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

Rachel Dolezal: Cultural Appropriation Gone Wrong

February 27, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Evidently lying to your friends and co-workers comes with a price. Rachel Dolezal, former president of the NAACP Spokane chapter who resigned amid allegations that she lied about her racial identity, has come upon hard times.

"She's jobless, on food stamps and expects soon to be homeless," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Its unclear why she just does not identify to have a home or identify to have a job."

Co-host Jeffy Fisher had an even better recommendation.

"She should just identify as a CEO. She would be making big money," Jeffy said.

Despite all the controversy and her white parents confirming their biological daughter's racial identity, Dolezal remains steadfast that she identifies as black.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

PAT: Is there some sad news for Rachel Dolezal? This is -- seems unfortunate.

JEFFY: Oh, no.

PAT: She is the -- you might remember, I think the Spokane NAACP chapter. She was the head of that. She was the head of it for some time. And then it was discovered, somehow, I guess somebody finally looked at her and said, "Wait a minute. You're not black." She's like, "Sure, yeah, I am. Oh, yeah, I'm way black."

And it turns out no. She has white parents. She herself is white. But she identified more as a black person, right?

STU: Yes.

PAT: And now I guess she's having a hard time getting a job.

STU: Yeah. She's jobless, on food stamps, and expects soon to be homeless. Is unclear why she just does not identify to have a home or identify to have a job.

JEFFY: Oh, no. Oh, no. She should just identify as a CEO. She would be making big money.

PAT: Big, big money.

STU: I don't know why she hasn't thought of that. But she still says she's not white. I thought that was interesting. She says, I do think I'm more complex label. Would be helpful. But we don't really have that vocabulary. Yeah, we don't have a word for what you have.

PAT: No.

STU: There's not a -- that's true. Again, this is on us. We have not developed the vocabulary to describe the thing she is. Which, by the way, we have developed that vocabulary. It was white. We nailed it.

(laughter)

STU: But she says --

PAT: She's more comfortable in a different -- in a different light. Right?

STU: Exactly. She says, I feel -- I love that word. I feel like the idea of being trans black, would be much more accurate than I'm white. Because you know I'm not white. Calling myself black feels more accurate than saying I'm white.

So -- so it feels --

JEFFY: I'm sorry. Go ahead. She's just hawking her book. That's why this is such a big deal.

STU: What do you mean?

JEFFY: Her experiences in her memoir, In Full Color. So she just wants us to buy her book.

PAT: I have absolutely no interest in her book.

JEFFY: I have zero interest in that. But it talks about her views on racial identity and her experiences in her memoir, In Full Color. I was listening to her with the food stamps and being back in the news again. And she's back in the news again because she wants us to buy her book.

STU: Well, she apparently needs it. Right?

JEFFY: Right. If she's on food stamps. She's unable to get a job. This is it.

STU: I love this. If Dolezal was exposed in 2015 -- exposed as what? She's white.

She was exposed in 2015 when a local television crew asked her a simple question: Are you African-American?

(laughter)

That must have been an interesting moment to go up and have to ask that question. But, of course, all pictures of her being white and blond from her youth came out. And that kind of blew up her little gig at the NAACP apparently.

PAT: It sure did.

STU: Which is kind of interesting. It's weird in that that is a natural extension of what we just talked about with Chris Cuomo.

JEFFY: It sure is.

STU: Why would this be wrong? Because you can do -- you can take medications -- I mean, we've talked about the old thing with Michael Jackson, which wasn't true. But that he wanted to bleach his skin white because he wanted to be white so bad, right? You can do things to change your outer appearance. But you don't even need to, really. She, I guess, took on some of the attributes as what she thought she was. But it was a lot different than her blond-haired youth. But you can say that Chris Cuomo was on TV. If you missed it last hour, on TV, on national television, saying that a girl with girl parts who wanted -- who identified as a boy -- calling her a girl is mythology. Mythology.

Now, here's a situation -- like, I can understand, we all want to accommodate people and do the best we can to be nice. I get that.

However, to insult every piece of knowledge we've ever had in human history. Part A equals gender A. To say that those things are true, even -- you know, we're talking before the surgery or anything else has happened. That's mythology now. Why wouldn't Rachel Dolezal's story connect? I don't think there's any reason why she isn't treated as respectfully as every single transgendered person that Chris Cuomo is backing here.

Why doesn't she get that same treatment? Why is she without a job? Why is she without a -- without a home, potentially?

PAT: Because she's white. I guess. Just because she's white. Right?

If she were -- but it's only a matter of time, right? It's only because she's the first one. And, again, in our -- in our sphere of awareness, right? She's the first story of a person saying, "I'm actually black, but I'm white."

Now, the guy who works at The Daily News says the same thing. What is his name? Shaun King says the same thing. There's a few of them. But she's one of the first ones that entered into our awareness. And because of that, people are saying, "Come on. Look. I want to accommodate people, but she's obviously white. She's obviously white. And she was trying to say she's black when she's not." That's okay to say today. Guess what, soon it won't be. Soon it won't be.

