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

Fundamental Transformation: Obama trying to change the definition of “individualism”

June 11, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Barack Obama promised his presidency would fundamentally transform the United States of America, and it sounds like he won’t stop until they are literally rewriting the dictionary. In a recent speech, President Obama redefined the American concept of “rugged individualism” - and it no longer involves “rugged” or “individualism”.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: So the president has come out with a fascinating new definition -- because that's really what we're into now, new definitions. We've redefined brave. We've redefined hate. We've redefined love. Let's we define -- because we have to change our words and our meanings. Let's redefine rugged individualism.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Before we go on, I just have to ask everybody here. Rugged individualism. How would you define that Jeff Fisher?

JEFFY: Strong by yourself.

PAT: The ability to take care of oneself, right? Come what may, you're independent. I'm going to make my own way. I'm going to make sure that whatever happens to me and mine, I'm going to take care of it.

JEFFY: And I don't need you.

PAT: I don't need you.

STU: This is the definition of individualism. The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant. Now, rugged to me in this particular context would indicate that it's not always going to be easy. It might be bumpy. It might be hard. It might be tough to get through it. But you do it anyway because you believe in self-reliance so much.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: You're tough. You're tough. Nothing will stop you from being self-reliant.

PAT: It certainly doesn't mean I'm depending on the government.

STU: No.

GLENN: Well, who would say that?

STU: Let me give you definition number two before you figure that out: A social theory -- this is for individualism -- a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. That is the actual definition of the word.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So we got it. Rugged. Come hell or high water. Individualism, I am going to fend for myself and I'm going to make it. Rugged individualism. Here's the president's definition.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism that defines America has always been bound by a shared set of values.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. I just want to say -- it's defined by a shared set of values. So we're already into the collective. It's defined by a shared --

PAT: Yeah, you're sharing it with everybody. My individualism is shared with everybody. My individualism is so collective that we all have it.

[laughter]

GLENN: I'm so independent that I'm tied to you in the same definition.

PAT: Yes.

OBAMA: That we're in this together.

PAT: We're in it together. Forget individualism. We're in it together.

GLENN: My individualism is a shared definition that we're all in it together.

[laughter]

OBAMA: That America is not a place where we simply turn away from the sick.

GLENN: Stop. Now, notice what he's done.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We're all in it together. Our rugged -- I'm going to redefine some words and some theories here for you, kiddoes. I'm going to take and I'm going to turn it upside down. But then once I do that, before you can say that doesn't make any sense, I'm going to throw in something that we all do share, we don't let people starve. We don't let people die on the street.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And if you want to define rugged individualism any other way, that means you'll let them die on the street.

PAT: That's what this guy does.

GLENN: That's what he's doing.

PAT: That's what he does all the time.

GLENN: That's how he makes you into someone who must be hated because he's redefining words. We all know that -- Webster, not the little black guy, the dictionary says -- Webster says rugged individualism is a determination to be able to make it on your own. Come hell or high water, you will make it on your own.

STU: Without anyone's help.

GLENN: Without anybody's help. That's the definition of that. He's changing the definition. And to be able to call you a bigot or a hater that just wants to have people die, he has to redefine the words "rugged individualism."

So when you say, wait a minute. No, I'm a Libertarian and I believe we can all make it. He then can go, well, see we -- we once had this shared idea that we don't let people starve in the street. Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. We were talking about what it means to be a rugged individual. It didn't mean I didn't help the person on the street who was dying, who maybe got their hand cut off by, oh, I don't know one of the new Islamic, you know, terrorists that you have working at the Department of Homeland Security. I don't know. Maybe that's what happened.

PAT: Rugged individualism has nothing to do with anybody starve to death. It has nothing to do with being poor. It has nothing to do --

GLENN: With the collective.

PAT: Any of this crap he's talking about.

GLENN: Right. It has nothing to do with the collective. It's who you are and how you make it. It doesn't mean that you make it at anybody else's expense. You're making it because you won't take a handout from anybody else. You don't need it. You will make it. It will make you stronger. You see somebody along the way that needs help. My Christianity, which I know he doesn't like, my Christianity tells me I have to help. My rugged individualism says, I don't need help. I'm going to do it. And I'm going to make it. And don't spend your time worrying about me. You worry about you.

Then when I get to somebody on the side of the street, my Christianity says, I got to help that person.

PAT: Yeah. It doesn't say I have to pay more taxes so the government can help that person. It says I have to.

STU: Individually.

PAT: Again, individually. So it's not conflicting with your rugged individualism.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: Everything he's saying conflicts with the definition he's supposedly defining.

