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

Did Michelle Obama Deliver the Most Effective Political Speech Since Ronald Reagan?

October 14, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

If you haven't heard Michelle Obama's most recent speech, you need to. Why? Because whether or not you believe a word of it, the impact was devastating.

"The audience was pin-drop quiet. It connected. Whether you like to believe it or not, whether I want to believe it or not, it connected. And it was powerful," Glenn said Friday on his radio program.

RELATED: Watch Michelle Obama’s Entire Speech on Trump and Women

Not only has the Democratic Party co-opted conservative language this election season, they're now co-opting women voters of every ilk with Michelle Obama's speech.

"We've switched places," Glenn said. "We don't control the narrative, and we don't control the culture. They do. They control the language. You cannot fight them on things like this. They win . . . we have become them. And now, they've decided that this is all wrong."

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Who should have given Michelle Obama's speech?

• Why was the first five minutes of the speech so important?

• Who have conservatives lost with this election?

• Did the Trump campaign conduct opposition research?

• What's the greatest irony of Michelle Obama's speech?

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

GLENN: I want to start with the most effective speech, the most effective political speech I have heard since Ronald Reagan.

It kills me to say that. I don't -- I don't think this is necessarily genuine. I think she does believe these things. But it was very well done, very well rehearsed. And in the video that I saw -- now, this was a regular campaign speech -- you would not see several angles. You would see one. They come, they put a camera down in the back. It's all -- lock it down. They lock it down on the podium. And that's it.

If you watch the speech that Michelle Obama gave yesterday, they knew. There were four different camera angles on this. They knew exactly -- the press knew what was coming. This was an important speech.

Normally, if you give this speech -- any campaign speech -- you hear, "I'm going to say something about the bad guy." And what does everybody do?

STU: Boo.

GLENN: Boo. Okay. "I'm going to say something about us." Yay!

STU: Yay!

GLENN: And that's a campaign speech.

I will tell you, if you want to look at what the conservatives have lost in this campaign -- we have lost the argument on economics.

Can anybody remember what the number $787 billion is about? Do you remember what it is? Anybody?

STU: Oh, yeah. Yeah. For sure.

GLENN: Yeah. Stimulus package, right? Why do you remember that number, Stu?

STU: Because we it said 9 million times --

GLENN: Why did we say it 9 million times?

STU: To criticize Barack Obama and his huge spending effort --

JEFFY: So big.

STU: Right. And our change from, you know, violating the free market system to save it. That extending into Obama's presidency where we were just throwing money at this problem.

GLENN: How much is Donald Trump's child care bill? How much is that?

STU: Up to $680 billion.

GLENN: So $100 billion short of the biggest number any of us had ever heard the government spend.

STU: Of course, that doesn't include his $550 billion-plus stimulus plan, which is on top of the 680 billion from child care.

GLENN: Right. So we're over $1 trillion for just two things: a stimulus and one child care package.

So we've lost the economic high ground. We are -- we have proven ourselves to be, what? Liars? We don't care if it's our side. We don't care what anybody does, as long as they don't do it economically.

Small government. Single-payer health care system. He has said it over and over again. He will do a -- he will repeal and replace, with a single-payer health care system. Universal health care. We've lost that argument. Compassion. "You know what, maybe we ought to go over there and kill the families. Kill the families of the terrorists." Or even the deportation force. Instead of saying, "We have ICE. We have to empower ICE to do their job."

He says, "We'll have a deportation force." Compassionate conservatism, if it even existed: Gone.

Corruption on business. We say we don't like corruption in business. Listen to the words of, "What? I use the laws. I -- of course, I use bankruptcy because I use laws that benefit me. You don't like the laws, change them." Now, while that is true, how do you defend that?

JEFFY: It's called business.

STU: That's right.

GLENN: It's cold-hearted, Mr. Potter versus the Bailey Building & Loan kind of business. Heartless. "I use what I can." Cronyism. "Yeah, you damn right I give to all of the guys because they'll answer my calls and I get what I need."

What else have we lost? How about the moral high ground? Anger. Vengeance. Vulgarity. I mean, we could spend days on that one.

We've lost Hispanics. They're not coming back. They're not coming back. Because our cheering crowds, they're not coming back.

We're now losing women. Women are dropping like flies. Why? Why?

Because the people who know how to deliver speeches, who have control of the media, who -- who have defended Bill Clinton for 25 years, who dragged all of the arguments that Donald Trump is making out of in front of people right now, the ones that we are using, they're only being -- we didn't develop those arguments. They did. They fought against them and said, "Oh, that's crazy." Now, they're the ones saying that this is a moral outrage.

STU: Right.

GLENN: We've switched places. But what you don't understand is, we don't control the media. We don't control the narrative. And we don't control the culture. They do. They control the language. You cannot fight them on things like this. They win. Especially when you have a guy who has shown that he is into cronyism, corruption, compassion is gone, small government, economics.

