Health Update: Glenn's dog Victor

December 13, 2012

Writer

Last night, Glenn told the audience about the health problems facing his dog Victor as he is getting older. Glenn gave an update on Victor's health this morning, and the difficult choice facing his family about how to handle his failing health.

" We have ‑‑ we have gotten an awful lot of mail from last night's episode of the program. We talked about The Hobbit but at the end, the last four or five minutes, I... I just, I did a little tribute to my dog Victor who, if you are a long‑time listener of this program, you know Victor. We used to talk about him all the time. He used to come to work with me because he's a service dog and Victor has been at my side for, well, shortly after 9/11," Glenn said.

"Our lives have changed so much. At that time we didn't want to get a gun because neither of us grew up with a gun and we were like, 'I'm not responsible enough.' Well, get over that, dummy. Why don't you become responsible enough."

"But we decided we didn't want to get a gun. We decided we would get a dog. And we got Victor, and I'll never forget. I was on tour. We got Victor from this great place called Harrison K‑9 and these are amazing dogs, amazing, amazing dogs and they love them and they ‑‑ they go over to Germany and find these dogs for you. They ask you exactly what your situation is. They don't sell them to everybody because they don't like people who want, like, attack dogs. And these are working dogs and so they ask you your situation and then they go over to Germany and try to find the right dog for you and then they train him. He's already been in three years of training over in Germany and then they tune him for your family. And we wanted a dog that could rip somebody's throat out but also be with the family and be good with the kids. And we didn't have any kids at the time, and Victor, when we were going through our trouble trying to have another child, Victor was kind of our child."

"And I remember having a conversation with Victor right before Raphe was born because Tania was down on the ground with him, and she was every night. And she was laying down on the ground with him in the bedroom and she was talking to him and rubbing his face and I said, 'Oh, poor Victor. Victor, Mommy is not ‑‑ Mommy is going to be like, what is this dog doing. The minute this baby is born, you better be on your best behavior because now the firstborn is not quite as special.'"

"And I think Victor took my advice, and I will never forget when Raphe was old enough to sit on my lap, I was on the phone talking to somebody and I was holding Raphe on my lap and Victor was sitting there at my knee. And Raphe was, like, moving really hard and I'm like, 'What are you doing?' And I looked down and he has Victor by the fangs, in this giant mouth. I mean, this dog is gigantic. He used to look like a lion. And he had him by the canine teeth and he was rocking his face back and forth like it was a ride, like those were the handlebars of this giant mouth ride that he was in. And Victor was just looking up at me like, 'You know I could take his hands right now but I won't because I love you.'"

"He's the best dog in the world. And I got home last night and the phone was ringing and everybody was calling and I didn't want to talk to anybody and my wife just looked at me and said, 'What did you do?' And I said, 'I just talked about Victor on the air and the decisions that we have to make.' And she said, 'He's fine.' And I said, 'Uh‑huh.' And he goes through these spurts where ‑‑ he's approaching 13. He's 12 now. For a pure bred German Shepherd that's like 1,000. And he goes through these periods of real pain. And he was standing in the living room yesterday by himself and I walk in and he's just, he's whimpering. And I went over and I ‑‑ I held him. And he goes through these periods where he seems to be fine and then he can't get up and he's dragging his feet behind him. And we're stuck in this place that we love him so much."

"And I find myself having these odd Margaret Sanger conversations in my head, that life is life and who am I to say when it's time for him to go. But I again don't know. I don't want him in pain. I don't want him to ‑‑ he's ‑‑ he's blind now and he's ‑‑ at times he's the same old Victor. But when do you know?"

Glenn explained that he has wondered if the best thing for Victor would be to put him to sleep, which prompted a conversation between everyone about euthanasia in both people and animals.

Read the transcript of the conversation below:

