Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

You Have No Right to Protest American Laws If You're Here Illegally

May 30, 2017
Staff

WRITER

A ruckus broke out at the Texas State Capitol building after protestors --- many of whom claimed to be illegal --- filled the rotunda on what is typically a calm and ceremonial last day of the legislative session. The protestors took exception to Senate Bill 4, legislation already signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, which requires local cities and counties to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and uphold federal law.

RELATED: Republican Lawmaker: I Called Immigration Authorities on Capitol Protesters

"If you're on American soil illegally, you're not an American. You have no right to protest American laws. Period. I don't care if what you're protesting is moral, you have no legal right to do so. This is so infuriating to me," Doc Thompson said Tuesday, filling in for Glenn on radio.

State Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) notified ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) of the hundreds of illegal protestors at the Capitol, enraging Hispanic legislators which led to an altercation that included threats and violence.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

DOC: You have no right to protest American laws on American soil if you are not here legally. If you're on American soil illegally, you're not an American. You have no right to protest American laws. Period. I don't care if what you're protesting is moral, you have no legal right to do so. This is so infuriating to me.

BRAD: But they keep getting away with it.

DOC: There was a ruckus at this Texas statehouse over the weekend. It was their final day of their session, and they passed a piece of legislation that would ban sanctuary cities in Texas and then punish any local communities who acted as a sanctuary city. And that is not only a good thing, it's -- it shouldn't even have to get to that. There should be no sanctuary cities. I don't care what you're sanctuarying against, wrong. It's not the law. If you don't agree with the law, then work to change the law. So if you want to say "Well, I don't agree with antimurder laws, you ought to be able to murder people. You don't harbor murderers. You're in violation of the law. What you do is work to make murder legal, if that's what you support.

BRANDON: Right.

DOC: So what happened was a bunch of illegals pile in, and they're in the rotunda and protesting. Some of them having signs and shirts saying I am illegal and here to stay. Admitting that they're in the country illegally. Maybe some of them were wearing the shirts and that in solidarity. But I would venture with that many people piled in there, some of them were being honest.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: Hell, we had President Obama bring one into the capitol during one of his state of the union addresses.

BRANDON: Yes.

DOC: This has happened. Admitted illegals being sheltered by people. They're harboring people who are violating the law, and it's not a one-violation their very existence continues to violate the law every second. If I go out and shoot somebody and somebody harbors me, they're harboring me as an illegal being on the run.

BRANDON: Right.

DOC: If -- but it was only based on one crime being on the run. They're continuing to violate the law every second that they're here.

BRANDON: Uh-huh.

DOC: Every day saying I'm here, and I know I'm doing wrong. So they have the shirts, they're wearing them, they're protesting. So what should have happened is they should have come in and rounded them all up and taken them away. Show me your papers. Prove that you're here illegally. You're admitting. You're telling law enforcement and everybody else by your shirts and signs you're legally.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: This is like saying to a cop as he walks by, I have pot on me. That's probable cause. I just beat the hell out of some dude in that alley. I just raped a woman. Whatever. That's probable cause. Cops didn't do that. So a Republican representative Matt Renaldi put on Facebook and then said to one of his Democrat colleagues that he called ICE on them.

BRANDON: Okay. Yeah, okay.

DOC: You guys aren't upset about this?

BRAD: Nope.

BRANDON: No.

DOC: Okay. Neither am I. That's what I should have done. In fact, Matt, the sad thing is that nobody else called ice.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: All of your other colleagues should have. Everybody else in the statehouse, they should have done it. Even the Democrats. This should what should happen. They're in violation of the law. Instead, he claims two Democrat colleagues, one of them physically assaulted him and the other verbally assaulted

him.

BRANDON: Really?

DOC: That one of them -- and he didn't go into detail of what the physical assault was that I know. But this is what he claimed happened, which caused a ruckus amongst the legislatures as well. So you have all of the illegals back and forth and the protesters and everything else that actually ends up causing because of this dispute between the two guys or three guys more ruckus on the floor of the house. So they get into it as well.

