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

Bruce Jenner transitioning into woman?

April 24, 2015
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

Ahead of the highly promoted two hour interview airing on ABC tonight, speculation is swirling that former Olympic Champion Bruce Jenner will reveal to the world that he is indeed transitioning into a woman. This morning on radio, Glenn reacted to the publicity of the interview and explored some of the national conversation.

Glenn felt true compassion for Jenner, saying that if he really is transitioning into a woman, "if that's true, what a hell his life has been. What an absolute tormented hell his life has been."

Glenn expressed that we should not "clam up" about these topics, but talk openly about them as adults and try to understand it. But, even more important is that we need to remember to love. "We are commanded, as people of faith, to love, not necessarily endorse, but always love."

See more of Glenn's powerful response below. Glenn's full response is provided in the transcript below:

Rough Transcript Below:

GLENN: Could I ask if we can do something as adults, as Americans, that we just don't do anymore, and that is have an open and honest conversation about a really sensitive subject, without hating each other, without throwing stones at each other. Just ask some honest questions, and really try to understand one another. There's this superhyped Diane Sawyer interview everyone is waiting for tonight, I guess, Bruce Jenner. He was spotted the other day wearing a dress, smoking a cigarette, in a full length dress. Quite honestly, I don't care what Bruce Jenner does. It does not affect my life at all. So if Bruce Jenner wants to be a woman, he wants to dress as a woman, he wants to change his sexuality, doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter to me.

I think people are fascinated by this story because back in 1976, was it? He was a decathlon athlete, one on the best on earth, won the gold medal. He was on the Wheaties box. He was a man's man. So I

guess now to see him wearing a dress, you're like what? What? Did he feel that way then? What's happened? And I hope that we're not sickly fascinated like he wants to wear a dress. I don't think we are. I think we are to a point where we've liked this guy in the past, and so we feel for him and we're like what happened to you.

STU: Trying to understand.

GLENN: I want to understand, but I don't know if we can question anymore. So I'm going to try to have a real, open, honest conversation with you about this and about transgendereddism. I don't pretend to understand it. I don't understand it. Maybe it's totally fine, maybe it's not. I don't know. I don't know. What frightens me is if you don't blindly embrace, not just accept it, if you don't blindly embrace it, you are vilified and destroyed, an I think this is dangerous. I would say that about anything, anything. It's not just transgendereddism. A good friend of mine, Keith Ablow, has almost been destroyed. He's a doctor, psychiatrist. A year or so ago, he wrote, I don't see anything but toxicity from the notion of a person with a female anatomy feeling free to use the urinal in a boy's restroom while a boy stand next to her and uses one too. Well, he was viciously attacked. He was called a quack and worse, and he's not. He is a good, decent man.

Because he dared say that there were two genders, he was torn to pieces. Honest question: Who is the science denier here? Are there two genders? Or is everything fluid? And can anyone really claim that the bathroom situation is not a legitimate concern? This is new territory for humankind. So we're taking -- we should be taking baby steps and not runs towards anything, because we don't know. And we want to make sure we don't hurt people along the way. Either those who want to be transgendered or those who do not want to be transgendered. We don't want to do damage either way.

But are you telling me we all have is just blindly accept and embrace a male using a female bathroom and a female using a male bathroom, and then just -- we're all just supposed to blindly accept no genders. There's just go genders. You are not allowed to see any difference between a man and a woman. Now, this is a conversation that we can have as adults, and we should have, and we have to have as adults. And this is the situation with Bruce Jenner. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me. What happens with me doesn't matter, because Bruce Jenner -- whatever, man. Whatever. I'm an adult, he's an adult. I'm worried about our children. And NBC now is running a series on transgendered children, a series on this. Children.

The one I saw was a seven-minute segment on the "NBC Nightly News", and it was about a 4-year-old. And he's gone from girl to boy. He's 5 now. And I mean this sincerely. This is not hyperbole and this is not just a rhetorical question: Are you sure this is the responsible thing for a parent to do; to all of a sudden say to your 4-year-old, you know what; you are a boy. You didn't like being a girl. You are a boy. Wear boy clothes, Tut your hair like a boy, we are changing your name. Everyone will treat you like a boy. Again, I'm not asking you with the answer. I'm asking you as a person that doesn't study this stuff. We all heard in the 1950s we shouldn't discipline our kid. We should tell them they are all winners. We should all give them trophies and ribbons, and we are seeing how that's turned out. All that advice was garbage. Can we slow down and really think? Because we are screwing with children.

And again, I'm not saying stop, because maybe it is the right thing to do. They said their son was uncomfortable being a girl starting at 2, so they went with that. Now, I'm a dad of four, and I will tell you your kids are born with their personality. They are born with their personality. Doesn't really matter. I mean, it does matter what you do as a parent, but there's some things your kids come out with and that's who they are. And they're that way forever, at least till 27.

