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

Why does Stu think Planned Parenthood should be shut down?

July 14, 2015
Staff

WRITER

There are many, many reasons to shut down Planned Parenthood. First and foremost would be they facilitate the murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies each year. They also were caught helping sex slaves figure out how to cheat on taxes. Selling body parts of aborted babies was another strike against.

TheBlaze reports:

A video, titled, “Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts,” from the Center for Medical Progress, a group concerned with medical ethics, features comments from Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s senior director of medical services, allegedly showing her describing how some doctors carefully conduct abortions that leave fetal body parts in tact.

Get the full story HERE.

Watch the shocking video below, and scroll down for a transcript of the reaction from Tuesday's radio show.

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

PAT: Incredible story with Planned Parenthood. I mean, we know that's an evil organization to begin with, founded by an evil person, Margaret Sanger. Whose goal was to eliminate minorities, especially blacks. Look it up. If you don't know. It's a story. It's true. She was a progressive.

And she was not a good person. And Hillary Clinton is a big, big fan of Margaret Sanger.

STU: Uh-huh.

PAT: And we'll have to play this some other time. But I love what she said when she was asked about that. You know, despite the fact that Margaret Sanger had these genocidal tendencies, how are you such a big fan of her? And she said, well, I'm a fan of Thomas Jefferson too who owned slaves. That's not everything she did. Oh, okay. All right. Good comparison too. Good analogy.

STU: Cooked a good omelet too. He's kind of known for his other work.

PAT: Volkswagen. Good things.

STU: It's amazing. It's not just Hillary, she's a progressive hero. And, you know, it's a right of religious fervor basically at this point to -- if anyone tries to --

PAT: And why? Have you ever wondered why the abortion thing is so critical to them? Why removing babies from the womb is so important to them? There's money in it. There's just a ton of money in it. Planned Parenthood makes a lot of money with it.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Democrats make a lot of money from Planned Parenthood. There's just money. Follow the trail of the cash. And I think you might have a clue as to what's going on.

STU: And how do you make money off of abortions? Obviously, number one. You're charging the person to do them. You've got -- all sorts of different funding that comes from not only charities, but governmental institutions.

PAT: Yeah, including federal funding now.

STU: Which they, of course, said would never happen. But beyond that, you get a nice collection of body parts of dead fetuses that you can sell.

PAT: Which is great news we're finding out now. I didn't even -- I mean, I wouldn't have even -- would you have thought to guess that that part was going on? That they were selling body parts of aborted fetuses.

STU: It certainly doesn't shock me. I'm not shocked by anything that these people will do. To see the video. The video is done -- excuse me -- Center for Medical Progress and live action news. It's one of these behind the scenes undercover videos. And you have to see the video. The way they're discussing selling these body parts, including, by the way, in the video, you can see an online order form to order a certain amount of livers. A certain amount of hearts.

And to see her discuss this while just nibbling away at a delicious salad at a restaurant, as if it's something you discuss in polite company is quite amazing.

PAT: So these would have to be pretty developed babies.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: To be harvesting organs to sell to people?

STU: I'll give you this quote. I don't think you have this in your audio. Because it's blatantly. She describes partial birth abortion which is illegal. Illegal. You can't do it. This is how she gets around that. She says the federal partial birth abortion plan is a law and laws are up to interpretation. So if I say on day one I do not intend to do this, what ultimately happens doesn't matter. Now, you say, okay, that's a person blatantly going around the law. I mean, she's admitting it on camera. This is not just some employee. Because we've seen it before, where it's some employee working at a center and she's doing something blatantly illegal.

The woman who is saying this is the Senior Director for Medical Services at Planned Parenthood. This is not some low-level person. This is the Senior Director for Medical Services. She is describing in-depth about how --

PAT: At the Planned Parenthood in Bemidji, Minnesota? Like, just the overall Planned Parenthood?

STU: Yeah, a top Planned Parenthood executive. Senior Director for Medical Services is not nobody. She's describing -- she goes into great depth through the videos. We'll go through audio in a second. About how when they kill the child, they crush the head and they'll crush other parts of the body. But they try to avoid the organs because they can sell those. And they go through all this -- all of this rigamarole to make sure that they don't harm those precious organs that could bring in 30 to $100 per specimen.

PAT: Thirty to $100. That's it?

STU: Uh-huh. They talk about cutting off legs and sending them to people. They talk about -- they talk about how much people really want liver. Apparently it's a hot item. Hot commodity on this market. By the way, selling body parts of fetuses is also blatantly illegal. In any rational country. Assuming this video checks out. Which it has been released today. So it's very early on. But no one is denying it's her saying these things. Assuming that this is true. This should shut down the entire organization.

