'Probably Entirely False': John Ziegler Disputes Viral Story About Boy Dying in Santa's Arms

In what might be the biggest letdown of the Christmas season, a viral story of kindness was recently labeled "fake news." The story about a kindly man dressed as Santa Claus who visited a hospital in response to a 5-year-old boy's dying wish might not have happened at all.

RELATED: Santa Shows His ‘Number One Elf’ What Love Looks Like

Glenn introduced his guest, John Ziegler, who wrote a column on Mediaite questioning the tale, by calling him "Mr. Grinch."

Listen to the clip or read the transcript below for more.

TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: John Ziegler, you're a mean one, Mr. Grinch.

(laughter)

JOHN: Glenn, your description of me there sounds like what my wife would say if she's describing my entire career. That's pretty close.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

So, John, I mean, I read this story this week, and even Jeffy said -- after I did the story on the air, so I've got a few questions. And I said, "Shut up."

JOHN: Right. Right.

GLENN: But you -- you have to go and somehow or another prove Santa is a liar.

PAT: Well, that may be a good thing if a little kid didn't die, though. Right? That's awesome.

STU: Yeah, that's great.

JOHN: Well, that's one of the things that confuses me about this story is, you know, I'm taking a lot of flak for a column I wrote on Mediaite questioning this story.

I'm pretty well convinced at this point that the story is false. Probably entirely false. And I'm happy to explain why.

But you're exactly right. This is good news.

PAT: Yeah.

JOHN: I don't think any 5-year-old boy died in Santa's arms.

PAT: Good.

GLENN: Okay. Explain it here, John. Because the Santa looks like such a great Santa's helper. I can't believe this guy would intentionally -- I mean, I -- I mean, we've seen some horrible things. But for this guy to --

JOHN: Right. Right.

PAT: If you missed the story. He says that he got a call from the hospital, right? From the nurse or whatever.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: And you don't even have time to put on your full Santa gear, just get here. Little boy is dying. His last wish is to see Santa Claus. And so he races there. He asks the parents to wait outside in the hallway. He goes in.

JEFFY: Family already miraculously has a present for Santa to give him.

PAT: Right. Right. So what have you found out, John?

JOHN: Well, you know, I think what Glenn has inadvertently done is put his finger on why the news media bought this story and why the original columnist, not a reporter, a columnist for a small newspaper in Knoxville, Tennessee, bought into this hook, line, and sinker.

Because I believe this guy, this Santa was imbued with all of our projections of Santa Claus. It's not possible that a guy who looks like Santa Claus could do this.

And in his defense, he's a tremendous -- if he's acting, a tremendous actor because he did put on the waterworks. And it was very compelling in the story that he told. Except there's some very important facts missing, like the name of the nurse that called him. How about the name of the hospital? How about the date on which this happened? The reporter, in an interview after this thing went super viral, says he has no idea when this actually happened. He thinks it happened about a month ago. How about the name of the boy? We don't need a last name. How about a first name? How about any other witness to what happened --

GLENN: All right. Jimmy. The name is Jimmy. How is that? Does it make you happy, Mr. Grinch?

JOHN: Well, what I would then do, Glenn, which is what I've done, is I would spend a ridiculous amount of time searching the obituaries for Knoxville, Tennessee, for the entire month of November for any 5-year-old boy, and guess what we found?

JEFFY: That sounds like fun.

PAT: And then there was none? Zero.

JOHN: There was not even close to one.

PAT: Wow, that's great. Good.

JOHN: And the reality -- look, here's the classic story. And, Glenn, I have seen this happen in other cases. Ask Stu and Pat about my experience on the Penn State, quote, unquote, scandal.

JEFFY: Right.

JOHN: Where the media buys into a narrative. And there should be massive amounts of evidence, and there's none. But it doesn't matter to the news media because they love the narrative. They don't care.

PAT: They don't care.

JOHN: And so once they have the narrative and once it goes viral and it's a tremendous story and a great headline, look out. There should be massive evidence here. And there's none. And the fact that Santa at this point is still sticking by his story, without anybody backing him up, not the mom, not the nurse, nothing -- no dates that should be there, to me indicates the whole story is a hoax.

PAT: It's fishy. It's fishy.

JOHN: Because if it was just an exaggeration, he would be able to say, "Well, here is the mom. Can't you come over and -- you know, help me out here. Or here's the nurse." Instead --

GLENN: So you don't even think there was a kid at all?

