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

Will the Passing of Scalia Wake Up America?

February 16, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The Context

The unexpected and shocking news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing was received with sadness and, frankly, fear. His departure leaves a massive void of true conservatism on the bench. Without his stalwart adherence to the Constitution, the court is now solidly moderate. Should Obama actually succeed in appointing a liberal replacement, the chance of winning any votes on conservative, constitutional principles is gone --- and along with it, our liberty.

Critical Mass

Rumors are swirling that Obama may be considering current Attorney General Loretta Lynch as a potential replacement for Justice Scalia. Additionally, there is speculation that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been waiting to retire so Obama can appoint her replacement. Filling in for Glenn Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program, Pat voiced his concern should even one justice be chosen by Obama.

"This is critical," Pat said. "If Obama appoints another person here, we're in real trouble."

Now more than ever, the Senate must play its role to impede the president and block any Obama nomination at all costs.

"They're there to specifically slow down the president or impede his progress if he starts to do things that are irrational," said Stu, also filling in Tuesday. "That's what they're there for."

Why Now, God?

"I don't know the bigger plan, you know, that the Lord has in mind," Pat said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "But I couldn't help, but wonder, why? Why now? Why did you have to take Antonin now? Couldn't you have waited just until November? Couldn't you have waited just a little longer? Did he have to come home this soon?"

Evidently, Glenn had been wondering the same thing when he called in from Boston.

"Sitting here looking right now at the Old North Church in Boston," Glenn said. "You know, I was listening to you guys, and I just want to say, Pat, I think I have an answer for you on that."

What was Glenn's answer as to why God took Justice Scalia home at this time, just months before a critical presidential election?

Wake Up, America

"I just woke the American people up," Glenn said, speaking about his thoughts on God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, 'Look how close your liberty is to being lost.'

"You replace one guy, and you now have a 5-4 decision in the other direction," Glenn continued. "The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut. And the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist [as president]."

Glenn also relayed a recent conversation with historian David Barton, who explained the cycle we're in --- from slavery to enlightenment to freedom to abundance to apathy to slavery again. Barton believes we're in the second stage of apathy, on the brink of becoming enslaved by the government. He also believes Scalia's passing and the potential consequences to the Supreme Court could be the catalyst to wake up enough Americans and change our course.

"In Iowa, the exit polls showed that the church did wake up, and the church did come out," Barton told Glenn. "There's still a lot of Christians sitting at home, but Iowa shows that they did wake up. If they wake up in South Carolina, if they wake up in Nevada, if they wake up across the South, then we're not in apathy, and we don't go back in slavery."

Common Sense Bottom Line

Justice Antonin Scalia served his country with honor and dignity, abiding by the Constitution and refusing to legislate from the bench. Filling is larger-than-life position with anything but a stalwart constitutionalist spells the end of the Republic.

Glenn once asked presidential candidate and constitutionalist Ted Cruz how he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Here's the answer he gave:

"I will spend every dime [of my political capital]," Cruz said. "There's nothing more important than this. If we don't get the Supreme Court right, we lose the entire country."

Time to wake up, America.

Listen to this segment at mark 8:45 from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

STU: The idea that we would not expect our candidate to name a justice and try to get somebody through in this situation is ridiculous. Of course, we would. I would be furious with my president if he didn't name somebody and try to push this through. This is the way the court operates.

PAT: Conversely, you would also expect your party who has the majority in the Senate to block that nomination at all costs.

STU: Yes. Pat, you're the constitutional expert around here. My understanding is the Senate has responsibilities in the Constitution as well.

PAT: Pretty good understanding, Stu.

STU: That was what I heard at least at one time. It's funny, the Democrats now only the Constitution has to do with the president. The president can do whatever he wants, and the Senate has to go along with that.

PAT: No. It doesn't work that way.

STU: They're there to specifically slow down the president or impede his progress if he starts to do things that are irrational. That's what they're there for.

PAT: But they'll remember that when we have a Republican. That's when they'll remember that.

