‘Someone Kidnapped My Parents’: Nevada Was Sheltering ‘Elder Abuse’

Around 10 percent of people over 65 are believed to be victims of “elder abuse,” or the exploitation of seniors. In some cases, elder abuse is state-sanctioned, allowing supposed guardians to siphon away elderly people’s life savings and keep them from their own family members. How is such a widespread problem flying under the radar?

Julie Belshe, an advocate for guardianship reform, experienced this nightmare firsthand when her parents disappeared. She eventually learned that they had been taken as wards of the state by “guardian” April Parks, who was indicted on more than 200 felony charges in March.

The New Yorker reported:

The Norths’ daughter, Julie Belshe, came to visit later that afternoon. …

She knocked on the front door several times and then tried to push the door open, but it was locked. She was surprised to see the kitchen window closed; her parents always left it slightly open. She drove to the Sun City Aliante clubhouse, where her parents sometimes drank coffee. When she couldn’t find them there, she thought that perhaps they had gone on an errand together—the farthest they usually drove was to Costco. But, when she returned to the house, it was still empty.

That weekend, she called her parents several times. She also called two hospitals to see if they had been in an accident. She called their landlord, too, and he agreed to visit the house. He reported that there were no signs of them. She told her husband, “I think someone kidnapped my parents.”

Listen to Belshe’s interview on today’s show (above) for the full story.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: We are going to tell you a story that is truly hard to believe. And it could happen to you. It could happen to your parents.

I want to introduce you to Julie Lynn Belshe. She is a woman whose parents, Rudy and Rennie North, were legally kidnapped. This happened in the state of Nevada. And this is not the only case. It is -- it all stems from these guardians, strangers can become the garden of your parents. It doesn't matter if you're there. They can go to court and become a guardian for your parent. And when that happens, they just disappear.

Julie, welcome to the program.

JULIE: Thank you, Glenn, for having me.

GLENN: I'm reading this story from the New Yorker, and it is hard to believe at first. This sounds like something that would have happened in Nazi Germany.

JULIE: Well, that's pretty much what I've compared it to, because I didn't know anything about guardianship. And when I started looking on the computer and finding the first video I came across was Dorothy Wilson. Diane Wilson was interviewing her mother in an assisted living facility. And her mom was devastated. She was like, "Get me out of here. I'm not going to eat. I'm not going to read. I want to go home." And I didn't know what I stepped into. And the more I started investigating on the computer -- social media helped me tremendously -- I knew I had to do something for my parents, because they're confident there was nothing wrong with them. They needed a little bit of help. They lived on a golf course. Had somebody come in and help them. Take care of them.

I assisted them. My mom had suffered for years and years from CLL. And -- but we had it all under control. And the minute anybody finds out that you have any assets, money, stocks, bonds -- that your worse value, you no longer are a human being. Once the guardian takes you, you are now a ward, and you have less rights than a prisoner.

GLENN: This is truly shocking, and I want to set this up right, so people can understand it. Your folks lived in Las Vegas, so people understand.

JULIE: Right.

GLENN: You would go over and see your mom and dad. They lived on this golf course. You would go and see your mom and dad. Once a day you would stop in, is that correct?

JULIE: I would stop in once a day, and then the last couple of months, before they got taken, we would call each other. And my husband and I have a business. So I was pretty busy. I have three young boys. But I would talk to them every day, if not three or four times a day, make sure they're okay, see them once a week. At first, I was helping them for six months just run errands, take them to the doctor.

GLENN: Right, but it's not that your folks were confused. Your father was reading -- I'm trying to remember here. He was reading Freud. Plato. Nietzsche.

JULIE: Oh, yeah. He's a very intelligent man. He's very articulate.

GLENN: Right.

JULIE: This is collusion, okay? This doesn't start with just the guardian, okay? The guardian is that now we have finally gotten entitled with her --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Before you go into this, I have to explain to people, what happened.

