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

Rep. Steve King discusses the future of The Patriot Act

June 02, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Rep. Steve King joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss The Patriot Act, it’s future, and current amendments trying to be pushed through Congress.

Watch a highlight below and scroll down for a rough transcript:

GLENN: We have Steve King on. And I know he's proud to be following this conversation, about how Mariah Carey looks like me in a dress. Steve, how are you?

STEVE: Well, I'm doing fine, Glenn, and thank you for having me on. I'm just having trouble imagining you in a dress.

GLENN: Yes. Well, thank you very much. You never know. We now have Bruce Jenner in a dress on the cover of Vanity Fair. So why doesn't everybody get into a dress?

STEVE: I'll have some answers for that, but maybe I should reserve that. Bruce Jenner -- Graceland College, Lamoni, Iowa is where he had his athletic career.

GLENN: Yeah. I would leave it at that here, Steve.

STEVE: Thanks for the good counsel.

GLENN: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So, Congressman, we want to talk to you because I think we disagree on something. And you're one of the really good guys in Congress. You're a guy I really trust. I think you've been there for a long time and you haven't folded and become a dirtbag. And I respect your point of view. But you're for the USA Freedom Act, except you're actually for it being a little stronger and giving the government even more control. And you're going to have to convince me of this because I despise the Patriot Act. I want them to have a warrant if they have a problem with somebody. And not a general warrant of, everybody who has eyes and a nose and at least one ear.

STEVE: Well, Glenn, yeah, I think we would be on a different place on the Patriot Act. And I have -- I have sat in through a lot of classified briefings and go into the secure room and read what's in there. That gives me an exclusive piece of information that I can't talk with -- you know, that's different from yours or anybody else's. It's just that as I see this -- and I went back and reviewed a case, Smith v. Maryland, 1979, that said there's not an expectation of privacy when it comes to public domain and phone bills. And that's the foundation of this metadata collection. I'm at this place where I want to protect people's privacy. And I'm okay with ending the metadata protection. That's outside the bounds of what we thought and intended when this Patriot Act was passed. But I'm suggesting instead of us having no metadata access because we have a cyber war to fight against. There's no reason to suspend the Constitution. But we have a cyber war to fight against the rallied Islam. Islamic jihad. I offered an amendment that would allow our NSA to reach an agreement, to negotiate with telecommunication companies to hold the data for them so they actually do have access to it, rather than beings subject to whether those companies -- the private companies decide to keep it or not. And that way, the information will be within the hands of the private sector, which doesn't seem to give people a lot of heartburn. And yet, still, it would be accessible under a FISA warrant, which there are only some 20 people, 30 people that have access to that.

GLENN: So here's where I want to see if we can reach agreement here, Steve. I don't have a problem -- if companies collect my information, I expect that. And I don't like -- if I don't like it, I can go to another company. If a company chooses to do that -- there's two parts of this. I don't want our federal government collecting all this data. There's no good from them having access to every phone call and everything that you've ever done, even if they don't listen. Even if they don't read. At some point, when the average person, they now say, is committing three felonies unknown to them every single day, all it requires is somebody who has ill will for one group or another and they can prove you doing anything because they have all the data. What I really want is, A, the government not holding all this data themselves, and, B, an actual constitutional warrant.

If everybody is for -- if you have a bad guy, you know, if they would have gone with the Tsarnaev brothers, and the government would have come and said, hey, we need to get their phone records because, you know, they've been out of the country. They're going over to Chechnya and everything else. Everybody would have said, yeah, go ahead. That makes sense. But just to gather everybody's is wrong, and to have a blanket warrant is wrong

STEVE: Well, then -- a blanket warrant, I think that's -- I think that's a different kind of an issue than what we actually have here, as far as the blanket warrant is concerned. Unless you consider that the telephone metadata is actually being something that is being processed to try to identify what they're doing. I've suggested this that, if we're not -- either one of us are very concerned about the private sector companies, the telecommunications companies holding that data, they need it for billing. And if they didn't have the data, someone would sue them for billing them unjustly and they wouldn't be able to defend themselves. So the data will be there for a period of time. I can ask the intelligence community how long they need to have access to that data, and they were talking in terms of five years, about three or four years ago. And that's what they'll say essentially under oath. But if you get it back to private, then maybe 18 months. And I look at this -- we chased Osama bin Laden around for nine and a half years before we finally got him. And he was still plotting attacks against the United States according to recent reports coming out of the data that they released from the compound. So I don't know how long we need access. I think the intelligence community has certainly a better measure than I do. If it's five years and not a year and a half, if we had a provision in the USA Freedom Act that ends all government metadata collection, I should say, but allows them to reach a contract with Verizon, for example. Verizon, will you hold that data for a longer period of time? We'll pay you to store it. And it's available under a constitutional warrant, under a foreign intelligence surveillance court, that should satisfy the constitutional concerns of people and their privacy concerns. Do you see a flaw in that approach?

GLENN: I honestly -- Congressman, I just don't trust -- you know, we were talking about it yesterday. And I asked, does anybody here believe that the United States government stopped this program yesterday? Nobody. Nobody believes that.

