Mom Who Refused to Abort Survived Cancer – But Now Her Baby Is Fighting This Rare Disease

A miracle baby whose mom says saved her from dying of cancer is now fighting to live with a rare genetic condition that damages the immune system.

Single mom of two Katie Hanson shared her incredible story on radio Tuesday. Diagnosed with cervical cancer at age 21 while pregnant, Hanson was advised by doctors to have an abortion.

“You’re 21 years old, and you think you’re invincible. I remember being 21 years old and thinking, ‘Never going to die,’” Glenn said.

Today, Hanson is healthy, but Willow has since been diagnosed with a rare genetic disease that is terminal and affects the immune system. If Willow even gets a cold, she could die, so she requires around-the-clock care just to stay alive. Diagnosed with inclusion-cell (I-cell) disease at 8 months, 2-year-old Willow is one of just 72 people in the world believed to have the rare genetic disorder.

Hanson refused to undergo cancer treatments until she safely delivered baby Willow, saying her baby saved her life because cancer would have gone unnoticed without her pregnancy scans.

“I believe that God gave me Willow exactly when he knew that I needed Willow,” Hanson said. “Knowing the contents of my heart, that I would go through to see her life happen … then I would be there when she would need me.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So you're 21 years old, and you think you're invincible. I remember being 21 years old and thinking, "Never going to die." Now every day you get up, and you're like, "It could be today."

You're young. You're healthy. You have your whole life in front of you. And that is what Katie thought. She had no idea that anything was wrong with her, until she went in for a routine ultrasound with her second child Willow. And during the ultrasound, it was discovered that Katie had cervical cancer. And the doctor said, "You have to abort your child. You're going to die. The child is going to die." She said, "I won't abort my child." She had to start treatment right away. And the answer was, "No. I'm not going to kill my child."

She was determined to meet the angel that she says saved her life. If it hadn't been for Willow, she would have never known she had cancer. Katie carried Willow to term, and the doctors were able to remove the cancer. Katie was ecstatic. She was cancer-free and mom to a beautiful baby girl. And then trouble set in. Willow stopped eating a couple of months in. The little girl was rushed to the hospital. Stayed there for most of her first year. She dealt with pneumonia and heart failure and respiratory failure. It was one thing after the other. Weeks and weeks of testing. And finally she was diagnosed with a rare terminal condition called Inclusive-cell disease, which inhibits growth and breathing and heart function, digestion, everything. There are only 72 confirmed cases in the world.

And despite her ailments, Willow was finally released from the hospital just in time for her first birthday. And Katie was excited to finally have Willow home, where she could give her the support and love she needed most. While preparing for her birthday, Katie encountered another blow: She became the victim of domestic violence and found herself now a single mother of two young children. The reason why I'm telling you this story is because there is a remarkable person inside mom. Because Katie hasn't lost hope. She is now doing her best to provide for her son and Willow all on her own. And she says, "I am not going to let Willow down because Willow saved my life." And now she vows to save Willow's life. Katie joins us now. Hi, Katie, how are you?

KATIE: Hi, thank you. I'm good. And you?

GLENN: I'm good. This is a remarkable story.

KATIE: Thank you.

GLENN: How is -- how is Willow?

KATIE: Oh, she's doing great. She's still snoozing right now. She loves her sleep. And loves to sleep in. So...

GLENN: And she spent -- in her first year, she spent all, but 12 days in the hospital?

KATIE: From November 18th of 2016 -- or, sorry. January 16th to November 10th of 2016, all, but 12 days was spent between our tiny hospital back in Montana and Seattle children's hospital.

GLENN: So, Katie, what do you say to people who will make the case -- and I'm sure they've made it to you.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They'll make the case that, see, you would have been better off. She would have been better off had she never been born.

You know, I could imagine people even said, "God intended her -- you were supposed to do that. That's why she's suffering from all of this." Even though you didn't know.

KATIE: Yeah.

GLENN: How do you respond to that?

KATIE: We've gotten a lot of it and stuff. Especially with the articles going around. There's always those people who are like, "Oh, well, why bring a child into the world, knowing you have cancer, that your cancer is going to affect them, or knowing that something is wrong with your baby and so on and so forth?"

And I take it as an educational moment. Because, one, my cancer did not affect Willow in any way, shape, or form. Cervical cancer has no way to affect an unborn child. Also, cervical cancer cannot cause a genetic mutation, which is what Willow has. And with I-cell being so, so, so rare, obviously -- most people in the world are not aware of it, and most doctors do not even know of its existence -- there's no way to test for it in the womb, unless, say, I have another child. Now we know Willow's exact DNA mutation. We would be able to check to see if that child also has that exact DNA mutation. But when it's your first go-around with a child that you've never had, you know, you didn't have a previous I-cell child, you're kind of in the blind of all of it. Willow was extensively monitored. She was very healthy. She developed totally normal and stuff. So, I mean, people call me selfish for not aborting and stuff. And I'm like, calling me selfish would be calling every other woman in the world selfish because we all put our children at the same exact risk while they're in the womb. There's over 7,000 other rare diseases and stuff that most of them cannot be detected until well after your child is born.