JULIE: Okay.

GLENN: Your folks, your folks are living on the golf course.

JULIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They've lived a good life. They've put their money away. They've saved for their requirement. Your mom is getting ill, but your dad is taking care of her. She's fine. He's fine. Both mentally there.

You're in the area. So if there's any problems -- it's not like these people were just left alone. And one day, somebody comes to the door and claims to be their guardian. Is that right?

JULIE: You pretty much have it right. What happened was, it was on Memorial Day of 2013. And I had plans to go see my parents on that Friday. And in walks hospice care, a worker. The owners actually from hospice care, my parents were drinking coffee and having breakfast.

Pretty much to condense, there was another knock on the door about 20 minutes later. And it was April Parks, the private professional guardian. I like to call them the private for-profit guardian. Because that's all they're in it for. And she walked in and presented herself. And my parents had six people in their home. And told them, they had three choices: One, they could go to -- go with them willingly and go to an assisted living facility. Two, they could call the fire department and the police. They had a chance to go to jail. Or they could be taken out of the home in a gurney. Or, three, they could go to a psych ward.

GLENN: Your parents chose option number one, because they were confused. And a neighbor came out and said, "What's going on?" And they said, "We're just going to look at this like a vacation. Nothing to worry about."

JULIE: Well, that's not correct. What really happened was, all of these -- April Parks, first of all, presented herself as an officer of the court, which she's not. And one of her coworkers told my mom and dad, just look at this as a mini vacation, as a respite. You'll be coming back home.

GLENN: Okay.

JULIE: And my mom was crying and crying, saying, this is my home. Get out of my home. Leave us alone.

GLENN: They were told to pack a suitcase.

JULIE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And pretty much, whatever they put in the suitcase is all that was left in the end. They got a few items back. But this guardian, then took them across the state, up -- way up north, if I'm not mistaken.

JULIE: Well, she took them by Lake Mead, which from our house is about 45 minutes. It's right close to the border of Arizona.

GLENN: Okay. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I was thinking that this was Sun City, Arizona. This was actually in Nevada, wasn't it?

JULIE: Correct.

GLENN: And so they take them there. This is a retirement community. When you finally get in touch with your parents, how many days have gone by?

JULIE: Four days.

GLENN: And no one --

JULIE: Four days. There was no sign. Nothing on the door, until the fourth day, until after the Memorial Day weekend, until she got temporary guardianship of them. And she was now their temporary guardianship because it was deemed an emergency situation.

If something is such an emergency, she was handed the papers two weeks prior, then why didn't she go and get them there? And it's a law that if your parents or your loved one is going to be taken, by law, the court is supposed to notify you so that you can step in and say, "What's going on?" And you can file the proper paperwork.

STU: The law here is just incredible. We can probably spend an hour just on that. But what about the moment when you just go -- because you went to visit, your normal visit, and they were gone.

GLENN: This is Friday.

STU: Were you panicked? What did you go through, as that happened?

JULIE: I was mortified. I mean, the newspaper was in the front. The windows in their kitchen are usually open a little bit. The blinds are open a certain way. The house was just closed down.

I just knew right there and then, something was terribly wrong. I went to Sun City, the country club, the little house there, where they would go and have coffee. And I looked around for them. And then I pulled myself together, and I drove home and told my husband, "My parents have been kidnapped." That was just my gut reaction. Something is terribly wrong here.

GLENN: And you called police?

JULIE: You know, hindsight is always 20/20. I called hospitals first. And the emotions that run with this, are so high and low. The gamut of emotions, that my thing was, I wanted to get an attorney. I wanted to know what was going on. How people can walk in your home and take you and not notify your relative that lives 15 minutes away from you.

GLENN: So your parents, you see them -- and your dad is in the fetal position on the couch. And your mom is crying. And how long does it take you to fight to get your parents out?

