Is something really bad about to happen to the U.S. dollar?

Sec. John Kerry said that if America stops the Iran nuclear deal, the US dollar could no longer be the world’s reserve currency. What does that really mean? Glenn feels like something really bad is coming for the U.S. dollar and the global economy, and asked economist David Buckner to come onto the radio show and discuss.

GLENN: Just two days ago, we had John Kerry say this about the deal with Iran.

JOHN: That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world, which is already bubbling out there.

GLENN: So what does that even mean? I asked an audience last night what they thought that meant, and nobody really had any idea. I have somewhat of an idea, but I don't even know if I understand it. David Buckner is here. David Buckner is adjunct professor at Columbia University. An economist who goes all over the world trying to work with businesses and trying to hold things together. And he's been a consultant on this program for quite some time. David, welcome to the program.

DAVID: Good to hear from you, Glenn. How are you doing?

GLENN: Where are you in the world today?

DAVID: I'm upstate New York in the backwoods somewhere in the mountains right now. Life is pretty good, pretty sunny.

GLENN: Okay. Sorry to bother you. We just wanted to know exactly what that meant, David. I have this feeling that something really bad has begun especially with the devaluation of the currency in China and with Secretary Kerry saying that. It's almost like a shot across our bow that they know that we're on a course for something, and they're just -- they're going to use it to blame it on something that is convenient for them.

DAVID: Well, it actually started two or three years ago when China signed its first agreement. Do you recall that the reserve currency back prior to, you know, World War II was the sterling. Was the pound sterling. And it was the Bretton Woods Act in '44 and thereon through '55 that we transitioned to the dollar. And all that really meant was that we were going to exchange the dollar for oil. So it's the currency used for the exchange of oil. This is where Secretary Kerry starts pulling in ISIS in the Middle East.

Well, two years ago, China signed an agreement with Russia to no longer use the dollar. And within 17 days, Australia signed the agreement with China as well, that they would only -- it was almost like a unilateral treatment of currencies where they would decide between the yen and the Australian dollar or the yen and the ruble and other currencies. That they would exchange without the dollar being the global entity.

So we've already started down this path. What he identifies there is a little bit frightening because he's indicating that we have to make a decision, aligned with the current policy with ISIS, Iran, and others, or we're going to be -- we're going to lose the dollar. We're already on that path. And quite candidly, we're being held hostage by suggesting we have to capitulate or the dollar is going to be gone.

The dollar is already being comprised. And the question you asked regarding China is evidence of that. The fact that China has so much of our debt and that we're beholden to any movement they make in their currency indicates that any time they do something, like they did yesterday -- they did a 5 percent shift in their currency.

Their currency has been selling about 6.1 or 6.2 yen to the dollar. They moved up to 6.4, 6.5. There's a shift that immediately does two things to us: One, is makes their goods 5 percent cheaper. So that means our goods become expensive compared to them. That means more people are going to buy directly. Which, by the way, puts them in a better position to negotiate more of those deals to get rid of the dollar. That's one thing.

The second thing it does that nobody is talking about, that's more frightening for me personally, from a macroeconomic perspective, and what you and I have been talking about, Glenn, for probably three years now. And that is that what we owe China, all of that debt, we're talking trillions of dollars of debt, the largest percentage to China and a big chunk in Japan. What we owe them now has become 5 percent more expensive overnight.

Now, it doesn't mean the interest rates have changed, but the money that we borrowed -- and borrowed it when it was worth six, we now have to repay that same amount of money that if we were to use it to buy goods would be worth more. But we can't.

So we lose 5 percent on every dollar we're returning to them. That is an overnight shift in interest rates, if you will. Even though the interest hasn't changed, the buying ability of that piece of paper. So we're in a position where overnight, China made our commitment to them 5 percent more expensive. And made all of their goods 5 percent cheaper. So we're fighting -- we're fighting this -- this is crazy, Glenn.

GLENN: So tell me, David, what it means -- explain to somebody -- because what Secretary Kerry was saying, not getting off the dollar as the exchange rate for oil. But he's saying the reserve currency, which means people are not -- they're not generally having a bunch of gold in their bank. What they have is a bunch of US dollars. And if everybody gets rid of the reserve currency and goes off that, all those dollars come flooding back into the system. Am I wrong?

DAVID: No, you're correct on that. And the reason -- and you're correct. Let me blend the two words though, that we're aligned in this.

You're correct when we're talking reserve currency. That is because it is -- it has always been the global currency.

GLENN: Correct.

DAVID: So when we no longer -- the reason I linked in the oil is not because it's changing anything there or anybody has agreed differently. But the reality is, if there's other ways to purchase oil, we no longer need a large reserve, if I'm a foreign country, of US dollars.

GLENN: Correct.

DAVID: Consequently, I can then --

GLENN: Hang on just a second. So people understand that. That's because you were only allowed to buy oil in US dollars. So countries had to have that huge cash of the US dollar because if you wanted to buy something like oil, you had to buy it in dollars. That's quickly going away.

DAVID: Exactly.

GLENN: So how much money is in the -- the central banks of countries? How much -- how many dollars are there?

