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

One Year Later: Still no justice for victims of MH17

July 17, 2015
Staff

WRITER

One year ago today, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was blown out of the sky by a missile that killed all 298 passengers aboard. The evidence increasingly shows that the Boeing 777 was annihilated by a Russian Buk missile launcher that has a total range of 82,000 feet. There has be no justice for that atrocity. There has not been a change in the policies of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. Buck Sexton spoke with World Chess Champion and political activist Garry Kasparov about the crash, Putin, the Ukraine, and more.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

BUCK: One year ago today, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was blown out of the sky by a surface two air missile that killed all 298 passengers aboard. This Boeing 777 was annihilated by a Russian Buk missile launcher that has a total range of 82,000 feet. The MH17 flight was hit at 33,000 feet. That was a year ago today.

There has be no justice for that atrocity. There, in fact, has not been a change in the policies that led to it. The policies of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine.

I wanted to bring in somebody who can speak with us about this with tremendous knowledge. Garry Kasparov. He's an author, political activist. His latest coming out in just a little bit. Pardon me. Winter is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped. It's out October 27th. It's available for preorder now. Garry, thank you very much for joining.

GARRY: Thanks for inviting me.

BUCK: Garry, it seems almost unfathomable that this kind of an atrocity could happen and that there would be no justice and, in fact, no real investigation at this point in time. And the latest from Putin is that he's rejecting calls for the establishment of the UN tribunal to prosecute any suspects. He's essentially saying, nothing is going to happen here. And I think he's right. Nothing is going to happen. How is it possible that he can get away with backing a policy and putting separatists in this region that shot a plane out of the sky and the international community essentially yawns?

GARRY: No, the very fact that Russia is the only state that categorically rejects the idea of international tribunal tells us that Putin knows who did it and he wants to cover it. Every other country, including Ukraine is inviting this idea because they have to find out who did it, and these people must be brought to justice.

But this tragic -- this tragic event, 298 lives are lost in the skies of Ukraine, brought down by a Russian-made missile and naturally fired by either pro-Russian forces or maybe the Russian regulars (phonetic). It's a result of Putin's unarmed aggression in Ukraine.

Everybody who talks about engagement and diplomacy and all sorts of attempts to bring dictators to the bargaining table, they ignore the fact that dictators never ask why. They always ask why not. And we would hate to hear about isolation (unintelligible). But, at the end of the day, if we don't stop them at an early stage, we pay more and more. The price goes up. And in this case, it's nearly 300 lives.

BUCK: It seems like Putin has taken the measure of the international community's response time and again and keeps finding the response to be wanting. Meaning that he doesn't think it's enough of a -- we don't pack enough a counterpunch with sanctions, with anything else to stop the policies. In fact, every time he seems to test our metal, whether it's in Georgia or the annexation of Crimea and now the continued aggression in eastern Ukraine, that as we know, it's one thing to say that this is a -- as I'm sure many do, and I know many do in Russia -- this is an internal dispute. Once you start shooting planes out of the sky with the international contingent of civilians, it should be the world's problem. There should be more of a focus on this. But, again, nothing happens here. What should be done? What could be done to make Putin actually stop?

GARRY: I've been saying for a long time that Putin was at one time Russia's problem. But it would be everyone's problem. Putin is a dictator. And he has enormous potential, Russian military and also Russian nuclear, to blackmail the rest of the world. And unless he's given an ultimatum, unless he sees a strong response from the West, start with the United States of America, nothing will happen.

And I have to say that, you know, NATO -- we could see American and NATO tanks in Estonia and Latvia. It's a small country bordering Russia. Again, the overall climate, political climate now, it's insane to stop Putin. And especially after what's happened now with Iran, where Putin has praised for helping Iran to get a phenomenal deal, I think Putin will become more arrogant because he sees nothing but weakness.

BUCK: Garry, you're actually taking me exactly where I wanted to go next. Which is, given this deal, as you said, Putin -- the Obama administration is high-fiving Putin for his help. Meanwhile, I think we know that the conventional and ballistic side of this agreement had to have some Russia collusion in here. Because where will they be buying this kind of missile technology and stuff? The most likely sellers of this will be Chinese and Russian. So it's good for the Russian arms market. And they're perfectly happy to sell them the S300. What does Putin do now that this is done? Now that he feels emboldened by this. This treaty is signed. What is Russia's policy under Putin going to be, vis-à-vis Iran?

GARRY: He sees this agreement as a step towards a big war in the Middle East. Iran now will get tons of money. It has international recognition. Iran's nuclear program, unlike was promised by the Obama administration to dismantle it, it's simply slowed down. And they can restore it at any moment. And of course, a big chunk of this $100 billion cash that Iran will receive under the terms of the agreement will go into Putin's pockets because as you said correctly, Russian weapons will be sold there.

