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

Unbelievable: Michelle Obama’s Target story has nothing to do with race and she knows it

December 18, 2014
Wilson

Writer

Yesterday Glenn reacted to Michelle Obama’s story of experiencing racism while shopping at Target. Turns out she’s told the same story before, only it doesn’t seem to have any racism in it at all. See Michelle Obama tell the story to David Letterman in quite a different way. Plus, Glenn gets a call from a woman claiming to be the sister of the person who offended Obama. Is she racist?

Watch the Letterman appearance below:

Below is a transcript of the segment:

GLENN: All right. Michelle Obama. We just played the audio. She was on David Letterman. She spoke about going to Target. She talked about meeting a short woman who was in the detergent aisle, and she said, nobody knew who I was. This woman didn't know who I was, asked if I could help, and get the detergent. She said the short woman then, you know, said, you didn't need to make it look that easy. So she had a good sense of humor. That's what she said on David Letterman about a year ago.

Now in "People" magazine when asked about the kind of racism they have to put up with -- the Obamas, you know, there in the White House. This is what she said. Can you read this, please?

JEFFY: I think people forget that we've lived in the White House for six years. Before that, Barack Obama was a black man that lived on the south side of Chicago who had his share of troubles catching cabs. I tell this story, I mean, even as the first lady, during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised. The only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf because she didn't see me as the first lady. She saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life, so it isn't anything new.

STU: Then the next line is Barack talking about race as well.

JEFFY: There is no black male my age who is a professional who hasn't come out of a restaurant waiting for their car and somebody didn't hand them their car keys.

STU: So it's all about race all around. This is -- obviously she's telling this as a racial story.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Donna is on the phone. She's a fan of Pat and Stu. She called the Pat & Stu Show yesterday. And we have her on her words. So we don't have independent verification that her sister was the one that was in the aisle, that asked the first lady, could you help me with that box of detergent.

Donna, welcome to the program.

CALLER: Thank you.

GLENN: Why should we believe you, that this is your sister?

CALLER: Well, you know, just there's no reason, except there's no reason for me to call and tell y'all this except that it happened. And I'll tell you, the funny thing is, my sister didn't even know it was Michelle Obama until she was lying in the bed with her husband watching David Letterman and heard Michelle Obama tell the story. And she looked at her husband and said, that was me.

And he wouldn't believe her, except that Michelle Obama included that detail about, well, you didn't have to make it look so easy. That that's my sister. He knew she would have said that. And he said, oh, my word, it was you.

And that's how she found out that it was Michelle Obama. And then wrote her a little note. Now whether Michelle Obama ever got it, I don't know. She just said, hey, it was me in the store, and I probably didn't even say thank you.

What she didn't tell her, she told us, and we laughed about it. Probably one of the reasons why she didn't recognize her is because she didn't really look up. She was examining the detergent. She said, she reached down -- a real flowery scent, and this was for her son to take off to college. And she kept thinking, I'd really like a different one, but I'd hate to ask this woman to put this back and get another one too.

Michelle Obama told it accurately the first time, but she is twisting it now to make my sister out to be a racist. Now, her name isn't out there. But I just got furious on my sister's behalf. I can -- we have political differences, big time, but my sister is not a racist.

GLENN: Okay. You're a fan of Pat and Stu, so I'm assuming that you're a conservative.

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: And your sister -- it's our understanding -- because I believe somebody on the Blaze spoke to your sister yesterday.

STU: I think Keith did.

CALLER: Yeah. I asked for her permission to give her number to y'all. Because I wasn't going to do that without her permission. She had no idea I had called. I thought she would be furious with me.

GLENN: Well, it's our impression that she was not. That she's actually very upset that she's being painted as a racist as well.

CALLER: Yeah, she's not happy about it because she knows how it happened, and Michelle Obama knows too because she wouldn't have told the story like she did on David Letterman, very close to the real event. Now time has passed and it's a great story for her to, you know, make it into a race thing, which it is not.

And I just called to set the record straight because that infuriated me. I'm all about great race relations. I want to talk about it. I want to -- if I can help in any way, I want to help. But this is not helping. There's real racism out there that we could talk about. This is not real racism at all. Race didn't even come into play.

GLENN: Your sister voted for Obama twice?

CALLER: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. They are huge Obama fans. Which, you know, and I'm the one -- my brother-in-law works -- I won't say. The banter around the water cooler at that station was, hey, when that story broke, wasn't this your wife? And they were jabbing with him about it. Can you imagine if his wife came on Glenn Beck? He'd never hear the end of it.

GLENN: Here's the interesting thing, that station knows exactly what the story is.

CALLER: Oh, yeah. They won't play it though.

