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

Should Those Who Are #NeverTrump Finally Yield?

September 21, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Glenn read an opinion piece on air Wednesday that he likened to The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, a masterpiece of satire described as wildly comic, deadly serious and strikingly original.

"I want to take you to a modern-day Screwtape Letter written by Erick Erickson today," Glenn said. "If you're opposed to Donald Trump, I want you to listen to this. And if you're opposed to, you know, not voting for Donald Trump --- I know you're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, nor am I --- but I want you to listen to this."

Erickson's op-ed showed his thoughtful analysis of the two candidates. His conclusion? We definitely have a savior, but which one will it be?

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these thought-provoking questions:

• Why does Erick Erickson think he's in a no-win position?

• How would a Hillary Clinton presidency be completely anti-American?

• What caused Erickson to actively reconsider his opposition to Trump?

• If God chose Abraham, Samson and David to lead, should we choose Trump?

• What did Erickson decide after reconsidering?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So it's very interesting. I read an op-ed piece today by Erick Erickson that I want to talk about. Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump. And if you're opposed to Donald Trump, I want you to listen to this. And if you're opposed to, you know, not voting for Donald Trump -- I know you're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, nor am I. But I want you to listen to this.

Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump. Now, the point on this that I want to make has nothing to do with Donald Trump, but the conversation that came from this article had something to do with something much, much bigger than Donald Trump.

Listen to this: Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump by Erick Erickson.

The polling has drawn even closer. More and more people wonder if those of us who are Never Trump should finally yield, knowing that we can now beat Hillary Clinton.

I'm in an odd position. I'm mindful that should Trump win, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to people like Donald Trump.

Likewise, I know if Trump loses, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to people like Donald Trump. And Trump supporters will blame people like me for his lost. So I suppose I should say that I'm not in an odd position: I'm in a no-win position.

With Donald Trump's rise in the polls and increasingly competitive nature of the race, it is time to reconsider my opposition to Trump. After all, I view Hillary Clinton's candidacy as anti-American.

I realize that saying Hillary Clinton's candidacy in my view is anti-American offends some or comes off as hyperbole, but I think her candidacy is fundamentally an anathema to and is fundamentally in opposition to the basic historic American values. I believe the Founders of this country recognized individual liberty as negative liberty. It wasn't what individuals could do if the government could help them make this country great. Rather, it was what individuals could do if the government left them alone.

Hillary Clinton's vision of a Leviathan nanny state runs counter to all of those ideals. She would expand the government, engage the government in social experimentation, and she would advance the agenda of the sexual revolution against the church.

I am under no delusions: With Clinton as president, the church in this country will be in for difficult times. The siege from the outside, the forces of Mordor, will be fully on the march.

That's -- anybody disagree with that? Because I agree with that 100 percent.

JEFFY: So far.

GLENN: With Hillary Clinton, the Supreme Court will fall into the hands of the left for a generation at least. The devastation -- listen to this -- the devastation to our social fabric will know no end. Trading in the idea of negative liberty, Clinton and a left-wing Supreme Court will pursue expansionist federal policies and concepts of positive liberty, which will advance the individual prurient interests of deviance against the church in the way Founders could not have anticipated and no rational person would think wise. But Clinton as president will mean the insane have taken over the asylum.

Anybody disagree with any of that?

Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote, quote, what was once stigmatized --

JEFFY: That's what I mean.

GLENN: Anybody take a guess who she is.

JEFFY: You cannot disagree with Himmelfarb.

PAT: No, you can't.

GLENN: You can guess who she is.

PAT: We don't have to guess. Glenn, we've talked about that --

JEFFY: Glenn.

GLENN: She wrote a very important book that you all should read.

Anyway, what was once stigmatized as deviant behavior is now tolerated and even sanctioned. What was once regarded as abnormal has been normalized.

As deviancy is normalized, so what was normal now becomes deviant. The kind of family that has been regarded for centuries as natural and moral, the bourgeoisie family, as it is now called, is now seen as pathological.

PAT: We've been saying that so long, we call it Himmelfarbian.

JEFFY: Right. Yeah, we are part of the Himmelfarbians.

GLENN: The Clinton presidency will lock that in.

Is there any disagreement with that?

PAT: True. No, that's --

GLENN: What they've done -- by the way, she wrote a book about the Hitler era. And I can't remember the name of it. But look it up. Very famous book.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And she is -- she was taking it apart and saying, "Here's how it happened, and here's how it can happen again." And that is describing that society and our society.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Yeah. Go ahead tell the Himmelfarb society about the fact that she wrote a book about Nazi Germany. Good idea. We know --

PAT: Don't talk --

GLENN: Okay. In addition to that, the increasingly illiberal left will further capitulate in the forces of evil, choosing to surrender to radical Islamists blowing themselves up as a new normal.

By the way, this is Erick Erickson writing, I think we all need to take a step back and reconsider. Especially if you are a Never Trumper, we have to look at the facts. Fix reason firmly in her seat.

In short, I see the election of Hillary Clinton as the antithesis of all of my values and ideas on what fosters sound civil society in this country. Furthermore, I think she should be in jail.

Anybody disagree?

PAT: No.

GLENN: At least with Trump, he writes --

PAT: I mean, she might get a trial first.

