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

From radio: Santorum endorses Ted Cruz

May 24, 2012
Wilson

Writer

On radio this morning, Glenn welcomed Rick Santorum to the program to discuss what he has been up to since suspending his campaign for President as well as many of the local elections happening across the country. One race that Santorum expressed a strong interest in was the Texas Senate race, and on the radio show Santorum publicly endorses candidate Ted Cruz.

"Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States," Santorum said.

"I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues."

"And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now."

Read the transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is on the phone. Hello, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning. How are you there, Mr. Beck?

GLENN: Very good, Rick Santorum.

SANTORUM: Good.

GLENN: You've got that bedroom voice like, I just woke up.

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Like I'm well rested now.

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, I'm actually out here on the West Coast and it's a little early this morning but, you know, we've been ‑‑ this is my third meeting so far, but I'll try to pick up the voice a little bit for you.

GLENN: Wait a minute. This is your third meeting this morning?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, yeah, third call.

GLENN: What are you doing now? Aren't you ‑‑ you lost, you know.

SANTORUM: Oh, sorry. I'll go back to bed.

GLENN: Shouldn't you be, like, relaxing and be like, "Yeah, I'm not doing anything. I'm in my ‑‑ I'm in my boxer shorts walking around the house. I got nothing going on."

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, that would be nice but if we ‑‑ no, it's been a ‑‑ it's been, you know, obviously a very different pace, you know, when you're on a campaign and doing the things that we had to do every day and to step back, but it's been an opportunity to spend a heck of a lot more time with the family, which has been a great thing and, you know, think about what we can do in maybe a different capacity to try to make a difference in this, as I said in every campaign speech I delivered. This is the most important election in the history of our country and just because I'm not out there on the frontline as a candidate doesn't mean that I shouldn't do like every other citizen of this country: Be as involved as I can in making a difference come November.

GLENN: May I ask you a question: We were talking on the air yesterday about Sarah Palin's endorsement, and everybody has endorsed now Orrin Hatch. Am I missing something? What happened with Orrin Hatch where all of a sudden now they're saying that he's a ‑‑ he's a small government "balance the budget" kind of guy?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have any insight on this?

SANTORUM: No, I don't. I was surprised at that myself. I mean, you know, Orrin is a ‑‑ is a nice guy, he's a friend of mine, I served with him in the Senate. We had a very good relationship.

GLENN: Yeah, he's a nice man.

SANTORUM: But, you know, Orrin is not the kind of, you know, dynamic conservative leader that we really need, someone who's ‑‑ who's willing to get out there and take on the tough stances and really be a leader of a fundamental change in the way Washington does business. And that's what I'm looking ‑‑ when I look at candidates, because I haven't endorsed very many candidates going forward, and I've really taken the opinion that, you know, I'm going to step in races where I think you have really strong voices of people that you can trust to be principled politicians. And even if you look at two years ago, there's a lot of folks that got elected who became, let's just say not, not the kind of Tea Party reformers that ‑‑

GLENN: Exactly right.

SANTORUM: ‑‑ they campaign to be. They get to Washington ‑‑ it's tough. I mean, I know it's very, very tough in that environment. But if now isn't the time, when we're facing fiscal Armageddon and financial Armageddon in this country, if you can't be tough now, when can you be tough?

GLENN: Can't.

SANTORUM: And that's why, you know, I've, you know, been scouring these candidates very, very closely and have really only chosen a few that I felt comfortable in accepting.

GLENN: Who have you ‑‑ who have you endorsed?

SANTORUM: Well, I endorsed Mourdock in Indiana. That was probably the ‑‑ that's the first person I stepped forward and endorsed. Again, I ‑‑

GLENN: Nice.

SANTORUM: Richard Lugar's a nice man, but just like Orrin Hatch. I mean, they've been there for 30‑plus years and ‑‑

GLENN: Part of the problem and you didn't get it done, you haven't been ‑‑

SANTORUM: Well ‑‑

GLENN: Like Rick, Jim DeMint was there and he has been fighting solidly. Solidly all these years trying to get things done and change the course. These guys have not been those pioneers.

SANTORUM: Yeah. I mean, and Jim is not a popular guy. I mean, let's just be honest about it. I mean, Jim is, within his ‑‑ the ranks of the United States, he is not a popular guy with his colleagues.

PAT: Hmmm.

SANTORUM: Because, you know, he holds their feet to the fire and he's endorsed people against, you know, folks that he has to see and work with every single day. That is hard, folks. I mean, that is really hard. And so I give him a tremendous amount of credit for it. And he's gone out and done what he thinks is right and I think that's what we have ‑‑ we have to look for in candidates, folks who can stand up. And I wanted to talk to you today because, you know, I felt like there's a campaign and a candidate that I've gotten to know a little bit more over the past couple of weeks and I've done a pretty thorough, thorough scouring of not just his record but the people that are around him and close to him, and I felt like I wanted to step forward today and support somebody and I thought, well, what better place to do that than to call the Glenn Beck show and tell the people about that.

STU: Is it Barack Obama?

SANTORUM: Gosh, you know, what a Blockbuster endorsement that would have been.

GLENN: Yeah, wouldn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: That would be. That would be a surprise. That would be newsbreaking.

SANTORUM: You'd jump off a Butte out here in Arizona, having done something like that. No.

GLENN: Who is it?

SANTORUM: Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States, and I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in ‑‑ on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues. And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, under ‑‑ in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now.

GLENN: Well, I tell you from your mouth to God's ears here on Texas, when is this primary? It's next week, isn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah, it's next week. And I sort of sat back and waited because this is a very interesting dynamic the way the race works in Texas. It's a ‑‑ you have to get 50% to win the election. If you don't, then the top two run off at a later date. And I was watching and looking and seeing how this race would develop and I think right now there's, you know, Ted has certainly emerged as the number two person to the lieutenant governor who has been the favorite and the person who's been spending enormous amount of money. And so I related Ted to another level, he's being outspent 4:1. I wish I was only outspent 4:1, but...

GLENN: (Laughing.)

SANTORUM: But still, you know, there's a kindred spirit when you're the underdog and being outspent and someone who's got the grassroots support and is out there working their tail off every day and, you know, that's the kind of candidate that I obviously, you know, that I was and I sort of gravitate to and so I'm pretty excited about being involved in his campaign and will be doing all I can between now and Tuesday to help him out.

GLENN: Right.

SANTORUM: And make sure that he is at least in that runoff. And who knows. Maybe he can surge ahead and pull off a big surprise and get to that 50%.

GLENN: Wouldn't that be nice. Rick, thank you very much.

SANTORUM: My pleasure.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again and stay safe. You're not done. I ‑‑ you're not done. Of course, you should be in your underpants right now and not be in all these meetings, you know, get a nap in because I don't think you're done with your service to the country by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks, Rick.

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.