Tim Kaine Executed His Assignment: Get Sound Bites for New Hillary Campaign Ad

October 05, 2016

Writer

Leon Wolf, new Managing Editor for TheBlaze, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday for a post-VP debate analysis. Having watched Kaine for some time, Wolf said the Democratic vice presidential nominee didn't seem like himself, diplomatically calling him "grumpier" that usual and "very negative."

"He was a jerk," Glenn added, skipping the niceties.

More importantly, Wolf vocalized what he believed to be Kaine's primary objective during the debate --- and it wasn't to win.

RELATED: Did Kaine’s Debate Plan Include Being the Most Obnoxious Man on Earth?

"I think he was assigned a job going into the debate, right? It's not to win the debate because nobody cares who wins the VP debate. He was assigned the job to get commercial material to cut," Wolf proposed.

In fact, the day following the debate, the Clinton campaign released a new ad showing Pence making contradictory statements.

"So this is the ad that they just released and dumped online . . . you see Mike Pence just shaking his head and denying each one of those charges. And I think, Leon, that was his job, to get a good viral commercial out of it, period," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these soundbite-worthy questions:

• Was Tim Kaine playing a role?

• Who is winning the Bernie or bust people?

• Does Leon think Hillary or Trump will win?

• What does Jeffy do in cold, dark, lonely places?

• Are Republicans doomed?

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

GLENN: Leon Wolf is with us. He's joining us from RedState, where you helped build that thing along with Erick Erickson, for what? For the last 11 years in.

LEON: Eleven years.

GLENN: And he is now our editor and chief at TheBlaze. And we're excited to have you join us. What did you think of the debate last night?

LEON: Thank you, Glenn.

You know, it's interesting. I think a lot of people's impressions pretty much universally were -- that watched the debate -- were that Mike Pence won. I think he came off better during the course of the debate, just because Kaine -- and I've watched Tim Kaine for a long time -- didn't really seem like himself. He was much grumpier, seems like than he usually -- he was very negative.

GLENN: He was a jerk.

LEON: Yeah.

GLENN: He was a jerk. I mean, I've never seen him -- yeah, I've always heard that he was a nice guy and a gentle guy. You know, a quiet -- he was -- he was a jerk.

STU: He seems to be playing a character.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

STU: The same thing at the convention speech, which was weird, he was trying to be goofy and make all these jokes. And here, there was a lot of prepared lines. I don't know if that's just his role in the campaign or what. It's strange.

LEON: Well, I think -- yeah, I think he was assigned a job going into the debate. Right? It's not to win the debate. Because nobody cares who wins the VP debate. He was assigned the job -- was to get commercial material to cut. And that's what we talked about just before the show.

GLENN: So he walked in with a new commercial. And do we have this?

Hillary Clinton is the first on the air with a commercial from last night's debate. Listen. Here it says, Mike Pence realized he was running with Donald Trump last night.

TIM: Let's start with not praising Vladimir Putin as a great leader. Donald Trump and Mike Pence have said he's a great leader. And Donald Trump has --

MIKE: No, we haven't.

DONALD: Putin's been a very strong leader for Russia.

VOICE: Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.

TIM: Donald Trump, on the other hand, didn't know that Russia had invaded the Crimea.

MIKE: Oh, that's nonsense.

DONALD: He's not going to go into Ukraine. You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it any way you want.

VOICE: Well, he's already there, isn't he?

VOICE: Donald Trump has said it?

TIM: A deportation force -- they want to go house to house, school to school, business to business, and kick out 16 million people. And I cannot believe --

MIKE: It's nonsense.

DONALD: You're going to have a deportation force.

MIKE: Donald Trump and I would never support legislation that would punish women.

VOICE: Should the woman be punished?

PAT: Oh, man.

DONALD: There should be some form of punishment.

TIM: More nations should get nuclear weapons. Try to defend that.

MIKE: Well, he never said that.

