Will Main Street Get a Tax-Free Holiday Next Year?

Chris Martenson from PeakProsperity.com joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday talk about what Glenn calls a "weird switching of musical chairs."

"The right is now convinced that everything is fine, and the left is now convinced we're on the precipice," Glenn said.

Martenson predicted another change given that the Federal Reserve is terrified of even the slightest market correction.

"We're still accumulating debt at more than twice the rate that the economy is growing," Martenson warned. "So to get around that math problem, they're going to have to give money to Main Street. And I'm talking like complete tax holiday next year. A check from the Federal Reserve. Something like that."

If that's the case, get your shopping lists ready to buy because hyperinflation will be just around the corner.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: All right. So Chris Martenson is here from peakprosperity.com. And we're talking a little bit about the economy and what is to come. And there is this weird switching of musical chairs, where the right is now convinced that everything is fine.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the left is now convinced we're on the precipice. And I'm happy to say that I haven't changed my position in two presidents.

CHRIS: Yeah.

GLENN: What was coming in 2006, that we felt coming, is still coming.

We propped it up. It's still coming, and it's going to be worse.

You said that there's two parts to this. There's the downside.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Right? And, part two?

CHRIS: Well, economically, there's first the downside and then the Federal Reserve has to print more and more and more. They're going to keep trying the same thing over and over again. And it's not really going to work. I haven't changed my position over a couple of presidents either because there's deeper structural things that we need to attend to. And that's part two. That's the part of the story I'm actually excited about, is can we finally have the conversation to say, "Who do we want to be?" You know, where do we want to go as a country? And have that vision and really bring that forward.

GLENN: Okay. Before we get there, tell me -- they've printed all this money, and it went all to the Wall Street fat cats.

CHRIS: Right.

GLENN: I was just told by Wall Streeters, that this is not true, Glenn. They're not buying back their own stock. The fundamentals are sound. And I said, "You're starting to see the beginnings of inflation. There's no inflation on chicken. There is inflation in the stock market. That's inflation. That is inflated money. Funny money had by all the fat cats. They're dumping it in there. That's making the stock market go up, and everybody feels good."

CHRIS: Right.

GLENN: But the average person didn't get that money. Banks never lent that money. Go try to get a business loan.

Now you're saying that they're going to print again. Where are they going to give the money this time?

CHRIS: This time it's got to go to Main Street. They've tried giving all this money to Wall Street. They'll keep doing that. The Federal Reserve and the other central banks are scared to death of even the most minor market correction. When the markets start to go down, even a little bit, they come out, and they use words. And I think they might even be using other means to drive the markets back up again. They're scared of that. But it hasn't really worked. When you look at overall economic growth, worldwide United States, it's not there.

GLENN: Right.

CHRIS: We're still accumulating debt at more than twice the rate that the economy is growing. Try doing that -- you know, your credit card is growing at twice as fast as your income. It doesn't work. It's a math problem.

So to get around that math problem, they're going to have to give money to Main Street. And I'm talking like complete tax holiday next year. A check from the Federal Reserve. Something like that.

GLENN: For everybody?

CHRIS: Everybody. They'll have to do something like that.

PAT: Yay!

GLENN: I mean, it would be hard to -- to be disappointed on a tax holiday.

PAT: Yeah, it would. A complete tax holiday. That would be really hard to say no to.

PAT: Yes, it would.

GLENN: And they expect us to just dump it into the system.

CHRIS: And I not only would expect people to do that, I would encourage them to do that. As soon as that tax holiday comes, run, don't walk. And make sure you know what your buy list is going to look like because that's when we're starting down to act two of the story, which is hyperinflation. All of that.

GLENN: Inflation. Hyperinflation.

Okay. Because when they start dumping -- you know, this is one of the guys who said, "Glenn, these corporations, you're going to get tax breaks. And these corporations are going to repatriot their money." I said, "That's $15 trillion repatrioted to the United States. Where is all that money going to go?" It's either going to go to the stock market, or they're going to start building factories and everything else. Then that's $15 trillion that is going to be seeping through the system. How do you not have inflation?

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And they said that wasn't a concern.

And I didn't understand the math on that one. But that's what the experts told me.

CHRIS: Now, look, everybody fights their last battle. So when we say inflation, people think about back to the '70s, where you had a wage-price spiral, right?

GLENN: No, I'm thinking '30s.

CHRIS: Or '30s. Right? But we're not having that world. So you're absolutely right in identifying, look, if you dump money into a market, you get inflation.

GLENN: But we are getting inflation.

