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: Net neutrality is "the global warming of the Internet"

November 12, 2014
Wilson

Writer

There’s a big push right now to get the government to regulate the internet in order to preserve “net neutrality” among various internet providers. The internet is one of the few truly free remaining places on the planet today. Does the internet really need the government to regulate it? Glenn explains why the push for Net Neutrality matters.

WATCH:

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

Glenn: Let me tell you about net neutrality. Net neutrality is a -- is the global warming of the Internet. They are saying that they need to level the playing field of the Internet and make it free. Let me tell you something. If it wasn't for the freedom of the Internet, this world and this country would be screwed right now. The only real growth that we have in the world, and you're seeing it in television and news and information. The only place you're truly free to say whatever you want, to produce whatever you want, to get it out -- man has never had a voice like he has right now. And it's all due to the Internet. And due to the fact that the government is not involved in it at all. It's working pretty well. Do I dislike buffering speeds? Yes. Am I company that should be on the other side? Probably. And here's why. These giant corporations like Comcast and Google and all these other companies, all they have to do if they want to shut people like me down is they choke down my -- my speeds. They choke down. If you -- because I'm a video provider, if they want to put me out of business, they just choke down and make it impossible to watch. Last night I was at home. I was trying to watch something -- I was trying to watch studio C with the kids and we watch it online. We just don't watch TV anymore. And I was watching online and I was on Roku and the speed was really low yesterday for some reason. It just kept stopping and starting and then stopping and then starting and buffering. Ask enough, I'm not going to watch it tonight. We did something else. That's exactly how these giant Internet providers can put people like me out of business. I don't want to go out of business. So shouldn't I saying, yes, government, because I'm somebody who's going to be targeted. I know it. Shouldn't -- shouldn't I saying, yes, government, please protect me. Oh, protect me? No. Because the government is only going to protect those who are playing ball with the government. And trust me, here is why Internet neutrality is happening. Twofold. One, political reasons. What was it that the diversity czar at the FCC said about the important revolution in Venezuela? As soon as -- as soon as Castro -- not Castro.

PAT: Chavez.

GLENN: As soon as Chavez knew that he had control of the television and radio stations, that important revolution could happen. So that's why you have a socialist Marxist at the FCC But the radio and television is over as we know it. It's just over. It's all online. So how do they get their grubby hands into it? They got their grubby hands into it the first place because they said, oh, there's only so much band space. There's only so much band width. The frequencies, the air belongs to the people. And so that's how they got into broadcast. Now they're saying, well, there's only so much band width. There's only -- really? Because I remember -- there was only so much band width. It gets better and better and better. From 1G to 2G to 4G to 16G to 375G. It's coming. It will get better, cheaper, faster. Everyone will be able to do this. It is only a matter of time.

PAT: It's already done that in such a short time.

GLENN: Correct. So what are they panicking about? One, it's about control. But the more insidious one, and we just had a meeting about this this morning, because I've got -- a lot of people from New York and from all over the country, from TheBlaze, because we're having some intensive meetings this week here on the future of our company. And so this morning about 7:00, we had a meeting. And I explained the future of the company. And I explained the future of the world in communications. And the way that Facebook is talk radio and the telephone. And I want to you listen to this. The telephone used to be one-to-one communication. I could reach out anywhere and call someone and get them one to one. But it was a device and I had to go through AT&T and everything else. Then you had talk radio. And I could listen to other people's conversations and I could listen to what they were talking about, about the news and everything else, and I could join in on that conversation. If I could get them to pick up the phone, they could screen me and then I could be part of it. What Facebook is you have that private one-on-one conversation when you want it, but you also are allowed to go in and jump into anybody else's conversation as well. So it's both the telephone and talk radio. It's a utility. It's a public utility. Maybe we should have the government run Facebook. It's a public utility. Just like the phones are. Just like radio is. It's a public utility. Don't think they won't make that. And if you think that the government will make Facebook better, what, are you 4? Now, because Facebook and the Internet is going to change everything, and I have -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- Pat and Stu, if I would have said that the guys who have been sitting in my office over the last three months would even accept an appointment from me two years ago, let alone take -- get on their private jets, fly to me, come to my place of business, wait for an appointment in our lobby, and then come and sit down on the couch in my office and say, okay, do you have any ideas? We need some help. Would you have believed --

STU: No.

GLENN: They wouldn't even would have taken a meeting with me if I would have called them two years ago.

STU: Right.