GLENN: Had you known what Willow is going through now, would your answer have been different?

KATIE: I don't think so. I mean, I would never judge on somebody else's choice of whether they keep or abort their child and stuff. But for me, that's just -- it's not in the cards for me. I don't think I could bring myself to do that. I believe that every life out there has a very divine purpose. And stuff. And I believe that God gave me Willow exactly when he knew that I needed Willow, knowing the contents of my heart, that, you know, I would go through to see her life happen and stuff. Then I would be there when she needed me and stuff.

GLENN: And Willow is not expected to live possibly past ten?

KATIE: Yeah. Prognosis, medical prognosis at best is ten years old. There have been a few -- very few kiddoes with this that have made it shortly past ten. But the average span of these kids is three to five years. Because there's no treatment at all whatsoever because there's so little funding happening. There's no government or federal funding like there is for cancer researches and that kind of thing. That doesn't happen. All of the research funding comes directly from, you know, the few families that have been affected.

GLENN: I -- Katie, I will tell you that I'm from a family that has a long history of abuse. And I --

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I commend you for getting out, especially in your situation, with two children. One of them is severely sick.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: A lot of people will convince themselves that they either deserve it or it's the -- it's the pressure on him. Or, you know, whatever the excuse is.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: How -- how difficult was the -- how difficult was it to make the decision, or was it strangely for you just obvious?

KATIE: Well, I mean, it was -- you're kind of in the situation for a while. Like, once Willow started getting sick, unfortunately, her father -- because of the way he grew up, the only way he knew how to cope was to have alcohol to drown out everything he needed to cope. So it was going on for a while. I repeatedly to try to find him help. Get him help and stuff. He would start seeing counselors. And it would get better. But then he would push off and fall back again. It's really true what they say when they say, you can't help somebody who doesn't want to be helped.

But after her terminal diagnosis, it really spiraled for a while. But after she came home, it seemed like things were getting better and stuff. Like, we got into a routine and everything.

I think probably -- he hadn't drank in a while even. But I think what spiked it was, you know, that -- it was Willow's birthday the next day, and even though every birthday just like for every family is a huge milestone, and like it's very exciting for us, it's also extremely, extremely bittersweet and stuff because we know we're not going to have very many of them. So I think that kind of got to him. And that's what stemmed his drinking afterwards that night. For when he came home. And, you know, I don't hold any bad blood for him because none of us know how we're going to cope with something like this. You know, none of us are going to say what's going to happen or how we're going to handle a situation like this, until we're all on the front line of it. And we all have different coping mechanisms. That doesn't mean that what he did was okay. That there's any excuse for it. But once things became physical and once things posed risks to my children and stuff -- again, my life is for my children, just like when I was pregnant with Willow. Like, I will not let anything in the pathway of harming them. So when it became --

GLENN: Go ahead.

KATIE: Yeah. When it became physical, it was -- you know, at that point and stuff -- like obviously police were called. And he was removed from the house.

GLENN: Easy.

KATIE: And since then, we haven't had contact with him.

GLENN: So when I saw your story online, Willow is dependent on 24/7 feeding tube. She's on heart and oxygen monitors. Medication from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. BiPAP at night. Requires what is called deep suctioning, threading of suction catheter through her nose and the airway. This is so -- so harsh for you.

You -- you list all the things that you have to do. And now that you are -- you are out -- you can't go to a shelter because --

KATIE: No.

GLENN: -- you -- you can't -- you can't bring Willow into the shelter. She gets a cold, and she can die.

KATIE: Uh-huh. Yes.

GLENN: You've been accepted on a housing wait list. Which you said, "Could lift our biggest stressor from our shoulders." And the list is long. And we're close to the end and not likely to receive some help until at some point next year. We're just doing all we can for a roof over our heads. You had a goal of $5,000. And you were -- last I checked, you were at $2,900.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That doesn't seem like an awful lot of money to believe just to keep the roof over your head. It seems --

KATIE: It's not. Yeah, it's not the -- I'm one of those people, I have a very hard time asking for help as it is. And like, I don't really set my goals too big because I don't want to be disappointed. And I don't want to come off like I'm asking for a handout. You know, I'm asking the world of people. That's not the person I am. So...

GLENN: You're remarkable, Katie. You're remarkable.

KATIE: Thank you.

GLENN: And I applaud you for your strength. And expect miracles because they will happen. Thank you, Katie. God bless.

KATIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Wow can we change her life.

STU: Yeah. Really have a chance to do something for somebody. Katie Hanson and her daughter Willow Ray Porter. They're up on YouCaring.com. Actually, let me send it right now. Just posted on Twitter @worldofStu, if you want to donate and help. I mean, she only needs a couple thousand dollars. This audience can do that in like nine seconds.

GLENN: Let's change her life. Did you hear her, the way she spoke, I don't want to ask for help. I mean, holy cow, let's change her life. We just tweeted how you can help. Join us on that, will you?

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.