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

Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson—The Similarities are Getting Eerie

January 15, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

An eerie similarity between Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson is emerging. You remember Woodrow Wilson, the president Glenn loves so much? Not. America's current problems with an out-of-control, overreaching government can be traced back to Wilson's progressive policies.

If you listen to the language of Trump, it sounds much more like a progressive than a constitutionalist.

"Ronald Reagan said, 'The problem is the government.' Our Founders said, 'The problem is the government.' Donald Trump says it's the people running the government," Glenn said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

From Donald Trump's perspective, the government doesn't need to be reined in, it just needs to be managed better. Now where have we heard that before?

Philip Dru: Administrator, a favorite book of Woodrow Wilson's, was written in 1912 by Edward Mandell House, an American diplomat, politician and presidential foreign policy advisor. Advisor to whom? You guessed it---Woodrow Wilson.

The book's hero leads the democratic western U.S. in a civil war against the plutocratic East, and becomes the dictator of America. Dru as dictator imposes a series of reforms that resemble the Bull Moose platform of 1912---then he vanishes. Considering the author had such a close position to the president, it's no surprise that some of the ideas in the book eventually made their way into public policy.

"Do you realize that if you look at [Donald Trump] as a great manager, you have completed the progressive, fundamental hope number one? You take the president and you make him nothing more than an administrator," Glenn explained. "The president is a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. You don't need a president. You don't need the Constitution. You don't need the Congress. You need a guy who just manages the bureaucracy."

Still not convinced Donald Trump is a progressive akin to Woodrow Wilson? Just listen to his new campaign song with children---creepily similar to Obama's kiddie propaganda song from 2008. What inspired Trump's anthem? A song from World War I used by none other than Woodrow Wilson.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Donald Trump probably had five boos last night. If you think you're going to unite the party around that guy, it's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. He is a torch and burn everything that doesn't agree with him. He is Barack Obama. He's doing the same thing that Barack Obama -- you disagree with him, it doesn't matter if he liked you in the past. It doesn't matter if he said I had all my attorneys turn this inside and out. He's totally qualified. If it stands in his way, he'll say and do anything. He will destroy you to get his way.

What difference is it?

By the way, I saw something on a Facebook post that said -- because here's what I wrote last night.

While I strongly disagree with Donald Trump's view on Muslims, I believe he will only grow in numbers because Jeb Bush, believe it or not, who I also disagree with, was right. People are afraid because this president has denied the problem, can't name it, and has made us much less safe. That's what Jeb Bush said last night. And that's exactly right. People want security. And they don't believe anyone in Washington, DC, or anyone in the media anymore. They know that they've been lied to by the people that -- the people who trust radical Muslims in Iran more than they trust those who attend church in small towns all across America. They are tired. They know they've worked hard. They're not getting ahead. They don't even know what we're fighting this war for anymore. They're tired of seeing excuses made for criminals, illegals, people who burn down towns like Baltimore or Ferguson. And those who kill in the name of Islam. Always an excuse for those people, but never an exception for Americans. It's bottom up, top down, inside out. Things are so out of control that people rise up and cry out, "Help! Won't somebody do something?" They want somebody just to take care of the problem.

The bottom rises in despair, the top answers their call. Oh, I'll fix that problem. And it finalizes the transformations and turns us inside out. People never make good decisions in times like this. We made shameful mistakes in World War II. A progressive FDR had a problem with immigration, and they called them at that time saboteurs. We would call them terrorists today. German terrorists. We worried about Japanese saboteurs. Before Pearl Harbor happened, FDR had already drawn up his plans for concentration camps. Which, by the way, internment camp is not what FDR called them. FDR always referred to them as concentration camps. The moment he had an excuse of December 7th, he rounded up the Japanese. The guy who ran that program for a very short period of time was Dwight Eisenhower's brother. Dwight Eisenhower's brother resigned and told the new guy, "I hope you can sleep tonight. I can't sleep anymore because this is so terribly wrong."

People were afraid, and so they violated their principles because the government had failed to do their job and screen out the few and tell the truth about the German and Japanese people as it was growing in strength. They allowed FDR to do it because it allowed them to feel safe and it allowed them to not have to do any of it themselves. They didn't even have to think about it.