That's as long as I can go. But they are who they are. So maybe -- I don't know, but in this segment, there was a heart-wrenching statement from the kid I want you to hear.

VOICE: If you talk to gay and lesbian adults, the vast majority will tell you they knew they were gay or lesbian when they were children, and gawking about a gay child would seem taboo or terrifying or bizarre. No longer. There are transgender children across the country. NBC's Kate Snow talked to one family about what it means to make a world accept that.

VOICE: Saying things like why did God make me this way? Why did God make me wrong? A child shouldn't have to live like that.

GLENN: So this is the question. God doesn't make anything wrong. He doesn't make anything wrong. If he was making mistakes, then he'd be a pretty crappy God. And I mean that -- again, I am not trying to be jokey about it. I mean that. He'd be a really lousy God, if it was like oh, man I really screwed that one up. He wouldn't be God, but in all this hysteria, the Bruce Jenner thing, the kids highlighted in NBC, can we even question this? Just as you can't have a religious viewpoint that's contrary to the feelings on home mock sexuality that we now have coming from the media, and from the elites, you can't have those anymore. You are shouted down, silenced, fired from whatever

job you had. Now, can you even say there are two genders, that there are male and female?

There are two genders, male and female, with the exception of 33 hundredth of 1% of births, you could be born a hermaphrodite. So now what does that mean? Did God make a mistake? Is there something beyond hermaphrodite that maybe the parts are parts, but something -- I don't even know. I don't know how it works, but there's something else inside the body that makes them feel like they're a boy or a girl when they're the opposite? Maybe. I don't know. But there's no such thing as gender neutral. Gender fluid, gender questioning, gender nonconforming, pangender, cisgender. Facebook identifies 51 separate genders. 51 separate genders. Another site lays claim to 63 different genders. I'm talking to you as an adult here. The way I was raised, you have a vagina or a penis, and that identifies you, okay? Now, do we have to open our eyes and say there's more to it? Maybe. Maybe we do, but can we please have it in a non-shout people down, calling people names kind of things? I'm not going to call someone a freak because they -- I'm not making fun of Bruce Jenner. I'm not going to shout him down, I'm not going to judge him. Don't judge others who say now wait a minute, wait a minute, is this right, especially when we are talking about children. Can we even ask these questions? This is going to be a real test. Can Glenn Beck get on his radio show and ask these questions in a humble way, really, truly seeking answers and asking the most important question, can we all have an adult conversation and not just jam this down everybody's throat, one way or the other. Can we have this and remain on the air?

Think of this. Bruce Jenner, we all thought was born a male. He thrived for 64 years as a male. He's now telling us he was born a woman, living inside of a male. Well, if that's true, what a hell his life has been. What an absolute tormented hell his life has been. Can we ask questions? Can we watch Diane Sawyer and not gawk? Can wewatch Diane Sawyer and disagree, or do we need to shut up, sit down and applaud anyone who switches from male to fluid or female or pangender or one of the other 63 other genders. And do we really have to clam up about public bathroom usage during these transitions? I have daughters, I have sons. My son is 10. I don't want him going into a public bathroom because of the straight guys there, what might be child predators. Nothing about homosexual or transgender or anything else. I've got my hand full worrying about straight guys who want to touch my son. I worry about my daughters. Do we really have to shut up about this? Is there nobody that says hey, hey, hey, I understand. I do understand. Bruce Jenner is seriously confused. That's what he would have to say for his life. He was seriously confused for a while. Well, Bruce, that's the way the rest of Americafeels. We're seriously confused. We don't know what's right. I'm not gender confused. I'm just confused about the volume of genders

that there is now, and what we are supposed to do about it.

Stop acting, left and right, that this is just an open and shut case. I don't know of a time in human history when this has ever happened. This is new, because man can become God. Forget about male or female.

Man thinks he's God. The speed at which the world is changing is breath-taking, and quite honestly, when things change this fast, people tend to hold onto those time-tested virtues and values that are eternal truths, and many of those are found in our religious doctrine. And deeply held religious views do not change with the draperies. They don't change with the size of the pant leg or the length of skirts or the length of a collar, because if they did, they wouldn't be eternal. They wouldn't be from God. And none of this has anything to do with hate. People of faith are commanded to love. We must love Bruce Jenner, we must -- when we watch this tonight, if you watch this tonight, will your heart break or will you break the commandment and just flip by it and say, freak.

We are commanded, as people of faith, to love, not necessarily endorse, but always love. For those who want to shout religious people down, are you commanded to love? Can we have an actual conversation without shouting someone down, without destroying them, without driving them out of society? Or is that a bridge too far for this, quote, open-minded society?

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.