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

Were Trump’s Comments During Puerto Rico Visit ‘Insensitive’?

October 04, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Following a public clash with the mayor of San Juan, President Donald Trump visited Puerto Rico, a trip that went smoothly for the most part – although some of his remarks were not as diplomatic as they could have been.

“Now, I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico, but you’ve thrown our budget a little out of whack because we’ve spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico, and that’s fine,” Trump said in his address. “We’ve saved a lot of lives.”

Trump didn’t seem to realize that even though the government is working to help Puerto Rico, there are still a lot of people hurting and struggling.

“When you lay out facts that way, they come across insensitive,” Doc said on Wednesday’s show while filling in for Glenn.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn along with Kris Cruz and Kal. We have to get on to other news including President Trump in Puerto Rico. Before we go any further, I am going to need a disclaimer at this point. I Doc Thompson support much of what the president has done and I think he has been unfairly criticized by the media. I didn't vote for him and I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. I do support him as president and hope he does good things and I have given him fairly high marks on things like the Supreme Court nominee he put forth. Having said that, we will now criticize President Trump. Did you like that?

 

President Trump has been pretty good with the handling of natural disasters. He did what a president does. You open up the purse swings. There is going to be FEMA money, natural disaster, all of this. Both the governors of Florida and Texas did a good job for the two hurricanes that came through. But President Trump was very good there.

 

They tried to criticize him, they being the media and the left, for those two. It didn't happen. He did a pretty good job. For Puerto Rico, he did a good job early on but they were not letting it be and had to find ways to come out and criticize him.

 

I was fine with him criticizing the mayor of San Juan. She is clearly a leftist and was pretending like President Trump was leaving them high and dry even though he had opened up the purse springs and sent the military and National Guard and sent the trauma guard. Having said all of that, when he went to Puerto Rico he looked goofy.

KRIS: It is a sign I like from Trump. When he is visiting things like this, I was super excited. Everything he did literally checked by box.

DOC: Even the throwing the paper towels?

KRIS: We had a good follow-up. He knows he have good basketball players. I will give him that. He was like Puerto Rico, here is your chance.

DOC: He's a good jump shot. But at the full court press he is horrible. He is not playing good D or hustling to the other end of the court and where is his rebound.

If you want to apply him as a jump shot specialist that is fine but you have to play both ends of the court.

KRIS: I will give you that.

DOC: That is the type of sports take you normally don't get on the Glenn Beck program and by that, I mean sports talk.

His comments about money and the budget in Puerto Rico not inaccurate. I know he is a guy who just kind of throws it out there. You got to know you are going to step in it. I know he is not concerned about the media or the left criticizing him but you are not as effective of a leader when you say things like he said.

Here is President Trump talking about the budget:

I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico. You are throwing our budget out of whack because we have spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico and that is fine. We have saved a lot of lives. Every death is a horror but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina and the hundreds of people that died and you look at what happened here with really a storm that was just totally overpowering. Nobody has ever seen anything like this.

DOC: This goes to my point when we started the show we don't give each other the benefit of the doubt anymore. He brought it back a little bit when he said people have died. That is fine. He was drawing a comparison to Katrina and that is fine but that is going to get you in trouble every time. As much as many didn't give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean bad things, he also didn't realize there is a lot of people hurting right now. There is a lot of people in Puerto Rico that are struggling. When you lay out facts that way they come across insensitive and in normal circumstances we would say man up, get a little tougher there and that is fine. But while people are still in this much parallel. There are people that are still facing all kinds of challenges. Health challenges. Food and shelter challenges in Puerto Rico. Maybe it was a callus comparison and not good timing. Probably shouldn't have gone there.

I agree. But he was right with the comment about Puerto Rico mishandling their money. Even when I visited Puerto Rico, I looked around and I was like wait a minute. What is going on here? To be a beautiful island. Tourists in San Juan. And you have all this wasted money? Where is it going?

DOC: Puerto Rico just had a default. They went through billions of dollars. This has been something they have been struggling with for decades and keep trying to get out in front of it. There was a bond issue like a lot of different places in America.

States/cities. That was an issue. But you are supposed to plan for those things.

You are supposed to have politicians that say during the lean times when you have stuff coming in you have to put things away and plan for the lean times. Puerto Rico has had sketchy politician and people who have not done what is right. They are not prepared it. We are going to be on the hook at one point for the debt of loss of Puerto Rico like we would be anywhere else. One way or another that is coming. Trump even suggested that.

KRIS: Trump also said he is going to wipe out the debt.

DOC: How is he doing that?

KRIS: I do not know.

