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

Glenn likes a candidate who studied under Cass Sunstein?

April 19, 2012
Wilson

Writer

There are only a handful of candidates that can help turn the country around - and Glenn believes that Dan Liljenquist is one of them. One of three survivors of a tragic plane crash that claimed the lives of several friends - Liljenquist came through the tragedy and realized “we don't have time in this life to wait.” But would you believe that he also studied under Cass Sunstein when he was in law school? It's an unbelievable life story that you have to hear to believe. Watch it in the clip above!

Rush Transcript Below:

GLENN: Dan Liljenquist, he is running against Orrin Hatch for Senate in the State of Utah and, Dan, is your name on the ballot?

LILJENQUIST: Well, the convention is this Saturday, Glenn. We have 4,000 Republican state delegates who will narrow down the field to one or two candidates and ‑‑

GLENN: But is it ‑‑ what I'm asking you, is it going to be a write‑in? Because I'd never be able to spell your last name. It's got a J in it and it's silent.

LILJENQUIST: Yeah, well, my name will be on the ballot if I get reported for the Senate between 40 or over 60, then I will definitely be on a ballot. You will not have to write in Liljenquist.

PAT: And what are the chances of that happening? What are the chances of you getting over the 40% threshold?

LILJENQUIST: We feel very good about our chances. We just completed our 101st delegate meeting since March 15th and we're finding that we have a lot of momentum going into this thing. Look, with a last name like Liljenquist, you have to do a lot of legwork to get people to be able to be even to pronounce your name right. So we feel good about our chances.

GLENN: Right. And you're going up against Orrin Hatch who is a machine. I mean, this guy is an absolute machine when it comes to, you know, winning elections and has all of the power structure behind him and, you know, has served America loyally and faithfully for a long time. I like Orrin. He's a nice guy, but I think that he is ‑‑ it's time for a change in there and somebody that really, truly recognizes what is ‑‑ what we're facing right now. Tell me about what we're facing. Tell me why, why you would be different than Orrin Hatch.

LILJENQUIST: Well, look, Senator Hatch is going to go down in history as one of our greats here in Utah. But we have a fundamentally different philosophy on what the role of the United States Senate is. The United States Senate is meant to be a check on the president's power and on the executive branch and is also meant to be the work for state sovereignty. Now Senator Hatch over the years, I think there are some things I disagree with him significantly on. The role of advise and consent in the Senate is not to be a rubber stamp for the president's appointees. It was to advise and consent or not consent. And with respect to some of the recent appointments of President Obama like Cass Sunstein, I would have not consented. Look, I know Cass Sunstein. I received my law degree from the University of Chicago Law School. I took a class from the man. He is a nice guy, but he's very, very liberal. And since most of our laws in this country are now being written by the executive branch to regulation, that was an irresponsible move to approve of Cass Sunstein and ‑‑

GLENN: I will tell you, Dan, sorry to interrupt you, but I will tell you this, that I called Orrin Hatch while he was, you know, approving Cass Sunstein and said, what are you doing, man? What are you ‑‑ this is crazy. Do you not realize who this guy is? And he said, Glenn, he's assured me that was just all academic stuff, he's not going to move down that role. And I said you're ‑‑ with all due respect, Senator, you're wrong on this. It's not an academic exercise. This man believes these things. So I'm glad to hear that you would go against Cass Sunstein. How would you stop all this regulation?

LILJENQUIST: Look, the regulatory environment, what has happened over the years is congress has outsourced its job to the executive branch. The executive branch is now judge, jury and executioner. They write the laws, they adjudicate the laws, and they administer the laws. That is what's happening. When you have a guy like Cass Sunstein say we don't need any more laws passed by congress, we can do everything we want to do with regulation, you know congress has outsourced a job. There's very simply a couple of things the Senate has to do in particular: One, you do not vote for a presidential appointee that has the influence to change the course of this country as an unelected bureaucrat. You do not vote those people through. You could stop that in the Senate, and the Senate needs to stand up and do its job. But I also think ‑‑ and you're going to need a Republican president to do this ‑‑ that congress has to re‑exert its control over the regulatory environment in this country by doing something, one simple thing, Glenn, and that's this: That no new regulation goes into effect until congress votes on that regulation. They granted the authority to executive branch to write regulations; they can pull it back and have a veto power. That's going to require legislation through congress. But if we have a prayer of ever getting a hold on the regulatory environment in this country, congress has to re‑exert itself over regulations by not allowing any new regulations to go into effect until congress approves of it.

GLENN: Plot to yourself on the ideological spectrum. Are you Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Mitt Romney?

LILJENQUIST: I am probably more along the lines of Jim DeMint for a whole bunch of different reasons. He has been out there saying the spending is reckless, that too much control is in the executive branch, that constitutional government was always meant to be a balance of powers between the states and the federal government. He understands the role of the United States Senate in particular in that balance, and I align much more with, along the lines of Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and, you know, Marco Rubio and others who are taking control over the Senate.

STU: Dan, can you help me explain? Because we were looking at this from outside of Utah. Explain the comments from Orrin Hatch when he's talking about people who are opposing him and thinking that maybe he's not the right guy to go. He says these people are not conservatives, they're not Republicans, they're radical libertarians and I'm doggone offended by it. I despise these people." I mean, this is a guy who told us, this elder statesman, what's going on with him on these, with these comments?

