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

The Best Time of Your Life Could Be Right Now — So Enjoy It

October 03, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Are you better off now than you were eight years ago? Gauge it by your general happiness, your relationships, where you devote your time.

RELATED: The Times That Try Men’s Souls: Words That Could Have Been Written Today

"Look at the number of people who have rooted themselves in something deep. I've prayed like I've never prayed before. I've served like I've never served before. People are becoming heroic in many ways over the last eight years. Never seen that before in my life," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

This may be the toughest time we've experienced in our nation's history, but will we remember it that way?

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these peachy questions:

• What does Glenn consider one of the best times in his life?

• Would it be a good or bad choice to rob Kim Kardashian to pay the mortgage?

• Is Glenn more of a sick twisted freak than even he thought?

• Why is it so easy for Stu to judge Jeffy?

• As a nation, is there a difference between doing good and doing well?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Why do we say the ends justify the means? And why do we say it's wrong? The ends justify the means usually is said by people who is, "Well, we got to get there. Somehow or another, we got to get there. Right? So it doesn't matter what you do." But why do we say that's wrong? Why is it wrong that the ends justify the means?

PAT: Well, because the means are sometimes untenable for us. Sometimes the means are -- the ends justify the means, means that when you get where you want, everything that you did in between was fine. Well, that's not necessarily the case.

STU: Right. Everyone has to pay their mortgage. But if you rob Kim Kardashian at gunpoint and steal her jewelry to do it --

PAT: That's probably not good.

STU: Yeah, yeah, it's not worth it.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And you could probably pay everybody's mortgage several times over for a very long time.

STU: And that might feel great. But, again, you don't do it because the way you did it is --

GLENN: I have a different -- because that's the way I always looked at it. And I have a different -- I had a different thought yesterday, and I want to share this.

Let's start here. Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?

PAT: In what way?

GLENN: Oh, good question. In any way?

PAT: Let's see, financially --

STU: I'm being set up. I feel like I'm being set up. They're always setups.

GLENN: No. This is just a -- I am going someplace obviously, but I don't necessarily the answers. I know my answer, but you guys might find flaws in it.

So are we better off than we were eight years go?

PAT: On an individual basis, you're talking about? Or are you --

GLENN: Or as a nation. Individual. Any way.

PAT: As a nation, certainly not. No. Absolutely not.

JEFFY: But a number of people individually are.

PAT: Yeah. A number of people are also worse off.

JEFFY: A lot worse.

PAT: Including many blacks.

GLENN: Are you? Are you?

PAT: I would say no. Uh-uh.

STU: Yeah. I mean, you go back to eight years ago, we were just about to hit the cliff of the financial crisis eight years ago today.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

STU: So that was a terrible era financially for the economy. And, you know, while we've -- you know, we've -- we don't need to go into the details of it. You're not looking for a detailed financial answer. You know, it's changed.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

So yesterday, I just made some notes -- just having some stream of consciousness, just wrote some stream of consciousness notes. And I think I disagree with what I answered last night in my notes. I wrote: As a nation, no, clearly. But I'm not sure that's even true.

PAT: As a nation, we are worse off, you mean?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

JEFFY: Oh, yes.

PAT: And you're note sure that's true?

GLENN: I'm not sure that's true. And listen. Just hear me out here for a second.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Are you better as a man or a woman or a mom or a dad -- as a family, are you better off as a family than you were eight years ago? Are you a better man than you were eight years ago?

Wow, you guys can't answer that?

PAT: I don't know. I don't like to do that kind of introspection. It's way too challenging for --

STU: I like to judge Jeffy, instead of judging ourselves.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I am -- I am more of a freak than even I know. I know I'm a freak.

STU: I just don't like -- that's hard to judge.

PAT: Yeah. I don't --

STU: I try. I mean, you try to be a better person.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Come on, guys. You're much better than you were. You're much better than you were. Absolutely.

PAT: I think in some ways, we're more aware, certainly. We're more --

GLENN: Yes. You're more educated. Probably not you -- not Pat. Pat was like -- Pat knew the Constitution before, you know --

STU: Before it was cool.

