Which six people connected to White House have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Glenn interviewed Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the American Center for Security Policy as well as former Assistant Secretary in the Defense Department under Ronald Reagan, on radio this morning about the rise of radical Islam and the threat it poses to the United States. More importantly, he discussed the legal implications that any politicians and journalists could face if they were found to have knowledge of treason against the United States.

Gaffney explained, "The technical term for it, the statutory criminal prohibition on it in the U.S. code is something called misprision of treason and what that fancy term means is if somebody either knows or had reason to know that seditious activity is underway, seditious activity like trying to overthrow the government of the United States or destroy Western civilization from within, for example, that is a criminal offense under our laws and should be treated as such."

"And it appears in the code right next to, you know, sedition because it's meant to say you can't let this kind of thing happen and not do something about it without being culpable yourself."

Gaffney said that there were six people connected to the White House who "on the basis of just the open source information had extensive ties themselves to the Muslim Brotherhood."

He added that at best these six people are ignorantly being manipulated by the Muslim Brotherhood and their agenda, or at worst going along with it willingly.

Who were the six individuals? You can find out tonight on Rumors of War 3: Target US on GBTV

Interview Transcript:

GLENN: Frank Gaffney is on the phone. He's part of this special. He was ‑‑ what were you? The assistant deputy Department of Defense? What were you? Secretary? What was that title?

GAFFNEY: It was an assistant ‑‑ I acted as an assistant secretary in the defense department under Ronald Reagan. Beck okay. And Frank, you have ‑‑ you've been on the show a million times, you've got tons of credibility in this kind of stuff. When I'm watching this special last night, I was shocked, and I'm ‑‑ I keep up on the news. I don't necessarily ‑‑ you know, I'm not somebody who misses a lot of stuff. I had no idea how much trouble we were in.

GAFFNEY: And if you don't, you can imagine how much further down the power curve most Americans are. And I just want to say, I thought Joe Weasel and your team, Glenn, did just an absolutely superb job.

GLENN: Thank you.

GAFFNEY: Of pulling this complex subject together in a highly accessible way and with what I think of as really, apart from myself, the best people in the country on the subject. And it's a real public service, and I very much hope that your listeners will tune in.

If I may, we have a kind of adjunct to your program that I'd also like to encourage them to take a look at because you've given them sort of a primer there but for a deeper drill‑down on how much trouble we're in and why and what we can do about it, we've just launched a new video course that is accessible via the Internet. It is available for free, ten‑part course at MuslimbrotherhoodinAmerica.com. And I hope that the combination of the two could really transform this from a country that is sleepwalking ‑‑

GLENN: Frank.

GAFFNEY: ‑‑ at the moment when a people who are waging a stealthy kind of jihad against us are getting away with it.

GLENN: We had a president who said he's going to start ‑‑ we're going to start helping small businesses through the Muslim Brotherhood. And then also that the war on terror is over because if you were going to be in Al‑Qaeda ‑‑ we've killed all the bad guys. And if you were going to be in Al‑Qaeda, now you pretty much know that you don't have to go there. You've got a different way of going instead of blowing yourself up. You can go through the Muslim Brotherhood and legitimate organizations.

GAFFNEY: Legitimate Islamism is the way a State Department official put it. And Glenn, what we're getting at in this course is that it's not an accident that we have the president of the United States and for that matter the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the Homeland Security department and the attorney general of the United States or the Director of National Intelligence, even the national administrator all queueing increasingly to policy directions, to, you know, broad guidelines that are directing us to conform to the dictates of the Muslim Brotherhood. And why this is so important to understand, again why Rumors of War is such a service is that if you recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood's own stated mission in the United States is to destroy Western civilization from within by our hands, it's pretty clear, at least if you've got a lick of sense. Fortunately I know your listening audience does and I think most Americans still do, you're going to recognize this is crazy for us to be helping these guys.

GLENN: So I was watching the part about the Muslim Brotherhood and all the people that Obama has appointed and all the things that we're doing, and it's, Frank, it's shocking. And I paused it because I was watching the rough draft of it, what, yesterday, and I paused it and I looked at my staff and I said, "I'm sorry, but our president is an unindicted co‑conspirator. There's just no way these guys don't know all of this stuff. " Is there?

GAFFNEY: The course that we've prepared I think makes it unmistakably clear, at least just on the basis of common sense. And recognize you're like me dealing with what's in the public domain. This is not all of the information that's out there that, you know, congressional oversight committees could subpoena or, you know, extract on the basis of serious investigations, not the kind of information that inspectors general in these various departments could generate, not the kind of thing that, you know, criminal prosecutions could generate. But just on the basis of what's in the public domain, Glenn, we ‑‑ what we've got here at a minimum are useful idiots, as the Soviets used to say, people who are being put in the service of this Muslim Brotherhood civilization jihad agenda unwittingly, haplessly, but to the great benefit of our enemies. And at worse, what we have here is something that I think we've talked about on the show before. The technical term for it, the statutory criminal prohibition on it in the U.S. code is something called misprision of treason and what that fancy term means is if somebody either knows or had reason to know that seditious activity is underway, seditious activity like trying to overthrow the government of the United States or destroy Western civilization from within, for example, that is a criminal offense under our laws and should be treated as such. And, you know, Glenn, when we ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, hang on. I've got to write that down because I'm going to ‑‑ if Romney gets in, I'm going to be pushing for many members of the press to be tried ‑‑ what is the name of that?

