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

Pediatrician: Here’s What Really Happens When Children ‘Transition’

October 18, 2017
Staff

WRITER

It’s one thing when adults experiencing gender dysphoria decide to “transition” to live as the other gender through hormone treatments, operations and makeovers. But what happens when kids say they’re transgender and think they’re ready for hormones that will disrupt their normal growth?

Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, spent 17 years as a general pediatrician with a focus on child behavioral health. She talked about gender dysphoria on today’s show to explain what being dosed with hormones does to kids who aren’t old enough to know their own minds yet.

Schools are starting to teach students from a young age that they can easily switch from one gender to the other.

“It is outrageous; it is terrifying for these young children; it’s a lie,” Cretella said.

Here are more facets of the debate covered in this clip:

  • Why denying the existence of gender is truly anti-science

  • What hormone treatments do to kids’ bodies

  • Why allowing kids to go through normal, healthy puberty is the best option

  • How we can actually help children experiencing gender dysphoria

Listen to the full interview to hear all the details.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: The Heritage Foundation had a talk that they had a pediatrician there. In fact, the president of the American College of Pediatricians, who has received a lot of heat because she said this about transgenderism.

VOICE: As to the studies, there are two that I'm aware of which claim that affirming your child's gender confusion is good for them, number one, it assumes that coaching a child into a fixed false belief is mentally healthy. Science doesn't allow to you assume your conclusion.

Number two, those studies are extremely small. Number three, those studies are very short-term. And number four, the control group of mentally healthy children are the siblings. Most of them are siblings of the trans-identifying child. And there's a number five: The parents were the ones evaluating the mental health of the children.

This is not science. I don't think you need to have an M.D. or a Ph.D. to know, that's not science. That's ideology masquerading as science. Chemical castration, which is what you are doing when you put any biologically normal child on puberty blockers.

GLENN: She went on and had a lot to say. And she joins us now, Dr. Michelle Cretella.

Doctor, how are you?

MICHELLE: Fine. Thank you. I'm happy to be here.

GLENN: So you had to have quite a weekend.

(laughter)

MICHELLE: I -- I'd rather -- I've been at this fighting for the truth on behalf of all children, not only the gender confused children, who are being put on toxic medications, but also for all of our children in the -- in public and private schools, who are now being taught that from preschool forward, they are being taught that you could be trapped in the wrong body.

This is outrageous. It is outrageous. It is terrifying for these young children. It's a lie.

GLENN: So -- so tell me -- tell me what your thought is on those people who feel that they are trapped in -- in the wrong body.

MICHELLE: Well, there's a degree of injustice to them. Let's even back up.

Look, when we're talking about mental health, we should all agree that, A, there is an objective physical reality that we live in. Okay. That's what science is all about. Science about the physical reality we live in.

And to be mentally healthy, at a bare minimum, your thinking and perceptions should be in line with that physical reality.

And here -- transgenderism alone, that psychology and medicine say, you can have a -- a fixed false belief. You can believe something that's contrary to genetics, physiology. You can believe something that's contrary to hard science. And still be mentally well.

That's insanity. If I go to my doctor and say, "Hi, I'm Margaret Thatcher," and you hold a gun to my head, and I still insist that I am Margaret Thatcher, well, I'm crazy. I'm delusional. And my doctor will recognize that and put me on antipsychotics. But if I go in and say, "I'm a man and I insist it, persistently, insistently, versus consistently.

Okay. Yeah. Congratulations. You're transgender. This is who you are.

This is -- it's cooperating. And my colleague and friend Dr. Paul McHugh said it best. He said, it's cooperating with mental illness. And in the case of children, I refer to it as coaching them into a mental illness. As far as I'm concerned, when children say, I'm not my biological sex, or a little boy says, I want to cut off my penis, a young woman says, I'm binding my breasts. I want a mastectomy. That's a cry for help, not a cry for hormones.

They're confused. This is a symptom. They're -- they are emotionally troubled. And it's a cry for help. Not a cry for hormones.

GLENN: Michelle, I -- I -- you know, I am of the mindset that, you know, jeez, what you want to do with your body, I don't -- I don't -- I mean, people, you know, do horrible things to their body. And I -- I think that it's a cry for help, you know, just when I see people who have put, you know, rings through their face over and over and over again. And it's their choice.

There's -- there's a difference, however, when it comes to children. And what we are -- what we are now advocating -- what our doctors are now advocating is sterilization and to -- to actually take really detrimental hormones and -- and change you forever. And you made a great point over the weekend. The American Society of Pediatrics said, you know, we shouldn't -- doctors should discourage kids from having a tattoo because it's permanent and it's scarring.

And yet they'll give a child without parental permission a double mastectomy.

MICHELLE: Right. So you raise several excellent points. Number one, yes, adults -- adults have a maturity, both experiential maturity and cognitive maturity that children and teenagers do not have. This isn't just known through common sense and -- I mean, any -- any mother, school teacher, father, grandparent, knows this. Shakespeare knew it. Okay?

Children are not little adults. And teenagers and adolescents do crazy things. Neuroscience has now proven it. We know this through functional brain imaging, that the risk center and the control -- the frontal lobes are the portions of the brain that control judgment rebuke risk assessment, and self-control. Those don't mature until the early 20s.

