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

Historic Cubs Win Achieves the Impossible: Glenn Talks Sports

November 03, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The Chicago Cubs achieved the impossible. Okay, yeah, they ended their 108-year-old losing streak by winning the World Series, but more incredibly, they actually got Glenn Beck to talk about sports.

"Is Chicago the only city that has two baseball teams?" Glenn asked Thursday on his radio program.

RELATED: On Team Sports and Politics

Brilliant sports talk, no, but sports talk nonetheless.

"No, the Mets and the Yankees, perhaps," Co-host Stu Burguiere answered as gently as possible.

What fascinated Glenn most was the world of 1908.

"The Constitution still mattered. Taft was our president . . . a fat man," Glenn said.

Glenn later corrected that Roosevelt was still president in 1908, with Taft sworn into office in 1909. One thing's for sure, the times have certainly changed.

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

• Could a fat man (or woman) be elected today?

• Did New York ever have three teams?

• Did income tax exist in 1908?

• How did Glenn and Stu turn a baseball conversation into one about taxation?

• How old was Jeffy when the Cubs first won the World Series in 1908?

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

GLENN: Is Chicago the only city that has two baseball teams?

STU: No.

PAT: New York.

STU: The Mets and the Yankees perhaps.

GLENN: Good. Good. That's a question I could have answered.

STU: Yeah, you could have answered. Dodgers and Angels.

PAT: Sort of in the same city.

GLENN: Were they always like this because of the White Sox and the Cubs? Do they predate the two teams?

STU: I don't even understand this question.

GLENN: The Dodgers come from New York?

PAT: Yeah, they did. Yes, they did.

STU: We know that.

GLENN: So then did New York then have three teams?

PAT: No. They got the other --

GLENN: They got the Mets.

PAT: After the Dodgers.

GLENN: After the Dodgers. Right. Right. Stu.

STU: Well, yes. Did they have three at one point very early on?

JEFFY: They may have.

GLENN: Uh-huh. See. This is a question that maybe should be asked more often.

STU: Right. But you obviously couldn't answer it.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. I can. I can. I'm with you. I'm not sure if they had three at one time or not.

PAT: I'm pretty sure they didn't. But...

GLENN: So when was the last time the White Sox were in?

STU: The one in 2005, I think.

PAT: Yeah, they beat the Astros in 2005.

STU: But, I mean, the Cubs -- 1908. We went through the list of what had happened since, you know, the --

GLENN: The progressives weren't a thing yet, really.

STU: I mean, think about this -- it's incredible.

GLENN: The Constitution still mattered. Taft was our president.

(laughter)

A fat man.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Taft. When was the last time we had a fat man as president?

PAT: Taft. Taft.

GLENN: Right? I saw an ad for Taft. I saw a poster for Taft. And what was his first name?

JEFFY: William.

PAT: William Howard.

GLENN: Yeah. All it said underneath it was Bill. And it just had his -- it was like an illustration of him. Just his face. But they included his double chin.

And I thought to myself, "You couldn't reduce the double chin in the illustration? Nobody thought that was a good idea back then. Nobody was like -- he's a little fat. Can we make him a little thinner in the poster?" That was a good-looking man. It didn't matter. It didn't matter.

PAT: Yeah, it didn't matter.

GLENN: Boy, how far we have fallen. Or have we? Have we? Because look at the two candidates we have.

PAT: That's exactly right. I'd rather have a fat man. I'd rather have Chris Christie.

GLENN: I --

PAT: Over these two -- oh, my gosh, in a heartbeat.

JEFFY: Ooh.

GLENN: Yeah, I think I would.

PAT: In a heartbeat. I mean, I never thought I'd say I'd vote for Chris Christie --

GLENN: Between these two, I think I would.

PAT: Of these two --

STU: I mean, I still wouldn't vote for him. I would not vote for Chris Christie, although he would be a better president.

PAT: If he was up against Hillary Clinton, oh, I would.

STU: I wouldn't. I would never vote for Chris Christie.

GLENN: I think you could talk me into it. I think you could talk me into it.

PAT: I think I would have been talked into it by now.

GLENN: Yeah, I will tell you, the corruption stuff on her is just frightening.

JEFFY: Nothing on Chris Christie though.

GLENN: I know. I know, but Chris Christie is --

JEFFY: Yeah, but Chris has only got one state. Big deal.

GLENN: Yeah, he's totally corrupt as well. But she's just at a different level.

STU: This is 1908. Cubs win the World Series. Dow closes at 60.

