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

What Romney should say tonight

October 03, 2012
Wilson

Writer

If you had asked Glenn six months ago what the GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's approach in tonight's debate should be, he would have had a difference answer than he did this morning.

"You know, six months ago you got to go after him.  You've got to go after him.  I don't think you do," Glenn told listeners this morning.

This morning Glenn gave the points that he believes Mitt Romney should make during tonight's debate. They aren't points that discuss his radical past or Marxist tendencies.

If Glenn were Mitt Romney, here's exactly what he would say tonight —and it may surprise you.

"Mr. President none of the things you've said about me are true.  You've even admitted to lies and mistakes in your approved ads in your 60 minute interview," Glenn started.

"Tonight, Mr. President that should not happen because it's not about politics. It's about our country, and it's about credible.  Whom can we trust anymore? 

The American people don't trust the news media.  They don't trust the Republicans.  And they don't trust the Democrats.  They don't trust you.  And they don't trust me.  But they're going to go in and make a decision."

"Whom do they trust Mr. President? Whom do they trust?"

"Let's look at some of the facts."

"You attacked my record at Bain, yet in every single case I wasn't even at the company when you accused of layoffs and outsourcing in every single case. 

You went so far to post a story from the poor man who lost his wife to cancer on your website, and Stephanie Cutter hosted him on one of your campaign conference calls.  So this isn't something from a super PAC that you had no control over it was on your website.  You tried to use the story that it was me who laid him off, so he lost his job and lost his insurance.  And then his wife got cancer, and died.  Instead, the truth is — because that's what this has to be about Mr. President, and the American people need to know the truth — the truth is, he lost his job after I left the company.  His wife went on her own company's insurance, then dropped it, then got sick. And then, seven years after I was involved with this man or his family, seven years after I left the company, she got cancer, and died. 

That's a tragic story not only for that family but, Mr. President, that is a tragic story of an American President without any credibility. 

You and your surrogates have accused me of not paying my taxes, even when an organization that has 8% of the population saying, "no I can trust the news from the "New York Times" — 8%.  Even the New York Times says, "the President is wrong." 

You continue to claim I haven't released my tax information.  I have.  I have released my tax information for the past two years, as much as Ronald Reagan did. And I released the summary tax information going back 20 years.  To illustrate the futility of releasing this tax information, last week, when I had discovered I paid more tax than I needed to I was attacked for that even though you harp on the fact that you want the wealthy to pay more. "Pay their "fair share."  I paid more and your people attacked. 

Then you went around and attacked me when I did pay $500,000 more than I was paying and that's just the beginning of it.  Because your constantly attacking me and anyone who has earned their money.  You've constantly attacked my wealth.  Yes, I have been successful. Since when — since when has that been a curse in America and not a blessing? 

With that wealth I have helped to bless the lives of others: through employment, investment opportunities and charity.  One of the revelations in my taxes, if you care to look, is that last year I donated 30% of my income — that's four million dollars — to charity.  I didn't wait for the government to act.  I knew people were hurting and needed help. We're in a tough time.  Charities are hurting for cash.  I upped my charity." 

"Let me break out of Mitt Romney for a second," Glenn interjected,  "Because the man in me would say, "now up yours."  But that would be inappropriate." 

"Why would I up my charity? Because I am my brother's keeper, not the government. 

And that's the difference between the two of us. 

You've taken a phrase I have used and you took it out of context.  This is a choice that America has to make.  Whom do you trust?

About 47% of Americans, I said, aren't paying taxes.  To claim I wouldn't care about half the country if elected is ridiculous.  That's what you said.  Mr. President, you know that's disingenuous at best.  I was referring to the fact that I can't worry about getting their votes.  Not that I don't care about them as human beings or their struggles. 

You know that Mr. President, we're adults.  You've alleged that I never struggled and I don't care about hardworking Americans.  Mr. President, I've worked long and hard to get where I am today, as has my wife.  As far as caring for people, I've never been comfortable extolling the work I've done for others.  Let's just suffice that I have personally given my time, my council, and my money to help people of all income levels in all stages of life.  I've been doing that my entire life.  I was raised that way. 

Service is in my D.N.A.. 

The fundamental difference between us is you have turned that responsibility over to government agencies.  You believe your job is to fight for bigger government who will in turn fight for the people.  I believe that it is my job to fight for the people.  It's more of a direct line but I learned that in business. 

I believe it's my responsibility to get involved.  I believe it is your responsibility to get -- you believe that it's your responsibility to get the involved with other people's time and money.  I believe people should make that decision themselves.  But it's not just about what you've said about me and the lies you've said.  That just has to be said because it is a contest between the two of us.  But that's not something we should dwell on.  We spend tonight's hour on is what you have done. 

