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

Will Cain, S.E. Cupp talk brokered convention and the GOP race

March 14, 2012
Wilson

Writer

What would a brokered convention look like? And why does it favor Santorum and even Gingrich, but not Mitt Romney? Will Cain and S.E. Cupp joined Glenn on radio today to discuss the increasingly likely outcome to the GOP nomination race.

Full Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: You know, let me bring on Will and S. E. I mean, you see the people that have our point of view over at CNN. They are all dead inside, aren't they?

CAIN: No comment.

GLENN: Well, S. E. ‑‑

CAIN: At the promised land this morning.

GLENN: You were at the promised land this morning?

CAIN: No, you're in the promised land ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, we are.

CAIN: This morning. You're down there in God's country every day. I'm still up here.

GLENN: I'm telling you, come on down here. We have studios here. Just a lot more people that make sense down here. Is S. E. On the phone?

CUPP: I'm here, boss.

GLENN: Hi, how are you doing, S. E.?

CUPP: I'm great. How are you?

GLENN: Good. Now everybody at MSNBC, there's not even a ‑‑ there's not even a moderate conservative over there, is there?

CUPP: I mean, it's not an easy ‑‑ it's not an easy gig.

GLENN: Yeah.

CUPP: But someone has to do it, right?

GLENN: I know. I know.

CUPP: I feel like a brave soldier going in there every day.

GLENN: I want to talk to both of you about what happened last night. First, Will, what is ‑‑ what are the ramifications of a brokered convention and do you think this is what we're headed towards?

CAIN: I think it's a possibility. The ramifications of a brokered convention, though, I don't think really turn out that differently than the kind of course we're seeing paved here for this election which is I think the most likely outcome of a brokered convention is, also, that Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee for president.

GLENN: Why?

CAIN: Well, let me ‑‑ look, let's do this, Glenn, and I hope I'm not, you know, speaking to something that everybody already knows here but what is a brokered convention and how does it, how does it work? You know, as we have all these primary elections in these states, we see the popular vote come out and, for example, last night, you know, Rick Santorum wins the vote in Mississippi and Alabama but that translates into delegates that each of these states send to the convention and raise their hands and vote for one of these guys according to how the vote in their state and their district went. And most of these guys are bound for at least one vote at that convention to vote in reflection of how their state voted. But in succession of votes, should no one have the majority of the delegates at which the number is 1,144, these delegates become progressively unbound and then they can be persuaded, they can be horse‑traded, they can be arm‑bent to switching their votes to other guys. But if we go to a brokered convention and Mitt Romney has let's say 1,000 or 900 or 1100 and Rick Santorum has, I don't know, five or 600, I don't see the scenario where you can talk 500 or 600 delegates into switching to Rick Santorum. It's possible, it's just improbable.

PAT: But there's no path really here. Do you see any path, Will, for Newt Gingrich to win this thing because he seems to be counting on a brokered convention.

CAIN: He's 100% counting on it. I was on with one of his surrogates this morning, and he admits it, this is what we're doing. Our sole strategy left is to deny Mitt Romney his path to nomination. By the way, Santorum camp is being candid now. They realize they have a very probable path to getting 1,144 delegates. They have to have something like 70% of delegates from hereon out.

PAT: Santorum does? That's almost impossible.

CAIN: Deny Romney getting the 1,144 and push this thing to a convention and see what happens on the floor.

PAT: So you're saying that's pretty much everybody's goal?

GLENN: So then wait. So why would you ‑‑

CAIN: Except for Romney.

GLENN: Except for Romney? Well, you got that one.

PAT: Who's your guy, right? You're a Romney guy?

CAIN: Me?

PAT: Yeah.

CAIN: I'm ‑‑ I don't know. I don't have guys. I don't do this guys thing. What I do is I look at each one of these guys and say ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, stop it, stop it. Stop it.

CAIN: I'm a conservative ‑‑

GLENN: Tell me who you'd vote for ‑‑ don't. Don't. I have the power to terminate you right now. Don't. Don't do it. Just tell me who you're voting for if you have a gun to your head and you had to vote today.

CAIN: Romney.

GLENN: Romney is your guy? Okay, good.

STU: Don't you love how we get treated here? Will's trying to answer this question honestly.

GLENN: We all are like that. Look, I don't think anybody ‑‑ I don't know anybody.

GLENN: Who's for Romney that's really, it was like, "Oh, my gosh, Romney's my guy." I get it. I get it.

STU: Romney mania hasn't taken over you're saying.

GLENN: It hasn't. It hasn't. So I get it. But, you know, you think ‑‑ and I've watched you enough. You think that he's the best guy for the economy, et cetera, et cetera.

CAIN: Exactly.

GLENN: S. E., let me go to you for a second. Is Santorum your guy?

CUPP: Yeah, if I had to vote today, I would vote for Santorum.

GLENN: Thank you for answering that question.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Now let me ‑‑ now let me ask you this. I think ‑‑

CUPP: My only goal, boss, my only goal at this job is to make you like me more than you like Will Cain.

GLENN: Oh, that's done.

CAIN: You got that covered, S.E.

GLENN: That was done before we hired Will. That was done before we hired Will. But I want you to know I could turn on you like that and be on Will's side at any moment.

