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

They Can't Let Go of the Meryl Streep Thing

January 10, 2017
Staff

WRITER

We all know by now the brouhaha created by Meryl Streep's speech at the Golden Globes in which she bravely attacked Donald Trump in front of her like-minded peers. Then, shock of shocks, Donald Trump declared Meryl Streep overrated and irrelevant. The media, rather than letting it go, have become obsessed with debunking President-elect Trump's declaration. Equally unable to let it go were the host and co-hosts of The Glenn Beck Program, who made it their mission to debunk the debunking of Meryl Streep's mediocrity.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So I get in early today, and, Jeffy, you would know this because you do the Pat & Stu show. They haven't let go of the Meryl Streep thing.

 

JEFFY: It's tough to let go of. When you say they, I'm in there with them. It's still tough to let go of.

 

GLENN: It's tough to let go of.

 

JEFFY: She is agonizing.

 

GLENN: Here, this is what kills me is the fact that the media actually tried to do a -- a -- what do they call it? A debunking of that. And they went to see if indeed Meryl Streep was irrelevant and overrated.

 

JEFFY: I mean, it's --

 

GLENN: First of all, that's an opinion. That's not -- I mean, this is the thing they decide to spend their time on. Really?

 

PAT: Pretty weird.

 

GLENN: It's just so bizarre.

 

PAT: And, of course, she is overrated.

 

JEFFY: And irrelevant. I don't know about irrelevant.

 

GLENN: Make the case.

 

PAT: Unless you have a standard set of criteria.

 

GLENN: Because I look at her -- with the exception of that Abba nightmare that just won't leave me alone.

 

PAT: Mamma Mia! is a good example.

 

GLENN: Oh, oh.

 

JEFFY: Yeah.

 

PAT: And that's one of the ones they feature prominently in that big --

 

JEFFY: Yeah. The only reason I know that show is because my parents loved that show.

 

GLENN: Oh, I hated that show. I hated every second of that show.

 

JEFFY: I know.

 

GLENN: I would have eaten off my arms, if I could -- if it would have meant I could be free from that --

 

PAT: And if you didn't like a musical, there must have been something wrong with you.

 

JEFFY: Right.

 

STU: Mamma Mia! was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life, seeing that you made me go see it.

 

JEFFY: That's right.

 

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I did. As a punishment.

 

STU: As a punishment for something. I don't remember what it was.

 

PAT: Let's talk Ricki and the Flash.

 

JEFFY: Another singing one.

 

STU: I think we can all agree Mamma Mia! was one of the worst things that's ever been created. It's also her highest grossing picture. In case you're worried --

 

GLENN: But that's not her.

 

STU: Yeah, I know it's not her. Success, it's not her. And that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Her entire career is filled with --

 

GLENN: Sophie's Choice, not good?

 

STU: '81 to '85, she has two movies in there: Cramer versus Cramer.

 

PAT: No, that was '79. But '79 to '85 was probably the highlight of her career. Cramer versus Cramer.

 

PAT: Right.

 

GLENN: Excellent.

 

PAT: Sophie's Choice.

 

GLENN: Excellent.

 

PAT: And Out of Africa. Is that the other --

 

STU: You're going to give her out of Africa?

 

GLENN: I'll give her Out of Africa. What about Silkwood?

 

STU: Yeah, Silkwood.

 

PAT: Filmed in this studio on this stage, and that's what it is --

 

STU: However, I mean, okay. Let's just give her that for the fun of it. That gets you to 1985. So she's got a few movies pre-1985 that you could say are good. Then you have a good decade of nothing, unless you want to throw She-Devil in the mix for a good third.

 

GLENN: Oh, horrible.

 

PAT: Are you forgetting Iron Weed?

 

STU: Thank you very much. So a bunch of nothing until -- now, yes, she appeared -- for example, she was a supporting actress in Defending Your Life. Defending Your Life --

 

PAT: That's an Albert Brooks --

 

STU: That's an Albert Brooks movie though. It's not a a Meryl Streep movie.

 

GLENN: No, but she was good in it.

 

STU: She was okay in it.

 

JEFFY: She was okay.

 

GLENN: She wasn't bad. She was good in it.

 

STU: Is it a career-defining role? The answer to that is no. The next one of those you get --

 

PAT: You might say a lot of people liked that.

 

STU: The next one you get really is Bridges of Madison County.

 

GLENN: Oh, was agonizing.

 

PAT: Which was horrific.

 

STU: Horrible. Horrible.

 

GLENN: Wait a minute.

 

STU: Now, ten years --

 

GLENN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let's have the discussion --

 

STU: Terrible.

 

GLENN: -- is it horrible -- wait a minute, is it horrible or is it horrible because we saw her and Clint Eastwood with his and her shirts off.

 

PAT: Yes. That was a big part of it.

 

GLENN: I was scarred.