GLENN: We were talking about this in the office this morning, and Stu is I guess my angel on one shoulder saying life is life and you don't do it. And Pat is the other good angel on my shoulder saying you don't let him suffer. And I'm in the middle saying I... my whole family isn't even convinced that he's suffering. And I don't know if we're in denial or if I'm trying to just get past it. It's a tough decision.
STU: I mean, you know, you're ‑‑ it's impossible obviously, but you're in a ‑‑ you're trying to make a, essentially a quality of life judgment.
GLENN: You're making a God decision.
STU: Yeah. And especially if there's ‑‑ if there's doubt. I mean, if there's ‑‑ you know, if the doctor is saying he's not in that much pain.
GLENN: I don't know. The doctor is ‑‑ I mean, first of all, how do you know a dog is in pain?
STU: Yeah, but you're not erring on the side of life, though, I mean at that point. If the medical information, people in your family think that he's okay.
GLENN: No, nobody thinks that he's okay.
STU: Not okay. You know, he might be in pain but you don't ‑‑ there's a certain amount of pain that everybody has. If he's ‑‑ if the doctors are saying it's not that bad, to me you don't want to err on the side of saying, "No, I think he is in that much pain, therefore we should end life."
GLENN: He has an IV in his leg. He has an ulcer in his eye. So his eyes are bleeding. So his eyes are red. So he's looking. He can't see out of his eye anymore. He's dragging his legs behind him. He's, times can't get up. Sometimes he can.
Like last night the doctor put him ‑‑ you know, gave him, just gave him some medicine. You know, he's been on IV, blah, blah‑blah. He comes home, she says give him this dog food. I haven't seen him run to the bowl of food for I don't know how long. We've had to hand‑feed him for a while because he just can't even ‑‑ he can just barely even stand. He can't stand up and put his head down in the bowl anymore. And ‑‑ but in the last, now like the last 36 hours, where two days ago... I wrote my kids and said, (inaudible). And last night he runs to his bowl. And it's like...
STU: He is surviving.
PAT: He is.
GLENN: How do you make this decision? How do you make this decision? And, you know, it's really, especially with all this stuff with ObamaCare, you can't make that decision.
PAT: Your dog is not covered, though, by ObamaCare.
STU: No.
PAT: That's not a good thing.
GLENN: You can't, you have these people ‑‑
PAT: Your 42‑year‑old children and your dog.
STU: That's Bo care.
GLENN: You have these panels that will make this decision that will just be cold and calculating.
PAT: Yeah, about humans.
GLENN: About humans.
PAT: About humans. And that's ‑‑ I mean ‑‑
STU: Right.
PAT: It's staggering to think about for a dog. Try it for humans. I mean, it's unbelievable the things we're considering doing and are doing now because ObamaCare is the law of the land.
GLENN: They're starving them to death. Now imagine this. I mean, I would go and put a bullet in his head so fast rather than starving him to death.
PAT: Oh, yeah, it's painful. It's awful. It's awful.
GLENN: Starving him to death would be the most cruel thing possible.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: And that's what they are doing in the British healthcare system now.
PAT: Yeah. To babies.
GLENN: To babies. And to handicap.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Starving people, and the elderly, starving them to death. That's just one of the most cruel things I've ever seen or heard of in my life. I can't ‑‑ I wouldn't do that to my dog. I would ‑‑ I contend they would put me in jail if I did that to Victor, if I starved him to death out of compassion.
STU: And they should.
GLENN: And they should. And yet that's what the healthcare system is doing in England. And that's what we will do here. Because it will be an easier way. We've already done it here. We did it with Terri Schiavo. Just starve them to death. Out of compassion. That's not compassion.
STU: I'm admittedly weird on this issue. I mean, you know, as some people probably know, I'm like the world's only conservative vegetarian and part of the reason for that is that there is part of that that goes into that equation that ‑‑
GLENN: Wow, listen to this. Listen to this. This is new information.
STU: No, it's not.
PAT: We have not heard this yet.
GLENN: We said this about him the minute, and he's like, no, I'm just, I'm tired of meat. Go ahead.
PAT: Go ahead.
STU: Or you could have read it in your own magazine in which I wrote this, Fusion magazine, which is ‑‑
GLENN: We don't hide it in the ‑‑ hide it in the pages of magazines. Who reads magazines?
STU: No, I did ‑‑
PAT: All right. Let's hear it. What's the big admission then?
STU: No, I mean, I have ‑‑ it's not a big admission.
PAT: Yeah, it is. Yeah, it is. You've not admitted it to us on the air.
GLENN: Not on the air.
PAT: Go ahead.
GLENN: Let's hear it.
PAT: Let's hear it.
STU: It's not a big admission at all. I think ‑‑
PAT: Go ahead. Let's hear the little admission.
STU: It's already been admitted in a magazine.
GLENN: Hang on. Take off your leather shoes before you admit this. Go ahead.
STU: These are not leather shoes. However, but I ‑‑
GLENN: We haven't lost you to the no‑leather people, have we?
STU: No. I will say that there's part of me ‑‑ and this did happen for my dog, by the way, in that I don't think ‑‑ I do think that man has domain over animals. I do believe that. But I don't necessarily mean that ‑‑ think that that's a great idea. I still believe in the principle of life. And if it's at all possible, I believe to err on the side of life. That goes with humans and it goes with animals. You know, and I do ‑‑
PAT: So part of this is you don't believe man should eat animals?
STU: No, I don't ‑‑ I feel like I err on the side of life. So like, I don't make that decision for you guys, don't criticize you at all. I've never criticized you for a second. When I really think about it ‑‑
GLENN: But I want you to know we've criticized you.
STU: You have, often.
GLENN: And behind your back.
