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

Ted Cruz: If you're looking for a candidate embraced by Washington elites, I ain't your guy

March 24, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Twenty-four hours after announcing his campaign for President of the United States, Senator Ted Cruz joined Glenn on radio. During the interview, the two discussed the grassroots support that will be key to Ted's campaign, the theories that he isn't a natural born citizen, and his dark horse run for U.S. Senator in 2012.

GLENN: How are you, Ted?

TED: I'm doing great. Great to be with you.

GLENN: Good to have you here. What is it like to announce you're running for president of the United States? What is that day like?

TED: Well, I have to say, yesterday was electric. I mean, the energy and passion. We had 12,000 college kids - they were on fire. They were ready to stand up and lead a movement of courageous conservatives to turn the country around. And it was breathtaking. It was inspiring. Seeing their passion really gives me incredible strength. The very first voice I spoke to after the announcement speech was you when I was handed the phone to go on-air with you yesterday.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: I want to tell you -- and I say this for you, not for us. This works out horribly for us. But, you know, being our friend may not be the best thing for you.

[laughter]

TED: You know what, I'm very proud to dance with who brought me. And we'll stand together happily.

PAT: Everyone wants to know how they can help you. Everyone wants to roll up their sleeves and get to work for you.

GLENN: Before you answer this, I just want to say, that people like James Carville, they are terrified of you.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: They are warning the Democrats, don't dismiss this guy.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Weren't you world champion debate guy, something like that? I think that was the actual title.

TED: In college, I wasn't exactly one of the cool kids.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Didn't exactly play football.

TED: The star quarterback and then the star debater. There's a little bit of a difference.

[laughter]

GLENN: The smart people in the Democratic party, everybody else is blowing you off, and I'm telling you, between, what you've done and what I know of the people who actually believe in the Constitution, if you play your cards right, you're going to have the biggest grassroots campaign probably next to Obama, if not surpassing Obama. The passion will be there in spades.

TED: Well, and that is at the heart of our campaign. It is a grassroots movement from the people. You mentioned the smart Democrats. Look, the smart Democrats understand that the American people are fundamentally center right. And what worries them is a leader who understands that as well and will speak for the shared common sense conservative values we have across this country. So many Republican leaders have bought the media spin that the American people have abandoned our values. And that's simply not true.

I'll give you an example. Last week I was on your show. And on the show, we asked people to text in the word "Constitution" to the number 33733. Do you know how many people texted in?

GLENN: I do.

TED: 26,295.

STU: Wow.

PAT: That's great.

TED: It was incredible. That was ten minutes on your show. Over 26,000 people texted in. I'll tell you, the 24 hours since we launched the campaign, the number of people who have gone to our website, TedCruz.org, and contributed to the campaign has been astonishing. The website blew up yesterday. And all of the political elites in Washington and New York are saying there's no way a real conservative can compete with the establishment choice because you won't have the money that comes from the lobbyists.

Look, our strength is the grassroots. And we have been saying since the moment we announced, people over and over and over again coming to TedCruz.org. If they can, they max out. But even if they can't, they give $10, or $25, or $50. And that will fuel our effort to build a grassroots army of courageous conservatives all over this country.

GLENN: So, Ted, let me ask you this. This is a hard question. I like Rand Paul. I like Scott Walker. I'd like to see those guys advance. There are progressives in the Republican, i.e. Jeb Bush, that just need to be stopped or we'll end up with Jeb Bush. Is it at all part of your strategy or will you consider not going after Rand and Scott Walker, Rand in particular, to keep the guys who love the Constitution in play so folks your energy on the people who are the progressives?

TED: I very much like and respect Rand Paul. I like and respect Scott Walker. They're both good guys.

My focus is not going to be going after anybody. My focus will be making the affirmative case that, number one, what I think primary voters are looking for is someone who is a consistent conservative who says the same thing yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and who will stand up and do what he said he would do. And I think to win, the only way we'll win is if you have a full spectrum conservative who has a proven record standing for principle, whether it's on Obamacare; whether it is stopping the debt ceiling; whether it is stopping President Obama's executive amnesty; whether it's defending the first amendment, free speech, religious liberty; defending the second amendment; defending our privacy; defending the tenth amendment and stopping Common Core; standing with the nation of Israel; standing up to Iran and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

And I'll tell you, as I look at the potential field, I see a lot of people who I like and respect who are friends of mine. If you look at those issues that I've just listed off and you ask of all of the senators and governors looking at this field -- looking at this race, how many of them have actually stood up and led and engaged meaningfully on the great issues today?

PAT: Only you.