 

STU: That was part of the movie, but it's still a bad movie.

 

GLENN: I don't have any recollection other than that.

 

STU: Let's get -- Pat, give the recollection quickly of what happened in the movie, Bridges of Madison County.

 

GLENN: I know this one.

 

PAT: Let's see, a hard-working loving considerate husband and father, protector of his wife and children, as kind of a favor -- a good thing for his children and a favor for his wife, takes the two kids to the state fair for a week.

 

STU: That's nice.

 

PAT: And while he is doing that loving act of kindness for his wife, she is inviting some stranger -- some drifter who showed up at the door in to do her for the week. I mean, it is a horrific premise.

 

GLENN: Wow.

 

STU: What a wonderful --

 

PAT: I mean, that's the thanks he gets for being a good man. Hideous movie. I hate that book. I hate that movie.

 

GLENN: I remember reading the book and liking it. I don't remember it framed that way.

 

PAT: I don't think the book framed itself that way, but that's what it is.

 

GLENN: Right.

 

STU: So that's the breakup. From '83 to '95, we find the good piece of work, which is Bridges of Madison County, which as Pat I think just described was not as good as maybe some others say. Then you're taking some more time off from her wonderful success as a magical actress, and you clear -- I mean, you could go to adaptation, which I didn't particularly like, but it was a critical darling --

 

PAT: I didn't see it, to know what that is.

 

STU: Then you're going all the way, I would say, to probably Devil Wears Prada.

 

PAT: Which is a good movie.

 

STU: Now, Devil Wears Prada is a career-defining movie. I think you could put it that way. However, is it really, be honest, a role that any other somewhat similarly aged actress could do?

 

PAT: Glenn Close could do it easily.

 

STU: Oh, absolutely. Sigourney Weaver. Absolutely. There's a dozen people that you could think of at the top of your head.

 

PAT: Julia Roberts would have had no problem.

 

GLENN: Yes, yes, yes.

 

STU: You had to be old and mean. And that was essentially it. And it's not that big of a deal.

 

GLENN: Betty White could have done it.

 

STU: Absolutely. She would have been fantastic in that role. But because it was Meryl Streep, it was some amazing thing that she did. In reality, it was just another movie.

 

And she, again, wasn't the star of the movie. She was the secondary character.

 

GLENN: So where did she develop this --

 

STU: Right.

 

GLENN: Where did she develop --

 

JEFFY: Yes. This is the question.

 

GLENN: I was actually not on your side, until you started presenting the case.

 

STU: Because there's a lot of stuff in here.

 

PAT: Julie versus Julia.

 

STU: Okay. Julie versus Julia is a pretty good movie.

 

PAT: Where she did a pretty serviceable imitation of Julia Childs. But so did Dan Aykroyd. He could have played that part.

 

JEFFY: Thank you. Thank you.

 

GLENN: No, that's not true. That's not true.

 

STU: No, he's right. Aykroyd was better.

 

No. She did a good impression of that.

 

But, for example, Jim Carrey did a much better impression of Andy Kaufman. No one is throwing him into the freaking Hall of Fame for it.

 

PAT: Oh, yeah. That was genius.

 

GLENN: That was genius.

 

PAT: Yeah, that was genius.

 

STU: He was genius in that role. And everybody was like, oh, well, it was just an impression. That's what she did.

 

And, by the way, she wasn't even the main character in the movie. She was in the movie for like ten minutes.

 

Okay. So where are we here? Then we're Mamma Mia! Okay? Which we've all discussed as a disaster.

 

PAT: But you're right. 144 million. That's her biggest box office.

 

STU: Biggest box office of all time. Inflation adjusted is a problem, but still.

 

PAT: Of all time.

 

GLENN: Literally, that could have been done by muppets. It's the music that carried that.

 

PAT: Right. Right.

 

GLENN: That's all that was, was a music video.

 

STU: Again, if you put a different person who was a better singer in that role, it would have been better. It wasn't that she nailed the part above and beyond anybody else.

 

GLENN: But, again, I think the muppets would have been better.

 

STU: Exactly.

 

PAT: Then you get some roles where she was actually terrible in.

 

And Into the Woods is one of them.

 

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

 

PAT: Into the Woods, she was absolutely bad in that movie.

 

STU: It was a fairytale. Right?

 

PAT: Yeah. It was a Disney -- she was terrible.

 

GLENN: Oh, yeah, yeah. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

 

JEFFY: Terrible.

 

PAT: Surprisingly bad. Because I was under the impression, still, buying into the three Oscars and eight Golden Globes, she's a great actress. And I'm thinking, "She is terrible in this. What happened?"

 

GLENN: Right.

 

STU: And then Ricki and the Flash is the ultimate exclamation point in this conversation. She plays the aging rock star. A complete disaster. And, yeah, yeah, she has three Oscars. She's had 19 nominations. How about winning occasionally? How about that?

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.