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

The Candidates on ISIS, National Security and Immigration

February 15, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

It’s President’s Day 2016. And this election year, we’re bringing you a special edition of The Glenn Beck Program. Iowa and New Hampshire have now voiced their opinions in the primaries, but most of the country has yet to vote. Over the past several months, we have extended an offer to all of the presidential candidates to sit down and talk one-on-one in a long-form setting. Many of the candidates took us up on that offer; some did not.

We weren’t looking for gotcha questions, and we didn’t want sound bite answers. Anyone can do an interview where the politicians can give a polished and rehearsed answer. But we wanted to go in depth with the people who want to lead our country through, which will be no doubt, a very intense period in our nation’s history.

For those who participated, we discussed important issues, ranging from what to do about ISIS to Common Core to favorite Founding Fathers. It’s insightful and important even from those candidates out of the presidential race who could potentially be a vice presidential candidate.

ISIS and National Security

Ted Cruz:

    • We need a commander-in-chief that lays out a clear objective, and that objective should be to destroy ISIS. ISIS hates America. They've declared an Islamic caliphate. They've declared an intention to murder us. They are beheading journalists. They are lighting people on fire. They intend to wage jihad and murder millions. It is in our national security interest to prevent that. A commander-in-chief who lays out the objective, we will destroy them, I believe we can do so.

    • I think connecting U.S. national security interests to foreign policy should be the touchstone for everything we do in foreign policy.

    • I opposed Obama wanting to go into Syria and unilaterally attack Syria. Because when I asked the administration, "Well, gosh, if you succeed in toppling Assad and the chemical weapons fall into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists of al-Qaeda or al-Nusra HEP or ISIS --- how is that better for us? They had no answer for that. On the other hand, when you look at Iran, for example, the reason I led the Iran rally, the reason I led the opposition to this nuclear deal, is when the Ayatollah Khamenei says death to America, I believe him.

    • The Kurds are our friends. They're fighting ISIS right now. And ISIS has U.S. military equipment they've seized from Iraq. The Kurds have outmoded HEP equipment, but Obama doesn't want to give the Kurds weaponry because he thinks it would upset the government in Baghdad and it would upset Iran. I mean, this is lunacy.

Rand Paul:

    • I warned about ISIS in 2013. We had a vote in the Foreign Relations Committee about whether we should send arms to Islamic rebels fighting against Assad. I said, "Are any of these groups in support of recognizing Israel as a country?" Absolutely not. These are the people we're giving arms to. Do these people like Israel or like the United States? Absolutely not. And I said, "The great irony is, the people you're arming today, will be back within a year fighting against our own arms." I warned them. I didn't know the name ISIS. I didn't know IS. I didn't know any of that. But I knew they were radical jihadists and it was a mistake to give them weapons because ultimately they would turn those weapons on us.

    • The first thing you have to do if you really think ISIS is a threat to mankind and to the world, quit funding them. Quit sending arms to them. And quit giving them money.

    • I think Kurds are a real fighting force. They have a land base. They live there. They're from there. And they will fight to the death. And they're good fighters. We have 7 billion dollars worth of rotting equipment in Afghanistan. Airlift it all directly to the Kurds, or at least a portion of it.

Rick Santorum

    • Islam is not just a religion. It's also a political doctrine. And they are, in fact, one and the same. They're melted together. Unlike Christianity, which is not. Jesus didn't come to establish an earthly kingdom. Muhammad did. Muhammad governed. Muhammad set rules. Here is how civilization is to behave. And there are people who --- certainly in America, Muslims who are --- faithful Muslims who don't buy into Sharia law, don't buy into this that, you know, we're here to govern. But I would say that that is, in the world, a minority. I think that most in the world believe that Sharia law and --- is integrated into Islam, and it's hard to separate the two.

    • If you're not willing to stand up and articulate one of the most virulent threats to the security of our country --- I mean, Iran, ISIS, all these other radical --- Hezbollah, all these other organizations, they want to destroy the United States of America. You hear in their defense planning, the Iranians talking about EMPs. I'm principally concerned about that. There are other methodologies. Obviously they can attack the United States. But that's the most cataclyzmic one. And it is not beyond the realm of possibility that that can happen.

Ben Carson

    • If the Muslim accepts the whole Islamic mantra, which includes Sharia that to me is not compatible with our Constitution.

    • One of the reasons they're [ISIS] being so successful with their recruitment efforts is because they have, in fact, established a caliphate: half of Iraq, a third of Syria, beachheads in Somalia, Nigeria, Tunisia. And they are looking extraordinarily successful, and they're able to offer people who frequently live in pretty desperate situations, some semblance of prestige in their life and money that they can send to their families. What I would do is make them not look like winners. How would you do that? Well, the easiest place I think to go is Iraq. The government in Iraq is pretty much in shambles at this stage in the game. But I think it would be relatively easy to take the territory back from them. That would be a huge blow to their prestige.

