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

Monica Crowley discusses 'anti-incumbent mood' with Milwaukee County Sheriff

December 23, 2015
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Guest hosting while Glenn was off the airwaves Wednesday, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke took control of the microphone, sharing his views on the news of the day. He started his discussion by laying some ground rules.

"This is The Glenn Beck Program. My number one objective is to protect the brand," Clarke said.

Then, he quickly added, "Now, don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm at the helm here. You're going to hear my views. You're going to hear my take on things. It may compare with many of your views, Glenn Beck's views. It might not. But don't take that out on Glenn if it doesn't."

One of Clarke's guests was Monica Crowley, writer for The Washington Times, who joined the program to discuss how the presidential election process is playing out, particularly on the GOP side.

Clarke asked for Crowley's opinion on the "anti-incumbent mood" that has manifested itself among the American people.

"You know, it's interesting because we've not seen anything like this ever," Crowley said.

She continued.

We've certainly had outsiders run and win. You think of Andrew Jackson and some other candidates. And you've also seen impulses before, where voters are just so sick of the incumbents. Throw the bums out. That's been a tag line for American politics since the start.

What we have now is something completely different.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below for more.

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

DAVID: Monica Crowley. She's a writer for the Washington Times newspaper. A prolific writer, I might add. Great insight. And I want to talk to her a little bit about this whole presidential process, what's going on, this dynamic of the -- appears to be the year of the outsider. And why that might be.

Monica, thanks for joining me.

MONICA: Hi, Sheriff. And Merry Christmas to you too, my friend.

DAVID: Thank you, back at you.

Give me your thoughts on this whole process playing out, specifically on the G.O.P. side. This -- this anti-incumbent mood. It's not the first time we've seen it. But kind of not in a presidential sweepstakes. Go ahead.

MONICA: Yeah, you know, it's interesting because we've not seen anything like this ever. I mean, certainly not in our lifetimes, and I would argue maybe never in the history of the republic have we seen a dynamic play out the way it's playing out now. We've certainly had outsiders run and win. You think of Andrew Jackson and some other candidates. And you've also seen impulses before, where voters are just so sick of the incumbents. Throw the bums out. That's been a tag line for American politics since the start.

DAVID: Right.

MONICA: What we have now is something completely different. In that I think particularly on the Republican side, we have a base of voters who time and again have sent Republicans to Washington in waves. In particular, we have two recent wave elections, 2010 and 2014, where we flipped both houses of Congress to Republicans. We have sent Republicans and conservatives to DC with two missions over the last seven years. One, to stop Barack Obama's radical agenda. And two, to advance a conservative one. And in most cases, these Republicans/Republicans have gone there and done neither. There have been some very visible exceptions like Senator Ted Cruz and others. But they have gone there and once again, like those before them, sold out.

And so what you're seeing now is what I argue is the latest incarnation of the Tea Party movement. This is Tea Party 2.0, Sheriff. The initial Tea Party came out of Barack Obama's radicalism, of course. But it also came out of the fact that the Republican Party failed to stand by and fight for its principles: Limited government, fiscal responsibility. They just let all those things fall by the wayside and basically became Democrat-lite. There would have been no need for an original Tea Party movement if the G.O.P. had stuck to its founding principles. Okay? It didn't. So you needed a Tea Party to try to bring it back.

Well, that Tea Party, as we know was squashed by the Barack Obama administration through the IRS and other weapons that they use. And so what you're seeing now, this grassroots movement that is supporting Donald Trump, that's supporting Ted Cruz, that is supporting Carly Fiorina and some of the other outsiders, this is the American people standing up, Sheriff, and saying, you know what, we're done. We're done. We've tried the Republican way. We've sent you off to Washington time and again. You've constantly let us down. And so you know what, we want to try something and someone completely different, somebody who is promising to blow up the system and burn the establishment to the ground.

DAVID: But you know what I find interesting, Monica, first of all, I've always thought about the Tea Party, that was the fighting force. They should have been given a job to be that fighting force within Republican the Republican Party. Actually they face most of their opposition, not from the left, not from the DNC or Democrat Party, but from the G.O.P. I like that Tea Party 2.0. One of the things that I've complained about from the G.O.P. is they don't have an identity. I think that this civil war going on within the party is good. I think that it needs a shaking out, and right now, the fight is for the soul of this party. What are they going to be? What are they going to stand for? And I went through a little bit of a litmus test. I said, "Has this current G.O.P. Congress demonstrated that they're for less government? No. Lower taxes? No. Less spending? No. Military superiority? No." And on and on and on. And I think that's what this -- this frustration is, if you will. I think frustration is a useless emotion. But I think that's what is at the base of it.

