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

FLASHBACK: Paul Ryan explains his conservative values to Glenn in April 2010

August 11, 2012
Wilson

Writer

This morning, Mitt Romney announced he had selected Paul Ryan to be his running mate in the Presidential election. Below is video and a transcript of their first radio conversation from April 2010.

GLENN: 888‑727‑BECK. One name that I hear an awful lot about and, you know, it’s strange. I’m getting a lot of heat now from this article that was in Forbes magazine called Beck, Inc. It was on the cover. I think it’s ought on newsstands today, the cover. And it starts with the opening line of, I could give a flying crap about politics. I care about principles. I don’t care about the process at all. And there’s a followup story in Forbes now on that because so many people misunderstood it. Or they are using it to smear me. I don’t follow the people day to day in Washington, but when I hear names over and over again, I look into them. Paul Ryan is a name I keep hearing of just, you know, he’s a god among conservatives. So I asked Stu, I don’t know, about a week ago. I said, Stu, can you look into Paul Ryan, found out what you can about him. He found a speech that I read to you or portions of that he gave in Oklahoma, and it appeared to me that he was standing up for progressivism which doesn’t really sit well with me. We heard from Paul Ryan’s office as soon as the show was over and they said, no, you’ve got that all wrong. If I get it wrong, I don’t care what political party it’s in; I will correct the record. Heritage.org has corrected the record today and the guy who wrote the article is a guy who I know hates progressives because he’s one of our researchers on the progressive movement. And the best guy to do it is Paul Ryan. So he joins us now. Hello, congressman, how are you, sir?

PAUL RYAN: Hey, nice to meet you.

GLENN: Nice to meet you, sir. Tell me, tell me your thoughts on progressivism.

PAUL RYAN: Right. What I have been trying to do, and if you read the entire Oklahoma speech or read my speech to Hillsdale College that they put in there on Primus Magazine, you can get them on my Facebook page, what I’ve been trying to do is indict the entire vision of progressivism because I see progressivism as the source, the intellectual source for the big government problems that are plaguing us today and so to me it’s really important to flush progressives out into the field of open debate.

GLENN: I love you.

PAUL RYAN: So people can actually see what this ideology means and where it’s going to lead us and how it attacks the American idea.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. I ‑‑ did you see my speech at CPAC?

PAUL RYAN: I’ve read it. I didn’t see it. I’ve read it, a transcript of it.

GLENN: And I think we’re saying the same thing. I call it ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: We are saying the same thing.

GLENN: It’s a cancer.

PAUL RYAN: Exactly. Look, I come from ‑‑ I’m calling you from Janesville, Wisconsin where I’m born and raised.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAUL RYAN: Where we raise our family, 35 miles from Madison. I grew up hearing about this stuff. This stuff came from these German intellectuals to Madison‑University of Wisconsin and sort of out there from the beginning of the last century. So this is something we are familiar with where I come from. It never sat right with me. And as I grew up, I learned more about the founders and reading the Austrians and others that this is really a cancer because it basically takes the notion that our rights come from God and nature and turns it on its head and says, no, no, no, no, no, they come from government, and we here in government are here to give you your rights and therefore ration, redistribute and regulate your rights. It’s a complete affront of the whole idea of this country and that is to me what we as conservatives, or classical liberals if you want to get technical.

GLENN: Thank you.

PAUL RYAN: ‑‑ ought to be doing to flush this out. So what I was simply tying to do in that speech was simply saying those first versions, those first progressives, they tried to use populism and popular ideas as a means to getting ‑‑ detaching people from the Constitution and founding principles to pave the way for the centralized bureaucratic welfare state.

GLENN: Okay. So you and I have ‑‑ wait, wait, hang on just a second. You and I agree because ‑‑ the way it was worded.

PAUL RYAN: Yeah.

GLENN: It sounded like you thought that Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt and their progressivism was good and that’s ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: Yeah. There was one blog which I think you cited that completely misinterpreted my remarks.

GLENN: Thank you.

PAUL RYAN: All the other blogs that wrote about my speech I think got it accurately. What I probably should have done was added a couple more sentences. I cut the thing back for time.

GLENN: No, no, that’s fine.

