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

Could Democratic Leaders’ Choice for SOTU Rebuttal Be More out of Touch?

January 31, 2018
Staff

WRITER

Why can’t the Democratic Party let go of the past?

Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) was chosen to give the Democrats’ response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night, a puzzling decision that shows a toxic attachment to political dynasties.

“If you’re going after white, wealthy and privilege, you don’t pick a Kennedy to deliver the message,” Glenn said on today’s show. “Democrats continue to claim that they are the party of diversity and the poor, but last night, the grandson of Robert Kennedy was hand-picked of course by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I just -- I -- we assigned this out. We assigned this out.

STU: Full disclosure here.

GLENN: To watch Kennedy last night.

Did you notice, there was something wrong with -- maybe it was just the way the lights were on him, I don't know.

So Joe Kennedy last night delivered the address. And, you know, it -- I don't think anybody was watching by that time. And here to talk about it, the man we assigned is Jeff Fisher. Hello, Jeffy, how are you?

JEFFY: I'm fine. Thank you. And, you know, hey, this country from textiles to robots is a place that knows how to make great things. I mean, he told us that.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFFY: And, you know, we believe that.

STU: It's amazing to have someone actually watch the -- the -- to watch this and not have to actually deal with viewing it myself. Because I did not -- I did not want to hear any of the content of it. I kind of figured it would be, oh, textiles.

GLENN: I'm kind of disappointed because -- you know, because it was Kennedy. It was -- at least was he any good at it, Jeffy?

JEFFY: Look, it would be easy to dismiss the past year as chaos, Glenn. Partisan politics. But for them, dignity isn't something you're born with, but something you measure by your net worth, your celebrity, your headlines, your crowd size.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: Because the Democrats have not played any identity politics when it comes to celebrity. They didn't have the first celebrity president or anything.

That's not how they promoted Barack Obama with his giant rallies or anything like that. No, this is all new. This is only -- only Donald Trump, a brand-new for Republicans.

GLENN: Right. So what else did he talk about?

JEFFY: Look, they're turning American life into a zero sum game, Glenn, where in order to win, another must lose. Where we can guarantee America's safety, if we slash our safety net. Coal miners, our single moms --

GLENN: Uh-huh. You know, can I just ask a question? Is it like Jeffy even watched this, or is he just quoting everything?

STU: It does sort of feel like potentially Jeffy -- well, he certainly is -- he definitely -- he definitely -- I could say this --

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: He definitely saw the video of it. I'm sensing from -- as we talk to him, I'm getting -- he definitely saw the video.

GLENN: I didn't see the video.

JEFFY: Well, look, we choose an economy strong enough to boast record stock prices and brave enough to admit the top CEO is making 300 times the average worker is not right, Glenn. You know that.

GLENN: Right. Right.

JEFFY: And I would just like to say to all the dreamers, let me be clear --

GLENN: Look in the camera when you say that, will you? This camera over here.

JEFFY: This camera here?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: I'd like to just say to all the Dreamers, (foreign language).

GLENN: Oh, he did not.

STU: No, he did not.

GLENN: No, he did not. No, he did not.

STU: Oh, you want to talk about pandering.

GLENN: No! He did not.

STU: He actually went to -- so you're saying he -- this is amazing, he actually broke into the Spanish to pander even more to the Dreamers. Which, again, we already found out in the Trump part of the speech, that saying that Americans can be dreamers too is incredibly offensive. And now apparently so offensive, that they had to double pander to the Hispanic audience by actually breaking into -- I just --

GLENN: I do have to -- I do have to point out. I do have to point out that last night -- I mean, I -- I saw a little bit of it this morning. I didn't watch the whole thing. But it was like -- it was like Joe Kennedy had a Chapstick accident.

STU: It did --

GLENN: Did you notice that, Jeffy? Do you think people --

JEFFY: I don't think anybody noticed. I think everybody heard the words that he said about proudly marching together.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JEFFY: Thousands deep in the streets of Vegas, Philadelphia, Nashville. I think they all heard that. They paid -- I mean, looks, you're not supposed to pay attention to that.

