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 Good Is the GOP Without a Full Repeal of Obamacare?

February 23, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Matt Kibbe, president and chief community organizer for FreeThePeople.org, joined The Glenn Beck Progra from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), taking place this week in Washington, D.C. Kibbe gave a boots-on-the-ground report about what he's seeing firsthand.

"It's definitely a more nationalist crowd here. And you may have noticed that none of the Liberty Republicans, except for Ted Cruz, are even attending this year. There's no Rand Paul. There's no Justin Amash. There's no Thomas Massie. Mike Lee is not going this year," Kibbe said.

In fact, a vibrant group of freedom-loving students in attendance at CPAC --- International Students For Liberty --- doesn't feel welcome.

"I would suggest [CPAC] fix that, but I don't know if they're interested in doing that," Kibbe added.

Both Glenn and Kibbe expressed concern over the GOP's willingness --- even with full control of the House, Senate and White House --- to pass legislation mandated by the people, like repealing Obamacare.

"I want to see a commitment to repealing and replacing Obamacare. I mean, Rand Paul has put an idea on the table, and if you don't like that idea, you better come up a better one. Because just loving America is not enough," Kibbe said

Is the GOP up to the test?

"I'm worried about it. I don't think there's a commitment to it, and I think we're going to have to push it from the bottom up," Kibbe said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Matt Kibbe, president and chief community organizer for freethepeople.org.

Matt, did you know Alan Colmes?

MATT: I did. (muffled) I think I debated him a few times over the years. And, yeah, he was sort of an old-school liberal in the sense that he loved to debate. He was honest. And I really sort of respected that civility, even though on things like crossfire, he would mix it up with the best of them.

GLENN: Yeah. Could I ask you, are you on Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone?

(chuckling)

JEFFY: Are you in a pool?

GLENN: I don't know what kind of old-timey phone? It's quaint. But what kind of cheap ass phone are you calling from?

MATT: It's actually a tomato can. They told me it would be awesome.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Right. No, it doesn't sound awesome.

Matt, you're --

MATT: I am moving -- I am moving in the office to see if it can get any better.

GLENN: I doubt it.

Buy yourself a phone from -- I don't know. Try the '90s. Is it one of the phones with the big, huge battery pack that you also had to carry with the other hand?

MATT: It's -- I have no defense. It's an Apple phone.

GLENN: Is it really? Wow. Strange. Okay.

MATT: The latest.

GLENN: So, Matt, you're in Washington, DC. You're at CPAC.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: Let's start with the controversy.

This is a really strange thing. Conservatives are defending Milo. And not on the -- the pedophilia stuff. But on everything else. Even though this guy is not a conservative. He's just not a conservative. He even says that.

And there's this strange love affair with him. And people are saying, "You know, he's bringing millennials to the conservative party." Well, how? He's not a conservative.

So what is the mood there with -- with what happened with Milo?

MATT: Well, I got to tell you, you look at the entire agenda at CPAC, and the nationalists -- the Trump's make America great guys have really taken over. And I've always thought of Milo as kind of a troll, a cuter Ann Coulter. Someone that says things just to be provocative. Just to stir up a fight.

GLENN: Yeah.

MATT: And, you know, that's interesting for a comedian. But for someone that tries to represent, A, conservative values. And, you know, on Bill Maher, he said he's a Libertarian, even though he specifically told me that he's not a Libertarian. I think he loves to say things that pisses people off. But that's different than representing a worldview, a philosophy. And it sort of breaks my heart that we're attracted to these provocateurs that don't seem to have any basis on reality. It's just the Twitter world has redefined us.

GLENN: Yeah, I think we're just looking to win. I think we're just looking for someone on our side to be able to tell people to shut up. Because so many times we've been called names and told to shut up and sit down. And I think people are tired of it. So they look for somebody who is -- you know, in some ways, a bigger bully that can get people to shut up and leave us alone.

MATT: Yeah. And I think -- I mean, there are things that we can learn from Milo and Donald Trump about -- about pushing back when people try to mischaracterize your points of view. But it has to be based in a philosophy. And you need to be willing to say that you're wrong. And you need to listen to other people. If we could combine those two things, I think that's what's going to work in the social media world. Yes, be provocative. Yes, be interesting. But why not stand for something that doesn't change from day to day. Because I think he just loves saying things just to see people's reaction. But he'll say the opposite thing tomorrow. And so there's no learning. There's no teaching. And, again, it sort of breaks my heart that young people find that attractive somehow.

GLENN: So we are now looking at a conservative movement that is becoming much more nationalist, much more populist, and much more socialist in some ways. Is that the feeling that you're getting there on the ground at CPAC?

MATT: It's definitely a more nationalist crowd here. And you may have noticed that none of the Liberty Republicans, except for Ted Cruz, are even attending this year. There's no Rand Paul. There's no Justin Amash. There's no Thomas Massie. Mike Lee is not going this year.

And to me, that --

GLENN: Now, is that -- wait, wait. Is that because they refused to come or were not asked? Because I was asked to come and speak, and I couldn't because I'm on my way to Thailand.

MATT: Yeah, I don't -- I don't know if they were asked. And I don't know if they refused. But either way, there's no -- there's no representation of that Liberty wing of the conservative movement.

