Yaron Brook From the Ayn Rand Institute Weighs in on Trump

How do we assess information reasonably and logically in a post-factual world? Yaron Brook with the Ayn Rand Institute joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday to discuss the latest fake news on President-elect Trump, a Trump presidency and how to logically access the relationship between Trump and Russia. Brook's latest book --- Equal Is Unfair --- takes on the issue of equality. The left would have us believe that equality means equality of outcome or opportunity. Brooks makes the case that it means equality of freedom, liberty, rights and justice.

"The whole idea of equality is a false God. It's a false God," Brooks said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We'll have some idea, if government takes this report at all credible on Donald Trump. Because in that report, it says that Russia has made several deals on energy with Trump or Trump surrogates. I mean, again, where are we getting this? How is it happening? There's no reason to accept this information, and there's no reason to dismiss this information. It's just out now, and it is what it is. We have to use some logic.

But we'll see if anyone takes this seriously, seeing that Tillerson is having his confirmation hearing today. President of Exxon, let's see if the senator brings that up. If they don't, that speaks volumes about the credibility of this.

Yaron Brook is here from the Ayn Rand Institute. How are you, sir?

YARON: I'm good. How about you? Crazy times.

GLENN: Good.

Yeah, I know. We had some plans to talk about some other things that are important.

YARON: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: First, I want to get your thoughts on this -- this is -- you're a very logical reasoned man.

YARON: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: We are living in a time beyond reason and logic.

YARON: It is. Because reason and logic require facts. They require evidence. They require the ability to look at the world and know what's true and what's not or at least have an indication of what's true or what's not. We're living in an era of fake news, where you don't know where this is coming from, why this is being reported, who is reporting it. It's really hard to get your head around it, and with good reason.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question? I have a two-volume set -- I think it's actually in my office, I have a two-volume set from 1926. It's a reprint from the New York Historical Society.

YARON: Yep.

GLENN: And it's from the committee on the -- the committee looking into the conspiracies of the Revolutionary War. It was convened right after the Revolutionary War. They wanted to find out where all these rumors came from, where all this fake news came from. And it's probably 500 pages.

YARON: Yep. Sure. Sure.

GLENN: So fake news is not new. It's always been this way. It's just different.

YARON: Yeah. But it's never had the credibility it has today. I mean, people are taking it seriously in a way they never did before.

GLENN: Yes.

YARON: And generally, we don't discuss issues in a reasonable, logical way. This election, more than any other election, I think, was based so much on pure emotion.

GLENN: Yes.

YARON: And what we're seeing today is the media -- we're seeing our political leaders. We're seeing our intellectuals, from universities, promote emotion as the means towards knowledge, rather than thinking and reasoning and using logic. We don't teach our kids logic --

GLENN: So how would you logically look at this story and say, "This is how we begin to untangle this story?"

YARON: Well, I mean, you really have to look at, "What are the real sources? Without sources, it's really hard to untangle anything." But you also have to look at, "Okay. What are the incentives? What's going on here?"

And look, the Russians are bad guys. The Russians are bad guys. Putin is not a good guy.

And I think this -- there's some evidence to suggest -- there's a relationship between Putin and Trump. Something is going on. Trump is so adamantly defending Putin. Was throughout the campaign. Is now.

There's some relationship between Trump and Russia. We don't know what it is. You know, there's no reason to believe these particular allegations. But one has to be skeptical about what is going on, given how adamant Trump is, in defending anything Russian.

GLENN: Could it be -- could it be -- let's talk about Tillerson.

YARON: Yep.

GLENN: Tillerson is a deal-maker. Okay? What is our foreign policy? I don't know. We put a deal-maker in. And he's best at making deals, where?

YARON: Russia and the Middle East. And I think much of our foreign policy -- we are not going to be tough. With Tillerson there, we're not going to be tough on Russia. We're unlikely to be tough on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf --

GLENN: And you like Tillerson?

YARON: I like Tillerson.

Tillerson is an Atlas Shrugged fan. He's not a guy. He's obviously an incredibly competent CEO. He did a good job. I like CEOs. I like businessmen. I think they're great. Right?

But is he a foreign policy expert? Does he bring a principled view of foreign policy? I mean, maybe. I just don't know. I haven't heard anything to suggest he does.

