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

'The Circle' Offers Full Circle Satisfaction: Progressives Unintentionally Reject Themselves

May 02, 2017
Staff

WRITER

It's not good, okay? The Circle is bad --- even by Hollywood standards. It's getting dismal reviews from both audiences and critics alike. Glenn is no exception.

"Please, dear God, do not wish that movie on any human being," Glenn said Tuesday on radio.

Why in the world would conservative mega brain and author Steve Deace urge Americans to see The Circle, calling it the most conservative movie of 2017? In a nutshell, it shows progressives imploding on their own failed beliefs.

"Glenn, always remember this when it comes to our progressive friends: Unintentional self-repudiation is always the best. Always remember that," Deace said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Steve Deace is a good friend of the program. Really smart and a conservative that you need to know, if you don't already. He writes for ConservativeReview.com. And I will tell you, I almost ejected him from my friend's circle when he recommended The Circle in one of his articles. The movie, The Circle. One of the worst movies of all time. He starts with this -- with this understatement. It's like saying Hitler sometimes could be --

PAT: Understatement of the century perhaps.

GLENN: -- testy.

He wrote: Make no mistake, The Circle is not a great movie by any means.

Yeah. Yeah, and Hitler was testy.

However, it's a movie I would highly recommend that every American see.

No. Stop. So I thought I would get Steve on the phone, and explain yourself to this kangaroo tribunal here, Steve.

STEVE: Well, first of all, I want to throw myself on the mercy of the court with that setup, for one.

(laughter)

STEVE: But the film does -- I mean, I found myself -- I laughed out loud with my wife at the movie several times.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, me too.

STEVE: And about two-thirds of the way through it, I leaned over to Amy, and I said, "Honey, this might be the most conservative movie that wasn't made by, you know, studios that are favorable to our belief system I've ever seen." Because I don't know, the movie may be so bad, that it's unintentional.

PAT: That's what I think.

GLENN: I think so too. I don't think they had any idea.

PAT: They did it by accident.

STEVE: And that's probably true. But when you look at -- and I point out several places where the movie gives you the full monty, if you will, of progressivism. And it shows, if we're mixing metaphors here, how it literally just chokes the life out of a civilization. And it shows that abundantly.

I mean, listen, the moment where the heroine says -- don't tell me you didn't laugh, Glenn -- when Emma Watson's character says, and here's a piece of protest art. Click on -- click frowns on our social media and send a stern message to the oppressive regime that's being protested, which I'm sure they'll understand.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STEVE: That's pretty much the most millennium snowflake thing of all time.

GLENN: But they meant -- but I don't think they wrote that in a way -- they meant that.

PAT: I think so.

GLENN: They meant that.

STEVE: I know. That's what makes it even better, right? When they show you honestly, here's what we really believe, where we really want to take you. The movie really plays up in its trailer, the line with Tom Hanks, says, quote, I believe in the perfectibility of man.

GLENN: Yes.

STEVE: And it really plays that up and then shows his own fallibility on parade. So I think that the fact that they didn't intend that makes it a more powerful apologetic because they think this is an infomercial.

GLENN: Okay. So, Steve, I really think that they were going to make a happy movie called The Circle. And then they realized they don't really have anything there, maybe after they started production.

And then they thought, okay. We'll make it kind of creepy, and we'll show how it can be really creepy. But they didn't want to go all the way and say that this was bad. And so this movie went nowhere.

It didn't have any idea, if it was supposed to be for The Circle or against The Circle.

STEVE: I don't disagree with that at all. And if you want to see a movie that was made earlier this year that is much better made -- it's in a different stratosphere in terms of filmmaking, that also turns progressivism on itself, I would recommend Get Out, which does exactly that.

GLENN: I haven't seen that. Oh, yeah, that's --

STEVE: I mean, Get Out. Blue state progressive. More impervious to racism, and it turns the reflection on themselves. And it's brutal to watch. That's a better deconstruction in terms of filmmaking. But I think -- I think if they had actually embraced the story they told and did that in the filmmaking process and marketed it accordingly, they might have had something. Because let's face it, a lot of Americans, a majority of Americans have -- have turned their backs on utopian schemes of progressivism. They have seen it fully immersed in the last eight years under Obama and realized that this can't deliver. This existentially, this can't do what it promises it's going to do.

The problem with the mainstream studio, with a star like Tom Hanks making a film like that, is it really goes against their stated value system. And so you can sense the conflict.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. I've never felt conflict like that. You could feel the conflict from the writing, directing, the acting. Everything.

STEVE: Yeah.

GLENN: They were so conflicted, they didn't know what to do with this.

PAT: Hmm.

STEVE: Look at one of the supporting characters Mercer.