CHRIS: We are.

GLENN: To the people who got the money. It's the stock market, right?

CHRIS: Look at the trophy properties in Manhattan and San Francisco and London.

Look at the price for rare gems. Fine art. Gulfstream Vs. All very hard to come by. Trophy Islands, right?

They dumped the money in to the fat cats, and they bid up everything they care about. Right?

All of those things I just mentioned, through the roof inflation. But people aren't recognizing that because we don't measure that when we look at the inflation measures. We measure chicken.

This next part of this story is they start pushing the money into the people, and that's where we get the other inflationary parts.

Now, the real question is, does the rest of the world say, "Yeah, I'll continue to hold US dollars under that circumstance?" So you have corporations rushing their money back.

Hey, but maybe the Bank of Iraq says we don't want dollars anymore. We don't like what you're doing. They start selling. China starts selling.

That's when you start getting the external inflation that comes back into this country. Because we've been great exporters. Fantastic. Of dollars. We've done a lot of that. And we're just kind of hoping that that won't stop. Like everybody will just continue to want to hold our dollars, forever and ever, no matter what. And that's an assumption that really needs to be tested.

GLENN: Well, preferably not in my lifetime. But it's going to be tested. It's going to be tested.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You just said that coming to this realization has been the best thing in your life.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Really? Because it always makes me really miserable.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I mean, I look at it and I think, "Holy cow, I don't want to go through that."

JEFFY: Who cares? And what's the use?

GLENN: Yeah, what's the use? What am I going to do about it?

CHRIS: So, listen, there's a lot of things I can't control in this story. I can't control what the Federal Reserve is going to do about money printing. I have some ideas. I think I know what they're going to do. What can I do about that? Nothing.

I can, however, control my exposure to the dollar. So I have a lot of my assets out of the dollar. I have a lot of gold, a lot of silver, I own real estate. Tangible things. Because we've seen this story before, right?

In -- from 1918 to 1923, in Austria, they went through the Weimar hyperinflation. They write books about it. And they talk about it as if the great wealth destruction, the middle class was wiped out. And they still talk about it, oh, it's a wealth destruction. But not if you understand what wealth really is. Wealth is productive farmland, factories, hotels, the productive enterprises of the nation. Those didn't go away because they went through hyperinflation. But who owned them, that changed a lot.

So, yes, in this story, it's already happening. You know who the largest landlord in America is right now? The Federal Reserve.

JEFFY: The government. Yeah.

CHRIS: They own $1.75 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, which makes them the largest landlord in America.

Where did they get that 1.75 trillion to own more real estate than anybody else in this country? Well, they printed it out of thin air. We should be talking about that.

So this ownership is going to change a lot. So this is my advice to everybody is watch the trends, understand this is coming, and then own real assets.

GLENN: But doesn't that -- doesn't the ownership of more property in America, by the Federal Reserve, isn't that just now once again the rich getting richer?

I mean, this income -- what was it? Somebody last night was doing income redistribution for the Super Bowl. That's not the answer. But there is a problem here. And I don't know -- I don't know how to solve that. You do have the uber, uber fat cats. Not the guy who are living in the fancy houses in most -- in most towns. But the uber, uber billionaires that are up at the top of this banking problem and Wall Street problem. There's where they're sucking up all of the money.

CHRIS: Right.

GLENN: So how do we solve that without riots in the street?

CHRIS: But we're getting there already because they have -- that sucking sound is them sucking the economic oxygen out.

Let's look at, like -- rental prices in all the major cities have been going up at 8, 9, and 10 percent for the past five or six years.

And the reason for that is you have big, giant private equity companies. They get to borrow at 1 percent. So their rate of mortgage is a 1 percent mortgage. And they're competing against you or I, who might want to try and buy those apartments, who are not renting it, but our cost of capital is four, 4.5 percent on a mortgage. So they borrow at 1, unlimited. And then buy up all these things because they can make that number work at 1 percent. And for you, it's harder to make it work at 4 percent, right?

So they just have access to capital, and this is what Janet Yellen and the central bank of the United States, this is what they're defending.

This is what they're saying has had no economic harm, that they haven't been driving this wealth gap that exists in America. But it's happening structurally because we haven't been able to face it -- it doesn't exist.

GLENN: Right. We can't borrow the money that they can borrow.

CHRIS: Right. It's totally unfair playing field. It's shaped like this.

GLENN: So how do we fix that? How does that fix it, when they hold all the cards?

CHRIS: Well, this is a very big topic.

