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

'How good were you with math?': Glenn confronts Mike Lee on his controversial tax plan

April 15, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Senator Mike Lee helped co-author the controversial tax plan presented by Senator Marco Rubio and Glenn confronted him on the facts today on radio. Glenn, who has been one of Lee’s most vocal supporters, asked him if he was as good at math as he is the law.

GLENN: So yesterday, we read the Rubio Tax Plan, and we think it's butt ugly. However, the Easter egg, as we called it yesterday, was -- the co-sponsor was Mike Lee. So that got us scratching your heads, because we know Mike Lee. And maybe the brilliance of this is it only looks butt ugly, and that's the genes you, because all the Democrats will say this is butt ugly if you are conservative. Mike Lee is smarter than we are. We are missing something. Please tell me that is the case, Mike Lee.

LEE: That is absolutely the case. Thank you for having me on the show. It is hard to get people's attention when introducing a tax plan --

GLENN: Oh, no. Not on America's "Charity Day", when we all feel so very charitable for all the money we gave to the charity called the government?

LEE: Right. Right.

PAT: What are we missing --

LEE: Charity does not take money from people at the point of a gun. Look, our current tax code is bad, okay. It consists of tens of thousands of pages, together with implementing regulations. The current tax code discourages work, savings, investment, new business formation, marriage, and even having children. That's bad. So what we are trying to do is offset that.

I agree with what you were saying a minute ago. It would be great if we had a single rate system. What was true for Malachi ought to be true for government. There ought to be one rate. The problem is you can't really get there from here. You can't really go from a seven-rate system to a one-rate system without raising taxes on a lot of poor and middle class folks.

So we want to simplify the code and do it in a way that's pro-growth and pro-family and offsets the penalties against the very things the government is discouraging right now and ought not be discouraging any longer.

PAT: How did the Russians do it?

LEE: I'm not really an expert in Soviet tax policy.

GLENN: Maybe you should ask someone in the Obama administration. They know all about the Soviets.

PAT: Seriously, this a tax increase for people -- we were figuring about $116,000 to $600,000 some, an increase for them, right?

LEE: No. That is a distortion brought about through the media

PAT: We were looking at it, thinking it looks like an increase.

STU: I know there's more deductions in there, so how do you get rid of that? Seems like the people in that group would pay a little more by the basic numbers.

LEE: The other overwhelming majority of them would not. 80% of all Americans would pay under a simple rate. You could call it a flat rate of 15% under the plan. All income learned below $75,000 by single filerswould be taxed a 15% under this plan, subjection to two deductions.

Then all income below $150,000 for people filing jointly, married, would be taxed at 15% also. We think it is a huge improvement over the status quo, because we don't think your taxes should go up significantly just because you get married. And right now, that is true. Today, some of hat income below $75,000 for singles and below $150,000 for joint filers is taxed at 25%, not under 15% rate, as it would be under our plan. Importantly, and I think it has been misrepresented in the press on this point, is that your tax bill wouldn't jump to 35% on all of your earnings once you make $151,000. Instead, you would pay 15% on $150,000 and 35% of the marginal $1,000 over that level.

GLENN: Can I ask a question? You are saying that we are worried about you are going to raise the taxes on a lot of people paying at the lower end. So you've got a 15% flat tax there, right?

LEE: Yes.

PAT: Two rates.

GLENN: So why don't we do one 15 and one 25 over 150?

LEE: That would been one approach, but as we have run the numbers, we think it is the best way of making it work in a way that doesn't add unduly to our deficit.

This is a work in progress. Rome wasn't built in a day, we are open to all kinds of suggestions. We are open to considering something like that. We weren't able to make the numbers work the first round when we put it together.

But this is still a big tax cut. This is still a $1 trillion tax cut, and that's putting it conservatively. Some would say it is more like a $4 trillion tax cut. This is a very aggressive tax cut, a Reagan-esque type of tax cut. You could say a lot of things about it, but you can't call a tax hike, under any interpretation, any form of mathematics cannot call this --

GLENN: You are so good with the law. How good were you at math? I just want some assurance here, because I trust you, Mike and I like you, and you are really truly one of the good guys, but we are look at this and we just don't see this the same way. We are trying to figure this out.

STU: I'm sure you have accounted for this. But looking at it from the surface, right now, there's a 35% bracket, which kicks in at $411,000 before you start paying that. Now that same rate kicks in at $75,000 with your plan. That is a significant change. I understand the rate below 75,000 for some people will be lower, but that's a big change. You are getting hit with a high rate at $75,000.

LEE: Well, that first $75,000 or first $150,000, if you are married and filing jointly, is never taxed at 35%. It's taxed at 15%, and a --

GLENN: But at $76,000, if I am single, I am paying 35%.

LEE: Yeah. I've got lots of charts and things I could show you, if we were there, but the overwhelming majority of people would not see any tax increase on this, and for most Americans, this would be a very significant tax cut. As important as anything else, it is a tax code simplification. We have to remember, complexity is a subsidy for lawyers and for accountants, for lobbyists and for people who make their business the process of contacting and influences government.

So there are no easy fixes here, but part of the beauty of this plan is that it would dramatically simplify the tax code. It is pro-family, pro-growth, and this is a tax cut plan Reagan would be proud of.

GLENN: Tell me about businesses.