DAVID: Okay. Now, that's a question without my precise answer for this reason.

What we know we have put out there into a secondary market. You know, when we're shoving dollars out. When the fed shoves money out by buying bonds, that money goes out. And while we can say it's traceable, it's not traced. In other words, what goes out into the U.S. in a bond may make its way by others buying from China, from India, from other places.

So when we're talking about central banks holding them, they'll have what you might call an official number. But the unofficial market is unwieldily. So we know how much is out there. And that we've been flooding. That's been the damaging and frightening part of this, Glenn, is that we keep shoving it out there. And if it gets aggregated into one place, if China starts reserving it and holding it, then they have a huge club. And we keep saying, no, surely, surely they wouldn't have it. We've diffused it. The money is going out broadly. But nobody can track where it's actually being collected and held because the public announcement -- just like China has indicated that they devaluated their own currency, but they control their banking. So when you go to China -- you know I spend a lot of time there.

GLENN: Yes.

DAVID: And when you go to China, you have a variety of different ways in which currencies can be exchanged. When you go to Brazil, there are three totally different currencies: The dollar at the bank, the dollar on the street, and the dollar you pay in a hotel, which is the government rate. And they are vastly differing numbers.

So I'm not wobbling other than to suggest that I can -- I could give you formalized numbers. We could go back and look those up. They're irrelevant. The money that's out there could be aggregated by these central banks, and we do not know which central bank is truthfully aggregating the largest in their formal and informal economy.

GLENN: So here's what I really want to know, and I'm hoping that you're going to say I'm wrong. But this to me, when I heard this, what I heard was the equivalent economically of him saying, by the way, if you disagree, it is total nuclear war. This is an economic -- if the dollars that other countries have are no longer being used as the global currency and the world's reserve. That means that all those dollars are out and we're in hyperinflation and it is -- it's the end of the West or the western commerce as we know it. At least for -- at least until we can settle on what we're doing.

DAVID: Right. There are three things -- we talked about this before. But there are three things that America offers right now. One is that we offer the dollar. Okay? And if that goes away, that's frightening, right?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Explain why -- tell people what that means, if the dollar goes away, to them.

DAVID: Well, right now because every exchange is principal for oil, which is the central currency of everything. Energy is everything, okay. Because that exchange must go through us and we control the medium or the piece of paper that you can use to exchange, we control -- I don't want to say control the world. But we control that exchange. And if that's the central exchange, then we still have some significant control on the markets of the world. If that is removed, you no longer have control. If you go into, you know, Germany and you're not using euros and you're using a Brazilian currency that nobody cares whether you have or not, you don't buy anything in Germany. So if our dollar is no longer viewed as the global necessity, we don't have that to offer.

GLENN: So hang on. Before you go on, on that. So, in other words, we become like Iceland. What was it, the kronas, that when it crashed and went away. They couldn't buy meat for McDonald's. Everything had to shut down. We wouldn't be able to buy oil from anybody because no one would accept the US dollar because it would be worthless.

DAVID: It's an irrelevant piece of paper. Most people would say that because there's so much debt being held of US debt, we're betting on our bankers not letting us fail. Now, that scares me, just to be honest. I don't want to bet on my bank not wanting me to fail especially if my house goes up in value and they'd rather take the house rather than to default on what I owe them. Okay? Our house is our natural resource in the U.S. So if we default and we have collateralized our -- the assets of our country, which are our natural resource. Then technically, just like they did in the 1980s when Manhattan, a good percentage of the real estate had to go to foreign entities. We hit such a downside, that you would see Chinese and Japanese signs in front of banks because the real estate was owned by them. We've collateralized what America has against our debt. And our debt is in crazy land. You know that. We've talked about that before.

GLENN: Right.

DAVID: So if the dollar goes away and they go technically after the assets and we then defend the assets, then you are correct that the next thing we offer is war. And that's not where -- and, by the way, I'll give you just one side note that may be contrary to what you think or it may be differing than what you think or it may simply augment it. I actually think the next real battle issue will not be metal against building. I think we can do more with cyber and banking zeros. Ones and zeros in the electric world than we can ever do with weapons.

GLENN: Yes, I agree.

DAVID: I think the next war will be a cyber disaster. And the frightening thing about that is, if you are the one that owes the rest of the world, they have control over your assets. It doesn't take much for them to be able to access all of those buttons. And that's where it gets crazy. So, Glenn --

GLENN: Go ahead. Wrap it up here, David.

DAVID: I was in Hiroshima a week ago. I was there for the 70th anniversary for the disaster there. And they talk about one bomb. And we talk about 15,000 warheads that exist if the world. All it takes is one finger to push buttons to get things crazy. And one one and one zero in the banking world or the economic world to get people desperate. I don't know when we get to that point. But I will tell you, this move by China to shift things by 5 percent in 15 minutes is a daunting look at where we go and what America has to see in the economic future.

GLENN: Thank you a lot, David. I appreciate it. Go back to the mountain and enjoy the sunshine.

DAVID: Good talking to you.

GLENN: God bless you. David Buckner.

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.