GLENN: I --

PAT: I mean, this is madness. This is --

GLENN: I'd like to raise my hand. I'd like to raise my hand. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. I just can't go there anymore. I raise my hand to say enough of the insanity.

PAT: How is it that somebody in this audience doesn't raise their hand and say, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. You don't have any clothes on right now. You have no clothes.

GLENN: He wasn't wearing clothes?

PAT: No, he wasn't. He was completely naked.

GLENN: Wow. For a minute I thought you were referring to that fairytale, the emperor has no clothes, but he's --

PAT: No, I was really -- it wasn't a metaphor. He was actually naked. He was actually naked.

GLENN: He was actually naked. Wow. Okay.

PAT: It was weird. I don't know why he did that.

GLENN: But there's more.

OBAMA: Turn our backs on the tired. The poor. The huddled masses.

It is a place sustained by the idea, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That we have an obligation to put --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. That's not what sustains us. That's not what sustains us. I am my brother's keeper? All we would be is a hospital. That's all we would be.

PAT: And a broke one.

GLENN: And a broke one. No. It requires people to go out and create something.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That's what sustains us. What lifts us up and makes us a great nation is we also help people and love people. My gosh this guy doesn't get it. He's -- honestly, he has a third grade understanding of the United States of America.

PAT: I don't give him that much credit.

GLENN: In today's world. Today's third grade.

OBAMA: And see each other's common humanity.

GLENN: Still defining rugged individualism.

OBAMA: After decades of trying, after a year of sustained debate, we finally made health care reform a reality here in America.

PAT: All about health care. Rugged individualism is about socialized health care.

STU: Again, I give you a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. It's actually in the --

GLENN: It's actually the exact opposite of the dictionary definition.

STU: Uh-huh. And there we are. As Jeffy said so many times, whatever they say, you should believe the opposite.

JEFFY: Because the opposite is true.

STU: And here it is.

GLENN: That is absolutely unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

PAT: I don't -- I really -- I mean, I know he does this all the time. How does he get away with it? There's nobody that's curious about --

GLENN: Okay. All right. So when you -- there's two things that have happened to our country. One, you teach people to -- you can't make a difference. Don't say anything. Don't cause a hassle. Just -- just leave it alone. It will pass. Okay? So there's the first reason why we don't say anything. Just don't -- we're not -- we're not those people. We never have been. We just all want to get along. Okay? So we have backed up and backed up and backed up. And we have been taught to back up. Then comes the second lesson. You better shut up or we'll destroy you. Now, there is a third lesson to this. And that is, I'm going to beat you nearly to death and the fourth lesson is, I'm going to beat you to death. But the first two lessons are, you don't make a difference. It's better just to leave it alone. Just be quiet. That one has been taught my whole life. The second lesson has just started in the last ten years. And that is, shut up, or I'll destroy you. The third lesson is coming soon. Shut up or I will beat you within an inch of your life. And all you have to do is beat a few people. So we don't say anything because we're like -- have you ever been around a dog that has been abused? You are around a dog who's been abused, you reach out to pet that dog, and they turn away. They put their head down. They see that hand coming, and they think they're going to get hit. We're close to being that dog. We're not there yet. But we're close to being that dog.

Many Americans are that dog. We've never been hit. Think we're cowards now? We've never been hit. You have people now who are being put in jail because they were a baker who wouldn't make -- in jail! Not a fine. Jail. You do that, and enough people will say, you know what, I don't want this hassle. I'm just going to go on with my life. I just want to be left alone. We cannot be those people. We cannot be those people. You know, Martin Luther King, by the time he got to -- the entire black population was like that dog who had been abused. They had been abused for 300 years. So every time they saw a white person come, and they, still, many places they still flinch, you're white, they flinch. That's how deep the abuse went. You can't claim anything close to that abuse.

We're just getting to the point to where we're being told, you don't make a difference, and shut up and sit down or I'll destroy you. But look at what happened. When Martin Luther King taught them, no, no, no. Stop arguing. Stop fighting with each other. Start standing together. Start being who you really are. You're good, decent, honorable people that just want a fair shake. You're not trying to hurt anybody else. You're not trying to put the whites out of business. You're not trying to kill them. You're trying to just be a neighbor. That's all you're trying to be, is just be a neighbor. Hey, neighbor. Hey, neighbor. That's it. How unreasonable is that? Stand together and don't flinch. If they hit you, don't hit back. And look what he changed.

We don't have that ground to make up. Only a few people have been imprisoned or thrown in jail, like the baker. We have not had -- we don't have most of our society being thrown in jail. We have not received 300 years of abuses.

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.