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

Dennis Prager Talks Google, YouTube Lawsuits Over ‘Ideologically Driven Censorship’

October 25, 2017
Staff

WRITER

PragerU, a website that promotes conservative ideals in pithy 5-minute video clips, is suing Google and YouTube for content policies that the company says are overly vague and used to censor “conservative political thought.”

Founder Dennis Prager joined Glenn today to talk about the lawsuit over YouTube’s restrictions on their videos. The lawsuit claims that PragerU videos have been arbitrarily marked “inappropriate” for younger views and demonetized, or cut off from generating ad money.

“I really did believe all my life that there was one thing that did unite Americans,” Prager said. “And that is … free speech. But I was wrong. The left in particular does not believe in free speech because it threatens their power.”

Get the full story with our explainer of the PragerU lawsuit.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: There is a chill wind blowing across the First Amendment. And it is happening from all sides. When we have conservatives talking about limiting free speech and free press, it's disturbing.

But there's something else that's going on right now with the -- with all of the big -- I would call them, you know, railroad companies. They're -- the rail lines of communication, they've all been laid now. And so now, these rail companies of Google, Apple, YouTube, which is Google, Facebook. They're going to start dictating exactly what's heard and what's not heard. And it's -- we're entering a very dangerous phase.

I wanted to bring on Dennis Prager. Because Dennis and Prager University have just filed a lawsuit against Google and YouTube. And we have a story up on TheBlaze.com that lays this all out very clearly. And you need to pay attention to this, because we have information from the dark web, where Media Matters was -- was hiding out their plan for the future, that shows what's happening to Dennis Prager was planned and coordinated. And this is their MO moving forward, to silence any voice on YouTube or Google or Apple or Amazon, that disagrees with Media Matters.

Welcome to the program, Dennis Prager.

DENNIS: What a joy to be with you. I'm in Israel. And wherever I am, it's good to talk to you.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. Dennis, I have tremendous respect for you and what you guys are doing. You are making these five-minute videos. And it's educating a lot of people in a very entertaining way. You are approaching your billionth view, if I'm not mistaken.

But YouTube has now removed or demonetized several of your videos and have blocked them because they say that it violates some sort of standard that you can't figure out.

DENNIS: Right. They're inappropriate. I think that's the term. And it's -- we are putting up the lawsuit actually on our website, so that anybody can read it. It's so devastating that it portrays an America that you and I never really thought would -- would take place. If there was one thing, I guess I was naive.

I really did believe all of my life that there's one thing that did unite Americans. Because I don't -- I never buy the unity issue, as you probably know.

I think there's too big a division in the country. But I did believe there was one, a common belief. And that is in free speech. But I was wrong.

The -- the left in particular does not believe in free speech because it threatens their power.

The more people know, the less left they will be. I would -- I bank my life on that belief. I devote my life to that belief. Prager University is devoted to it, my radio show, et cetera. And that's why they're very afraid of us. They have every reason to be afraid of us. We have 500 million views this year. And we change a lot of minds, in a very sophisticated manner. Just for your audience's knowledge, I think it's important that they understand these are five-minute videos on every subject outside of the natural sciences. We're not going to teach botany in five minutes. We understand that. Or mathematics or something like that.

And four of our presenters are Pulitzer prize winners. We have professors from Stanford, Yale, Harvard, UCLA, et cetera, et cetera.

We have liberals like Alan Dershowitz. It is -- it's an extremely sophisticated teaching operation. There is no yelling. There is no slamming. There is no anger. There are five had an minute intellectual presentations. And that's why they change minds. Because they're geared to the mind and not to the emotion. Yeah, go ahead.

GLENN: Is Alan Dershowitz's video on Israel, is that one of them that has been banned?

DENNIS: That's correct. That is correct. It was. They have been recently -- yeah, it was.

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, in TheBlaze story was asked about it, and he said This is one of the most disturbing things that has happened to him.

DENNIS: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, here's a guy -- here's a guy on the left whose voice is being silenced by YouTube.

DENNIS: Right. Right. Well, let me then venture forth a very important point that I make I think almost daily.

There is nothing in common between leftism and liberalism. They have nothing in common.

GLENN: Yes.

DENNIS: And liberals used to understand this. They no longer do. And so many side with the left, even though it violates everything they stand for. For example, liberalism begins in integration, the melting pot, and that race means nothing. The left believes that race is important, the first ideology since the Nazis to believe that. They have separate graduation exercises at Harvard for black graduate students. They have dorms for black students all over the country at universities. That was called segregation when I grew up. Liberals would have found that to be the antithesis to everything that a liberal stands for. And I'm trying to show -- so I'm trying to show people like Dershowitz are liberals, not leftists. And I think he would even agree to that. Because he spends more of his time now, to his great credit, attacking the left than attacking the right. This is a Hillary Clinton voter.

GLENN: Yeah. I know several people who would have voted for Hillary Clinton in days gone by, who now say that their own party has gone so far off the rails, they're more afraid of their side, the leftists, than they are of the Republicans and the people on the right.

DENNIS: Well, there's nothing to fear from us. We don't want power. I always make this point.

Conservatives, basically run on the doctrine, vote for me. I want less of your money. And I want less power over you.

So --

GLENN: Well, I think that's -- I think that's --

DENNIS: We're only in danger to the left.

GLENN: I think that's generally true. Not as true as I thought it was. You know, we are seeing people talk about, you know, how the government should regulate the free press. I don't want the government involved in the press at all. Period.

