Bombshell Russian Email: It's ‘Worse Than I Thought’

An alarming report in The New York Times Monday seems to have been proven true: Donald Trump, Jr. confirmed in email screenshots Tuesday that he met with a Russian attorney in 2016 to gain information that would assist the Trump presidential campaign.

Tuesday on radio, Glenn walked through the whirlwind timeline of the breaking story, analyzing the emails which were tweeted from Donald Trump, Jr.’s verified Twitter account.

“This is, I believe, worse than what I thought,” Glenn said.

In the email, publicist Rob Goldstone promised to connect the Trumps with a Russian attorney, specifically because the Russian government wanted to influence the 2016 election, saying, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

Glenn expressed shock that concrete evidence seems to point to collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Russian hackers infiltrated emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta in efforts to swing the election toward Trump.

“I think a lot of things about the Trumps --- no way were they involved in collusion,” Glenn said incredulously.

He pointed out that the timing was right for the meeting with Russia to take place in June 2016, just a few weeks before Wikileaks released leaked emails from the DNC servers and from Podesta’s email account.

“This is still three weeks before Wikileaks breaks, and Donald Trump acts surprised,” Glenn noted. “We all knew at the time: Wikileaks got their information from the Kremlin.”

Whether the president was aware of this meeting is unclear.

"Let's not implicate anybody else," Glenn said. "All we know is that Donald Trump Jr. knew that there was collusion. He was part of the collusion."

To see more from Glenn, visit his channel on TheBlaze and watch “The Glenn Beck Radio Program” live weekdays 9 a.m.–noon ET or anytime on-demand at TheBlaze TV.

GLENN: So let me go through this with you. This morning, two hours ago, we were talking about a hypothetical, something that the New York Times and CNN said that they had seen. And we added the caveat, if it says that, you know, they are -- they have information and he knows that it's from the Russian government, then there's a problem.

PAT: But we didn't trust the New York Times or CNN.

GLENN: We didn't trust them. This is, I believe, worse than what I thought.

Here is the first email from Rob Goldstone: Good morning, Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. Now, so you know, Emin is a very good friend of Donald Trump Sr. and is, you know, very, very close with -- with Vladimir Putin.

STU: Worked with him on the Miss Universe thing.

PAT: In Russia.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. He's a Russian citizen. An oligarch. A bad one. Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father, Aras, this morning.

And, actually, Aras is the oligarch. Emin is the son.

The crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father, Aras, this morning, and in their meeting, offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information, but it is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump. I never thought -- no way -- you -- you couldn't have --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I think a lot of things about the Trumps. No way were they involved in collusion. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information. But this is part of Russia and its government support of Mr. Trump helped along by Aras and Emin. What do you think the best way to handle this information would be? Will you be able to speak to Emin about it directly? I also can send this information to your father via Rona. But it is ultra sensitive so I wanted to send it to you first.

Thanks, Rob. I appreciate it. I'm on the road for a moment. I could just speak to Emin first. Seems like we have some time. And if it's what you say, I love it, especially late in the summer.

Meaning, coordination.

Could we do a call first thing next week when I'm back?

Yes. Don, let me know when you're free to talk with Emin by phone about this Hillary information. You had mentioned earlier this week, so I tried to schedule time and best day to you and your family. Rob.

Holy cow. That is -- there's your smoking gun. It's not just -- isn't it?

STU: I mean, first of all, again, like the -- you have to say that the New York Times report was accurate. I mean, this is exactly what they said was in it.

GLENN: This was released by Donald Trump Jr.

STU: Yes. So we know 100 percent it comes from Trump. So we know that that's accurate. I mean, you know, look, I think you can still make the argument that, hey, he got the tip from some guy he knows. Didn't think about it from a foreign -- you know, it says right in there. Was excited to get information to beat up his opponent.

GLENN: No, no. But he was coordinating -- listen -- listen, there's no way -- I mean, Stu, help me. Please, convince me. Convince me.

