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

Rand Paul pushes to defund Planned Parenthood after 'incredibly disturbing' videos

August 05, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Although the attempt to defund Planned Parenthood failed in the Senate, Glenn gave credit to Senator Rand Paul for actively trying to do something about the destruction of innocent life.

The senator had some strong words to say about the “callous disregard of the doctors” as well as suggestions on how the American people can help.

"One idea I’ve had is that everybody should send a copy of the ultrasound of their baby. You know, most parents are proud of the first ultrasound of their baby. They ought to send that to their legislator and say you know what, ultrasound has been used for such good," he said.

Watch the full interview in the video below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

Glenn: Although the attempt to defund Planned Parenthood failed in the Senate yesterday, Senator Rand Paul deserves credit for actively trying to do something about the destruction of innocent life. Senator Paul joins me from the Capitol now. Senator, how are you, sir?

Sen. Paul: Very good, Glenn. Thanks for having me.

Glenn: It is extraordinarily disturbing to me that we couldn’t muster up enough even Republicans to stop this. For some reason, the people in Congress or in the Senate don’t see this as baby harvesting like I do and like you do.

Sen. Paul: Well, I think the videos are incredibly disturbing, and when I heard about them using ultrasound to manipulate the baby into a position so it can be removed a little bit at a time so they can get at the baby’s organs, kidneys, livers, and sort of the callous disregard by the doctor sort of saying oh yeah, livers are popular, it’s hard to hear that and for people not to realize these are coming from a fully formed baby. I think we rarely get the debate in such sharp relief. We often have the debate where the other side wants to call it tissue, but when we’re talking about lungs, brains, hearts, livers, I think it’s hard and should make all sort of people shudder that we’re doing this.

Glenn: Can I talk to as a doctor, not as a political guy or a candidate right now? Let me just talk to you and ask two questions as a doctor. First of all, what do you as a doctor say to those doctors that are doing this?

Sen. Paul: You know, we have an ancient oath, the Hippocratic Oath, that says first do no harm. I don’t know how you can be consistent with any kind of oath like that. Years ago they took out some of the specifics towards abortion and sort of somehow in their minds qualify and say abortion is not doing harm. I don’t know how anyone could do that day in and day out knowing that you’re pulling out the pieces of a baby. I mean, I don’t know how they do it and how they live with themselves. I think it’s a good debate for us to be having. Those on the other side of the issue should be ostracized. They should be removed from office.

The vast majority of Republicans did vote for this. Every Republican except for one and then two Democrats did vote with us. The real question as to whether the vote was important will be determined by the electorate when these people go back to the polls, and so we shouldn’t let this die. We also should vote to defund them through the appropriation process.

I’m a believer that thousands of items should be targeted for defunding, not just one or two, not just ObamaCare, not just Planned Parenthood. The power of the purse is Congress to direct funding, and we’ve gotten away from that to where people think oh, it’s extraordinary for us to tell the president. That’s actually our job to do that.

Glenn: Right. The other thing I want to ask you as a doctor is the argument on the other side is this is hurting, you’re going after—Rand Paul, and I heard this specifically, Rand Paul is going after women’s health.

Sen. Paul: Well, it’s absolutely just untrue. There are 9000 community health centers. We have thrown more federal money at healthcare than we ever have in the history of time. You can’t go a block in our country and not find something for free, and so we have 9000 community health centers funded by the government, $5 billion. We’ve doubled it in recent years, and there’s 700 Planned Parenthood clinics. So, 9000 free government clinics, 700 Planned Parenthood, the only difference is Planned Parenthood offers abortion. The other difference is Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer most of the women’s health items they say they offer. They don’t offer mammograms. The exams are not done by doctors for breast exams. You’re typically referred somewhere else. So, it’s been a crock for a long time. It’s been a front for abortion, and let’s have this debate.

They’re also huge funders of the Democrat party and huge funders of liberals, and so I guarantee they’re going to come after me and target me. They’ve also targeted Joni Ernst as well.

Glenn: I heard Hillary Clinton in a statement she recorded recently where she said I am proud to stand with Planned Parenthood, and I was struck—because I’ve seen the video, I was struck on how evil that is. I said today that I don’t think I’ve seen anything in America that is this close to Josef Mengele. Is that hyperbole?

Sen. Paul: Now Glenn, that would be the first time you had hyperbole—

Glenn: I know.

Sen. Paul: What I would say is that if you ask the general public about removing a fully formed baby and harvesting its organs, I think you’re probably going to get a 70%, 80% issue. There are some hardcore people who don’t care, but like I say, I know a lot of people from all walks of life, not just conservatives, I know pro-choice women, and you know what, they’re horrified by this. So, when we’re talking about a fully formed baby, the numbers go lopsided in our direction. It’s a rare person who thinks fully formed babies ought to be taken out.

