Governor Abbott: Locking Your Doors Doesn't Mean You Don't Like Your Neighbors

Texas Governor Greg Abbott called into The Glenn Beck Program today, March 2, a day that also happens to be Texas Independence Day.

"I'm speaking to you from the Sam Houston bedroom in the governor's mansion in the state of Texas. I'm living in a governor's mansion that Sam Houston lived in . . . the historical connection is profound." Governor Abbott said.

RELATED: History of Texas Part III: Sam Houston

In addition to recognizing an important holiday for Texans, the governor also discussed current issues like the Texas Senate approving measures for a convention of states, as well as the status of building a wall on the southern border.

"Mexico is our neighbor, and we need to have a good relationship with Mexico. And we need to be respectful of them, and they need to be respectful of us enforcing our rule of law and protecting our own sovereignty. We can foster that goodwill while building a border," Governor Abbott said. "If we can do all of that, Glenn, this will be something that will have a lasting effect, a positive effect for both Texas, the United States and Mexico."

GLENN: Texas Governor Greg Abbott, the federal government is beginning to accept contract bids for the building of the wall along the border with Mexico.

Governor Abbott, have you heard anything about that?

GREG: I have. But before I say that, I know you have listeners from across the world. But here in the state of Texas, we're celebrating Texas Independence Day.

GLENN: I know.

GREG: This is the day we became an independent nation ourself, many years ago, on March the 2nd.

GLENN: Yeah. We have a last piece in our serial this week. We've been doing Texas history. At the bottom of this hour, the last -- is it the last one? Or is tomorrow the last one?

PAT: Tomorrow is the last one.

GLENN: Tomorrow is the last one. Today we talk about Davy Crockett and Sam Houston. Which Sam Houston is an amazing guy. Has to be a governor that you look back on and say, "How could I be half the man that he was?"

I mean, taking on and standing against slavery in the South --

STU: At that time.

GLENN: -- at that time was a big deal. That guy was really brave.

GREG: He's amazing. And as I speak to you this moment, I'm speaking to you from the Sam Houston bedroom in the governor's mansion in the state of Texas. I'm living in a governor's mansion that Sam Houston lived in.

GLENN: Wow.

PAT: That's pretty cool.

GREG: And so the historical connection is profound.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Greg, let's talk a little bit about the border wall. Do you believe it is actually going to be built?

GREG: Oh, I know it is. And as you were alluding to in your intro, the request for bids has already been issued. And people are making bids right now. The time period for the bids closes here in just a couple of weeks. The bid will be announced in early April. Meaning that the work is going to begin in early April. So the administration is moving very quickly on this.

This round of bids is what's called a first tranche. And it will involve three sections across the border. One of the sections is in Texas. It's near what we call the Presidio region. It's going to be about 1- to 200 miles southeast of El Paso, Texas. It's that border-crossing area that has been penetrated heavily by cartel activity. And it's kind of in urgent need to build the wall in that sector.

The other two new sectors will be in other states. I think, if I recall correctly, it is in New Mexico and Arizona.

Bottom line, this is the first of what should be three different tranches of adding wall to the border. And this is going to get done.

PAT: So, Governor, are they keeping you in that loop? Are you being involved in those discussions? Because it would seem pretty logical for you to be a part of that.

GREG: Yes. I just returned from a five-day trip to Washington, DC, visiting with administration officials. And this is where it was first announced to us, being the governors. We have an annual governors' conference in Washington, DC, at the end of February. And one of the topics was the border wall. And it was told to us at that time what was going to be taking place at the border. But frankly before that, several weeks before that, I was on a flyover of the border with a new secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, when we were talking about the very issue. So at multiple levels in multiple time frames, I've been informed about what's going on, and they are keeping Texas in the loop.

GLENN: So do you see a time, in a short period, relatively speaking, where the border is actually closed off, with a big, beautiful door?

GREG: Well, remember this, and that is, there are large segments of the Texas Mexico border and US-Mexico border that already have walls along there. Several weeks ago, I had US Homeland Security secretary John Kelly. And we flew around. And he got to see for the first time for him the border wall as it currently exists in the Rio Grande valley. And so there are large multi-mile segments of border wall already there, that are working very effectively, that serve as a funneling device for those who are trying to cross the border, especially cracking down on the cartels and what they are trying to do along the border.

GLENN: How are you going to get around the people who say you're going to cut my land in half -- I know this will be a favorite question of yours. The EPA.

GREG: The EPA is under a new regime. One of the people I met with in Washington, DC, is Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator. And he is restoring the EPA to its original intent, which is not to be the dictator-in-chief in Washington, DC.

But the EPA is supposed to work in collaboration with the states. And believe me, that's exactly what he's going to do. The EPA challenges will be greatly diminished. That aside, we know that private parties will be filing lawsuits along those lines.

But going back to the first part of your question, a lot of the easements, a lot of the right-to-ways (phonetic) have already either been purchased or agreements entered into by the United States government. Remembering this, because people forget, it was under the Bush administration that the border wall -- or let's call it border fence. They call it different names. Was initially entered into. If I recall correctly -- don't hold me to this, but you'll know this. And you'll be able to bring it up later.

I think even people like Nancy Pelosi voted in favor of it at the time. So there was a border fence in the territory or land needed for that border fence, stretching from Brownsville all the way to San Diego. And many of the segments are already either owned or have building rights by the federal government.

That said, there are portions that the federal government does not have. It could be private land. It could be other parts of land they don't have. And they will work around that.