Look, Donald Trump is a pragmatist. As far as I can tell, there's no principle driving a Trump administration.

And the people he surrounded himself with are mostly pragmatists. On a case-by-case basis, they might make the right choice. They might make the wrong choice. But there's no principle.

What is America's -- and granted, there hasn't been a principle on foreign policy in the United States for a very, very long time.

GLENN: Right.

YARON: But this is taking pragmatism to the next level because it's -- you know, usually people apologize for not having principles. These guys embrace the fact that --

GLENN: Well, it's not -- to me, we've always said -- or people have always said, we just -- I wish somebody would run this country as a business.

You're now going to see it run as a business. And we don't have the CEO of the United States of America. That's not how this job works.

YARON: It shouldn't. We're going to see how it works as CEO of America. I've come to call Donald Trump the central planner in chief. Because that's how he's acting. He's acting as a central planner.

I'm going to fly and talk to Carrier. I'm going to go and talk to the CEO of Ford. I'm going to be the CEO of CEOs. I'm going to tell the business world -- I'm going to tell markets how they should run, how they should function, as if I'm the CEO of the marketplace. But that's central planning. And we know -- and we know, if anything the 20th century has taught us, central plank does not work.

GLENN: Doesn't work.

YARON: And it used to be what Democrats were proud of. Their central planners. And Republicans pretended at least not to be central planners. They were for free markets. Now that distinction is gone.

GLENN: Yeah. Only after -- only after Hoover. Because Hoover was the last guy we had was very much Donald Trump. He was a central planner. He was a builder.

YARON: Well, yes. I mean, Hoover was the last businessman to be president. He gave us Smoot-Hawley, which was tariffs that drove us into the Great Depression.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

YARON: He increased taxes. He didn't decrease taxes. He was a terrible, terrible president.

You know, this trend, to a large extent, accelerated under Hoover. But it really goes back to Wilson --

GLENN: Yes. You don't have to tell me.

YARON: I mean, Wilson is the first president to be a central planner.

Yeah, to bring it to the United States.

GLENN: You're plowing an old field. Let's plow a new one here.

The G.O.P. and what they're going to do with Obamacare, we have had -- we have had years for this moment.

YARON: It's unbelievable to me. Six years, right? Since Obamacare was passed. They've been talking about repeal, replace, repeal, replace.

Okay. So where's your plan? Right? You've had six years to put together a plan. The plan is not that hard. We've seen outlines of this plan in the Wall Street Journal, everywhere. There is a plan out there. Find it. Put it together. It might be flawed. It might not be the perfect plan. But don't come out as babbling idiots, and we've got a plan. Maybe. We'll see.

You know, it might take six months. It might take three years. Who knows.

I mean, this is really Republicans living up to the stupid party label, what they're doing with Obamacare right now.

Now, on top of that, there are suggestions that they want to keep real important parts of Obamacare.

GLENN: Yeah.

YARON: Preexisting conditions. If you load preexisting conditions onto insurance companies, they're not insurance companies anymore.

GLENN: Right.

YARON: They're just Social Security-type companies. And they're subsidiaries of the government, and the Democrats love this.

Obamacare was always planned to fail. The whole purpose of Obamacare was to fail. But to fail as a -- as -- as we trade markets. We trade marketplaces. We let you have your private insurance. That doesn't work.

So we have to have single-payer universal health care run by the government. If Republicans play into that by keeping preexisting conditions or by doing other things that are basically destroying insurance markets, they're just playing into the hands of the --

GLENN: What you're saying right now is one of my biggest fears, is that people look at whatever is going to come out of the G.O.P. now as a conservative, small government, constitutional answer.

YARON: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: And I'm not seeing those yet. I hope to. But I'm not seeing -- especially when it comes to Obamacare. When they fail or God forbid, make things worse --

YARON: This is it.

GLENN: -- then everybody will say, "It's time to go all the way. Let's go Marxist."

YARON: No, I mean, this is the lesson that everybody learned from the George Bush years. Right?

GLENN: Yes.

YARON: If this is what small government conservatives are, then we don't want anything to do with that. And we got Obama, and we got everything that Obama represents. If this is what defending America means, going to Iraq and screwing it up, then we're going to get an Obama to clean up the mess.