DOC: Anything owed to the government he has control over? I don't know if he can unilaterally do that. He likely has money owed through the executive branch like military where he could wipe it out by paying for it somewhere else or something but he is not exclusively in control nor is he to any bond debt that would be owed to people outside the Federal Government.

KRIS: This is a quote he said. He said they owe a lot of money to our friends on Wall Street and we are going to have to wipe that out. You are going to say Good-bye to that. I don't know if is Goldman Sachs or whoever it is but you can wave Good-bye to that.

DOC: He wasn't talking government or executive branch but people on Wall Street. Here is the problem. Wall Street is not some inanimate object not connected to people. Wall Street is a system of investors and ways to invest. Companies and organizations that govern or regulate or you invest through.

Who invests? People. It is easy to say you will have to say Good-bye to that. You will have to do that when you are not the one who loses money. It is not just Mr. Goldman Sachs and I have trillions and I am able to forgive a few million dollars here and there because I am wealthy, Mr. Goldman Sachs. No, Goldman Sachs is a company that invests money for people. If they say Good-bye to that money they are saying Good-bye to the money from people who invested in Puerto Rico. How about you are the little old lady in Indiana who invested part of your retirement in something that invested in Puerto Rico. Should she say Good-bye to that money? Of course not. There are risks that come with it and if that is what he meant that is fine. But if he means we should give that up, that is crazy. It is not for him to say.

KRIS: And the market responded.

DOC: If he is talking about a reset, of course we have to reset. There is going to be a reset in the market. Today? I don't know. Five years from now? I don't know. Eventually it will reset. That is what markets do. It is inflated right now. Eventually it will reset and whether that takes it down 1% or 40% that is what will happen.

KRIS: It dropped to 33 cents on the dollar where last month it was trading around 50 sent on the dollar.

DOC: Another clip of the president.

We will help the people. $72 billion in debt before the hurricane hit. They had a power plant that didn't work before the hurricane. We will help them do something and get it back on its feet. But I am just very, very proud of the fact, you know, if you look at one statistic, 16 deaths. That is a lot of deaths. If you look at Katrina it was in the thousands. We had FEMA here before the storm even came. They were on the island during the storm and before the first storm. They got hit by two hurricanes. We are very proud of the job we have done. Very, very proud. We will have to try to get them back. The power is slowly getting on. The roads are open. The runways are open. If these people you have met today, all of the different people, first responders, these are incredible people.

I totally agree.

DOC: He is accurate. FEMA was there. I give him props. The $72 billion is how much they were out and defaulted on. And power plant trouble, sure. What does he mean we will take care of that?

KRIS: That is another thing that scares me. Puerto Rico is my county. But what does that mean? If a president is saying hey, we are going to take care of it. Last time I checked, well this president has money, but last time I checked the government doesn't owe money. It is my money. So that means I am going to pay for it.

DOC: Exactly. Where is that coming from? It is fine to lead on this but if he was saying we are just going to pony up money I am happy to help people in Puerto Rico even with public funds but I need assurances just like I do in the rest of America that you are actually doing what you have to do. Balance your budget, start paying down the national debt, start finding a way to pay for the unfunded liabilities that will come up over the next 10 years, get your spending under control, come up with a new tax plan, repeal Obamacare. You have to do those things before you promise to build a power plant in Puerto Rico or bail them out of $72 billion.

If the president wants to lead on some sort of primarily private/public partnership, fine. Puerto Rico, there is an opportunity to make money for all of us for Puerto Rico to be a testing ground. It is three and a half, four million people? Not huge geographically wise. But I think broadcast market. San Juan is top 20 or top 15. And it is American territory. Those are Americans.

 

If you have to rebuild the grid, Kris, let's do it right. Let's do fiber optics and wi-fi throughout the island. The government can't pay for it but if you show people an investment opportunity and we say people of Puerto Rico, I as a private company, want to build and this will be a bigger tourist destination there is opportunities that way. Lead that way. That is awesome.

KRIS: We learned during the morning headlines that Google is sending wi-fi balloons to connect people back to the internet.

DOC: They are what?

KRIS: Sending hot wear balloons.

DOC: Google, one of the most profound technology companies in the world today, that has been a trendsetter for a decade or more and on the cutting edge of things we don't even understand, their big technological solution to helping Puerto Rico get wi-fi established is balloons? Come on?

KRIS: Wi-fi balloons.

DOC: Balloon technology? This is it. We are employing the most advanced balloon technology available. We are here to help. We have balloons. Stand by, Puerto Rico. Hang on, we are inflating them now. You will be up in no time. We have got our IT balloon guys on the ground. They have made landfall.

Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck.

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.