Oh, wait a minute. The president doesn't have all the power. Just because you nominated somebody doesn't mean we have to confirm them. That's what you'll hear in four years or whenever the next time this rolls around. And, you know, this would be really bad if the Senate doesn't find its courage to stop Obama in his tracks this time. They cannot allow Scalia to be replaced by yet another radical extremist.

STU: Even if you get a moderate --

PAT: Can't do it. Can't do it.

STU: Antonin Scalia was so good.

PAT: We have two reliable guys left on that bench: Thomas and Alito. That's it.

STU: Two.

PAT: That's it. Sometimes we can rely on John Roberts. And occasionally you can rely on Anthony Kennedy. That's it. We can maybe get to four. There's no way we win any close decision if Obama appoints somebody.

STU: Yeah. And if you want to look back and think of how important this stuff is, go back to -- back when the last -- I mean, not the last one, but one of the biggest examples of the really contentious nomination process was Robert Bork. Bork goes in there and he gets rejected, right? Then they name Kennedy. Reagan names Kennedy as his replacement. You go from a real conservative, you get a moderate. Okay? The next justice that comes up is Souter. So you go from two Republicans, you get a moderate and a liberal. If they had actually come up with two Scalias there and were able to get those two, the entire history of the country is changed.

PAT: Right.

STU: That's how important it is. So if you're one of those people thinking, "Oh, well, look, you vote and you let -- eh, they had Sotomayor and they had Kagan -- like Lindsey Graham voted for both of them, I believe both of them, and approved all of -- just go along with it. Oh well, they get a little leeway with their nominees. We should let this one through.

No. It's too important. It's too vital for the country.

PAT: No. This is critical. And this is critical. We're toast. If Obama appoints another person here, we're in real trouble. And there is speculation now that Ginsburg has been waiting until now to retire so that Obama can appoint somebody in her place too. So then you would have that one that we're also counting on for the future, you'll also have that one solidified with a younger radical, living, breathing constitutionalist. So it would just be a disaster. A disaster.

JEFFY: They're talking about Obama appointing someone so far left that there's no way they get appointed, and that that solidifies the presidential run.

STU: You're totally right, Jeffy. That's what they're going to do here. They know they won't get a crazy leftist through. But you know who they're talking about is Loretta Lynch. Loretta Lynch has already been out there. She's already been vetted in public. She's a black woman. So they'll use this as identity politics to try to make it look like Republicans are trying to stop all the progress. They'll make it into a political point, knowing they won't necessarily get their justice in there. But if Hillary Clinton gets elected, eventually they'll get somebody.

PAT: It's really bad. Yeah. I don't know the bigger plan, you know, that the Lord has in mind. But I couldn't help, but wonder, why? Why now? Why did you have to take Antonin now? Couldn't you have waited just until November? Couldn't you have waited just a little longer? Did he have to come home this soon?

STU: He's great. And I know you want to spend time with the guy. He's great. Could you have just held out a couple more months?

PAT: And, again, I don't know the full picture. He does. So the answer is no. But, man, I couldn't help, but wonder. 877-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program with Pat and Stu coming up.

(OUT AT 8:20AM)

PAT: 877-727-BECK. Pat and Stu in for Glenn. And also for Glenn is Glenn. Joining us from I guess South Carolina, on the road with Ted Cruz?

GLENN: No, I'm in Boston. I'm doing some research in some business. Sitting here looking right now at the Old Goth HEP Church in Boston. I'll be up here for a couple days and then back on the radio. You know, I was listening to you guys. And I just want to say, Pat, I have I think an answer for you on that. Because I did the same thing. I first thought, "Okay. God, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that."

PAT: Right?

GLENN: And then I said the same thing -- I remember it was exactly the same thing that I felt when Sandy hit. And I remember -- remember, we were trying to go up and help campaign --

PAT: And we thought the same thing then.

GLENN: For Mitt Romney. Remember that?

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: And Sandy hit. And we couldn't go up. We couldn't get any flights up. Then they were walking down the beach like two lovers. I thought, "Thank you. Thank you, Lord. I appreciate that. What is your plan?" So I don't want to assume that I know his plan, but I will tell you this, I thought when this happened, after I got past the thank you, I thought, you're welcome. I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, "Look at what -- how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy, and you now have a 5-4 decision in the other direction."