But let's go back to kind of the premise you're talking about here. And that is, I can't tell you there's going to be a yard by yard border wall stretching from Brownsville, Texas, to El Paso, Texas. There could be segments where there is not a border wall. But what I do know from talking to the administration, learning about what their game plan is, and that is, they are finally going to regain sovereign control over the border through multiple layers of security. One of those layers is a wall. A key factor is even a wall alone is not going to stop cross-border activity. You have to have boots on the ground so they are dedicating 5,000 more border patrol agents. Many more ICE agents so that they have the personnel which are needed, but also the detection equipment, the boats, the planes, cameras, et cetera, so that they are going to regain control of our border.

GLENN: So, Governor Abbott, how do we make this -- I mean, here's the problem that we've had now with the last administration. And, quite honestly, I fear with this administration, is it's not -- we're not changing laws, and we're not strengthening the laws. What we're doing is strengthening the Oval Office and the administration.

So this president can be great on the border. But what do we do -- what do we have at the end of this that, in four years or eight years, somebody else doesn't just come in and reverse it all?

GREG: Well, you raised an important issue from two perspectives: First of all, what the Trump administration really is doing is -- is -- as you say, they're not making new laws. They're finally applying and enforcing the laws, as they have long existed. The reason why we're in the problem that we are in today is because over a period of decades, there's been a gradual erosion in the enforcement of the laws.

And this is what's going to happen. When you refuse and fail to enforce the laws, in that people will continue to gradually evade them and not abide by them. And that is what has led us to the position today, where a new administration finally says, "We have to put up a wall."

After the -- after the current administration -- listen, life changes. And you can't say for certainty. Someone may not come back in and tear down the wall. Here's what we need to do to make it more effective. And that is, if you look at some of the concerns raised about the wall, especially concerns raised by Mexico, what really needs to be done is to establish both a better attitude and a better approach about why we're doing it. This is not a signal of hostility towards Mexico. This is a signal of our own concern of protecting our own home.

It's the way that you or your listeners act probably every night, that is many of you lock your doors at night. You don't lock your doors at night because you don't like your neighbor next door. You want to protect your own safety and your own family, living in friendship with your neighbors.

And that's the attitude that we need to foster with Mexico. Mexico is our neighbor. And we need to have a good relationship with Mexico. And we need to be respectful of them, and they need to be respectful of us enforcing our rule of law and protecting our own sovereignty. We can foster that goodwill while building a border. This will be a border wall. This will be -- and maintain our positive -- Mexico is a huge trade partner with us.

If we can do all of that, Glenn, this will be something that will have a lasting effect, a positive effect for both Texas, the United States, and Mexico.

GLENN: How do you feel about a tariff on Mexico?

GREG: You know, I've heard a lot of analysis about this. And especially when I was in Washington, DC, this past week and go through the analysis, and here is what I am hearing: It's called the border adjustment tax, or the bat tax. And I'm hearing the real reason for that is to pay for the other corporate tax reduction.

And when people talk about going through the mathematical equation of how the border adjustment tax is supposed to work, it seems like it keeps running into challenges. And I hear that the administration may not be in favor -- I hear the US Senate may not be in favor of it.

I hear that businesses may not be in favor of it.

And so it seems like it keeps running into obstacle after obstacle. And I would say it's tough to predict that the border adjustment tax will actually come into effect.

GLENN: We're just going to run out of time with you. So let me just get to the Convention of States. Passed in the Senate, are we going to see this push through? And do you have any idea what happened to Utah or other states as you're meeting with the border -- or, with the governors?

Are other states jumping on board, or is this taking a backseat now?

GREG: On the Texas side, remember that in the last legislative session that we had two years ago, the Convention of States' plan passed in the Texas House of Representatives.

So there's every reason to expect that those same representatives will not change their votes. They will vote the same way they did last time -- and so -- and it did not pass in the Texas Senate last time. So getting it passed in the Texas Senate was a game-changer. And it should lead to the passage in the state of Texas of the Convention of States.

Texas will join now a growing number of states that have passed a Convention of States. And when we do so, it unleashes me and other leaders in the state of Texas to explain to people across the country why this is needed. Remember this -- and I know we're running out of time. But let me make this really important point. And that is, I was not one of the leaders or a promoter of the Convention of States up until recently. What changed me and what brought this out of me, it was very simple, it was more than a philosophical idea. It was a practical idea.

My necessity for passing a Convention of States was borne out of filing 31 lawsuits against the Obama administration and realizing how not just the federal government, but the federal courts have been broken in, they had departed from our United States Constitution. And there's only one way that we as a country are going to restore our Constitution the way that it was intended, and that is for the people of the United States of America to take back our country and to restore the Constitution to what it was intended. Not rewrite it.

Remembering this, you, Glenn, you know, and your listeners know, you can recite what the Tenth Amendment said. And that is, all power not delegated to the United States in the Constitution is reserved to the states or to the people, period.

And that's the problem. It doesn't contain the additional clause that it needs, that says, and the states have the power to enforce the Tenth Amendment. And we need that additional clause in there so that courts will stop denying states the authority to enforce the Tenth Amendment.

GLENN: I think one of the best governors in America. In fact, people in Texas feel -- the last poll came out last week. Texans, asked their opinion of all of the statewide officeholders, including our US senators, who are awful popular here. Ted Cruz very popular, he -- Governor Abbott was the most popular by a wide margin. Congratulations on that. And thanks for being with us, Governor Abbott.

GREG: Thank you so much, Glenn. God bless.

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.