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

Glenn’s one day only Comprehensive Midterm Coverage: Ben Sasse

October 27, 2014
Wilson

Writer

As you may have noticed, Glenn has been increasingly focusing outside of Washington, DC for solutions. Yes, elections are still important, but the primary battleground is at home and in the culture. That said, it remains vital to elect good people to represent us in DC.

First off, we're introducing you to Ben Sasse, a Tea Party favorite who is running for a vacant Senate seat in Nebraska. Glenn has interviewed Ben Sasse on the program before, and it was on the radio show that Sasse's primary opponent Shane Osborne revealed his relationship with progressive Republican Grover Norquist.

Watch the interview below:

We have Ben Sasse now from Nebraska, running for an open senate seat. He's dirt strong, a constitutionalist. If the GOP wouldn't have destroyed all the other constitutionalists, we would have had more races like this one, I believe. He's now up 20 points. They are not taking polls anymore. It's like why waste the money on the polls. Ben is with us now. How are you?

SASSE: Hi, Glenn. Good to be on. Hope my wife isn't listening because when you refer to me as something to get out of the system she will call and say amen.

GLENN: How are you doing as a family? You never know. It all depends on who goes out to vote. If everyone thinks you are going to win, they may not go out and vote, but the idea of now being the guy going in to the lion's den, how is it sitting with you and the family?

SASSE: We have been blessed this year. We are nearly out of our voices, having lived 13 Mondays out of the campaign bus, so we are tired, but we have had a blast. Our kids, are 13, 10 and 3 and they have gotten to see every nook and cranny of 93 counties in the state but also subsector of agriculture and they have -- it's been an encouraging learning experience for us, so we are doing really well.

GLENN: How's that affected the kids?

SASSE: We live a mile from where I grew up in the eastern part of the state. Nebraska knows that's the row crapping part of the state, corn field, bean fields. Central America Nebraska is becoming cattle country. Nebraska is the largest cattle state now, and my 13-year-old daughter jokes that we spent so much time with ranchers this year, she could deliver a breach calf.

GLENN: The president needs to fill Eric Holder's spot. He nominates someone you think is qualified, but not someone you think believes in the Constitution. Do you vote to confirm, seeing your duty as simple advise and consent or do you vote against someone you don't feel as qualified to be the chief law enforcement officer in the land?

SASSE: The oath of office is to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. So if your hypothetical someone who doesn't believe in the Constitution as actually written is not the right guy to be enforcing the laws. We need a Constitutional recovery in this country. We only have, according to recent poll, 36% of the elect rat even knows we have three branches of government. We have a crisis. The founders wouldn't think we could exist in that vacuum. We need every moment possible to help hour folks understand what the glory the Constitutional system is, so we need to pass it on.

GLENN: Another hypothetical. You are in the senate and the president is pressuring these states to not take and quarantine Ebola victims. This is happening now. You believe that hypothetically speaking, we should stop the air travel even from West Africa, not necessarily to, but from West Africa, without a quarantine. What do you do?

SASSE: I think there are two different parts of that. The first one is we are fortunate to have a federalist system where you have layers of government, so we don't want in the American system to consolidate power at this distant place called Washington, D.C. Washington exists for a limited number of things. There are really important duties, but they are enumerated. So most decisions, wherever possible, should be made at the state and local level. If governors and mayors think a quarantine is in order, they are closest to their people and know the circumstances. So we'd want to respond to the lowest levering of government where possible.

Obviously, on something like a public health pandemic crisis, isn't contained inside some geographic border, so Washington has important responsibilities. Right now the administration can't explain with any clarity why they are opposed to a hiatus and pause on granting new visas from the three most affected countries. It is really bizarre.

Your hypothetical lays out the distinction between travel from and travel to. One someone asks why would we grant new visa, when we don't understand what's happen October ground in Liberia, why risk the pandemic coming here. And the administration responds with this bizarre kind of "run out the clock" by pontificating about how you don't want to solve the problem. The best way to solve the problem is on the ground, closest to the point of origin, so that's in Liberia, the U.S., particularly through the CDC has important responsibilities, and we should deploy folks, public and private sector, to Liberia, but the administration doesn't answer with any coherence.

GLENN: Next hypothetical. Baghdad falls. We have the largest embassy, larger than the Vatican, the largest embassy in the world cost us --

PAT: I think several billion.

GLENN: Hundreds of billions. Maybe three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Most expensive. It's bigger than the mall in Washington D.C., bigger than Vatican City. It's own country.

STU: Real estate in Iraq can't be that expensive.

GLENN: Spent at lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of bloodshed --

STU: $1 billion, by the way. That's a lot of money.

SASSE: It's early Monday morning. Who's going to argue about three more decimal places?

GLENN: So we spent money, time and treasure. We are days perhaps within the fall of Baghdad. What do you do in the Senate?

