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

Liberal Professor Robert Reich Inadvertently Endorses Ted Cruz

February 22, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

A new two-minute video from liberal professor and political commentator Robert Reich backfired in delivering its intended message: Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump.

Instead, Reich inadvertently made the case that Cruz is a better presidential choice for conservatives due to his "strict, originalist view" of the Constitution. Reich, who believes Bernie Sanders' economic proposals would spur growth, may have delivered the best endorsement yet for electing Cruz.

"There is a video explaining why Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump, and I'm watching this, and I'm thinking, 'You got to be kidding me, right? I mean, did Ted Cruz write this?' It is phenomenal," Glenn said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "I never saw anything like it. I saw Ted last night, and I said, 'You need to run this at all of your rallies.' Here is a guy on the left making the case to his followers why anyone, but Ted Cruz should win."

Here are Reich's four reasons why Ted Cruz is more dangerous that Donald Trump:

Number One

• Cruz is more fanatical, a fierce ideologue who takes a strict, originalist view of the meaning of the Constitution. He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the Second Amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns, doesn't believe in a constitutional divide between church and state, favors the death penalty, rejects immigration reform and demands the repeal of Obamacare.

• Trump is a bully, but he doesn't adhere to any sharp, ideological line.

Number Two

• Cruz is a true believer, embracing right wing economic and political views.

• Donald Trump has no firm principles, except making money, getting attention and gaining power.

Number Three

• Cruz is more disciplined and strategic, using a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game, as he's shown in Iowa.

• Trump is all over the place, often winging it saying whatever pops into his mind.

Number Four

• Cruz is a loner who is willing to destroy institutions. His opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.

• Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots.

There's never been a more glowing endorsement for a conservative candidate. Thank you, Robert Reich.

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

GLENN: From Las Vegas, Nevada. It was the weekend of South Carolina and Nevada. Trump and Hillary both claimed victory. In a matchup between Hillary and Trump, which one does America want? Actually let me revise that. In a matchup between Hillary and a Hillary donor, which one does America want? And what do the exit polls actually say from South Carolina? Plus, an amazing video from Robert Reich, you know, the guy from the left, the big Clinton supporter. It is the most powerful campaign ad I have ever seen. The problem is: He was trying to make an anti-campaign ad for somebody. We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: From Las Vegas, Nevada. So glad that you've turned in. Hello, America. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

Yesterday, I saw an -- a saw a video on YouTube from Robert Reich. Robert Reich is -- I don't know. He's a bizarre economist with the Clinton campaign -- or, has been with the Clinton campaign for many, many years. Been with Bill Clinton and is a guy who is absolutely upside down and does not agree with the right at all. Conservatives are, you know, the Antichrist to him.

There is a video explaining why Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump. And I'm watching this, and I'm thinking, "You got to be kidding me, right? I mean, did Ted Cruz write this?" It is phenomenal.

PAT: I thought the same.

GLENN: Right. I never saw anything like it. I saw Ted last night, and I said, "You need to run this at all of your rallies." Here is a guy on the left making the case to his followers why anyone, but Ted Cruz should win. Listen to this.

ROBERT: Four reasons Ted Cruz is even more dangerous than Donald Trump.

Number one, Cruz is more fanatical. Now, Trump is a bully, but he doesn't adhere to any sharp ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue. He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

PAT: Is that a bad thing for anyone?

GLENN: Yeah. I know. He wants to abolish the IRS. No.

PAT: Oh, no. No. No. I didn't realize that about him.

ROBERT: Believes the Second Amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns.

PAT: Yes, it's the Second Amendment.

(chuckling)

GLENN: And the Supreme Court.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

ROBERT: He doesn't believe in a constitutional divide between church and state.

PAT: Yeah, and neither does the Constitution, by the way.

ROBERT: Favors the death penalty. Rejects immigration reform. Demands the repeal of Obamacare. And Cruz takes a strict, originalist view of the meaning of the Constitution.

(gasping)

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop.

PAT: No!

GLENN: So far, I'm like, "He's my guy."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, I've never heard anything -- but it gets better. Wait. There's more.

ROBERT: Cruz is a true believer.

Donald Trump has no firm principles, except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. Cruz has much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views.

Number three --

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: Stop. Okay. So Cruz -- look, Donald Trump, he doesn't actually believe in anything, except himself and making money and everything else. But Cruz has actually spent his life really embracing these things. And they're all crazy.

PAT: Uh-huh. It's incredible. I mean, this seriously should be a campaign ad for Ted Cruz. For sure.

ROBERT: Discipline and strategic --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop.

PAT: More disciplined. Strategic --

GLENN: Here's point number three: Cruz is disciplined and strategic, where Trump is just all over the place.

PAT: Yes. Uh-huh.

ROBERT: -- winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz uses a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game, as he has shown in Iowa. And fourth and finally, Cruz is a loner willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big HEP shots.

PAT: Can you -- he spent his career using the government.

GLENN: Okay. Here's an example of this. And this is the kind of stuff, guys, that you're going to see --

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: This is what you're going to see in the mainstream media come July if Donald Trump is the candidate.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: Try this one on for size. Donald Trump said, you know, you remember when Donald Trump did this big deal. And this is exactly how it will be presented on NBC.

Remember when he said that -- oh, you know, how dare you say -- I had friends that died in the World Trade Center. So far -- and this is the way, again, the media will portray this. So far, NBC has reached out to the Trump campaign several times and cannot get one name of anybody that Donald Trump was friends with. We also looked at the records, and there is no record of Donald Trump attending any funerals for any individual after 9/11.