So as you said, if we're talking about an adult who is convinced that they are thoroughly unhappy. They believe they're the opposite sex. I still consider that a tragedy.

But if they go forth and they're going to pay out of their own pocket for these surgeries and these hormones because they and the physicians they've consulted think this is all that's left for them, as a society, okay. Okay. I can see that.

But what the College of Pediatricians and I are arguing is specifically what you said. These are children. These are children who need protection and guidance and authentic mental health.

And what's even more important, we know already that the vast majority of young children, up to 95 percent, who are supported through natural puberty, up to 95 percent, certainly well over 75 percent, will accept their biological sex by young adulthood.

So, you know, as you said, to put them on puberty blockers, plus the cross-sex hormones together, if you've never allowed them to mature enough through puberty, you are permanently sterilizing them. A child at age 11, even a child, a teenager cannot possibly comprehend what it means to be permanently sterile.

The same thing with getting a double mastectomy. The same thing -- when you go on these hormones, your risk -- it elevates risk for heart disease. Hypertension or high blood pressure. Strokes. Cancers.

This is crazy. It is absolutely crazy to put children at risk on these high-risk medications, when the vast majority would simply outgrow it with support through natural puberty.

GLENN: I want to come back. We have to take a break. But I want to come back and talk to you.

Because there's a real crisis of suicide -- and I believe it's a loss of meaning in our culture. And what is being pushed in the schools, I think is extraordinarily dangerous. And I want to further that conversation with you, when we continue.

STU: Back with more with Dr. Michelle Cretella here in just a moment. She's president of the American College of Pediatricians. You can follow them on Twitter. @ACPeds.

STU: Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians. Joins us.

GLENN: She was speaking at the Heritage Foundation. She gave quite a stirring talk and caused a lot of controversy online. I can't imagine the -- the hell that your life is, quite honestly. Can you -- can you tell us, first, Michelle, the difference between sex and gender. What's the difference between sex and gender?

MICHELLE: Sure. Sex, quite simply, is biologically determined at fertilization by genetics. Any -- any unborn child who has a functioning Y chromosome is going to develop into a male. And if that unborn child is missing a functional Y chromosome, the child develops into a female. There's nothing -- now, there's nothing in between.

The body declares our sex.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: It's there in our body.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: Now, gender has essentially become a political -- just a political term.

GLENN: Right. When I was growing up, there was -- gender and sex were the same.

MICHELLE: Were the same, yes, exactly.

GLENN: So I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed anything along the way, that somebody was taking terms and changing them. Okay.

MICHELLE: Well, this is what happened. Prior to the 1950s, gender was not anywhere to be found in the medical literature. But in the 1950s, that's when sexologists, like John Money and Harry Benjamin were wanting to justify sex reassignment surgery, so-called.

And they needed -- they knew they couldn't -- that you can't change sex. Surgery and chemicals cannot change sex. They knew this.

So they had to invent a term to justify their profiting from this surgery. And so they grabbed on to gender and said, "Oh, gender for us means the social expression of an internal sex identity." And that is what is being put forth now, without any -- it's -- it's made up. There's no such thing as an innate sex identity.

GLENN: Okay. So -- so -- here's the real problem. At seven years old, you know, in my faith, you choose to be a member of our faith at what we call the age of accountability at eight years old. However, there's a lot of people that make a choice early on that, I'm a Baptist. I'm a Catholic. I'm an atheist. I'm whatever.

MICHELLE: Right.

GLENN: And they change.

MICHELLE: Right.

GLENN: No decision that is permanent should be made by a 7-year-old, under any circumstance, or, quite honestly, there would be a lot of us that would be walking around that wanted at seven to be a kitty cat or Batman.

MICHELLE: Right. Right. Exactly.

And that's what I tried to make -- you know, in this debate, we're debating physical reality, the physical reality of sex, versus identity. And identity refers to thinking and perceiving which is in the mind, and that is changeable, okay?

As far as gender identity, meaning recognizing your own sex, the -- the gender experts, so-called, are correct, that most children correctly identify themselves as boys or girls by age three. But what the experts are not saying, is that many children, ages seven and below, do not understand that sex is constant and permanent and stable.

In other words, some seven-year-olds actually believe -- if they watch a man put on a dress and makeup, will actually think, oh, he just became a woman.

So cognitively speaking, it is a process of development. And because of -- that's why it's so damaging, to have three-year-olds being read to by drag queens, particularly when the drag queens are reading these ridiculous gender-bending picture books to them. It is confusing and will derail the normal psychological and cognitive development of those preschool children.

STU: Lifelong decisions should not be made while viewing Peppa Pig is what you're saying?

MICHELLE: Lifelong decisions should not be made by children.

STU: Right.

MICHELLE: Even teenagers. I mean, adolescence is full of changeability.

GLENN: Okay. Hold on for just a second. I want to continue our conversation in just a second. With Dr. Michelle Cretella. She's the president of the American College of Pedestrians. We're going to talk a little bit about what your kids are being taught in school, and how to talk to them about it, coming up.

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.