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

First Lady didn’t wear head scarf when visiting Saudi Arabia

January 28, 2015
Wilson

Writer

First Lady Michelle Obama joined the diplomatic group to meet the new king of Saudi Arabia, and it's what she didn't wear that's causing a bit of a stir. The First Lady chose not to wear a head scarf, upsetting some in Saudi Arabia. Was it disrespectful? Was it liberating for women? Glenn debated the issue on radio this morning.

GLENN: Welcome to the program. I want to start with Michelle Obama over in Saudi Arabia. And I -- I think we should have an adult conversation here, if you will, and one where we think out loud and we're allowed to -- we're allowed to disagree with each other. That's a crazy thought. Michelle Obama went over and they were meeting the king of Saudi Arabia, the new king of Saudi Arabia. So he goes over and there's this big welcoming committee. And the women in Saudi Arabia are asked to veil their heads and to you know -- you go to the Vatican, you go to -- you go to Jerusalem, and in some places, you wear a yamaka, you wear a veil. You don't wear a skirt that is showing anything above the knee. Some places you're supposed to wear a skirt all the way to the ground. And that's the way it is in Saudi Arabia. So Michelle Obama goes and she has bare arms and she doesn't wish a veil. Now, in Saudi Arabia, you're not as a foreigner required to veil your head or your face. But it is customary, especially when you're going to meet the king.

This would be like somebody going over and saying, I don't bow to the -- I don't bow to the queen. I'm not going to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth. There are certain customs that you do. Okay. So she goes over and she's decided not to veil her head and she wears bare-armed dress.

PAT: It's because she has fabulous arms.

GLENN: Yeah, no offense.

PAT: You don't want to cover those June so now she's being hailed by the left as a champion of women's rights. Okay. I guess actually it shows here, I'm seeing a picture. She doesn't have the bare arms. I thought she had the bare arms. But she didn't veil her head. Okay. That's fine. Some men came and shook her hand, some people didn't.

It's just like yesterday I was with the chief rabbi of England. I met his aide. It's a woman. I was foolish. I reached out. I put my hand -- she was gracious. She reached out. She shook my hand and as she shook my hand I'm thinking to myself, what an idiot. She does not want to shake my hand. But she was being gracious.

STU: Why, because that's --

GLENN: Tradition. Yeah, when you're -- orthodox Jew, men and women don't shake hands. You don't touch -- like rabbi Le Pen. He used to give his wife a hug. I'm a hugger and I'm like, hey, and I give her a big hug. And she's like, that's great. That's so good. Until finally, somebody came to me and said, Glenn, you're driving them out of their minds. She doesn't touch other men.

(laughing)

GLENN: And so you just don't do that. You just don't to that. But gracious people will do what this woman did yesterday and gracious people did what they did with her with Saudi Arabia and shook her hand. Okay. I'm really actually glad that Michelle Obama did not change who she was in front of the king. So part of me says, look, we don't veil -- we don't veil our faces. However, we're in their house. You've been invited to go to their house. It's like if I come over to your house and you're like -- you know, here. I go over to Penn Jillette house. I'm not going to bring my Bible and start talking to his kids about Jesus. You know what I mean? I'm not going to come in and say, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. We all have to pray before this meal. I'm at Penn Jillette's house. Now, if Penn Jillette's comes over to my house, I am going say a prayer for my meal. I'll say it quietly to myself without being obnoxious, without trying to make a point in his home. That's just the way it is. We're over in their house. They say we're not at war with Islam. The reason why they veil their faces is out of deference to Allah. It is their religion that tells them to veil their faces. You're in their house, in their country, operating under their traditions, saluting their new king. You say that you don't have a problem with Islam. And yet you won't follow the Islamic teachings in their house. They say that -- you know, no, no, they just have a problem with our -- they just have a problem with us as Americans, because of the way we live our life. We're too decadent. So then you go over and you're in their face going, yep, you see my whole face. How turned on are you now? So I'm really torn. Because I'm glad that we don't change who we are. However, in their house, I think was a mistake.

STU: Yeah, I mean, it seems like if it's really strict. You said it was optional for foreigners to do it.

PAT: I don't think it is when it comes to diplomatic protocol. I think when you go there as a --

GLENN: The president of the United States.

PAT: On an official visit or whatever.

STU: For that event as well, where it's just -- you know -- the death of a leader.

GLENN: You're going to meet the new king. It's like -- you know, you meet -- you go over the queen and you somehow or another, you know, you're shopping and there's the queen next to you. You don't necessarily have to follow all the protocol. But if you're going to Buckingham palace, you're going to be schooled in protocol on exactly what to do and not to do with the keen.

STU: And past first ladies -- have veiled themselves.

STU: Veiled themselves. You think you'd stick with tradition. We always criticize people who are -- especially feminists and gay activists for not standing up. You know -- for criticizing people -- I hear about the little things that they complain about here as compared to the real stuff that goes on in countries like that and maybe just say, hey, you know what, you won't give driver's license to women. We're not going to fold into that environment.

PAT: But they almost did.

STU: He did try to do it but --

(overlapping speakers)

GLENN: It was really hard. When you can --

PAT: Really hard.