MONICA: Yeah, I think that's exactly right. I think, look, if you go in to weed out your garden and you remove half of the weeds, well, then the other weeds continue to grow and they take the garden over again. And I think what voters are saying is, look, we need somebody who is going to uproot this thing. Root and branch, so we can start over again. That's what somebody like Donald Trump is promising to do. They want to start fresh. It's sort of like a scorched-earth policy in their approach to the party and to the conservative movement. And Trump, you can argue whether he's a conservative or not a conservative, but the thing he's projecting is that he's on the outside. He's a successful businessman who will bring executive experience. But more importantly, he's saying to the American voter, look, you don't have to be an enemy in your own country anymore. And you know this better than anybody, Sheriff, because you bore the brunt of this too. The American people have been turned into the enemy in their own nation.

DAVID: That's amazing.

MONICA: If you oppose Barack Obama and the leftist agenda, you're a racist. You're a bigot. You're a homophobe. You're an Islamophobe. You're a sexist. You name it.

And the American people are going, "Wait a minute. Whose country is this?" Trump comes in and says, "We're going to give you your country back. We're going to restore America to its exceptional nature and its greatness. And here's how we're going to do it. We're not going to pay attention to the Republican establishment. Who, by the way, just sold you down the river again with a $1.2 trillion budget that funds everything Obama wanted. What is the point of voting Republican if you send these people to DC and they do what Obama and Pelosi and Reid want? What is the point?"

DAVID: You know what is interesting in this -- and let's just spend a minute on Trump. You know, he's probably the true outsider. You know what you hear. He's not a Republican. He's not a conservative. I'll leave people to argue that.

But one of the other enemies of this Republican establishment is one of their own. It's Ted Cruz.

MONICA: Yeah. I mean, they really don't like Ted Cruz either. And I'll tell you something, Cruz has run a brilliant campaign. Because he was the only one early on, Sheriff, who understood Trump and got what he was doing and got what he was tapping into. Because Trump was tapping into it years ago. Cruz very smartly established something of an alliance with Donald Trump. And the two of them are very helpful with each other with evangelical voters in Iowa, for example. And national security voters on the Cruz side for Trump. They've been implementing each other politically now for seven months. And it has been brilliant on both of their parts. But, look, the establishment is scared to death of these two guys because they will lose total control, not just of the White House, but of the party. The head of the RNC. I mean if you get one of these guys elected president, they control everything. And the establishment knows it will be out. That's why the important thing for everybody to understand here, and I think the American voter gets this on an instinctual level, is that the split in the country is less right/left, blue/red, and more elites versus the rest of us. And what Trump and Cruz are tapping into is, hey, we're one of you. We're with you. We want to protect you and defend this country against the elites on both sides who are destroying it.

DAVID: Right. A finger on the pulse of the American public. The, we, the people. And Trump is really one of the only ones who has established a vision for America, a vision defined as a plan for the future with imagination and wisdom. You know, when he talks about, we're going to make America great again, everybody likes to criticize -- you know, and I don't have a dog in this fight yet. I want to make that clear. I got a couple favorites, but, you know, other than -- other than Trump making America great again, everybody says, "Well, we don't know about his policies. We want to hear about this. We want to hear about his tax policies." Those are policies. It's not vision. All right.

The people in this country right now want to hear about vision. And we're not hearing that from really too many of these candidates.

MONICA: That's exactly right. They want a vision of leadership. Not just who you'll be as a leader, but how you will -- where you'll take the country and what you see for American superpower and our place in the world and how we should exercise that power.

Look, a lot of people, as you say, are critical of Trump because he's put out a specific tax plan and a specific immigration plan. But other than that, you know, the details are pretty sparse. And, you know what, Sheriff, no one cares.

DAVID: Right.

MONICA: I mean, people care. But no one cares because they want the bigger picture, which is what you're saying. They want the vision. And that one slogan he came up with, make America great again. Boom. That is the compelling reason to elect him. Whether he's your choice or not, he has set out a compelling vision and a compelling reason to vote for him. Mrs. Clinton has been on the national scene for 25 years, Sheriff. She still doesn't have a compelling reason for why people should elect her as president beyond I'm a woman and it's my turn. Well, that doesn't -- that doesn't ring out the way make America great again. And that's one of the big reasons why Trump has traction.

DAVID: It's just a power grab by her. Monica, I have to let you go. I want to thank you for joining me.

Merry Christmas, really.

MONICA: It's always a pleasure, Sheriff. Thank you so much, my friend. Merry Christmas to you too.

DAVID: Thank you.

Featured Image: Monica Crowley attends the The Hill, Extra And The Embassy Of Canada Celebrate The White House Correspondents' Dinner Weekend at Embassy of Canada on April 24, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Dave Kotinsky/Getty Images)

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.