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

How the Benghazi Movie Could Affect the 2016 Election

January 14, 2016
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Glenn watched a screening of 13 Hours, which opens Friday, and recommended everybody to go see it. The movie details the grim hours when the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by Islamic militants on September 11–12, 2012.

"What’s really tragic is, you’re not going to see a damn Democrat anywhere near this movie," Glenn said on radio Thursday. "It does not get into politics at all."

That being said, Glenn pointed out the movie offers hints about Hillary Clinton's mistakes throughout and following the ordeal, despite not mentioning her by name.

"If you can get Democrats to come see this movie, then all you have to do is when you get out of the parking lot, you just play that little clip of Hillary where she says, 'What difference does it make?'" Glenn said. "You play that, and they'll go out of their minds."

On his TV show Thursday at 5pm ET, Glenn will be interviewing some of the heroes who were on the ground during the Benghazi attack.

"You will see who they are and how they were treated at the beginning before there was any problem," Glenn said. "I know the stories of people in government, that's the way they treat these guys, like absolute garbage."

Check out the trailer for 13 Hours below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/embed/4CJBuUwd0Os?showinfo=0;rel=0;fs=1 </p><p> expand=1]

Listen to the segment with Glenn discussing the movie on The Glenn Beck Program.

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

GLENN: Last night, I saw a screening of 13 Hours, which opens Friday. And everybody should see it. And what's really tragic is, you're not going to see a damn Democrat anywhere near this movie. And not because it takes down the president because it doesn't at all. It does not get into politics at all.

STU: You did say that it doesn't mention the president at all. And it does.

JEFFY: At the beginning.

STU: The only thing that it does about the president in the entire movie, that I noticed -- there is a quick mention at the very beginning, you're right, Jeffy -- but there's one in the middle where they say the time he was briefed.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And it's just a passing mention of when he was briefed. But I'll tell you, it's not in the end of the movie.

JEFFY: No, it's early.

STU: It's pretty early in the situation that he knows about this.

GLENN: And afterwards, you see the CIA people calling for help and saying, "Help us. Help us. Help us." And you see the military -- one of the disturbing scenes is -- and it's just real quick. I mean, the only mentions where they're indicting people is, you see hours into this -- you'll see at the very beginning, they're ready to scramble the warplanes. I mean, the minute it happens, you see the military spring in action. Where are the planes? Where are the ships? Let's go. Stand ready. Let's wait for the command.

JEFFY: And that's when you're two or three hours of the 13 hours, and that's when POTUS is being briefed.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Then they will just clip -- for me, one of the lasting images -- and it's only on screen for maybe about four seconds -- are the fighter jets on the tarmac with the canopy open --

JEFFY: Yeah. Yes.

GLENN: -- and the pilots standing next to their jet, ready to go.

STU: Waiting to get in and go.

GLENN: Just waiting to go.

STU: And there was an audible groan in the theater when that happened.

JEFFY: No kidding.

GLENN: There are a few things -- honestly, this movie will shake you to your core. It really will. It really will.

And anybody who knows the story of Benghazi, and if you paid attention to what the White House said and what they said they did -- I think what it was is, when they sent the first drone over, they said, you know -- I remember the White House saying, "We didn't know what was going on. We were getting phone calls and sketching information." Bullcrap. You had a drone over -- over the embassy. We know that. We know that.

And I remember saying for weeks, "There was no drone in the area? There was not a single drone in the sky?" Yeah, there were drones in the sky. They knew. They were watching. They were watching the whole time. And that was one of the infuriating things is when they were watching, and they could see the entire thing. And they never showed this. But you know that -- the president wasn't. He was sleeping. But you know that everybody in the situation room was watching these guys die.

How somebody didn't go -- honestly, I would have gone to prison. How somebody didn't walk up to the president and grab him by the collar and say, "What the hell is wrong with you, man? What is wrong with you?"

STU: Yeah, there's not a moment in this movie where you see Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama pick up the phone and say, "Oh, I don't care about those people," and hang up.

GLENN: Nope. Nope.

STU: But you see they got wind of this early enough, that if they made it a priority, it would have stopped. If they made it a priority, if they said, "I don't care what's happening. Stop all the meetings. I'm going to stay up an extra half an hour past my bedtime." Whatever they had to do and made it a priority, the outcome would have been different.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I think that's overreaching. They didn't even have to make it a priority. All they had to say was, "Get them. Get them. Go save them." We're the United States of America. They were on the back of pickup trucks. As the president likes to say all the time, "What, a bunch of guys on the back of the pickup -- you just got your ass kicked by a bunch of guys on the back of pickup trucks because somebody had a different agenda. And I don't know what that agenda was. But it wasn't doing the right thing.

So let's talk a little bit about -- first of all, Jeffy, we haven't heard what you thought about it.

JEFFY: I enjoyed the heck out of it. And I enjoyed that it was the story of Benghazi. And if you don't know the backstory, it's a good war movie.

GLENN: Sure.