PAT: Sixty. Wow.

STU: The Dow closed at 60.

PAT: Wow.

JEFFY: The Wright brothers -- it was five years after their first flight. The Model T.

PAT: So were you paying for your second bag on -- on Delta by then?

STU: No.

(laughter)

STU: The Model T had just come off the assembly line.

GLENN: But not really. They weren't really a success until like 1918, were they?

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I'm just -- the world's tallest building. Of course, everyone remembers it, the Singer building, lower Manhattan. Forty-seven stories tall.

PAT: Gee.

STU: Forty-seven stories. Taft, of course, president, as we mentioned. Bette Davis, born.

GLENN: Born. Wow. She was old when I was five. Wow.

STU: Let's see.

JEFFY: Fox did a thing. Al Capone was nine. You know, things like that, that was doing.

STU: Yeah, yeah, Al Capone was 9.

JEFFY: Babe Ruth was 13.

STU: Babe Ruth was 13.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: They started -- in 1904, which was a few years before. They were in the middle -- it was when it started, but they were in the middle of building the Panama Canal. I mean, Jack Jackson was the heavyweight champion. Oh, May 10th, 1908, the first Mother's Day. That was at the Methodist church in West Virginia. I don't think it was national until later on.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But it was the first one there. I mean, that's pretty incredible. I mean, that is a complete different world. 1908. That's a long freaking time.

[break]

GLENN: We have a correction here on a couple of things. You're right. '08 was the election. '09, Taft was in. Roosevelt was still president in '08.

STU: Right. And also correct that there were three teams in New York with the Giants.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: We knew that.

GLENN: Because the Giants --

PAT: The Giants.

STU: We always make fun of the fact that they call them -- still call them the New York football Giants.

PAT: There are no baseball Giants in New York. There's no need for that anymore.

STU: Right. But there was at one time.

PAT: There was at one time.

GLENN: There was. That's what I knew, and I was wondering why you guys were not bringing that up.

STU: Also, important questions that came in, including what -- how old was Jeffy when the Cubs first won the World Series in 1908.

PAT: That's a good question. How old were you then? Sixty-nine?

JEFFY: 1908 was the year?

STU: Yeah, do you remember?

GLENN: Back in aught eight.

PAT: The first aught eight.

JEFFY: It was somewhere after the first 50.

STU: Also, income tax did not exist in 1908.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

STU: I mean, think about what a different country this is. The freaking income tax. It's still to this day -- and I know Glenn rails about the Progressive Era. You do that all the time, obviously, with real reason. But the idea that this country was able to pass a constitutional amendment to allow itself to be taxed, allow itself to have its money ripped off their own pockets is one of the most inexplicable things in history.

GLENN: No, it's not. No, it's not.

STU: Yes, it is.

GLENN: How did they do it?

STU: They lied, of course.

GLENN: About? What did they do?

STU: I mean --

GLENN: They pitted the rich against the poor.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And they said it's the evil rich people. And it will only be them. It will never be over 5 percent.

STU: Or, ten. Right? I thought it was 10 percent.

GLENN: I thought it was five. Five or 10 percent.

STU: Whatever. It was very low.

GLENN: Five or 10 percent. It will never be over this low percentage, ever. And it will only be for the very wealth -- the wealthiest 1 percent. That was 1913. By 1919, the tax was 95 percent.

STU: It was 7 percent in 1913.

GLENN: Seven.

STU: And then by 1916, it was up to 15 percent. Then there was a slight rise in 1917, when it went from 15 to 67. There's a little bit of a bump there. Some people may have noticed it.

GLENN: Yeah, but that was only for the war, Stu.

STU: That only lasted one year to be fair. The next year was 73 percent.

GLENN: Right. But it was only for the war.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And then that whole thing went back to 7 percent for just the wealthiest 1 percent.

STU: No. Never again.

GLENN: No, it's not.

STU: Never again. Never close. Yeah, weird.

GLENN: Really? Sounds like a lot.

Featured Image: A Chicago fan sits on top a street pole as people gather to watch the Chicago Cubs take on the Cleveland Indians in Cleveland in game seven of the 2016 World Series, outside Wrigley Field in Chicago, Illinois late on November 2, 2016. Ending America's longest sports title drought in dramatic fashion, the Chicago Cubs captured their first World Series since 1908 by defeating the Cleveland Indians 8-7 in a 10-inning thriller that concluded early on November 3. (Photo Credit: TASOS KATOPODIS/AFP/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.