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

Samantha Bee Staffer Claims to Hate Woodrow Wilson More Than Glenn (LOL)

December 08, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

This is no laughing matter. There couldn't possibly be anyone on planet earth who despises Woodrow Wilson, our esteemed 28th president, more than Glenn Beck. He's made his case for hating the progressive, racist the past 10 years. Yet such a claim was made immediately following his interview with Samantha Bee, host of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on TBS.

"I walked to the edge of the stage and her --- I think her show runner or her line producer --- came up to me and said, I want you to know, I think I hate Woodrow Wilson more than you do. And I said, What?!" Glenn described Thursday, the day following the interview. "She said, Oh, my gosh, he was the most evil SOB ever."

And get this, she wasn't alone. Another staffer came up and echoed those sentiments.

"Another guy comes up, and he says, It's so great to meet you. I'm in your club with Woodrow Wilson." Glenn said.

If this doesn't provide a glimmer of hope for finding common ground, nothing will.

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

• Why did Glenn stop his second interview with Samantha?

• What's the real reason Samantha wanted to become an American?

• What's the X-factor that makes America special?

• How are Glenn and Samantha similar?

• Could Samantha be a closet conservative?

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

GLENN: You guys have not asked me a thing about Samantha Bee.

STU: Yeah. She was on the show yesterday.

GLENN: I was with her all day. She was here all day. You guys were peeking in the windows.

STU: Oh, I was hiding in my office. I didn't peek out at all.

PAT: We were actually doing a shoot yesterday. But I think you have to know a little something about person in order to be that curious about her. I don't know very much about her.

STU: She's on The Daily Show, right?

GLENN: She's on The Daily Show. She was the main reporter on The Daily Show with Stephen Colbert. With Jon Stewart -- but Stephen Colbert, at the time that he was also a reporter.

PAT: We do know that she's very liberal.

GLENN: She's Canada. She's from Canada.

PAT: Yeah. But how did it go? Was the interview --

GLENN: I'll tell you, it was -- so you remember -- on yesterday's episode here, we didn't really say anything. I was more willing to say things because she was in my space.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so I was willing to ask her questions, and she was like, "You know, yeah. Okay." Because she just didn't know if there was going to be a setup. Or, you know, she didn't know what she was walking into.

STU: I mean, that's how she should be, walking into those moments.

GLENN: She's smart.

And then when the show was over, I walked to the edge of the stage and her -- I think her show runner or her line producer --

JEFFY: Yeah, the show runner.

GLENN: -- came up to me and said, "I want you to know, I think I hate Woodrow Wilson more than you do." And I said, "What?"

JEFFY: No, you don't. That's not possible.

GLENN: And I said, "That's impossible in the first place. But you hate Woodrow Wilson?" She said, "Oh, my gosh, he was the most evil SOB ever." And I said, "I can't -- you're with the show?"

PAT: Did she only hate him because of his racism?

GLENN: No, no. All of it. All of it.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: She knew all of it.

PAT: Is she conservative?

GLENN: No. I don't think so. I didn't talk politics yesterday. We did talk Woodrow Wilson.

She said, "Hey, I'm not alone. Come here." Another guy comes up. And he says, "It's so great to meet you." He said, "I am in your club with Woodrow Wilson."

And I thought at first, "This is a setup. Nobody -- I mean, I said to him, "I can't get conservatives to hate Woodrow Wilson. How do you guys just higgledy-piggledy stumble in and you hate Woodrow Wilson?" And they said, "Oh, no. Worst guy ever." Turns out her show runner was an American historian in school. And she up and down, back and forth, she knows American history.

So we hit it really well. In the interview with Samantha Bee, she hates Woodrow Wilson.

Now, I don't -- I didn't go in-depth because we were on the interview. So I didn't go in-depth, but she hates him because he was a real racist. I don't know if she knows anymore about him.

But, anyway, so I went and I was starting to do her show. And we got about 20 minutes into it. And I just stopped. And I said, "This isn't going well." And she said, "Why?"

And I said, "Because you have show face on." I said, "We were talking beforehand, and the minute the cameras were rolling -- because she was facing all the camera people and all of the producers -- and the minute the cameras were rolling, I could tell when they were rolling because your face changed." She said, "I don't have show face." And I said, "You absolutely have show face. I'm not stupid. I do television. I know what show face is." And I said -- and she said, "Well, what does that mean?"

JEFFY: It's for show.

GLENN: And I said, "It's your show. And I know your style." And you are like, "So -- well, what does that mean, exactly?"

I know exactly what you're doing. You're editing it, and so you have the funny line, and I'm the butt of the joke. And this isn't what we agreed to.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: And it's not what I -- this is not helpful to me. Because what you're going to do is you're going to, A, piss off the audience of mine that like me. And then they'll be mad at your audience because they're laughing at me. And so there's more division.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And on top of it, you will also have my audience say, "What the hell, we could have told you that was happening, dummy. Why are you even talking to her?"

PAT: Yeah. And her audience hates you anyway. So...

GLENN: Right. And I said that to her. I said, "Your audience already hates me. Why don't you do something new?"

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And so she said, "I really thought this was going well." And I said, "Well, I didn't." She said, "So where do we go?"

And so we just had a conversation. And it lasted from that point about an hour. I was four hours behind schedule yesterday because of -- because of the time we had together.

And it changed when I asked her, "Why are you an American?" Because she's Canadian. And this was the first election she could vote in. And I said, "Why are you American? Why did you choose America? What's wrong with Canada? It's like the 51st state." She said, "I love my country of Canada."

