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

Ted Cruz pledges to rescind every illegal executive action taken by President Obama

August 21, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Ted Cruz joined Glenn on radio today, where he took a moment to list the five things he plans on doing the first day in office if elected. First, he'll take President Obama’s executive actions to task. Next, he'll open an investigation into Planned Parenthood.

By the end, Glenn seemed even more impressed with Cruz than he was before.

Here's the full list in Cruz's own words:

1. Rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by President Obama.

2. Instruct the United States Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood, into these horrific videos, and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization and its employees.

3. Instruct the Department of Justice, the IRF, and every federal agency, that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. Instead of the federal government violating and persecuting our religious liberties, the federal government will defend the Bill of Rights and our religious liberty.

4. Rip to shred this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal, which is the single greatest national security threat facing America.

5. Begin the process of moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the once and eternal capitol of Israel.

Listen to the full segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Ted Cruz, presidential candidate and senator from the great state of Texas is on the phone with us now from Iowa or Idaho or one of those I states. I'm not sure.

PAT: Illinois -- something.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Ted. How are you, sir?

TED: Well, thank you, Glenn. Great to be with you. Always cool, but I don't think I've heard a cooler show intro than, I just got a call from Chuck Norris.

GLENN: And he'll have to --

TED: You're living the life, man. You're living the life.

GLENN: I know. I know. And he'll have to kick your ass if you get out of line, I just want you to know.

So, Ted, first of all, I want to thank you for the support for Birmingham. And thank your father for being there. And you're a little busy doing something, I don't know. But we thank you for all the support you've shown us. And I know that you care desperately about these topics. You only have ten minutes. I want to talk to you real quick on one thing that is really bothering Pat a big deal. He wants to play a piece of audio from you and then see how you -- where you stand. Because we have two differing Ted Cruz -- I don't think they're differing, he does. Listen.

TED: I have spent my professional career defending the Constitution. I served five and a half years as the Solicitor General of Texas, the Chief Lawyer for the state of Texas in front of the US Supreme Court, and I've repeatedly defended the Constitution.

The 14th amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I've looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you, as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good.

As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it's in the US Constitution.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Now, you've also said this.

PAT: That you are absolutely opposed to birthright citizenship.

GLENN: Help me out on that. Which is it?

TED: Well, sure. Both of those comments are entirely consistent. And what I said, that first recording you played, it's from 2011. In 2011, at the time -- and that's just a little segment, but at that time I said publicly I was opposed to birthright citizenship. In fact, I said in writing in 2011 when I was running for the Senate, that I was opposed to birthright citizenship. And the reason is simple: It doesn't make any sense. It's bad public policy.

GLENN: It was for slaves.

TED: That we would incentivize and reward people coming here illegally by giving their children automatic citizenship. So that has been my position today. It was my position yesterday. It will be my position tomorrow. That, as a public policy matter, birthright citizenship doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: Explain what you said then about the Constitution.

TED: There is the separate legal question about how you change that policy. And among constitutional scholars, there is a good-faith legal debate. Some constitutional scholars argue that you need a constitutional amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship. Other constitutional scholars argue that Congress could change it through a statute. There are arguments on both sides.

What I was addressing there is that if it goes through a constitutional amendment -- constitutional amendment takes many, many years. It's a long, delayed process. And so what I was saying there in the rest of that interview is, we need to solve the crisis of illegal immigration now, today. Not five years or ten years from now. And the way to do that is secure the border today. And indeed, in January 2017, if I'm elected president, on the first days in office, the administration will finally begin securing the border, enforcing the law, stopping illegal immigration. That we can do now. I still support pursuing either a statute or a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. But that is a slow and long-term process. It's not something that can be done quickly. And we need to solve this problem quickly.

GLENN: I'm sorry, Pat. I just wanted to say, I didn't hear exactly what you said off the air just a minute ago. What was that, that you said?

PAT: I said that's the explanation you gave.

GLENN: Yes, that they are not -- that's two separate arguments.

PAT: But I wanted it hear it from Ted. Because one of the things that we love so much about you, Senator Cruz, is that you're so consistent and so good on so many issues. In fact, I don't know a single issue on which I disagree with you. So...

GLENN: Would you like to make out with the man right now?

PAT: Almost. I'm pretty close to that, and you know it.

But what's so great is that you've got an -- whenever something like an inconsistency seems to arise, you usually have -- well, always, that I've heard, a good explanation for it.

But the other thing is, I wanted to ask you really quick, because we hear this so often from -- it seems that virtually every conservative really likes you. Really -- in fact, they want to make out with you like I do.

But what we hear so often is, I really like Ted Cruz, but. How do you address that with people? How do you get them to understand?

GLENN: May I rephrase your question? Ted, tell me what your first week in office, what are the things you do?

TED: Well, on the very first day in office, I had pledged to do five things.

The first thing I intend to do is to rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by President Obama.

PAT: Love that.

GLENN: And Bush?

TED: Sure. Although, Obama will take a good chunk of the deck.

GLENN: Yes. All right. Okay.

(laughter)

TED: The second thing that I intend to do is instruct the United States Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood, into these horrific videos, and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization and its employees.

