Marco Rubio tells Glenn why he thinks all abortion should be abolished

While Glenn was on his doctor-recommended hiatus last month, he had an off-the-record chat with Senator Marco Rubio. And he ended up really liking him, thinking he was a decent, honest guy who did not flinch from the hard questions. Rubio joined Glenn on radio Monday for an on-the-record interview so you can decide what you think for yourself.

Among other things, the outspoken pro-life candidate candidly expressed his feelings on why the practice of abortion is equivalent to murder and should be abolished.

"I believe a human being is entitled to life, irrespective of the circumstances in which that human being was conceived in and so forth," Rubio said.

Acknowledging that other people don't hold that view and in order to save lives in this country, Rubio said he has supported bills in the past that have exceptions in them, while he personally feels very strongly that every human is entitled to the protection of his or her life.

"If we as a society start deciding which lives we will protect and which lives we will not, we put ourselves on a very slippery, dangerous slope," Rubio said.

Glenn also delved into Rubio's positions on immigration, ISIS and NSA spying. Listen to the full segment or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Senator Marco Rubio. How are you, sir?

MARCO: I'm well. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: So how did you feel last week when the embassy opened up and we raised the flag in Cuba?

MARCO: Well, I felt -- you know, a part of you feels like I wish that was happening in a free Cuba, where it was really a celebration. Instead, it felt like a recognition of an oppressive government. That they're now going to be admitted to the club of normal countries or normal governments. And it's unfortunate. I almost felt like we were surrendering to the idea that the Cuban people will forever be doomed and condemned in living under a repressive regime. You know, we have a government that will go. They will give some lip services to freedom and democracy. Basically we won't press them to do anything. And the result is, badly, I fear, that we're one step closer to this sort of regime that is now in Cuba, becoming a permanent fixture and remaining the only people in the western hemisphere who don't elect their leaders.

GLENN: Well, Fidel Castro said that we owed them reparations.

MARCO: Yeah. Well, and that's exactly one of the problems I have with it. The United States is going to be all these things that is good for the Cuban government. More travel. More remittances. More telecommunication. More commerce. The Cuban government has said thank you. We're not changing anything, by the way. And, in fact, you owe us money. I mean, that's basically been their attitude.

And people think Cuba is some benign Cold War relic. It's much deeper than that. In Cuba, they're harboring dozens of fugitives from American justice. For example, this woman who killed a police officer in New Jersey was jailed, escaped from jail. Took off to Cuba. They have been harboring her now for almost 30 years. There are multiple people who have come from Cuba to the U.S. They steal money and Medicare fraud. When they're about to get caught, they leave back to Cuba. There's dozens of them hiding over there. Two of their generals have been indicted for the murder of unarmed American civilian pilots and international air space in 1996, during the Brothers to the Rescues was down, they then -- (phone breaking up) both the Chinese and the Russians on the island of Cuba, and they used that as an outpost to spy on central commands, southern commands, special operations commands, all three of which are located in Florida. And, of course, NASA. So this is not -- (breaking up) -- last year was caught smuggling weapons to North Korea. Now they'll just have more dollars.

GLENN: So here we have a -- I've never seen our country on the wrong side as much as we are now. The president is pushing for Iran. And saying that we -- we have to do this. John Kerry came out and said, if -- if the Senate doesn't ratify this agreement, that we will lose the status of the reserve currency for the world.

MARCO: Yeah, that's silly. That's a silly thing for him to say. I mean, it's just absurd. Everyone laughed at him when he said it, including people around the world in the financial market. Our reserve status has nothing to do with our relationship with Iran or anyone else for that matter. And it's just really an absurd statement.

But going back to the point that you made, that's exactly right. I mean, the argument that the president is making is, either we expect this deal or we'll be the pariah, not Iran. Again, it's ridiculous. I know America has saved the world at least two times in the last 100 years. I don't remember when the world saved America. And so I think we need to enter these things with that sort of reality in mind. And the second point I would make is he is now also saying -- he's now isolating Israel. (breaking up) -- that opposes this deal. And in essence, trying to isolate Israel (breaking up) status on them if they don't go along with this thing. So it really is bizarre. I really never thought I would live to see the day where we had a president and an administration so hostile towards Israel and in general some of our allies. It's really unbelievable.