DONALD: Wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons --

VOICE: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

DONALD: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

TIM: Donald Trump said, keep them out if they're Muslim. Mike Pence put a program in place to --

DONALD: Total and complete shutdown of Muslims --

TIM: He is asking everybody to vote for somebody that he cannot defend.

GLENN: Okay. So this is the ad that they just released and dumped online, and it's much more effective with the visuals because you see Mike Pence just shaking his head and denying each one of those charges. And I think, Leon, that was his job is get a good viral commercial out of it, period.

LEON: Right. I mean, I think every year, the VP sideshow is much more insignificant than the presidential sideshow. But I think this year, it's doubly so.

Because I think the central question of this election is, can you see Donald Trump sitting behind the desk at the Oval Office after something like 9/11 happens? Is that something you can even possibly conceive of in your mind?

I think that's what the gut check America is being asked to do right now, is. And I think that Tim Kaine, for however he came off in the debate and probably didn't do himself any favors, I think his job was to drive that point home. And he may have scored some effective points along that line.

GLENN: I don't think he changed anybody's mind. I think he hardened people in their own -- I mean, if you were a Trump supporter, you had no problem with Pence saying, "He never said any of those things."

LEON: Well, that's what Pence has to say, right? Because he's a reasonable person. He can't say, "I agree with all the crazy things that Donald Trump has said." His only recourse is to say, "No, he never said those things."

I think that was his only possible --

GLENN: It's our job as human beings to say, "Yeah, Mike. Yes, he did."

LEON: Right.

GLENN: That's the hard thing. These politicians are putting us in a no-win situation because they're in a so-called no-win situation. So they're putting us in that no-win situation. Where we're having to go, hmm, well, he's lying, and he's lying.

I mean, this whole thing about -- I mean, you could make another commercial for Donald Trump where he's saying, you know, the Israelis loved this idea, this deal with Iran, and they've completely stopped.

No, they didn't. No, they didn't. And the Israelis don't love that idea. You know, you could make the same kind of commercial. They're both liars.

LEON: Yeah. In order to win the debate last night, Mike Pence had to prepare to lose the post debate fact-check. That was the position he was in.

GLENN: Yes.

LEON: That's probably the best-case scenario. I think he accomplished that.

GLENN: Yeah. I agree. You know, the blue tie said it all: He had to look stable. And like somebody you could go, I could see him -- as long as he's in the room with him, I would be okay with that.

STU: It's sort of a central thing that's been raised from this election too, is what do you want with people? People you interact with politically. People you interact with in the media. Do you want someone who is going to say that a candidate has lied even if you want that candidate to win? Do you want to go to someone and have a conversation and then they say, "Well, no, actually, let me give you a justification, or I will deny that he said those things," do you want that? Or do you want someone who is going to say, "Look, I want that guy to win, however, he's lying here." That --

GLENN: I want that.

STU: I want that. 100 percent, I want that. That is -- we may be in the minority on that particular point.

PAT: We may be? We absolutely are.

GLENN: We absolutely are.

PAT: We absolutely are.

GLENN: I think there's about 10 percent of the country that wants that.

PAT: They don't care. They don't care how much he lies. And neither do Hillary Clinton supporters.

STU: It's both sides, I think.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: Oh, it is.

STU: Do you think Democrats want to go turn on a media source and hear actually Donald Trump is way worse and Hillary Clinton is telling the truth about her emails, or do they want somebody saying, "Look, Donald Trump is crazy, but, you know what, Hillary Clinton is really bad on these emails. She's handling herself terribly and she's corrupt." I as a Democrat would love that.

GLENN: Right. And it's amazing because we for the last ten years have been saying, is there no one -- is there no one on the left who will say the emperor has no clothes? Is there not one honest journalist? One honest person who says, look, I'm part -- I'm not going to vote for your side, but our side is despicable here.

