Who is Pope Francis?

Updated 3/21/13:

First, a story that we covered last week, but we didn’t cover it like the rest of the media. We didn’t cover it wall-to-wall. They covered it wall-to-wall, but it was only about an inch deep. The media was making a spectacle out of the pope last week. No one really talked about what this really means for you if you are a Christian and somebody who believes in self-government, maximum liberty, and maximum responsibility. What does the pope – what side is he on?

If you’re somebody who believes in charity but not charity as defined by a government where they force you through taxes, if you know the meaning of liberation theology and you don’t want social justice as it was practiced when it was trying to overthrow the church in South America in the way Jim Wallis means it. Who is he?

This guy at this time is either going to be John Paul, who helped free the world from Communism, or he could be, and I hate to use this example because I don’t necessarily agree with what people say but, Pius XII, who some say collaborated with the Fascists and the Nazis. Which one is he? Because it would probably be one or the other because of the time that we live in now.

Well, the media took their usual tact of just hitting only their hot-button issues. The white smoke had barely cleared, and then they began defining the new pope as vigorously against gay marriage, fervently anti-choice, and I love this one, but he’s also “less energetic, however, when it came to standing up against Argentina’s military dictatorship during the 1970s.” Oh, and I love this one, too – he also testified on “the military junta’s systematic kidnapping of children, a subject he was also accused of knowing about but failing to prevent.”

Now, the media also told us within five minutes that he has something to do with liberation theology, and I love this quote, “the unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin” and real problems. Oh, no. Which is it? I mean, because I don’t know. The pope’s all one of these two things. Pope Francis is either a conservative bigot who four decades ago loved dictatorship so much, he only loved that slightly less than the systematic kidnapping of children, or Pope Francis is a Marxist radical who was in on subverting the church through liberation theology.

You know, I watched TV last week and I thought, Boy, you know what we need? We need a network that would, I don’t know, wait, do their homework, and then give us the truth. That’s what TheBlaze is going to do tonight, give you the truth. We waited. We did our homework, and we have lined up a few people that can actually tell us what all of this means.

Pope Francis was dubbed the “Pope of Hope” on Twitter, and that is exactly what the world needs now, because the world is on fire or about to be. There is going to be a new Axis and new Allied powers. Do you remember the old alignment from World War II? That was the Axis power, the evil power, and then this was the ones that fought against it in World War II.

I will tell you that – make this prediction out loud – in the next five years, there will be a country in Europe that is run by the Nazis. Five years ago, I said that, Hey, the Nazis were going to come up. That was crazy. Now I will tell you within five years, and I think it will be sooner than that, a country will be a part of this again.

The new lines have not been drawn yet, but we’re working on the show, I think for next week or the week after, where we’ll show you exactly what’s growing, where it’s growing, but you know about the radicals Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood. Sharia law is spreading throughout the Middle East, but up in Europe, politicians have lost credibility on all sides. Europeans are now throwing their support behind the Nazis we’ve told you, the Golden Dawn Party, gaining more seats in Parliament. It now is, I believe, up to 28% approval rating, and those two things will be the new Axis power, anyone who is anti the Western way of life, the free market, capitalism, anti-Israel. And it will be supposedly pro-democracy and social justice. Okay, but who’s on the other side?

Start with social justice here. I know social justice quite well. Remember, those are the two words that brought down the wrath of almost every church on the planet when I said on the radio, social justice, you better find what that means and run. Let me make the same statement that the media never reported on the first day that I said that, and that is Social justice as practiced by Jim Wallis and Jeremiah Wright is dangerous. Social justice as practiced by most Catholics, most Baptists, and most people of religion, where it is connecting with your heart and choosing as an individual to help those in need, that’s good. But which one does the new pope practice?

First, let me dive deeper into the difference between the two. Social justice can be used, and liberation, and all of this stuff, can be used for good and bad. Hitler actually, believe it or not, rode into power on social justice. It’s a classic tactic for the extreme left – you stir the masses, you get the bottom to rise up so the top can come crashing down. Hitler was actually talking about Jesus before he was elected, but he was only doing it because everything was out of control, and then as soon as that happened, then that Jesus thing – That guy was an atheist if not just out and out a Satanist.

It’s the oldest Marxist trick – you come in on something that means something good and you pervert it, and by the time people figure out what it is, it’s too late. It was perfected in South America, where it really becomes insidious because it merged with religion to overthrow the religion. You’ve heard me talk about black liberation theology, and that’s what Obama’s Pastor Reverend Wright preaches and just about everybody he surrounds himself with. It is Marxism poorly veiled as religion. That was born out of liberation theology which began back in 1968 at a Latin America Bishops’ Conference – think of this – where they proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus Christ with the teachings of Karl Marx.

Now, you often hear leftist politicians quote Jesus to support massive government redistribution of wealth programs, right? It puts the focus on the faith. You don’t focus on the saving grace of Jesus; instead, you focus on the way the government can fix liberating people from unjust economic or political or social conditions, social justice, a decidedly Marxist principle and evil. This happened in South America, exactly where the new pope is from, and so when you hear the words “social justice,” when you hear the words “equality,” “economic justice,” “fairness,” “income inequality,” “labor,” “struggle,” “redistribution of wealth,” all of these things, if you know what they mean can absolutely be Marxist or Communist in nature.

