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

Pantsuits and Sniffles Aside, Glenn Points Out the Debate Crazy From Both Candidates

September 27, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

For the first time in election debate history, Glenn wasn't on pins and needles.

"I didn't have a horse in the race," Glenn said Tuesday on his radio program. "I just wanted to hear which one was going to win, which one had something to say."

Depending on the network, the proclaimed winner fluctuated. According to CNN, Hillary was the clear victor. Over at Fox News, Trump owned the night. Glenn had his own perspective about the political do-si-do seen in the first presidential debate.

"I guess if you're tired of the game and knowing exactly what people are going to say, this is the show for you," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these debatable questions:

• Is trumped up trickle-down focus-group approved?

• Did Hillary come out as a full-fledged socialist?

• Who did Trump blame for everything?

• Are people who say "The Cyber" completely out of touch?

• Will Millennials prefer Hillary or Donald after the debate?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: On the surface, I don't think there was a clear winner last night. But we're not surface dwellers. On the deeper level, I think there was a clear winner last night. And it was Donald Trump.

And let me explain why. I thought -- no, no, hear me out. I thought Donald Trump did a couple of things. I tried to watch this last night as somebody who didn't have a horse in the race -- because I don't. And I tried to watch this as somebody who has been trying to keep their head above water, knows that the country is in trouble, but doesn't really have a horse in the race.

They -- they -- they're just looking for somebody to fix it because they're in pain. And they're in pain that nobody is listening to them. Washington is hopelessly broken. It's nothing but the Republicans and the Democrats arguing with each other. I'm sick and tired of it. My job is going away. I'm losing my job. I know the banking and Wall Street is corrupt. And I know we're in big trouble. I know -- I couldn't tell you why, but I know that this is all bogus and something is coming that's bad. I'm sick and tired of the wars. I'm sick and tired of being told one thing and then doing another, when it comes to the wars. I am sick of hearing that there has been another mass shooting by a guy with an Islamic name, but we don't even mention that he's Islamic. We're not mentioning those things.

However, any time that anybody else is shot, we have to go for -- we will make up categories. A Hispanic white guy. We'll make up things to blame things on race. And we'll do everything we can to not even mention Islam.

I went with that attitude. And then on the other side, I also went with a young person that knows -- because this is -- this is the future. Everybody says, "Oh, you can't -- you're destroying our future?" Really? Really? Because the future are our children. The future are the millennials. And the millennials hate both of these guys. They don't believe in the Republicans. They don't believe in the Democrats. They don't believe in Donald Trump. Look at Donald Trump's millennial numbers. Ghost town. They don't believe in Hillary Clinton. Not as much of a ghost town, but moving towards a ghost town.

They don't believe in the system at all. And why should they? Why should they?

They see their parents who have lived their lives the right way being screwed. They see their parents living this American dream that has gotten them massively in debt. They know the world is changing, but they see -- they see people on television debating cyber security and referring to it as "the cyber."

"I don't know if we can ever fix the cyber." What the hell is that? Completely out of touch. Completely out of touch.

So I tried to watch it as somebody who is more prone to the right but not a partisan. Who is worried about all the things, quite honestly, as I am. And then I tried to watch it as a millennial at the same time, who doesn't agree with the answers that a conservative would give. But both of them are sick of the process.

Because that really honestly is the bulk of America. Everything else is 30 percent. Those people who are still playing the political game, I'm sorry, gang, but you're 30 percent. Everybody thinks talk radio is so powerful. No -- no, we're not. We're not even that powerful in our own circle.

You know, we've believed the press so long that talk radio, oh, it's changing the world. No, it's not. No, it's not. We're talking -- we're preaching to the choir. We have our own culture and our own big click. And we preach to the choir. And very few people, especially now, are stumbling in to see it. It's the same group of people. And we're talking to the same group of people every day. And they go from one show to the other, and that is what's happening.

We're not part of the culture. We're a subset of the culture. So outside of this culture and outside of the deep progressive -- I don't even know, institutional culture of the left, they're 30 percent. Average Americans are doing their job. Average Americans are getting up every day, and they're throwing their hands up and going, "What the hell is wrong with us?"

So I tried to watch as those people. And Hillary Clinton was the most likable I've ever seen her. And she was not likable. She was the most likable I've ever seen her. But I think it's because he is so unlikable. If you would have put him against -- if you would have put her against even Kasich, Kasich would have won. If you would have put her against -- yeah, unlikable. Untrustworthy. Unlikable. She was wearing -- very interesting, she was wearing a red pantsuit. Why was she wearing the red pantsuit? Because she needed to look powerful. She needed to look like a powerful woman who wasn't sick.

And I can move. And don't take -- please take the camera off me at the end when I'm bowing down or I'm trying to lean down to kiss somebody on the cheek because I look like I'm 8,000 years old. Take the camera off me. I'm wearing a red power suit.

And because this is a play, Donald Trump: I need to look credible, I need to look kind, I need to look honorable. I don't need to look powerful. Everybody knows I'm powerful. I need to wear a soft blue tie because that says respectability, that says honor, that says trustworthiness. And the game started there.

Hillary Clinton comes out, full-fledged socialist. Full-fledged socialist. Stunning to me. I've never -- I mean, anybody who was hoping for triangulation, woo, that's not happening.

