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

Rick Santorum says Paul Ryan's new tax plan "headed in the right direction" on radio

March 20, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Rick Santorum has had a busy couple of weeks, but managed to find the time to call into the radio show to discuss some of the top stories in the news today. What does he think of Paul Ryan's new tax plan?

"I talked to Paul last week. As you know my tax plan is 10 and 28% This one is 10% and 25%. But it very much models the two rate idea I've been putting out there, and he does a lot of simplification in his tax plan. Not as dramatic as the tax plan that I go through," Santorum said.

"It's headed in the right direction," he added.

"His changes in the entitled programs were consistent with what they did last year which I embraced. He has a little twist on the Medicare which is the widen Ryan plan now. But it's a strong plan. It waits a little bit to do some entitlement reform. Which is I think is a mistake. I think we need to move forward quicker, and I think we need to get that $5.4 trillion over five years to be more like five trillion over five years so we've got to accelerate this to get to a balanced budget. He doesn't get to a balanced budget until after the budget window. We need to shrink government faster than that."

Ultimately, though, Santorum does not have a lot of confidence it will pass.

"But you know this was in a sense it's a budget document. He knows that the Senate will never approve this. He's put forward a great blueprint for people to campaign upon and shows clearly progress dramatic progress in the direction of shrinking the size of government, and liberating the economy through lower taxes and less regulations"

You can read the full rush transcript below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is here, and I don't want to waste any time with him because there's serious issues happening in the country. And we're not going to talk about contraception or anything else. I'm going to talk about some of the serious issue that are happening in our world today. First of all J.P. Morgan Chase is closing down the Vatican's account. It seems to be economic terrorism leveled at the Vatican. Comment from Rick Santorum. Hi, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning.

GLENN: I know it's a big day for you. Can you comment at all on J.P. Morgan Chase and the President listing the Vatican as a possible money laundering organization.

SANTORUM: That's sort of shocking to hear. I don't know the details of it so I have to tell you I mean I flew in late.

GLENN: J.P. Morgan Chase has closed down the Vatican's account after last week the President put them on the watch list for a money laundering organization, and now J.P. Morgan Chase has closed down their account.

SANTORUM: You're going to give me a pass on that. I've got to dig into that. I know there are certain things that of course there are laws that provide certain triggers for this. I'm not familiar with this. We'll ‑‑ the idea that somehow the Vatican would launder money is absurd to its face. I guess it's not absurd with the Obama Administration.

GLENN: Bloomberg is now banning food donations to the homeless. He says that the DHS commissioner says that the ban on food donations is consistent with the mayor Bloomberg's emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. There's a new document that controls what can served at homeless facilities including serving size, as well as fat content, sodium consent plus fiber minimums, and condiment recommendations, and people who're dropping food off. Organizations that have dropped food off for 10 years now in New York are being banned. This is happening also in Philadelphia. It is happening in Houston, Texas where you're not allowed just to drop food to homeless shelter became it may not be the most healthy for homeless.

PAT: Well, can you imagine if starving people got too much saturated fat in their diet. I mean, that could really cause some issues.

GLENN: What is happening to us, Rick.

SANTORUM: It's the nanny state. Welcome to the nanny state, and it's also opens up the question as to these are ‑‑ these are folks who believe that they should control what people's intake, and of course these are folks as you know that believe in government programs, not private sector donations. Because if the government controls these things then they can of course have a closer relationship directly with the individual. The individual becomes more reliant on the government not on private sector donations or their neighbor. This is deeper than trying to control what food ‑‑ what calories intake, and how healthy your food is. This is also about the government knows best. And they need to get things directly from the government not from their neighbor. Because their neighbor isn't going to do what's right for them. The government is going to do what's right for them.

GLENN: It's not possible to slash the budget if you don't have ‑‑ if you don't have neighbors, local farms, other organizations.

SANTORUM: Glenn, what makes you think that they want to slash the budget.

GLENN: Oh no.

SANTORUM: They continually try to go out and grow the budget food stamp program. Try to grow the Medicaid program. They take pride in the fact that more and more people are covered by S chip and everything else. This is a source of accomplishment for them noting that should be reduced or changed.

GLENN: Paul Ryan has his budget out. It is slashing another $5.3 trillion. GOP tax plan is two tiers. It's 25% and 10% We are now at the end of the month we will now have the highest corporate tax rate on planet earth, and yet they're still talking about more. Are you for the Ryan tax plan. Where did you stand on this.

SANTORUM: Yeah, I talked to Paul last week. As you know my tax plan is 10 and 28% This one is 10% and 25%. But it very much models the two rate idea I've been putting out there, and he does a lot of simplification in his tax plan. Not as dramatic as the tax plan that I go through. It's headed in the right direction. His changes in the entitled programs were consistent with what they did last year which I embraced. He has a little twist on the Medicare which is the widen Ryan plan now. But it's a strong plan. It waits a little bit to do some entitlement reform. Which is I think is a mistake. I think we need to move forward quicker, and I think we need to get that $5.4 trillion over five years to be more like five trillion over five years so we've got to accelerate this to get to a balanced budget. He doesn't get to a balanced budget until after the budget window. We need to shrink government faster than that. But you know this was in a sense it's a budget document. He knows that the Senate will never approve this. He's put forward a great blueprint for people to campaign upon and shows clearly progress dramatic progress in the direction of shrinking the size of government, and liberating the economy through lower taxes and less regulations.