But social justice can be good. Equality is great. Economic justice – okay, maybe. Fairness, income inequality – maybe. Labor – you should work. Struggle – yes. It builds us. Redistribution of wealth – no, no. Redistribution of wealth and Capitalism, they’re one or the other. Capitalism – I believe redistribution of wealth is really only Marxist, and Capitalism can only be used, true Capitalism, not Statism, Capitalism, it can fall into the hands of evil, but it also can lift people out of poverty and squalor. It’s like jihad – it’s either evil or it’s about a struggle to make things better.

You have to investigate these words, and that’s what we’ve done. We’ve spent the last week really looking into this pope and looking into these words. And we’ve assembled a couple of people here, three or four people that I think can help you understand is he a good guy or a bad guy, and I think you’re going to like the message here. The media looked at this pope and within ten minutes saw things like lack of equality, social justice, why he’s just like us. Uh huh.

We need to know exactly what he means by those things. We need to know, does he practice what he preaches? That’s an important one. It’s really not too hard to spot a fraud on things, because a real leader will lead by example. Progressives don’t. Dictators don’t. They tell you how to live your life, and then they do something different. Let me give you an American example – in fact I’ll give you three of them. President Obama told the American people that we are in a time of crisis, and so we all have to tighten our belts. Do you remember?

VIDEO

President Obama: When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize.

Got it? Prioritize. Prioritize and tighten your belt. Now, he shut down the student White House tours and threatened to cancel the White House Easter egg hunt because of the sequester cuts. That’s him tightening his belt. Quite honestly, you can keep the White House closed forever and the White House Easter egg hunts I could care less about, but that’s how he’s tightening his belt. But is he really living it? Is he concerned about saving every penny of taxpayer money he can? And is he walking the walk himself? He’s telling us we have to as families – don’t go to Vegas, yet his family keeps going on very lavish vacations with and without him.

Taxpayers last year spent $1.4 billion on the Obama family, $1.4 billion, and I get it, he needs security, but is it too much to ask to at least have him vacation with his own family at the same place at the same time? I mean, Michelle is in Spain. Their daughter is in Mexico on spring break, and he’s spending millions of bucks, you know, golfing with Tiger Woods. That golf game a couple of weeks ago cost $1 million in your hard-earned money.

It is so blatant that even his adoring fans in the press have recently questioned him about his lavish lifestyle.

VIDEO

Report: How does the president justify lavish vacations and a golf trip to Florida at taxpayer expense, and does he plan to cut back on his travel?

Jay Carney: I can tell you that this president is focused everyday—

Okay, stop. What he can say is, Do as he says, not as he does. Same thing for Michael Bloomberg. He passed strict idling laws. We told you about ’em this week. Next three months, he paraded around New York City with a fleet of SUVs that idled for hours at a time, all the time, and when confronted, his solution was to have people strap an air-conditioning unit to the outside of his car. He can get around it, but you cannot.

Same thing with Al Gore. He tells everybody cut back for the sake of the earth, yet he owns multiple energy-consuming mansions, yes, mansions. This green warrior has a 20 – look at these mansions that Al Gore lives in. Really? His father was a senator, and then he was a senator and a vice president. How does he have this? One of his mansions consumes 20 times the energy of the average American home. Now, his response when confronted with irrefutable fact that he is a hypocritical energy hog, he says, “I think what you’re seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They’ve completely lost the debate on the issue so now they’re just attacking their most effective opponent.” No, no, Al, no.

Pretty sweet mansions for a guy who by the way has also been accused of just getting rich off of this global warming scheme, but he says, remember, I am putting every penny, every penny I have into nonprofits.

VIDEO

Al Gore: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, The Alliance for Climate Protection.

Okay, so it’s all for a nonprofit, and maybe he’s telling the truth, I don’t know. I haven’t looked at his taxes. And you know, maybe he’s just buying all of those houses, you know, with the money he earns from, I don’t know, selling TV networks to the sworn enemy of America. Anyway, the point is on those three examples is a strongman, a dictator, a Fascist, an Uber-Progressive, will always fail to live the life and practice what he preaches.

So how does the pope live? Where does this pope stand? Which side of social justice is he on? Does he see liberation theology as a goal or a problem? How about Capitalism? Does he see wealth inequality as something caused by rich not paying their fair share, or that people all around the world have lacked the heart now to see the need for charity, personal charity, so their hearts are going to need to be changed? Is he a guy who says the rich just isn’t paying their fair share while he dresses in only the finest Italian tailor-made clothes and shoes, and lives in a palace?

Let me tell you, we’ve been planning this show for a while, and I’ll tell you, one of my first glimmers of hope was this picture that came out on Saturday. Look at his shoes. Now I know he wasn’t the pope, but I think they could’ve gotten him a new pair of shoes if he wanted one. These are real shoes. These are people shoes. These are not pope shoes. Does this pope see Jesus as someone who believed big government was the answer, or does he believe as I do and I think you do that Jesus was a radical transformationalist and the radical transformation was of the individual?

Bible-quoting leftist like Jim Wallis will twist the Scripture to fit their Marxist ideology, but that’s where Communism and liberation theology go wrong every time. Jesus came to change hearts, not government laws.

If the pope believes in collective salvation, if he worries about the collective and fails to speak about the individual salvation, individual empowerment, individual responsibility, individual potential, then there is trouble. But if he recognizes the individual and then leads by example and demonstrates how you change the world not through a big government but you change the world by being more kind, more gentle, more humble, we will see one of the best popes, I believe, in the Catholic Church’s history, and we just might see a man who’s not on our side but on God’s side. Tonight, the perspective I don’t think you’re going to see anywhere else but on this network, TheBlaze.

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.