Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

NRA President David Keene weighs in on 2012 election

October 31, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Will an Obama victory mean a huge spike in gun sales? That's the prediction that Glenn made on radio this morning before he interviewed David Keene, President of the National Rifle Association. Glenn explains his prediction and talks to Keane about Tuesday's election and where Romney and Obama fall in terms of the second amendment.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: I'm going to make a prediction. If Wednesday Obama has won the election, the biggest day of gun sales in the history of the world will be that day. There will be more ammunition and more guns sold in the United States than any place at any time in the history of the planet next Wednesday. And let me make another prediction: If Obama wins, you are going to be very angry that you didn't buy your gun in advance because they're going to be hard to get, and ammunition will be hard to get. Because there will be a run on ammunition. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think anybody ‑‑ anybody who is an NRA member has any doubt on how much of a friend President Obama is to guns, and everybody will want to be grandfathered in.

David Keene, he's the president of the NRA. He's with us. How are you, sir?

KEENE: Just fine, Glenn. Glad to be with you.

GLENN: Do you agree with the prediction that I just made?

KEENE: I sure do. You know, right after his election in 2008, because of his history and because of what he said during that campaign and because of what he said right after the election about wanting to reimpose the Clinton gun ban and tax ammunition and the like, gun sales went way up because people were fearful that he was going to go after their guns. And the same thing's going to happen now because even though for the last year and a half like most liberal politicians, he's tried to downplay his position on the Second Amendment, during that town hall debate he got a question, as you remember, and I don't think he expected it. But he came out of the closet. It was if he said, okay, regardless about what I've said about supporting the Second Amendment, I don't. I'd like to reimpose the Clinton gun ban, I'd like to go after sidearms and when I get reelected, I'm going to do it.

GLENN: You know there's ‑‑

KEENE: So gun owners and everybody that believes in the Second Amendment who saw that debate knows that this is the same guy who campaigned against guns last time, who was an anti‑Second Amendment activist back in Chicago, long before he ever thought of running for public office and that if he gets an opportunity, he's going to go after the Second Amendment.

GLENN: Let me ‑‑ let me ask you this: Why is it so close in Colorado with so many gun owners in Colorado? There's no ifs, ands, and buts on the friendliness to guns with Barack Obama, and anybody who says, "Hey, transmit this to Vladimir; I'm going to have a little extra flexibility after the election," that's frightening.

KEENE: You know they did essentially the same thing to Sarah Brady of handgun control. He told her, "Right now, right now I have to operate under the radar, but I'm going to deliver for you." That's essentially the same thing he told the president of Russia: Let me get past this election and then watch my dust.

GLENN: Where's Mitt Romney on guns?

KEENE: He's committed to the Second Amendment. You saw that in the town hall debate. When Barack Obama said I want a whole bunch of new gun control laws, Mitt Romney came back and said we don't need any new laws. We need to prosecute criminals, we need to support the Second Amendment. Not only that but he's got on his ticket Paul Ryan who, you know, I thought about this the other day. I'm a Wisconsin boy and I grew up about 15 miles from Paul and I've known him for a long time and he's probably the most genuine outdoorsman nominated for either office on either ticket since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.

GLENN: Wow.

KEENE: I mean, this is a ticket that will be good on the Second Amendment and I think will be very good in terms of expanding the outdoor opportunities and the hunting opportunities and sporting opportunities for the American people. So I think there's absolutely no choice for anybody who's interested in the shooting sports or anybody who supports the Second Amendment or for anybody who's interested in being active in the outdoors.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't ‑‑ I mean, you know, I know everybody makes the, you know, outdoor and the hunter, you know, claim but that's not why the founders put that in there.

KEENE: No, it is not. It's not the reason.

GLENN: Yeah.

KEENE: It was put in there, as George Washington said at the time, a free people ought to be armed. And, you know, Glenn, whenever I think about it, I think about a banquet that took place in Moscow a few years ago honoring General Kalashnikov who during World War II invented the AK‑47 and it was on the occasion of his 85th birthday. Mr. Putin got up to toast the general. He's one of Russia's few heroes. And when he finished the toast, General Kalashnikov got up, looked him in the eye and said, "Mr. President, my dream is of a country like the United States governed by men and women not afraid of an armed citizenry.

