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

'American Sniper' co-author discusses the real Chris Kyle, criticism from Michael Moore

January 20, 2015
Wilson

Writer

On radio today, 'American Sniper' co-author Jim DeFelice joined the radio show to talk about the incredible success of the 'American Sniper' movie, the Chris Kyle he knew, and the criticism coming from the progressive voices in Hollywood.

Below is a rough transcript of the segment:

GLENN: Jim DeFelice is the coauthor of the book. He wrote it with Chris Kyle. He is with us now.

Jim, how are you, sir?

JIM: I'm great, guys. And, you know, you guys can just keep going.

[laughter]

GLENN: First of all, in your wildest dreams, you or Chris when you were writing this that it would be this huge?

JIM: No way. No way. I remember one afternoon Chris and I we were a little tired from -- we kind of kicked back a bit. We were sitting around and having a couple of beers. So Chris asked me how I though the book would do. I knew it was a great story, and I knew that it would resonate. I hoped, I should say, that it would do well. You know, you don't know. He asked me would it sell a lot? And I said, I hope so. I think it's a great story.

He goes, well, if it sells a couple, I don't really care. I've done my part. Thanks a lot, dude. It's just been phenomenal.

GLENN: So, Jim, how do you -- I mean, how are you making sense of the -- of the vitriol that is coming out about this movie now from the left?

JIM: Here's the thing. There's been a lot of criticism really since the book was first published. The problem is -- listen, you know, we're American. I love the fact that people can say what they think. It's our privilege. And, you know, we live --

GLENN: And our responsibility.

JIM: And our responsibility. And I'm cool with it. You can say whatever you want. The only thing I would wish is that when you voice an opinion, I think it would be useful, you know, work with some facts. Read the book, for crying out loud. You know, most of the people who have problems with either the book or the movie, a lot of them haven't read the book. I can tell three words out of their mouth, and I can tell. You know, if you read the book and you've seen the movie or whatever, and you want to discuss it intellectually and intelligently, hey, listen, that's cool. That's fine. But please have some facts behind you. Or I'm not going to listen to you.

GLENN: Let's go off this. Page 324. In the end I was all right with being scheduled for another deployment, I still loved war. That's the kind of thing that they're seizing on.

PAT: The fact he said it was fun and he loved war. Can you clarify those?

JIM: Do you want a soldier who do not like what he does? I don't know. Do you live what you do? In my job, I love what I do. That's what gets me up in the morning every day. Listen --

GLENN: Everybody I've met that's good at their job. They don't love killing.

JIM: Right.

GLENN: I shouldn't say that. I do believe they love killing the bad guys. They don't mind killing the bad guys. And I don't think any of them take it lightly. As you watched the movie, I thought that Bradley Cooper did a really good job of showing, he was not into killing for killing. Every time he squeezed that trigger when he was not sure, it bother him deeply.

JIM: First of all, Bradley Cooper did a phenomenal job. The other thing I have to say, the rules of engagement were so tight. The requirements so strict. And, you know, Chris was always being -- you know, there was always somebody there. That's how we know the real number of the people he killed. He never had a doubt when he squeezed that trigger. He always knew that the guy that he was fighting was -- was a terrorist. Was either trying to kill him or trying to kill an Iraqi.

He actually -- the truth is that he was more protecting -- he was certainly protecting fellow Americans, but the bulk of the people that he was protecting over the course of those four deployments were Iraqis. You know, whether they were being attacked directly or they were IEDs going off or whatever. That was actually Chris' job.

If it weren't just for not just Chris, actually, you know, for all Americans who were there, the Iraqis would never have been able to form their government. They wouldn't have even been able to go to school or what have you. And you see what ISIS is doing now. Well, that's what -- a lot of those people, they're involved in ISIS, in Mosul and some of the other places, are actually the old, you know, [inaudible word] that the Americans had chased or quieted down. They've come back out of the woodwork.

GLENN: You know the scene where they're -- they're trying to get the guy, you know, who is drilling people. And they go in and they're across the street, you know, in the upstairs room with, you know -- with one of the bad guys. And they go across, and they're in this torture chamber. They come out and they're chasing the bad guys through a tunnel. And all of a sudden, you see this crowd of Iraqis carrying the dead in the street. Here's a torture chamber, of not Americans, but anybody who stands against these guys. There's a torture chamber, and these guys are standing in the streets and shouting down the Americans.

And Chris and everyone was just really cool said, let's go. This thing is falling apart. Let's go.

I will tell you that my visceral reaction in watching that was, shoot them. Kill them all. They're all animals. Shoot them all. I was impressed and I think anybody who was honest if you were into this movie, you were impressed that the American shoulders had so much restraint and they didn't just shoot them. After walking through a torture chamber and seeing what you saw, that just screws you up. Did you ever -- did you ever talk to him about the restraint that it took to not just at times see people as animals and not just shoot them?

JIM: Sure, absolutely. From Chris' perspective, that's what his training was all about. And, you know, the ROEs they're all about -- obviously, it's very difficult to make yourself a professional and to get into that role and say, well, okay, this is what I have to do. I don't necessarily like it, but I have to follow just these rules.

