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

Senator Jim Risch explains how America will be just fine with less spending in Washington, DC

February 26, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Instead of looking at all of Washington and just declaring they stink, Glenn has decided to take a hard look at some of the strongest champions for liberty who are ready to stand together against the GOP Progressives. One Senator that has been highly ranked on "Most Conservative in the Senate" lists is Senator Jim Risch of Idaho. Glenn invited Senator Risch onto radio to discuss some of the issues facing the country today. What did he think?

Read the Rush Transcript below:

GLENN: Okay. We have a guy who I don't know much about and we are going to start making a list and checking it twice of who's naughty and nice. Instead of looking at all of Washington and saying they all stink, Ted Cruz is out and he is trying to ‑‑ he said yesterday, "You know it's time to have another party, maybe." I think it is. But I don't want to ‑‑ I mean, you know, you ‑‑ that's a long process. That's 20 years. We can make inroads if we can get a group of guys to stand together on liberty principles and really stand together and say, "I don't care what John Boehner says; we're not going to do it." And if they would really stand together, I think people in ‑‑ the American people would gather around them. They are going to be called names, they are going to be called everything under the sun, but if they would stand together. You know, Rand Paul, Cruz, Mike Lee, it would be great.

Now, there's a senator that I don't think I've ever spoken to, at least politically. I understand that we met one time up in Idaho when he was the governor and now he's the senator. And he was ‑‑ was he number one on one of the conservative lists of the most ‑‑

STU: Yeah, most conservative in the Senate on one list, yeah.

GLENN: And I said, we have to start ‑‑ let's start at the top and go down and meet these guys and introduce them to you. Senator Risch, how are you, sir?

RISCH: Good. Good to talk to you again, Glenn. It has been a while since we've talked.

GLENN: Yeah. Where was that? It was up in Idaho.

RISCH: Yeah, it was at Frank VanderSloot's home.

GLENN: That was years ago. Yeah, that was years and years ago.

RISCH: It was a while ago, yeah. A lot of water under the bridge.

GLENN: So Jim, you are ‑‑ tell us a little bit about yourself on where you stand on the Constitution and what is happening right now in our country.

RISCH: Well, I was ‑‑ I started my career as a prosecutor and I spent almost 30 years in the state Senate, then I was lieutenant governor, governor and now in the U.S. Senate but, you know, I guess people are ‑‑ I've had some people surprised about soliciting but, look, I cast 20,000 votes when I was in the state Senate and they're not any different than what I vote on here.

Look, there's two things that guide me. Number one, what's happened in this town and what shocked me since I got here going on my fifth year now is the lack, total lack of disregard for the sovereignty of the states. There is no ‑‑ there's absolutely no discussion about the rights that have been reserved to the states in the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and these things are ‑‑ you know, I was one of the senators that voted against the violence against women's act and brought a lot of heat on that in the media, but that ‑‑ I'm not soft on violence against women. I think it's terrible. When I was a prosecutor, I put people in prison for that. But the United States government has no business in that at all. It is the function of the states to do that and that's what's caused this government to grow is that these people come here and they see something that they would like to do and do good on and so they introduce a bill and away you go and then if you don't vote for it, then you're a bad guy because you support violence against women, which is absolutely insane.

GLENN: Okay. So ‑‑

RISCH: And that's what's happening in this town and that gets me. But the second thing that gets me, Glenn, and your listeners know this: As bad as they think it is in Washington D.C., it is much, much worse than that. They are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar they spend. They spend between $10 and $11 billion a day, but they have to borrow over $4 billion every single day in order to pay their bills at night. This has got to stop.

GLENN: So how do you do that? When they are, right now they are saying that, you know, this 2 or 3% cut with sequester is going to shut everything down: The airports are going to stop, our children are going to be out in the streets without teachers and there's no firemen or no policemen?

RISCH: Glenn, that's crazy. You heard the FAA saying they are going to close down towers and what have you. They are going to have the same amount of money they had in 2009. They were operating the towers in 2009. Why would they have to close them down now? This president is going to do his best to make this as painful on the American people as possible. I think this one's going to come around and bite him. He's the CEO.

Look, when I was in Idaho, we had holdbacks from time to time because the money didn't come in, and we cut back, but we all got together and said how can we do this as painlessly as possible and still make the trains run on time? And we did it and we did it without punishing people. But that's what this president is trying to do. It's nonsense. It's crazy.

GLENN: Okay. So ‑‑

RISCH: And not only that, but on the sequester, this is de minimis compared to what's coming. Anybody who thinks we're going to get out of this thing without a substantial amount of pain is whistling Dixie. I mean, there ‑‑

GLENN: What kind of percentage, what kind of across‑the‑board percentage do you think in the end we're going to have to cut?

