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

Why Is Apple’s Chief of Diversity Leaving After 6 Months?

November 21, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What happened?

Apple’s vice president of diversity and inclusion is leaving the company at the end of the year after assuming the role in May. Denise Young Smith has been at Apple since 1997 and most recently served as human resources chief; the abrupt announcement just six months after she took on the diversity chief role came as a surprise.

Wasn’t there some controversy about her earlier?

Yes. Young Smith was under fire last month after she made comments on diversity and inclusion that were viewed as controversial, and she has since apologized for her “choice of words.”

What did she say?

As part of a much larger discussion about diversity in the workplace, Young Smith said that diversity of thought and experience is valuable regardless of your gender or racial background.

“Diversity is the human experience. I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color or the women or the LGBT or whatever because that means they’re carrying that around…because that means that we are carrying that around on our foreheads.

“And I’ve often told people a story– there can be 12 white blue-eyed blonde men in a room and they are going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.”

Is her departure related to the diversity comments?

Hard to say. Young Smith has reportedly been in talks about her future at Apple for a year, so she may have made up her mind to leave long before the backlash. Still, as Doc pointed out while standing in for Glenn on today’s show, it’s ironic that a black woman is stepping down as diversity chief after “controversial” comments and being replaced by a white woman.

Just 3 percent of Apple’s leaders in the U.S. are black, according to TechCrunch.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Some of this stuff deserves to be mocked. Because that's the only way it will be changed. Satire. Sarcasm. And mocking something this ridiculous. I'm not just talking about mocking people you disagree with. Although, if you want to do that, that's fine as well. I think it's nice to be able to engage in a civil conversation and try to find common ground, which we try to do, but when it's this silly, you deserve to be mocked for change.

The way you're going to change this is to mock people like this, to point out how ridiculous it is through humor.

That's the only way it's going to change. How many people on the left are calling this guy out? When they read it, even if it's crazy and they know it's crazy, are they going to be like, dude, come on? They're not.

KAL: Even there, they're like, you're stretching it a bit. You're reaching.

DOC: Right. In their heart of hearts, they know it is.

But they don't say it. It's either one of two things, they look the other way because he's on the team, or they know it's going to help push the agenda. By any means necessary. The end justifies the means.

And then some of them are likely crazy and believe it as well. But most people know it's ridiculous. That whites somehow have greater access to outdoors.

KAL: That's so ridiculous.

DOC: It's insane. So mock it. Share it. And it should be. A lot of people online mocking as well.

If you want to follow me on Twitter. It's @DocThompsonshow. Use the #whatIlearnedtoday. You can join the program. We have some calls coming up. It's 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK.

We'll get some calls in a couple of minutes. Denise Young -- Denise Young Smith, rather, was named Apple's VP of diversity and inclusion in May. Remember that?

KAL: Oh, that's good. Yeah.

DOC: Remember the big discussion we had in May because of the letter that was written? Remember the former CEO of Facebook, or executive at Facebook, or person who worked at Facebook -- we had that whole discussion.

KAL: Yeah.

DOC: And then at Apple, they had this brouhaha. Anyway, they appointed her as the VP of diversity and inclusion in May. She's stepping down.

KAL: That's only been, what? Like six months?

DOC: Denise Young Smith --

KAL: A little less?

DOC: Yeah. Not even. Yep. Stepping down because of something she said.

KAL: Oh, boy. What did she say? Was it allowed outdoors?

DOC: During a summit in Columbia, she said -- now, she is a black woman, mind you.

KAL: Uh-huh.

DOC: Apple's VP of diversity and inclusion. Apple's VP of diversity and inclusion said she likes to focus on everyone, and that diversity goes beyond race, gender, and sexual orientation. She said, there can be twelve white blue-eyed, blonde men in a room, and they're going to be diverse too because they're going to bring different life experience and life perspectives to the conversation.

KAL: Good. I like that.

DOC: She's right.

KAL: Yeah, she is. She got fired for that?

DOC: Well...

She is stepping down.

KAL: Which means she was asked to step down?

DOC: She was fired. That's likely what was meant. She said, diversity is a human experience. She said, I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to people of color or women or LGBT. She said, we're not representative have how I think about diversity or how Apple sees it. Those were her later apologies, that's when she later apologized.

She said, we're not representative of how I think about diversity or how Apple sees it. For that, I'm sorry. She was forced to apologize. And for what? She basically said --

KAL: Don't judge a book by its cover?

DOC: Well, she said something that I said over and over again: Your claim and maybe accurate claim that you have it worse off because of, fill in the blank. Your race, your gender, your religion. Even if it's true that you are either disadvantaged because of your race -- you walk in, there's more white people. Maybe there's a bias. Even if it's an underlying subconscious bias, fine. Let's go with it and say that you are at a disadvantage. There are many ways to advantage or disadvantage people. And, you know what, very few of them have to do with race. There are more ways that you can disadvantage people that have nothing to do with race or religion or gender. Economic situation.

And that could be all kinds of different things. You know what else disadvantages people? Stupidity. You're just dumb. You think you're going to get that job as the CEO if you're dumb?

KAL: Probably not.

DOC: No, of course not. Let's say you're average intelligence, but you don't have any common sense. Okay. That may actually help you, based on the bosses that I've had. How about fat?

KAL: Yeah.

DOC: How about fat? You're going to be seen the same way when you're fat?

KAL: No.