The answer has been no. No. We've gotten a few journalists who are at least asking some tough questions during the Obama administration, but not really. Not really taking them to task.

There hasn't been anybody on that side. And yet, when you find them -- you worked with Erick Erickson.

STU: Right.

GLENN: RedState's pretty Never Trump. I mean, Erick is taking a bludgeoning for it. A bludgeoning for it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Our side at least has had a few stand up and go, "I can't play this game. I want my side to win. I think my side is right, but not on this. Because they're lying."

LEON: Yeah, you know, I definitely haven't seen -- and we were told that this was going to be the year that we have all the Bernie or bust people, right? They were like, we're going to stand by these principles, and we'll go vote for, you know, Jill Stein or whoever it is.

I think those people have much more assimilated into the Hillary Clinton machine than a lot of the Never Trump people have --

GLENN: It's interesting.

LEON: Despite what the media would have you believe. Because a lot of them say, well, this movement is dead. It's totally insignificant. And it's not true. A lot of the polls that you show -- that you see, show that one of the fundamental differences in this race is that Hillary Clinton is pulling over 90 percent of registered Democrats, which you would expect. But Donald Trump is pulling between 80 and 85 registered Republicans, and that's a major difference.

GLENN: Yeah. I saw in North Carolina because she is pulling -- she's pulling every black. She's pulling every black in North Carolina. And he is pulling, what? 60 percent, or somewhere in that area of whites.

He's -- they say, it's -- unless he picks up eight points of whites or eight points of blacks or eight points of Hispanics or a little of each, he's not going to make it. That's the analysis I saw last night.

LEON: And he's -- I saw the New York Times -- Sienna did a poll a couple weeks ago. Mitt Romney kind of eked out North Carolina because he won Mecklenburg County and suburban Charlotte white voters by over 21 points. And Hillary Clinton is running even with those voters, with the suburban, kind of wealthy Charlotte area voters.

GLENN: Wow.

LEON: They want nothing to do with Trump. And I live in a very wealthy county myself in Tennessee. And back in 2012, I saw Romney/Ryan signs everywhere. I see maybe two in my entire area --

GLENN: Okay. So but what -- how much -- Jeffy and I were having this conversation earlier today.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: How many people are actually secretly for Trump?

JEFFY: In the cold, dark, lonely place of that voting booth. When it comes down to --

LEON: Right.

GLENN: You know what, I'll never tell a friend that I did it, but I'm voting for Trump because I can't take her.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: They'll never put a sign up, but they can vote for him.

LEON: Oh, I have no doubt, he'll win Tennessee, he'll win my county. But the enthusiasm is definitely way down between kind of your core Republican voters, you know.

GLENN: How do you see this? You see her winning or him winning at this point if it was held today?

LEON: I see her winning.

GLENN: You see her winning?

LEON: I see her winning probably by more than what the polls are predicting.

GLENN: And anything that could happen that would change that?

LEON: I think it's difficult. So all the polls basically work on assumptions, right? It's supposedly science. But it's basically an assumption by every pollster on what the electorate will look like. And one of the things that I don't think anybody knows is to what extent kind of Trump's rhetoric about Hispanics is going to affect the makeup of the electorate.

Whites and blacks in this country vote at a rate of 62-63 percent. Hispanics who are legally vote at a rate of about 51 percent. So they are drastic undervoters in this country.

GLENN: Yeah.

LEON: If -- so even though they represent -- Hispanics who are here legally represent about 17 percent of the United States population right now. They tend to pull in nine to 11 percent of the electorate. If they actually become 17 percent of the electorate, this could be a ten or 11-point whitewashing by Hillary Clinton that nobody --

GLENN: I will tell you this, if that turns out like that, the Republicans are doomed from here on out. Because that is the election that has made them Democrat for the rest of their -- for the rest of their life. The rest of their life.

Featured Image: Screenshot from Hillary's new, post-VP debate campaign ad.

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.