STU: Didn't she also say I didn't necessarily want to say this -- so I just want to classify as you're about to say it on the air --

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: Now I can't say anything because I was going to leave out the things that she didn't want aired. But it was nothing bad. It just -- I was going to leave some of that out. But now I can't say anything -- now I'm in an awkward situation. Now what do I --

STU: I'm trying to save you from another awkward situation that you've been in many, many times.

GLENN: I know. I know.

She understands -- I sent this to her last night in my Facebook post about her love for the country. What she -- how she loves America -- and this is nothing about her country.

STU: No, no.

GLENN: She loves Canada.

PAT: Well, it's the curling capital of the world.

GLENN: Shut up.

She said, "There's something about the American spirit that you don't find anywhere else."

STU: Yeah, we've heard that from Daniel Hannan. Who loves England.

GLENN: Yes. Loves England. Everybody -- it's not a slam on their country.

STU: Right. Of course. Of course.

PAT: Right. Right.

JEFFY: Clearly we like Canada, we have one of their sports celebrities on the broadcast.

STU: Thank you, Jeffy.

PAT: That's right.

GLENN: So she said, "Americans -- there's this flame about America that you -- you help each other, and it's just -- it's different." She said, "America is -- or, she said, "Canada, I could have lived there my whole life and could have been happy, and it's great. But there's something -- an X factor in America." And when she's talking about that, I'm like, "Yes. Yes. Yes." Now, we didn't get to this part in our conversation, but hopefully we will. That's called a lack of socialism.

(laughter)

GLENN: That is called personal responsibility.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That X factor is created -- and, again, don't tell her -- let me break it to her slowly, that X factor is the personal responsibility of people saying, "I've got to do something for my neighbor."

PAT: When the government doesn't do everything, the responsibility falls to us, right? It's our responsibility to begin with.

GLENN: Now, I assume -- we didn't talk about politics -- I assume she likes all the big government socialism stuff of Canada. I'm assuming she likes all of that.

PAT: Probably.

GLENN: But what she said about America -- I said to her, "You realize you're describing de Tocqueville." I said, "What makes America great? What is it that makes America great?" Assuming she knew the phrase, well, America is good. She didn't. She's Canadian. She didn't know. She didn't know who de Tocqueville was.

And I said, "Why is America great?" Because she said, "How do we fix this problem?" And I said, "It's really simply. What made America great?" And she said, "I -- I have to say it's that the people here are really kind. And no matter where you go and no matter what they believe, they want to help each other, and they -- they hold on to each other. And nobody sits back. They see somebody in need, and they go." And I said, "In other words, America is great because America is good?"

Yeah.

Yes, Samantha Bee -- and I told her, I broke it to her, I said, "I hate to break it to you, but you're sounding like me."

And she said, "Oh, no, don't say that to me."

And I said, "Let me ask you a few questions: You know how to fix it, make America good."

Yes, that's me.

Are you suddenly afraid that maybe the president of the United could become a dictator?

Yes.

Hmm. That sounded like me. Are you suddenly worried that maybe a president could do something that could affect the economy and we could have a huge global economic crash?

Yes.

Oh, that sounds like me.

PAT: Huh.

GLENN: It's amazing how liberals have suddenly found these things, but want to stake out, "Well, you thought them about Barack Obama." Yeah, I did. And now you think about them about Donald Trump.

PAT: And, by the way, they were true about Barack Obama. It's not like he's been exonerated from all the things we were worried about. He was as bad as we feared. I mean, he did --

GLENN: No, he's not as bad as I feared. Come on --

PAT: We survived him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: We really didn't --

GLENN: Right. And we didn't believe that there would be prison camps, but some people believed --

PAT: However, he fundamentally did transform the United States of America in a bad way.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, he did. In our opinion, in a very bad way. In their opinion, in a very good way. And that's why they're so freaked out about Donald Trump. Because they think he'll reverse all of that and transform it just as much in the other direction.

STU: And before we go too far in all this talk about survival, the guy is still in office. We should remember that.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. I know. Well, I've heard -- I've read at USAToday.com.co.ca.au.

PAT: There will be no inauguration.

GLENN: There will be no inauguration.

STU: What! Oh, my gosh. And I believe it immediately.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. He's going to declare marshal law before January 1st.

Anyway, so...

PAT: I've already checked that through Snopes, by the way, and the FBI confirmed it.

GLENN: So Snopes.com.ca.eu.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So, anyway, we had a really good time not talking about politics, but finding things that we agree on that were big principles. Like -- we went through the Bill of Rights. She didn't -- I didn't specifically call out the Second Amendment. But I said, "Do you agree with the Bill of Rights?" And she said, "Yes."

And I gave her -- I said, "I'm going to give you the Second Amendment. I'm going to give you the Second Amendment, that maybe you don't agree on that one. And we can argue about that one. How about the other nine? They're all good, right?"

I was actually for the Patriot Act, and then I woke up and I'm like, "Good Lord, how stupid was I, during the Bush administration." And then I was against it. And I was against with George Bush and against it under Barack Obama.

The left was only against it under George Bush. Barack Obama expanded it. And this president -- and it would have been any president, I think, unless it were a strong constitutionalist, they're going to expand it again. Why don't we stand on that one?

She couldn't -- she -- I think she came in with a whole different attitude and left with a different one. And I have great hope that we will maybe never agree on policies or vote the same way, but we can demonstrate that America can be good doing it together with people who strongly disagree with each other. I like her.

STU: That's cool. And she's on -- that's the 19th that airs.

GLENN: December 19th.

Featured Image: Samantha Bee, host of 'Full Frontal with Samantha Bee' on TBS on 'The Glenn Beck Program', December 8, 2016.

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.