Think about that. Most people in this world can only dream about the kind of country in which we've lived since the founding. And it's that that distinguishes us from the rest of the world.

GLENN: Well, we're sitting here now, we're looking at Department of Homeland Security and everything else and we just take it at the airport. We just take it. When they come to our houses, you're like, well, what am I going to do? Because they've lost their fear of the American people. And the more you regulate guns, the more we ‑‑ I mean, the first thing that happened is what's happening now: We disconnect from the Constitution. We don't know our rights, we don't stand up for our rights. We don't even talk about our rights. We talk more about your rights than our responsibilities, and we've lost the founders' understanding of the Constitution. But the only ‑‑ the other thing is carrying a gun, having a gun ‑‑ having a gun makes the government fearful of its citizens as it should be.

KEENE: Well, that's what the battle about the Second Amendment is really about, Glenn. It's not about crime. If it were about crime, then the folks who are anti‑gun would look at the empirical evidence of, for example, the fact that in every jurisdiction that has allowed concealed carry, violent crime has dropped.

GLENN: Well, I mean ‑‑

KEENE: They would realize that in those jurisdictions where guns are restricted, what they've done is they've disarmed victims and allowed predators free reign, Chicago being a great example. But it's not about guns, it's not about crime.

GLENN: Exactly.

KEENE: It's about the values that the Second Amendment and an armed citizenry represent to a government that does not believe people should have the freedom to make their own decisions.

GLENN: We have a ‑‑

KEENE: That's what it's about.

GLENN: We have a real split in America. I mean, it's amazing how half of America's going one way, I'd say even a third of America's going one way and, you know, the remaining part of America's going the other way. Today in Oklahoma, I think it's today, you can now carry it openly. Now it's not concealed carry anymore. You can wear it on your hip in Oklahoma.

KEENE: Well, there are a number of states where that's legal. 49 states allow concealed carry in one form or another. Barack Obama has said in the past that he favors a federal law that would ban concealed carry in all 50 states, including the 49 that now have it. I don't know about the other seven ‑‑

GLENN: Holy cow.

KEENE: ‑‑ that he has in his mind.

GLENN: Wait. So you mean that he's for the holster?

KEENE: No, he's not for the gun.

GLENN: (Laughing.)

KEENE: He doesn't ‑‑

GLENN: Because I'm okay with that, too.

KEENE: This is a guy who has said in the past, Glenn, that he doesn't think any American citizen has the right to privately own a firearm. He supported legislation that would ban the possession, sale, and manufacture of handguns in the United States. This is a guy who has been committed to stripping Americans of their gun rights throughout his entire professional and political career.

GLENN: But he is smart enough to know that he's never going to get around ‑‑ and this is what people say: Oh, he'll never get around the Second Amendment. Yes, he will, by doing things like supporting the 500% increase on the tax on ammunition and gun sales.

KEENE: Yeah, exactly. A lot of people don't realize that all of this is of a piece. If you increase the taxes on ammunition 500%, 1,000%, whatever, you're making it more and more difficult for average Americans to own firearms and use them, to be involved in the shooting sports, defend themselves. You can do the same thing by taxing guns, as his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel wants to do for gun sales now in Chicago and Illinois.

GLENN: And bullets.

KEENE: Do all of those things, or you can eliminate gun dealers. And he's been harassing gun dealers and reduced the number of them since he's president.

GLENN: Big time.

KEENE: Think about this: When the Supreme Court issued the Heller decision which guarantees the right to individually and privately own firearms and said that in the District of Columbia ‑‑ because the original decision was about the district ‑‑ that you have a right to defend yourself by keeping a firearm in your home. The District of Columbia government said, "Okay, we recognize that, but you're going to have to buy it here in the district." The problem was there were no gun dealers that would sell to the general public in the district. And without the gun dealer, that right became an academic rather than a real right. There are all kinds of things. If you ban the manufacture of firearms, then what good does the right if you can't get them. In other words, there are a dozen, more than a dozen ways by bypassing the legislature, through regulatory harassment, through licensing, through executive orders, through a UN treaty that the president of the United States, if he's hostile to the Second Amendment and has a government that follows his orders, can get at the Second Amendment. And this is a guy who, if he can, will do just that.