GLENN: You're in Illinois today because of the primary in Illinois. Play the audio of the police officer there. There's a real gang violence on the streets of Chicago. This is a police officer yesterday ‑‑ it was in Chicago talk about First Amendment rights that I want to hear a little bit of this, and I'll translate. Because it's a little hard to understand.

[Tape played]

PAT: He's telling news reporters to get across the street.

GLENN: News reporter.

PAT: I don't give an F about the news, and all telling them to go across the street.

VOICE: I'm going to kill you. I'm giving you a legal notice.

GLENN: That's all I'm going to say. So he then says your First Amendment rights can be terminated if you're making a scene or whatever. That's a quote.

CALLER: First Amendment aren't terminated when ‑‑ if they're causing a public disturbance or block agriculture street. I don't know what was going on. Certainly First Amendment like there's no absolute right. There is clearly is the right to exercise your First Amendment as long as you do so in a way that's not causing harm to anybody else the police have to recognize them and respect people's right to protest, and to get information. And this you know, again I don't know the details. I don't want to be critical of it. But there is a balancing act here, and we should balance in favor as I do in certainly in our campaign of letting the news media, and letting them cover what you want to cover.

STU: Senator, are you denying the making a scene clause in the constitution?

PAT: Which is of course right in the separation of church and state.

SANTORUM: Yeah that's in the fine print.

PAT: Senator, have you I know that you and Newt at least friendly before this started. I don't know how things are. Have you contacted him personally personally to get out. Get out.

SANTORUM: No. I have not.

PAT: Oh man.

SANTORUM: Look I didn't ask Newt to get in. I'm not going to ask him to get out. Obviously in Illinois it's a two person race. And Newt is picking up 12; 18% depending on the poll, and obviously we feel like a lot of those votes would be ‑‑ in fact last night the coordinator for Newt who put together his delegate announced that he and all of the delegates were going to vote for me. And we're encouraging Newt supporters throughout the state of Illinois to help us. And the same thing happened in Tennessee. So it's beginning to happen irrespective what Newt is doing. And hopefully that will be a little bump to us the day of the Illinois primary.

GLENN: Let me ask you one quick question before you go, and that is this is a question I would ask Mitt Romney if he would ever come to the show. But he doesn't return any of our phone calls. But it's important to me that the next President of the United States understands that we are dealing with radicals, revolutionaries, socialists, and communists anarchists. Tonight on GBTV we're showing video of all these literal communists gathering together to plot the overthrow of the United States and it's all part of Occupy Wall Street. Is there any doubt in your mind that there are forces that are ‑‑ that are almost cartoonish sounding. Communists, socialists, anarchists that are actively working to destroy our country inside.

SANTORUM: Well yes. I think that's been the case in this country for a long time. With the files being revealed from the old Soviet Union. We have verification of lots of people in this country who were working with the Soviets who were trying to overthrow, and cause chaos in this country, and it's because of the Soviet union failed doesn't mean all these people oh well, it failed, and therefore I must be wrong. No, I mean these people are committed. I think it's a relatively small group of people but that doesn't mean. ‑‑ they are very much engaged in the Occupy Wall Street movement. It's clear you see it with the protests in Washington D.C. with the anarchists coming out. I see them at my rallies. We had a couple of rallies yesterday, and you see some unsavory characters out there trying to disrupt things, and you know push their very radical agenda.

GLENN: Here's the Left Form 2012 Occupy the System. It's a conference where people gathered in New York City for the weekend. The speakers Pearl Granat. Jarvis Tyner of the communist party Gary Hicks Marxist library. Bill Wharton from the Socialist party. Peter Eichler Socialist Action. Larry Holmes Worker World Party. And Pearl Granat, vice president of SEIU. When SEIU, and Steven Lerner are actively engaged, is not SEIU a danger to our country.

SANTORUM: Well look. They're most labor unions are not as radical as SEIU. But SEIU is the one much the most radical left wing organizations. It's of course represents government workers, and these are folks that believe in huge and expansive government. It's good for their business and they'd like more ‑‑ the bigger the government is the more jobs they have, and more control folks like the person that runs the SEIU has in our country. So there's clearly a symbiosis between the radical left, and SEIU. You see the connection right before your eyes.

GLENN: I'm sorry. One more question.

SANTORUM: One more after one more.

GLENN: There was a big story that came out last night. It's being scrubbed from the Internet. It's about the President and I don't want to ask anything about the daughters. But the President allowed his two one young daughter 13‑year‑old to go down to Mexico which the State Department says is dangerous saying that the Americans shouldn't go. With 12, 13‑year‑old friends, 25 Secret Service agents. There's got to be adult supervision besides the Secret Service. Do you send your daughter as President of the United States to a place where the State Department your own State Department says don't go on spring break. It's a danger at 13?

SANTORUM: What I would say is that the President's actions should reflect what his administration is saying. If the administration is saying it's not safe to go down there just because you can send 25 Secret Service agents doesn't mean you should do it. You should set an example. I think this is what presidents do. You should set an example. And when the government is saying this is not safe, then you don't set the example by sending your kids down there. Again, I'm not at all being critical of what his daughter wanted to do. She obviously had friends going there. I think she wanted to go along. But I think you have a higher duty when you're President to set that example as to what ‑‑ you're not above the law. You're not someone who can say one thing to one group, and then do something else. I think that sets a very bad precedent.

GLENN: Rick, good luck today.

SANTORUM: Hey, thank you very much. I appreciate all of the folks in Illinois. Please get out there and help us out. We pulled out a big upset in Mississippi and Alabama when nobody thought we could win, and conservatives get out and vote.

GLENN: We cut him off. Rick, thanks a lot. All right.

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.