So then, Matt posts kind of an explanation on Facebook. He said representative Pancho Nev·rez threatened my life on the floor after I called ice on several illegal immigrants who held signs in the gallery. When I told Democrats I called ice, representative Raymond Romero physically assaulted me and other Democrats were held by colleagues.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: During the time Pancho told me he would "Get me" on the way to my car. He later approached me and reiterated that I had to leave at some point, and he would"Get me."

BRANDON: Wow. Okay.

BRAD: Welcome to Texas.

DOC: Right. In addition to the guys who assaulted him that he named, he's saying that other ones -- they had to be held back. What did he do, leftists? What did he do, Democrats? He called police.

BRANDON: He had the law enforced.

BRAD: On the dreamers. That's the problem.

DOC: How is he wrong? Even if you think that the cops strangely should not enforce the law, why was he wrong?

BRAD: Because these people are just here because they have a dream. They want to live the American dream. Why are you such a hater?

DOC: But I get the argument with that. But why did he do wrong by calling the police? If you see something, say something.

BRAD: It's mean to do that.

BRANDON: Yeah, and that's what it boils down to right there. We're dealing with the marginalized community. How dare he act against them. How dare he. It doesn't matter that what they're doing is illegal. It doesn't matter that many of the -- let's be honest, many of these people who come over here are committing crimes. They're not put back all right? They're here to stay. All right? It doesn't matter if that's who they're defending. All right? No, don't get me wrong, I don't want to say this is all who they are. But at the same time, you have to -- these people are causing major problems.

DOC: And the percentage, even if lower of illegals that come, that commit crimes versus regular populous, which there's no way to determine that. First of all, people on the left will be the first ones to tell you these people live in the shadows, and they don't like to report crimes. Well, they're not going to report crimes that happened in their community if it's committed by people like them, illegal, you would never know. But even if you can prove a tenth of the amount of crime committed by the people already here, that crime still would not exist if they were not here.

BRANDON: Enforcing the law.

DOC: And it's still irrelevant. It's a violation of the law.

BRANDON: Exactly.

DOC: So your argument is we don't like the law, so the law should not be enforced.

BRANDON: Uh-huh.

DOC: That's wrong. You should enforce the law. But even if your argument is it's so important what these people are going through to get them help that it trumps the law or whatever, let's talk about that for a moment. The argument constantly is these people just want a better way of life.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: Well, first of all, there's the hypocrisy of many of the people that support them because they lock their doors. They won't let me come in for a better way of life. How many millionaires and billionaires support illegal immigration? They don't let me take into their house. Their house is going to be a hell of a lot better than my life. I want a better life, don't you?

BRANDON: Oh, yeah.

DOC: Hey, Zuckerberg has actually built a wall around his property. It might be the property -- it's either Hawaii or the Hamptons. I can't remember which. He was in a dispute with neighbors because he wanted to build a higher, more complete wall. And he's one of the biggest supporters of illegals.

BRANDON: Steven king, beating this drum. Illegals need to be welcomed. But have you ever seen his property? It's massive. It has a huge wall around it. He doesn't let anybody in.

DOC: Right. So give away your money and tear down your wall and let me flop at your house and give free stuff and redistribute your wealth, or you're hypocrites. But that aside, what is the best way to deal with the people around the world that are poverty stricken? Can we -- would we be able to simply open our borders and say come on in. We have to help all of your people. No. America would no longer exist. It would overwhelm us. It's the drowning man thing. If somebody is drowning, you can't just jump in and drown him? Now, I'm a Christian, I believe in helping people. There's a right way and a wrong way. The right way is not support people violating the law, support us not knowing who people are, open borders we would never be able to protect America and help people in the future. Or condone illegal bad behavior. The way to help people is allow people to legally emigrate here every year, which we do a million people alone. And to help as best we can people to make their country and local communities better.