The third thing I intend to do on the first day in office is instruct the Department of Justice, the IRF, and every federal agency, that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. Instead of the federal government violating and persecuting our religious liberties, the federal government will defend the Bill of Rights and our religious liberty.

The fourth thing I intend to do on the first day in office is rip to shred this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal, which is the single greatest national security threat facing America.

And the fifth thing I intend to do in office, on the first day in office, is begin the process of moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the once and eternal capitol of Israel.

GLENN: I've heard people say that that's not a big deal. To me, that's a huge deal. Explain why that's so important.

TED: Well, it is a huge deal because Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. And we refuse to put our embassy there in an effort to nod to the Arab countries in the Middle East that dispute Israel's right to exist. And it is simply giving in to the radical Islamists who want to destroy Israel. And under federal law -- Congress passed a law providing that the embassy be moved to Jerusalem. But every president has issued a waiver, and the law has a presidential waiver built into it.

And here's one thing that I think is really striking on this point. Many presidential candidates, both Republicans and Democrats, have made the same promise I did, which is to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and when they get to the White House, their national security teams tell them, well, gosh, a bunch of the other folks in the Middle East will be really mad at you if you do that, and they don't follow through.

And, Glenn, Pat, I think the single biggest difference between me and the other very fine gentlemen who were standing on that debate stage in Cleveland, is that with me, when I tell you I will do something, I'm going to do exactly what I said I'm going to do.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: You've proven that.

GLENN: So let me ask you this, because I know you have to run. But we have Johnnie Moore with us on next hour. We had Kayla Mueller, a US aid worker who was held as a sex slave by al-Baghdadi in just a horrific thing. It's clear the administration knew that -- there's no way they didn't know this was happening. Al-Baghdadi did it for a reason.

We haven't really said anything about it. Meantime, Johnnie Moore, I'm raising money right now to try to get the Christians out of the Middle East, get them out of that situation and come into the United States. The United States of America has blocked anybody coming in as Christian from the Middle East. They are not accepting them. We have Mexico that will accept them. We have Poland that will accept them. I think we have Latvia that will accept them. We won't accept them. Will you as president, stand up for the Christians and the Muslims that aren't Muslim enough and the homosexuals that are being killed in the Middle East and allow them to come here and stop giving preferential treatment to Muslims?

TED: Absolutely, yes. And we need a president who will call evil by its name. Right now, we have a president and an administration that refuses to even utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism." ISIS is the face of evil. They are crucifying Christians, they are beheading children, they are using rape, forcible rape as an instrument of terror. And it is -- and they are murdering Christians, they are murdering Jews, they are murdering other Muslims who don't embrace their radical jihad. And right now, this administration refuses to acknowledge the enemy.

Glenn, if I'm elected president, every radical militant across the face of the globe will know, if you join ISIS, if you take up arms and wage jihad against the United States of America, then you are signing your death warrant.

Right now, under the Obama administration, ISIS believes they're winning. And they're winning because this administration is not fighting a real war. It is not using military power to defeat ISIS.

GLENN: No, no. Ted, we're running seven airstrikes a day. Seven.

TED: And in contrast, do you know how many airstrikes a day we ran during the first Persian Gulf War?

GLENN: No.

TED: About 1100. 1,100 a day.

GLENN: Jeez. In a much smaller area. In a much smaller area.

TED: Yes. This is -- we have a commander-in-chief who is not attempting to defeat our enemies. Indeed, the policies of this administration are weakness and appeasement. We see this with the Iranian nuclear deal, where the administration wants to send billions of dollars to Iran, which would make the Obama administration the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. It is unacceptable.

And I do have to tell you, tonight, in Des Moines, Iowa, we have a rally for religious liberty. And one of the people that will be there is Naghmeh Abedini, the wife of Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is wrongfully imprisoned in Iran. He's an American citizen, a Christian pastor. He was sentenced to eight years in prison for preaching the gospel. We're going to have heroes from across the country who have stood for their faith and have been persecuted for religious liberty. It's at 6:30 p.m. Friday night in Des Moines, Iowa. Anyone can find that information about it at TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org.

The Newsboys, the terrific Christian pop band, is going to be playing in concert. I would encourage folks who are nearby Des Moines to join us. And you can watch it live stream online at TedCruz.org. Standing for religious liberty here and across the world.

PAT: Too bad there's no where I can contribute to your campaign if somebody really wanted to.

GLENN: It's going to be another year of this.

PAT: Where would you be able to do that if you really liked everything you just said and you didn't know where to go, what would you do?

TED: You know, funny we should ask. We've had 25,000 contributions at TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org.

And, Glenn, every time I go on your show, your listeners are incredible because they light up the internet with contributions at TedCruz.org. And it's what's giving us such incredible momentum on this campaign. Thank you.

GLENN: Ted, I will tell you that this audience loves you. We do a poll every month, and you've been number one in the poll every single time. You're dirt strong with this audience.

PAT: Every time.

GLENN: And they love you. They love you. Thank you so much, Ted.

TED: Thank you. God bless. Keep speaking the truth, my friend.

GLENN: You got it. Ted Cruz.

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.