STU: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Crown prosecutor of Russia. So that's not the girl he's going to meet with. He's saying the crown prosecutor of Russia.

STU: I thought that is the -- I thought that is who they're referring to when they say --

PAT: The female lawyer? I don't know. Because they refer to the lawyer as him in that email, right?

GLENN: Yes. Yeah. So I don't think it's the same.

PAT: So it can't be the same person. It's not the same person.

GLENN: What he's saying here is the crown prosecutor of Russia. So that's like the attorney general of Russia.

STU: Right, okay.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: The attorney general of Russia --

STU: Met with his father.

GLENN: Met with Emin's father, the good friend of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

STU: Right.

GLENN: They met this morning about whatever we don't know. And in the meeting, he offered to provide the Trump campaign -- so now, here is the attorney general going to an oligarch, saying, "Hey, you're friends with Donald Trump, right?"

Yeah.

"I want you to pass on to them that we have information at a very high level that we want to pass to them." We have official documents and information that will incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia. It will be very useful for them.

So then the father asks Emin to call Goldstone, who knows Donald Trump Jr., and say, "Hey, can we get this? By the way, Aras is going to fax this through Rhonda, just to get it to your dad. But it's very high level, and I wanted to talk to somebody and let them know that it was coming."

He then says: It's very high level. Sensitive information. But it is part -- it is part of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump, helped along by Aras and Emin.

So, in other words, somebody -- I don't even want to jump there.

We know that a good friend, an oligarch of Donald Trump has been helping the government along to support Donald Trump.

I'll send this information to your father. I will send this information to your father via Rona.

PAT: I mean --

GLENN: I mean, this is --

PAT: It's going to be a nightmare.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: The Democrats are going to --

GLENN: It's over.

PAT: They're going --

GLENN: How do you not go with this?

STU: Well, look, I think you can make an argument that it's not as bad as it feels. However, I would say -- well, because, I mean, like, look, Donald Trump Jr., he's not even --

GLENN: I will send information to your father via Rona.

STU: But he didn't, right? As far as we know at least this point. (chuckling) It went to him instead. But, of course, he's going to tell his dad about it. Right? Although he said he didn't --

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: No, no. He already said he didn't tell his dad. His dad didn't know. So don't even worry about that.

STU: I guess my point would be you -- you can argue that it wasn't -- it wasn't -- I don't know. Like, to me, I would never take a meeting with a government official, even if it was trying to sink an opponent. I -- so I can't -- I don't understand why you would do that.

But, you know what, look, remember, this is not only people who have dealt in these circles for a while and do anything to win, as they say, as they pointed out a million times. They were also, at the time, pretty desperate, if you remember right. So maybe did they bend this line and take this meeting? I think the answer to that is yes.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Yes, they did. Wait. Wait.

STU: However --

GLENN: Let's look at this. This is still three weeks before WikiLeaks breaks.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And Donald Trump acts surprised. We all knew at the time WikiLeaks got their information from the Kremlin.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: This is Russia feeding this and leaking this. So we know now that Russia was hacking in to the DNC servers. Was gathering sensitive information. And then -- this is treason. We've got a guy on the other side, in Russia, that released information, and we say it's treason. If he comes back, he'll be tried for treason. What's-his-face?

PAT: Yeah, Snowden.

GLENN: Snowden. That's treason when he's done that to us.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So here's Russia doing to it (sic). Now, they can't be treasonous because they're not Americans. That -- they released -- they hacked, they got in, they stole the information, and then released it to the world. And Donald Trump was acting like it was a surprise and like, oh, please, Russia. Go ahead. Release the rest.

PAT: Glenn, when you put it like that, sure it sounds bad.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: I mean, do you have to put it like that? No, you don't. You could put it some other way.

STU: You could put it another way.

GLENN: I can guarantee you -- I can guarantee you everyone else will be -- no.

