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

'I don't think Matthew is a fan': Glenn responds to writer bashing his newest bestseller

September 18, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Glenn thanked his audience on radio Friday for helping spread the word about something nobody in Washington seems to understand or care about — the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

Islam_final_hirez

In his newest book, It IS About Islam, which has topped The New York Times bestseller list for the past three weeks, Glenn drew on quotes from the Koran and the hadith, as well as from leaders of ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to expose the true origins of Islamic extremism.

"You need to know the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist," Glenn said.

He went on.

"As I was thinking about this the other day, and I got the call that we were number one on The New York Times list again, I thought to myself, 'Hmm, isn't it weird that the leftists in America is so quiet on a book that's number one?'"

That was before Glenn found a Salon article written by Matthew Pulver, entitled "Glenn Beck’s terrifying new book: 300 pages of Islamophobia dressed up as scholarship."

"When I finished with the article, I started to realize, 'I don't think Matthew is a fan,'" Glenn said.

Glenn proceeded to set the record straight on every false claim brought up in Pulver's article.

Listen to the entertaining radio segment here, or read the full transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: I want to thank you for making -- I think this is the third week in a row that we're number one for It Is About Islam.

This is the exposing of the truth about ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, and the caliphate, and it is important for you to understand it because nobody in Washington seems to understand it or seems to care. And there is a difference between a Muslim and an Islamist. And you need to know the difference between Muslim and Islamist.

And as I was thinking about this the other day, and I got the call that we were number one on the New York Times list again. I thought to myself, "Hmm, isn't it weird that the leftists in America is so quiet on a book that's number one?"

It kind of makes me and my security detail a little nervous. Why are they so quiet about this? Usually I -- I mean, they should have tried to put me out of business by now. Called me all kinds of horrible names.

PAT: Death threats. All kinds of fun things.

GLENN: All kinds of fun things. But then I found Matthew Pulver's gem, if I can call it -- truly wonderful. Just terrific.

PAT: It's a special article.

GLENN: It's a special article. Terrific.

STU: Is it phenomenal?

GLENN: Yeah, it is phenomenal. And this comes from Salon. And the headline is Glenn Beck's terrifying new book. Three hundred pages of Islamophobia dressed up as scholarship.

Now, it's interesting that he used Islamophobia Because I show you the root of the word "Islamophobia" in the book, where it came from, who started it, why they're doing it.

And he executes it perfectly. If he'd read the book, he would see exactly how he fits right perfectly into the game. But when I finished with the article, I -- I started to realize, "I don't think Matthew is a fan."

(laughter)

GLENN: Really.

PAT: I got that impression too.

GLENN: Did you read the article too?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Weird. And it starts out subtle. It starts out with: Glenn Beck would like to tell you about Islam. Sure, he's a walking conspiracy generator who has been wrong, nearly every time he parts his lips. Which is a lot -- I mean, that seems strong.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But he gives me a couple of examples. He writes: Wrong about Obama's SS-like civilian national security force, which is interesting that he put civilian national security force in quotations because it's such a crazy quote. You've got to quote -- you have to put that quote in there because --

PAT: Then you know --

GLENN: Civilian -- how crazy.

PAT: He was actually quoting you.

GLENN: No. Actually, no. He was actually quoting, not me, but Barack Obama.

OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

GLENN: Okay. So never had an explanation on that. And I have mused a few times on, "What the hell is that?"

Now we can argue all day over what he was talking about. But I can't be wrong about Obama's civilian national security force because he's the one who said they were going to build it. So I don't know what it is. But he continues and he says: Beck was wrong about Obama's FEMA camps, which is really an interesting one. We heard the rumors about the FEMA camps. And then we wanted to find out if there was anything about the FEMA camps. Is there any truth to that rumor at all? Have my staff, you know, go and do the work. Get on TV and say, hey, I just want to tell you, at 5 o'clock today, we're going to tell you the truth about FEMA camps. Let me tell you about FEMA camps. There's no FEMA camps. They don't exist.

STU: You didn't by any chance use your own resources and send cameramen to the actual location to show that --

GLENN: Of course not.

STU: You didn't invite someone from popular mechanics to disprove --

GLENN: No. To disprove the existence of -- yeah, that's exactly what I did.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: So then he says: Beck was wrong about Obama using the Postal Service as an evil spy network.

STU: I don't remember that show.

PAT: What?

GLENN: Okay. I don't remember that one. It's hard to say that I was wrong about something that I never even heard of, let alone promoted. But maybe I said it. I mean, I've said a million things times 1,000 over the last few years. The Postal Service being used as an evil spy network seems really stupid because, I mean, you know, you've got all the phone companies being used as a spy network. So why -- why would you go to the Postal Service? But, you know, I don't know what the story was. It might have made me say something like that.

PAT: You didn't.

GLENN: Are you sure?

