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

Donald Trump Is Wild Mint

January 28, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The Context

Something has Glenn really lathered up. It's a tiny bottle of hotel shampoo with a hint of wild mint and a touch of ginseng. Gee, that sounds swell, what's the problem? Doesn't he care about his total well-being?

Hotel, Motel, Fancy Soaps Are In

"You know when you stay at a hotel and they have the shampoos --- and they're getting fancier and fancier --- no matter what hotel you stay in, they're getting fancier and fancier," Glenn explained Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Are they supposed to make you feel like, 'Oh, my gosh, this $200 that I spent for this hotel room is darn well worth it now. Seven hundred dollars for a bed to stay overnight, sure, that sounds outrageous, but my gosh, the shampoo was unbelievable.' Now, I don't know about you, but when I go to a hotel and I get into the shower, I'm looking for shampoo. Now, let me define that. I'm looking for something that will wash my hair. I like to call it soap. Or if I really want to get fancy, I'll call it shampoo. But what is shampoo? Soap! That's what I'm looking for."

Keeping Up With the Kardashians

This sense of entitlement and wanting the best of the best (whether it's real or not) is permeating every aspect of our lives: "This is in everything. This isn't just shampoo," Glenn said. "This is in our our television. This is in our schools. This is in the groceries we buy --- in all of the advertisement. This is in our politicians."

Back to Basics

What is it that we really need in Washington, D.C.? "Let's be frank. Let's just be real honest," Glenn said. "It ain't ginseng and wild mint, it's soap. It's shampoo. I don't want the essence of anything anymore. I want the real deal. I want soap."

Common Sense Bottom Line

Let's stick to the basics and stop buying the hype. Donald Trump equals wild mint. First Principles equal soap, and America needs a good scrubbing.

Listen to a segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I have in my hands a little bottle of shampoo from a hotel. This bottle of shampoo pisses me off. But this bottle of shampoo explains everything that is going on in our lives. Everything that is happening to America. Everything that is happening in Washington. And the decision that you have to make when you decide who's going to be the next president, all, right here. All, right here, on a little, teeny plastic bottle of shampoo that you get at, you know, any hotel. It pisses me off. It will you. And you'll understand why, right now.

(music)

GLENN: You know when you stay at a hotel and they have the shampoos. And they're getting fancier and fancier. No matter what hotel you stay in, they're getting fancier and fancier. And I don't know. Are they supposed to make you feel like, "Oh, my gosh, this $200 that I spent for this hotel room is darn well worth it now." $700 for a bed to stay overnight, sure, that sounds outrageous. But my gosh, the shampoo was unbelievable.

This is a little, teeny bottle of shampoo that most people won't pay attention to, and they'll use it and it will sit there on the little ledge at the hotel waiting to greet the next unsuspecting guest and help put them to sleep.

It says, "Simply be well. Herbal solutions for total well-being." Now, I don't know about you, but when I go to a hotel and I get into the shower, I'm looking for shampoo. Now, let me define that. I'm looking for something that will wash my hair. I like to call it soap. Or if I really want to get fancy, I'll call it shampoo. But what is shampoo? Soap! That's what I'm looking for.

I'm not getting into the shower and saying, "My gosh. I wish there was a product on this shelf that would give me total well-being."

Now, I read the ingredients on this, and I don't know exactly what is giving me and my hair total well-being, but it might have something to do with above the word shampoo, it says, "Ginseng and wild mint." Now, I don't even know the difference between mint and wild mint.

Do we have to have little street urchins some place around the world in some glorious little village up in the Alps, where it's not mint they're growing in some sort of, you know -- you know, glass greenhouse. No, no, this is wild mint, picked by little street urchins. This is growing in the forest some place under the trees, and they're like, "Oh, Father, over here. I've got some more wild mint."

"Oh, good. Son, we'll be able to eat again tonight because we can sell it to that glorious shampoo company that is making everyone's life complete, and everyone will have well-being because we found the wild mint."

But it also has ginseng. And when I think of washing my hair, I think, "Honey, can you just make a cup of tea for me and throw it in my hair because that would be perfect." If I could just get some ginseng tea with a little bit -- why don't I just wash my hair in a coffee cup? Ginseng, wild mint shampoo for total well-being.

This is everything in our life. This isn't just the little shampoo. This is down to the shampoo that is sitting on the shelf at a -- at a motel or hotel. It's down to that level. It's down to the regular people who are like, "I just want some soap." This is not just in the fancy hotels. This is everywhere now. Wow, I can live the life of the stars. I can go into the Holiday Inn and I can wash my hair like the stars do, with ginseng and wild mint. Oh. Suddenly I'm overcome with this sense of total well-being.