PAT: And vocally. But much more in front of your back than behind your back.
STU: That's fine. That's fine.
GLENN: Really cruel stuff but I'd have to say that's the really funny stuff, too.
PAT: Of course, of course.
GLENN: Is behind your back.
STU: Is ‑‑ and I believe that. But no, it's a very personal decision. I do not pushy on anybody. I'm not PETA, I'm not taking out billboards telling you shouldn't do it. But my point is that I don't under ‑‑ you know, it comes to that point of here I am. If I feel like you, Glenn, with my dog, I will probably be out of work for a week when that dog dies. I will be absolutely crushed and unable to do anything. And, you know, I'll go to the point of taking the dog to the vet all the time and all these crazy things I'll do to keep this dog alive, but that's just because I know this dog. The only difference between this dog and all these other animals that I would normally have on an egg sandwich is the fact that I've never met them and I have no relationship with them.
GLENN: That's why Raphe said to me the other day ‑‑
STU: Why I feel it's inconsistent.
GLENN: ‑‑ "I don't want to eat chicken." He's a kid who just won't eat anything. I mean, we can put anything in front of him and he's got a reason not to eat it. He just won't eat it. He will power eat morning for breakfast. He will eat like 14 bowls of cereal, eggs, bacon, anything you put in front of him. God help you if you get your hands in front of the boy in the morning. But by night, he's just not interested. And so it was an excuse, but I think there was a little bit of it. He said, "I don't want chicken." I said, Raphe, you like chicken. "No, I don't want chicken. I don't like chicken." Well, that's what we're... arghhhh! Man, it's a good thing my grandfather does not live anywhere near this boy. But he said, I don't want chicken because I don't... "Why?" "Because it reminds me of my chicken." And I said, "What's the first thing I told you when we got chickens?" "I know, don't name the chickens." That's right.
STU: But why ‑‑ I mean, and this is my point. It's an argument of are you pro life or are you pro personality. When you have a relationship with a specific animal ‑‑
GLENN: No, I'm pro life.
STU: ‑‑ you want to keep it alive at all costs. It's the Charlotte's Web thing. It's like Wilbur because a stupid spider can put a name above his head, all of a sudden you save him.
GLENN: When it comes to ‑‑ first of all, I don't equate animal life the same as human life.
STU: I agree.
GLENN: There's a big difference there.
STU: There's a big difference there. And if I was starve, I would absolutely eat ‑‑
GLENN: That's why I don't eat veal, and I am vocal about this, I don't eat veal because I think it's wrong to torture your food to make it taste better. It's just not ‑‑ that's just beyond unethical. That's just evil. You don't torture your food to make it taste better. No, definitely not.
STU: There was a little hesitation there.
GLENN: I just wanted to make sure. I was... however, when it comes to your mixing in eating with saving your dog, I don't believe in this, I just don't believe in ‑‑ you know, if you have the money, like you have the money. Go ahead and do the CAT scans and the, you know, all of the, you know, plastic surgery, you'll never change your pug's face but do all of that you want, whatever, if that's good for the dog, if it's ‑‑
STU: Right.
GLENN: But these people, people will get into debt with chemotherapy.
STU: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: And if you have the money, that's fine. But I don't ‑‑ I don't understand. And I would do it for my dog but I ‑‑
PAT: Me, too.
GLENN: But you look at it and you think, I don't know if this is even right. It is if you have the money. But if you are putting your family in jeopardy for it, I mean, there is something to be said with your family first. And I know.
PAT: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: The dog is a member of the family.
STU: That's tough.
GLENN: I know.
STU: You have to put your family first.
GLENN: It's awful.
STU: You have to do that. But, like, that stupid question kind of stuck in my head is why don't I eat my dog? Why don't I? The reason I don't do it is probably taste. I don't know what dogs taste like but people on farms will tell you that they have cows that they love and why don't I eat them? Why don't I eat ‑‑ why don't they eat Wilbur? They don't eat Wilbur because they have a relationship with Wilbur. And if you can have a relationship with Wilbur, then why don't you consider that in the equation? I still believe that man is superior. I'm not some crazy, like, I don't think I'm pushing anything on anybody. But it's something, I feel like as a conservative who wants to remain consistent ‑‑
PAT: Listen to this. This is pretty new information.
GLENN: We've lost him.
PAT: This is new information.
STU: It's all in the article eight years ago.
GLENN: He's going to be wearing Birkenstocks.
PAT: We don't read you dumb articles.
GLENN: Oh, yeah.
PAT: I mean, we read everything else in TheBlaze magazine.
GLENN: Have you read ‑‑
PAT: And don't read yours, Stu?
GLENN: Have you read Agenda 21 yet?

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Health Update: Glenn's dog Victor

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

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.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

What Lee actually proposed

The Biden land-grab

American families pay the price

Divide and conquer

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Establish basic liability laws

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Oppose the state moratorium on AI

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

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.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

Operation Midnight Hammer

What comes next

Now we pray

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

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.

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Rising Islamism

Blending the worst ideologies

Call out radicalism