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

Screwed On a Technicality: John Kasich's Underhanded Strategy

March 18, 2016
Jon Boldt

Writer

Steven Crowder, comedian and founder of LouderWithCrowder.com, brought a little levity to The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday. While Glenn apologized for his choice words about John Kasich the previous day, Steven enlightened the guys with just how underhanded the presidential candidate actually is.

"What really bothered me is the phoniness. He says, 'I'm not going to take the low road to the highest office in the land,'" Crowder said. "What? Your only possible path to victory is to screw somebody on a technicality. There couldn't be a more greasy, underhanded low road, and he plays the nice guy card."

Now that he told us how he really feels, does Crowder think Kasich stands much of a chance the rest of the way?

"No, nobody wants John Kasich. You know, you get past the ad hominem. We've talked about this, with the haircut and the kind of hunch. He looks like a baby seal caught in a BP oil spill. He's just very off-putting, but he's dishonest," Crowder said.

Guess not.

Check out the rest of the interview below to get your daily dose of laughter. After all, in this sickening election, laughter might not just be the best medicine --- it could be the only medicine.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Steven Crowder from LouderwithCrowder.com is on with us now.  

Steven, how are you, sir?

STEVEN:  Thanks for having me.  You know, you've seen this week.  We're all doing the same.

(chuckling)

GLENN:  I can't -- I can't figure out if John Kasich is -- has done a deal with someone, if he's just delusional.  I watched him win, and I think he really actually thought he won something big on Tuesday.

STEVEN:  John Kasich, he's like party guest who just never leaves, only he wasn't invited.  Nobody invited John Kasich.  You're cleaning up.  You're trying to wrap it up.  And he's like, all right (inaudible) with you guys.  Of course, John Kasich would.  No one wants him around.

What really bothers me about him Glenn is the phoniness.  So it was one thing to say, well, maybe he's a good guy, and he's delusional.  His winning Ohio with the confetti and the fireworks and the rockettes came up.  I mean, it was like winning the cup in Mario Kart.  I couldn't believe how big of a celebration this guy had.  What really bothered me is the phoniness.  He says, "I'm not going to take the low road to the highest office in the land."

What?  Your only possible path to victory is to screw somebody on a technicality.  There couldn't be a more greasy, underhanded low road, and he plays the nice guy card.

(laughter)

GLENN:  I haven't looked at it that way, but you're exactly right.  There is no way for him to take the upper hand and the high road and win.  He's got to knife somebody in the back.

STEVEN:  Exactly.  There's no way -- I know we push the common format.  That's the obvious joke.  But it's mathematically impossible for him to win.  The only way is if he gets to some kind of a brokered convention, and people screw the voters.  

No, nobody wants John Kasich.  You know, you get past the ad hominem.  We've talked about this, with the haircut and the kind of hunch.  He looks like a baby seal caught in a BP oil spill.  He's just very offputting, but he's dishonest.

(chuckling)

GLENN:  Do you think he cut a deal with Donald Trump or anybody?  Because I've heard -- have you guys heard those conspiracies that he's only in it -- he's got a deal with Donald Trump?

PAT:  Yeah.

GLENN:  You think he cut a deal like Ben Carson did?

STEVEN:  I don't even think Ben Carson cut a deal.  I really don't.  And I know I sound naive.  And I really like Ben Carson as a good guy.  And I still want to believe he's a good guy.  I think he's somebody who is very bright.  But he's not necessarily politically savvy.  And I think if you read his book, and I've read his book, he wants to believe the best in people and he's very forgiving.  And I think he just bought it.  I think he probably sat Donald Trump down and said, "You know, just not be so decisive.  And I need to know that you won't, for example, call another candidate a pedophile."

And Donald Trump just said, "I won't do it."  And he said, "Good enough for me."  And he just endorsed him.

(laughter)

STU:  Where was that treatment with Cruz though?  He thinks Cruz is Satan, and Cruz didn't even do anything.

STEVEN:  Did he say that about Cruz?  I didn't read that.  I know John Boehner did.

STU:  He didn't actually call him Satan.  But, you know, he came out and was calling him a liar.  He said that he was doing all these dirty tricks.  Then Cruz apologized to him.  He -- he then -- Cruz offered to meet with him.

GLENN:  Yeah, he apologized twice.

STU:  He would not --

GLENN:  Wouldn't forgive him.  Wouldn't forgive him.

STEVEN:  Well, okay.  Then that obviously changes the game.

I mean, if you're Ben Carson, it's kind of like when you have a guy who you know who is just in this marriage and his kids don't respect him.  Everybody has that dad in the flock.  And he's just miserable when he sinks back into his chair.  

You kind of get that sense with Ben Carson.  He openly said, "If there were another scenario, I would endorse someone else.  But there wasn't, so I'm picking Donald Trump."  It doesn't really make sense as far as the leap.  I didn't know that about -- I know obviously John Boehner literally called Ted Cruz Lucifer.  So I wanted to make sure that Ben Carson didn't hop on that train.  He might.

I think the guy is just a nice kind of go-along guy.  And he might have been in the room, and John Boehner says, "Hey, Ted Cruz is Lucifer."  And Ben Carson could just say, "Okay.  I'll go with that."

GLENN:  Let me ask you this:  I was watching a speech with Bernie Sanders.  And I get the fact that Bernie Sanders is talking about, you know, socialism and it's a totally new track and, you know, it's exciting and everything else.