GLENN: You were on CNN and you said some of the most remarkable things I think I've heard any politician say on -- on Planned Parenthood and on abortion.

You took him on and I think sliced him to ribbons. But you made the -- you made the point that even in cases of rape and incest, abortion is murder and it should be abolished.

MARCO: Look, a human being, in my view, this is how I deeply feel. It's not a political issue, this whole abortion debate. I believe a human being is entitled to life, irrespective of the circumstances in which that human being was conceived in and so forth. And in order to be ideological consistent, I hold that position that you've just outlined. Now, I recognize that other people don't hold that view. And in order to save lives in this country, I have supported bills in the past that have exceptions in them. And I know a lot of people who are pro-life that support exceptions because they feel it goes too far.

You know, I support saving the life of the mother. But I think, in my view, I personally feel this very, very strongly, that every human life is entitled to the protection of our life. And if we as a society start deciding which lives we will protect and which lives we will not, we put ourselves on a very slippery, dangerous slope.

I actually think, in 100 years or so, or less, future generations will look back at this time in history and say it's really unbelievable that so many unborn human beings, their lives were ended, simply because they didn't have a birth certificate, couldn't hire a lawyer, didn't vote, or we couldn't see them yet. And I just feel very strongly about that. And again, for me, it's not a political issue. It's an issue that speaks to the core of our values.

GLENN: I have to tell you, Marco, speaking to Senator Marco Rubio, I am gravely concerned about how history will remember this time period and us. It's why we're going and meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, to stand up against Planned Parenthood. Or I should say for life in all of its forms. And that includes ISIS. What's happening in ISIS, it's a culture of absolute death. And the New York Times ran a story on Friday that said -- it showed how these ISIS fighters are coming off of the battlefield. And one of them was documented in praying before he bound and gagged a 12-year-old girl, raped her, and then knelt at the bedside and thanked Allah for the opportunity to do that.

It's sick what's going on. And what are we doing about it?

MARCO: Well, first of all, it is a grotesque perversion of any faith for that matter. What's happened with ISIS. And we've read in the last week how they've now come up with these theological interpretations that justify what they're doing both to women and in general. And it's an outrage. And as far as what we're doing about it, clearly not enough. I continue to believe that it's up to the Sunnis themselves to defeat ISIS. ISIS is a radical Sunni movement. And there are Sunni nations that are willing to do it. But they require America to be willing to help them. Because they don't have the capacity. They want more airstrikes from us. They want intelligence information. Logistical support. But they have to go in on the ground and defeat them themselves. And they understand that they are battling for the future of that region. It is their women. It is their men. It is their children. It is their cities that are being taken over by these radical Muslims. And it has to be defeated. It will not stop. This movement will not stop and say, okay, we're satisfied with the land we have now. They will continue to grow and spread until they are defeated. So we have a very simple choice here, either they win or we win. There is no accommodation for them, nor should there be with something as evil as this.

GLENN: Senator, the one thing -- there's two things that we have to bring up that are sticking points. With me and several people in the audience. And one of them is, I believe you're a patriot. I believe that you believe in America. I believe that you want to do the right thing. And I would hope that you would believe the same thing about me. But we have to have a rule of law and the Constitution. And you don't have a problem with the NSA spying. And I think it's one of the most dangerous things we have ever done. If you want to get -- if you want to find out what somebody is doing, then get a warrant. And we've even streamlined the warrant. But to have this mass NSA collection and spying on average Americans is -- is frankly frightening. Not -- not for how we're using it now, but how it can be used in the future.

MARCO: Well, I think those concerns are always legitimate. There have been times in the past where American intelligence programs have been abused for political purposes and otherwise. And it's illegal. And if someone is caught doing that, they should be caught and thrown in jail. I understand your concern about the capacity that it exists. I would argue the capacity also exists outside of government, with some of the technology that's now being used is readily available.

GLENN: But they don't -- but the argument there is, they don't have the right or the capability to round people up. And in more than one occasion, this government has rounded people up that they've disagreed with.

MARCO: Oh, you mean in the past.

GLENN: Yes.

