Binary Choices Lead to Walls, Condemnation and Destruction

The binary choice offers two options --- one good, one bad. Whatever side you agree with, you become an enemy of the other side. Take Black Lives Matter, for instance.

"Right now, we're being told there's a binary choice. The binary choice is, they're good or they're bad. That's it. They can't be anything else," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

So what do you do, when you've made the binary choice?

"You say, Well, I've got to build a wall against all those bad people, and I've got to condemn anybody who is for them, listens to them, wants to march with them, because they're all bad," Glenn said.

main-image-binary-choice Screen shot from The Glenn Beck Program, October 6, 2016.

And the other side does the same thing.

"So a binary choice leads to walls, condemnation, destruction and separation of two camps that only becomes balkanized. It only becomes the Palestinians and the Israelis --- and there is no coming back from that," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these singular questions:

• Are the two political parties exactly alike now?

• How did Democrats convince 97% of a population to vote one way?

• What term did communists invent that is killing us now?

• Is a sit down or powwow after the election literal or metaphorical?

• Does Pat have herpes and will a cream help?

• Can we please get out of the binary box?

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

GLENN: Let me take you to this frustrating binary choice thing we're in right now.

I'm not even going to tell you the personalities involved because it doesn't matter because it's not about the personalities.

One personality yesterday said, "Hey, why won't Donald Trump do X?" And the other personality tweeted out immediately, "Well, you should be mad at Hillary Clinton. Why don't you -- you know, you must -- it's just because you're for Hillary Clinton."

STU: Clearly support Hillary Clinton.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

GLENN: Right? Okay. So everything that you do is a binary choice.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You either do it --

STU: And we should also point out, a binary choice always defined by someone other than you. Everyone else gets to define what your binary choice is.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: Which is such a wonderful place to live. It's never our choice. It's never our responsibility to come up with our own decisions. Someone gets to define what the binary choice is, and we must abide by their decision.

GLENN: Right. And if you don't, they destroy you. That is the new binary choice.

PAT: Or at least they're trying.

GLENN: Yeah, well, here's the thing -- let's just put it this way. The two parties are now exactly alike, except constitutionalists are now the black population for the Democrats.

If you step out of line and you're a Democrat and you say, "No, I think that guy is bad. I think Hillary Clinton is not going to be good for us." I don't think Barack Obama -- what happens? You're an Uncle Tom, and they'll do everything they can to destroy you.

PAT: You're not even black.

GLENN: And we sit here -- we sit here, and we look at that and we say, "Black people, you got to -- wake up. Wake up." They're looking at us and saying, "Wake up? We have woken up. And every time we wake up and try to stand up, we're shoved down into the ground."

I contend Bill Cosby would have gotten away with everything that he did his whole life, had he not rocked the boat at the end and started talking about his own community and saying, "Hey, we've got to look at our own community." Basically, what is he saying? The same thing the Democrats don't want to say about the family. The same thing they don't want to say about Detroit. That the things that we've been doing and are being told to ignore are the problems.

So you can't have anybody think. You got to shout them down. That's what's happening with the Democrats, with the black community. And it works.

That's how you can get 97 percent of a population to vote one way. Shut them up. It worked for Saddam Hussein. It's been working for the Democrats for how long? Did Glenn Beck just call him?

So now we're doing it. Now, unless you go with the party, you are politically incorrect in the way that the communists who invented that term, really meant it. You are not correct with the political party. And you will be shut down, shut up, made uncomfortable, and in the case of the communist, you're going to be shipped off. You're going to go into a camp.

And if not, you're just going to be disappeared. You'll go to Siberia, or you'll go into the ground. That's the real term "politically correct." That's the heritage of "politically correct."

Now if you are politically incorrect, you're an enemy. You're a traitor. And everything is a binary choice.

Now, let me show what happens to binary choices. Let's take Black Lives Matter. Right now, we're being told there's a binary choice. The binary choice is, they're good or they're bad. That's it. They can't be anything else. They are good or they're bad. Let's say you say they're good. Or, let's say you say they're bad. Because that's what most people on our side say, they're bad.

Okay. So what do you do, when you've made the binary choice? You say, "Well, I got to build a wall against all those bad people. And I've got to -- I've got to condemn anybody who is for them, listens to them, wants to march with them, because they're all bad." If you're for Black Lives -- if you excuse anything -- because these people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Get over it. Right?

And if you don't agree with that, you're an enemy. You're with Black Lives Matter. So what do you do? You build a wall around them, make them the enemy. You condemn them. That's what that wall is all about. Then you try to convince others that they're bad. And if you can't convince them, that person you're trying to convince, they become bad.

And the other side does the same thing. So a binary choice leads to walls, condemnation, destruction, and separation of two camps that only becomes balkanized. It only becomes the Palestinians and the Israelis. And there is no coming back from that.

It's my side or the highway. Balkanization. My way or the highway -- thank you -- thank you for just the look.

Let me give you another choice, not a binary choice, one that doesn't lead to Balkanization of the United States of America, or we could just say, "I'm not getting back together with anybody. You were against, and so I will always be against you. And you will be my enemy because you voted differently. And I will never stand with you."