GLENN: Before it was cool.

PAT: Before 2008, yes?

GLENN: Yes, he knew the Constitution.

STU: No, I mean, I think we've tried to improve ourselves in those ways.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: Yeah, we have.

STU: I feel like sometimes -- you know, I feel more -- less optimistic about the world, and I don't like that about myself.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: And so that makes me --

GLENN: But in all of the ways that really count -- when you're talking about -- because, look, our house, our finances -- all of that stuff -- and I know I'm going to say this, and people are going to roll their eyes, going, "Well, that's just a guy who's got money saying that."

No, this is a coming from a guy who's lost everything in his life. I lost everything in my life.

And my kids always make fun of me. They're like, "Dad, will you stop saying, 'Enjoy it while it lasts?'" And I've done it for years. "Enjoy it while it lasts."

STU: I say that all the time.

GLENN: Right. And they say to me, "Dad, why do you say that?"

Because you never know what's going to happen tomorrow. I could lose my job tomorrow. You know, the world could blow up tomorrow. Whatever.

It just -- it could be like this for the rest of our lives, in this special moment, but enjoy the moment and don't worry about tomorrow.

Whatever comes tomorrow, we'll enjoy that moment. I didn't have that perspective, totally, eight years ago because I didn't know what was important eight years ago.

Eight years ago, I hadn't done the introspection on, "What are you willing to live for, really live for?"

Everybody was like, "What are you willing to die for?" Yeah, okay. "I don't know if we all know what we're willing to die for, until they put the gun to your head." You know what I mean? You don't know what -- you don't know who you are. You don't really know what you'll do until that moment.

So what are you really willing to live for and dedicate yourself and risk losing it all?

I know that. I didn't know that eight years ago. I thought I did. In theory, I did. But I'm -- I am -- and I contend, almost everyone in this audience is better as -- in some form of their life -- we immediately say, are you better off than you were eight years ago? We immediately go to finances or whatever.

PAT: Yeah. And say no.

GLENN: And we say no.

Why is that our immediate -- because we have made everything in our life about politics. And in the end of our days, we won't think about politics for a second. Unless we're thinking this: "Why did I waste all of that time and energy on that?"

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Pat said to me, forever, "Glenn, you got to find joy." I'm trying to. I'm trying to learn all this stuff. But, you know what, I'm just starting to find joy, even in all the learning of all the stuff I don't want to learn.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: You got to -- we -- let me ask you this: I want you to right now think of the best time in your life. The time that you think, "Those were the days."

Did those days that you just thought of revolve around success and money, or did they revolve around happiness? And I would venture a guess that most people's best times were in the hardest struggle. Is that true for anybody? Yes, Jeffy?

JEFFY: Oh, yes. Yes.

GLENN: Pat.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: In the best -- in the biggest struggle -- I wouldn't want to go back to those days. I don't want to go back. But those were -- and why were those your best days? Because you found out who you were. You -- you conquered something. You stretched -- they were so hard because you -- you might have -- I mean, one of the best times of my life -- I think of a few best times of my life: The first one best time of my life was when I moved to Washington, DC. I had never lived in a place without mountains. So I couldn't even get around. I was so lost without mountains because I had no direction. I had no internal compass. And I would get lost all the time in Washington, DC. Not a place you want to get lost in.

I was completely alone. No one -- no one in my family lived past the Rocky Mountains on the western side. I'm out by myself, 18 years old, at one of the biggest radio stations in the country. I don't know a soul. I'm making very little money. I live in this apartment building that I don't know why I always live like elderly people. But I think it was almost like a nursing home that I moved into, I found out afterwards.

PAT: It was affordable.

GLENN: Yeah, it was affordable. There's no one my age. There's -- there's nothing. I had a box, an apple crate box. If anybody from the West remembers Peaches record store, they would sell the record box in peaches. And so I had a Peaches' crate, a small little 12-inch black-and-white television set, a chair, and beer in my refrigerator.