DOC: Of course not. Let's say if you're fat with less control of it than other people. Some people, myself, you're fat because you're a little bit lazy, you're eating too much. You know, whatever. You're not taking care of yourself. You're not doing the hard work. Your metabolism slows a little when you get older. Fine. There are a lot of people though that are fat because of underlying circumstances. They also just generally have a slower metabolism. It's more difficult for them.

All things being equal, guy walks in the room who is thin, guy walks in the room who is fat, who is getting the job?

KAL: The thin guy.

DOC: How about ugly? Ugly.

KAL: Oh, yeah. You can't control that.

DOC: You cannot control ugly. And guess what, it's going to advantage you if you're pretty.

KAL: Absolutely.

DOC: All things being equal, good-looking guy walks in the room, bad-looking guy walks in the room. Who is getting the job? The good-looking guy. Right? All things being equal. Good-looking woman walks in the job. Ugly woman walks in the job. Who is getting it?

KAL: Good-looking.

DOC: No. The one with the large breasts. That's usually how it goes.

No. Seriously, but that matters too. Even if it's subconscious. We like certain things. Individuals, you're constantly making millions of calculations all the time.

Every time, sizing everything up, in every situation. On levels you don't even know about. And you are attracted to things that are attractive to you. You are drawn to things that are like you. Things that you appreciate.

And that's okay. It's human nature. It's not to say, well, welcome in, Bill, can't give you the job because you're black. Have a good day. I'm not justifying that. That's wrong. I'm saying that you can't control some of this. And, by the way, that's not just to say that white people are saying it. It happens with every race. Right?

You're an Asian guy and you're doing some hiring, you're going to have some biases, based on your race. But then, beyond race, religion, and gender, there are other ways you could be disadvantaged or disadvantaged.

I grew up near Cleveland, Ohio. How do you think that helped me out? Versus the guy who grew up in Malibu or Florida or whatever. A lot of places -- is it a small advantage or disadvantage?

Sure. But still, those things matter. Who is more interesting at the party? Right?

The guy who was from Key West, the guy who was from Manhattan, or the guy from Cleveland.

KAL: Hey. It's all about life experiences.

DOC: Well, these things all add up who you are and what you present. Another thing, your name. And I'm not talking about ethnic names which, by the way, those biased people as well. They've done studies where if you have certain ethnic names, it could bias you or whatever. But really bizarre, goofy, bad, whatever name, versus seemingly more traditional name.

There are countless ways you're advantaged or disadvantaged.

And yet, these Black Lives Matter groups, the people who constantly tell you that they're getting the worse deal. Meanwhile, they live in America, in 2017, where it is impossible to starve.

KAL: Yeah.

DOC: The only way you're starving is if you are simply -- if you're not willing to pick up the food and put it in your mouth. And sometimes, we even put it in your mouth for you.

Seriously, there's food everywhere. We throw out better food than some people eat on a regular basis.

KAL: Oh, absolutely.

DOC: This is just how it is. There's food banks everywhere. There's welfare. There's like 16 federal government plans to give you money and food.

You live in America in 2017. It's impossible to starve. You've got protections like nowhere else. America, the most diverse country on the planet, to check out that last Olympics.

KAL: Uh-huh.

DOC: In walks the Chinese team. How many white people do they have on it?

KAL: None.

DOC: All righty then. That team from Mexico, how many black people and Asian people do they have on it?

KAL: None.

DOC: No. Probably not a whole lot. You see the American team. Blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics.

KAL: Yep. All kinds.

DOC: We are the most diverse country. And yet we let people lie to us and promote the fact that we need help with diversity. Screw that. The rest of the world needs help with diversity. If it matters so much. How come you're not bitching about China for not having more non-Asian people? Because they're Chinese. It's who they are. It's different. And it's acceptable.

KAL: That's a great point. I wonder if the rhetoric in these other countries is the same as it is here, about diversity.

DOC: The Chinese people going, you know, it's all these Asian people. I don't get it.

KAL: But, I mean, are there different levels of Chinese?

DOC: Of course. There's classes. There's regions. There's classes.

KAL: But do they cry for equality in the same way --

DOC: It's more economic. See, but we have allowed people to tie economic inequality to racial inequality. And they'll use it back and forth, whatever benefits them. So when Denise Young Smith, the former now VP of Apple, heading up diversity inclusion says that diversity goes beyond race, gender, and sexual orientation, she's right.

What we have allowed people to do is walk into a room, see white people, and say, "It's not diverse."

KAL: Yeah.

DOC: No, it may be. You could have all black people, and it could be diverse. It's all about life experiences, what you bring to the table. All of these things that aren't easily measurable. But they want to look, ironically, at the color of a person's skin and size up the situation.

KAL: It's incredibly racist, ironically.

DOC: It is incredibly racist. Stop. Knock it off. There's no way you will ever get to true diversification in all things. Okay. We have picked these 14 people to head up our whatever department and we've got exactly the same number of people from this region of the country and this person who is this weight. And this person who is this height. How about height? You don't think the tall guy is going to get the job? Of course he will. So we got to make sure we have proportionate people that are short, middle, tall, whatever. There's no way to go down the list and check every box and make sure it's even across-the-board.

How about this? We start judging people on their character.

Not if they're from Cleveland. Or short. Or fat. Or rich. Or white. How about the content of their character?

KAL: Whoa, whoa, whoa.

DOC: It's crazy, I know.

KAL: Crazy. Step it back some.

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.