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

Matt Walsh Slams the UK Over the Case of Charlie Gard, 'Every Life Is of Infinite Value'

July 06, 2017
Staff

WRITER

The story of Charlie Gard is a heartwrenching and tragic tale of what socialzed medicince has to offer. Matt Walsh is a Blaze contributor and author of the article that shed light on this story in America on an issue that has divided England for months and he joined Glenn on radio Thursday to dig a little deeper on the issues.

"Slate has written an article, 'the right is turning the Charlie Gard tragedy into a case against single-payer health care. It's just the opposite.' That's their headline. First of all, is this not a case against single-payer health care?" Glenn asked.

This should be a simple and easy case to resolve but this is the huge pitfall of single payer healthcare.

"This is a very basic, no-brainer case, that the parents should be able to go get treatment for the child, period. There's no other way of looking at it. There's no other way that a sane person can look at it. But, second, that's the whole point. This is what we're trying to avoid, this idea of weighing the one against the many. It's health care, it's not supposed to be that way. We don't look at Charlie Gard and say, 'Well, let's weigh him against 1,000 people,'" Walsh said.

"He is one individual. Every life is of infinite value. And that's how all those lives -- all of them should be treated when they're in the hospital. Certainly, parents should have the right to treat their own children's lives that way."

GLENN: Matt Walsh. One of the clearest thinkers available today. And that's saying something because there are not a lot of clear thinkers out there. They're hard to find.

Matt Walsh, you'll find at TheBlaze.com. He's got a book out, The Unholy Trinity: Blocking the Left's Assault on Life, Marriage, and Gender. Make sure you pick it up if you're a fan of Matt Walsh. Make sure you grab the book. And also, you can find him at TheBlaze.com.

Matt, welcome to the program.

MATT: Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: So you were the one who has really brought this story to the attention of -- of America, the Charlie Gard story, the story of this 11-month-old child who has been fighting for his life against the socialized medicine situation in England for months. I -- I can tell you why they're not covering it here in America. How are they covering it over in England?

MATT: Over there, it's been, as you said, for months, it's been -- it's been -- you know, the story has been all over the place. The parents have been all over their, you know, kind of prime time shows. And it's been sort of like what the Schiavo case was here, in terms of just the intensity of coverage.

GLENN: Are they as divided as we were with Schiavo?

MATT: Yeah. From my reading of the situation, they're just as divided. And it kind of cuts down the same lines. Although, I think in Europe you may have fewer who are sort of on the pro-life side than you do here, although we don't have that many here anymore too.

GLENN: Well, I don't remember if you remember this, Matt. But, Pat, play the audio clip. This is from a few years ago on like their breakfast show on the BBC. This is a guest, and they're talking about socialized medicine and what to do with undesirable children. Listen to this.

VOICE: This may strike your listeners as way out --

GLENN: No, this is not it.

VOICE: And I think if I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want -- I mean, a deeply suffering child, I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face.

PAT: Good golly.

VOICE: And I think the difference is that my feeling of horror, suffering, is much greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells, because suffering can go on for years.

GLENN: Whoa.

VOICE: I'm sorry. We're just about to introduce another guest there, but that's a pretty horrifying thing to say.

VOICE: What?

PAT: What?

VOICE: That you would put the pillow over the --

VOICE: Of course I would. If it was a child I really loved that was in agony, I think any good mother would.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Wow.

Matt, where is this coming from?

MATT: Now, that you played that, I do remember that. And that is -- just the idea that you're going to kill your own child out of love. This idea of killing out of love -- it's not any different than you hear these horrifying cases of mentally disturbed mothers. What about Andrea Yates who drowned her five kids in a bathtub and did it because she loved them? How is that any different?

It's no different. So once you start going down this train, that's where it heads. But where it comes from, we know all across the West, it's just a fundamental inability some people have to recognize that life is sacred, to recognize that life has inherent value. So you start seeing -- they see someone and they say, "Oh, they're suffering. They're disabled. Or they're poor," or they've got these other external factors that make their life less desirable. Well, you might as well get rid of them. Because there's no reason to keep them around.

So there's this kind of, like, utilitarian, materialistic view of life. That, as long as it's useful, as long as it's pleasurable, as long as it's convenient to those around it and to itself, then we keep it around. But once that ends, then we get rid of it. And it's just a -- it's a -- that's what I tried to explain when I wrote about it.

Once you've put yourself on that side of the argument -- and this is not hyperbole, you have put yourself on the same side of all of the worst people in the history of the earth. And all of the worst atrocities that have ever been committed, have always been committed with that kind of thinking. So you place yourself on that side. And good luck to you in that case.

GLENN: So, Matt, do you find any cause of concern? Have you read what the pope actually said, not just the release, but -- or the newspaper account from it, but what he actually -- the entire thing?

MATT: Yeah. Well, this is the story with the Vatican. At first, the -- you know, the Vatican comes out with a statement that all but explicitly endorses the courts and the hospital and takes their side in it, which was horrifying. I mean, I couldn't -- as cynical as I am, especially about this pope sometimes, I couldn't even -- I couldn't believe that. I couldn't believe that they actually did that.

Because we need -- we need the Vatican and the Catholic church to be pro-life, to be -- it's been one of the only pro-life institutions left standing. The idea that that would go away, to me, especially as a Catholic, I just couldn't stomach it. But then the pope comes out -- he sends out kind of a vague tweet. And then he comes out and he says that we need to support the child. And the Vatican offers to take the child into the Vatican Hospital, which, of course, the other hospital declines that.