Soon, the same way you will have people on national television, like Chris Cuomo saying it's mythology to call her white.

That will happen. The only issue -- the only questionable aspect of that is whether Chris Cuomo will remain on television. That's the only questionable aspect of that. He very well may not have that gig at some point. But other than that, that discussion will occur. I mean, it has occurred with certain personalities already. And it will continue to happen. And it will become the thing you're not allowed to say, that Rachel Dolezal is white.

Look, I -- we're not at a point, any of us, that are like, "Oh, well -- I don't want to -- to understand, to accommodate, to do whatever you can." But it's like, we have to at some point have a truth that we can center on. Some foundation of just accuracy. She says -- it feels more accurate to say she's black. But she's not.

(laughter)

STU: I -- do these things need to be said?

PAT: I mean, it might feel more accurate to say that I'm 18 years old because that's how I feel in my head.

STU: Right. I'm young at heart.

PAT: But it's just not the case. Because I'm now in my mid-50s. So, yeah. Yeah.

As if. I mean, the mid-50s are so far in your rearview mirror.

JEFFY: I remember when I broke that mid-50 mark.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: How can you? It was such a long time ago.

PAT: Such a long time ago.

STU: And that will happen. We are there. This stuff is already occurring. To the point that -- you know, this is an interesting discussion. Like, if you had this point -- you're like, this is an interesting discussion. She identifies with many of the cultural things of being black or -- you know, he -- she identifies as many of the -- she feels like she wants to do boy -- things that are typically associated with boys. You know, she called herself a tomboy. She -- and, you know, this is an interesting thing that we're talking about. How does society deal with it? It's not that.

It's, you're a hatemonger, and you're dealing with mythology if you think that the gender she is born in is the gender that she has.

PAT: That's nuts.

STU: That's so far beyond -- it's not a discussion. It's a shutdown of a discussion. Incredible.

PAT: It's nuts. Yeah. And nobody, going back to the way I feel in my head -- because I tell my kids that all the time: I feel like I'm 18 still. In my head, that's kind of where I stopped, I think, was 18. So I identify as such.

But -- so if I -- if I acted as if I were 18 all the time, nobody would accept that. Well, I'm just 18. I identify as 18. What do you mean, why should I be more responsible than that? What are you talking about?

You can't hold me to the standards of a 55-year-old man with six grandkids. You can't do that. I identify as an 18-year-old.

Nobody --

STU: Nobody.

PAT: -- nobody would back me on that. None of these Democrats who are bending over backward for every other minority on this planet would say that's okay.

JEFFY: Well, there was the CEO, the guy that said he was a millennial, right? That was in his 50s. Not very long ago.

PAT: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: That they were all up in arms about.

PAT: And he kept saying he was 34 or something, and he was 55.

JEFFY: And they were all up in arms about him. How dare he.

PAT: Right. Right.

STU: And that's different from me who is actually a millennial. I do not identify --

PAT: According to one source who said a 41-year-old person --

STU: Yes, 1976 was the cutoff date. And I was born in February 1976, which makes me one of the first millennials. So I know better than everybody else.

PAT: Because don't most people say 80 -- 80 is the cutoff date for most?

STU: You know what, I don't know what most people. This is not about most people. It's how I identify, Pat.

PAT: Okay. And you want to be a millennial? Because, man, I would do everything I can to not identify with the millennials.

STU: No kidding.

(laughter)

But technically --

JEFFY: Why?

STU: -- by one source, I am.

However, no sources say a 55-year-old is a millennial. No sources say a white person is a black person.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: No.

STU: And, you know, I guess now a lot of sources do say -- you know, Chris Cuomo goes on in this interview that we played this last hour to say, "Well, the Department of Education says that if you identify as a girl, you're a girl. Or if you identify as a boy, as a boy."

PAT: Yeah, under Barack Obama, they said that. So what?

STU: And also, is the Department of Education, that's the --

PAT: Is it a scientific department now? No, it's a political department.

STU: Uh-huh.

PAT: So politically, you know, that is now accepted, I guess, in some circles. But that's not science. I love how they want to have it both ways. They're all science, until science doesn't agree with them. Then there's nothing to do with science. It's just a feeling. It's just a thought. It's just an attitude.

JEFFY: Don't pay attention to that.

PAT: It's the same thing on climate change. They have it both ways on every single issue.

JEFFY: Yep.

PAT: That would be pretty sweet, if we had it both ways on every issue.

STU: It's an exciting way to live.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And it would be fun. Right? It would be fun to be a liberal for a while, wouldn't it? Where you could just sit back and every -- you never have to worry about past statements. You never have to worry about what you said that disagrees completely with what you're saying right now. You just need to say what benefits you at that exact moment. I mean, that is what we saw throughout the Obama administration.

Whatever benefited him at that exact moment was the thing he supported. And that is a -- it's got to be nice.

PAT: It's a good standard.

STU: I mean, to just be able to forget your history and forget what you said in the past has got to be a nice thing to live under.

PAT: You have to have the media on your side to back you up and let you get away with that standard. But it's a nice standard, if you can have it.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.