PAT: Yeah. I've never --

GLENN: Well, anyway, he got the phone companies using as a spy network. I know that I've said under George W. Bush, I didn't like the fact that he was calling for people to spy on their neighbors and call us if you see something, call DHS. But hang on just a second. He actually said that, and Barack Obama tried to institute it through the White House. If your neighbor says something, you let us know at whitehouse.gov. So Post Office, I don't remember. But the other stuff was actually being done or was seriously debated. So if he's okay with the NSA monitoring of all email and phone conversations and saving up of all of that information. Okay.

Then he wraps up his slanderous -- sorry, what did I say? Then he wraps up his slanderous nonsensical accusations with this, quote: And the seemingly countless, breathless alarm warnings over the years.

The breathless alarm warnings over the years.

Now, he doesn't print this out. But I'm going to give you some of these warnings that's so breathless and nonsensical that I don't even know why I would say -- for instance, in 1999 when I said, quote, there would be blood and bodies in the streets of New York if we don't pay attention to Osama bin Laden. He means what he says. End quote.

In 2006, '7, and '8, when I warned people to get their money out of the stock market because there was a housing crash that was coming and it would be bad.

The breathless, alarmist warnings like encouraging the uprising in Egypt would lead to a destabilizing of Europe and the Middle East. And the destabilization would spread throughout the Middle East, and a caliphate would be established and then it would spread to Europe and destabilize all of Europe.

Or probably I was out of breath when I warned that Greece was about to collapse. That Germany wouldn't be willing to continue to lend Greece the money. That was crazy. Or my breathless warnings when I said Nazis will come back and you will find them in Greece, and you will find them, Nazis and fascists all over Europe. I was out of breath when I said that because that was a long sentence. Or the breathless alarmist when I said the fed would print money and then they would print more money. And then they wouldn't be able to stop printing more money. Or when I said that Russia would lead the world into a plan to dedollarize the rest of the world. And that China would stop buying our debt. That was breathless and alarmist. Because I remember them telling us, that China needs us. They will never do that. Or when I said that progressives would become so bold that they would admit finally, yeah, you know what, we are socialists because this capitalist thing doesn't work. So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with being a socialist.

Now, that warning is crazy too because isn't an avowed socialist leading the party in at least two primary states right now? Just wanted to point that out.

So I don't know Matthew Pulver at all, but he apparently has such blind rage, that he obviously didn't bother checking into a single fact. And the people at Salon are so sloppy and such hacks, that it doesn't -- they don't lose any sleep at night because that's what they do for a living. The hatred is so complete that this author finds himself enraged with the phrase "all lives matter." Now, I want you to think about that. All lives matter enrages you. He writes, all lives matter concludes the book as if Christian nationalism throughout needed a final splash of racism.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Could I ask, when did the proclamation that all lives matter become racist? Because all, at least in my book, includes white, black, brown, yellow, red. All includes all. If I tell my kids, pick up all of your toys, if they only pick a few of their toys, I'm kind of pissed off at them. And I ask them, do you understand that I just said, pick up all of your toys? All means all. But maybe -- maybe it would have had a point if I concluded in my book that some lives matter or a few lives matter. Or only American lives matter. But I said all lives matter.

Then he goes into this. In a nice symmetry between the final white reactionary note recalls the scene on which the book opens. The Thomas Jefferson prophetically consulting the Koran before he became, quote, the first American president to go to war with Islamic radicals, end quote.

In the 1801 war with North American Barbary States, essentially the United States' first foreign war, Beck shocks his reader with a revelation by the Barbary ambassador in 1786 to Jefferson and his eventual presidential predecessor John Adams. The Islamic Barbary armies used Koranic scripture to permit the enslavement of a portion of enemies captured in battle.

Enslaving Americans, Africans doing that? But that's the wrong way around. And relying on pro-slavery scripture that isn't the Bible? Beck is so eager to construct a narrative in which Islamic hordes have always pounded the innocent American gates. Casually he overlooks the horror of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, of which Jefferson was no small beneficiary in the biblical means of its defense.

Now, Matthew, I have to tell you, I didn't -- what is it, casually overlook the horror of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. It's just, this isn't a book about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and its horrors. If you want a book about that, one that's been on the market for a long time is Roots. Great story. Not exactly true. It didn't actually happen to Alex Haley's family.

PAT: Still riveting.

GLENN: Still riveting and still basically true

STU: Why would you think Salon needed it to be true?

GLENN: You're right. You're right.

So he doesn't dispute the facts. He doesn't allege that I'm wrong about going to war in 1801 against Muslim pirates. He just thinks that I should talk about something else.

Throughout the rest of the article, Pulver vents obvious disdain and lack of understanding for both me, Christianity, and the Bible. And did I mention his disdain for me? And he doesn't cite a single fact that's inaccurate. This writer could apparently get past the fact that it is about Islam, rather than just some person or some group. But, see, that's the whole point of the book. It's not a nice -- I hate to boil it down to something so simple. It is about Islam, as we painstakingly documented in the book. The persons and the group get their ideology from the Koran and the Hadith, which we checked and rechecked with leading scholars and imams in the Middle East to verify that every word we said was true. Which is why I said and stand by, it is about Islam. An important book. One that you will not find anywhere else. But we're done mincing words. The truth has to be told. Available in bookstores everywhere. It Is About Islam.

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.