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

One of Glenn's Favorite Texans Exposes Blatant Hypocrisy of Judge's Voter ID Ruling

August 27, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Texas was blocked from enforcing the latest version of its voter ID law by a federal judge Wednesday.

In 2011, Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the state’s voter ID law, which requires voters to have one of seven possible forms of ID, was discriminatory. The Texas state legislature modified the law to allow potential voters to bypass the photo ID by signing an affidavit and showing a bank statement, a utility bill or other forms of identification; however, Judge Ramos still ruled this week that the law “imposes burdens disproportionately” on black and Latino voters.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined radio on Friday to talk about the simple goal behind the Texas voter ID law and the history of the state’s years-long court battle to be able to enforce it.

“The goal was to prevent fraud in elections,” Paxton said, explaining the types of ID that can be used and how Texas lawmakers have tried to work with voters who struggle with this issue. “This idea of discrimination is false,” he said. “There’s no evidence of it.”

Glenn had one important question: “So is it true that this judge requires a photo ID to be able to get into her courtroom?”

Essentially every federal courtroom does require photo ID for entry, Paxton confirmed. “Apparently, that’s not discriminatory,” he said.

GLENN: One of my -- one of my favorite Texans is our Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. He has been the attorney general here in Texas since 2015. He won the election as the state's top law enforcement guy. And he is a champion of the Tea Party movement. Conservative principles.

I wanted him on today because Texas is under attack. The new voter ID bill has been overturned in the Texas Supreme Court. I think it was Supreme Court, was it not, Ken? Was it the Supreme Court?

KEN: No, this was a Corpus Christi district judge appointed by President Obama.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what happened. Tell me what people are fighting, what you're fighting for, for the state of Texas, and what happened?

KEN: So let me give you a little background: This was passed in 2011. I was in the legislature, actually in the Texas house when we passed it.

The goal was to prevent fraud in elections. I know that's a controversial topic, to prevent fraud. But that's what we were trying to do.

And so we started requiring photo ID. We were allowed seven different photo IDs that people could use. If you couldn't get one or you couldn't afford one, we will give you one free. You can use all kinds of IDs, including driver's license, military IDs, concealed handgun. And then we have Texas IDs, you can use.

And so we've been using that successfully. There have been no cases that we know of where there's been discrimination in the elections. But despite that, this judge found our law discriminatory. And so that happened actually when Abbott was attorney general. So we took that up to the Fifth Circuit. We drew a fairly liberal panel. We lost. And we actually asked the whole court to hear it.

We ended up losing, 9-6. But the court gave us a roadmap to fixing it. They said, if you'll put an affidavit in there, allow people to come in and basically swear that they -- they couldn't get a photo ID and that they are the person they say they are, then your photo ID laws are good. So we did that. The legislature passed it. The governor signed it. And, unfortunately, this judge still said it's discriminatory.

GLENN: So is it true that this judge requires a photo ID to be able to get into her courtroom?

KEN: It is true. It's also true that the fifth circuit does as well. So almost every federal courtroom you go into, you have to show federal ID. Apparently, that's not discriminatory.

GLENN: Yeah. Did -- have you asked any of them? I mean, I'd love to hear the answer to that one. How is it not discriminatory?

KEN: Yeah. I guess they know. I mean, this isn't about discrimination. This is about fraud. And everybody knows that is the issue. And if you don't have photo ID, it allows more people to vote that shouldn't be voting. And that's the battle. That's the true battle. This idea of discrimination is false. Because there's no evidence of it. There was no evidence in the trial record of any discrimination. The Justice Department under Obama came to Texas looking -- you know, advertising, please, give us stories. Well, they couldn't find them.

GLENN: So who has standing in this case? Why does anybody have standing? If there's nobody who has an actual episode, who has standing?

KEN: That's a very good question. And yet, here we are. With our photo ID laws struck down. So this is something we are going to appeal. We believe the Fifth Circuit will uphold it, given what they already told us, and given the fact that we had the legislature change the law to satisfy them. And, look, I didn't want to change the law. But it was a relatively minor change. And it was still leave us with a really solid photo ID law and allow us to prevent fraud. But, again, it will have to go back up to fifth circuit to hopefully get the right result.

GLENN: Ken, I don't think -- I mean, I think -- I wasn't really actually a -- that was an honest question. Who has standing? Who is funding this? Who is suing the state? How is this being brought to the front of the court every time?

