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

Glenn: You cannot remain silent. One way or another, you will be counted.

June 24, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Remember when Glenn said that Valerie Jarrett's family had an FBI file? He was called a hate monger, a conspiracy theorist, and a racist. It turns out he was right, but the progressives don’t even care. The radical pasts are being whitewashed, the country fundamentally transformed. It may feel like it’s too late, but you must take a stand. Glenn believes this audience will play a role in saving the country, and the time to unite is now.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors.

GLENN: Years ago, we told you the story of Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett. We told you how they came together. We told you that Barack Obama, everybody in his family had an FBI file. And everybody in Valerie Jarrett's family had an FBI file. We were called hatemongers. We were called racists.

PAT: Conspiracy theorists.

GLENN: All these kinds of names. It has now been verified --

PAT: Yeah, but just by the FBI.

GLENN: Yeah, just by the FBI, that Valerie Jarrett's family -- her father, her grandfather, and father-in-law all had an active FBI file because they were hard-core communists.

PAT: Under investigation by the US government.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

PAT: Her dad, pathologist and geneticist, James Bowman, extensive ties to communist associations and individuals, according to his lengthy FBI file.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

PAT: In 1950, he was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman Was also a member of a communist sympathizing group called the Association of Interns and Medical Students.

He moved to Iran to work, according to the FBI. And we all know that.

Also, her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, also another big-time Chicago communist, he's the one that had all the association with Frank Marshall Davis, right? Who was Obama's --

GLENN: Uh-huh. Communist friend and mentor.

PAT: -- community friend and mentor.

GLENN: Uh-huh. So we have -- we have all of this. Now it doesn't matter. We have been tainted as conspiracy theorists. They have been white-washed. They're communists.

And, you know, you cannot -- again, I'd like to hear the turnaround story of the president. Okay. So you have communists in your life. Okay, you grew up with a mom and dad that hated America. Grandparents that hated America. Frank Marshall Davis, who is -- is really one of the spookiest guys you'll ever meet.

And that's knowing that Jeremiah Wright is down the line. You have all these people. Tell me your turning point. Because you could have a turning point. You could have all these people in your life. You could grow up hating America and then you could go, you know what, I was wrong about all of that. He's never had a turning point. Nobody's ever asked him. Same thing with Valerie Jarrett.

So what does this mean? Nothing at this point. Nothing. Nothing. Except the people that are leading you in Washington do not view this country the same way. The fundamental transformation of America is something that has been planned for decades. Decades.

It started with Woodrow Wilson. It was -- it was picked up by radicals in the 1950s and 1960s. Communist radicals. Those communist radicals had children, and they are currently in power. This is why the government of the United States makes no sense to most Americans.

It's why we're violating our Constitution. Because they do not recognize that Constitution as something sacred as we do.

I want to talk to you here. And I want you to listen to me. And maybe only 10 percent of this audience will hear this.

But it's that 10 percent I'm counting on. I have told you from the very beginning that I've had a feeling, probably starting in 2005 or 2006, I've had a feeling, this audience is going to play a role in the saving of this republic. Now, I don't know how it's saved. I can't tell you how it's saved.

We passed all the exits. I begged America to get off all the exits. We passed them all. Next stop: Cliff.

The bottom of the canyon. I don't know how we save it. Maybe we save it in remnants in pieces. Maybe our children hold it in their hearts. I don't know. Maybe we turn things around so dramatically, that we do save it intact as it is.

But I felt that for a very long time. I have told you that I have had promptings. And if you don't believe in promptings, that's fine. Whatever. I believe that God speaks to all of us. All of us. He's speaking to you.

But it's all hands on deck. And I've said for a long time, I don't even know how to do any of that stuff, and it doesn't make any sense.

And I know that what we're supposed to do is things like we did last Friday. It's why we're kicking things off in Birmingham, Alabama. I think Birmingham, Alabama is going to be a place that restarts the country. It's known for all of the bad things that happened in the '50s. I think Birmingham, Alabama, is going to be known for all of the good things that happen here on out, just like Charleston, South Carolina. Charleston is forever going to be known for its good people, and I think Birmingham is going to be next on that list.

The South will rise again, and this time it will save the country, not divide the country.

But I've told you for a while, and many people have not understood. And I'm begging you now to try to understand. I'm begging you now to take your life and your time seriously now. Far more seriously than you've ever taken anything before. I am -- I am issuing a call. Please, please, I beg of you, this is far more serious now than anything when we started the Tea Parties or anything else. This is it.

The gay marriage ruling is about to happen. We told you last hour what that means. You could lose your job. The world will change. Now, the other one won't happen overnight. But your First Amendment right is going to go away. Possibly your job. My job.

And the world also will change overnight if we have a massive terror attack. If Greece collapses, I don't know how that happens, but that's the beginning domino of what sets the European theater on fire.