And I believe that in this case, Putin and Obama, they're allies. Because both believe that America's power is something that should be reduced. Obama doesn't think that America should be involved in global affairs, and Putin agrees with him.

BUCK: Now, there's some places that people are already pointing to as possible flash points with Russia that have not yet flared up. People are saying the Balkans are getting quite a bit nervous. And there's been some NATO activity, where they're sort of prepositioning forces. They say it's for training forces. But to some of us, it looks like, well, it also is sort of a tripwire purpose. If not a quick reaction force purpose to have these NATO forces here.

Can you see within, let's say, a 12 to 18-month time frame from now, Russia backing another one of these -- this seems to be sort of the playbook. They find Russian speakers. Whether it's in the Baltics in the future or Transnistria or one of these places, and they'll try to push from some kind of a -- again, this separatist movement. They have swoop in. They'll be peace keepers for the Russians or something. Can you see that going, or will they just focus on Ukraine?

GARRY: We don't know what's exactly in Putin's mind and where he's going to hit next. But what I know is that when you deal with Putin, when you deal with Iran, when you deal with all sorts of dictators, you should understand that the nature of their regimes is quite different from the democratic institutions in this country or in Europe. They need enemies. And the moment they run out of enemies inside the country, they look for it outside. It's ridiculous to talk about Iran changing its behavior because the whole idea of Iranian revolution, you know, Saudis 1979 under Khomeini (phonetic) was to export revolution (unintelligible). Same for Putin. The moment he stops his aggression, foreign aggression, he will lose the rationale of staying in power in Russia. So dealing with these countries, you must understand that they will never change their behavior because it simply means they will have to relinquish their power.

BUCK: Now, Putin's popularity inside Russia at this point with this conflict that's been going in eastern Ukraine, it's increasingly clear that there's -- there's -- they say they're Russian volunteers. Then we find it's actually GRUs. And it's Russian Spetznaz. And some of these so-called separatists that are claiming they're Ukrainian or claiming that they're Russian volunteers. Or straight-on orders from the Kremlin. It doesn't seem like he's taking a hit when it comes to popularity at home. It seems like his aggressive ways and his sort of bellicose policy and the playing of the West and the United States has resulted in some pretty strong numbers for him. The polling numbers I see are astronomical compared to what a US president would expect after this many years in office. Is that still the case? Where is the sort of opposition movement?

GARRY: It's a big mistake to compare any polls taken in the United States or any democratic country compare them to opinion polls taken in the countries run by dictators. It's an element of fear. I mean, how many people are comfortable saying that they're not happy with Putin's rule? It's a country run by the KGB. And every day we see new laws being posted, Draconian laws being posed in Russia. And it would be the lost elements of civil rights and freedom disappearing, rapidly disappearing from the surface.

We don't know how popular is Putin. I mean, we don't know how popular is Kim Jong-un or how popular is Bashar al-Assad because running polls there means that you are calling people anonymously and you ask them to confess about a dictator. And they do understand this kind of information could be used against them because they were born and raised under the KGB rule.

BUCK: Garry, I know your book, Winter is Coming out in October. I assume in that book, based on what you're tackling, which is western appeasement since the end of the Cold War and the empowerment of Putin, I assume that you come out with some recommendations.

Before we close out here, Garry, what are your recommendations for how to deal with Putin and other dictators, including the Guardian Council of Iran and as you said Assad and elsewhere.

GARRY: Unfortunately, as much as we want to know to move with the globalization with peace, with trade, with development, with new ideas, we have to recognize that we are at war now. I named the book Winter Is Coming because we are entering the new Cold War. And it's up to us to stop it. There are many dictators from the world that could stay in power only being at war with the free world. And of course, America is the number one target. And the tragic events yesterday in Chattanooga, they proved that no one is safe. So we just have to understand that unless we take the challenge at an early stage, the price will go up. And whether we like it or not, we are in. And we have to defend the values of the free world again. And I believe that in this country, we must take a lead. And hopefully that in 2016, we'll see a new president who will change this suicidal course taken by the current administration.

BUCK: Winter is Coming is available for preorder now. It's out in October. The author Garry Kasparov. Garry, thank you very much for joining us. Good to have you on board here today.

Featured Image:  A picture taken on October 15, 2014 shows the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 near the village of Rassipnoe. The flight MH17 was shoot down on July 17, 2014 with 298 people on board. AFP PHOTO / DOMINIQUE FAGET

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.