We have become them. And now, they've decided that this is all wrong.

Who do you think is going to win? Women are going to leave us in droves because they will be effective where we are not. And in the meantime, we've lost our religious institutions. Because our religious institutions don't stand for principles or morals anymore. We are losing ourselves.

JEFFY: You've highlighted some inconsistencies.

GLENN: Yes. And who didn't see this coming? We were so wrapped up into winning, we said last year, millions of Americans said last year, "You can't do this. When the media gets a hold of this guy, they're going to kill him. They're going to cream him." No, he's got control of the media. "No, he does now because they want him to win." As WikiLeaks has now shown us, that was exactly their plan. They wanted him to get the nomination. Because they knew she was so weak and he could be destroyed.

STU: They talked privately about how it was basically her only path to the presidency.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Only path to the presidency was Donald Trump.

GLENN: Thank you, Russia. Thank you, Russia, for verifying what we said during the primary.

STU: Probably stop trying to interfere in our elections to do so, but, yes.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Okay. So we know that's all true now. And we now also know that Donald Trump was so reckless with our nation, that he refused to have anyone do opposition research on him. That is basic. That's the first thing you do. When you want to run, you say, "I need some opposition research. Show me that the worst that they might be able to find." And you do research so you overturn every stone so no one surprises you.

We found out, in the three administrations that have been running the Trump campaign, all three of them have said, "We -- we need to do opposition research. And he has said no."

So now, the campaign has no idea what's coming next. And if you don't think that that was a setup -- Ben Shapiro hit it right -- the nail right on the head: During the debate, "So have you ever said -- have you ever done any of these things that are on this tape on the bus?"

"Look, nobody respects women --

"No, that's not the question. Have you ever done any of those things?"

"No one respects women more than I do."

"Again, sir, have you done any of those things?"

He was trapped. He had to say yes or no. He chose no. Setup. That's not Gary Hart. Who was the guy who said follow me?

STU: That was Gary Hart.

JEFFY: Yeah, that was Gary Hart.

GLENN: Was it Gary Hart? Yeah. Follow me.

"Everybody is saying that I've had affairs. Follow me."

That's what he did. He said no. People are saying, "Well, you can't trust these women." Oh, so now we don't believe the women? Now we take a very vulgar man with lots of power, celebrity, who we know lives this kind of lifestyle anyway, has bragged about it for 30 years, we have footage of things like this, and now we're taking the position of not believing the women?

Why did the women finally come up? Well, I would imagine if that had happened to you, you're not going to say anything. For all kinds of reasons, you don't say anything. Bill Cosby comes to mind. But there comes a point -- and this was the point -- that you're sitting at home and you're watching that and you snap and say, "That son of a bitch. He did it to me."

STU: There very easily could be a mixture of people actually doing that and --

GLENN: And completely false.

STU: -- realizing, hey, here's a presidency that I can take.

I mean, it's not to say that these women are all going to turn out to be true. It's all alleged.

GLENN: You have no idea.

STU: They all say -- you know, Trump says he's going to come out with evidence that's going to disprove all of them today. Let's see.

GLENN: But you don't have the moral high ground because you've already ceded it. You don't have a guy who you can say, "This is out of character." When Donald Trump said, "Ted Cruz has, you know, 12 mistresses," it was pretty easy to question Ted and say, "Ted, did that happen?"

"Please, Glenn."

There's nothing in his character that shows that. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But there's nothing in his character that hints at that.

STU: Again, think about this again. Here's a guy who is dealing with this now, and having to fight off all these allegations, you know, here's a guy who tried to ruin Ted Cruz's run by pinning a fake cheating scandal on him.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: And --

GLENN: Beyond this, Stu, beyond this, here's a man -- here's a man who is still trying to make the issue about Bill Clinton and what Bill Clinton did. And the women -- think of this. What did he do on Sunday?

He put people who accused Bill Clinton of doing something 30 years ago in the audience, when his defense of himself is, "That's old news. That's ten years old."

It's the dumbest strategy I've ever seen.

I'm going to take a break. And I don't know if I'm going to have time or patience to play the Michelle Obama speech. But you need to hear it. Because the audience is pin-drop quiet. It connected. Whether you like to believe it or not, whether I want to believe it or not, it connected. And it was powerful.

You don't have to believe it, to see its devastating effects. And I don't even mean on Donald Trump. I mean on the conservative movement. A devastating attack.

We have been talking about, "There is no War on Women." You just handed them a War on Women. And they took it. And if you listen to her words carefully, oh, my gosh, oh, my gosh, they are co-opting women, and it will work. They are -- they are talking about how crippled women are, and it's time you have a protector. Oh, my gosh.

The conservatives, it's probably too late. It's probably too late for you to regain currently, because these crowds are still 15,000 strong. There is a big part of the conservative movement that just doesn't care. And it's going to destroy it. I think it already has.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Michelle Obama's speech at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, NH on Oct. 13, 2016.

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.