    • I think we would have to put our own people on the ground. We also have a lot of Special Forces. We have capabilities that are very substantial. We have the capabilities of doing things. But our people won't let them do it.

    • There are several factions of the Kurds. The one that we hear about the most are the Peshmerga. The PKK is the faction of the Kurds that Turkey is at war with. And, you know, I definitely think we should be directly helping them. I think they're an enormous fighting force who has a tremendous history. And they have a lot of variations, including Christians, among them.

Bobby Jindal

    • We're going to have to go and build our military. That means more resources. That means the right people in the right places that understand the whole point of our military is to be the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. We have to take the political handcuffs off the military and have the right people in place to say, all right, if we send the military in, it's to get a mission done, to be victorious, and then to come home.

    • Under this president, you've gotten the extreme where America tries to retreat from the world. Our friends don't trust us. Our enemies don't fear and respect us.

    • The other extreme in American foreign policy is we cannot remake the world in our image by force. People don't want to change, you can't force them to change. This is the greatest country in the history of the world. We're exceptional. We're unique. It's naive to think that everybody else is going to be the same. They're not. And we're blessed to be here.

    • We can give them moral support. There are soft tools in diplomacy. That doesn't mean we should be sending boots on the ground every chance there is. What Reagan understood was, the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. So you build up that military so they don't test you.

Immigration

Carly Fiorina

    • I've been absolutely consistent in this. We have to secure the border. We've talked about it every election. We haven't done it for 25 years. Securing the border takes, what? Money, manpower, technology, mostly, apparently it takes political willpower and leadership.

    • For sanctuary cities, I would enforce federal law. The legal immigration system has been broke for 25 years. We talk about it. Nothing happens.

    • Pass a border security bill. How hard is this?

    • We have to fix the legal immigration system. We hand out Mexican border crossing cards every day. We don't check to see if anybody goes home. If you come in on a legal visa, we never see if you've left. We have to fix the legal immigration system.

    • The reason zero-based budgeting is so important is because it's only when we know where our money is being spent that we can prioritize our money. Have you ever noticed, most people have when they think about it, that the federal government spends more money every year and never has enough money to do the important things. Never. Securing the border is the federal government's job, yet they never have enough money.

Rick Santorum

    • There's a website called NumbersUSA.com. And Numbers USA actually rates all the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, on the immigration issue, both legal and illegal and what they're going to do on everything from birthright citizenship to securing the border. And there's only one person who gets an A --- that would be Rick Santorum.

    • Since 2000, there have been 5.7 new new jobs created between 2000 and 2014. Of those 5.7 million net new jobs created, what percentage are held by people who are not born in this country? The answer: All of them.

    • Half the people who are here [illegally], are here are on visa overstays. We know their names. We know where they live. And you know what we don't do? We don't tell them to go home. In fact, we encourage them not to go home.

Ted Cruz

    • We should protect this country. And in particular that his [Obama's] plan to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees makes no sense. The administration cannot vet whether these individuals are affiliated with ISIS. Whether there are ISIS terrorists among us. And we shouldn't be bringing in people that are coming in to wage jihad.

    • It's a very different situation with the persecuted Christians in the Middle East, who are facing persecution, who are facing genocide. And we should be working to provide a safe haven for them. I know that's been a passion of yours and mine for a long time. And in response to that, President Obama says you and I and millions of Americans who want to keep this country safe, that we are both offensive and un-American. And I will note there's something particularly rich about the president calling you un-American as he's standing in Turkey, on foreign soil, lambasting the desire to keep the United States safe.

    • If you look at the refugee wave that's pouring into Europe right now, one estimate is that 77 percent of those refugees are young males. That is a very unusual demographic for a refugee wave. We know that at least one of the terrorists who committed these horrific attacks in Paris came through with the refugees. And yet the president insists we're going to vet them. Well, the director of the FBI, who I might note Barack Obama appointed, the director of the FBI told Congress they can't vet them. Because they said, "Look, we can run a query in the database. But if we don't have any information in the database about who are Syrian terrorists and who aren't, we can run the query until the cows come home. It's not going to tell us anything."

    Ben Carson

      • Border fence. Yes or no? The right kind of fence, yes. Right kind of fence means what has worked in the past, like in Yuma County, Arizona. A double fence with the asphalt so you can get rapidly from point to point.

        • Prosecute first time offenders. You can't catch and release.

          • Fine companies that hire illegals? Absolutely.

            • Deport illegals? I would give people the ability to register in a certain period of time, and if they have pristine records and they're willing to work as guest workers under the circumstances that we provide, they could stay. But they don't become citizens and they don't vote.

            Featured Image: Republican presidential candidates (L-R) Ohio Governor John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Donald Trump, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ben Carson stand on stage during a CBS News GOP Debate February 13, 2016 at the Peace Center in Greenville, South Carolina. Residents of South Carolina will vote for the Republican candidate at the primary on February 20. (Photo by Spencer Platt/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.