We talked to Rand Paul and he was explaining -- I think it was under executive order like 1332 or something. He said they've got another, through executive order, that you guys don't even know the full details on. That they're collecting this metadata under. The problem is, I don't think we're having honest conversations. Because I think -- I don't believe there's anybody in the United States that wants to have another terrorist attack, except for terrorists. There's -- everybody wants to do common sense things, but we want to do them right and do them constitutionally. But I don't think that we're having a real conversation on those things. You know, just this whole Freedom Act seems to be pushed through really rather secretively, it seems, by the Republicans. And I don't understand it. Why can't we have an adult conversation?

STEVE: Glenn, we should have an adult conversation. I think you put your finger on it. I reviewed today the op-ed that I wrote a year ago. I believe it's dated May 14th of 2014. Maybe May 20th. Somewhere close to there. In that op-ed, I wrote and complained that it was secretive, and it was hushed, and it was rushed through. Then it sat dormant for a year, and they bring it back and do essentially the same thing. So when I offer my amendment, which I think it should get -- and it got support from people like Louie Gohmert and others who are very concerned about privacy, but also concerned about national security. When I offered that amendment, it was no deal because we've already negotiated this. We've negotiated with the Democrats. And John Conyers and Jerry Nadler and others have cosponsored the legislation signed onto the bill. Therefore, we can't let it be changed by any amendment, no matter how good it is. That's also true on the Senate side, if you look at the cosponsors over there. You have people that are as disparate -- for example, Leahy and Mike Lee, whom I have great respect for. They came together on this conclusion on how to approach the metadata collection. Trust the telecoms to hold the data and then leave the question open as to -- well, essentially it's been addressed a little bit now -- but leave it open as to whether the government can negotiate for that data to be held longer or not. I think the case is closed on that because they voted my amendment down twice. So I don't think telecommunication companies will believe that Congress has somehow implied that they should be able to negotiate holding that data longer, if they voted my amendment down.

So that's where this is at. I want our nation to be safe. I want us to be constitutionally principled. I want to live with that. And yet, in today's world, we have a president who just is not bound by his own oath. And the Constitution no longer means in the eyes of the public what it was understood to mean at the time of ratification. And that has been eroded dramatically over the last six years, and that is a big problem.

GLENN: Well, see, this is where -- I would like to have the conversation with you, is we said to -- to Rand Paul yesterday, it's not just this president. It's any president. No president should be able to have this kind of access to this kind of information. I don't want this in the hands of any government. So when you ask, you know, would you be comfortable with what you just proposed? If it really is -- and this is the key part -- if it really is private companies hold information and then if there is a suspect, you go and get a warrant for that specific information and the company gives you that information, if that's -- that's what we've always done. You know -- that's the way it's supposed to work. So, yeah, I don't have a problem with that. I just don't think that that's going to happen.

STEVE: Well, I'm listening here. And I'm thinking, Glenn. How would I think about this. This might be a good exercise for a lot of your listeners too. How would I think about this data if it were a gun that I was buying? Would I want the federal government to have a record of every gun, when the transaction was, so they knew where it was so they could go and find it? No, I don't want that. So I don't want -- neither do I want them to have it in their hands that data that would allow them to go in and do a complete examination of my activities. The same fashion I wouldn't want them to know if I had guns or where they would be for that matter. That does help I think clarify what we have here. Yet, I'm not worried that my gun dealer has those records in his hands. And I'm not worried if there's a crime if they come in and serve a warrant on my gun dealer and say, you can't buy a gun here. That's maybe the way to frame this so that people can understand it and so that we can come to a conclusion and an agreement.

GLENN: Do you believe the USA Freedom Act will do that?

STEVE: I think that it will do that because it ends government date collection. I think it leaves vulnerable because it doesn't have a provision that encourages the telecommunication companies to hold that data. So I think we're less safe. That's my bottom line. We're less safe, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. So let me ask you -- do you believe that the government will actually stop? I mean, how do you build a 2 billion-dollar data collection place just outside of Salt Lake City and then shut it down? Do you believe they'll actually shut those things down?

STEVE: I think he's more likely to shut down Gitmo than he is that date collection place outside of Salt Lake.

GLENN: Yeah, it's not going to happen.

STEVE: No. And we're a year and a half of this president -- and I think for any president, that's a legitimate and a valid comment and concern. This one though has done more damage to our understanding of constitutional principles than any president we've ever had. And I'm looking for a president that will restore the soul of America, and that means repair and refurbish the pillars of American exceptionalism. And our Founding Fathers expected that when our president gave his oath of office, that he would abide by it. And that's the big flaw we have going on right now too.

GLENN: Can you give me the names of three people that you think are running that you think could do it? Three or one?

STEVE: You know, it's a little bit early in my process to answer that since I am from Iowa, anything I say affects the race a little bit.

GLENN: Yeah, okay. I'll let you slide.

STEVE: Five or six or seven of them, I'd put their names in a hat, draw one out, and gleefully say Mr. President. Then I draw the Vice President. The rest could be in the cabinet, Glenn. There's some good people out there.

GLENN: Wow. Yeah, there are. There are. I think this is the best selection of people that we've ever had, at least in my lifetime, I think. We've had some good candidates before, but there's a lot of good candidates. Thank you very much, Congressman. I really appreciate it.

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.