MARCO: Yeah. Obviously as a society, we would always be vigilant about those sorts of things. And I understand the civil liberties concern, I do. I balance it with the very significant concern that we have about the fact that ISIS and other radical movements are actively recruiting Americans who have never traveled abroad, living among us.

A week ago, an honor student that just graduated high school, married someone who I guess had been radicalized, and they were headed to Syria to join ISIS. And you see here, rightfully, that there are individuals in America who, even as you and I are talking right now, they are now planning to kill Americans. Service men and women. Attack bases. Whatever it takes. We know this is happening. I'm a member of the US Senate Intelligence Committee. I review this information on a regular basis. And it's what led me to say, we got to know more about these people than they know about us. And I will admit, it is a difficult balance, having programs robust enough to prevent an attack, but also capable of protecting the civil liberties. So I'm not saying we take it lightly or ignore it or in any way allow these things to run amuck, but I do know that there will eventually be an attack on this homeland of great significance at some point. It's not a question of if, it's a question of when. And we have to try to prevent or delay that from happening as much as possible. And that's why I believe having these tools at our disposal are so important.

GLENN: Could I ask, this is -- this is one of the emails that came in to me. And it's in Arabic and also in English. And it's from an American citizen, or at least somebody who is living here.

The day will come when we capture you cross-worshiping, impure redneck polytheists of the United Snakes. Not only will we kill you. But we will take your women as slaves and all of your properties, and blood will be lawful for us. Have patience because the hour will not be established until we have removed your falsehood pagan religion from the world and killed many of you.

This comes from Arabic, along with several quotes of the Koran.

Wouldn't we be better off honestly saying the truth about what this is and then saying the truth about some of the mosques here in America?

MARCO: No doubt. 100 percent. And I think that is -- look, if there was a radical movement that was using Baptist churches or Catholic churches to organize, we would have no qualms about spying on them or monitoring them and watching them. I don't think we can allow political correctness to endanger the lives of Americans. And on that, there is no doubt and no quarrel with me. I agree 100 percent that that's the fact. And I think that law enforcement would say the same thing. So there's no doubt that we need to be clear about it. Does that mean -- of course, it doesn't mean that every Muslim or even the majority of Muslims in America are radicalized. You know, I've met very patriotic Muslims in this country who love the United States. But we cannot ignore the fact that there is a significant element in it. (breaking up)

GLENN: Hello?

MARCO: And we can't ignore them. (breaking up) So we're not not going to spy on a mosque because of, you know, political correctness.

GLENN: Right. We're having a horrible connection with you.

MARCO: Can you hear me better now?

GLENN: Yeah, we can. Let me ask you. Do you regret being a part of the Gang of Eight?

MARCO: I wouldn't use the word regret. I would say that we learned lessons about reality of where we stand as a country on that issue. We're not going to make any progress as long as Barack Obama is president. We're not going to solve immigration. And we're not going to be able to do it in one massive piece of legislation. And the reason being is, people just don't trust the government will ever do even what the law says. You can pass a law that promises a fence, people will say, they'll never build it. So it's clear --

GLENN: Well, we have passed that law.

PAT: Yeah, 2006.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARCO: Not only have they passed the law, but then they don't fund it. So you have to fund it. And the second part of it is on an entry/exit tracking system (breaking up), that's been delayed as well. So my point is -- the lesson I took from all that is, you're going to have to do it. You can't pass a law that says it will do it. You're going to have to do it. And once people see that you've done it and illegal immigration is under control, then I think they'll be willing to talk about what we do next. But you won't any progress until you do it. And that's just a fact. Whether people like it or not, that is the way it is. And anyone who doesn't accept simply is simply deluding themselves or they're lying.

GLENN: Okay. Senator, it's good to have you on the broadcast. And I hope to be able to spend some more time with you. We're -- we are excited to see that you are doing as well as you are in the polls. There is about four of the guys that we like. And currently at the top of the polls, Cruz and you are towards the very top of the polls. And we're glad to see that. There is one that we're not so glad that is at the top of the polls right now. But I don't think --

MARCO: These things all work out in time.

PAT: Yeah, it just takes a little time.

MARCO: Yeah. Well, thanks for having me on. I enjoyed it very much.

GLENN: You bet. Thanks, Senator. Buh-bye.

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.