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

Star Parker: Here's Why Nobody (Except Glenn) Played Audio of My Pro-Life Testimony

November 10, 2017
Jon Boldt

Writer

Abortion is one of those topics that is never fun to talk about. Some people respond to the horror of killing an innocent life by pretending it doesn't exist. That's partially why the left has been able to further their agenda and completely change the abortion narrative.

Thankfully, there are people like Star Parker, who is a columnist and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), who stood up last week and testified on behalf of the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 490) in the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Her testimony sparked intense interest and garnered many interview requests, but in most of these appearances, the media was more focused on her response to Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who confronted her on her testimony, calling her ignorant and demanding her to apologize.

Parker joined Glenn on his radio program Friday. Before introducing her, Glenn played an audio clip of her testimony that has since gone viral. Then, Parker gave a shocking revelation.

"Thank you, Glenn, for having me on," she said. "You are the first to actually play some of what I said in the testimony. Mostly because of what happened after."

Glenn was astounded.

"Wow," was all he could say.

Parker continued.

"So that's what went viral," she said. "So what really got lost --- I really appreciate you playing that --- is the actual testimony. This is very serious business what we've been doing."

Glenn expressed how sick he is of the media's use of "back and forth viral bites" that have nothing to do with the actual problems at hand. In a time when the definition of life is coming into question, Glenn emphasized the need to get this one right before it's too late.

"If it's a puppy when it's in the dog's womb, it's a child when it's in the human's womb. We're entering a time now where we're going to have to define life with AI. And that's going to screw everything up," Glenn said.

Watch Parker's testimony below.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

GLENN: I swear to you -- it's like I woke up in a parallel universe. I cannot believe the conversations that we have to have today as a society. Even polite society. There is no such thing as polite society anymore.

I want to play some audio we played for you earlier this week. This was actually from a hearing on H.R.490. The Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017. And Star Parker was testifying in front of Congress. And, man, is she brave. Listen to this.

STAR: But if you also consider in your deliberations regarding H.R.490, the last time in American history that we were faced with hard Constitutional and political questions on the civil conflict between humanity and convenience, personhood and property, justice and public opinion, slavery was as abortion is, a crime against humanity.

Like slavery, tensions were created in a public square and in law concerning who qualified for natural rights worthy of protection.

In the first 89 years of our nation's existence, it was the black slave who sought freedom and equal protection under the law. And many attempts were made to heed their cry. Today, it is the concede person living in the womb of its mother that should be considered human with opportunity of equal protection under the law.

It is ironic that, while the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution in 1868 humanized slaves, the United States Supreme Court of 1973 dehumanized of the life of the being in utero, handing down a decision that wreaked in ethnic cleansing, to once again allow a powerful few to determine exactly who had a right to humanity.

GLENN: Star Parker is with us now.

How much heat are you getting, Star Parker?

STAR: Well, thank you, Glenn, for having me on. And, frankly, that is the first interview -- you are the first to actually play some of what I said in the testimony.

GLENN: Shut up.

STAR: Mostly because of what happened after.

No, seriously. So I'm listening to it saying, oh, so I did make my point.

No, what happened during the Q&A, I answered a question and then referred back to some of the discussion that was earlier, one of the congressmen.

We call him now Congressmen Coward Cohen. And because he kept throwing in welfare programs into the discussion. But he wasn't the only one. So did a protester during the time that they were actually shown an ultrasound in the hearing room, first in the history of the country. You think it would be front page news that they actually showed an ultrasound of a live, in-the-womb child in a congressional hearing.

As I said, so I then answered and addressed his promise about welfare and trying to delude what we were talking about, called it disingenuous to combine the two issues. And he lit into me. I mean, he called me ignorant. He told me that I didn't know how to address the Congress, after the hearing was over. He came up and put his finger in my face and told me I better come to his office and apologize.

GLENN: Wow.

STAR: Yeah. So that's what went viral. So what really got lost, I really appreciate you playing that, is the actual testimony. This is very serious business what we've been doing.

GLENN: Yeah. I have to tell you, Star, I am so sick of the back and forth viral bites that have nothing to do -- I'm sorry. And they will call me ignorant as well. Arguing about welfare programs when it comes to abortion is exactly the same is arguing for slavery because it will destroy the economy and people will suffer.

STAR: Right. Well, and that's why I had to address it, even though maybe I was a little out of order because he didn't ask me a specific question. But I wasn't addressing him. I was addressing the chairman who did ask me a question. Chairman of the subcommittee for the judiciary on Constitution and civil justice. Getting to what you're discussing earlier and how it's unbelievable the things that we have to now discuss in the public square, when children are listening, because of the sexual matters that are coming on to the front pages. And yet they're rooted in this abortion question.

When you're killed in the womb -- what we're doing in abortion -- let's even set aside for one moment, the moral, the medical, and the mental implications to abortion. Abortion feeds a narrative that women are just victims that can't control their impulses. They can't, as you said, learn how to say no when things are inappropriate and find the language to say, "Excuse me, sir, but this is not appropriate. So I'm leaving the room right now."

And it's because it feeds that narrative that you can't control your sexual impulses. And so now people are sexually out of control. That's why marriages have collapsed. That's why out-of-marriage births have escalated. And we, as a nation, better get a grip on this.