RISCH: Well, if you ‑‑ if you look at what we're borrowing, borrowing 42 ‑‑ just to get even, just to stop the hemorrhaging you've got to cut 42%. Well, of course, we all know that can't happen and you're going to have a collapse and chaos and everything else. But there's a simple way to do it. It will never happen in D.C., and I'll tell you why in a second. But the simple way to do this if we just spent 1% less every year for the next six or seven years, we could get back to a balanced budget. We'd still have a $20 trillion debt we'd have to deal with, but we could at least get back to a balanced budget.

And let me tell you why it's not going to happen. In Washington D.C. when you say we need to spend less than we spent last year, they look at you like you got three heads. The Republicans have compromised and compromised and compromised and got us up to $3.8 trillion spending, it's time for the other side to compromise and roll this thing backwards. Just a percent at a time and we can do it without bringing the house down around us.

GLENN: Do you think we could ever do that with the Republicans? I mean, John McCain, I mean, he's saying that Hagel is going to get confirmed. You know, you got the Lindsey Grahams and the John McCains in there and I mean, you're never going to get that?

RISCH: I'm already going to vote on cloture on that, I'm going to vote no. But I think there are enough people that are going to ‑‑

GLENN: So how do you make this happen, the tough things happen when you can't even get ‑‑ you can't even get Hagel, you can't even get enough Republicans to say absolutely not?

RISCH: Well, we got other problems besides that. You know, we got Brennan coming up who's a real problem also. But, you know, look, we can't give up. Yeah, we're in tougher times right now. We don't have the White House and when they have the White House and the national media on their side, you've got to ‑‑ you've got to get up every morning and get dressed and get ready to go down and fight because it's not going to be handed to you by any stretch of the imagination. When we do get the White House, we still have the national media against us, but I'm looking forward to that day. You know, we've got the days coming until this nightmare's over and we're going to get another shot at this. In a couple of years we're hoping that we're going to do better on the ‑‑ in the U.S. Senate and there's a real possibility on that.

GLENN: Well, I think there's a real possibility if the Karl Roves don't destroy everybody who could come in and back people like you and Mike Lee and everybody else up. But I mean, if the Karl Roves take this party, you're done.

RISCH: Well, you know, again like I said, this country's worth fighting for. I'm going to do it and I've got friends up here that are ‑‑ they are going to do it. And win, lose or draw, they are going to get a fight.

GLENN: Let me ‑‑ one other thing, I can't let you go: Where do you stand on ‑‑ I know this answer because of Idaho, but where do you stand on guns and what's coming?

RISCH: Nobody needs to take a stand on guns. It's already in the Constitution. It's black and white. It's written in plain English. And these people ‑‑ here in D.C. I get this question all the time: Well, why do you need an automatic weapon and a big clip to hunt for deer? Well, the answer to that is you don't, but the Second Amendment's got nothing to do with hunting. It was written by people who put it in place so that free Americans could defend themselves against people who wanted to take our rights away. It has nothing to do with hunting. Forget hunting. Take it ‑‑ take hunting out of the conversation. It's got nothing to do with that. But if ‑‑ I'll tell you what: Thank goodness we have the Second Amendment. Thank goodness when those guys sat down and they wrote the First Amendment and gave us all our God‑given rights in writing, they then said, "Okay, what are we going to have to do to keep these?" Somebody said, "I got an idea for number two," and number two is just crystal clear and black and white. Thank heaven we've got it.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Senator, great talking to you.

RISCH: Good talking to you, Glen.

GLENN: We'll talk again. So I think he goes up on the board. Do you agree?

STU: Yeah, I like him.

PAT: Definitely.

GLENN: So he goes up on the board as, let's get a ‑‑ let's get some magnets of all these guys ab we'll decide which one goes into the board. Which one goes into the GOP board and which one goes into the new GOP or the new ‑‑ the libertarian kind of constitutional kind of board.

STU: Kind of feels like our own creepy version of e‑harmony. Like we're just ‑‑ like we're going through, like, "What do we have in common with you?"

PAT: We've matched them on 28 dimensions of compatibility.

GLENN: But you know what? If we could get ‑‑

PAT: Found our soulmate.

GLENN: If we could get them and promote them as a group.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We could say ‑‑ and they would start actually moving as a group, they would have some power.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: You can't take all of them. I mean, you can, one at a time. But if they move together, you'll be okay. I mean, you at least have a shot. And at least then you start changing the dialogue. You don't talk about ‑‑ don't talk about all the crap that the GOP and the Democrats are talking about. Talk about principles. Make sure you base everything on principles. What do you say the Big 10, the Bill of Rights? Just base them all on that. No, you don't have a right to search without a warrant; no, you don't have a right to hold me without a trial. I have a right to a trial with a jury. I'm sorry, you can't just take my records of something. You can't snoop on me. You can't listen on my phone. You can't just take my stuff. You can't just tell the states what to do. It's not in the Constitution. It belongs to them. You can't take my gun, and I have a right to say that. If we can just get people to back the top ten, we'd be a lot farther than we are now.

 

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.