At some point, the last domino falls, and we've got nothing. We have to be men and women of character. We have to stand.

You know, there's a symbol now that is being spray-painted over in the Middle East, and it basically looks like a U with a dot over the center of the U. Do you know what that means?

They spray paint it -- they're now spray painting it on doorways. A U with a dot over it. That means Nazarene. That means somebody who worships the Nazarene is in this house. That means, if you're spray-painted, that means they're coming to kill you and your family and burn down that house.

That's what's happening in the world. These guys are so sick over in the Middle East, they have now built cages and put GoPro cameras on the cages. And they're putting them down and sinking them with people in it in the pools. They're drowning them and then watching them. And putting them online. They have now taken explosive cord and wrapped it around eight people's necks and blown their heads off.

Evil has been unleashed.

Last night, I posted on Facebook, I posted that I was going to be speaking at a church here locally. And it's a megachurch. This is a big church. It's a great church.

Ed Young is the pastor there. Good man. They do a lot of really great stuff. People started posting: Wait a minute. You're a Mormon. You can't talk there. I would never go to a church if a Mormon was talking. Then somebody else started posting: Well, that's a megachurch. Don't ever walk into megachurches, because those megachurches, they're in it only for the money.

Somebody else posted: Well, it's you Christians -- what are you? Crazy? Are we insane? Have we lost all perspective? Do we not know what time it is?

We better come together. We better come together for reconciliation and not winning. Just reconciliation. Put our differences aside. Love over revenge. Charity over restitution. Hope over fear. Courage over apathy and cowardice.

If I were to be hit by a bus today, I could at least go to my grave saying, I did my best to prepare this audience. I did my best. I didn't know how to do it any better.

There's a reason we're all together. There's a reason you're listening now.

I think we're still a little early. We still have time to prepare. But my gut says the world is going to catch up. It's going to catch up to us before we're ready and before we want it to. But I still tell you and I believe this, this is the audience that can and will change the course of history. We can bend the arc of history towards justice and reconciliation and love. Away from hate. Away from discord.

Charleston changed the course. There are many that want to bend the arc of history towards hate and violence and race wars and civil war and destruction.

Those who want to stoke the fires of hatred, they lost! Because people stood together. People of all different color. Of all different faith. From all over the world. They stood in Charleston.

And so what happened? The people who wanted to stoke hate, they didn't know what to do. They didn't know how to deal with you.

Darkness does not understand the light. And so they went for something else that could divide us: The Confederate flag. Let's go there. Well, Governor Haley disrupted their plan.

Because, really, is a flag -- even the American flag -- I'm sorry, even the American flag -- it's the principles. It's not the symbol. And there are far too many important things -- when you looked at that, I don't care what side of that argument you were on, when you looked at that, did you not say, really?

This is what's -- this is the problem? The flag, that's the problem? That's going to solve our issues?

No.

But this is what they do. They are not honest brokers, and they want to discourage you, and they want to break you. They need the bottom to rise up and cry out: Somebody do something! Because they are prepared to do something. They are prepared to squash the violence.

We must stand in the gap. That's our job. To stand in the gap where no one else will stand because they're too afraid. Courage is contagious.

It begins with raising your hand right now and saying, never again is right now. We said this insanity would not take place again. Not while I was on alive. Raise your hand and be counted because I warn you, you will be counted. Silence in the face of silence is itself evil. Silence in the face of evil is in itself evil.

You cannot remain silent. You will be counted.

Do something. Stand together.

I will be counted. I'm thinking about spray painting on my own house the symbol of the Nazarene. If that's what makes me a target, so be it. Target me first.

We must love all men. How Hillary Clinton can be getting the hate that she is getting online right now from the left because she said in a black church, all lives matter, and they are saying to her, no, they don't. It is black lives that matter!

You know what side is right. It is not black lives. It is not white lives. It is not blue lives. It is not unborn lives. It's not old lives. Young lives. Special lives. Rich lives. Poor lives. It's all lives matter!

Life is what sets us apart. We are a people of life! Other cultures are a culture of death. We are of life!

All lives matter.

Get your hotel room and join me 8/28 and 8/29 at Birmingham, Alabama. It's time we stand. Get your church to come. Get a bus organized and come. And it's time for all of us to stand together, and then leave that place with new friends and so when there is a -- when there is something that happens like it did in Charleston, we don't have to put out a call. We're already there. We're standing in the gap. When Ferguson happens, we're already there. When Baltimore happens, we're in the gap.

We stand. We say, enough! We say there are true eternal principles, and we will follow them, even to the jailhouses, even to the death, because I worship the Nazarene.

Never again is now. If you'd like to contribute, you can do it at mercuryone.org. If you'd like to join us, more details coming up. But get your hotel room, 8/28 and 8/29, in Birmingham, Alabama.

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.