SASSE: I'm not duck your question, but I think your crisis is a lot bigger than that, so I'll back up one step. I think the crisis is we don't have any coherence about what the medium and long-term U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives are in the Middle East. When you travel all day on a bus, as we have been doing for months, talking to Nebraskans, some people, if they came and rode the bus and listened to our folks on the ground, they may hear isolationism, but that's not what I think our people are saying. They are saying they are really, really aware that the sword a dangerous place and there are blood-thirsty terrorist organizations that will fill vacuums that arise and the kind of miniaturization technology that exists, where you can port nuclear technologies across the globe in stuff the size of a large travel suit case, the U.S. has responsibilities to stop terror networks and jihadi groups of global terror reach, but our folks are skeptical of giving any authority to politicians of either political party that are driven by the next media economical rather than articulating a long-term policy. When we make a commitment, our allies should know they can trust us and enemies should know to fears. Right now we don't have that with Israel. Israel doesn't think they can trust us and our enemies don't fear us. I think the bigger problem is the ungoverned regions in Pakistan, large parts of Afghanistan, and these kinds of places can swallow the vacuums could expand and swallow a place like Baghdad and making a single city decision is not the right choice. The right choice is we need to be articulating a long-term policy that explains that if a jihadi group believes they kill in the name of religion, we opposed to them, no matter on if they are on this side or that side of Afghani-Pakistani border. That doesn't mean we can eradicate everybody, but it does mean if one of the terror groups has global reach, they should know to fear us. Right now they don't.

GLENN: None of these are really hypotheticals. All of these are going to happen with you as a senator, most likely. The election is over, the president decides he's just going to grant amnesty. He's already printed 9 million green cards. More are supposedly on the way, but he's already ordered up 9 million green cards. He grants amnesty. What do you do?

SASSE: Yeah. I sure hope that isn't where we are headed. Hope we are not headed to --

GLENN: We are headed towards that exact place.

PAT: I think it will happen by executive action.

SASSE: His pen and phone a speech from last year sets up the predicate for those kind of actions, but it is a direct attack on his constitutional responsibilities. Our big problem, though, is that the president can say, if the Congress doesn't pass the laws he wants them to, it is not that big of a deal to him because he has a pen and phone. Even bigger than that act is the belief that so much of the American electorate doesn't understand he doesn't have those freedoms.

So we have to have a long-term civic re-education, but the Congress has to start by affirming the three separate but equal branches. And the power of the purse, powers of oversight as well, but the power of the purse is what gives that teeth. Need to begin by only funding those parts of agencies that have the authority to do that. So the president can't do what you are proposing, but executive branch officials also can't execute those kind of edicts if they don't have fund to do it, so we need to be sure we start to bring the American people along, moving step by step incrementally to funding those parts of executive agencies that are aligned with the missions of legislation that reaction gave them the authority to act. According to one recent study, only about a third of all the activities of EPA actually have any legislative authorization. They just used rule-making process to make up law now. That's a crisis, but the bigger crisis is that the public doesn't understand it.

GLENN: How do you feel about -- where's your support coming from? Because you are very, very clear on who you are. The GOP would say you are an extremist. The GOP is not going your way. They are saying people with your point of view is the reason why the GOP is in trouble, yet, you are one of the only senators running that have any real support and real run-away poll numbers. What do you attribute it to?

SASSE: We don't pay a ton of the attention to the polls. There are numbers out there that are pretty gaudy. I have never run for anything before. I'm a 42-year-old nonpolitician, so I won't believe it until the election is over, but we have been running hard in all 93 counties. No one's ever really, in the history of member politics built a field structure in all 93 counties. We have a campaign in every county. I have done town halls in every county. When you travel 93 counties, our people believe great American stuff. They just draw that basic fundamental distinction that all Americans used to be able to draw between federal programs and bureaucracies and the meaning of America. They are not the same thing. Washington has some responsibilities, but America is a lot bigger than Washington's mandates and tacks and prohibitions. The meaning of America is neighbor helping neighbor. It's small business people and farmers and ranchers that build the future. It's what happens on Sunday morning the motivation that has people want to put on the uniform and serve to defend our freedoms and pass it on to the next generation, but all that is so much bigger than the small subset of America. So there's a danger of saying this in a way that sounds -- my 10-year-old was on a bus with us one day, there was a reporter riding with us and she tried to frame up this question. It had so many caveats at the front that it said the only people who must support you are right wing crazy people that want to shut down the government. She framed the question that there was nothing you could really say. She has parsed everybody by gender, race, socioeconomic class and job type and whether they like green or red bicycles. Almost nothing left to say. I just paused. And my daughter looked at her and said ma'am, we want all the votes. And what she was getting at is I really believe that there are lots of sensible democrats in Nebraska. I disagree with them on certain things about federal policy, but you should be able to agree with them about the larger constitutional structure. I think that's what's happening on the ground.

STU: He's going for a unanimous vote here.

GLENN: Ben Sasse from Nebraska, running for the open Senate seat running away with it at this point. We wish you all the best, Ben. Thank you.

SASSE: Benfornebraska.com, if your listeners are interested in more.

GLENN: Thanks.

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.