GLENN: Only you. That's why we're such big supporters. So let me take you here. Yesterday there was pushback on education. You were talking about the right to education, et cetera, et cetera. Ronald Reagan came out and he wanted to defund and shut down the Department of Education. Will you go that far?

TED: Absolutely. Of course, we should shut down the Department of Education. It has been driving federal mandates and intruding into the critical role of education. I think education is too important to be dictated by unelected bureaucrats in Washington. It should at the state level or even better at the local level where we as parents can have direct influence and control over what's being taught to our kids.

GLENN: This is the thing that attracts me to Libertarianism. I can be as conservative as I want and my neighbor could be Ben & Jerry the ice cream guys, and we can get along as long as neither of us are trying to control the other's lives. That's where Washington needs to be stopped. Because we can get along if I'm not trying to tell you what church to go to and how to live your life and you're not telling me what education I have to have or how I must tolerate X, Y, or Z.

TED: Well, and that's one of the reasons you and I see eye to eye on so many issues. I have described myself - I am a conservative, but with strong Libertarian leanings. And I think the path to victory is reassembling the old Reagan coalition. Bringing together conservatives and Libertarians and evangelicals and Reagan Democrats and Republican women and young people and Hispanics. And that's one of the things we saw so powerfully in Texas when I ran for Senate in 2012. You know, I think it was the case that in 2012, that I was the only candidate in the country who was endorsed by both Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

And you talk about two political leaders who don't generally see eye to eye on much, and their supporters often have sharp disagreements. And yet we had both Ron Paul and Rand Paul came, did an enormous rally with me in the state capitol. We had thousands of young people out in the hot sun. And Rick Santorum came to Dallas. We had another rally with thousands of evangelicals come together. If we're going to win, we have to appeal to the shared values that bring together courageous conservatives across this country. I think that's the path to victory

PAT: Sounds really good.

GLENN: I remember standing in Rick Perry's office, and I had just gotten here. And it was the week before your election. And he said to me, 'you're backing the wrong guy.' And I said, 'what?' And he said, 'Ted Cruz, you're backing the wrong guy.' And I said, 'governor, I don't think so.' And he said, 'you don't know Texas politics.' And I said, 'I don't think you know the American people on this. And I'm new to Texas, so maybe you're right. But I think you'll be surprised by this.'"

How much of that surprise, you were not supposed to win. You were way outspent. You were way outgunned and yet you won. How much did your win here in Texas play a role in your decision to run for president?

TED: It was a very significant factor. It demonstrated that the overwhelming power of the grassroots, and that's what a lot of the Washington political establishment don't understand. In Texas, when we launched the campaign, beginning of 2011, when we started, I was literally at 2 percent in the polls. As I've often joked, the margin of error was 3 percent.

[laughter]

And, Glenn, you'll appreciate this. When I went home to Heidi and said, 'sweetheart, we're at 2 percent.

And he said, 'technically couldn't you be at negative one?'"

PAT: This is all really promising, if only you weren't Canadian. Oh, darn it. Can you believe that's come up already? You have the View crew wanting to see your birth certificate. Whoopi Goldberg was accusing you of harping on the birth certificate with Obama. Which I never saw you do. Ever.

GLENN: Did you ever do that?

TED: No.

Look, I think you can tell a lot about a person by who comes out shooting at them. I thought it was very interesting that The New York Times said yesterday, Cruz cannot possibly be the candidate because the Washington political elites hate him. And my immediate reaction was, 'gosh, do I have to declare that to the FEC as a contribution.' Because I can't summarize what we're trying tolerance better than that. If you want a candidate embraced by the Washington political elites, I ain't your guy. But look, if you want someone who will actually stand with working men and women who want to believe again in the miracle of America, want to bring power back to the people and out of Washington, then that is exactly what we're trying to do in this campaign.

STU: Senator, when President Obama announced his run in 2007, there were a lot of conservatives who said this is a first term senator who has been in office for three years, he doesn't have the experience to be president. A lot of people made that argument on the conservative side. They'll make it against you. What's your answer?

TED: I think two things. Number one, there's a real difference in my tenure in the Senate and Obama's tenure in the Senate. In his time in the Senate, he was a back bencher who did not engage in a lot of issues of consequence.

In the time I've been in there on issue after issue, I've been leading the fight to stop Obamacare, to stop amnesty to stop the debt that is crushing our kids and grandkids. To defend our constitutionally rights. But number two, unlike Barack Obama, I wasn't a community organizer before I came. I spent five and a half years as a solicitor general of Texas, representing Texas in front of the Supreme Court. And we won some of the biggest victories in the country defending conservative principles whether it was the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance or standing up to the world court of the United Nations and defending US sovereignty and winning.

GLENN: Senator, I hate to cut you off. It's TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org. Thank you very much.

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.