JEFFY: That's good living right there.

GLENN: That's good living, right? I remember that as one of the best times of my life.

Now, what the hell is -- what -- do you remember what that was like?

No. I don't. What I remember is, I conquered it. It was new. It was discovery. It was freaky terrifying. But I made it, and I discovered who I was. This is -- those are the times. The times we struggle. I promise you this: Should you choose, this will not only be remembered as one of the best times of your life -- right now -- but should you choose, it can be one of the best times of your life right now.

If you have the longer term perspective. I haven't even -- I haven't -- man, I have three pages, and I just have the first two bullet points. This might take us all day to get through. But I think you're going to like the perspective. I think you're going to -- because it ends with a new answer, for me at least, on why the ends don't justify the means.

[break]

GLENN: We have so much to talk about today. But let me -- let me just start where we started. Why do we say it's wrong to believe that the ends justify the means? Are we better off than we were eight years ago?

I -- I believe that we are. But not in anything having to do with politics. It is that moment in your life where you really struggle. You have money pressure. Fear, loneliness, desperation.

But unless you become something that you're not, unless you become a thief, unless you become something that you're not, you will look at those times with favorable eyes. The times when you really struggled, because you made it, even though you thought you couldn't.

But if you become those things that you're not, if you said, "I'm going to take the easy -- I'm going to steal," you will look at those times -- I don't know why I gestured towards Jeffy on that.

STU: I noticed that.

JEFFY: Is there an amount?

GLENN: You will look back at those times as the worst time of your life, because you made a tragic mistake.

Next question: Does God need America? I used to believe, in some ways, yeah. If not us, who? But does God need America?

PAT: No, it's the other way around.

GLENN: Yeah. It's absolutely the other way. But a lot of people will say, "Yes, he does." Why?

Well, to do good. Who is there to do good?

But based on how you answered the first question, "Are you better off than you were eight years ago?" If you said, "No," as your knee-jerk response, then your focus is really on doing well rather than doing good. Your knee-jerk reaction was, "No, we're not better off because look at our finances," instead of saying, "Are you kidding me? Look at the number of people who have -- who have rooted themselves in something deep. I've prayed like I've never prayed before. I've served like I've never served before. And I've seen service, and I've seen people. People are becoming heroic in many ways over the last eight years. Never seen that before in my life."

If your knee-jerk reaction was that, then, yeah. Then, yeah. We are a nation that does good. But right now, we're a nation that says we do good because we send our military. In other words, we do good by proxy. Or we send our money. We do good by proxy.

Right now, we live in a nation that is concerned with doing well and not doing good. And you know it. Because how many people say, "I deserve it. It's owed to me? If I can take it, it's mine. They won't even notice if it's gone." How many people are willing to live off of the -- the sweat of the brow of someone else? How many people are just willing to take it?

I saw a video this weekend. A guy put -- did a social study. Put a cell phone down. And he would go to park benches and picnic tables and in cities. And he would just put his cell phone down. And he would lay his head down on the picnic table. Or he would set it a little bit away from him. And then he would pretend he was falling asleep. You wouldn't believe the nay number of men, women, black, white, Hispanic that just came and took his cell phone.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: I mean, I was just -- I was shocked at how many people would just come up -- a sleeping guy, and just take it. And normal-looking people.

JEFFY: They don't know if the phone belongs to that guy.

STU: You know it doesn't belong to you.

GLENN: Yes. You know it doesn't belong to you.

STU: Not to mention stealing something with a GPS device in it is never a good idea.

PAT: I know. I was thinking that. What a dumb --

JEFFY: Real dumb. Real dumb.

STU: What are you going to do with it? Make free phone calls?

(laughter)

GLENN: So how can a nation do good with the attitude of, "I've got to do well?"

We can't. We can't.

STU: You can do both, can't you? Yeah, you can't do good and do well?

GLENN: Oh, you can. You can. But not if your attitude is, "I've got to do well. Ends justify the means."

Featured Image: Peaches record crate

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.