This was then. Too many Americans now want somebody to think for them. Quite honestly, watching Donald Trump last night, he sounded a lot like my uncle Bob. My uncle Bob, I don't talk about very much because my uncle Bob was not a good man. My uncle Bob, quite honestly, was an alcoholic and an abusive man. And after a few beers in, he would slur some rant and many people would say, "Damn right, pop!" He would never really say anything of substance. He would never suggest any real solutions. My uncle Bob was just mad. He would just say things that other people on barstools had said or would want to hear.

And as the day grew late, in the end, they'd just slap each other on the back and say, "Damn, right, Bob." And they would order another Rainier beer.

Will America think -- will they think, or will they actually go for another man with little or no detail, who just simply calls for hope and change? Or in this case, I'll make America great again.

Here is a response to that on Facebook last night that I read this morning when I got up.

A guy said, "Glenn, you don't understand. It's not that we don't -- we Trump supporters aren't thinking for ourself. We are thinking for ourself. It's not that we think he's going to fix all our problems." Now, listen to this. I want you to listen to this closely. Because if anybody in this audience thinks I've changed. That I'm the one that has changed. Listen carefully to what he said.

We just see Donald Trump as a great manager. Now, can anyone tell me why that might set me off and be proof that I haven't changed, you have?

PAT: Philip Dru: Administrator.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat.

Do you realize that if you look at him as a great manager, you have completed the progressive, fundamental hope number one? You take the president and you make him nothing more than an administrator. The president is a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. You don't need a president. You don't need the Constitution. You don't need the Congress. You need a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. Philip Dru: Administrator. That's exactly what you are seeing in Donald Trump, a progressive that doesn't say the problem is government. He says the problem is the dumb people in government. We've got the wrong people in government. We've got the wrong managers. We have the wrong people negotiating.

Ronald Reagan said, "The problem is the government." Our Founders said, "The problem is the government." Donald Trump says it's the people running the government.

He's not proposing that we shut down whole sections of the government. He's saying, "I'll manage it better."

That's not constitutional. The favorite -- his favorite novel, Woodrow Wilson. Oh, I hate that guy! Woodrow Wilson, his favorite novel was a novel called Philip Dru: Administrator. He read it like three or four times during his administration. It was written by a progressive to put it in novel form of how our government will work when we've completed this task.

It's a horrible book. But it's available for free. I think you can get it on Amazon.com. It's one of those books that is in the public domain so you can download it for free and read it. It's horrible, horrible, horrible, like dime-store novel fiction.

But when you read it, you'll meet Donald Trump. He's a reluctant servant. He just doesn't want to do it. I have a life of my own. I'm not the guy to be your president. I don't need this job. I don't want this job. Okay. Well, I'm the only guy that can do it. I happen to be in the right place at the right time. And damn it, I just care about my country. So I will. And I'll go in there and I'll serve. And I'm going to go in there and I'll fix this because we have all the wrong people running everything. Congress is all screwed up. The administration is all screwed up. I'll just go in. I'm a humble servant. And I'll just go in and I'll manage this right.

Well, about halfway through the book, he has managed things exactly right. In fact, he's managed things so great that he's decided to put a new council together to go state by state and manage the states as well. Because the states don't really work. And the Constitution as it stands doesn't really work. You can't get things done fast enough. And many times the state constitutions argue against things that are now in the US Constitution. So we all have to come together and work together. And I can do that because there's a lot of these politicians that are just standing in the way. But I'm a good manager. And you know me. I just care about the country.

Philip Dru: Administrator. It's happening. No, Glenn, it can't happen. He's a Republican.

The Republicans started the progressive party. It was Theodore Roosevelt.

GLENN: Can we play the audio? Remember the audio of -- of Barack Obama when he had the kids sing and everybody was really creeped out by this audio.

(music)

GLENN: Do you remember how all of us -- all of us said, "That is creepy. That is creepy propaganda that's now being pushed out for the kids?" I'd like to play a new song by a new candidate. Here it is.

(music)

PAT: Yeah! Everybody!

(music)

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: What, you have a problem with this?

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: Yeah.

(music)

PAT: Isn't that great?

GLENN: So president Donald Trump is going to make things great again. A new song for kids which I think is fantastic. And what I really, really like and I think is super is the fact that it's based on a song from World War I used by -- gosh, I can't remember who that guy was. Jeez. I know I hate him.

STU: Isn't his last name I Hate That Guy?

GLENN: I hate that guy. Oh, yeah. Woodrow Wilson. What a surprise.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

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.