DENNIS: I agree with you. But who said that?

GLENN: The president has talked about, maybe it's time to regulate NBC.

DENNIS: Oh, really? I don't really him saying that.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

DENNIS: I believe you. Because you're an honorable man. It's hard for me to believe even he believes in that. But, anyway, obviously none of us believe it. So it doesn't matter.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Dennis, tell me some of the -- tell me which videos are being taken down. See if there's a pattern.

DENNIS: Well, the list is on -- I believe the list is in the indictment. I should have it in front of me. But off the top of my head, I'll give you a few examples.

GLENN: Yeah.

DENNIS: This is my favorite, okay? I think there are about 40 out of 250. But I'll give you -- this is my -- I'm laughing because it's actually hilarious.

I did -- I personally -- I only do 15 percent of the videos. About 85 percent of them are by other people. But I did the videos because we do a fair number. You know, about 10 percent of our videos are on religion. Because we think a godless United States is not what the Founders wanted. In any event, so I did 11 videos on the Ten Commandments, one on each of the Ten Commandments and one introduction.

Believe it or not, they actually took down my video much thou shalt not murder.

GLENN: Why? Why do you think --

DENNIS: I don't know. I don't know. To be honest, to this day, I don't know. That's how absurd -- we're talking about the realm of the absurd.

GLENN: So the videos that TheBlaze is talking about, there are 40 that have been restricted. Many of them have also been demonetized, which means you can't make any money on them. Among the restricted videos, why America must leave. Ten Commandments, do not murder. Why did America fight the Korean War, which is unbelievable. Everyone should see that one. The world's most persecuted minority, Christians. Another unbelievable video. And -- and there's no answer.

DENNIS: By the way, that's really -- that tells you something about the -- Google's morality. That the persecution of Christians in the Middle East would be taken down, would be restricted. It shows you, they're not -- they're not merely totalitarian. They're bad.

I mean, only a bad person would find it objectionable -- and I'm a Jew saying this. Calling -- calling the world's attention to the removal of Christian communities in Middle Eastern countries.

GLENN: Genocide, yeah.

So you are suing them. There's no damages so far that you're going for. What is your -- what's your plan for?

DENNIS: The plan is to win. And thereby bring down the greatest threat to free speech perhaps in world history, or in the history of the existence of freedom of speech. Because they control -- they are the conduit to free speech on earth. You can't -- there's no alternative.

GLENN: So, Dennis, doesn't that make them a utility? Aren't they a private --

DENNIS: That's correct. That's right. It does make them a utility. And the entitlement makes it clear that -- I will use these words. It's not in the indictment. They are a fraud because they -- utterly misrepresent themselves. They say they are a completely open forum. That is as pure a lie as exists. And Prager University is the living proof of the lie that it is. They are not an open forum. And if we don't prevail, it's over for free speech, until there will be an actually open Google. And I don't know how you rival Google at this time.

One day, it may happen. But in the meantime, it's critical to understand --

GLENN: I don't think so.

DENNIS: That this is what is happening.

STU: Dennis, isn't it consistent though with conservative principles that it's their website and they get to do what they want with it?

DENNIS: No. That's very important.

I have actually asked that. The indictment shows law after law after law in California. And it's not an indictment, by the way. That's a technical term. It's a complaint. So just for the record. But, in any event, the -- the -- we show law -- the lawyers -- by the way, that's important that you know who they are. It was actually the suggestion of former California governor Pete Wilson, who was -- I'm greatly honored to know, is a great fan of Prager University. And he is the one who has one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. He is leading this. And it was his idea actually. And they are -- they are truly helping out. I mean, it's very expensive to have lawyers, as you well know, as everybody knows in America.

GLENN: Especially against Google --

DENNIS: Yes, exactly. Unlimited funds, like the government.

But, anyway, they list law after law. This is not a -- this is not a new idea. This predates Google. It predates us. It predates my existence on earth, where the Supreme Court has established that there has to be free speech, where there are claims to be free speech in the private sphere. So it's not merely government cannot -- cannot suppress speech. Now, obviously in the case, let's say of religion. If you have a Christian school and it teaches that -- you know, that -- you know, that a Catholic school teaches that abortion is immortal sin. A teacher says, no, you know, I think that Catholicism welcomes abortion. Obviously, a religion can teach a certain thing. By the way, in that regard, it would be very interesting. I wonder, I don't have the answer to this myself. I'm posing a question to me.

What if Google did announce, you know what, we are a left-wing organization. And we can't stand any left-wing idea that has any traction. And therefore we will shut it down. I wonder then --

GLENN: If they could get away with it.

DENNIS: Yeah. That would be interesting. Because that's what they are.

GLENN: Okay. Dennis, we'll have more on this tonight. Hope to have more on this tomorrow. We are big supporters. Thank you for everything that you're doing. And we will continue to help you get the word out on this. Anything that we can do, you know, that the audience can do?

DENNIS: Right. Well, yes, of course. First of all, they -- for no money whatsoever, they need to watch our videos. Because they are life-changing. They're meant to be. If their kid is in college, their kid is being indoctrinated.

GLENN: Yes.

DENNIS: And we are an antidote to that indoctrination. If they have to pay their kids in high school or college to watch it, or whatever, they should. And, obviously, if they want to help us in any other way, that's great.

GLENN: Okay. Dennis Prager, thank you very much from Prager University. This is worth your money and your time to help them out. Prager University.

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.