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

Bill O’Reilly’s obsession with death continues in 'Killing Jesus'

March 25, 2015
Staff

WRITER

The King of Cable News joined Glenn on radio today to talk about the film adaptation of his book ‘Killing Jesus’. Glenn and Bill don’t spare punches with one another, and it’s another classic interview from these two cable news giants.

Below is a rush transcript of this interview

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly I believe has more money than God himself now, sold 12 million copies in all formats for the "Killing" series. His obsession with death continues. It's disturbing. But, that's just the way he rolls. And he's on the program now.

O'REILLY: I'm here because I want to be enlightened. Who is that woman who does the voice-over? She sounds like she's from Butan or someplace.

GLENN: She's from Australia. I know that's quite exotic for a man like you.

O'REILLY: It is, very exotic. So I am here to be enlightened, so what do you know, Beck?

GLENN: What is the obsession with death and why do you put it on TV?

O'REILLY: These people we write about link in Patton, Jesus, all influence the planet in a -- planet in a remarkable dramatic way, Jesus being the top of the chart, the most famous human being who has ever lived. So we want to know what happened to them and why it happened.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

O'REILLY: Elementary and then people are enjoying the series.

GLENN: Hold on. Are you saying that if Jesus were here today, he would be able to run something that says, Jesus Christ, number one for 15 years in a row.

O'REILLY: I think --

GLENN: Out of everywhere shall break?

O'REILLY: He would be number one longer than that, Beck.

PAT: Not much longer.

O'REILLY: Finish the savior. Wouldn't it be interesting, though, if the messiah came today with the mess that this world is in. It was in a mess back then as we show in the movie "Killing Jesus." It was a mess. But boy, this world is in such chaos from top to bottom. Wouldn't it be interesting if he came today?

GLENN: What is the format of this? Is it like a documentary style --

O'REILLY: Feature film. And one of the finest TV movies you'll ever see up there with "Lonesome Dove." Shot in Morocco.

PAT: Is it really?

O'REILLY: It is. $12 million budget. Performances --

PAT: Wow.

O'REILLY: Kelsey Grammer plays Herod. A Muslim, Haaz Sleiman plays Jesus. Rufus Sule, a British actor, plays Kaifus. Just knocks it out of the park. I know you're going to get your popcorn. You're going on the set --

GLENN: May I just tell you this.

O'REILLY: Sure.

GLENN: You know who Mark Burnett is?

O'REILLY: Sure.

GLENN: I'm currently watching the "A.D." series. Mark is sending me the "A.D." series so I can watch it in advance and talk about it if I like it.

O'REILLY: Right.

GLENN: That's the way it usually happens where you get to see in it advance --

(overlapping speakers).

O'REILLY: I thought we sent you a press kit.

GLENN: No, huh-uh.

O'REILLY: Well, look, it's better that you didn't see it so now you have something to look forward to on Sunday.

GLENN: This is what happens. This is what happens.

(overlapping speakers).

O'REILLY: Your Texas neighborhood telling people who you are.

GLENN: This is what happens when people with bad movies come out. They tonight send out -- they don't send out a prerelease.

O'REILLY: That's true. The my other movie, the Bride of Chucky, I didn't send out --

GLENN: Are you going to send it to me?

O'REILLY: Sure, we'll overnight it tonight and you can have your hired help put it in the machine and you can watch it tomorrow. But I'm telling you on Palm Sunday, this is an event. You're going to be very imprested. I'm surprised they didn't send it to you and I will definitely send it to you overnight.

GLENN: Will you fire anybody over it?

O'REILLY: No, Jesus wouldn't.

GLENN: You're not Jesus.

O'REILLY: Can I tell you an interesting story? Do you have enough --

GLENN: If I believed you had an interesting story to share, I would say yes to that.

O'REILLY: Good, I'm assuming that's affirmative. A year ago this time they came to me and they said we have a young actor who just auditioned for Jesus, Haaz Sleiman. Do you know him. I said no. He had done a few things, but not many. They said he's the audition for Jesus but there's a problem. And the problem is that he's a Muslim. Born in Lebanon, raised a Muslim, came to the United States at age 21. Should we hire him. And I said yes. And they said, well, you know, there might somebody blowback. And I said, would Jesus hire him? And it was silent. And so we hired him. It's a good story. It's the kid --

GLENN: So nobody could answer that question. So you still don't know if Jesus would have hired him?

O'REILLY: Well, do you think Jesus would have been prejudicial towards somebody --

GLENN: I don't know. I did not -- I don't know. I'm not Jesus. But I --

O'REILLY: You should know his philosphies, his teachings, he would not have been prejudicial.

GLENN: If that's the world you want to live in.

PAT: He did have a chosen people. I don't know that that's true, Bill. He did pick some over others.

GLENN: He picked 12.

O'REILLY: It was all-inclusive. It was like Club Med. He was all-inclusive.

GLENN: That was Paul who said let's go the Gentiles.

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: Let's just do this as a Jewish thing. Paul was the expansive one.

O'REILLY: You're watching Burnett's movie, because that's a religious movie. This is a secular movie. This is not a movie -- you don't have to be religious to watch "Killing Jesus". This is based on history and why Jesus was executed. And he wasn't executed for being a religious guy or teaching any kind of spirituality.

GLENN: Okay, can I ask you a question?

O'REILLY: Sure.