STU: When people quote Joe Kennedy's words, they tend to have -- they tend to have a little bit of a -- I don't know if I would call it an accident. But they seem to have an issue with Chapstick when they quote his --

GLENN: Jeffy, did you see any of that?

JEFFY: I did not. Look, politicians can be cheered for the promises they make. Our country will be judged by the promises we keep.

GLENN: All right. Jeffy, thank you so much. It's been --

JEFFY: You build a wall. We'll tear it down.

GLENN: All right. Thank you.

STU: I will say this, I wouldn't normally recommend people view a Jeffy segment, instead of just listening. But --

(laughter)

GLENN: But this is -- yeah, thank you for the update. I appreciate it.

JEFFY: You're welcome. I'm happy to do it. I'm happy to do it.

STU: Joe Kennedy.

GLENN: If you think you may have missed some of that, we just gave you the information, so we've fulfilled our obligation here.

But there might have been a little mocking going on visually.

STU: Possibly.

GLENN: Visually, a little bit of mocking.

STU: You look great though, Jeffy. You look great.

GLENN: So seriously, the Chapstick thing, what happened? It just started spreading all over his face. Almost like in clumps.

STU: It made it actually worse in a way.

GLENN: It did. It did.

First, I thought, is he drooling? Is it spital? No.

JEFFY: No one heard a word he said. The entire country just --

STU: That is what happened. Because this happened once to Ted Cruz.

You remember this? During one of the debates, he had a little bit of spittle on his lips. And he was having a great debate at the time --

GLENN: He had that little white spittle. And you remember, what was his name?

STU: And that was it.

JEFFY: Bobby Jindal.

GLENN: Bobby Jindal, he had a drink of water.

JEFFY: He was sweating and stumbling. And, oh, man.

GLENN: Yeah. That's right. I minimized the Bobby Jindal.

(laughter)

Thank you, Jeffy. I appreciate it.

Hey, by the way, what did you think of this -- did you watch the speech?

JEFFY: I did.

GLENN: What did you think?

JEFFY: I thought it was pretty darn good. He pulled it off. He stayed strong. Focused through it. You know, he slowed down a little bit.

GLENN: I thought that was the best speech I've ever heard him give.

JEFFY: You know, one person called last night. We were broadcasting it on TheBlaze radio network. And they reminded us that it was, you know, pretty humble for Trump. There wasn't a lot of eyes. It was all about the country. It was all about us. It was pretty strong.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He hit exactly the right tone.

JEFFY: Look, if you're for a job, the African caucus, the African-American caucus gave him no credit. Nothing.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. They looked like radicals.

JEFFY: No credit. Nothing. The other Democrats of the other caucuses gave him nothing. It was terrible.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I'm not saying I'm having a difficult time taking it seriously right now. But there's a little -- there's a small part of me that's having --

GLENN: That's funny. I could talk to him like this. I've never taken him seriously. So it doesn't change.

JEFFY: Wait.

GLENN: Thanks, Jeffy. I appreciate it.

STU: That was awesome.

(music)

STU: Sorry.

(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah. There was --

STU: Jeffy is just like -- he goes all in on that stuff, man. Jeffy is the man.

GLENN: He has about 6 inches of Vaseline on his face now.

STU: Very similar to Joe Kennedy.

GLENN: Yeah.

Oil prices are going up from the amount of Vaseline used in the last few minutes.

STU: We have to put that on Facebook and Twitter today. You'll need to see that one. We also have a bunch of audio that we need to get to at some point, from the actual speech.

GLENN: Let's go through it now. Tonight at 5 o'clock, we'll go through a few things. One, were you -- am I alone in the way I felt -- I mean, don't get me wrong. I loved the speech.

I was -- I was blown away by it. I thought it was the best speech he's ever given.

I think it's one of the best speeches politically I've heard in a long time.

He hit Barack Obama -- I think Barack Obama will feel like he hit him in the face for 45 minutes. But I don't -- that wasn't his intent.

It was just the opposite of Barack Obama.