PAUL RYAN: I should have just added a couple more sentences. What I was basically saying is the progressives we have now who are the people we have run our government, they don’t even try to do that. They don’t even try to pretend to be advancing a popular agenda. They try to cram through their agenda as fast as they can while they have the power that they have in order to get this stuff in place. So that is basically what I was saying is the kinds of progressives we have today, you know, aren’t even pretending to do what people want for the country.

GLENN: Paul, how is it that you and I have never met?

PAUL RYAN: You know, I don’t ‑‑ it’s a really good question. You don’t go to Washington much, do you?

GLENN: No, I avoid it like the plague.

PAUL RYAN: I go to Washington and Wisconsin every week and I don’t really go anywhere in between, except for Oklahoma where my in‑laws live.

GLENN: Do you watch or ever listen to the show? Are you familiar with what I’ve been saying?

PAUL RYAN: I’m familiar with it but you are on at a time of day that I just can’t get to a television. You are on too early. So I just haven’t had a chance to watch. I’ve watched you on O’Reilly and you’ve been replayed on Greta. So obviously I’m familiar with you.

GLENN: I’m just ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: And I know you’ve been going after progressivism which is exactly what I’ve been trying to do as well.

GLENN: I mean, I’m just surprised that, I mean because it sounds like you’re on exactly the same ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: Yes.

GLENN: ‑‑ road that I’m on, and I have been feeling, and I imagine you are, too, feeling wildly alone on this because most people don’t even understand progressivism.

PAUL RYAN: Right.

GLENN: So many dopes out in America are just like, yeah, well, I’m for progress.

PAUL RYAN: That’s right.

GLENN: Jeez, it’s not about progress. It’s not even about the Constitution. I just gave a talk this weekend where we were talking about, you know, we’re fundamental ‑‑ the president of the United States is saying we’re going to fundamentally transform the country.

PAUL RYAN: Right.

GLENN: Into what? We’re going to make progress to where?

PAUL RYAN: Right.

GLENN: What are we progressing to?

PAUL RYAN: If you read the entire Oklahoma speech, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. That’s what I’m saying, here’s what this means ‑‑

GLENN: My fault, my fault.

PAUL RYAN: They are leading us to a social welfare state, cradle‑to‑grave society where they create a culture of dependency on the government, not on oneself. It is meant to replace the American idea. And the reason I’m doing a lot of these speeches ‑‑ the reason I’m talking about Hegel and Faber and Bismarck, you know, and what those people stood for and what they did and said and all their disciples, you know, in America is because I really believe we’ve got to have a debate and a political realignment fast because we will win the debate now. We are a center‑right country. But if they succeed in moving us faster down the tipping point where more Americans are dependent on the government than upon themselves, where a debt crisis sparked money entitlement explosion brings us to, you know, a really tough fiscal situation, then down the road we may not win that referendum and so that is why I’m trying to, you know, do what I can from my position in congress to sound the alarm bells on what this agenda really means, what this philosophy’s all about and how we need to have a referendum in America in real elections to untangle this mess they created and prevent us from reaching this tipping point where we are a social welfare state, cradle‑to‑grave society, dependent on the government that lulls us into lies of complicity and dependency versus the America idea of, you know, making the most of your life, equal opportunity, equal natural rights. You know, those are the things that got us where we are and that’s why I put this roadmap plan out there. I introduced it three years ago. I put a new version out in January. You can go to my website, Americanroadmap.org. It is a very specific economic and fiscal plan. It’s a piece of legislation that says there is an alternative to this progressivist vision for America. There is a way to reapply and reclaim the founding principles in America and still get America back and make this century another American Century appeared that’s why I’ve been, you know, speaking from the hilltop. It’s not popular and it’s ‑‑ and for my party, we can’t afford to screw up again. But we’ve got to get people to stop being worried or afraid of taking on this debate and that’s what I’m simply trying to do.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. I mean, I don’t think I’ve heard a politician, really, I’m looking at my producers. Have we had a politician on this show since when, when we first met Santorum maybe, maybe. DeMint is really, really good but I don’t know anybody, not even Santorum, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody ‑‑ I need to find out more about you, Paul. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody ‑‑

PAT: Nobody’s articulated progressivism like that.