JOHN: Well, I mean, could there possibly have been a germ of truth somewhere? Yeah. But I have a -- and this is purely speculation on my part, but I think one of the weirdest elements of this story is that he says that his wife went to Nashville from Knoxville immediately after this happened. And he stayed in Knoxville because he was so emotionally upset.

Now, being married, that immediately says to me, well, wait a minute. Is this a cover story for some reason why he needed to be in Knoxville and not go with his wife to Nashville and this thing got blown out of proportion when a reporter asked him about it?

Interestingly, the reporter said that he was mystified by this. Boy, this Santa really didn't want to tell his story. And as a matter of fact, at one point, he almost backed out of doing the story with me.

And I'm thinking, "Duh! Of course, he's almost backing out. Because it's not true, and he's afraid that this might come end up coming back to bite him," never realizing --

GLENN: Hang on, Mr. -- hang on, Mr. Ziegler. By the way, Ziegler -- is that a Christian name?

JOHN: Actually it is. You know, the Trumpsters like to call me a Jew boy. But I'm actually quite Christian. I'm a baptized --

GLENN: Well, I'll believe it when I see your baptismal certificate.

JOHN: I have to speak to you, Glenn, from outside of my daughter's Christmas recital.

GLENN: Right. I'm sure. I'm sure. What, are you going to expose that as a fraud too?

Now, let me ask you this: So, John, are you -- now, I know this is your speculation. You don't have verification. But did you just speculate that Santa was cheating on Mrs. Claus and this was a cover story?

JOHN: Well, I didn't say that. You said that, Glenn. I'm saying consistent with there needing to be someone for him to stay behind in Knoxville while he was wife --

JEFFY: America heard you say it, John. America heard you say it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh --

PAT: John, is it possible at all that this happened in October, or have you checked October records too?

JOHN: Well, I've not checked October records. But the reporter is positive that this thing happened in November, although he doesn't have a date.

PAT: Oh.

JOHN: By the way, the date is -- now, lack of date is important because it doesn't have verification and there should be a date easily. But think about it logically: In October, what 5-year-old boy is thinking about Santa Claus as he's dying?

PAT: Right. Yeah.

JOHN: It's too early. It's too early. The story makes no sense. What mom leaves their dying son alone with a total stranger?

PAT: That -- that's the most preposterous --

STU: That's the one that got me. You picture your kids. They're a minute away from death, you're just like, "I'll hang out in the hall while you're with Santa Claus." It doesn't feel like something you would do as a parent. You would stay in the room no matter what.

GLENN: You might have been hungry. You hadn't been eating very much. The cafeteria is about to close. Somebody is there to sit with the kid. I'm going to go to the lunchroom for a minute. I'm going to grab a sandwich.

PAT: Yeah, as he's dying within the next five minutes. I doubt that. I doubt that.

JEFFY: Eh.

JOHN: And, by the way, his parents already have a gift ready to in early November for a Santa --

PAT: Right.

JOHN: Who, by the way, interestingly, part of his story, Glenn, which is suspicious to me, he doesn't have his full Santa garb on because he was rushing out of the house to go --

JEFFY: Well, the nurse told him not to.

JOHN: Well, doesn't that give him the ultimate out here? Plausible deniability for why no one remembers a Santa Claus in the hospital and why no hospital right now is verifying this story in the Knoxville area? To me, it makes --

GLENN: Have you called the hospitals? Have you called the hospitals?

JOHN: I did not, but Snopes did. And they have not -- in fact, that's what really started the ball rolling this morning, that the newspaper had to back off the story. Because they -- get this. This is journalism in 2016. The newspaper said that their investigation began after they originally reported the story to not verify any of the facts.

STU: Yeah.

JOHN: How about before the story?

STU: Yeah, here's the quote: Since publication, the News Sentinel has additional investigation in an attempt to independently verify the account. This has proven unsuccessful. Although facts about his background have checked out, his story of bringing a gift to a dying child remains unverified. The News Sentinel cannot establish that the account is inaccurate, but more importantly, ongoing reporting cannot establish that it is accurate. Therefore, because the story does not meet the newspaper's standards of verification, we are no longer standing by the veracity of the account.

GLENN: I will tell you, John, the guys said -- the guys said earlier today that, you know, Glenn, he's just trying to do this, get his name out, pump up Santa business because he's a great Santa.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I got to tell you, this wrecks this -- shave your beard, man. You are going to be the pariah of Santas if you made this up.