PAT: I'm not coming out to do some kind of sitdown powwow with you after the election.

GLENN: I'm not asking.

PAT: I'm not coming out to some powwow where we sit around and talk about things after the election. I'm not doing that.

GLENN: I'm not talking -- I'm not asking you to --

PAT: Well, that's what I'm not going to do, so stop asking.

GLENN: I'm not asking.

PAT: You're always saying, you want to sit down and do some powwow, some get-together after the election.

GLENN: No, I'm saying that we're all Americans after the election. And we're all going to metaphorically come together --

PAT: Why do you keep saying we need to come together and do a powwow after the election?

[break]

GLENN: Okay. So if you have a binary choice. If everything in our society -- and it is -- everything in our society is -- you're either for us or you're against us. You either love this or you hate this. Okay?

It's -- it's a binary choice. And a binary choice leads to the same thing over and over again. For instance, Black Lives Matter. Good. Okay. Well, then the people who oppose it are bad. And you got to stop them. Or it's bad. And the people who oppose that idea that it's bad, you have to stop them, because they're bad too. And you build a wall and you don't move any further. Or you could say there's more than a binary choice. There's good and bad, which builds the wall, and some will do. Or there is -- let's just take one -- they're bad, but some of the people can be saved. Or they're good, but they -- a lot of the people in there have been co-opted by bad leaders who don't understand what they're following. They've never gone to the Black Lives Matter website. I can guarantee you, Kaepernick does not know what the leadership wants and where they stand just on Israel. It's like a whole page on anti-Israel stuff. And they don't know where they stand on capitalism.

STU: And he's certainly not making that salary under their proposals.

GLENN: Correct. So you can make another choice. And I want to show you how one builds a wall and the other keeps the walls down and keeps us moving forward, when we come back.

[break]

Talking about binary choices and how dangerous binary choices become. And take the election out of it.

I know this is hard to do because everybody is making everything about the election. But in, what, 30 days, 33 days, the election is over. And we have to come together.

And for those who don't understand, I don't mean literally come together. I mean we're going to need each other. And we're going to need to come together metaphorically. I didn't think I needed to express this, this way. But I do.

PAT: No, but apparently, some people are so stupid, you do have to --

GLENN: Yeah -- stop it. Stop it. Stop it. You are the one who caused the last flare-up of herpes. Stop it. I'm trying to put some cream on this.

PAT: Me too.

(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFFY: I got to tell you, sometimes the cream doesn't work. I just want to let you know.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, this cream will never work.

Anyway, I don't mean come together. What I mean is, metaphorically, we need to be Americans again. Because no matter who is going to be our president -- Trump or Hillary -- trouble is coming. And depending on who you're voting for, you'll think that the other one is going to have more trouble. And you may end up being right.

But we'll never know. Will we? Because she's want going to go to a parallel universe and run another country so we'll have a double-blind -- we won't know. We'll just know, we need to stand together so we can weather any storm that might come our way, from the outside or the inside.

And I'm using Black Lives Matter as a -- and please, do not use this as politics. These are principles.

Black Lives Matter to show you the binary choice. One, the binary choice: Good, bad. Leads you to a wall, you don't go past that. You become a balkanized country that sees things one way or the other, black or white, and you go nowhere, because you have nothing in common because you stopped talking to each other a long time ago.

Black Lives Matter, let's just say, you decide they're bad. They're bad. The leadership is bad. What they're doing is bad. But not all the people are bad.

Well, now that's not a binary choice. No, no, you got to make -- they're good or bad. We have to condemn them all or not. No, no. It's like -- and I know this isn't popular currently again, but this audience understood currently when we did it because it took a lot of explaining because we are trained to think binary -- we all want immigrants to be legal. We -- at least in this room, we all want legal immigration. We all want really tough border security

PAT: And I will say, nobody has fought harder than illegal immigration than we have. No one has fought harder.

GLENN: Yeah, you have been -- you're crazy on it.

PAT: Yeah, and nobody has opposed more consistently comprehensive immigration reform than we have. When others were flip-flopping on it because the nominee in 2012 was for it --

GLENN: No, no, when others were flip-flopping because George Bush was the president for the G.O.P. --

PAT: And that too. We were rock solid on that.

GLENN: We were hardcore. So anyway, we have been there -- thank you, Pat for another flare-up.

PAT: Yes, you're welcome. No, I'm just clarifying.

GLENN: I know.

So, anyway, we have been -- we have been solid on this. We went down to the border because I said, "I am for legal immigration, not illegal immigration." We want border security. We want this -- we need this to be solved. And if you come across the border, you need to go home. But we must soften our hearts and see the plight of people. We need to see that there are bad guys. We need to see that there are drug runners. We need to see that there are Syrians and Iraqis and really bad ISIS and al-Qaeda guys coming across our border. But we also need to see the children. And when it comes to the children, we don't just box them up and put them in storehouses, and then do what with them?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We need to love the children and love people, unless you've proven yourself to be a bad guy. And then you have credibility to say, "I love you. Now it's time for you to go home." And we need to make sure our hearts don't harden and harden into a place where we can't see people anymore.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Black Lives Matter, good, bad, build a wall, you don't see people anymore. Or bad, but some of these guys are good. They're just misguided. They're being led by people and they don't even know who they're being led by. Because they've had something happen in their life or they've been brainwashed, quite honestly, by an educational system and a culture that just tells them, "You can't make it. These guys are bad. And there's no escape." And as our mothers used to say, "Show me your friends, I'll show you your future."