GLENN: When you're the guy who can only behead people.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know, for not following your rules.

STU: Right.

PAT: Surely you can't just give them to go out and drive. No, you can't do that.

GLENN: No.

(laughing)

GLENN: So I don't know.

STU: I'm with you. I think you probably should do it. But I'm a little torn on it.

PAT: I think we're all torn. She's going to get criticism either way.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: From somebody. Right?

GLENN: Of course. And she's going to get praise either way. Here's where I come down on this. I think she should receive the praise for doing -- for doing who she is and saying, I think this is important. So I think we should have the praise for Michelle Obama. But we should also look at that and say, was that the wisest thing to do in this time -- at this time with an ally who is really kind of shaky.

PAT: And here's another --

GLENN: In Middle East.

PAT: Another interesting side note to this. On a trip a little while ago to Indonesia, she wore the headdress. She wore it. So why cover up in Indonesia but not in Saudi Arabia? What -- that doesn't make any sense. Saudi Arabia is a much more important alley, I would think, than Indonesia is.

STU: Also, with a new king --

GLENN: Indonesia --

PAT: Who is?

GLENN: Barack Obama.

PAT: Lived there.

GLENN: But I mean he's very well versed in the customs and the people of Indonesia.

PAT: Yeah, but they know the custom is similar in Saudi Arabia, so why would you cover up in one place and not the other?

GLENN: Because maybe he's not as much of a fan of Saudi Arabia as he is of Indonesia.

PAT: I think that's what they're trying to show here.

STU: And the anti-Americans in Saudi Arabia are looking for a way to overthrow that family all the time. And to give them sort of another thing to argue about, saying, look, you know, he's allowing this woman to come in here and she's not even covered, do you believe this, that's the type of pressure they talk about. This is in all seriousness that he couldn't do things like the driver's license out of nowhere. They talk about how the king wanted to do things like that, but the religious hard-liners in the country were so strict that if he did a lot of it at once, he could be overthrown and that's why --

PAT: He had some time.

STU: He was only 90. I mean, he died at 90.

GLENN: He was right in his prime.

PAT: And he took over in early '90s? Somewhere in there, mid '90s?

GLENN: Here's the thing. The world is on fire with Islamic extremists. And this is only going to piss them off even more. This kind of thing -- this may not mean anything really to us. We may not think that this is a big deal. But it is a big deal to them. And it is also I think -- it weakens the king, because those hard-line extremists that said, you want -- you want women to drive, what? He's welcoming this woman in and those hard-line extremists say, see, this is guy is weak. I mean, the first thing in, you slap him across the face and make it difficult for him with the hard-line extremists.

PAT: Another side --

GLENN: Look at this. If you're watching on the BlazeTV, you're seeing in Indonesia she's got the full Muslim headdress. And she looks like she's just going to a summer party in Saudi Arabia.

PAT: And I --

GLENN: And that's really remarkable.

PAT: What's interesting about this, too, is I'm looking at one of the headlines from the Indonesia thing, and it says, Michelle Obama wears head scarf honoring Indonesian culture. Too much? Well, so, you know. She can't win.

GLENN: No --

PAT: It's a tough decision. She wore it once and not -- correct. See if anybody can find the pictures of her when she went to -- what was the big mosque in Spain? Do you remember when she took the girls?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And she went to the big mosque in Spain? Let's find all the times she's worn the headdress. So if question is why wouldn't you wear it this time?

She's not wearing it this time because she wants to send a message. Now, it could be that now -- well well, no because she was in Indonesia.

STU: Maybe she didn't have a headdress that matched her out fit. Is that possible?

PAT: I think it is possible.

GLENN: Doesn't the woman travel with designers? Sometimes -- I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a loom now in Air Force One. But -- so maybe it's just like, hey, we're in our last couple of years. I don't really care what anybody thinks. I'm just going to be who I am. So there's a possibility. But when did she go to Indonesia? That was just now, right?

PAT: It was not too long ago.

GLENN: So I mean, she's just done that. So that doesn't make sense. So you would have to ask yourself, if she's done this every single time, why is she -- why is she picking this event, which is honoring a new king, which you really would like Saudi Arabia to be stable, why would you go in and pick this time to slap them across the face?

STU: You know, I don't know the answer to that. Maybe -- you know, I would not be entirely stunned if they just didn't put that much thought into it. I mean, while -- look -- again, like we talk about how bad their diplomatic procedures have been over the years. I mean, sending copies of speeches for --

GLENN: But only to the queen.

STU: The only the queen, right. The reset button. They can't even get the word "reset" right --

GLENN: But only Russia.

STU: This has been a long series of diplomatic failures by this administration. This could just be another one.

PAT: Anything is possible with these two.

GLENN: However, however, however, I said this to somebody the other day. We talked about it on the air, too. You can't be this wrong. Really. I mean, honestly. I'd love a Vegas oddsmaker to tell me what are the odds of being this wrong where it always falls into -- on to the side of revolution, bolstering Islamic extremism, hurting the United States of America. I mean, every time. You can say that they're sloppy, but every time it works not to be in our favor.

STU: Oopsie.

GLENN: How many times before we start saying oopsie.

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.