GLENN: But that is fascinating. That they have first-hand knowledge of who this person is, how it came down --

CALLER: Oh, yeah. When they found out about it on the David Letterman Show, of course, he went in the office laughing about it. You all won't believe this, but, you know, my sister ran into -- told the whole story. That's when the story broke. They knew exactly who it was. But you'll never hear about it over there, no.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

CALLER: Yeah. But I don't appreciate anybody making someone else out to look like a racist, when clearly they are not, and she told the story honestly the first time. And it was fluky. I would love to be in on a conspiracy, believe me, because I just love you, Glenn. But there's nothing more to it.

I grew up there. And I went to high school with senators kids and diplomats. And we weren't a wealthy family by any stretch. But, you know, growing up in the area, it's not uncommon at all. Run into someone at the grocery store, that just happens, you know.

GLENN: Well, God bless you. I appreciate it. Say hello to your sister. I hope she ends up going on the record with the Blaze. We will tell the story as she tells it to us.

CALLER: Yeah. I wish she would.

PAT: Donna, I know the news department is trying to get in touch with her. They haven't had too much success. If you could assist in that, we would really appreciate it.

CALLER: Yeah, well, she teaches school during the day. She doesn't take off work for anything. You can get her in the afternoons. I just wanted to set the record straight. I hope she'll come on.

GLENN: Thank you, Donna, I appreciate it.

STU: Even go she doesn't come on, just text --

GLENN: Yeah. For the record. Let's set this record straight. It's obscene. In a country that's having the kind of race relations that we have right now, keep getting ratcheted up and ratcheted up, for the first lady to dig in her big basket of all the things, all the oppressions she's had to suffer suffered through, to come through and say, that's her story, when it's been told before, completely differently, and the person who asked her is an Obama supporter.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Times ten.

STU: I mean, how on earth do you leave this situation continuing to be an Obama supporter? How can you see the way they manipulate racial relations for their own benefit, when you're involved --

GLENN: How do you continue to work -- how do you continue to work at that news organization? How do you do that?

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: When it is your wife and everybody knows. And now it is your wife, and here's a story in "People" magazine, where she's changing history. Barack knows, you got to change our history. She's changing history. And it's your wife. And everybody in the office knows, that's your wife. Don't you have a little righteous indignation and say, guys, you either correct this story because this is about my wife. I know nobody knows this is about my wife. This is important. This is important. To me. To my wife. This hurts my wife. We're supporters. We have no axe to grind. This story needs to be corrected.

And if they don't, why wouldn't you walk. Do you have no credibility? Do you have no honor and integrity? Is there not a chivalrous bone in your body for your wife? How do you continue to work there?

STU: If they won't tell that story thank they actually have it through one of their employees, if they won't tell that story to protect them, how can you possibly work there? These people are willing to wreck your wife.

GLENN: Yeah, they're willing to let your wife go through a buzz saw. This isn't even a big story. So if they're willing to do this to your wife, so what, she's in a wood chipper. Oh, well. And you're willing to let your wife go through the wood chipper, when the chips are down, so to speak. When things are really important, how do you trust that you know what the news are S? How do you trust you are getting the truth?

STU: If you work at this particular establishment, you don't care about the truth.

GLENN: I disagree with that. I think these people are so -- they're so -- they've had to convince themselves of two things. One, either the ends justify the means. I think this is the deal. It wasn't that important of a story. Nobody knows. It's going to be gone. Why dig all this up. It will only put your wife in the spotlight, and you don't want that to happen. So they've just convinced themselves. Ends justify the means.

STU: Maybe. Let me ask you this: Donna is a caller. Our news department is making sure everything is buttoned up on this story. As of now, it's not a news story, it's just a caller. You listen to her. Do you believe her?

GLENN: Yes, I do.

STU: She sounds completely credible. That's not enough for a news story. It's an amazing thing. It doesn't sound like she has a huge axe to grind. She wants to protect her sister. That's a human instinct.

GLENN: And, you know what, because her sister -- this story is easy to verify. It's easy to verify once you have the names. It's easy to verify, does that person work there? Does that person do this? You're not going to say, and her husband works for this person at this network, because, I mean, who -- who has done that kind of thinking. And how would you know -- I mean, we very well could know that individual? Someone in our organization, I can guarantee you, knows that individual. So nobody sits there and makes that up.

STU: No. And she gave a lot of different details to the initial call. Sounds -- but, again, this is why you have a news organization.

GLENN: I know.

JEFFY: She even said that, I know her name isn't out there, but I was mad because I knew it was my sister.

GLENN: But her sister talking to the producers yesterday, talking to the news people yesterday, her sister said, she was mad. She's a supporter and everything else. But she's mad.

STU: Wouldn't you be?

GLENN: Yes. I would be.

STU: Especially because she's probably spent hundreds of hours defending these people. She's probably sat there with some conservative, her sister, around a Thanksgiving table and said, no, you're wrong about these people. That's not what they do. And now here she is a victim of it.

GLENN: Doing it to you.

STU: I mean, that is crushing. That's crushing.

Front page image courtesy of the AP.

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.