it's totally believable.

GLENN: It's totally believable. Now, hang on. You're running for president of the United States. You have to go to New Hampshire. And the next thing that's beginning right away. Everybody got on their plane the next morning and flew to New Hampshire.

JEFFY: That evening.

GLENN: That evening.

PAT: It's a week away. Less than that.

GLENN: He didn't go because...

STU: He had to go get a set of fresh clothes.

PAT: No way. That was really the excuse?

GLENN: Yes, that's the excuse.

JEFFY: To be more specific, I believe it was he had to get new suits. Right? Different suits?

STU: Well, I believe the quote was "a set of fresh clothes."

PAT: He's only a neurosurgeon. He can't afford to run out and do that at a store.

STU: No. On the fly.

PAT: You want him to go to a men's warehouse and buy a whole new suit?

GLENN: You're a presidential candidate -- let me tell you something. You're Ben Carson. You're Ben Carson.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Who, by the way, has one of the best-run campaigns. The guy has plenty of money.

PAT: He's got a lot of money.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. And the campaign could buy the suits. You could hire somebody to come. You could get somebody to make a suit for you in Iowa. You could hire the best people in the world to come and make you a suit or bring you suits. You could hire a department store to come and bring you the suits, if you're Ben Carson.

JEFFY: They probably would do that for Ben.

GLENN: Of course they would. Of course they would.

PAT: They love him, they would probably do it for free.

GLENN: You could call any department -- you could call Macy's. You could call HEP Burgdorf or Nordstrom's or something like that.

PAT: Oh, not in Iowa. There's the problem. He's in Iowa.

GLENN: You can call them in New York and say, "I'm Ben Carson. I need somebody to come and bring a tailor and bring some suits to me." And that's easy to do.

STU: And that's high-end dealing with it.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Another way to deal with it. I haven't done my personal research on it, but it's my understanding that there are dry cleaners in New Hampshire. So in theory, it's possible that you would bring your old clothes to New Hampshire and get them dry cleaned.

GLENN: There's another thing. Let's say you rip your pants or whatever.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

GLENN: Remember when we would go on the road. We would be on the road for like a month, month and a half.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You remember how many times one of us, we would get to a town and we'd go, "I've got to find a men's store. I got to go find a men's store. I need to buy two new shirts. I need a jacket."

JEFFY: Something.

GLENN: And we would -- one of us, invariably would always have to stop once a week or something. One of the would say, "I have to get some socks." That's what you do.

PAT: Well, yeah, we were in Cleveland a couple years ago, and it was bone-chilling cold, and none of us were dressed for it. Remember that?

GLENN: Yeah, there was something that happened. We were on the road. We weren't supposed to go there. And it was -- I don't remember what happened. But we flew there. We got there at like midnight. We had meetings or shows to do. And we found a place that opened at 8 o'clock in the morning. We were like, "Okay. We need coats. We need coats."

JEFFY: Are you saying you didn't fly back home?

GLENN: We didn't fly back home.

PAT: That's just ridiculous.

GLENN: Here's the thing. That's just an unreasonable statement.

PAT: It is. It is.

GLENN: Just an unreasonable statement. If that really what he has, then that shows this man is not taking this campaign seriously.

STU: Right. And, look, maybe he just wanted to go home and have a night at home during the campaign. That's fine. He gave an excuse that sounded like an excuse a campaign makes when they're about to drop out. People started speculating that they were going to drop out.

GLENN: That's what was happening on CNN.

STU: It happened on CNN. It happened certainly all over social media.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And so Cruz eventually apologized for his campaign because they didn't update it after he came up with the excuse. So he told --

GLENN: Would you have bought that excuse?

STU: I didn't buy it.

GLENN: I wouldn't have bought that excuse.

STU: That's a good argument for Ben Carson to drop out of the race.

GLENN: You could say this, "I have personal issues I have to deal with. I just have to go home for two days and be with my wife. I just need to be at home with my family for two days. I'll be back in New Hampshire in two days."

PAT: That's believable. That's believable.

GLENN: Not, "I'm going home because I have to get a fresh pair of clothes. And then I'm going to a prayer breakfast in Washington. We'll check back with you." That's ridiculous.

STU: It's a terrible idea, if that's the way it is. And beyond that, like, look, what did it cost? Let's just say crazy, it was 100 votes. Crazy, I mean, Ben Carson finished in fourth by 18 percent. 19 percent. He was not on the verge of winning and lost by 20 votes and has cost him the election.

PAT: No way.

STU: He finished fourth place. No matter what happened with this, he was going to finish in fourth place.

GLENN: No, he was not going to beat Marco Rubio.

STU: It's silly. This is Ben Carson saying, "Look, this isn't going the way I hoped." And, again, we like Ben Carson. He's a good guy.

GLENN: I really like Ben Carson.

STU: He's frustrated. And he's making -- you know, he's getting desperate.

GLENN: Here's the thing, you know, I talked to Ted Cruz over the weekend, and I said -- because some of this stuff that was being said about him is just unbelievable.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: How Marco Rubio can sleep at night is beyond me because he is just lying. Just lying. There's a difference between, you know, making mistakes because everybody makes mistakes. Making mistakes and lying. And when you are -- when you are -- you know, if you're on the stage and you're like, "Look, your record on the border is this, this, and this." But once you

have -- you know, people all coming out, the Washington Post and everyone else going, "You're lying about that. That's not true," and you continue to do it --

PAT: That's a Barack Obama tactic.

GLENN: It's a Barack Obama tactic, and it shows that you have no respect for the truth. And that to me says something about your character.

PAT: It does to me too.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. That's different than this. I don't think Ted Cruz was lying. I wouldn't have bought that. The guy is going to get clothes?

PAT: No way.

GLENN: So what happens? It's not that he's trying to hurt him. He has to be the first one on those -- those votes. Because everybody -- why do you think Donald Trump came out and said, "By the way, I love Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee, you're the best. I just want to French kiss Mike Huckabee and give give him a building."

PAT: He wants that whopping 2 percent.

GLENN: He does. He wants that 2 percent. So if there's a chance that somebody is dropping out of the race, you darn right I'm going to get my people on and say, "Go over and get those Ben Carson people because they identity with us and they're good, and if he's dropping out of the race, let's get them." There's nothing wrong with that. That's not a line. That's not cheating. That's not thievery. That's not dishonest.

PAT: Right.

STU: No. Every candidate would do that. The only reason that Cruz apologized is because they didn't send a second message to correct the first message once Carson came out with this excuse that I don't believe at all. And I'm sure no one in the campaign believed. But, still, maybe they should have done that, I don't know. But I think with the Rubio stuff, what's interesting with that, Trump in a way has Overton windowed our expectations so far. That when Rubio says something that's not true about Cruz's record, I'm like, eh. It almost -- because we have the other guy saying, "This guy was born in Saskatchewan." His attacks are so nuts, that the typical political falsehoods don't seem as bad.

PAT: He was born in Saskatchewan.

GLENN: Well, that kind of goes to -- last night, I did a monologue on television. And I talked about the thing that nobody is really talking about in this. Nobody is talking about the Iowa race in this way. We're sitting here talking about, you know, Cruz and Carson and Rubio and Trump. Nobody is talking about 50 percent of the Democrats voted for an outright socialist

Featured Image: Ben Carson speaks at his Iowa Caucus Night Party in the Marriott Hotel on February 1, 2016 in West Des Moines, Iowa. Carson is projected to finish fourth in the GOP running. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.