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

Author: Unsealing JFK Assassination Files Is a ‘Gift’ to Many Who Still Have Questions

October 24, 2017
Staff

WRITER

More than half a century after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the government is releasing a trove of files about his death. What will be in the unsealed files? Will they actually be released as promised? And most of all, is there a smoking gun?

Gerald Posner, an investigative journalist and the author of “Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK,” talked about what we should expect to find in the documents if they are released as scheduled this Thursday.

“The gift is every word and every document that the CIA and everybody fought for so many years to keep sealed,” he said of the release.

Don’t get too excited though – Posner scoffed at the idea that we’ll discover some huge government conspiracy in the files.

“If there had been a massive plot at the highest government levels, the last place you’re going to find evidence of it is … at the National Archives,” he said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So earlier, Donald Trump came out and said he is going to -- he's going to open up the JFK files, which I think is great.

I have not heard from Rafael Cruz. I believe he has -- he is either in Canada by now, or maybe Argentina, alluding police. Because once those files come out, that show that he was clearly involved in the assassination, I think then you'll know.

But he's -- they're going to release these files, which I think is fantastic and wildly interesting for no reason than fun.

Jared Posner is a friend. An author. Case close. Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of JFK.

I have been good friends with one of his good friends for a very, very long time. So when this story came up, I immediately thought, what does Gerald think is in these files?

Welcome to the program, Gerald Posner.

GERALD: Glenn, great to be on with you.

As a matter of fact, our mutual friend, Mike Opelka, said the other day in a tweet that this coming Thursday, the day for the JFK files release is Christmas for all JFK researchers. And I had never thought about it that way before, but I think he's absolutely right. President Trump is giving us all -- those of us who have followed this case, a gift. The gift is every word and every document that the CIA and everybody fought for so many years to keep sealed.

GLENN: So did you think that this would come through this early? Because I thought it was like 2025 or after the next generation had died or something like that.

GERALD: Well, yeah, that's what Oliver Stone -- Kevin Costner addressing the jury saying, 75 years. Your taxpayer money. They're -- you know, they're keeping these things sealed from you.

And so people had -- we never thought we would see it in our lifetime. But here we are, they passed this law back in '92, in response to Stone's film, to say, let's get the files out. They put a 25-year-limit on it, to force these agencies to take a quarter century to get their act together. And said, whoever is president on October 26th, 2017, that's the person who has the final say, if the FBI, the CIA, or anybody else still says we want to hold on to these because there's an identifiable harm to national security, law enforcement, foreign relations. They'll appeal to the president. The president gets the right to say, yay, or nay. Does the harm outweigh the public good? And they could have never have imagined, I assure you, as you know, 25 years ago, you took a poll of their top thousand people they thought would be president, they never thought it would be Donald Trump.

GLENN: No. Running against the guy whose dad was co-assassin.

GERALD: Right. So Trump raises the assassination in the campaign. Now he's sitting as the president.

GLENN: Right.

GERALD: And the interesting thing is, I think, that we will only get these files -- if they really come out Thursday. They don't come in, in the last minute, convince them to hold back a few. Because it is Trump. If this had been Obama, even Bush the younger, Clinton, they were sort of system people, who followed the roles of freedom of information. They would have listened to the agency saying, you can't disclose this name because it's going to embarrass somebody in Mexico. Help the CIA.

When Trump tweeted on Saturday that these files are coming out, it was a great sigh of relief. I think he's the only person who is president since Kennedy who would have actually released them all.

GLENN: So what do you think is in there? For the average person. I mean, don't care if there's somebody in Mexico that the CIA wants to protect that I've never heard of. I --

GERALD: Yeah. No, I get it.

GLENN: What's in there that we would care about?

GERALD: Okay.

So the first thing is. Is there a blockbuster -- to use a bad term for the Kennedy assassination. Is there a smoking gun? Is there some document that shows Jay Edgar Hoover, handwriting the escape route for Oswald? No.

The reason I say that adamantly or with such confidence is -- and you get this completely -- if there had been a massive plot at the highest government levels, the last place you're going to find evidence of it is 25 years later in the national archives.

GLENN: Right. I mean, what's his name, Sandy Berger took those out in his underpants long ago.

GERALD: Absolutely. I mean, it's just fantastic to think they pulled off the perfect crime in Dallas 54 years ago, but somebody who was responsible for burning the documents forgot and left them in the backyard.

GLENN: Right. Right.

GERALD: So we're not going to get that. But what we will find that I think will be of interest is Oswald visited Mexico City, only seven weeks before the assassination. And not just as a tourist to have -- you know, stop by and have some Mexican food. He visited to get to Cuba because he convinced that was where the real revolution was taking place. He was sick of America, sick of Russia, where he had defected. And he went to the Soviet mission twice. Pulled a gun. They threw him out at one point. They thought he was a little odd, to say the least. And he went to the Cuban mission.

Now, Mexico city was a nest of spies. This was the Cold War. '63. We had the missile standoff just the year before. So the CIA was spying heavily on the Cuban and Soviet missions.