STU: Yeah. So much more effective than, you know, calling Barack Obama a name or saying he was a disaster.

GLENN: Yeah, there was nothing of that. It was just a repudiation of everything he did.

STU: Of everything he did.

GLENN: And it was amazingly satisfying. He got into spending which is, you know, over $2 trillion of spending. Which I am absolutely not for.

However, what was amazing to me was the Democrats. They were given everything they say they want. I mean, the only thing he didn't say was, and, you know what, free universal education.

STU: And they wouldn't have clapped for that either.

GLENN: And they wouldn't have clapped.

It made them look so radical, I think to the average person. 46 percent of Democrats thought this was a really good speech. Approved of it.

STU: Yeah, 43, I believe it was. But that's incredibly high for something like this. For Trump especially.

GLENN: For him. For Trump, oh, my gosh, yes.

STU: Ninety-seven percent of Republicans. But overall, was 75 percent approval for a speech like that is incredibly high.

GLENN: That's big. That's big. For this guy, that's huge.

STU: It's really big for anybody though.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: I mean, even the highly praised by the media Barack Obama speeches didn't have 75 percent approval ratings, typically.

GLENN: So I really liked the speech all the way through. I liked the way he handled it. And I can praise him, not for the policies, but for what he was trying to do in reaching out to the left.

But they wanted no part of it. It was remarkable. But am I the only one -- because I haven't heard anybody say this today. I was really freaked out by the war thing.

STU: Yeah, you brought that up. I know you wanted to go over this today at 5:00 p.m., really dissecting it.

GLENN: Yeah. It's kind of like new war and classic war. You don't want classic war coming back.

STU: No. No.

GLENN: Like New Coke, Classic Coke. Yeah, yeah. Let's say with the new war. And I'm going to compare. Because this is not the same.

This is not what people my age have lived through. If we go to war with North Korea, it will probably be much more like World War II. Don't want to do it.

And it's really concerning. You didn't pick up that vibe?

STU: You know, I was not surprised to see him hit North Korea. Obviously, it's been a big topic. And it was right after the ISIS section. So it felt like there was a natural flow to it.

You know, if you think about it, I didn't pick it up at the time. As you laid out the case, and I know you'll do it again tonight at 5:00 on TheBlaze. Not only did he focus on it, he used very I think precise language.

GLENN: Precise.

STU: And then he illustrated it emotionally with multiple guests to show you how bad North Korea really is.

GLENN: Yep. Yep. It's one thing to do the -- the guy on the crutches. Because that was -- that was emotional. And it was really powerful. And if you're my age, it reminds you of the Cold War. And he was sending a message to the people who lived through the Cold War, this hasn't stopped. This evil is still here.

And then with the -- the family of -- you know, the Warmbier family, whose son went over, was arrested on a stupid charge of taking something off of a bulletin board that he wanted to keep as a souvenir, they charged him as an enemy of the state. They tortured him for a year. Dumped his body over here in the United States. And he died a few days later.

That one -- quite honestly, that is act of war stuff.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And the way it was presented last night was, look, here's the evil. And here's what they did to us.

It was -- I'm hoping that --

STU: Powerful.

GLENN: -- it is posturing for North Korea, but it is also historically speaking, that feels like laying the foundation of, we're going for these guys. We're going for war.

STU: You felt like it was an axis of evil type of case, right? He's laying out exactly --

GLENN: Yeah, not even an axis of evil. This was, this is an evil empire. It was Reagan's evil empire speech. Which I support. And I support what Donald Trump did.

You know, I've always said I want a president with a twitchy eye. Which means I want somebody that the foes don't know. This guy could do it. The problem is that Donald Trump has like two twitchy eyes and like a -- and a twitchy leg. I think he has restless leg syndrome too. So nobody knows exactly what he's going to do. So it makes me a little nervous.

If he's just doing this to scare North Korea -- which is the case I'm going to lay out tonight, that's good. And he's -- he does that really well.

But there is also a chance that we are preparing for war. And I'm also going to lay out the case tonight, that is an entirely different thing than the wars we have seen in the last 30 or 40 years.

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.