She comes out and she talks with the old -- what was she? Trumped up trickle-down. Let me come up with a cute thing that we ran through some focus groups, okay? Because we got that 30 percent of the population that just are going to vote for me anyway, and I ran through a focus group, and we found out it would be funny to say, "Trumped up trickle-down economics, and it doesn't work."

So I'm going to tell you something new. Something very, very new. It's called socialism. And it hasn't worked anywhere in the world. And, okay, it's 170 years old now, but it's brand-new because it hasn't been tried by us. And this trumped up trickle-down economics just won't work.

How's the dial test doing? How's the dial testing doing?

Same old stuff over and over again. And, by the way, my dad is better than your dad because my dad had a squeegee, your dad had a checkbook.

STU: And by the way, the trumped up trickle-down thing was interesting because that's not even the correct liberal argument as to what caused the financial crisis. Like, we're supposed to believe that a cut from 39.6 percent to 35 percent for the upper echelon of taxpayers was the thing that caused the financial housing crisis. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

GLENN: So Hillary Clinton goes full-fledged socialist on one of the most incredible things I've ever seen. And that is, you know what -- you know what the problem is, it's a new day. It's a new day, and we have some new ideas that we're going to implement.

For instance, we think companies should share the wealth. Should share the profits. That's the most important thing. In my first ten minutes because the first ten minutes of any debate is the most important thing. So what do I have on my list? I'm going to force companies to share the wealth.

Wow, don't know where we find that one in the Constitution, but don't worry, we have the constitutional expert running to the aid of the Constitution to make sure that that's not the solution. The solution is keeping these companies here. And I will make them stay here. And I will make them do these things. And I will make them stay here.

Okay. So I could go on and on in this kind of mode because that's what it was. I love the people who were saying, "Oh, it was so clear last night." To whom? To whom? To whom was it so clear?

I'll tell you who it was clear to: Donald Trump -- whoever did this. And I got to believe this is Roger Ailes. Because this is the most brilliant thing I've ever heard. Did you hear who he blamed everything on last night? Hillary Clinton said, I'm going to be here, and you're going to blame everything on me by the end of the night.

But who did he actually blame everything on? Everything? Everything?

He didn't blame it on the Democrats. He didn't even mention the Republicans. He is a totally new animal. He blamed it on the politicians.

PAT: Politicians. Every time, politicians.

GLENN: The independents. The millennials and any independent -- anybody who doesn't have a team -- and I got news for you, guys, everyone who is playing teams, you think you're going to save the country, but you are playing the short game. The long game is to think 2020, 2024, 2028. Is there a country left, you will say? No, probably not. But the reason why there will not be a country left is because we have cannibalized each other. And we have ripped each other apart because nobody is looking at the long-term game.

And that is: What's worth saving?

Donald Trump is going to look like a genius on a couple of things. These quotes -- if she wins, the quotes that he gave last night on a couple of things are going to absolutely come to pass. And they're going to come to pass if he becomes president too. But he will forget it, and his solutions will only make it worse, as will hers.

He said, "We're in a bubble. We're in a bubble, and it's going to pop. And it's going to be the worst disaster ever." Yeah, he's absolutely right. Absolutely right.

But here's what happened: Because he -- because he targeted politicians, he wasn't doing the same old, same old.

While he was -- while he was -- I can't even say proposing ideas because I didn't hear any real ideas proposed last night.

I barely heard them from her. But I didn't hear any new ideas proposed. I heard the same thing: We're going to force these companies to stay. We're going to force China to pay their fair share. Hey, who doesn't love Russia?

I mean, I didn't hear any solutions. Even when he got specific and asked for specifics -- how do you repatriot $5 trillion? Now, listen to the logic. We have to have tariffs. Smoot-Hawley, that's what's caused the Great Depression. We have to have tariffs and taxes, and we have to repatriot $5 trillion in cash. Why?

Because his logic was that money is going to come back, flooding into the system, and it's going to circulate in the economy, and people are going to start spending that money.

What that will mean is if you put $5 trillion of US currency back into the system overnight and it actually does circulate in the economy, you will have hyperinflation -- you will have a crash and hyperinflation.

So neither of them -- neither of them -- at least he was recognizing the problems. But if I was watching this as a millennial, he said enough to me -- you know what, I agree with her. I agree with universal health care. I agree with taking the guns. Forget the Constitution. Taking the guns -- if you're on a No Fly List, you shouldn't have a gun. And I agree with you on that. I agree with you on some of the --

PAT: He agreed with her on that.

GLENN: Yeah, the child welfare. The child home day care stuff. I agree with you on all of that. There's lots of things we agree on.

So if I'm hearing that, I'm hearing, he's not for the two-party system.

Now, I don't know if he appealed to the millennials, but he absolutely pealed to me if I worked for Carrier and my job was at stake and all I want is an end to this two-party nonsense and an end to all of the stuff I've seen and heard under George Bush and Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. I want an end.

I think he won last night. And I think he won actually -- because it's a new world, I think he won in a big way.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton shakes hands with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as Moderator Lester Holt looks on during the Presidential Debate at Hofstra University on September 26, 2016 in Hempstead, New York. The first of four debates for the 2016 Election, three Presidential and one Vice Presidential, is moderated by NBC's Lester Holt. (Photo by Joe Raedle/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.