So, yes, the backlash against Republicans when they do really, really stupid things is what -- is part of what destroys this country. And there's nothing to suggest that this administration is going to be significantly different. We'll see. We'll see.

GLENN: Have you seen anything that surprises you, that you say, "Wow, this is good?"

YARON: You know, some of the appointments were -- are not bad, right? Labor secretary. I forget the guy's name. But seems like a good guy. He gets minimum wage. He gets some of these issues on the right way.

GLENN: Yeah.

YARON: You know, Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services, I thought was a good choice. Price actually has a plan to replace Obamacare, you know, with free market reforms. Why not just embrace that, right?

GLENN: Right.

YARON: He's the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

But for some reason, the House and the Senate -- and this is partially because Republicans are such cowards, they can't actually embrace a free market solution to anything.

The one thing we will get -- and we can guarantee this, right? -- is a tax cut. Republicans are good at cutting taxes, right? They don't cut spending, so the consequences: The next president has to raise taxes in order to close the deficit gap or pretend to close the deficit gap, but we'll get tax cuts. And that's a good thing. Right? I'm not going to demean tax cuts. But if you don't cut spending, it doesn't matter.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. So one last thing here. Yaron Brook, from the Ayn Rand Institute. And one of the best critical thinkers in America.

YARON: Appreciate that. Thank you.

GLENN: When we're looking at all of the things that we're about to see, what is the -- what is the flag that you would raise up and say, "We have to do this one thing?" Is it -- is it a policy? Is it we have to get a handle on our -- our uniting with each other, on fake news, on -- what?

YARON: See. I don't buy into this uniting stuff. We're not going to be united. We're split in this country. We're split 50/50. We don't agree. And I don't have a problem with the fact that we don't agree. There are clearly different points of view out there. I think some of us are, and most people are wrong. But that's the reality. There's disagreement. And I, for example, have always loved gridlock in Washington. I like disagreement in Washington because then they don't --

GLENN: When I say uniting, I mean not tearing each other -- not dehumanizing one another.

YARON: I mean, that would be nice, but --

GLENN: Being able to live next to each other and say, "Boy, I really disagree with him, but."

YARON: It's going to be difficult. I think what we need to rediscover to unite us and do a lot of things is, what is America? I think we've lost that. I think in that sense, Obama has won. We have become another European country. In many respects, the American spirit, what made us uniquely American, what are the foundation ideas -- the foundational concepts of what America stands for?

The founding -- the true founding principles of this country, that -- that is not in the debate. Nobody talks about it.

And this presidential -- you know, one was more than ever. Donald Trump never mentions the Founders. He never really talks about the Constitution. It's not important to him, right? Those are principles.

God forbid we should have principles. We need to rediscover what we are. What is American exceptionalism? People throw that out all the time. And they claim, "Oh, we're pro-American. We love America."

But Donald Trump has raised that question up: What does it means to be pro-America? What does America first actually mean? And unless you understand what America is -- America is not a geographical place. It's an idea.

GLENN: It's an idea.

YARON: And the question is: What is that idea? I think very few Americans today know what that idea is. I think that's reflected in our politics. That's reflected in our dialogue. Very few people know what the principles that this country was founded on are and what made us the greatest nation in human history.

GLENN: Let's have you back, and let's do an hour of just that.

YARON: Yeah. What is America?

GLENN: What is America? Would you do that?

YARON: That would be fabulous. Love that.

GLENN: Okay. Yaron, thank you very much.

STU: And, Yaron, the book is Equal Is Unfair.

YARON: Equal Is Unfair.

GLENN: I am sorry. I was not even told you had a book.

YARON: Well, I handed you a book not that long ago. A nice autograph.

GLENN: Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. Okay. Horrible.

YARON: But the book is called Equal Is Unfair. It's available everywhere. And it takes on one of these big issues: What does it mean when the Founders say all men are created equal? Does it mean what the left suggests, equality of outcome or even equality of opportunity? And I argue no. It just means equality of freedom, equality of liberty, equality of rights, equality before the law, the law properly understood. And the whole idea of equality is a false God. It's a false God.

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.