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

The Constitution Stops Globalism Dead in Its Tracks

December 08, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The real problem facing America has nothing to do with globalization or globalists. It has nothing to do with nationalism or internationalism. Our real problem is ideas in direct conflict with the Constitution: socialism, communism and progressivism. These misleading labels basically mean the same thing --- total and complete government control.

Many people are asking the wrong questions to resolve our problem.

"I contend we are having the argument that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were having 100 years ago. Is the national socialist better or the international socialist better? The question has to be: Is the Constitution the answer?" Glenn said Thursday on radio.

The Constitution is the framework that outlines and defines what our government can and cannot do.

"The Constitution will stop you from doing all kinds of things, like meddling in people's lives, like telling them who they can and cannot marry, or how they can and cannot run their business, unless it's dangerous. The Constitution stops the meddling in international affairs and stops globalism dead in its tracks," Glenn explained.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these equally insightful questions:

• How do we get beyond personalities and talk about the issues?

• Why did Lenin coin the term 'democratic socialist'?

• How is the Constitution like a combustion engine?

• What does 'Nature's Law' mean?

• Is the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution?

• How did the words in the Declaration of Independence help free slaves?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to talk to you a little bit about -- we had a guy call us a few minutes ago. And he wanted to give me a lesson on the reason why the Republicans are great -- or I think he may have said Donald Trump. But we weren't talking about Donald Trump. We were talking about the left and right. Let's get beyond people. And he said, "Because they are now nationalists." And the real problem is globalization and globalists. No, that's not the real problem.

And there are a lot of people right now that are being convinced that the argument is between nationalism and internationalism or globalism.

And you can look at it that way. Two people that did look at it that way were Stalin and Hitler. He was a nationalist, and Stalin was an internationalist. They both believed in giant government state control. One said, "We're going to do this through the international community, and we're going to lead the international community and anybody who gets in our way, we're going to kill." And Hitler and Mussolini thought, "We're going to do this for the good of our own nation because our nation is so great. And we'll just do that. And it will spread to other nations. And we'll bring it to those other nations, whether they like it or not."

Nationalism and internationalism is not our problem. Our problem is socialism, communism, or progressivism. That is the idea that is in direct conflict with the other idea of the Constitution.

A lot of people who were progressives don't like the idea that -- that they would be labeled, along with socialists -- not so much anymore -- or communists. But socialism, if you know your history, your was only -- I'm sorry. Progressivism was only labeled that because they didn't agree with the one thing of -- of -- of communists. And that is, revolution.

Socialism is the step between capitalism and communism. And it lead to it.

If you don't believe me, read the words of Lenin before he got into office and they had the bloody revolution. He knew people were afraid of communists. And so he is the man, Lenin, that coined the term "democratic socialist." We're not communists. We're democratic socialists. The people will vote. And they'll vote for socialism. And they did.

And then they're free to say they're communists. Now, this is, again, all earlier 20th century. But you have to know the roots of it. And Theodore Roosevelt was a nationalist and a socialist. Believed in big government progressivism. Woodrow Wilson was even more. And he was an internationalist. League of Nations. United Nations.

I contend we are having the argument that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were having 100 years ago. Is the national socialist better or the international socialist better?

The question has to be: Is the Constitution the answer? Because the Constitution will stop you from doing all kinds of things, like meddling in people's lives, like telling them who they can and cannot marry or how they can and cannot run their business, unless it's dangerous.

The Constitution stops the meddling in international affairs and stops globalism dead in its tracks. The Constitution is the reason we didn't have a set flag. We didn't -- listen to me, we didn't have a set flag, I believe until Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt. It may have even been Wilson. You could arrange the stars any way you want. Why?

Because we won't so damn jingoistic. We believed in the concept of the flag, and it meant more than the flag itself. And it was Wilson, I believe, that went in and said, "No, we have to nationalize everything and federalize. And now here's exactly how you treat the flag." It was Wilson that gave us that, who gave us the -- the Star-Spangled Banner. FDR. We are defending these things as if they came from the Founders, when the Founders themselves didn't establish a national anything.

They respected everyone to rule themselves under the Constitution. Now, progressives will always say, "Well, the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the Constitution." You need to understand that the Declaration of Independence has everything to do with the Constitution.

Without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution can be anything anyone wants.

For instance, let me give you an example because I know progressives hate the Declaration of Independence. They hate it. It has nothing to do with it.

It is something for that time and that time only. Why would they be against that? Why would they be against that?

Because the Declaration of Independence is what freed the slaves, not the Constitution. The Constitution gave the ability to free the slaves. But it was the Declaration of Independence that did free the slaves. Because the argument was -- in our own documents, it says, "All men are created equal."