GLENN: Wow.

MATT: And to me, that's -- I was just at International Students For Liberty last weekend, and I got to tell you, that movement's more vibrant than ever. But they don't feel welcome at CPAC. And I would suggest they fix that, but I don't know if they're interested in doing that.

GLENN: Here we are sitting with a full G.O.P. House, a G.O.P. Senate, a G.O.P. president, a president who can tell everybody to shut up and sit down, a president who is used to winning -- he's going to win so much, we're all going to be sick of it, except when it comes to health care.

No repeal of Obamacare. That's what they're now saying, in Washington, that the G.O.P. will not bring us a full repeal of Obamacare.

What good is the G.O.P.?

MATT: You know, it's been almost 20 years since the G.O.P. had an opportunity to offer a freedom-based, choice-based alternative to Hillarycare. And now Obamacare.

And they've always struggled to do it. Obviously, Rand Paul has stepped into that breach.

But the G.O.P. today is divided into three groups: There's that small Liberty policy reform people who understand how health care could actually work. And that's maybe optimistically a third of House Republicans. There's a third that sort of liked Obamacare. You know, they liked Romneycare. And they would sort of redesign it to be the same thing.

And then there's a third that are just afraid of their own shadows and are going to do whatever they're told to do. And, right now, they're being told in these townhall meetings that Obamacare is a great thing.

So it's inertia --

GLENN: Are those real? I mean, who are those people? The G.O.P. people that are coming out for these town hall meetings. Are those G.O.P., or are those Democrats?

MATT: Oh, I think they're progressives and Democrats. I think there's very few Republicans. But I do think they're real.

GLENN: Yeah, I think they're real too.

MATT: Yeah. Obviously, there's professional community organizers working on this stuff because that's what they do. But by and large, those crowds are real -- real people, frustrated people, people that seem primarily just angry that their guy didn't win. And I think that's your Achilles' heel. They're angry about so many things, the first being the outcome of the election. It's different than the Tea Party in that sense. We had a binding philosophy and a specific policy agenda that we were trying to accomplish.

GLENN: There's a guy you need to meet. His name is Jonathan Haidt. He's a professor up in NYU. And he's written about the immoral theory foundation, where he's identified five moral foundations. And these -- these foundations are what keep us apart, but also what bring us together.

And there is a real opportunity. And we were talking on the radio yesterday that I believe the future is going to split off -- there's going to be a third party. And I don't know whether -- you know, the Republicans or the Democrats survive this. But I'm sensing, in talking to a lot of really powerful liberal people, that they are done with the -- the nonsense of Keith Ellison and the socialist and the Marxist and the radicals. Now that Obama is gone, it's almost as if scales have come off their eyes. And they no longer see the -- you know, the great hope of Barack Obama. They see what's left. And they realize, these are all radicals, Marxists, anti- -- you know, anti-Israel kind of people, and they don't like it.

And they don't know where to go because they can't go to the G.O.P. And then at the same time, I think there's a lot of people in the G.O.P. who, if Donald Trump just continues to do all great things, they may be fine. But there is this classic liberal, this classic constitutionalist that is just leave alone and can we all get together and just stop all this nonsense? I think there's a growing core of America on both left and right that could slip right between these two bogus parties.

Do you see that as a possibility of happening, Matt?

MATT: Oh, definitely. And that's why we started Free the People in the first place. Because I saw this sort of disintermediation, people using technology to discover that they're not just like everybody else. They don't belong to team A or team B. And they know that most politicians are lying to them. And I'm not even sure it's a third party. It may be multiple parties. Because when it really gets down to it, we're all very different. We come from different places and we have different goals and dreams.

GLENN: Sure. I don't mean to say a party. I mean a movement.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: There is a real movement out that is dislodged now from both parties. And they're growing increasingly angry with those two parties.

MATT: Oh, definitely. There's more registered independents than there are Republicans and Democrats. And that's particularly pronounced with young people. They choose everything a la carte. They're not really interested in someone telling them that they have to be either a Republican or Democrat, or even a conservative or liberal.

I think people are more complicated than that. And the beauty of what you're calling classical liberalism, Libertarianism, small government conservatism, is that it believes in a simple set of rules. It treats everybody the same under the government rules. But otherwise, you're sort of free to be yourself, as long as you don't hurt people and take their stuff.

GLENN: Right.

MATT: I think we have the only answer to this very complex community we call America.

GLENN: I agree. I agree. So, Matt, just real quick before you go, what is the main thing that we should be looking for, from afar, and the main thing you're looking for at CPAC?

MATT: I want to see a commitment to repealing and replacing Obamacare. I mean, Rand Paul has put an idea on the table. And if you don't like that idea, you better come up a better one. Because just loving America is not enough. You have this opportunity to do stuff. And you promised you would -- you would get rid of Obamacare and replace it with choice and legalize freedom and health care. This is the test. And I'm worried about it. I don't think there's a commitment to it. And I think we're going to have to push it from the bottom up.

GLENN: Thank you very much, man. I appreciate it. President and chief community organizer of freethepeople.org. I love the fact that he has just embraced community organizer. Matt Kibbe.

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.