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

Did the Russians kill General Patton? Bill O'Reilly explores the fascinating evidence

September 25, 2014
Wilson

Writer

If there is one person who could give Glenn a run for his money when it comes to a love of history, it might by Bill O'Reilly. In his new book Killing Patton, O'Reilly looks at the death of General George Patton and presents evidence that he wan't killed in an accidental car crash, but his death was orchestrated by Stalin and the Russians. He joined Glenn on TheBlaze TV Wednesday night to discuss the theory, and Glenn had a surprise piece of history to share with him before the segment ended.

Watch the interview below or scroll down to read the transcript of the segment.

Glenn: It’s always a special day when we have Mr. Bill O’Reilly on the program because of our love-hate relationship. I love him, he hates me.

Bill: That’s not true—propaganda.

Glenn: Bill, how are you, sir?

Bill: I’m the same, Beck.

Glenn: That’s sad.

Bill: I actually said very nice things about you today to a number of people, so don’t be spreading this propaganda that I don’t like you.

Glenn: No, I tell you, I said when I went on the radio today I absolutely love our relationship. You have always been the kindest to me, the most professional, and probably the biggest help next to Mr. Ailes of anybody in my career, and I appreciate it. So Bill, I want to tell you, you’re the author of a new book called Killing Patton. I want to get to it, but I also want to save some time because I have some things that even the great Bill O’Reilly does not have that I think you’ll be fascinated when it comes to Patton. We brought it in from the library. So your theory on Killing Patton is the Russians poisoned him.

Bill: Yeah, they killed him because he wanted to fight the Russians after World War II, after the collapse of the Third Reich. He believed that Stalin and the Russian hierarchy were going to try to take over the world and were not going to give up the occupied lands, and he was very vocal about it. And Stalin, weakened after the brutal fight with the Reich, didn’t want that to get out, so the Russians went after Patton, and they got him.

Glenn: Okay, so was this ever investigated at all?

Bill: Yes, it was investigated a couple of times, but after Patton was in that auto accident, the Army totally blew the investigation. Nobody can find the records. No autopsy after Patton was taken to the hospital partially paralyzed. He was talking to the nurses, drinking cognac. He goes to sleep, he winds up dead. Nobody knows why. They put his body in the ground. They couldn’t get it in the ground fast enough. So there’s a lot of suspicious stuff that we lay out in the book.

Glenn: I mean, Bill, I know, you’re going to run out of people, you know, that have been killed or dead here soon with the number of books you put out. It’s shameful, Bill.

Bill: One a year, Beck.

Glenn: Yeah, it’s shameful. But anyway, where did you get this? Who’s your co-author? What’s the researcher’s name?

Bill: Martin Dugard.

Glenn: Okay, and so did he bring this to you? How does this work with you on these killing things?

Bill: No, I select the topics, and I was always interested in this crazy theory that a four-star general is driving down a road in Germany. One day later he was supposed to go back to the United States to do a speaking tour where he was going to expose the Soviet Union and Stalin, and then all of a sudden an army truck smashes into his vehicle in broad daylight for no reason, and all the records disappear of the investigation of the accident. That piqued my interest. So once I got the history books underway, and I wanted to tell the story of the last six months of World War II in Europe, it all came together.

Glenn: So did you get any documentation in the book from the Soviet Union? Did you go through any of the…you know, like the VERONA files, did you look into it?

Bill: A good question, Beck, a very good question. We investigated the plant that they had to make the traceless poison which they used to assassinate a number of people.

Glenn: At this time that’s what they were doing?

Bill: That’s what they were doing. Soviet scientists had perfected this poison that was untraceable and that they had assassinated many people using it. So that’s the angle we took in there.

Glenn: Do you believe you have enough to be able to say…because that’s an important theory and really an important piece of history, and I’ll bet you that the Patton family would agree with this. Just like we did with, you know, Thomas Jefferson, just like we did with Abraham Lincoln, do you think you have enough information to say I think we should exhume the body and take a trace sample?

Bill We are calling for that. We are calling for the investigation into the death of General Patton to be reopened because it certainly…the Army bears a tremendous responsibility for losing virtually every single document associated with that death. So we think it should be reopened, and I lay out the evidence that we compile very vividly. And I could be wrong. I’m not saying 100% certainty, but there is enough evidence in there, compelling evidence, to reopen the investigation, absolutely.

Glenn: What would this have meant, Bill, if he would have lived? What do you think would have happened?

Bill: Well, if he would’ve lived, Patton might have run for president. He wasn’t that political. He wasn’t Eisenhower, but he was fed up. He was fed up with a lot of things. He didn’t feel World War II was fought the right way. He was at loggerheads with Truman. Truman didn’t like Patton at all. So absolutely Patton could’ve come back. He was a national hero. He could have toured the country, and I think he would’ve had enough juice to run for president, and so did a lot of people in Washington.

Glenn: Okay, can I show you some stuff I brought for you?

Bill: Sure.

Glenn: I’m actually coming up to New York. Maybe I’ll pop it on the plane and show it to you, bring it to you.

Bill: Yeah, bring this please.

Glenn: Okay, so here’s a couple of things. This is to the general that he wanted to have follow him into battle. He would be the guy who would sweep up in the campaign in Sicily. He says aside from my personal friendship in taking you through this thing, it is going to hang on a shoestring, and I’m going to have to go ashore in one of the leading waves. I have utter confidence in you and know that on the Flag Ship you’ll see this thing as pushed home in the last extremity that you will lead the last foreign body.