That was the argument. So let me show you.

I want you to think about the Constitution. Because everybody says, "God's not in the Constitution. It's nowhere in the Constitution." Of course, it's not.

The Constitution is nothing more than an engine. You know our Constitution is the most reused Constitution in the world. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution has been used by more countries than any other document to establish governance in the history of the world.

But wait a minute. All the countries are not like America. How come?

Because the Constitution is the combustion engine. That's all it is. But I can make a truck, using that engine, and I can make a sports car using that engine.

What do you want the engine to do? Do you want it to just run some belts, to run a turbine, to put some lights on? Do you want to use it for an aircraft? Do you want to use it for a race car? Do you want to use it for a crane to help build buildings?

It is the framework. It is the principles, the framework that helps you do whatever it is you want to do.

The Bill of Rights, that's something separate. The Bill of Rights is something entirely different from the Constitution. What rights are in the Constitution? Well, actually none. They're found in the Bill of Rights, which is just as separate, came years -- in fact, I think it was Connecticut, wasn't it, or one of the states that wasn't until 1939 that they ratified the Bill of Rights.

It came years later. Separate, yet part of it. And without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution doesn't work.

Well, it works. It will create all kinds of stuff. But it won't create things with rights.

So let me take you back to the first document. Because the first document tells you what we're building. The Constitution tells you how to build it. The Declaration of Independence tells you what we're building.

There's seven things in just the opening two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence that tell you everything you need to know about America.

One: The opening -- can you read the opening line, when in the course of human events, Pat. It becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have tied themselves to another people.

PAT: That have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them.

GLENN: Okay. What does that mean? Separate, but equal station? They're going to assume -- what they're saying is, there comes a time -- if we're going to disband ourselves from a government, a king, somebody else that's ruling over us, we -- it's -- the only right thing to do is to state why. Why are we doing this?

We need to tell the world, and we need to really remind ourselves why we're doing this. And assume the separate, but equal stations.

So they're saying, "We're not better than the king of England." But he's not better than we are. It immediately establishes humility for our nation. We're not better than everyone else. Our Declaration of Independence says the separate, but equal station. Nobody is the boss of us. And we're not the boss of you.

But there's a more important thing that I haven't addressed in that line. And that is this: The separate, but equal station, which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them. We'll come back to that.

Then the next paragraph is -- this is why -- this is why we're breaking away from the king. Okay? Because -- listen. We think that things are pretty clear. Let me state it this way: We hold these truths to be self-evident. We think everybody knows this. But nobody has ever said it before, let alone write it down.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. And that among these are life, liberty, and I'm going to use the original word, property. Why would I use that? Because pursuit of happiness -- replace the word property -- because they felt if they put property in there, then the left -- or, I'm sorry -- then the South would say, "Well, it's in the Declaration of Independence. We have a right to property, and slaves are our property."

And then we would have had the argument, are they property, or are they men? And that would have slowed everything down. So don't give them the tool of saying that they're property.

So they changed it to something enigmatic: The pursuit of happiness. Meaning, your right to go and be your own businessperson and do what you feel and follow your spirit and go paint a cloud.

Life, liberty, and property. Here's another important part: That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. The government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. And that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to those ends -- which ends? Destructive of which ends?

It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Now, let me go back.

They have certain unalienable rights, meaning God gave them these rights, and nobody can change them. Unalienable or inalienable. Whichever word you choose to use is -- it means you cannot change them. No one can change them. They are universal. They are -- they are the laws of nature and nature's God.

What does nature and nature's God mean?

Let's use the Second Amendment. That's not a law of God. Where in the Bible does it say you have a right to have guns, you have a right to protect yourself?

I guess you could read it through that, but it's really clear in the laws of nature.

In fact, you could use the laws of God to say, "Well, maybe you don't because he says thou shall not murder, and you can use a gun to murder." So they want to be very specific.

The laws of nature. That's the first one. Can you find that right in nature? Yeah. Nobody is going to say to me, but they'll say it about humans all the time.

Nobody is going to say, if I walk into a cave with a bear and I just want to go hug the little baby bear and the bear mom kills me, nowhere -- nowhere in the press are they going to say, "Oh, my gosh, we should destroy that bear. That bear is evil. We should declaw all bears."

They'll say, "That stupid guy went into a cave, and the bear -- the mama bear thought he was threatening the children. Of course, she tore him apart." That's the Second Amendment. Nature's law gives you the right to self-protect and to protect your family and your home.

Featured Image: The exterior of the National Constitution Center displays the opening words of the United States Constitution. (Photo Credit: Jeffrey M. Vinocur)

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.