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

The Root of The Problem: Russia – Part 3

January 14, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Below is Part 3 of the report compiled by Glenn’s research team for “The Red Storm”. Read Part 1 HERE and Part 2 HERE.

Vladimir Putin and his advisors have a dream. That dream is not of a great Russian Nation that once again commands respect as it used to. Their sites are set much higher. They dream of a great civilization that dominates all of Eurasia. Historically for Russians this struggle is anything but new. They’ve pursued it their entire existence. From Prince Vladimir I, to Ivan the Great and later Stalin it’s always been about Russian domination of Eurasia. Throughout history there has always been an antagonist for Russians to struggle against. The Tatars and Mongols, the Nazis from Germany and now Putin has the United States. This struggle along with their devout loyalty to the Orthodox Church has given the Russian people one of the most fiercest forms of nationalism in the world. Tapping that nationalism, historically, has had global impact.

Putin has watched the threat to Russian civilization since 2000. The ousting of Slobodan Milosevic, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine would all be viewed not as native grassroots attempts at democracy but rather a direct attack from the Unites States and the EU. From then on Moscow has been on a slow methodical plan that began with the invasion of Georgia in 2008. Those in the Eurasia Party wanted Putin to invade the entire country but he stopped short. Last year, as a result of the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime in Kiev, Moscow annexed Crimea and invaded Eastern Ukraine. Again, Putin stopped short despite cries to go all the way to the capital.

The big question is...what happens next? What’s Russia doing? What should we look out for?

The Putin regime sees two main obstacles blocking their path.

The United States and European Union alliance structure.

The dollar dominated world economy.

Moscow knows they can’t defeat the U.S. and EU militarily. Instead they’ve taken Aleksander Dugin’s philosophy in Russia and exported it to Western Europe. The message is clear. Remember what makes you unique and different. For Russians it’s the Orthodox Church and their culture. For Western Europeans, it’s the self identity of each individual nation state. To tap into this Russia has been contacting and supporting far-right groups all over Western Europe. At a time when the EU has been suffering from economic hardship, unemployment and immigration issues the far-right has made significant gains.

What’s the goal? The systematic break up of the European Union at the hands of Western Europe’s far-right. Russia, like the rest of the world, remembers what happened the last time the far-right dominated Europe...but that’s exactly what they want. Remember Dugin and the Eurasia Party’s eventual goal. Before order there must be a coming chaos. As the Kremlin continues it’s operation in Eastern Ukraine the political chaos has already begun in Western Europe.

Scotland attempted to split from the UK. The Golden Dawn party gained ground in Greece. 15,000 Nazi’s marched in Germany last month. The list goes on and on and Russia has ties to nearly every major right-wing group involved:

Bulgaria - Ataka Party (there are claims that they report directly to the Russian embassy)

Hungary - Jobbik (Dugin hosted their leader Vona at Moscow State University)

Austria - FPO

Italy - Forza Nuova (Met multiple times with the Russian Duma and Putin himself)

Greece - Golden Dawn (Dugin wrote their leader Michaloliakos while he was in prison)

Germany - Pegida

Netherlands - Freedom Party

France - National Front (In November a Russian bank donated 9 million euros to Marine Le Pen and the National Front)

Not only is the Kremlin supporting these groups at the highest levels they’re also targeting Europe’s youth. Straight from Hitler’s playbook, Dugin has created a branch of his Eurasia Party that’s sole purpose is to infiltrate Europe’s young minds. They’re called - The Eurasian Youth. Sound familiar? Like their founder Aleksander Dugin, the symbol of their movement is also the 8 pointed star of chaos.

France’s National Front has a legitimate shot at gaining power in the next election. Putin has taken a special interest in Marine Le Pen and Le Pen echoes that interest back toward Moscow. Russia doesn’t even try to hide it. A bank with close ties to the Kremlin recently donated 9 million Euros to the National Front.

If Le Pen takes power in France that could be the catalyst Russia has been waiting for. A rebirth of European nationalism and the continent reset back to the 1930’s.

Russia’s second major hurdle is the dominance the dollar has on the world economy. Putin believes that the World Bank and the IMF are agents of western imperialism. He believes they use state banks (like the Bank of Russia) to lure nations into their debt based economic model. To combat this Moscow has been gathering other like minded nations who are sick of the dollar’s dominance. They’re trying to build their own version of the IMF.

They’re also trying to emphasize an economy backed by tangible resources. That’s why both China and Russia are buying up gold in bulk. That’s an understatement. Russia and China are filling their vaults with gold by the truck load. They see an eventual collapse of the western debt based economies. When that occurs the world economy will return back to the gold standard. With the combined gold reserves of Russia and China on top of their immense natural resources their economies would be unstoppable. Even more formidable if they combined that with oil and gas from the middle east. A Middle Eastern ally is crucial to that goal and partly explains their relationship with Iran.