GLENN: And this is a serious question. I'm watching Mark Burnett's thing and it's absolutely fantastic because he sent it to me so I would know that it was absolutely fantastic. But it's really, really good. And -- but there is one thing and this is only because I actually went to school. I studied this time period.

O'REILLY: Yes.

GLENN: And they didn't -- they didn't crucify -- like when you see those pictures with the three crosses up there, they would have been much lower to the ground and there of would have been a whole series of crosses because because it was meant as a warning and it was close to the road --

O'REILLY: You're going to love "Killing Jesus"e because it's exactly the way it's portrayed in my film.

GLENN: Excellent. Very good. I wish I would have been able to say that.

O'REILLY: The cross is a key. It's not the traditional cross you see in the Christian churches. It's a T, because the top bar slides down into the stem, which is -- as you mentioned, and very astutely, Beck, as you mentioned was always in the ground as a warning to insurgents. Are you happy now?

GLENN: I had to talk to you to become happy but you had nothing to do with it.

O'REILLY: So you're going to watch this movie on Sunday night and tell everybody to watch it, right?

GLENN: Yes. I mean, you don't tell me what to do.

O'REILLY: No, I'm asking. That was a question.

GLENN: I might. I might consider. What do I get out of it?

O'REILLY: Spirituality, uplift.

GLENN: You said it wasn't a spiritual film.

O'REILLY: All the positives.

GLENN: All right. I'll do it.

O'REILLY: Good.

GLENN: I may not like it. I may not like it. But I'll watch it.

O'REILLY: Wait a minute, now this is serious. If you don't like that movie, I'll come back on Monday and we'll kick it around. I want to know if you don't like and it why.

GLENN: Okay, I'm praying I hate it.

(laughing).

GLENN: Okay, so, Bill.

O'REILLY: Yes.

GLENN: You're on with David Letterman last night.

O'REILLY: Yes, I am.

GLENN: And I got to ask. What is it about you that loves conflict this much? Because I can't stand the guy.

O'REILLY: Yeah, I know, there's a lot of people don't like Letterman. But I won him over. I've been on the program 16 times. I've been on your program about 30. So you're way ahead. I felt that I have to reach an audience that doesn't necessarily watch the Fox News channel. And that going on Stewart, Letterman, the "Today" show, that accomplishes that. So you know, over the years, I've developed a decent relationship with the man.

PAT: Is it not frustrating, though, Bill, at how ill-informed David Letterman --

O'REILLY: Yeah, but he's a comedian, so my expectation is he gives me my say. That's all. I don't really care what he thinks, all right. With all due respect to Dave. Look, he's got his belief system as O'Reilly pointed out, it's not really backed up by much.

PAT: It's nothing.

O'REILLY: He gives me my say. You heard the ovation I got in there. I won over his crowd.

PAT: And you get to mop the floor with him every single time.

O'REILLY: I don't believe that. I think he's -- I think --

PAT: Oh, you -- come on.

O'REILLY: In a way that is provocative and I don't mind answering those questions. As I said in the meantime, I like him now. I'm going to miss him. He's a lot better than come bert. I can't imagine going on Colbert's program.

PAT: Colbert is going to suck.

O'REILLY: He's way out there. And he lives -- all Letterman wants to do is have a laugh or two and he is a left wing guy, okay, fine. But if you're in this business, peck, you got to deal with all kind. There are right wing loons, too, you know that. So you deal with them as they come and you try to be respectful.

GLENN: Let me ask you one for question. I'm doing this show on Grover Norquist tonight.

O'REILLY: I don't know much about him. I know you think that he's Stalin, right? Isn't he --

(laughing).

STU: That's a good summary I would say of the program.

O'REILLY: I don't know much about Grover. I'm sorry that he's in your crosshairs, but I don't know much about him.

GLENN: Maybe you should know something about him.

O'REILLY: Well, you know --

PAT: Maybe you'll do a week called Killing Norquist sometime.

O'REILLY: sold what. How many copies? Eight?

(laughing).

GLENN: You believe that one for me, then.

O'REILLY: Yeah.

GLENN: All right. Bill, always good to talk to you, sir.

O'REILLY: Thanks for having me on, Beck.

GLENN: You bet. God bless. Sunday night, his movie "Killing Jesus" and I haven't seen it--

PAT: I didn't realize --

GLENN: Bill is -- Bill actually cares about quality.

STU: And a $12 million budget for a made for TV --

GLENN: That's solid.

PAT: I thought it was a documentary style thing. Didn't you?

GLENN: I did.

STU: I can't imagine his violent imagery saying violent crosshairs.

GLENN: That's --

STU: As you said, obsessed with death. You said it. And you said it accurately.

GLENN: I think I said it. America heard it. You know what I'm saying.

STU: They did here.

GLENN: There's no pulling that one back. America heard it and they heard the hate and the vitriol coming from Bill O'Reilly. You know what I love? Do you know anybody else that gives him this much crap?

STU: Now, you give it -- no, you give it to each other.

GLENN: I know, but do you know anybody who he takes that from? I don't know anybody else he takes that from.

STU: No, Bill actually likes you for some odd reason. I don't understand it. No one around here understands it. No one else feels that way.

PAT: Scientists are looking into it right now.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

STU: Everyone else feels it's the opposite way.

(overlapping speakers)

GLENN: I thought we were all friends.

STU: I'm just saying around here, this general area.

GLENN: But you're around here.

STU: But you don't know where I'm waving my arms. I'm on the radio.

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.