JEFFY: It's a good battle movie. If you don't know the backstory. Knowing the backstory like Stu said and you, you're angry and you're frustrated. You want somebody to do the right thing. You want somebody to say, "It doesn't matter that we were running guns and people will know, save them."

GLENN: You've got to get people to go see this movie. Because if you can get Democrats to come see this movie, then all you have to do is when you get out of the parking lot, you just play that little clip of Hillary where she says, "What difference does it make, if it was a bunch of guys who were having a party in the middle of the night."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: You play that, and they'll go out of their minds. They'll go out of their minds.

STU: Yeah. And Jeffy is right. If it's a story that is not telling something that's true, it's just a good war movie. The fact that it's telling you something that is true, it's in a lot of ways difficult to watch. Because you're living through an experience that is -- that your country let people down that were fighting for it.

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: Here's one of the things that's really powerful and so true and the reason why I'm so ashamed. Is at the end -- not at the end, but at some point during the war scene where they know they're going to die, they just assume they're all going to die, and one of them says, "Why am I here? Why am I even here? I volunteered to come over here. I'm going to die in a country I don't even care about for a cause I don't even understand."

And he says, "I volunteered at the beginning because I believed in something." And the other guy looked at him and says, "All those things, those are all long gone." And it's true. It's true. Every one of our soldiers, I don't know what you're fighting for. And they don't know what they're fighting for. What are you doing?

And it really rang so true to me. So here's a hard thing. I got to talk to these guys tonight at 5:00.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: I don't even -- I mean, I get weird in front of guys like this, especially when they're real heroes. Marcus Luttrell is one of my good friends. He's like a brother. Just love him. I'm so awkward around him. I'm so awkward around him. Because I have so much respect for him. I get weird like that. In a weird way, it's like Michael Buble, I have so much respect of what he does as a performer and everything else, I get weird around him. It happens every time around heroes like this.

I'm so awkward. And I thought of this last night as we were in the car driving home, I said, "What am I going to say to these guys? What am I possibly going to say to these guys?"

"Hey, I'm sorry. Hey, you were great." What do you say? I mean, I've got a billion questions. A billion questions.

JEFFY: It's going to be a long show.

STU: Yeah, that would be a long show.

I'd like to get their reaction on how the administration and Democrats, in particular, Hillary Clinton supporters in particular are trying to challenge their -- their series of events. Because they're basically trying to say none of this happened. They didn't tell them to stand down. You know, that these guys are -- I mean, they're basically accusing them of being liars.

And, you know, they're -- they're saying, "Wait a minute. We didn't even get interviewed for these commissions that they say supposedly proved that there were -- that none of this stuff happened. We didn't get interviewed for them. They didn't even come to us, the people in the middle of the battle, and interview us about it." You know, the way they're treating them is despicable, and I would love to hear their reaction on that because it has to be infuriating.

You go through this situation, and when the same group of people, basically, accuse you of being nothing and disparage you the entire time, and then afterwards, after you save their lives, they're still essentially doing it.

GLENN: Pat, does this sound like Wounded Knee to you at all? It sounds exactly like the same story. The guys who tried to tell the truth, the government just demolished. And anybody who told the lie got the medal.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No, the Indians did it first -- they all got the Congressional Medal of Honor. The general and I think it was a couple of colonels that said, "That's not what happened. I was there. That's not what happened." Those guys, their careers were destroyed.

PAT: Yeah. And Hillary was just asked last week or the week before, "Well, somebody is lying. It's either you or it's these guys who were actually there that are now on Fox News elsewhere talking about it." And her response was, "It's not me." So she essentially accused them of lying. You know, rather than say, "Well, I wouldn't say anybody is lying. It's just different perspective or whatever."

GLENN: That's why, these guys can make their case. Because, A, you will see who they are and how they were treated at the beginning before there was any problem. And if you don't think that's true -- I mean, I have guys -- I have guys who work for me that have -- have, you know, when they were in the military, they did some of the stuff that these guys -- and they verified that, "Yep. That's the way you're treated. That's the way Hillary Clinton will come in and treat you. That's the way any of them will." So I know the stories of people in government, that's the way they treat these guys, like absolute garbage. So you know that's true.

And the -- to me, the way you know that this -- they're not telling a lie is, there's not one thing in this movie that is on the screen that these guys didn't know. There's not one thing. They didn't say, "Here's what was happening in Washington." They didn't even say why the ambassador was there. They only told it from their perspective. This is what happened on the ground.

So what is going to believe -- I mean, they're not reaching out. What's happening is the administration is reaching out and saying, "They're not telling the truth." Well, you guys weren't on the ground. And all they're doing is telling what happened on the ground.

STU: Yeah, they're the ones being shot at, not you.

GLENN: Right. They were the ones. So I'm going to listen to you about what their story is. Because they're not saying what your story is. You're saying what their story is.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Which one am I going to believe? But, again, that's why you really -- you just really will not get anybody from the left to go see this movie. Because it's an out-and-out indictment on them.

Featured Image: Jack Silva, played by John Krasinski. Photo courtesy thirteenhoursmovie.com.

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.