JOHN: But, Glenn, I think it's possible that this thing snowballed out of control and he never intended it to go this far. I think it's -- one of the many things that got my antenna up was this coming from a small market in Knoxville, Tennessee. I don't think anybody involved in this story had any expectation it ever gets beyond Knoxville. Because of the world we're now living in, things can explode overnight.

JEFFY: Right.

JOHN: And how about a little bit of focus on the news media? We're talking about major news media outlets that picked this story up, hook, line, and sinker. With zero scrutiny, zero follow-up, and zero corroboration of any of these facts that don't exist. That to me is the real part of this story that matters. Because it exposes how broken the news media is in 2016. By the way, that's partially how we got Donald Trump as our president.

STU: Do you think there's any chance that he's just going over and above to protect the family's identity and keep their privacy? And he's maybe manufactured some of the details to throw people off the trail?

JOHN: This morning -- I wrote my story for Mediaite last night. We decided to wait another 12 hours or so before we went with it because we were waiting, "Okay. Is it possible that somebody will come forward?" At this point, this story has gotten so big, there's no way that the nurse doesn't come forward. The mom doesn't come forward on background. Somebody to back up this guy's story.

There's just no way. So it's theoretically possible, yes, but there would be evidence of that by now, given the nature of the story. And the fact that it doesn't exist -- the absence of evidence, in my view is evidence of absence.

GLENN: John, one last question.

JOHN: Yes, Glenn.

GLENN: The jolly old elf hears what's being said about him, hears that he's -- his affair on Mrs. Claus while she was baking Christmas cookies has been exposed --

JOHN: Yeah.

GLENN: He takes a leap without the flying reindeer. Then how do you feel, John? You killed Santa.

JEFFY: Oh, boy.

JOHN: Well, my 4-year-old daughter is not going to be happy with me, I can assure you that. I will be in the doghouse for sure.

GLENN: Wow.

JOHN: I'm one of these weird guys, Glenn, who the truth still matters in a post-truth world.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. I appreciate you doing this. I bought into it too. And I wanted to believe. Because we questioned it. And I'm like, "Just leave it alone. Just leave it alone." I wanted to believe.

JOHN: But that's why it went viral, Glenn, and that's why it's important we expose this because this happens on more important stories than just this.

GLENN: Yes, I know. Yes. Yes. You're exactly right. And, John, I appreciate you coming on the show. And appreciating your -- your incredible -- seemingly incredible amount of time to investigate something as silly as this. And yet, it is the story of our days. This is what we're going through now on everything. Geo.

JOHN: Thanks so much, Glenn.

Hey, one of these days, let's talk about that Penn State story. It's so similar, it's unbelievable. But I appreciate your support. Thanks.

GLENN: You got it. Thanks, John. John Ziegler. I really like him.

PAT: He's great. He's great.

GLENN: He's really brilliant.

PAT: And he's right about the Penn State story. We should revisit that. The whole Joe Paterno thing. He's really passionate about --

JEFFY: That Penn State story is fascinating.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

PAT: Oh, you don't know about that?

STU: This is a wormhole.

JEFFY: It is a wormhole.

PAT: Not only is Joe Paterno not guilty of anything. It didn't even happen.

GLENN: What?

PAT: Neither is what's-his-face, the guy who's in jail for it --

STU: Sandusky.

PAT: Yeah, Sandusky didn't do it either. That's John's case.

GLENN: What?

PAT: And he says there's a mountain --

JEFFY: And he makes a good case.

PAT: -- a mountain of evidence.

JEFFY: He makes a good case.

PAT: He makes a really -- yeah.

GLENN: Oh, let's -- when we get back in January --

PAT: He's fired up about it.

GLENN: When we get back in January, I have to hear about that. Because if that's true, we need to -- that's injustice.

PAT: Me too.

Oh, definitely.

GLENN: That's injustice.

PAT: Huge injustice.

GLENN: We need to help --

PAT: According to John, a humongous injustice has been done, and part of it was because Joe Paterno is conservative, or was.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: Was.

PAT: And he probably still is.

STU: Well, we don't know.

GLENN: Probably even more so now.

PAT: Probably more so.

STU: Probably hasn't changed his political opinion.

PAT: No, probably not.

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.