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

Bakery owner fined $135,000 for refusing to bake wedding cake for same-sex couple shares his story

July 08, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Remember the Oregon couple that was fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding? It became one of many iconic stories in the past year that showed the progressive war on religious freedom taking place in America. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide, many fear these attacks on freedom of conscience will only escalate. Stu and Pat talked to Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the bakery, on radio this morning about the latest on this story.

LISTEN:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

PAT: Pat and Stu in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. 877-727-BECK. Well, even before the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, we were already having problems with religious freedom. And we were having the -- there was, of course, the wedding cake situation. There was the photographer situation. Who were forced into participating into these weddings. Well, Aaron Klein and Mellissa, his wife, would not participate in a same-sex marriage by baking the cake. Now, they served gay people all the time, but I don't know how many came in. But they had served them. They didn't have a policy of, oh, my gosh, if you're a homosexual, you may not enter our store.

That was not the case.

STU: No. And there is -- there would be a law against that, I think, in Oregon. Which is the law they came after the bakery for. But this is not what they did. They didn't say no gays can come into our store. That's not what happened.

PAT: We have Aaron on the phone with us, joining us after this 135,000-dollar fine was upheld and levied against these guys. It's just one of the most incredible stories that I think I've seen in my lifetime. And, Aaron, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program with Pat and Stu, hi.

AARON: Thank you for having me back.

PAT: So, Aaron, you did serve gay clients. Right? Homosexuals came into your store as far as you know, and you sold them cakes, you sold them stuff?

AARON: Well, quite honestly, I wouldn't know you're a homosexual unless you told me. I'm sure we served many people that were homosexuals. That was never a question to ask.

PAT: Yeah, you didn't have a policy of, hey, I would like a Danish and I would like -- I'd like a birthday cake. And then you wouldn't say, well, excuse me.

STU: Not a gay birthday.

PAT: Are you homosexual? You wouldn't say that.

AARON: No.

STU: Okay. Good.

PAT: All right.

STU: That's positive. And I think -- if you -- there are sometimes couples come in. They are amorous. Gay or straight. If a gay couple came into the store holding hands --

PAT: So they're clearly a couple.

STU: Would you have a problem selling them a cupcake out of your bin there?

AARON: No. See, there's where the oddity comes in of the situation. That's exactly what happened with these exact two girls in the past. And we had no problem serving them.

PAT: That's what I thought. Because I thought you knew you had serviced even the same couple before with your products.

AARON: Yeah. Absolutely.

(laughter)

STU: That would have been an interesting addendum to the story.

PAT: I didn't put that as well as I intended. Maybe we just move on.

STU: So 135,000-dollar fine. And you know this is a situation where you guys wanted to, you know -- look, you didn't want to be part of this ceremony. And we in this country over a long period of time have made it a nation in which you can spend your time how you please. If it's not violating someone else's freedom and it's not violating the law, you get to do what you please. Now, I thought for sure, baking and decorating cakes was included in that, but they're telling you it's not.

AARON: Well, they're telling me as a business you surrender your constitutional freedoms. Which, unfortunately, the Supreme Court said that's not the case with Hobby Lobby. Now, in this situation, obviously we were not looking to hurt anybody. We weren't looking to discriminate as the government has put this. But we were looking to live out our faith in our daily lives. And Mr. Avakian has decided that that does not coincide with being in business apparently. So now we're dealing with the situation where an exorbitant amount of damages have been awarded to somebody for simply being told I'm sorry I can't do this. In fact, right now, me speaking to you about this, I'm violating the cease and desist that he has placed on me, a private citizen, in this country in the effect of a gag order. I'm not supposed to tell you what happened because that's in violation of his order.

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: Because that's kind of really where the case came down. It almost, in a way, the fine wasn't for what you did with the cake, it was the fact that you had the audacity to go on media sources and actually talk about your constitutional rights being taken away.

AARON: Well, no. The final order says that all this $135,000 is specifically for the act of saying, I'm sorry, I can't do your cake.

STU: Okay.

AARON: However, he did find me guilty of advertising. And, of course, advertising was, hey, that I'm going to stand firm. Oh, my gosh. That I'm going to stand firm. Like, how dare I?

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: So what was the penalty for your guilt in the world of advertising?

AARON: He said there was no additional fines because it couldn't be proven that the girl suffered anything from it. Now, you have to understand that the judge in this situation, this administrative law judge said that everything I said was First Amendment protected speech. The commissioner decided that, no, it was not. That he could throw the book at me for it.

PAT: Aaron, do you have $135,000 to pay them?

AARON: I did not. The American people have spoken loud and clear. We are looking at some crowd funding that went on. And we actually -- I believe at this point, we may actually have the funds to do that. However, should this money have to go for this purpose? I don't think so. We're going to continue to fight this.

PAT: Good. Good.

STU: Look, I have no faith in the Supreme Court at all at this point. But this needs to go to the Supreme Court. We need to be able to decide whether people are able to do -- whether they're able to bake cakes or not at their own pace.

PAT: Didn't the ruling kind of allude to the fact that you should be able to do these things? That you should -- your religious sensibilities have to be taken into account? Isn't that --

AARON: I thought that was in Kennedy's ruling, as far as I was concerned. That's what Kelly Shackelford, from Liberty Institute said.

PAT: Right. He said that on our show. Was that the one part of that ruling that he was sort of uplifted by was the fact that they did protect religious liberty, supposedly. So you should be in the clear as far as I can tell. I don't even know how they're doing this in Oregon. This is unbelievable. But just to review, you guys -- you guys lost the bakery, right?

AARON: Yeah. The brick-and-mortar has been shut down.

PAT: Yeah. And you're doing something else now that doesn't pay as well. And you'd rather be doing the bakery?