But I'm watching the crowd that's standing behind him.  And I'm thinking to myself, the whole time I'm watching, the guy could drop dead of a heart attack in the middle of his speech, and I don't know if anyone thinks that he could live long enough for the four years that he would be in office.  And I don't know what people see in him as a person, other than he's got this socialist thing going for him.

Who are the people that are voting for Bernie Sanders?  Really?

STEVEN:  It's funny that you bring that up, though.  Because remember Matt Damon talking about the actuary tables, as it related to John McCain.  And here you have Bernie Sanders -- true story, you know, I did that video at the rally.  We actually have like a Christmas roll that we just figure we'll roll out sometime.  It's about two and a half minutes of Bernie Sanders mid-speech going -- just coughing and making bizarre noises.  Like you think he'll just want to keel over.  Kind of like with Hillary Clinton, they whittled down the line to 13 minutes.  We just couldn't whittle it down.  Every couple of minutes, Bernie was (coughing).  All the time.  I mean, I swear to you.  I have the footage.  And we couldn't fit it in, it was too much.

You know, we wrote about this on the site.  And I have a writer, Courtney, who is my main editor.  So I've written about this from a male perspective.  And as a woman, she wrote a great piece on it.  I would highly recommend people read it.  She's getting a lot of flak about how, if you are a Bernie Sanders voter, if you believe it's the government's job to provide for you, if you don't believe you can do it on your own, you're not a man.  You're not a man I can respect.

And that's something I've always felt.  It really is hard in 2016 to be a male.  And when I say be a man, I don't mean drinking beer and burping.  There are people who do that, and they abuse their wives.  There are people who are macho, and they're horrible men.  I'm talking about a man who can lead his family, a man who believes that he can provide for his kids.  

That's what makes someone a man:  Their families, their communities, people under their tutelage are flourishing.  People voting for Bernie Sanders don't believe they can do it.  They'll tell you it's out of their control.  The system is rigged against them.  And it's someone else's job to pay for it.  

So we wrote about that on the site.  Got a big reaction.  It really is -- you know, men have been shamed because of just who they are.  Right?  Your male privilege.  Well, Bernie Sanders exemplifies the antithesis of that.  It is radically anti-rugged individualism to believe that you have no control over your destiny, but the 72-year-old Jewish socialist is going to fix it to you.  That's not happening.

GLENN:  So you're saying you cannot be a man if you're standing on the stage or if you're voting for him; even if you have the correct genitalia, you're not really a man?

STEVEN:  I don't know now.  The new rules and Caitlin Jenner still carrying around the equipment but is a woman, so your guess is as good as mine.  But the spirit is that.  Yeah.

GLENN:  Tell me about the Buzzfeed thing.  Because you did -- you went around -- you wrote about a black guy dressed as a preppie for a week to prove microaggressions.  Tell me about this.

STEVEN:  Buzzfeed.  I can hear Stu.  Did Stu or Pat make a reference article?  It seems that not many conservatives saw it.

STU:  Maybe I didn't.  

STEVEN:  It's huge.  It's all over Buzzfeed.  It's this black guy.  And he writes microaggression.  Black lives matter.  He talks about dressing nicely and sort of dressing down.  You know, in sweatpants and a hoodie.  And talking about how people treat him differently.  So the big examples of discrimination are when he was dressed in a suit and tie, you know, the bus drivers were nicer to him.  The people at the cleaners were nice to him.  People lent him some change; whereas, when he was dressed in sweatpants and a baggy hoodie, they didn't treat him very well.  

Now, he writes this, and his conclusion is racism.  And so I read, and I just said, "This proves the opposite."  Listen, if someone hates black people, you're not tricking them out with a skinny tie.  Okay?  Like, isn't this wonderful?  You're a black guy, you put on a blazer, and nobody cares.

But apparently he thought this was proof that if you treat someone who dresses nicely, well, you're a racist.  And I don't go into Banana Republic in sweatpants.  They look at me funny.  So I just don't go into Banana Republic anymore because I only wear sweatpants.

STU:  But you're right, it actually proves the exact opposite.

GLENN:  The exact opposite.

STU:  If you are a person who walks around -- if you're intimidated by a black person in a suit, for example, and you are not intimidated by a white person in a gang attire, then you're racist.

STEVEN:  Right.

STU:  But that's different.  That's a totally different story.

STEVEN:  Right.

STU:  It's based on the dress.  It's based on -- if you're going down and you have a bunch of people coming at you, looking like Eminem in their prime, you might very well be intimidated.  That doesn't make you racist against whites.

STEVEN:  Eminem.  At least Eminem had a prime.  What about my prime?  

Listen.  You could take Glenn, right?  Take off the cardigan.  Okay.  Get rid of the scruff there that he has going.  And if you put him in no-belted prison pants and, you know, a giant red hoodie that looks like he's not staying neutral.  He's in the Bloods.  And you walk him down the streets of Inglewood, I'm going to walk on the other side of the street.  So that gives you some context.  And that's exactly what this guy proved.

GLENN:  I think there's a slam in there someplace.  I'm just not sure exactly where it is.

STU:  Yeah.  He's using you as the least threatening --

GLENN:  I know.  Steven Crowder.  LouderwithCrowder.com.  LouderwithCrowder.com.  Thanks, Steven.  We'll talk to you again.

Featured Image: Screenshot from YouTube

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.