JULIE: Well, let me put it this way, it took me approximately two years. And that only came after speaking out publicly to the commissioners, to speaking out publicly and getting two new legislative laws passed here. One is that, if you have a loved one, that you can't -- and you live out of state, you can now become their guardian before that was not legal.

GLENN: Yes.

JULIE: And the other one is that, if you are going to be a private guardian, you have to be licensed, insured, and bonded, and you can only have so many wards. This woman that took my parents was spiraling out of control. It's not enough for them to be greedy about it. But they are sociopaths. They hurt people. They isolate. They trespass the family away from their loved ones on purpose. Because they're getting bedsores, bruises, broken limbs. They're getting inserted feeding tubes. It's cheaper to, you know -- they save money that way. They're accelerating the death, in my opinion, of the elderly because they want their full estate.

GLENN: So when they become a guardian, it's just somebody -- this is a business, really?

JULIE: Oh --

GLENN: In Nevada.

JULIE: This is a business all over the nation. And they're making billions of dollars. And right now, the statistics say they have 1.5 million people under guardianship. No matter how perfect your family is or your estate documents were prepared, anyone can be involuntarily placed in guardianship. This happens all the time, nationwide.

GLENN: Okay. I'm going to take a break. And then when I come back, I want to explain, who are these people? How do they become a guardian?

JULIE: Okay.

GLENN: And how does this happen? When we come back.

STU: If you go to @GlennBeck or @worldofStu, we're going to tweet this story from the New Yorker. It's lengthy, but it goes through all of it. It's one of the most insane stories I've ever heard.

GLENN: You will not believe it's happening. You just won't believe it.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly joins us in about 40 -- 40 to 45 minutes, to answer the, you know, 32 million-dollar question. You don't want to miss that.

We have to be able to have something we believe in. We have to know what the truth is. Otherwise, things that happen to our guest now -- Julie Belshe, and her parents, will happen to you or your parents. There is a guardian system that is happening all around the country. And her experience was happening in Nevada. She says that it happens all over the country. Who -- who are these guardians that can, you know, all of a sudden claim -- lay claim to your parents, or to you?

JULIE: These guardians are people that don't have to have any formal education. They can take a course that I believe is just maybe a week long. And then they become a guardian.

These people are trained by the masterminds behind this. Like I said before, this is collusion. We have somebody here that's a mastermind, his name is Jared Shaffer. He is the head of it.

So they take them under their wings, and they train them, how to go in and open all the drawers and take everything, and deem these people -- these elderly people disabled people, or whoever they want, incompetent.

STU: The concept here -- looking at it in a theoretical concept, are they basically saying the elderly people can't take care of themselves, so we're going to go in, we're going to take their stuff. We're going to use that stuff to pay for their care, because they're being neglected. Is that essentially what they're trying to say they're doing?

JULIE: That's what they are trying to say they're doing, but they're failing. They keep saying it's in the best interest of the ward. Nothing is in the best interest of the ward. We have a private guardian. We've gone from having several private guardians, since I've gotten into this four years ago, to now there's only two private guardians, I believe. And the public guardian. So we've essentially gone full circle and given the power back to the government, which they love. So it's gone full circle.

GLENN: So what happens is, these people come in, and with your parents, they had a house on the golf course. They had a car. They had their money. And in a two-year period, this woman came in, claimed to be their guardian, because she just went to court. And claimed to be the guardian. And then she liquidated all those assets. Within two years, your parents had nothing?

JULIE: Correct. The thing is, it's so easy for the private guardians -- it was so easy. But now I believe, in my opinion, that they've revered back to doing it again. The family courts. Okay? They're all working together. The guardians --

GLENN: Okay. So I want to go there, when we come back. I want to go there and I want to talk about the court. Because the court seemed to be, I think -- from the way the story reads at least -- knowingly colluding. But that's quite a charge to make. And I'd like to get your opinion on that and see where the court stood, at least in Nevada.

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.