Mr. President you promised to cut the deficit in half by now.  I know it's evil George Bush's fault but you've had four years.  This year's deficit is the largest in the history of the planet earth.  It's $1,275,800,000,000. You've added more to the national debt in four years than President Bush did in eight.  You called his efforts unpatriotic.  What does that make yours, sir. 

You promised to close Gitmo.  You didn't.  You promised not to hire lobbyists.  You hired 17 within the first two weeks.  You promised to allow five days of public comment before signing any bills.  That hasn't happened.  You promised to televise healthcare care.  You didn't.  It was all behind closed doors.  It was with special interest groups.  You promised healthcare care costs would decrease.  What has happened.  They're up 25%.  You promised Americans if they liked their healthcare plan they'd be able to keep it.  Up to 30% of employers have dropped or plan to drop out of their healthcare when Obamacare is fully implemented because they can't afford it anymore.  You promised to reduce earmarks to 1994 levels.  Nope.  They continue.  You promised that if you make less less than $250,000 none of your taxes will increase.  Obamacare will raise taxes on million on Americas.  Plainly centered around those that are making $55,000 a year not to mention the smoking tax.  The tanning tax, and uninsured.  You said that Obamacare mandate was not a tax.  And then your people went in and argued to the Supreme Court it was a tax. 

You promised that the world would respect and love us again.  Instead our allies have no idea where we stand.  Instead our enemies are emboldened.  The middle is on fire.  And our embassies interest and people in the Middle East are under siege.  This White House, this White House has lied to the American people just on Libya enough. 

You promised over and over again jobs, those three little letters was job number one.  Say what you will about your efforts of creating and saving jobs but unemployment has been above 8% for 42 straight months.  There's 80 million unemployed or under employed in this country.  I don't care about the 47%.  Mr. President I'd like to give these people dignity by giving them a job not another government program.  You promised to take responsibility.  You haven't.  You blame Bush for absolutely everything.  And then when you can't blame Bush let's go back to the Libya.  You've blamed everybody from the Navy SEALs.  Or should we blame Gerald R. Ford for everything.  You promised a new tone Mr. President. 

The tone is not as bad it's much, much worse.  You'll have a book fair with Hugo Chavez but you have no time to meet with anyone who opposes you. 

Mr. President, millions of Americans hope for change.  The same change they hoped for last time and then didn't get it.  What they got was more of the same.  But they got deceit in record numbers.  They're footing the bill.  They're working hard.  Too many Americans think Washington is playing a game and we're spending their future. 

There is one thing Mr. President I do agree with you on.  You told Matt Lauer before you were elected if I don't have this done in three years this is going to be a one term proposition. 

And with that Mr. Moderator I'll end my one point of unity and agreement with my opponent. 

I think Mitt Romney needs to be -- needs to rinse all of the sarcasm out of my delivery and needs to be laser focused on the facts and absolutely laser focused on the impact on the American people. 

Mr. President we're here to talk about the domestic policy.  There is nothing more crucial to domestic policy that the mom who's taking her kids to soccer practice and ballet, and has to stop at the gas station.  Because of your policies in the Middle East, offshore drilling, the keystone pipeline, there's nothing more relevant to them than the cost of gasoline.  It's doubled since you've been in office.  The guy you appointed as secretary of energy said that he was hoping for 8 dollars a gallon gasoline.  He retracted that as soon as he got into office.  That doesn't make sense unless you're playing a media game and lying to the American people again because you said your policies would make electricity costs necessarily skyrocket.  So for fairness, you don't have a problem with that.  Mr. President, have you gone to the coal miners, and have you talked to the coal miners in Ohio, West Virginia, people who have been Democrats for their entire life.  They think quite honestly you are just a nightmare.  Why? 

Mr. President, why have you shut out of 500 coal fire plants, you've shut down 100.  Now I understand we all want to be clean, and but we have to have energy, and we can't -- you want to talk about 47% who cares about the 47%.  The one who's going to make their electricity prices necessarily skyrocket how is the 47% going to be able to afford that? Or are you developing another program for another handout and another ticket to slavery?  When we have technology that will replace 50% of our electricity I'm fine — I'm fine.  I'd like to get rid of them too.  I'm not sitting here fighting for the Stanley steamer. 

New technology let's embrace it.  But we don't have it yet Mr. President, and every time you invest you lose.  Every time you've taken the hard earned money from the pockets of people you say it's a bad thing it's a bad thing we should have Social Security be able to have the people invest their own money with a chance that maybe they get a higher return.  Why? Because you say that's not right because they might lose it all.  Stocks are risky thing.  Yet you take the money from their taxes and you invest it in the riskiest of things, and then you say we got a bet. 

This isn't Vegas.  This is the United States of America and it's Washington D.C.  We're supposed to have trust.  America doesn't trust any of us in Washington with their money.  Nor should they."

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.