How many of us have gone down the wrong road because we have surrounded -- don't answer this, Pat, because I don't want to hear this answer. We've gone down the wrong roads because we've made friends with people who were strong personalities that weren't necessarily on the straight and narrow. And you changed your behavior and you changed courses. How many of us have been sold a load of goods that now in retrospect, we were like, "Oh, crap. I can't believe I was so stupid, I believed that."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: But if you had a bunch of people standing around you --

PAT: How many times had we said that about the Bush administration? How misled we were about the Patriot Act and going into Iraq --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Right. All of it. All of it. And if you were surrounded by people, as we were by the Michael Moores --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- who were extremists themselves, who said, "All these people are just bad people." And we're like, "No, we're not bad people. We really believe this. We don't think he's a bad guy."

PAT: Right.

GLENN: If somebody would have reached out to us, honest, not trying to -- not a Susan Sarandon -- honest. And sat down with us and really talked to us and loved us and proved they loved us -- they were our friends -- and look, we can disagree. Glenn, you and I can disagree. You might in the end really say war is right. But they would have sat down with us, and they would have listened to us. And then they would have said, "Wow, you've got some good points here. And I didn't know that. I'm going to go look that up. I did not know that. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. But you look up that. I'm going to look up what you showed me, and you look up what I just showed you. And let's come back together."

Not the intention of winning.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But the intention of reconciliation. The intention of, "Let's just come back together on the facts."

PAT: It would have been better. But I don't know that it would have swayed us because now we have ten, 12 years of evidence. You know, we've got -- we've got 12 --

GLENN: I contend nobody tried.

PAT: That's for sure. That's true.

GLENN: And look what happened, now no one tried and now we're in these camps of enemies where nobody even listens to the other side.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No one -- let's take another example. The New York Times, and CBS, ABC, NBC, they have deemed people like us bad for so long, that they could come out and say the truth about something that we believe in and have the documentation. And you still wouldn't believe it. Because you would look at it and say, "Well, it's NBC. It's the New York Times. Of course, they're going to say that." Well, but wait. Here's the video. They --

JEFFY: We did use disclaimers, right? We would do stories or do reports and say, "Well, but it's NBC, so."

GLENN: Yes. But now it's gotten to the point where I said to Stu back in the '90s, there's going to come a point where you won't even believe your eyes. We now watch videos and we still dismiss it.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Because that's just the media out to get X, Y, or Z.

It's on video!

So we've set ourselves up for absolute failure and the balkanization -- which, by the way, just want to let you know, is one of the goals of the Weather Underground, of the communists, of everybody, to balkanize the United States. E pluribus unum is bad. Because e pluribus unum means, from many one, and you can never defeat them when they're one. You have to break them up.

Black Lives Matter, you could love them first. Be honest and find a way to see the common humanity, which is almost impossible now. You're not a human anymore. You're a member of the media, or you're a conservative, or you're a liberal, our you're a Clinton supporter. Or you're a Trump supporter. And there's nothing in between, okay?

There's no humanity. I keep saying, "Am I not more than who I voted for?" Is this the only thing -- you'll see it on Facebook. Somebody will say, "Hey, this is a great pie recipe. Oh, notice it's apple pie. Apple pie. All you conservatives want apple pie, like everything is going to be fine if your beloved Donald Trump gets in." You're like, "What the hell -- I'm just giving a pie recipe." Okay. It's happening in everything. Everything.

We could love. We could listen. We could learn. Then we could either say, "I was wrong." They could say they were wrong. Or we could say, "I was a little bit wrong, and they were a little bit wrong." And we could stand united on those principles and those facts that we now agree on, together. Or we can continue to take one step.

Hmm. Bad. Build wall. Don't talk. Demonize. Put into camps.

We could do that. But that leads to our total downfall.

Or we could not do the same thing and expect a different result. We are doing the same thing -- George Washington warned us against this: Don't do the two-party system. Because the two-party system, they're going to start demonizing each other. And it's going to get worse and worse and worse, until you will divide into two camps. And then, somebody who is unscrupulous will come outside and say, "It's these two party people, and I will make everyone who disagrees with us pay."

And he won't be doing it for any other reason -- and I'm not saying this is Trump -- I'm telling you what Donald -- I'm telling you what George Washington said would happen. And that will be the end of the republic because everyone will just want vengeance because everyone will feel that they have been wronged by the other party who is now their enemy.

What do you say we try something different? And even if we vote differently, at least after the election, we try to take a deep breath and realize we're going to need each other.

PAT: I'm not coming to a powwow. Sit down and discuss things after the election.

GLENN: Oh, is that herpes? Yes, it is. Thank you.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

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.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.