Okay. The press has already done that. But they haven't stood on it. But here comes the hammer. Donald Trump owns 40 Wall Street, a building worth $400 million. And on paper, is making $26.5 million every year. Donald Trump, after the government put together a package for small businesses to help those mom-and-pop stores in lower Manhattan that had been damaged or hurt by September 11th, Donald Trump and 40 Wall Street filed a claim to try to get money out of the small business fund.

He actually -- a business that makes $26.5 million a year. $20 million over the limit, somehow or another was able to receive a grant of $150,000, taking that $150,000 from the mom-and-pop small businesses that truly needed it. Brian, back to you.

That's exactly how it's going to happen. That's exactly what's going to happen.

Here's Donald Trump. And this is what Robert Reich was saying. He has spent his career taking money from the government. We know this because of the documentaries we have seen. And some of them are now posted. Documentaries that Donald Trump got shut down back in the '90s that are now starting to pop up on the news because he can't muscle NBC. He can't muscle ABC. The internet is there.

And now you're seeing in some of these documentaries how he built his business. He would go to the government and get subsidies for all his business. So what Robert Reich is saying here, "This isn't a guy who will shut down all the subsidies. This is a guy who uses the subsidies to get wealthy." This is exactly what America -- and I'm going to make a point today, and you're not going to like it. But I am going to make a point that there is a revolution coming in the next eight years. There is a revolution actually happening right now. But it is a velvet revolution. And if we choose wrong, it will not be a velvet revolution. If we stay the course and we continue down the road with corrupt crony capitalism and corrupt -- quite honestly, the kind of politics that the left is dealing in right now, where Hillary Clinton has all the superdelegates, so it doesn't really matter what the people say. The people are voting for -- for Bernie Sanders, and it is a virtual dead HEP heat between those two. But somehow or another, she wins six coin tosses, and here in Nevada, she wins the delegates by flipping over cards: He got a six. She got an ace. She gets the delegates. Your vote really doesn't matter with the left. It doesn't matter at all.

And those kinds of things where we're undermining democracy and we're undermining the confidence in true, decent, honest, and honorable capitalism is not going to last. And that's what's happening. And this is what Robert Reich is holding up and saying is a good thing. Why? Because de Tocqueville was right.

De Tocqueville, the guy who wrote Democracy in America back in the 1800s, a Frenchman who came over to America and said, "What is it that makes them special? Why is it that they are being able to cross all of these lines and hurdles and jump all these hurdles? Why is it this little teeny country is starting to explode?" And he said, "Because America is great because America is good." They had certain fundamental principles that they never violated. And the people were good and honorable and decent.

And we've lost that. And that's what -- that's where this anger is coming from. People are tired from saying, "Wait a minute. Hillary Clinton should be in jail. She shouldn't be on the campaign trail. She should be in jail." And I would like to say that those on the right would say the same thing if it was their candidate. But we wouldn't. Polls are now showing that we play the same game the left does. All of this bullcrap, quite frankly, that we all said to each other over the last eight years, "It's not about -- it's about principles. It's about the Constitution. It's about these principles they're taking and destroying." Now what are people saying? "My guy can play that game even better than they can. And I'm tired of playing by the rules."

You read my Facebook. I have never seen anything like what I'm reading on my Facebook page now: Story after story after story of people saying, "You know what, I'm tired of playing by the rules. I'm tired of being stepped on. I'm tired of having everybody win except for us. The ends justify the means. If they're not going to play by the rules, I'm not going to play by the rules."

And the problem with that is, America, you might win the game, but you're going to lose your soul. You're going to lose what made America great in the first place. You cannot play by that, unless you want to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

So let's finish this Robert Reich video.

PAT: Yeah.

ROBERT: Cruz. He's repeatedly led Republicans toward fiscal cliffs. In the fall of 2013, his opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.

PAT: No, it didn't.

ROBERT: Both men would be disastrous for America, but Ted Cruz would be the larger disaster.

(chuckling)

STU: Brought to you by the Ted Cruz campaign.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Can we play one more time without interrupting it. Because it's so powerful in a minute a half.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

ROBERT: Four reasons Ted Cruz is even more dangerous than Donald Trump: Number one, Cruz is more fanatical. Now, Trump is a bully, but he doesn't adhere to any sharp, ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue. He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the Second Amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns. He doesn't believe in a constitutional divide between church and state. Favors the death penalty. Rejects immigration reform. Demands the repeal of Obamacare. And Cruz takes a strict, originalist view of the meaning of the Constitution.

Second, Cruz is a true believer. Donald Trump has no firm principles, except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views.

Number three, Cruz is more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz uses a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game, as he's shown in Iowa.

And fourth and finally, Cruz is a loner who is willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. He's repeatedly led Republicans toward fiscal cliffs.

In the fall of 2013, his opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government. Both men would be disastrous for America, but Ted Cruz would be the larger disaster.

PAT: That is --

GLENN: I'm Ted Cruz. And I approve this message.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: That's what super PACs should be playing right now.

PAT: Yes. Yes. Wow.

GLENN: I mean, that is the most powerful endorsement of Ted Cruz I've ever heard from Robert Reich.

Featured Image: Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich (L) testifies before the Joint Economic Committee January 16, 2014 in Washington, DC. Reich joined a panel testifying on the topic of 'Income Inequality in the United States.Ó (Photo by Win McNamee/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.