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

What Really Bothers Glenn About the FBI's Latest Move

October 31, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

It just doesn't make sense. Why would the FBI announce 11 days before an election that additional emails had been discovered --- with no idea about what's in them? What's really going on?

"11 days before the election is suicide . . . I mean, you just don't do that. And let me just say this: Democrats never do that," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

While Democrats may drop an October surprise on a Republican candidate, it's unheard of to attack one of their own.

RELATED: Hell Hath Frozen Over: Liberals Taking a Stand Against Hillary Clinton

"Comey had to know that . . . because that's wildly reckless," Glenn said.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these incriminating questions:

• What theory does Glenn believe about Comey's actions?

• Who put national archive documents in their underpants?

• Who is Andrew McCabe and why is he the most important name to know?

• Why did it take three weeks to subpoena emails on Weiner's laptop?

• Whose wife received a $500K campaign donation for a local senate race?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We're going to get into the Clinton emails. But the thing that has bothered me is this doesn't make any sense to me. Something else is going on.

And here's why: To come out and say, "We have emails, and we have no idea what's in them," 11 days before the election is suicide. And it puts the country -- I mean, you just don't do that.

And let me just say this: And the Democrats never do that. I mean, we've seen -- we've seen similar things with -- with George W. Bush. But we've never seen anything like this. It is unprecedented in American history.

Comey had to know that. How did this happen. I am -- I've the bottom a whole stack of emails -- I don't even have a warrant for them yet. But, hey, I just want to let you know.

How did that happen? Because that's wildly reckless. And I just want to point out -- now, I agree -- I'm going to give you the theory on why I think he did it here in a second. And it makes the case against her even worse -- or, better, whichever you're looking at. But it bothered me, because of this.

Imagine if the FBI would have said, we were going through that Trump case and we found out that Trump University is even worse than we thought it was.

Now, we don't have any evidence. I mean, we can't -- we don't even have a warrant yet to look. But we've heard -- there would be riots in the streets. If this would have happened to us in any other election, we would have gone crazy.

So how are you doing it to the most powerful woman on the planet, one that can get you out of putting national archive documents into your underpants, shredding them, and then hiding underneath a truck across the street and you don't go to jail. How does this happen?

Let me give you a theory: This is from John Podhoretz. He said: The key to Comey's behavior may be contained in Devlin Barrett's Sunday afternoon story in the Wall Street Journal, which he lays out a surprising time line.

According to Barrett, the trouble began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the Bureau's second in command, that while investigating Anthony Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged messages to a minor, they had recovered a laptop with 650,000 emails. Many, they say, were from accounts of Ms. Abedin. This is according to people familiar with the matter. Those emails stretch back years, these people said.

Okay. So now, this is all we have. All we have is that there is a laptop that has some Abedin emails. There's 650,000 on this laptop. And they were notified in early October. Three, four weeks ago.

The FBI stumbled on the metadata, the information surrounding an email, the digital version of an envelope with a canceled stamp, looking for child pornography on the laptop of Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, her ex-husband.

Child porn was all they were allowed by terms of their search warrant to look for. To discover whether any of the emails in the huge cache of Abedin's stuff was pertinent to the question of whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information, a new warrant would be needed.

Later in the story, Barrett reports that a meeting early last week of senior Justice Department and FBI officials, a member of the department's senior national security staff asked for an update on the Weiner laptop. Officials realized then that no one had acted on obtaining a warrant.

Wait. What?

You have a laptop of Hillary Clinton's aide, chief aide, with 650 emails on it -- 650,000 emails on it, three weeks ago. You bring this up in a meeting. You know that this was a talked about on, okay. Well, let's find out what's in those emails. Three weeks later, no warrant has been obtained.

Listen to this, now recall from three paragraphs ago that the FBI official in New York informed about the email cache was Andrew McCabe. Note that the Justice Department, largely under McCabe's direction, somehow neglected to secure a warrant to look at Abedin's emails for three weeks.

Last week, in a separate story, we learned that Virginia governor and Clinton intimate, Terry McAuliffe had steered an astonishingly amount of money into the campaign coffers of Mr. McCabe's wife in a local race in Virginia late last year.

McCabe was the third person at the Justice Department. He is also now number two.

The amount that was steered into her coffers was staggering. Nearly $500,000 for a state Senate seat, she apparently had no chance of winning. Since she got the money and then lost, that immediately raised red flags.

Was a senior Justice Department official getting special favors for his wife from a Clinton guy, while Mrs. Clinton, under active investigation by his department, including investigations in which he was materially involved.

The theory is simple: Comey was indeed covering his butt. But in this case, he was doing so because if anything came out of the Weiner investigation, he would fry. When called upon to explain himself, he would have to acknowledge that he knew the Obama Justice Department dragged its feet and did nothing about it, while the husband of someone who owned -- who owed a Clinton intimate a huge debt of gratitude was running things and behaving in a manner that can be best described as astonishingly cavalier.