This is in everything. This isn't just shampoo. This is in our -- this is in our -- our television. This is in our schools. This is in the groceries we buy. In all of the advertisement -- this is in our politicians.

What do we need in Washington? Let's be frank. Let's just be real honest. Like when you go and you're standing there naked in all your loveliness in the bathroom and you're ready to crawl into the bathtub and pull something -- as the water is coming out on your head and it's usually cold and you're standing there in the shower and you just want to get clean, what are you looking for? It ain't ginseng and wild mint, it's soap. It's shampoo.

When you're going in and instead of the shower curtain, it's the election booth curtain and you pull that closed, what is it you're looking for?

Well, I'm looking for total well-being, really. What I'm looking for is a politician that has maybe just a touch of green tea and aloe.

No. You're looking for soap. You're looking for somebody who is going to clean this up. That's it.

Now, I don't even know how much green tea or ginseng or wild mint is actually in this, but I bet it's just the mere essence. The mere essence of wild mint. You don't need that much. I mean, sure, it's total well-being, but you don't want to put a lot in there. It's like nitroglycerin. My God, man! Not more than the essence of wild mint! That's all you need. Good Lord!

You look at the -- you look at you will at crap that is on the back of a shampoo bottle, it's got a bunch of -- in the ingredients, it has a bunch of crap you don't even know. What is it? Cleaning chemicals. That's all that is. Soap, that's all that is. The rest is just a perfume to stop the soap. Have you ever had soap that's made, you know, like real soap, like the way they used to make it? It stinks. It's nasty. It will get you clean. But it's nasty stuff. It doesn't smell good. That's what the politicians do.

They put just a hint of wild mint and ginseng on them so they don't stink so bad, when all I really want is soap. All I really want is something that is going to clean Washington up. And we all know what that is. What is it that's going to do that? What is it that's going to do that? What is the soap?

First principles. Period. That's it. I don't know why we're arguing about everything.

Hey, Hillary Clinton, did she send the emails? Did she not send the emails? What did she do? Should she go to jail?

Yeah, she should go to jail. She's admitted to sending emails. She has -- her own emails. When she says -- and this is very carefully worded, "I did not send or receive anything classified. I did not send or receive anything marked classified." You know why? We have it in her own emails from her saying, "Well, all you have to do is cut out -- cut off the top secret classification from the top and the bottom, and then just send me the body of the text and I'll say we didn't send or receive anything classified." That's in her own emails. She's saying how to get around it.

And, by the way, you were the Secretary of State for how many years? You never sent or received. You never had any classified -- you only had your server. That's how you got your emails. That's how you did business. You never sent or received anything? The hell were you doing? Were you in the hotels with the ginseng and wild tea, with the wild mint. Was that you just, "Oh, my gosh. I've just been lathering all day, I have such total well-being here." She should be getting dozens of classified briefings and emails every day. The hell we paying her for?

No, I didn't -- classified, what? I don't even know what you're talking about. So what's going to clean that up?

The soap of the Constitution. Period. We don't need any new laws. We don't need any fancy anything. Did she break the law? Yes or no. Yes or no question. But -- no. It's a yes or no question. Yes, she did -- no, no. You save all of your ginseng and all your wild mint for someone else.

Here's what I want: Soap.

Donald Trump is another great example. He's going to clean things up. Is he? Does he know the Constitution? Is there any soap involved in this guy? He may just be ginseng and wild mint, without any shampoo. He's just the essence that smells good.

Why would I say that? Because what is the soap that will clean up Washington? The soap that will clean up Washington is the rule of law and the Constitution. He doesn't talk about that. He still is talking more and more every day as he's becoming more and more confident about how he will cut deals. That's the problem.

And all of us are looking at him and saying, "Yeah, yeah, I know. But he's got maybe a little bit of aloe in him. I don't know. A green tea. So nice in him." And what is that green tea, what is that aloe? The aloe, the salve that he has an essence of is anger. You're angry, he's angry. That's a little salve, on your frizzy ends of your hair. But it's not really going to help. There's not enough aloe in the green tea and aloe shampoo to do a damn thing. It just makes you feel better. It just makes you stand out of the shower and go, "Oh, my gosh. I have total well-being." And yet, nothing has changed. Nothing has changed.

As you're looking at the candidates that you need to vote for, which one of them is soap? And which one of them is providing you with a total well-being? Which one of you is like the stupid, little container of shampoo that pisses me off, that is trying to be something it will never be and can never be? Shampoo is not made to provide anyone at any time, no matter how expensive or how good it is, it will never provide total well-being. Period.

Are we that shallow? Are we this stupid? I don't want the essence of anything anymore. I want the real deal. I want soap.

Featured Image: Photo Credit: MSPhotographic

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.