PAT: All the Democrats are going to put it a lot worse than that. A lot worse than that.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, no. But the Republicans are also going to -- we are witnessing, Pat, what you and I remember in the 1970s with our dads.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I remember my dad defending Nixon --

PAT: Turning into a crook and how --

GLENN: Yeah. And it was only at the very end --

PAT: Yeah. Supported him nonstop until all the evidence came out.

GLENN: Supported him -- right. Until -- right.

PAT: And then they hated him.

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: Tell me how you get -- tell me how you have a family that doesn't tell the president that, "Yes, Dad, the Russians were colluding with us."

PAT: There's almost no way he doesn't know. There's almost no way.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And I think you could still make an argument, look, you're trying to find information against your -- you know, to help your dad. And you take a meeting that maybe you shouldn't have taken. And -- but, you know, nothing really came of it. So you kind of blew it off in your head. You can make that argument. It's a stretch at some level, I grant you. And I don't necessarily believe it. But I think you can make that case.

It's very difficult to understand how after you've won the presidency and you're in the middle of an investigation on this topic, how this could not have been disclosed until last week.

GLENN: Right. And beyond that, how this could be disclosed last -- in the last couple of weeks, that this even happened. And before that -- and even after that, your father, the president of the United States is saying, there was no collusion.

I mean, you know, honestly, let's say that Hillary Clinton really didn't know that her husband was fooling around. We all think that she did.

But once she found out, don't you say, you son of a bitch, you did this to me?

Let's just put yourself in this situation. You're the president of the United States. Your son is exchanging emails like this. And then he leaves with your son-in-law and your campaign manager, and they start to write speeches about this kind of information.

You start tweeting stuff. And you really don't know. And then you win. Okay.

Then it starts to be investigated and you have me go out in front of everybody going, there is no collusion. I'm telling you, there's no collusion. We never did that. We didn't talk to anybody from Russia. There was never any coordination of anything.

In fact, I believe them so much, I'm telling you, our CIA and our NSA is wrong. And they'll never find anything because there wasn't anything there. And they didn't not only collude with us, they're not even trying to hack into our systems and try to affect our elections. And that's why I'm suggesting we partner up with Russia and we share cyber security together.

Then you read today and you really are innocent, you had nothing to do with it -- you're president of the United States. Do you not go in and say, "Son, excuse me, but you son of a bitch. What the hell were you thinking? You let me spend the last nine months, eight months telling the American people -- I just met with Putin, and you knew that he was colluding with you. And I suggested cyber security partnership, when they were the ones that hacked into the DNC. And you knew it."

Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: This -- this is very, very close to treason.

PAT: Well...

STU: You could look at it from the Trump perspective -- from the Donald Trump Sr. perspective, if you want to look at this as we know it right now, we don't have evidence that Donald even knew about this meeting, right? We know that Kushner -- but Kushner left two minutes into it, reportedly. And Manafort didn't say anything in the meeting.

GLENN: We do know -- we do know -- Rob Goldstone said, I can send this information to your father via Rona.

STU: We don't know that that happened. He just suggested it as a possibility.

GLENN: We don't know if that happened, but...

STU: But, again, like, for example, Kellyanne Conway was out on the air a few weeks ago or maybe a few months ago saying no meetings happened from anyone in the campaign with anyone from Russia. That is absolutely false. It never happened. You guys just keep saying fake news and saying it happened.

GLENN: When did she say this?

STU: It was on --

GLENN: Was this the weekend?

STU: So, no, they brought her back on this weekend and said, "Hey, wait a minute. Actually, there were meetings, weren't there?" And she said, "Well, it looks like those disclosure forms have been updated." So, yes --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: But imagine taking -- sending your own people out, knowing that information.

GLENN: Yeah, no. Very bad.

STU: And telling them to deny it.

PAT: It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable.

GLENN: Donald Trump Jr., by himself -- let's not implicate anybody else. All we know is that Donald Trump Jr. knew that there was collusion. He was part of the collusion. Very bad. Very bad. And should go to jail.

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.