BRANDON: Which is where we should start.

DOC: Which we do.

BRANDON: I forget who said this. But it used to be easier to emigrate here. People would get off a ship. What's your name? We have to make it easier. We didn't have entitlements back then. And that's the crux of everything here. We cannot have all of these people who are primarily poor come in, get on the government goal because that's just going to skyrocket taxpayer like what we have to pay into entitlements way beyond anything that we can possibly imagine, and our economy would crumble. This is why we can't have open borders. Look, this is just -- I get the sentiment. I do. I feel bad for those people. They're living in hell holes where their lives are ruled by drug lords, you know? They live in these poverty-stricken neighborhoods, they want to come here for a better life. I understand that. And I feel for them. I really do. But if they all come here like they want to, they're going to wind up in the same exact place that they left.

BRAD: And the cynical side of me says it's not about helping them. It's another voting block. It's each -- and Democrats and Republicans, they both do it. You get this big lump of votes.

DOC: George W. Bush even did it.

BRAD: Exactly.

DOC: So you think they're disingenuous in helping people.

BRAD: Yeah, I think in a lot of cases.

DOC: But even those who truly want to help people, you can't tear apart their families, and you're willing to forget that I didn't can a us their problems. I didn't cause the possibility of their families being split up. They did when they came here illegally and brought their families or had kids, knowing that they could be split at some time. That was a choice they made. But even if you're saying we need to care for them and that matters most, then let's take this piece by piece. I have somebody who I am staunchly against illegal immigration and powerfully in favor of legal immigration, as many as we can bring to America without hurting America. If it's 10 million a year, 500 a year, whatever it is. Powerfully in favor of legal immigration, controlled. Let's stop with comprehensive immigration are he form where we throw everything together. There's three main phases. Border security, legal immigration reform, and what to do with the illegals that are here. Fix the border first. All separate bills. The only reason you want comprehensive plans is because you want to tack on the illegals being legalized somehow.

So let's take them apart. We can solve a lot of this right off. Let's fix the border. Great. Done. Let's reform the legal immigration system and what it should be is controlled so we know who people are. But the big problem with legal immigration is the expense. For about $20,000 in total is what it takes to legally emigrate here by the time you navigate the legal system. So you have people who are likely poor coming in paying $20,000 they don't have. I think I just checked recently and to file the form for your citizenship once you meet every other standard is about 1,000 bucks. That's a lot of cash for me, let alone someone coming here poor. So make that cheaper. Make it easier to understand. Not necessarily easier but easier to understand. I'm fine with all of that. Great, we can do that. If you want to fix the visas, fine. Boom, done. So we've just solved most of the issues we have with immigration, as long as we separate them. And then what do you have left? The illegals that are here, and you have two. Two types. Those that are here illegally and those who were brought here illegally. I reluctantly am willing to say the kids didn't violate the law. They didn't bring them here. Who violated the law? Although they're illegal, they didn't do it. Their parents or guardians brought them here. Okay. I'll reluctantly meet you halfway and say we can come up with something -- stop calling them dreamers. Knock that crap off.

BRANDON: Yeah.

DOC: And I'll meet you and say fine. But I can't -- I cannot abide by legalizing pathway to citizenship people who broke the law when so many other people didn't. And if you're saying Doc or whatever, I told you I'm willing to be compassionate. But the people who came here legally who are out $20,000 like my mother-in-law and my wife, are they going to reimburse the $40,000? I could use 40 grand right now, guys, just so you know. Are you going to give that money back to us?

BRANDON: No. And they know how to gain the system. 62 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant receive some form of welfare.

DOC: Right. They know how to game it because legally the Federal Government is not allowed to give people here legally free stuff. But they find a way to give free system and if you're a child in America, regardless of all else, you are entitled to a free education.

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.