The problem Putin’s Russia now faces is their current economic crisis. Western sanctions and the drop in oil prices have devastated the Russian economy. Lines to ATM’s and bank tellers wrap around street corners as Russians attempt to exchange rubles for dollars and euros. The Kremlin has labeled it economic warfare from the United States. The rhetoric stops just shy of calling it an act of war.

The situation in 1941 Japan can tell us a lot when analyzing Russia today. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. But why did they do it? On the surface the act seems irrational. Most people don’t look at the root of that problem either but doing so can help us see the world from Putin’s eyes.

Like today’s Russia Japan had become increasingly aggressive. In July 1941 Japan invaded and occupied French Indochina (present day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos). This put Japan within striking distance of other resource rich nations like Malaysia, Singapore etc. This threatened Great Britain’s cash flow giving the Nazis an advantage.

Like the west retaliated from Russia’s annexation of Ukraine, President Roosevelt retaliated and imposed economic sanctions on Japan. One of which was an embargo of U.S. oil which the Japanese economy was critically dependent on. Rather than deterring the Japanese they got even more aggressive. They saw the sanctions as an act of war. They decided that war with the United States was now inevitable. To make up for the loss of U.S. oil and other sanctions the Japanese planned to invade the Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. The attack on Pearl Harbor was basically a giant flanking maneuver to make sure the U.S. Pacific Fleet couldn’t intervene.

With the Russian economy under attack and the future of Ukraine and Crimea in jeopardy how will Putin react? Do the Russians see war with the U.S. now inevitable as the Japanese did in 1941?

 

The way Putin responds in the next few months may decide whether he holds on to his presidency. He now finds himself in a land where he’s unleashed monsters that he may not be able to control. The fires of Russian nationalism burn hot. Russians see themselves as under attack. Not only their culture but their religion. Putin typically is content with taking his time but there is a growing majority that, like Dugin, want action now.

On the night of February 24th 1956 the public session of the 20 Congress of the USSR came to a close. Most of the delegates went home, but Nikita Khrushchev called the most senior members back to a closed private session. This session would later be dubbed Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech”.

Stalin was dead and his closest supporters (Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich) were set to take over. Khrushchev’s goal was to show the government that Stalin and his followers were victim of “the cult of personality”. That Stalin had made the Russian cause and struggle about his own ego and not about the Russian people. The speech was so shocking and contrary to how things had been going in the Soviet Union at the time that multiple people within the auditorium had heart attacks and passed out. The speech would be a huge success for Khrushchev and lead to the de-stalinization of the USSR. Khrushchev would seize power from Stalin’s successors.

Who is going to be the modern day Khrushchev? Who is going to come forth and point out Putin’s failures if he doesn’t give the Russian people what they want?

If Putin is forced out under present circumstances the Russian people will look for direct and immediate action. They’ll look for a leader outside the current politburo. A war hero with a track record for fighting for the reclamation of Russian civilization. The next Russian leader will see Orthodoxy not as a tool for nationalism but as a treasure he must champion. He’ll be profoundly religious and dedicated to the Russian Orthodox Church.

He may be a man like Igor Girkin Strelkov.

Girkin typically just goes by his nickname Strelkov which means “shooter” in Russian. He’s basically the Russian version of a cross between Rambo, John Wayne, and the Pope. He served in both the FSB and GRU leading insurgencies in Chechnya, Bosnia, Moldova, and Georgia. 

Russians see Girkin as a sort of holy warrior defending Russian civilization from what Girkin calls “the Godless west”. Girkin’s generals and followers echo their Orthodox mission:

"As we are Orthodox Christians, this connection, this line of Orthodox Christianity goes through everything, including the awards, connection of past, future and present." Girkin’s General “Prapor” - (on the resemblance of the Novorossia medal to the cross of St George)

“A Clash of civilizations is taking place, no more no less” “one of these civilizations stands on clearly anti-christian basis” “preventing it’s triumph itself would be an enormous contribution to the Orthodox Christian cause” - Vladimir Khomyakov

According to Girkin it was he and not Putin that “pulled the trigger of war in Ukraine”. After the Maidan protests in Kiev Girkin crossed into Crimea and led the take over. After Crimea was fully annexed he crossed into Eastern Ukraine and led the uprisings in both Donetsk and Luhansk. When the ceasefire was negotiated Girkin relocated back to Russia and has been the leading organizer for Russian fighters and equipment flowing into what he calls “Novorossiya” (New Russia).

Ditching his military uniform and donning a suit Igor Girkin has been all over Russian media lately. While Putin addresses the nation and tells them not to worry about the dire situation of the Russian economy Dugin can be seen preaching the liberation of New Russia. Not stopping at Ukraine but uniting all Russian lands...by force if need be.

"The whole Russian people should merge into one Russian state...Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia must unite" - Girkin

Ivan the Terrible was the first Czar of Russia and ruled in the mid 1500’s. He believed he was chosen by God to lead the Russian people and defend Orthodoxy. During his reign the Russian Empire would see its greatest territorial expansion ever. Is Igor Girkin the modern day version of Ivan the Terrible? Is Russia at the precipice of another period of great territorial expansion with a champion of their faith at the helm? Time will tell.​

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.