GLENN: David Keene, president of the NRA. Thanks for being on and thanks for all of your hard work in this election season.

KEENE: Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. The NRA has done an awful lot in trying to get the word out because the Second Amendment is up for grabs. If this guy gets on again, mark my words: You better be at the gun store first thing on Wednesday if you want to be able to get one because they are going to go ‑‑ they are going to fly off the shelves, fly off the shelves. Ammunition. And as he continues his second term with more latitude, you will find things harder and harder to get. If you're smart, you might want to ‑‑ you might want to do it this week.

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Al Drago / Stringer | Getty Images

Prosecutors stopped a New Year’s Eve bombing plot rooted in ideology that treats the US as an enemy to be destroyed.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced that four members of an anti-capitalist extremist group were arrested on Friday for plotting coordinated bombings in California on New Year’s Eve.

According to the Department of Justice, the suspects planned to detonate explosives concealed in backpacks at various businesses while also targeting ICE agents and vehicles. The attacks were supposed to coincide with midnight celebrations.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.

The plot was disrupted before any lives were lost. The group behind the plot calls itself the Turtle Island Liberation Front. That name matters more than you might think.

When ideology turns operational

For years, the media has told us that radical, violent rhetoric on the left is mostly symbolic. They explained away the angry slogans, destructive language, and calls for “liberation” as performance or hyperbole.

Bombs are not metaphors, however.

Once explosives enter the picture, framing the issue as harmless expression becomes much more difficult. What makes this case different is the ideological ecosystem behind it.

The Turtle Island Liberation Front was not a single-issue group. It was anti-American, anti-capitalist, and explicitly revolutionary. Its members viewed the United States as an illegitimate occupying force rather than a sovereign nation. America, in their view, is not a nation, not a country; it is a structure that must be dismantled at any cost.

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

“Turtle Island” is not an innocent cultural reference. In modern activist usage, it is shorthand for the claim that the United States has no moral or legal right to exist. It reframes the country as stolen land, permanently occupied by an illegitimate society.

Once people accept that premise, the use of violence against their perceived enemies becomes not only permissible, but virtuous. That framing is not unique to one movement. It appears again and again across radical networks that otherwise disagree on nearly everything.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements do not share the same vision for the future. They do not even trust one another. But they share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed. The alignment of radical, hostile ideologies is anything but a coincidence.

The red-green alliance

For decades, analysts have warned about what is often called the red-green alliance: the convergence of far-left revolutionary politics with Islamist movements. The alliance is not based on shared values, but on shared enemies. Capitalism, national sovereignty, Western culture, and constitutional government all fall into that category.

History has shown us how this process works. Revolutionary coalitions form to tear down an existing order, promising liberation and justice. Once power is seized, the alliance fractures, and the most ruthless faction takes control.

Iran’s 1979 revolution followed this exact pattern. Leftist revolutionaries helped topple the shah. Within a few years, tens of thousands of them were imprisoned, executed, or “disappeared” by the Islamist regime they helped install. Those who do not understand history, the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.

ALEX WROBLEWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This moment is different

What happened in California was not a foreign conflict bleeding into the United States or a solitary extremist acting on impulse. It was an organized domestic group, steeped in ideological narratives long validated by universities, activist networks, and the media.

The language that once circulated on campuses and social media is now appearing in criminal indictments. “Liberation” has become a justification for explosives. “Resistance” has become a plan with a date and a time. When groups openly call for the destruction of the United States and then prepare bombs to make it happen, the country has entered a new phase. Pretending things have not gotten worse, that we have not crossed a line as a country, is reckless denial.

Every movement like this depends on confusion. Its supporters insist that calls for America’s destruction are symbolic, even as they stockpile weapons. They denounce violence while preparing for it. They cloak criminal intent in the language of justice and morality. That ambiguity is not accidental. It is deliberate.

The California plot should end the debate over whether these red-green alliances exist. They do. The only question left is whether the country will recognize the pattern before more plots advance farther — and succeed.

This is not about one group, one ideology, or one arrest. It is about a growing coalition that has moved past rhetoric and into action. History leaves no doubt where that path leads. The only uncertainty is whether Americans will step in and stop it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.