But in my mind, we have to first confront the problem, understand it for what it is, and I think this is almost a cultural piece. I think it's time to actually not say, "Oh, it's this big private equity company," but let's call out the CEO of that company. And let's make them understand that we have -- we're watching them. I mean, maybe public shame used to be a feature, right?

CEOs used to be ashamed to take more money than their workers back in the '50s and '60s. It was a thing that you wouldn't do that. Today, we've become shameless.

GLENN: See, I don't necessarily have a problem. You know, if you are the -- if you're the wealth creator -- like I'm the wealth creator here. Everybody is working for me. We all know key man insurance, I die, the company dies. So why should I -- why should I not make more than the people who work?

CHRIS: Well, let's separate people who actually are generating, creating value and people who are skimming. All right?

What I'm talking about, these people are just running skimming operations. They don't create anything. They're just running a skimming operation. I might pick on, for instance, in the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, they went after everything. I'm getting killed by this, by the way.

GLENN: We all are.

CHRIS: Sixty-one and half percent increase this year, 25 percent last year.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Jeez. Holy cow.

CHRIS: Right? And that's dialing my way down through the bronze plans and all kinds of, like, deductible increases. All that.

GLENN: Right.

CHRIS: Where my anger, if not rage comes up, is when I open it up and discover that the CEO of Humana Health Care took home $66 million last year. 66 million. And that's just him. You look at the rest of the C-suite, they might have skimmed a billion dollars out of this. They weren't asked to contribute anything to this story, right? You would have to have over 4,500 families at my level paying into that system, just to pay that one person's salary. What did he actually do? He skimmed.

This is -- so there's a level, beyond which -- there's a tougher story we have to get to here, but that's just gone off the rails. It's -- you ever see that old game show where they put somebody in a plexiglass thing and dollars around them and trying to grab them as fast as they can?

I feel like that's the part of the story we're in. That's what it feels like. Everybody is just grabbing money as fast as they can because we all know that you can't print your way to prosperity. The money machine turns off at some point so you might as well grab as much as you can, while the fans are still growing and the money is swirling.

PAT: Isn't that -- that's market value though, right? I mean, if his company is willing to pay him $66 million, then pay him $66 million.

GLENN: Because who else is going to do it?

PAT: Right?

GLENN: They can make $65 million someplace else.

PAT: Isn't that the free market system? I'm not sure how you get around that.

GLENN: How do you solve that?

PAT: You can't make it equitable for everybody. It's never going to be. That's not capitalism. That's not communism. We can make it equitable if it's bad for everybody. But we can't make it equitably good for everybody.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So the CEO of a major corporation is going to make a heck of a lot more than a worker with less education, with less skill.

GLENN: And I'm concerned because there are some --

PAT: Less work ethic.

GLENN: There are things -- some of these CEOs. You know, the banks really bother me. Because they know exactly what they're doing. They know exactly what's happening. They know the game that's being played. They know it's not going to work. And they're not warning anybody. They're out there, while they're taking tons of cash.

However, I hate to say CEOs. Because how do we know -- I mean, that just gets into the mob mentality of, get 'em.

CHRIS: Well, in this particular case, I'm talking about a highly regulated industry. So in my state -- and I live in Massachusetts.

PAT: There's your problem right there: Highly regulated. That's the problem.

CHRIS: I know. Well, it's regulated to the point that in my state, there's no competition allowed. Right? I can't buy certain levels of insurance because they've been lobbied out of my state.

PAT: Right. That's the problem.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: But that's not the CEOs fault. That's the government's fault.

CHRIS: Well, no, the CEOs create this --

PAT: We need them out of it.

GLENN: I will tell you, I'm with both of you here. It is the government, Pat, but it is the CEOs.

What did Bill Gates just say his biggest problem was? His biggest problem was that he didn't feel -- at the time he created Microsoft, that they needed government. His deal was, I'm going to create what I create. You do your job. Leave me alone.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Where Apple went and they partnered with the government.

CHRIS: Hmm.

GLENN: He said, "Microsoft is paying the price right now because they didn't feel they needed somebody to go in."

So you're kind of like the free market. If you have a fiduciary responsibility. I'm the CEO. I'm going to go -- if my business competitor is going the other direction and they're going to the government, my fiduciary responsibility, isn't it to go to the government as well? I mean, we just -- this whole system is broken.

PAT: But, again, that's government intervention. And it shouldn't be there. It shouldn't be there.

GLENN: Right. But how many people have the principles to be able to hold fast, especially when you have shareholders beating you down the door? I mean, I don't have the answer.

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.