But it's the same story. Where there's kind of conflicted messages. And obviously Pope Francis doesn't have control of what's going on there. But to me, it's still not enough. I need the pope to come out in stronger language and actually -- I know he doesn't like doing this kind of thing. But he needs to. Actually condemn --

GLENN: He condemns capitalism -- he condemns a lot of things. But he did not condemn the snuffing out of this child's life. And here's what he said: The complexity of the situation and the heart rendering pain of the parents and the efforts of so many to determine what is best for Charlie, we have to acknowledge we do sometimes, have to recognize the limitations of what can be done in modern medicine.

Well, where is the talk about, you know, the sanctity of all life? Where is the talk about miracles?

I mean, I don't understand this. We would stop all cancer treatment, except for the most benign of cancers. We would be doing experiments with people who are in stage four cancer. We would just say, you know what, let's accept the limits of modern medicine.

If we stop trying to save lives, medicine stops moving forward. Doesn't it?

MATT: Yeah. Well, it defeats the entire purpose of medicine. But that's the problem, once you introduced as we have in the last -- once you've introduced abortion and you introduce euthanasia -- and keep in mind, that in Europe, in some countries in Europe, you can get euthanasia -- even if you're not terminally ill, they give euthanasia to alcoholics, depressives, to children. So they're just getting rid of everybody on both ends of the spectrum over there, and it's completely perverted the whole concept of medicine, which is always to do no harm. Hippocratic oath. To always treat and heal and do what you can.

And that's the thing that's so horrifying, that the Vatican missed this aspect. Not just -- you know, it's bad enough that they didn't say enough on the sanctity of life issue of it, but this is -- the fundamental issue here is that the parents have their own money. And they just want to take what was donated to them -- they just want to take the kid, bring them to America, and just try, try something, rather than just letting him die. I mean, of course, any parent would want to do that if they had the means to do it. So this is just -- it's just -- I'm speechless.

GLENN: Slate has written an article: The right is turning the Charlie Gard tragedy into a case against single-payer health care. It's just the opposite. That's their headline.

And, first of all, is this not a case against single-payer health care? Even though these -- these parents have the money, once you're trapped into that system, that system must be absolute. You can't let people make their own decisions. So it must be absolute.

Is that not the only reason why they're not allowing this child to leave the hospital? Because the state must have control and be able to say, "I have the control of God over life and death and what you do once you check into our system." It's hotel California.

MATT: Yeah, this is all about -- of course. That's Slate for you, always missing the point. But that's -- of course, this -- it's about single-payer health care and it's about the sanctity of life. Those are the two issues that this is about, and about parental rights too. So those are the three. And it's all linked, of course. And the issue is: Who should have the final say on these kinds of medical decisions? Should it be the patient or the patient's caregiver, the parent, or should it be the state? Those -- that's the question. When it comes down to it, who decides what kind of treatment is given and which lives are worth saving?

And in a single-payer health care system, of course, it will be given control over to the government, so the government is going to make those decisions. Because it's all about efficiency. And it's all about, well, let's not waste our time or precious resources on this life that's going to die anyway, which is a really troubling way of looking at it. Because, hey, we're all going to die anyway. Like you pointed out, Glenn, cancer. I mean, there are many kinds of cancer that can be treated. But it probably will shorten your life span, even if you get past the first bout of it. I mean, there are many diseases like that.

So once you start traveling down this road, it goes to some really dark places. And it's astounding to me that so many people fail to see that because it's so obvious to me.

GLENN: Matt Walsh, the author of the article that I believe was the first article really to bring this to light in America, the story of Charlie Gard.

Slate writes -- and just think about what you just said, Matt. Slate writes: The right will raise the specter of death panels, which you just said, who makes the decision of who lives or who dies? Which is exactly what's happening. These outlets have turned one hard case into a sweeping referendum on the inherent justice and effectiveness of socialized medicine.

It's as if the death of one child matters, but the death of thousands is the cost of reform. Or as if intervening in one complex and tragic case is heroic, but building a system that would prevent the suffering of many is more intolerable overreach. How do you respond?

MATT: Well, that is -- first of all, I don't want to get too sidetracked. But this is not a hard case. This is not a hard case. This is a very basic, no-brainer case, that the parents should be able to go get treatment for the child, period. There's no other way of looking at it. There's no other way that a sane person can look at it. But, second, that's the whole point. This is what we're trying to avoid, this idea of weighing the one against the many. It -- health care, it's not supposed to be that way. We don't look at Charlie Gard and say, "Well, let's weigh him against 1,000 people."

He is one individual. Every life is of infinite value. And that's how all those lives -- all of them should be treated when they're in the hospital. Certainly, parents should have the right to treat their own children's lives that way.

And so we don't want to get into a situation where the government is coming in and sort of -- they have their formulas and their statistics, and they kind of have everybody on a spreadsheet. And they decide, "Well, let's emphasize this life over that one." We don't want to do that at all. That's the whole point -- we're trying to avoid that.

So that's why you allow individuals to make the decisions. And you allow the free market to reign, so that we don't have these kinds of weighing this against that. Because it shouldn't be. There's no reason for it to be that way. There's no reason we should have to weigh Charlie Gard's life against anything else because the parents have the money and they just want to get him treatment. And so they should be able to do it. That's it. We don't look at anything else or any other situations. They should be able to do what they want to do and have the resources and capability to do it.

GLENN: Matt, thank you very much. You can follow Matt at TheBlaze. Also, follow him at Matt Walsh Blog. And look for his podcast at SoundCloud.com. Matt Walsh.

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.