All right. So on one hand, he throws in one of the -- one of the only real leftist true propaganda moments in the movie, when he says, you know, we have anti-trust legislation to break up all these big banks and big companies. But then this is the white guy who drives a pickup truck who wants to live off the grid, making deer and antler ornaments, and is literally -- is literally pestered by progressives, literally to death in the film.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: That is the exact conflict that exists throughout the course of this movie.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: And it's because, ultimately, when we enact progressivism, gentlemen, when we take it beyond the theoretical and put it in a real world, and we do things that say, no, man is not fallible. No, the world -- the creation is not fallen. And we attempt to impose a square peg in a round hole, we create those conflicts, and we're living in them in our society right now.

GLENN: Steve, can I change subjects with you?

You wrote to me this weekend. I'm having a heck of a time here in Texas finding a school for my kids. Yesterday, this school that had previously told us that it was fine, started hearing I think from parents, et cetera, et cetera, that Mormons might be attending. And so they've rejected us now. And they actually said yesterday to my wife, look, you know, kids can be cruel. And when they find out that your kids are Mormon, I mean, you know, I just -- I hate to say this, but they're going to make fun of them.

Instead of saying, by the way, if we find out any kids are making fun of your kids because they're different, this is a Christian school and, you know, we can't guarantee that that won't happen, but it won't be tolerated. No, no. Instead, they were just telling us that they were going to be made fun of. And even in class, they could be made fun of. Oh, okay.

PAT: Maybe some of the teachers.

GLENN: You know, they said in class. They can't help that. They're going to feel out of place because they won't -- they won't fit in with the --

PAT: You know, sometimes Mormon kids get locked in closets. It just happens.

STU: There are beatings.

PAT: There are beatings. Things happen.

GLENN: It's crazy.

PAT: What's the name of this school?

GLENN: I don't think that that does anything to --

JEFFY: It sure does.

PAT: It sounds like --

GLENN: No, we don't want to go -- I mean, I asked my kids, you know, do you want to go to a school -- and they were like, no. We do not want to go. We're not going.

JEFFY: That would be a shame if other people decided that same thought, if we knew the name.

PAT: So you're not saying it's Liberty Christian? You're not saying that?

 

GLENN: No, I'm not. No, I'm not saying that. But thank you for that.

PAT: Okay. All right. I'm glad you're not saying it's Liberty Christian. Because we wouldn't want anybody to know about that. Right? Would we?

GLENN: Okay. Thank you, Pat. Thank you, Pat.

So, Steve, if I may, you said something to me this weekend, and you said -- what is the name of this place?

STEVE: Freedom Project Academy is what it's called.

GLENN: Is that the thing you endorsed, Pat?

PAT: Yeah, uh-huh.

GLENN: And you're sending your kids through that, Steve?

STEVE: Yeah. We're going to send our youngest, our son through that. Our -- I hate to use the term "middle child" because I think there's a stigma with that, so I always call Zoe our youngest daughter. She has a couple of learning disabilities. So she requires a different level and kind of education from her mom here at home. But we're going to send Noah through that this fall. And we're looking forward to it. I first heard about these guys -- actually they came to me when you guys were putting the -- the Common Core movie together a few years ago.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: And that issue was a hot burner issue. And the guy who was sort of the dean of the academy, Dr. Duke Pesta, was actually doing a lot of talks around the country, warning people about the perils of Common Core.

GLENN: Yeah, I've looked into them --

STEVE: That's where I first heard about these guys.

GLENN: Yeah, I've looked into them, and they are wildly anti-Common Core, which I love.

PAT: Yeah. It's classic education, which is important.

GLENN: Yeah. And it's a classroom situation. So they're at home. And they're watching -- participating in a classroom.

STEVE: Yeah.

You know, Noah is like pretty much any other boy. You know, we tend to think that if they're not willing to sit still for more than 20 minutes, they need to be drugged. That's kind of how we roll today.

On the other hand, he needs some structure. You know, he needs to be challenged. So mom and I -- we just decided, you know what, let's just do this program and get him a little more structure and challenge him a little bit more intellectually and put him in some inconvenient situations and get him to man up a little bit. So we thought it was the perfect fit for him.

GLENN: And the name of it again is -- what is it?

STU: Freedom.

PAT: Freedom Project.

GLENN: Freedom Project. Okay.

Steve, thank you, brother. And I just want you to know, you are on the edge of the friend's circle by recommending The Circle.

Now, I understand you can take lemons and make them into lemonade, please, dear God, do not wish that movie on any human being. If they find themselves there -- if you're strapped to a chair --

PAT: You can look for some of these things --

GLENN: You're strapped to a chair and somebody says, "Hey, The Circle has just come out, and we can watch it online," as long as they're screaming, "No, dear God, no, not The Circle," but they put it on and you can't stop it, then I understand.

STEVE: Glenn, always remember this when it comes to our progressive friends: Unintentional self-repudiation is always the best. Always remember that.

GLENN: Yep. Thanks a lot, Steve. I appreciate it.

Steve Deace from the Conservative Review, and it's always good to have him on.

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.