AARON: Well, that's the American dream is running your -- I know Mellissa would rather do the bakery. She enjoyed doing wedding cakes immensely. She enjoyed, you know, just meeting people. I don't think there was a person that walked out of that shop that wasn't her best friend when it was all said and done. But, you know, we want to live the American dream. We want to have the freedom to do that.

The State of Oregon is telling us, you don't have that freedom, as long as I'm in power. That's what this guy is doing. He's ruling out thought and speech and applying his bias to it. And, quite honestly, I believe there's actually federal penal code that goes against what he's done here. We'll look into that. We'll appeal this to an appellate court. We're going to continue to fight this. As I said before, this man will not tell me that I can't speak. He will not tell me that I can't live out my faith. I will continue to fight with every breath I have in me, and he better be aware of that.

STU: That is great. And I don't understand how anyone can think that you don't have that right. I mean, it's your right to speech. It's your right to believe in something. It's a constitutionally protected thing. And it's so clear that -- that, you know -- that freedom of religion is so prominent and such a foundational belief in this country. The idea that you would have to do something that you would disagree with, I just -- I can't -- I can't imagine the Supreme Court would hold that up. Though, at this point, they do a lot of things I can't imagine, including write new words into bills.

PAT: Yeah. Also, Aaron, we heard from our affiliate station in Houston, that there might be some biases on the part of this Avakian. If you're talking about his son and his Facebook postings. Is there any truth to that? Do you know anything about that?

AARON: From what I found out -- I was actually talking on the Michael Berry Show, and what I found out was that, yeah, he's got a son who identifies as homosexual. Again, this is not a situation where the bias he has is something that is unconstitutional. It's not something that is an issue or should be --

PAT: He probably should have recused himself from this.

AARON: Yeah. The office that he holds makes him a judge, jury, and executioner. And you can't have that in any office because everybody has a bias. I mean, you've got a bias. I've got a bias. Just, the office that he holds allows too much leeway for someone to implement that bias.

STU: Now, Aaron, obviously you can tell by this interview that we are on your side and back you on this. But let me give you one sort of, quote, unquote, tough question here.

AARON: All right.

STU: I absolutely back you 100 percent on your right to say I don't want to participate in the ceremony. You should not have to do it. However, have you considered whether you should or not? From the perspective of, as a person who bakes a cake, you probably bake cakes for parties all the time where there's things that you don't agree with that go on. And this particular ceremony, if a gay couple comes in and they -- they get -- they're already married, and they have a party -- you would certainly, I would think, give them the cake then.

The ceremony where the cake is utilized is after they're already married. It's not like they need the cake to get hitched. Have you thought about whether you should have just made the cake? Again, I agree with your right to say no to it. But do you think that maybe you should have just done it?

AARON: No. I still have the same mind-set. The difference is, a birthday. You can celebrate a birthday. There's nothing inherently wrong with a birthday. You can celebrate the birth of a child. A baby shower. You can celebrate all sorts of different things. But once you start to say, let's celebrate something that the Bible calls sin. And then you say, well, I don't want to be a part of that. You can't use your time, your effort, your artistic ability, and help somebody celebrate something that the Bible says is wrong. I don't believe that's right. And being a man of faith and the scripture telling me that we're not supposed to take part in another man's sin. I think that would be inherently wrong to help celebrate something that the Bible calls sinful.

PAT: So if four couple -- you wouldn't bake that either.

AARON: I wouldn't do that either. The Bible says adultery is wrong.

STU: This is just getting fun. So let me ask you another one. We're just playing bakery roulette here. How about this one. A man comes in. Orders your biggest cake. And he says, you know what, sir, I'm going to eat all of this cake. In fact, I'm going to be a glutton today. Would you bake him the cake?

AARON: Would I bake a cake for somebody that wants to do gluttony?

STU: Yes.

AARON: You know, I -- you have to find where overeating is in the Bible. I mean, if that's the case, every American -- it's a horrible, horrible holiday.

PAT: Yes. And we would have to put Jeffy in prison.

STU: That's a great point.

Aaron, I think -- I'm glad. Because this is an important thing. And I'm glad that someone like you is the face of this right now. Because you're not hateful. You're not saying you don't like people. You're not saying you won't serve people. You're saying you have one specific religious choice that you want to make. And should you be able to do that. And I think it's a really interesting question. I'm glad -- you've been doing this for a while. There's no crazy Facebook posts of you being hateful. There's no pictures of you burning things on the lawns of gay people. You're -- you seem -- at least you come across as a really good person who has a religious choice that you may or may not agree with, but certainly should have the opportunity to exercise it. So I'm happy about that.

AARON: I'm just the average American. I just want to, like I said, live out the American dream. I want to be able to walk in my faith. Live out the American dream. And the Constitution guarantees everybody that right. I mean, if you want to be Buddhist, it allows you to be Buddhist. It doesn't punish you for doing it.

PAT: And I love your resolve. I love the fact that you're not rolling over and playing dead for this. That's fantastic. Thanks for doing that.

AARON: I think that every Christian better get ready for it. Because with the Supreme Court ruling, we're going to have issues.

PAT: Oh, absolutely. So let me ask you this, is the crowd-funding still going on? Can people still help out if they want?

AARON: Yeah, continue to give. Still up and rolling. Like I said, I think we've met our mark at this point. Like I said, I don't know what the future holds. I might end up with extra charges against me for just talking to you right now.

STU: All right. And where do they go to help out?

AARON: There's -- on the Sweet Cakes Facebook page, there's a donation button. Also, the website is continuetogive/helpsweetcakes is what it is.

PAT: All right.

STU: Go to the Sweet Cakes Facebook page is probably the easiest way to go.

PAT: Yeah, thanks a lot, Aaron. We appreciate it. Good luck.

AARON: Not a problem. Not a problem.

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.