Now, this is he’s asking his friend to be the general behind him and stay on the flagship, but here’s the interesting part, and I thought of you this morning as we talked. He said we have to face the fact we may be repulsed, and I may not come back alive. This is not the first time that he actually hints at I’m not coming back from this. I think he knew one way or another, and I think it was more than just war. He knew he was not coming back alive.

Bill: Well, we document in the book that he told his daughters that. The last time he met with his daughters, he stunned them by saying, you know, I think this is the last time you’re going to see me. And there were two blatant assassination attempts on Patton. Now, you expect that in war, but one of them was from a British Spitfire, and nobody ever figured out why the British plane was firing at Patton’s plane. We have that one in the book as well.

Glenn: Why do you call that one an assassination attempt? Because you know friendly fire happens all the time.

Bill: Look, there’s no record of that British plane landing anywhere or doing anything, and it attacks Patton’s plane. It was only because of the skill of Patton’s pilot that he survived. It wasn’t like a German plane attacking them. It was a British plane. Now, the British lent some of their planes to Polish pilots and to Russian pilots, but there’s no—and we document this very thoroughly in Killing Patton—no record of that plane. So Patton knew there were guys out to get him. There’s no question.

Glenn: And is your theory that this was a British plane taken by the Communists?

Bill: We don’t know. We just don’t know.

Glenn: Did Patton ever talk about that?

Bill: Oh yeah, Patton, he knew he almost lost his life. In fact, he tried to take a picture of the plane attacking his plane, but his hand was shaking so much that he couldn’t get the lens cap open. Again, that’s what the micro-detail that we have in Killing Patton. It’s just…he knew that he was in danger.

Glenn: But here is what you don’t have. You don’t have the buttons off of his uniform right here. I have them.

Bill: You’re right, Beck. I don’t have those.

Glenn: These are the buttons off of his uniform here. This is a letter, a Christmas letter to his mother where he says hey mom, we went out, and we looked at the tanks this morning, and it’s crazy, the six inches of mud, we couldn’t get anything out.

And this flag here, Bill, this is the flag that flew at his funeral, and it was also the flag, and it’s kind of in question on was this with him during the campaign or was this just at his funeral? And historians have come down to they didn’t make this flag in three days, because, like you said, he died, they threw his body in the ground so fast, they didn’t make another flag, so this was the one that was with him.

Bill: There was very little ceremony.

Glenn: And that’s unusual, isn’t it, Bill?

Bill: Well, here’s another interesting wrinkle. There was very little press around where he was because all the press was in Berlin, because Berlin had been divided into four sectors, all kinds of trouble there. Patton was in Western Germany and about to come back to the USA. There were only a few reporters nosing around, all right? So there wasn’t a lot of press, and everybody accepted the official Washington version, Army version, you know, he died in an automobile accident.

And believe me, when you see this evidence, anybody reading this book, and I’m not a conspiratorialist, you know that. I wrote Killing Kennedy, where I debunked all the conspiracies. So this evidence and the book that we put together, I think every American who cares about their country and World War II should take a look.

Glenn: Okay, so Bill, let me change the subject here with you. We just have a couple of minutes left. How much trouble do you think we are in with ISIS?

Bill: Not with ISIS in particular. I think we’ll be able to degrade and put them on the run, but worldwide terrorism, the jihad isn’t going to stop if you nail the ISIS leadership. They’ll get Baghdadi, and they’ll get the guy who cut the throats of the three, two Americans and the Brit. They’ll get him, but that’s not the point. The point is we’re fighting a worldwide war on terror just us, just the United States. We’re funding everything.

Glenn: But, you know, you laid out, I think, a very good solution basically of a private army, and I wondered if it was even constitutional. I looked it up, and we talked about it after you left. And I think it is actually constitutional.

Bill: It’s absolutely constitutional, and that is the solution for the ground situation, all right? And it doesn’t diminish the United States Armed Forces. It stays the same, all right? But to put together a 25,000 man elite mercenary force paid for by the so-called 50 nations that President Obama tells us are united against the Islamic Jihad, all right? They can easily fund that and to have it under the NATO and American command with oversight from Congress. That means you have a force that can go in rapid deployment anywhere in the world and kill these bastards, all right? Right now we don’t have that, and they know it, so they can get away with murder, literally everywhere, and we don’t do anything about it.

Glenn: And quite honestly, the guy to fight this is Patton. Patton would’ve actually put these people…because the only thing they respect is power.

Bill: That’s right. But we don’t have a general like Patton because our political system won’t tolerate that, and so we don’t have those people. Can you imagine how livid Patton would be seeing Americans beheaded on camera? Can you imagine that? He’d waltz into Syria with the Third Army, and I mean, those guys, they’d be done in a month and a half.

Glenn: Let me tell you something, you don’t need Patton. I know, my grandfather was not a, you know, was not a general. My grandfather would be livid that we are behaving the way we do right now, and quite honestly, it’s an insult to all of the people in the military the way we have hamstrung them and tied their hands.

Bill: And putting the whole world in danger because these people, these jihadists, whether it’s ISIS or Al Qaeda, whatever stupid group you want to mint, if they can weaponize a nuke, which Iran is absolutely trying to do, you’re going to see cities go, and the world better wise up and wise up quick.

Glenn: Let me just make a real quick prediction so you know that I said it. We are going to cause the fall for Assad. Assad will fall. It will only make things much, much worse, and I’m telling you that ISIS is a problem here in the United States. I think we’re headed for something really nasty. Bill, thanks a lot. God bless you.

Bill: Thanks for having me in, Beck.

Glenn: You bet. Name of the book is Killing Patton, available everywhere, Bill O’Reilly. Back in a minute.

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.