GLENN: She should get a trial.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: At least with Trump, we might -- might get a better Supreme Court. We might get better cabinet picks. In fact, in terms of my view of the country, the odds are pretty great that my side has a greater chance of prevailing with Trump than with Clinton.

I don't agree with that. But that's interesting.

What --

PAT: And that's the argument we hear all the time.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Supreme Court.

GLENN: He believes that.

What most would identify as my side would have control of the executive branch and the powers of appointment and regulation that come with it. Oh, I see what he's saying.

What he deems his side would because they would control all three branches.

PAT: Yes. Right.

GLENN: So I should at least here and now as the race draws close, reconsider my opposition to Trump.

The truth is, with the headlines about the Clinton's emails, terrorist attacks, Obama administration's advancement of transgenderism in the military, I have been actively reconsidering my opposition to Trump. I've done it in conversations with friends, in prayer, in quiet time, dedicated to considering the future.

So did he reconsider, and did he change his point of view? In a second.

Real quick, Himmelfarb is not the woman I was thinking of. I was thinking of another woman with a funny name, and I can't remember her name. Himmelfarb, we looked it up in the middle of the break, is Bill Kristol's mom, which no idea.

But, anyway, so Erick Erickson says, "We really need to -- as this race comes this close -- to reconsider the opposition to Trump if you are a Never Trumper."

I'm a Never Clinton guy, and I'm a Never Trumper. And so far, everything that he has written about Hillary Clinton I believe is absolutely true. She is -- she is poison -- poison to the republic.

Here's what he writes: In doing so, I have to admit that while I view Hillary Clinton's campaign as anti-American, I view Donald Trump's campaign as un-American.

Now, listen to this.

The American spirit eschews the idea of a strongman in Washington fixing all of our problems. We're supposed to be against the imposition of values set by Washington. Instead, we should embrace our heterogeneity as people. Not only does Donald Trump not do that, but his views pervert the liberal order of things, as much as Clintonian illiberalism. Clinton offers a tyranny of the minority. Trump offers a tyranny of the majority.

Clinton offers neither safety nor freedom, and Trump offers safety at the expense of freedom. While I see Clinton as having no virtue, I see Donald Trump corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism, and dangerous strains of nationalism. More importantly, while I think Hillary Clinton will do long-term damage to the country, I believe that Donald Trump -- writes Erick Erickson -- will do far more damage to the church, and that is my priority.

A Clinton administration may see the church besieged from the outside, but a Trump administration will see the church poisoned from within. I see it happening even now.

This past Friday, I debated the merits of Trump and sat next to a Christian who argued that because God chose sinners -- I can't -- this argument, I hear all the time -- we should choose Trump. She argued that a bunch of other presidents were terrible, immoral people, and we should be okay with Trump. She argued that God chose Abraham, Samson, and David, so we should choose Trump.

I don't recall John F. Kennedy writing books, bragging about his affairs. I don't recall Bill Clinton telling a television audience that he wanted to have sex with his daughter. How far a Christian must fall to justify the low morals of a man by tearing down the reputation of others, is sometimes exaggerated manners?

I do recall God choosing Abraham, Samson, and David, and all of them repenting for their sins. That repentance stands in studied contrast to Donald Trump, who has three times said that he has never had to ask for forgiveness. And he only recently said his advance of the church, if elected, would be the only thing that gets him into heaven.

When I see Christians defining deviancy down to justify political decisions, I see a real problem for the church. When I see Christians saying that we have the license to choose bad men because God chooses bad men, I see the sparks of apostasy.

Many of my friends have turned themselves over to the anger of Trump displays. I see my friends on Twitter in meltdown tweeting profanity to others, spending their time on radio attacking friends by name for refusing to yield. That's not healthy.

Not only is it not healthy, it reeks of desperation. This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God our Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress and keep one's self unstained by the world, James said.

Trump has openly championed funding an organization that would murder the would-be orphan and sell his organs, while he cheated widows and single moms of their money. And more and more Christians are championing these stains while staining themselves. The level of fear many of my friends have towards what a Clinton administration may bring has turned to desperation and desire for a protector.

But we already have one. Neither in life nor death, angels or rulers, nor present things nor to come, nor powers, nor height, depth, nor anything else in all of creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God and Christ Jesus.

So many pastors who email me and beg me to reconsider and so many others who write do so because they think this is the last chance to get the nation right. They think we'll turn a corner after which we cannot turn back. While I can see they might be right, what I see is a level of desperation, causing them to place their trust in one strong man instead of God and in truth. I do not concede that they're right, but I have concluded, we are already past the point of redemption when the best either party can do is offer up Clinton or Trump.

We are beyond the point of looking to five black-robed masters to save us from ourselves. When we put up Clinton or Trump, the seriousness and virtue of the voter is in the grave already, and my Christian brethren for Trump yearn for an idolized path that neither never existed and in the future that is not theirs but rather God's to shape.

Christians looking for a strong man to protect the church instead of the strongest man to conquer death is a terrible thing to see. Many Christian leaders are engaging in trying to blame patriotism to Christianity. They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls. And for the church to rise, the country must rise.

But Christ has already risen. The true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

He goes -- he goes on. And I believe this is so well reasoned and so well thought out. Now, you may not agree with it. But it is at least a cogent argument and a statement of principles.

Featured Image: Erick Erickson

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.