GLENN: That doesn't show how cool we are. That shows how desperate they are. Okay? Why are they desperate? These giant media moguls are desperate because they know. And they all say in private conversations, every single one of them say the same thing to me. Glenn, most of the people in my own company don't even get it. It's over. It's over. They don't understand the colossal change that has coming. I know. I know. So what do we do? Here's what the big companies are going to. The Comcasts of the world. And this will happen in every single -- this will happen in the accounting. This will happen in cab drivers, truck drivers. This will happen in -- with doctors and especially universities. All of them. All of them will go the government and say, you need to protect us. You need to protect us. You need to prop us up. You got to put a gate here. So who wants that gate on the Internet? I'll tell you who wants the gate on the Internet. Comcast wants a gate on the Internet. Anybody who is a provider -- and quite honestly, I will tell you the truth. Again, a gate on the Internet actually helps me if I want to go into television. Because it stabilizes things. The meeting that I had at 7:00 this morning was, can anybody tell me what the world looks like? In five years? In 10 years? Anybody? Nope.

We just know you're going to have entertainment and information. We don't know how you're going to get it. Most importantly, we don't have any idea how to make money off of it. Now, when we say make money off of it, we're trying to innovate so we're just trying to make money to pay the bills so we can better stuff. But there are those people -- they don't give a flying rat's butt about anything. They built their systems years ago.

STU: Does the rat's butt fly? Is that what happens?

PAT: Only the butt does. The rest of the rat does not.

GLENN: So nobody cares. They've built their systems long ago. Do you think NBC cares about, we got to get every dollar for innovation? No, we want every dollar because we want every dollar. We're making money. We paid for all this stuff. Don't let this stuff go away. What they're doing is they're going and they're asking for net neutrality to stop innovation, to be able to put the gates up. Because you know who I'm afraid of? You know who I'm afraid of? And I've said this to my own staff and my own company and all of the vice presidents will be hearing this from me over the next year. I don't want to hear -- I'm 50. I don't want to hear any of your 50-year-old ideas. I don't want to hear them. Can we get some 18-year-olds in here? I want to talk to some 20-year-olds. Really responsible 20-year-olds. Now, I want to hear the 50-year-old ideas. I want to hear your ideas on how to clear the bull crap out of their life. Clear the runway for them. Make sure legally everything is buttoned up. Make sure that we're holding everything together and we're treating people right and we're running a good, decent company with good moral sense. But I want you to clear the runway for the 20-year-olds because the 20-year-olds think differently. They don't even think like we do anymore. They see the future in a completely different way. Go ahead. You know what it is? It's like talking to you and me about race and then going and having a conversation with Al Sharpton and Chris Matthews. It's not -- nothing against them. They just are 20 years older than we are. They see the world differently. When I say, I don't see race, they can't even imagine that. They don't --

STU: It's all the same.

GLENN: That's all they see. And it's because they grew up in that 1960s world and they stopped thinking. They -- they cast what the world is, and that's just what it is. You have to stop doing that. That's when you get old and die, is when you just cast the world and say, this is what it is. The world is going to change. And that's why the 20-somethings, they see things completely differently. You talk to them about race, they really think it's crazy. Talk about politics to 20-somethings? What? Why? Why would I do that? Why? That doesn't even make any sense. They don't have any restrictions, just like the Internet. It has no limitations. It used to be, you know, I just got this -- this is D-magazine. They brought this in and this is an article on me, the new Glenn Beck. And I -- I opened it up and I put it down and I looked at Pat and I said, you know what, Pat? Do you remember when being in a magazine used to mean something? It used to mean something. Why? Now that same article is online, but it doesn't mean as much. Why? Two reasons. One, it's not tangible. Okay. It's not something you pick up. You have to go find on a store shelf someplace. So it's someplace third party. Look at that. It's right there and it's at the checkout stand and it's a big deal. And it's tangible. And there are what, 300 pages in this magazine. Limited space. Do you know why articles and shows and everything else don't matter? Because it's unlimited. I can watch every episode of the "Twilight Zone," followed by every episode of "Seinfeld," followed by every episode of "Continuum," and then I can watch the old Sherlock Holmes, the brand-new BBC Sherlock Holmes, and I can do it all in a day and I haven't spent any money. All do I, I'm going to download it. It's unlimited. So that devalues everything. And that's what got everybody freaked out. They want control and they want their money. Don't listen to anyone who says net neutrality is a good thing. I have everything to gain by standing with the people who want net neutrality. I'm telling you, it's bad for you.

PAT: And the one question I would ask these people and the president among the rest is why? Why are you doing this? Because he keeps saying, he wants it free and accessible. It already is. It can't get any more free and it can't get any more accessible than it is -- it's like saying that I want chocolate to remain delicious and accessible. It already is. Why are you going to change it? It's like saying, I want the interstate freeway system to remain accessible to all. Well, it's already -- who's telling me what lanes I can get on? Who's telling me unless there's an HOV lane. Unless --

GLENN: Unless the government says --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I want --

(overlapping speakers).

PAT: A problem now so don't create one. That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to create a problem.

GLENN: And -- I want to take this one a step further. The buffering ad that they ran where they put the phony buffering in.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That goes right back to the other guy who's talking about health care. The people are stupid.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They're lying to you again and listen to what they were saying about how stupid you were on health care. Don't be stupid again. Don't do it.

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.