CUPP: Don't worry. I am on my toes. I am on my toes.

GLENN: So the ‑‑ the Santorum strategy, I mean, he said yesterday ‑‑ and he really talked me right back into the ‑‑ onto the bandwagon and that is every time we've gone with a mushy moderate, we lose. Bob Dole ‑‑

CUPP: John McCain.

PAT: John McCain.

GLENN: Gerald Ford. We lose. You need somebody who is really standing up. So what is his strategy if ‑‑ the way Will explained the, you know, the convention, he's not going to be able to pull that off.

CUPP: Well, like Will said, it's improbable but not impossible. And I think, I think you're right that every year we buy into a largely media‑driven narrative that, you know, the far right is dead, social issues don't matter, we're all going to come to the center and we need moderates. It's just not the way we vote. We don't vote ‑‑ we don't elect moderates in this party. We want someone who is a visceral. We want someone who when we leave the voting booth we feel good about ourselves. We feel like we stood up for something, you know, bigger than a guy, stood up for a cause, and Mitt Romney's problem right now is that he has yet to define for us what that cause it. Santorum's cause is clear. He is a social conservative, he is a staunch social conservative, he is a Christian and so we get his message. And he is hoping certainly that that message over the next, you know, few months before the convention really resonates with the rest of the country.

GLENN: So ‑‑

CUPP: And this idea of inevitability and moderation sort of falls by the wayside.

GLENN: So Will, what is it that the pound of flesh that they are expecting to get from Romney, tell me what you think Gingrich and Santorum, if they don't think that they can win it, what is it that they would be trying to trade Romney for?

CAIN: That's a great question. I think for Gingrich, answering on his behalf, I don't think there's any answer beyond he has a personal animus to Mitt Romney at this point. For Santorum I think he does, I think he ‑‑

GLENN: So wait. Wait, wait. So couldn't Santorum, if that really is his motivation, couldn't Gingrich say I'm giving all my delegates to Santorum and close that gap for Santorum?

CAIN: You can't give your delegates. What he could do is he could drop out of the race.

STU: Yeah, yeah.

CAIN: Thus unbinding his delegates and then persuade them to go Santorum's way, which I'm not convinced, you know, he would be, he would be sending 100% of his delegates over to Santorum. But there is just no logical outcome for Newt Gingrich.

GLENN: Well, you're just saying that because you're in the bag for Newt Gingrich.

CAIN: Exactly. Exactly. I'm almost like a paid speaker for him at this point, all right? No, for Santorum, though, I think he thinks he can win.

GLENN: I think he does, too.

CAIN: I think he still, however improbable the chance is, a possibility he comes out of that convention with the win. What does he hope to get out of it? You know, I don't know. Does he think there's a vice presidential ticket there for him? I think that's doubtful. You know, I don't know what he sees in it. I think he thinks he can win.

GLENN: Okay. One last question, S. E. or Will, whoever knows this. Have you heard the tale now that Romney is looking at, you know, his people are looking at a possible vice presidential running mate of the governor of Puerto Rico.

CUPP: You know, I did hear that. We actually did deep stakes last night on the Real News and, you know, Governor Fortuno I've met a bunch of times, he's a fantastic guy, by the way, he did endorse Romney. And I have heard that that is a consideration but I've heard, you know, six months ago, boss, you and I shared an elevator and we talked about how Rubio was locked up and then three months ago Chris Christie was locked up. I mean, these kinds of rumors trickle out and ‑‑

GLENN: But I will tell you this, I will tell you this: The governor of Puerto Rico, does anybody even know if that's constitutional, but the governor of Puerto Rico would be a game‑changer. I think.

CUPP: Absolutely. Absolutely. He's smart, he is Republican, he's young, he's revitalized that territory in many ways. I mean, if you want to talk about how great Puerto Rico is, bring in Governor Pataki. He's got a house there and loves it, loves it there. He will tell you all about the things that Governor Fortuno has done.

GLENN: Yeah. The unfortunate part of that is you have to talk to governor Pataki.

STU: Do you want ‑‑ no one ever is going to like you. You realize that?

GLENN: I realize that. They don't already. Especially Will. Yes, Will.

CAIN: Yeah, I'd give you this one historical parallel of the game‑changing ability of your VP pick. I know nothing but the governor of Puerto Rico. S.E. knows about him. That's good somebody does here. But I will say this, in '76 the last time there was talk of a brokered convention when Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan approached the convention with neither having the number of delegates needed to win the nomination, Ford had a slight lead in both, Reagan picked the senator from Pennsylvania, I think his name was Schweiker or something who was seen as a moderate or liberal. He did that to balance out his ticket because he was seen as a staunch conservative, and it made some of his supporters defect from him, thus giving the nomination to Ford. So last time we had one of these, you know, these airtight conventions, possibly brokered, the VP pick carried a lot of weight.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Yeah, Gingrich is apparently tossing around the idea of Rick Perry as a VP, just trying to get that out there so hopefully he can lock up that ‑‑

GLENN: Not going to happen. It's just not going to happen.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. Thanks, guys, appreciate it.

CUPP: Thanks.

CAIN: Thank you.

GLENN: Tonight Real News on GBTV.com.

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.