GAFFNEY: Misprision, m‑i‑s‑p‑r‑i‑s‑i‑o‑n, misprision of treason. And it appears in the code right next to, you know, sedition because it's meant to say you can't let this kind of thing happen and not do something about it without being culpable yourself. And when you look at the six people we've identified, and I think there's some correlation to the ones you've looked at, the six people we've identified who either are in the Obama administration, in the White House, in the State Department or elsewhere, the people who are serving on advisory committees, in official capacities at the Department of Homeland Security and FBI and elsewhere, people who are being used for Muslim outreach by various agencies, six people who it is possible to show on the basis of just the open source information had extensive ties themselves to the Muslim Brotherhood, well, these folks are, I'm afraid, very much a part of the problem that we're confronting that's keeping us witless, willfully blind or, worse, actively submitting to the Muslim Brotherhood agenda in America.

GLENN: So let me go this because we also talk about in the special about the border and it is probably the biggest expose on the border I have seen on television. Let me go ‑‑ play Clip 1, please. This is Zach Taylor, former border guard agent and what he says he witnessed himself on the border. Here it is. You have Clip 1? Sara? You have Clip 1? He talks here about capturing of Syrian terrorists at the southern border and how that was treated and ‑‑

VOICE: And one worrying about daylights and border patrol agents caught a group of Middle Eastern people there. In the group, they did not catch the whole group, which is common. In the group they did catch were three people from Syria and some people from Yemen. And they brought them to the station. I was the supervisor on duty that day. And one of the agents called me into one of the write‑up rooms and said, this guy claimed he came here from Syria to be a terrorist. Says, you need to talk to him. So I went in there and I talked to the guy for quite a while. And he convinced me that he was serious, that he came here to engage in terrorism. He didn't know what type, what he was going to be expected to do but he was on his way to Chicago, Illinois.

GLENN: We let that guy go. Frank, there seems to be an uptick on connections between the drug cartels and Islamic terrorists. There is an uptick in Iran's activity in Venezuela. They just signed a deal to put missiles, Iranian missiles in Venezuela. And all of this stuff seems to be moving at a more rapid pace. Are we approaching an event, do you think? Your time in the defense DERNTHS is this, does this feel like event, events are coming?

GAFFNEY: Well, it is interesting we're having this conversation of course, Glenn, on the day that the Supreme Court is weighing the question of whether somebody should enforce the law, if the federal government is not going to do it, the State of Arizona should do it as they have asked to be able to do it. They've passed a law in the formal democratic process to do. And in the absence of that especially, I think we're looking at an event or a series of events.

We know, according to congressman Pete King who shares, as you know, the Homeland Security committee in the House that there are hundreds, as you know, hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States right now.

GLENN: I think he said 200 just in New York.

GAFFNEY: Yeah. These are people who are presumably good to go, if the order is given to launch terrorist attacks against us. Heavens knows how many others of Al‑Qaeda or Hamas or other stripes the al‑Quds force of Iran, for example, are also either here or preparing to take the, you know, easy, well, relatively easy route into our country across a porous southern border without proper enforcement that imposes real obstacles to them doing it.

And here's the kicker: If you add to that violent jihad the prospect of it, the distinct possibility that we will find these guys killing Americans in the future, perhaps not so distant, as they have in the past, you add on top of that this other kind of jihad, not so much nonviolent but previolent jihad that actually we're helping to build to, according to the phase plan we talked earlier about the strategic plan of the Muslim Brotherhood, there was also a phased plan introduced into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, Glenn, and what the phase plan says is you use these stealthy techniques until the point where you're able to seize control of the government. So it is all about building the violence, and under the doctrine of sedition ‑‑ of Sharia as we've discussed before, under that doctrine if they sense we are being submissive, their doctrine says they must redouble their effort to make us feel subdued; in other words, bring on the violence. So you put all this together and there's a, I think a very high probability, not just a possibility, probability that we will see death and destruction meted out at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and its other Islamist associates inside the United States, not just somewhere else, and it will be in part our own fault because we have been witlessly blind and we have been submitting, we have been encouraging, we've been enabling.

GLENN: Frank, I appreciate it. We'll see you tonight.

GAFFNEY: Sure.

GLENN: Frank Gaffney who is part of this documentary, Rumors of War III, really important documentary. I ask you as a 9/12 project or a Tea Party, gather your friends together. Get to watch it together. There's a live portion of this hour‑long documentary that will make your hair fall out. Hour‑long documentary on what we're facing. You'll understand the Muslim Brotherhood. You'll have a pretty good idea. And when you hear that anybody in the White House say, "Oh, Muslim Brotherhood," you'll know. You'll know they're lying to you. Ask the border and how this all ties together and the steps that people have tried to take to protect us and who's thwarting it. Rumors of War III tonight at 7:00, then an hour‑long special after that where we get together with all the players and we'll take your questions. You can tweet the questions during the broadcast when you're watching it or right after, and we'll address them live tonight, GBTV, my regular show at 5:00, which is powerhouse, and then real news and then 7:00 is the beginning of the special.

STU: Yeah, you can tweet your questions with the hashtag Rumors of War. Also to remind you you've got a two‑week free trial. So if you want to try it, this is probably a good time to try it because you'll get the documentary and you'll get the after discussion and everything else, see if you like it.

GLENN: Yeah. Rumors of War III tonight, 7:00, GBTV.

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.