GLENN: ‑‑that is articulating the problem in this country and knows what the root is like you have.

PAUL RYAN: Look, I grew up in the orbit of Madison, Wisconsin. I know who these people are, I know what they think, I know what they believe. And so I would just encourage you, go to my roadmap website, read the roadmap.

GLENN: Give me the website.

PAUL RYAN: Americanroadmap.org. Read the full text of the Oklahoma speech, read my in Primus Hillsdale speech on progressivism and healthcare. Those three things right there, I mean, I could go on and on but those three things tell you what I’ve been trying to lay out and do just from my perch, you know, in congress.

GLENN: Paul, tonight and for the next five nights I am going to be softening the ground. I am laying out an idea of cutting the budget, doing what we did in 1920 after the first progressive ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: Yeah, Calvin Coolidge, sure.

GLENN: And I’m going to cut the ‑‑ show America that the budget can be cut by 50%. It’s going to cause pain, but it has to. It has to be cut or we die. And show a way that we can reduce taxes to be ‑‑ do what Georgia did to Russia. Just keep lowering the taxes.

PAUL RYAN: Right.

GLENN: So they could survive. We need to do that. And I’m telling you that it’s ‑‑ I’ve been telling the audience it’s going to be wildly unpopular. You are going to hate me by the end of the week because everybody will experience pain. But man, I’ve got to tell ya, I’m not running for anything. If you can get people in Washington to actually stand up and say, I mean, I’ll soften the ground and show people why it has to be cut, but we’ve got to cut this and we need somebody with a spine in Washington that will stand up. I’m ‑‑ boy, I hope I don’t find out ‑‑ you are not like a dirt bag, are you?

PAUL RYAN: Yeah, right.

GLENN: I just don’t want to find out, oh, jeez.

PAUL RYAN: Look, I ‑‑

GLENN: You don’t know Eliot Spitzer ‑‑

PAUL RYAN: No.

GLENN: Or anything like that, right?

PAUL RYAN: I’m not running for president. I’m not trying to be somebody else. I’m not trying to be somebody I’m not. I’m not running for president. I’m a ranking member of the budget committee. You know, my background is in economics. That’s my aptitude. If you read my roadmap, it is basically a plan that lays out how to relimit government, how to turn these entitlements into individual ownership programs where you are not dependent on the government for all these things, where you are more independent. And how you can basically reclaim the 21st century for the American idea instead of ‑‑ and we are very quickly approaching this tipping point in this country.

GLENN: I know.

CALLER: Where I mean, 60% of our fellow citizens right now get more benefits from the federal government in dollar value than they pay back in taxes. So we’re already very quickly going down this path. Throw healthcare on top and then cap and trade and implement this Obama budget and you are way down that path.

GLENN: Well, we won’t survive that.

PAUL RYAN: So and that’s what I lay out on my roadmap. I show you using Congressional Budget Office numbers just how we are going to implode. We have an economic implosion on the horizon. Everybody knows this but nobody’s doing anything about it. And that’s why I’ve decided to put this plan out there ‑‑

GLENN: God bless you.

PAUL RYAN: ‑‑ that has been certified by the CBO as doing what I say it does.

GLENN: Okay.

PAUL RYAN: So I encourage you to take a look at it.

GLENN: I will. Paul, and I would like to stay in touch with you. I appreciate your correcting my error and I apologize for that.

PAUL RYAN: Look, that one blog really misinterpreted what I was trying to say and you know, as you just mentioned in your lead‑in, you get misinterpreted sometimes.

GLENN: Well, I’m glad we’ve cleared it up and we’ll stay in touch. Paul Ryan, thank you very much, sir.

PAUL RYAN: Sounds good.

GLENN: Appreciate it. You bet. Bye‑bye. Oh, my gosh.

PAT: You weren’t already married, I think you would have proposed to him.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: I think you would have proposed to him then. I saw the look in your eye.

GLENN: You know what it is? You know what it is? Hope, why, because someone knows the truth and knows how to articulate it.

PAT: He really does and did. That was really good.

GLENN: Let me ask you something. Let me ask you something. I said that my time would be done when I found somebody else that would articulate it.

PAT: I think you are in the clear.

GLENN: Can I go home now? Can I go home?

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.