KEN: It's just private plaintiffs who sue and claim discrimination. It's -- it's -- it's -- it's -- and, again, you ask a great question. Because if there is no actual harm, how can this be struck down? And the other thing you need to think about -- I mean, this is a duly enacted law. The Texas legislature. I mean, this had to go through all kinds of voting and people debating. And we -- we have a federal judge that just steps in and says, sorry, you can't do that. I'm taking over your legislature, basically.

GLENN: So, Ken, where are we headed?

KEN: Well, I still think we're going to be successful. Because I think the Fifth Circuit gave us clear guidelines on the part that they were concerned about. And we addressed that. And if -- if that didn't do it, then photo ID can't exist, for some reason.

GLENN: So Bill and I -- Bill O'Reilly and I were just having a conversation about what's happening with the statues around the country. And we need to have a -- an actual conversation. There -- you know, if you were in the hierarchy of the Confederacy, you knew exactly what was going on. But just like we didn't have a problem with the Germans. We had a problem with the Nazis. We didn't -- we didn't go and try to erase all Germans. We did try to take the Nazis out. And, you know, Germany went so far as to saying, you can't have any German symbols. No statues of any of these guys. No matter where they were, you're a Nazi. You're a Nazi. You're out.

The Confederacy, if you read the Confederate constitution was not about state rights. It was about slavery. Period.

Those statues like Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was the -- you know, a great general. Yeah, he also started the Klan. Those things need to be talked about. And we need to find the right way to deal with our history.

But we are now seeing violence and people going like it's Saddam Hussein and putting nooses around necks and pulling them down. What is -- what is the state of Texas thinking about all of this?

KEN: So, you know, we haven't had a lot of controversy about it. I know that UT took some down in the middle of the night. Took some statues down.

I always think -- I think you've sort of hit the nail on the head. I think discussion and debate about this is a good thing, rather than necessarily doing it in the middle of the night. A decision made by a few people. Because, again, this is our -- it is our history. Bad or good. And hiding it doesn't really -- I don't think is very effective. I think knowing about it, understanding it, and looking to the future and deciding, you know, what -- what was good about our history and what was bad about our history, I think that's really the only way we can learn. If we hide it and bury it, I don't know that that really accomplishes anything.

GLENN: No. It festers. It festers. As a Texas attorney general, can you explain to those who might be listening, who think that, you know, free speech is great, up until a point. That we have to defend the people's right to have abhorrent points of view. It doesn't mean that they can act on all of those things. But they have a right to say things that are despicable in our -- in our thought.

In fact, those are the only kinds of -- that's the only kind of speech that ever needs protecting.

KEN: No, I totally -- you've got it. The foundation of our country was built on the First Amendment. Both religious freedom and free speech -- free political speech. And, you know, if we start censoring certain people, then the question is, where does it stop?

You know, you can't go into a movie theater and yell fire and create chaos and -- and harm to people. But beyond that, I mean, we -- we fought -- we had people die to protect people's right to say really bad, horrible things. And that's really what's made our country great. People can believe whatever they want to believe and they can still live here.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, you just said you can't go into a movie theater and cry fire. But here's Nancy Pelosi yesterday. I want to get your opinion on this.

NANCY: -- in denying that organization, their free speech rights. Because the Constitution does not say that a person can shout -- yell "wolf" in a crowded theater.

GLENN: So we know you can't cry fire, but can you cry wolf in a crowded movie theater?

KEN: Well, I might argue you could. Because I don't think people really believe there's a wolf.

PAT: Wolf!

GLENN: Yeah. I'm going to a movie tonight, and I'm going to have my wife tape it. And I invite everybody to go into their crowded movie theater tonight and just yell wolf and see what happens. Because I don't think anybody is going to beat it to the door.

KEN: Yeah.

GLENN: Maybe it's just me.

Last question, how is your wife? Because I like your wife much more than I like you.

KEN: Well, that is a comment -- I hear that commonly.

GLENN: I know.

KEN: She's doing great. She's actually considering a run for Texas Senate in Collin and Dallas County.

GLENN: Really? When is she coming to the studio? And she has to bring her musical instrument. I think she plays guitar, right?

KEN: Yes. She plays guitar and the piano. But, yeah, she'll be happy to come.

GLENN: No, I'd be happy to have her.

KEN: She probably -- she hasn't announced. But she may do that next week. So may be a good time to talk to her.

GLENN: Yeah. That would be great. That would be great. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Ken, thanks so much. Thanks for your hard work, and thanks for standing up for what is right. We know you have a tough job. God bless.

KEN: Hey. Thank you for having me on. Have a great day.

GLENN: You bet.

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.