This, I believe, is why this happened Friday. There may not -- I think there are -- but there may not be anything incriminating on this laptop. But because the Clintons are so incapable of doing things without corruption, this letter that came out from Comey on Friday is Clinton's fault. Because they're clearly doing something with McCabe behind the scenes. And whether it's quid pro quo or just, "Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. I didn't even know you were -- well, I'd be disappointed if you ever tried to take this generous donation and -- and would look at us any different way or help Mrs. Clinton. That would be disappointing because that would be against the law, you know." I doubt there's quid pro quo. They're too shrewd for that. It's just a quiet understanding.

He was number three, now he's number two. His wife gets 500 grand. Half a million dollars for a local election where she's number three, she can't win. Come on.

STU: So basically Comey is doing his investigation, as he should be. He's getting stonewalled by Clinton insiders, and so this comes out as a way to say, "Look, I still have the right to get this information."

GLENN: If I don't act now and get -- I read it two ways: One, I don't want to be accused of not doing my job, because then I'll get fried, then I'll get in trouble, I'll be impeached. So I -- uh-uh. I've been fair. I've been balanced. People on the right didn't think I was. People on the left loved me. But I said I was going to play it straight down the line.

They've had three weeks to get this. Something fishy is going on. I am not going to take the fall for this one, guys. And on top of it, if she wins in 11 days, at the time, if she wins in 11 days, will I ever get a warrant? I want the warrant.

That's why Clinton is saying, "You produce them." But she knows, he can't produce them. They didn't have a warrant. Well, that's ridiculous. Why didn't you get a warrant? Well, I guess we would have to ask you and maybe Mr. McAuliffe, why we couldn't get a warrant. The name that everyone should know is "Andrew McCabe." That's the name that everybody should be looking at. Not Comey. And what can you trust anyway?

You know what kills me is how fast people change. Everybody on Trump's side now is saying, "Comey is the best thing ever." I'm not convinced of that. I'm not convinced he's not involved in something nefarious. I haven't changed my viewpoint from when he closed the Clinton campaign because of intent with.

If I went to a bank and I robbed a bank, but my intent was to only take my money out, would they not prosecute me for bank robbery? Since when does intent or ignorance get away? It doesn't.

But everybody on the left loved him. Everybody on the right hated him. Now things have completely flipped. Everybody now on the right loves Comey and says he's very credible. And did you hear what people on the left were saying? Because the people on the left, all of the big names were throwing him under the bus. But what's so funny this time is, just four weeks ago, they were saying something entirely different.

VOICE: There was an extensive, as you know, Brad, investigation by the FBI, under the direction of a wonderful and tough career public servant, Jim Comey.

VOICE: This is a great man. We are very privileged in our country to have him be the director of the FBI.

VOICE: No one can question the integrity, the competence.

VOICE: And he's somebody with the highest standards of integrity.

OBAMA: I'm going to continue to be scrupulous about not commenting on it, just because I think Director Comey could not have been more exhaustive.

VOICE: Amazingly.

JEFFY: I'm going to comment.

VOICE: Some Republicans who were praising you just days ago --

GLENN: Amazing.

VOICE: -- for your independence, for your integrity --

GLENN: Yes.

Right.

VOICE: Despite your impeccable reputation and integrity --

VOICE: And your honesty instantly turned against you because your recommendation conflicted with the predetermined outcome they wanted.

GLENN: Oh. Oh, my.

VOICE: Republicans have turned on you with a vengeance.

VOICE: If you indict Comey's integrity, then you are making a big mistake.

VOICE: Director Comey, whose reputation for independence and integrity, is unquestioned.

GLENN: Unquestioned. Until now. Until now.

STU: Right. I mean, these are -- these are amazing. Of course, both sides are doing it right now.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And maybe the idea is that Comey is actually just doing his job well.

GLENN: Maybe.

STU: Maybe that's it. Who knows?

But the Reid one is particularly interesting in that he's now not only saying --

GLENN: I think he said he should go to jail.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: He's saying he's a criminal. He may have violated the Hatch Act and is involved in criminal activity.

GLENN: And can you find for me, Pat, do you remember Harry Reid came out and said, right towards the end of the campaign, Mitt Romney never paid any taxes. And then if you remember, he did an interview afterwards where he was proud of that, where he said, "Hey, he didn't win, did he?"

Do you remember that?

PAT: Uh-huh, yep.

GLENN: He's doing it again. I mean, bearing false witness, again.

Featured Image: ary Committee September 28, 2016 in Washington, DC. Comey testified on a variety of subjects including the investigation into former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server. (Photo by Win McNamee/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.