LILJENQUIST: That's a pretty ‑‑ it's pretty remarkable environment. You know, as I go around the state, universally people in Utah, everybody I talk to is concerned about debt and spending. And the groups that are involved in this race, my preference is that everybody would stay out so that we could run our own race, but we can't force them to do that. But the groups are involved in this race who are opposed to Senator Hatch are deeply concerned about debt and spending. I am running personally because Senator Hatch could be chair of the Senate finance committee, not in spite of it. He's had 18 years on that Senate finance committee and in that time we have expanded and he has used the power of that committee to expand government programs. Not retract them. And so the people involved who are involved in this race really want government spending under control and want congress to stand up and do its job to think about the future of this country and not just the next election. So there's a whole bunch of people who are disappointed with the record of congress and not just Senator Hatch's record but Republicans and Democrats over the last 40 years who got us into this mess.

GLENN: All right. Dan ‑‑

LILJENQUIST: So, you know, those are the words I would not have chosen but I understand that's how he speaks.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't ‑‑ I don't understand that the libertarians are offensive and ‑‑

STU: Despise them?

GLENN: And despise.

PAT: I believe he feels that way.

GLENN: Oh, I know he does. I know he does.

PAT: He believed that when Bennett was booted out two years ago that he was next and it scared the crap out of him.

GLENN: Oh, I don't think he ‑‑

PAT: And so he ‑‑

GLENN: Unless Dan ‑‑ unless Dan wins on Saturday, he's not next.

PAT: Thought at the time.

GLENN: Orrin Hatch goes back. That's really ‑‑

PAT: At the time with the Tea Party the way it was and the political environment the way it was, he was afraid he was next.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: And so he lashed out and still continues to lash out at people who are more conservative than he is.

GLENN: I will tell you that ‑‑ I will tell you, Tea Party, if you don't organize and come together behind a candidate and Orrin Hatch gets in, he is not a guy who forgets, and he's not going to forget. He's not going to forget. And if he's ‑‑ if he thinks that you're despicable or he despises you now, he will despise you then and just recognize the power we're giving people in Washington.

All right. One last question, Dan, because the first time I talked to you, I talked about your soul and your condition of it and why anybody who was decent would want to go there, and you told me about the experience that really led you here was a plane crash. Can you explain?

LILJENQUIST: Yeah. Glenn, it was in 2008. I had been ‑‑ I was running for the state Senate. I had won my primary and I was heading to the general election in the fall. In my company, we do a lot of humanitarian work. We were on a humanitarian trip to Guatemala. Got on a plane with 14 people, took off on a beautiful, beautiful Sunday morning to fly to this little town in Northeast Guatemala, and about 45 minutes into our flight, our engine burned up over the middle of nowhere. I mean, I had four minutes sitting in the back of that plane to really think. And I'll tell you where your mind goes to. Your mind goes to the state of your own, your own soul but also you think about your family. And I ‑‑ I realized at that moment that it was my life came down to that moment. I know everybody on that plane felt like they were going to die, and 80% of us were right. But I came through that. But for when we crashed and ‑‑ crashed into this field, it was when I was sitting on the plane that really saved my life, but also two farmers who saw us falling, ran around the corner and pulled me out of the plane. I was on fire, my leg was burning, my legs were shattered, but they came to me first, risked their lives to pull me from that plane. All four of my dear friends and employees died on that plane. I spent five weeks in a hospital bed, in a wheelchair, in a walker and met with each one of these families individually and, you know, I realize that we don't have time in this life to wait. And it's important, if you feel motivated to do something, to do it now. I'm running for the United States Senate because this time and history of this country, we are on the edge of a knife. We can either fall one way and complete the job of moving to a federalized executive branch‑driven view of the world, or we can have the United States Senate stand up and do its job to rebalance our constitutional government and to take control of what they granted too much power to federal governments to take the lead. And I'm running for the Senate to do that. I don't feel like we have time to wait and I feel like this is the election. With elections like mine and Ted Cruz in Texas and John Mandel in Ohio and Richard Mourdock in Indiana and these good people who are standing up all over the country to take control of the Senate, whether or not we survive as a people may just depend on this election cycle. And so I'm standing up and running. I'm very motivated to do it. People said you're crazy to take on Senator Hatch. We have been outspent 30:1, but we are a couple of days away from forcing him to a primary for the first time in 36 years and we think we're going to do it. So make every day count is the message.

GLENN: The web address is DanforUtah.com. DanforUtah.com. This is a very important battle in Utah and in America. Do we send Senator Hatch back or not send Senator Hatch back? It's up to the people of Utah. You've ‑‑ you had a chance to weigh things out. It is critical, critical that you get involved and don't just pass this election by on Saturday as, oh, just something that, you know, whatever. DanforUtah.com. Thank you very much, Dan. Appreciate it.

LILJENQUIST: Glenn, thank you. We'll see you.

GLENN: You bet. Good luck. I have to tell you I talked to him a few weeks ago. I hadn't really talked to him before. I talked to him a few weeks ago and I think the guy is genuine and what really got me was the, you know, eight out of ten people die right next to him and he's pulled out and he asks himself, why am I here. Why am I here. What am I supposed to do? We're all born for a reason. We all have time on Earth, and anybody who sees this may be my last day and I'm going to do something important and right and righteous and stand up for the truth and I'm not going to back down, because I've already faced death. I've already been in the death plane. Nothing frightens me anymore. I am going to use every day that God has given me to do something right. That got me.

Sponsor ‑‑

STU: We need to start having our politicians get involved in fake plane crashes like scare them, like they get into a plane, they think they're on a plane and, oh, my gosh, oh, wow, looks like it might crash, everybody. And then, you know, of course everything's fine and then it will just scare them and then they will be great politicians.

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.