What did they learn about Oswald? Castro later boasted to somebody for the American Communist Party, that Oswald said he was going to kill Kennedy. True? I don't know. But it might be in the files.

So I do think we will find out what the CIA had learned about Oswald in Mexico City, and then what they didn't share with anybody else. Their typical MO.

GLENN: Your -- Gerald, it's been years since I've seen your book. Your theory on Oswald was, what?

GERALD: My theory on Oswald is that he is the only shooter at Dealey Plaza that day who hits anybody. So if you had five other shooters, the forensics show that the only place that Kennedy got hit was from behind. I'm convinced that that's Oswald. The tougher question, Glenn, is always, did he do it for himself, or did he do it for part of a larger conspiracy?

GLENN: Okay. So wait a minute. I want to make sure I understand the first part first. You said he's the only one that fired a shot that hit somebody. So are you saying, I don't know if there was anybody there, but if there was, it didn't matter.

GERALD: That's right. It didn't matter. That's exactly right.

So when I say Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, that's what the evidence shows to me.

GLENN: That there's only -- he was the only shooter there?

GERALD: Yeah, that's right.

GLENN: Okay.

GERALD: Yeah. And, you know, people say -- they always say, oh, I saw somebody in the grassy knoll. And I go through all of that. Or, I saw somebody out in the text building or underneath the sewer, as Garrison, the new ordinance district attorney thought there were sewer shooters, until he went to Dallas and found out the sewer area was too small to fit somebody into the manhole cover. So, you know, the -- in the beginning, this -- the country has never believed under 50 percent, that it was a conspiracy. Meaning that even within a year of the assassination, within months of the assassination, the Gallup took a poll. I think 60 percent thought it was a conspiracy. It dropped to 50, at one point after the Warren commission. And then started to head up. It was at 90, 95 percent thought it was a conspiracy after the Stone film. And a last poll done in 2013 showed two-thirds of the American public still thought it was a conspiracy.

GLENN: So -- so I -- so we're alone? Because I don't think it was a conspiracy. Do you?

GERALD: I don't. But I do, Glenn, and I think you get this, why people believe it was -- two major factors: The first modern assassination with a rifle, from a long-distance. So people immediately conjure up Day of the Jackal.

Spy novels. You know, we're used to someone running up with a pistol, shooting at a site like with Wallace or later with -- you know who the shooter is at least.

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

GERALD: So you have a rifle assassination. The shooter gets away in the immediate aftermath. Then they pick him up. He's a 24-year-old kid who has been to Russia, trying to get to Cuba. He took a posh job at General Walker, this right-wing general who is running for the governorship of Texas. And he's killed two days later, by a guy out of Central Casting. The Dallas nightclub owner, Jack Ruby, who has potential ties to the mob, you're guaranteed you're never going to end the conspiracy theorizing on it.

GLENN: And do you expect to find anything in this about the mob?

GERALD: Yes. I do. There's as a matter of fact a file that's being held about an attorney for Carlos Marcello, who was the godfather of New Orleans. Many people think the mob was involved. Think that Marcello was kicked out of the country by Bobby Kennedy. He certainly wanted Jack Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy dead, no doubt. I just think that Oswald beat the mob to Kennedy, essentially. They would have patted him on the back and given him a medal, but he just wasn't their boy. And that attorney's file will be interesting.

You know this so well. The mob and the CIA were partners in the early '60s, trying to kill a head of state. But it was Castro. It wasn't Kennedy.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

GERALD: And they couldn't even wound Castro. They wanted him out. I mean, we didn't want a communist 90 miles from the American shores. And the mob wanted their casinos back. Seven times, they tried to get them. The poisoned swimsuit, the exploding cigar. They can't pull it off. And how these Keystone Cops who couldn't get rid of Castro supposedly pulled off the perfect crime in Dallas, I have my doubts.

GLENN: So these come out on Thursday, Gerald? Can we have you back on, on Friday, after you've looked at all of them and tell us what you found?

GERALD: Now, there could be -- Glenn, I would love that.

They believe that although there are 3100 files, it could add up to several hundred thousand pages. But, not only am I speed reader, but I will be able to go through these files and look for the names that I know are key. So on Friday, I will give you what I call the first brush look at what comes out, of the equivalent of Al Capone's safe.

GLENN: And, hopefully, it will be a little more interesting that Al Capone's safe.

GERALD: I hope so as well.

GLENN: Gerald Posner from GeraldPosner.com. He's an investigative journalist and author of Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and The Assassination of JFK. We'll talk to you Thursday, Gerald. Thanks a lot.

GERALD: Thank you so much. Bye.

STU: I don't know. The death of a president, maybe read the 100,000 pages in a day. Maybe just get it done. That's my recommendation.

GLENN: He thanks you for that.

STU: Am I asking too much? I mean, we're talking about presidential assassination.

GLENN: Easy for you to say.

STU: Get to work.

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.