PAT: Every time.

GLENN: And just with one guy, you've lost your liberty. So you better elect somebody that is going to put somebody on. Because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it -- Pat, you and I have said this for a long time. The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: And the only way that we survive now is -- is if we have a true constitutionalist.

PAT: That's exactly right. And you're probably right. That might be -- I mean, we -- it's just up to us now to wake up. It's up to us to get that signal --

GLENN: You know, I was having a conversation with somebody over the week. It was David Barton. And I said, "David, have you ever seen, you know -- have you ever seen this in American history?" He said, "No. This is the cycle that we've always talked about." You know, you go from slavery to enlightenment to freedom to abundance to apathy to slavery again. And he said, "If we're -- if we're in apathy, we're over." He said, "I don't think we're there." He said, "All indications show that we're in apathy." He said, "But this could wake enough people up." He said, "The ones who are apathetic are the church." And he said, "In Iowa, the exit poll showed that the church did wake up, and the church did come out. Not as many as are, you know, claiming to be Christians. There's still a lot of Christians sitting at home, but Iowa shows that they did wake up. If they wake up in South Carolina, if they wake up in Nevada, if they wake up across the South, then we're not in apathy, and we don't go back in slavery." But if the country is lost, it will be lost because of the Christians. There will be no one else to blame. You can't blame the progressives. You can't blame the left. You can't blame Hillary Clinton. You can't blame anyone else but the Christians who are not living and voting their principles.

STU: And quick reminder here that we have been losing all of these Supreme Court cases, anyway, when Scalia was there.

PAT: Right.

STU: So without him, there's not even a remote chance --

PAT: Not even a chance.

STU: Unless people do as you say, Glenn, wake up and maybe choose somebody who knows the Supreme Court who has maybe argued in front of the Supreme Court, if I could be more specific.

GLENN: Well, here's the most important thing, and I don't want to bring this to Cruz, but we're obviously there now.

STU: You're welcome.

GLENN: But, you know, I asked Ted before Scalia died, I said, "Ted, what was the problem?" And he said, "We did Justice Roberts because Bush was not willing to spend the political capital." He said, "I have too many things going on. I can't spend the political capital." I said, "How about you?" He said, "I will spend every dime. There's nothing more important than this. If we don't get the Supreme Court right, we lose the entire country." So he not only knows it, he knows how to pick the guys. He knows who they are. And more importantly, he's not going to sit down. He's not going to say let's comprise. He's going to pick the ones that are right, and he'll spend every dime on that.

PAT: And, by the way, it wasn't supposed to be this way where the Supreme Court was this stinking important.

GLENN: Yes, I know.

PAT: They're supposed to be an equal branch. In fact, when our Founders built the buildings in D.C. they forgot about the judicial building. They forgot about the Supreme Court. They only built that later. They were like, oh, yeah, we forgot the Supreme Court.

GLENN: No, no, it's bad. The best part is, when they built the building, they did forget. And so where were they, Pat? They were in the basement.

PAT: Yeah, right.

GLENN: The court was in the basement.

PAT: Initially they were in the basement.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So then they finally built them this amazingly beautiful building.

GLENN: Palace.

PAT: And took care of that. But look at what they've become since: They've become the be-all and end-all of our republic. And it's not supposed to be that way.

GLENN: When was that building built?

PAT: I don't remember the exact date.

GLENN: Look it up.

PAT: But we'll check on that.

GLENN: Look it up.

PAT: Yeah, we will.

GLENN: Okay. Boys.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Carry on my wayward sons.

Featured Image: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia listens to remarks after participating in the swearing in of new Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on the South Lawn of the White House June 7, 2006 in Washington, DC. Kempthorne succeeds Gale Norton, who stepped down in March. Kempthorne faces some opposition from Senate Democrats after saying he supports an expansion of oil and gas drilling in public lands and waters. He swore his oath of office on his great-grandfather's Bible. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/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.