The whole idea of third trimester abortion is kind of crazy because at that point if it’s a risk to the mother, try to save the baby, remove the baby through C-section if it’s a risk to the mother. Most third trimester babies can actually have a chance of surviving.

Glenn: I have to tell you, after I saw Cecil the lion and the outcry from the left on Cecil the lion and the silence or the acceptance of baby harvesting, am I wrong to say this is baby harvesting?

Sen. Paul: No, I think it is. It’s harvesting of baby organs, and there seems to be a neglect on their part.

Glenn: Yeah. I see this, I don’t think this, Rand, and maybe this is a new understanding for me and maybe it goes much further than just this one issue, but I don’t think this is a problem with Washington. I think this is a problem with the American people. The American people, when we care more about Cecil the lion than we care about baby harvesting, I’m afraid for our country. I really am truly afraid of what we’re becoming.

Sen. Paul: Well, what I’ve always told people is I’m known for someone standing up for individual rights, the right to be left alone, and most choices in life you should get. The thing is all those rights derive from a right to your life and to have no one physically aggress against your life. We really need to have this debate in our country when does life begin? When they had the debate a few years ago over partial-birth abortion, at least one of the Democrats was honest enough to say that if the baby did come out, was still alive, and you weren’t able to kill the baby before it came out, that really the baby wasn’t a baby until you take the baby home.

I’ve worked in a neonatal nursery. I’ve worked with babies that are a pound, pound and a half that survive and end up doing fine. We examine their eyes to make sure they don’t go blind from being born so early, but to think that that baby doesn’t really have rights until you take them home, it’s absurd, and I think most people don’t believe that. If this radical notion from these people were well known, I think we begin to win the argument a little more, and I think actually we are, but we aren’t yet there. Washington is always a decade behind the people, and people need to do a better job of hurrying up and replacing some of these legislators so we could actually get to the will of the people.

Glenn: I mean, I’ve never been a guy who—I don’t go in front of abortion clinics and protest. I don’t protest anything. I’m a slug of an American. This one so deeply bothers me, Rand. I mean, we’re doing something in Birmingham on August 28th where the slogan is all lives matter, and it’s true—black lives matter, white lives matter, baby lives matter, old people’s lives matter. What can the average person do who has never really protested and don’t see themselves standing in front of an abortion clinic? How can we help?

Sen. Paul: You know, one idea I’ve had is that everybody should send a copy of the ultrasound of their baby. You know, most parents are proud of the first ultrasound of their baby. They ought to send that to their legislator and say you know what, ultrasound has been used for such good. You can actually save babies in the womb through surgery now. Send that ultrasound and say you know what, our taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be getting ultrasounds of babies so we can manipulate them around to harvest their organs. That was one of the things that upset me about it is they talk about doing abortion under ultrasound so they can actually use this great technology not to save a baby but to actually manipulate the baby into a position so you can harvest the organs.

Glenn: Can I look at this a different way? I was talking about this on the air today on radio, and I said if I had an abortion and I didn’t have a problem with abortion, I think I would be a little upset that I didn’t get a kickback in this. How dare you take my baby from me, what is mine? I’m paying you $1000 to do it, and then you’re selling the baby?

Sen. Paul: Well, the investigation ought to be what kind of consent is actually being obtained. I’m guessing when this consent is being obtained that no one is telling them we are going to harvest your baby’s organs. And actually they might say tissue, but they’re not going to admit that the procedure you’re going to get is going to have a baby with arms, legs, kidneys, livers, lungs, and that there’s a different price for each organ. I don’t think that’s being discussed. I would very much imagine that that is glossed over and that people are being run through, and it’s just a little extra money making to make expenses for Planned Parenthood.

Glenn:: I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not a law man. I’m not in your position. I’m just an average American who sits here and looks at this stuff, and I think these people should go to jail. Do you think they’ve crossed the line of jail time possibly?

Sen. Paul: There are laws about already from the partial-birth abortion. There are laws saying you’re not supposed to manipulate the baby in order to harvest organs, and so that’s a question. The woman online when they ask her about it, she says oh yeah, there’s some laws, but that’s just for lawyers to figure it out that there are some laws. She doesn’t say partial-birth abortion, I think, in the video, but she admits that there are some laws. Yeah, that’s why it should be investigated. Really the question ought to be whether or not real consent is being obtained or is this occurring, the sale of the body organs occurring without really an adequate consent.

Glenn: Rand Paul, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Sen. Paul: Thanks, Glenn.

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.