Otherwise, we're going to always have discussions about sexual matters and somebody else. And accusations that are coming forth, that we don't even know if are true. Like just wanted happened to the candidate who, 40 years earlier, someone said, a-ha, this is what you said to me. Who remembers what they said 40 years ago?

GLENN: So, Star, how do we -- we are entering a time -- and we -- you know, we have the oldest Congress in the history of the United States. This is the oldest Congress ever.

And we are on the -- the edge of profound technology change that is going to make us question what life even is. And I don't mean, is it life in the womb? That's a pretty easy one. Yeah.

STAR: Yeah.

GLENN: If it's a puppy when it's in the dog's womb, it's a child when it's in the human's womb. We're entering a time now where we're going to have to define life with AI. And that's going to screw everything up.

How do we get -- how do we get to a point to where we can have rational discussions that must be had now?

STAR: That is the million-dollar question. But, you know, you just brought up a fascinating point that I'm going to have to contemplate and think about later, about the oldest Congress. Because you would think there would be deep passion, since they're on the senior year, to argue for the most innocent in the womb, because they're next.

A couple of states have already passed euthanasia. We're starting to, as a culture, collapse when it comes to protecting the innocent, understanding what the Constitution really means.

But how do we get there? We may have to start over. That's why I fight a lot for school choice. We're going to have to again build a moral framework within our youth.

And the only way to do that is get you out of these cesspools that we call schools that indoctrinate them in secularism and put them in schools where they're building moral framework and integrity.

The only ones that are really trapped now in failing government schools are the very poor, the most vulnerable, who are getting lost in all of this noise. And that's why their lives are in more chaos. So how do we get back? You replace everybody in Congress.

I was surprised that after McCain lost the -- you know, the presidency when he ran. That he didn't just retire even at that age.

What is he still doing there? Why hasn't he passed the baton to younger energy? And now they can have it even over his own. The whole thing may get to the place that we were in the 1850s, to where we can't go on anymore. And end up in a real difficult direction.

GLENN: I think we're headed in that direction.

STAR: I do too.

STU: Star, your commentary was really interesting in talking about abortion, as it relates to slavery. And I think a lot of people assign their sort of moral decision-making on difficult topics like this to society. So I think even back in the day, a lot of people who probably if they really stopped and thought about it, would think, slavery is crazy. It's a crazy idea.

But since society said it was accepted and it was legal, people just sort of went along with it. It was a controversial issue, maybe. But they didn't want to talk about it in polite company.

STAR: Yeah. Same thing.

STU: Is that what you're seeing now because it's not people who are necessarily horrible people, but they want to avoid the tough sort of moral --

GLENN: Big time.

STU: -- examination of themselves to really think about whether this is right or wrong.

STAR: That's right. That's right. And not only on abortion. On many issues. But you're absolutely right. The same politicians would have it today. And, in fact, one of the things I also said in that testimony is, if you put Roe v. Wade next to Dred Scott, they read almost verbatim. They're both talking about property. They're both talking about, you know, the rights of the person who had -- the letter we hear from the left, even on abortion: Well, if you don't like it, don't have one. That's the same they were saying during slavery. Well, you don't have to own one. Yeah, well, remember, very few owned slaves.

Now, the narrative of the left is every white person is guilty of slavery because all of them had one. No, that was not true. Slavery was elite -- you had to have some money to own a slave.

Anyway, it was very controversial. But you're right. The silent majority allowed this country to go 89 years and then enter into a Civil War because they just didn't have the courage to speak up.

You're absolutely right. They knew it was wrong. And every time the Congress tried to manipulate around. It's the same way they manipulate us now around abortion.

Well, maybe we just won't let it into the (inaudible) state. Well, maybe we can just pass this bill after -- maybe we can -- no, if it is a crime against humanity, you shouldn't be doing it, and you should be doing everything you can to stop it. And that's where we are even with the abortion question today, exactly where we were with the question of slavery back in the day.

GLENN: Does it amaze you that Margaret Sanger and all the eugenicists back then that were trying to wipe out the black race, openly wipe them out, are so seemingly celebrated as friends of the black community now, that that's what they're standing up for? Oh, no. We're just trying to help the poor inner city black woman.

STAR: It's crazy. On Halloween, they tweeted out their real agenda: Black women, have an abortion. Because they're safer than having the child.

It's crazy. The first black president in the country goes to Planned Parenthood's annual celebration. The way they kill off black children in this country. Twenty million blacks have died in the womb of their mom since Roe v. Wade. And he goes. And not only he goes, but he says, God bless you.

Yeah, it's amazing how blinded people are to these facts. How is it that we allow ourselves to be complicit in abortion, with Planned Parenthood, by allowing them to get corporate welfare year after year at $520 million. It's what they're getting.

In fact, everyone you know. Everyone -- they know everyone. They know probably ten times. Might as well just hand the money straight to Planned Parenthood. Because it still wouldn't equal $520 million.

And for some reason, we want corporate welfare out of here. But that billion dollar corporation gets 520 million tax dollars every year to do their primary business, which is to kill offspring.

GLENN: Star, thank you so much. God bless. Thank you.

STU: Hmm.

Star Parker is the founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. You can get her on Twitter @UrbanCure. UrbanCure. Or UrbanCure.org.

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.