LEE: On the business side, we lower the rate quite significantly down to 20%. We look to a single layer taxation system, and it's at 25%. It's a business tax rate of 25%. We get rid of the double taxation that's in our existing code on the business side by eliminating taxes on capital gains and on dividends. And so we think this is incentivizing all the right things, incentivizing investment and business formation. And overall, it's diminishing the disincentives, the penalties the government is currently putting in place on getting married and having children.

We don't think the government should be involved in those decisions. It shouldn't. And it currently is, and it is punishing the very people who are building our society and getting married and having children. We shouldn't be doing that. We also shouldn't be disincentivizing people from forming businesses.

STU: Seems like every conservative that has looked at this plan loved the business side of this. It really does look like it is a role pro-growth plan and would really help people not only in corporations, but also LLCs and things like that, correct?

LEE: Yes. And it would also be very, very helpful to growing small businesses. It would allow for immediate full expensing to provide tax relief for grows small businesses. So look, Americans, all Americans, will end up being wealthier on this. They will end up having more disposable income, end up with a lot for economic growth as a result.

I'm not saying it's perfect or the kind of plan I would design if we were designing a tax plan ab initio. We have to start

with the government that we have, rather than the one that might have been, had we more sanity in your government over the years.

STU: Real quick, before Glenn comes in with a much smarter question, I'm sure. Reading the way it's structured, it seems to me that what you are doing here -- and there's a lot of good things. The business side is good. I think the vast majority of people, individual earners would pay less under the plan. Not just the majority, but the vast majority would. Is there an element, though, where you are saying let's be honest. Every time we introduce something like a flat tax, they come out, beat it up, say it is a tax cut for the rich. So if we let some of the rich get hit at little bit, we are shielded from that and maybe we can kind of get a bunch of good policy in, but not the whole thing. Is that --

LEE: No, that's not the motivation here, nor is it an accurate description of how this operates in any objective way.

The reason is, first of all, when we get rid of the double layer taxation from the double taxation by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends, that by itself is opening up -- us up to a huge amount of attack from the left that hates this. They also hate the fact we are levering the playing field between big and small businesses. What we want is fair competition, instead of cronyism. What we've got now is cronyism. When we have fair competition, that creates millions of new jobs.

GLENN: But the only way you only have fair competition is to be flat.

LEE: That is a very fair point, Glenn. Again, I can't emphasize enough I would prefer a single flat --

GLENN: Because this is what you said. We can't get there from here. And I understand. I really do understand, you can't change a tire going 150 miles per hour. And so I get that. But, you know, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Barak Obama, they all gave us the biggest tire changes at 150 miles per hour this country has ever seen on our side, on the conservative side. We had Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan. That's it. Calvin Coolidge. That's it. Why is it we are so afraid of standing up and talking common sense and saying you damn right, if the Soviet Union can figure this out, we can do it. If the Marxists and the communists realize that this was a better system, then why can't we? When you look -- I don't remember the number, and I'm sure you know it, like 17.9 or 18% that's the number, no matter what you do to the rates you always collect about that much. So why aren't we just targeting that number?

LEE: Right. Well, again, I would love to go to that kind of system. On average we are able to collect about 18% of GDP through our income tax system. That seems to be a relatively constant figure, regardless of how high you set the top marginal rate, but again, what we are looking at here is the biggest simplification we can get, and one bit eliminates a lot of the --

GLENN: But may I ask you -- and Mike, you know I love you, right?

LEE: I do. And I appreciate that.

GLENN: I respect you. We all respect you and love you.

We are just so frustrated, because if people in Congress would have used and rightly so, and it's not too late -- if they would stand on their desks and shout at the top of their lungs, the IRS has become a weapon against the American people. You could redo it, because you could shut it down. There is nobody on the right or the left except for those in power, that want the IRS to become a weapon. And you have the best shot of shutting the IRS down and cleaning house right now than you have had in 100 years.

LEE: That is a very fair point, and that is exactly why we all ought to be reforming government along exactly the lines I describe in my new awesome book,Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document.

PAT: Nice.

GLENN: Whoa. Man, a week on the radio tour, trying to sell your book. You got good. That was good.

LEE: That stuff doesn't go -- it just flows from the lips. If we have to choose between two rates and tax fairness for working parents, or on the other hand, a one rate system that raises taxes on all families, I think we have to go with the two-rate system. That is fair. That is conservative. This is Burkean conservatism. You are taking a set of contemporary problems and dealing with them in a practical way.

PAT: You just said A 'Barack Obama' false premise there, Mike. I don't think those are the two options, are they? Can we not work it out where it's fair for working families and -- the wealthy are working families, too, by the way.

LEE: Under the current system, we can't work it out that way, because the current system really does punish people for getting married and pushing them for having children.

GLENN: You know why?

LEE: - interacts with your senior entitlement program. There's no way that you get out of having children without a huge penalty through our tax system. The parent tax penalty is something the mainstream media goes out of its way to obscure, and this is a proposal that finally addresses that, in a way that none other does.

GLENN: Because, Mike, with those penalties are there, because it's a -- say it with me -- a Progressive income tax. So maybe we should stop trying to play in the Progressive field. I have one question for you, when we come back, if you could hold for a second. I have to take a break, then I ever one question for you, then we'll cut you lose.

Featured image courtesy of the AP

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.