And listen, the SEALs that's why they're selected. They go through a process to find -- it's not just physical. They want to find the guys that can mentally do those things. We're talking about the evil in Iraq. And, look, people don't have to take my word for it or Chris Kyle's word for it. I happened to be very privileged to work with an Iraqi, you know, who worked with American forces as well as Iraqi forces. And can, you know, talk -- he lays out -- not everything, but some of the things that the terrorists, both Sunni and Shia were doing. "Code Name: Johnny Walker." You know, go to your library or even better, buy it, and find out when an Iraqi thinks of that war and thinks of Americans like Chris Kyle.

STU: It was amazing watching some of the reaction from people like Seth Rogen comparing the movie and the book to Nazi propaganda. First reaction to that.

JIM: You know -- I'll tell you something, if you don't know a lot about World War II and you don't know a lot about Nazi propaganda, I guess you can say anything you want.

GLENN: How about Michael Moore who said, you know, my uncle or somebody was killed by a sniper. And snipers are cowards.

JIM: First of all, I appreciate his uncle having fought in that war. Because of his uncle and many men like him you and I enjoy our freedoms today. So, you know, I thank Mr. Moore's uncle and the entire family. But, you know, snipers today, I think this is a common misunderstanding of what snipers did in Iraq.

You know, World War II unfortunately when we were trying to liberate France, Italy, Germany, a lot of countries, to get the enemy, we would blow up a building, you know, where there were some soldiers, and unfortunately blow up -- whole villages were wiped out and towns and parts of cities. That's no longer -- we don't want to do that. That's bad. We're killing innocent civilians. We're causing collateral damage. Even if we're not killing innocent people, we're destroying their buildings.

The whole idea of snipers, the thing they did in the Iraq war, is they were highly trained. Given precision weapons and equipment and very strict rules of engagement so that the people they were killing were only terrorists and insurgents who were trying to kill other Iraqis and trying to kill Americans.

So it's kind of ironic that people say, oh, this guy was, you know, whatever they say. When what he was really doing was trying to, you know, not harm civilians. But, you know, I guess you can say whatever you want if you don't have the facts.

STU: We're talking to Jim DeFelice. He was the coauthor of "American Sniper" with Chris Kyle.

And one of the things you did both -- in telling the story in the book and, of course, to the movie, that I thought was really impressive was the price that Chris and his family paid for what he did. He thought this was so vitally important to the country that he was willing on to pay the price of putting himself in an impossible situation, watching his best friends die and really ripping his family apart almost to the point where it couldn't be repaired.

JIM: Absolutely. And that's -- actually every veteran, everybody that serves in service is in the military, is giving, you know -- is giving you and me a blank check on their lives. But at the same time, they're also giving a blank check on the lives of their loved ones and their families.

And one of the things I think -- one of the reasons I think the people reacted to "American Sniper" the book and now the movie, so favorably is because we were able to talk about what Taya Kyle went through. A little bit about what the kids and the family went through. And getting her voice into "American Sniper" -- you know, if you want to and me what I'm most proud of in that book, was being able to do that because she's a remarkable woman.

As remarkable as she is, she is no different than the wives and mothers and the daughters of every service person that really is protecting our freedom today.

PAT: Jim, can you discuss a little bit the incident that Chris had with Jesse Ventura?

JIM: You know, that's the one thing I've been told not to talk about. The case is under appeal. Look, I was deposed for an entire day. Eight or nine hours, whatever it was. I testified for an hour. I'm on record a lot about it. There were a lot of guys who testified to it. At the end of the day, the jury does what the jury does.

PAT: It's an unbelievable decision.

STU: I will say, I was interested in the story. I love Chris Kyle. At least 20 percent of the reason I went to the movie was to piss off Jesse Ventura.

JIM: I will tell you one thing, whatever the differences were, Chris always honored Mr. Ventura's service. Whatever the circumstance, he was -- to the effect, you know, he did serve in the military. I'm proud of that. I honor that. Whatever else -- and I'm sure there was a lot of else in some of those sentences, but whatever else, that was still valuable to him. Still important to him, no matter who it was.

GLENN: So let me just ask one quick question. The thing that bothered me. I have someone on my team that is on my protective detail that served with Chris' brother. And he said, that was not Chris' brother.

JIM: Yeah, that's not Jeff. I don't know. I didn't write the screenplay. I wasn't on the set. You know, sometimes people have -- you know, they have to -- it's a movie. It's not real life. I can tell you, Jeff Kyle is -- change of circumstances in Jeff would be, you know, Chris. He's a great guy. He's a brave marine. He's a marine recon.

GLENN: He's not a guy who is --

PAT: Oh, he was in recon? I didn't -- wow. He was not presented as marine recon.

JIM: Jeff is so low-key. He's just under the radar. That's cool with him. That's who he is. He's really a hero in his own right.

GLENN: I thought it was important to correct the record here. If you saw the movie, that is not who he is.

JIM: Yeah. It's an actor. And they have roles they have to do.

GLENN: I know.

JIM: Cram a whole life in two hours, that's pretty hard.

GLENN: I know. Thank you so much for being there for Chris and writing this story and being a part of the true American history.

I was struck a couple of weeks ago when the president came out and spoke about the ESPN anchor that died. He came out and did a big deal about him, but has never said anything about an American hero, Chris Kyle. And I'm glad that the American people are now speaking in the sales of the books and in the movie, to show that we do honor him, his family, and the service of all those who fight for us. Thank you so much.

JIM: Oh, I am honored to be part of it.

GLENN: God bless you. Thanks a lot. We'll talk again.

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.