PAT: It should. It won't.

STU: It is -- when you create an online order form. This is not a whimsical person saying, maybe we could sell a couple of these things. You have an online form for illegal activity. They shut down -- what was it -- Silk Road? They shut down these things that sell drugs on the internet. You're selling body parts on the internet. This entire organization should be shut down if this is accurate.

JEFFY: And I got news for you. When you start out the day saying, gee, I'm not going to do that, but you still mean to do it, uh, the police still arrest you.

STU: Yeah. You should know that, Jeffy, better than anybody.

But if you say, look, as long as we said we didn't mean to do a partial birth abortion, but then when it happens, we do one so we can keep the organs. Oopsy. That's the sort of thing that is difficult to prove, unless you have someone, I don't know, who is the Senior Director for Medical Services admitting it on camera.

PAT: Wow.

STU: Should we play some of these clips? It's pretty amazing.

PAT: Yeah.

VOICE: We'll give person specific nodes. An essay. I was like, wow. I didn't even know. Good for them. Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs.

STU: There we go. So she says a lot of people want different parts for different nodes. Yesterday was the first time they asked us for lungs. Wanted some lungs. We sold them lungs.

PAT: Are these --

JEFFY: Who is buying?

PAT: Yeah, is this for implant?

STU: I think medical testing.

PAT: Because you can't take a liver from a baby that's unborn and implant it in a human being. Right? And keep them alive with it, I would think. So it's for testing. I guess research.

STU: Research and whatever else. Who knows. The reason she's telling people this is she believes they're buyers.

PAT: And Glenn asks this question all the time, who have we become? If we tolerate this, if we put up with this, if we don't stand against it, who are we?

JEFFY: We have people shutting down facilities because they have monkeys caged up to test.

PAT: Yeah. You're spraying hair spray in their eyes. Or you get shampoo in their face.

JEFFY: But this is okay? No.

PAT: Of an animal, of a monkey or a rat, and we're shutting down facilities. Yeah, but this is okay, with human beings. Unbelievable.

VOICE: Yeah, liver. Yeah, liver is huge.

VOICE: That's simple. I mean, that's easy. I don't know what they're doing with it. I guess they want muscle.

VOICE: Yeah, a dime a dozen.

PAT: So what essentially was said there. Could you tell?

STU: Yeah. It's livers. People -- livers are the hot thing on the market. And I think that's when he says they're dime a dozen. That's the buyer kind of just egging the whole thing -- at that point, he's just sort of echoing what she's saying. She's flippant. She has a bite of her salad on her fork. She's waving her hands back and forth.

PAT: So they're just at a restaurant, talking about this?

STU: That's all that room noise you hear. And why it's difficult to hear. They transcribe it on the video. I'll post this on StuFacebook.com. Go to my Facebook page. We'll post it in just a second. You have to watch this. This is eight or nine minutes the whole thing. You'll get the point before that. But just to get -- it's worth watching the whole nine minutes. This is a huge organization that Democrats support, that is in the public domain all the time for federal funding. And that are selling livers on the -- on the -- on online order forms. Blatantly against the law. Skirting abortion law. Admitting it on camera with top level executives. This should be the biggest story in the country. Obviously the Iran thing will be big today. But this should be the biggest story in the country. This is a huge deal. Will the media pick up on it at all?

PAT: Here's more.

VOICE: How much of a difference can it actually make if you know what's expected or what we need?

VOICE: It makes a huge difference. I would say a lot of people want liver.

STU: A lot of people want liver.

VOICE: And for that reason, less providers (inaudible).

STU: Okay. Stop for a second. So he's saying, like, what parts can I get? Essentially, the buyer. And she's responding, well, if I know what you want, we can take certain procedures, certain measures to make sure we protect it. So, you know, they will use the ultrasound that they don't want to make anyone have before they abort the child. They will utilize that to make sure they're crushing other parts of the body to kill the child so that they don't crush the liver so they can sell the liver. She's talking about it basically that flippantly, as you can hear. It's hard to pick up. But you can get her tone of voice as she's saying it.

PAT: And they don't want to do the ultrasound. Because 90 percent of women that see the ultrasound don't want to go through with the abortion because they understand what's inside them and it's not just their body at that point, and they know that.

STU: Right. Again, the whole argument of the abortion thing in the first place is that this is a meaningless clump of cells. But, apparently, that meaningless clump of cells has value on the open market, so therefore it's not so meaningless anymore.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: Forceps. (inaudible) Of the procedures. Calvaria. Calvaria, the head is --

STU: She's talking about the head. She's talking about the calvaria, which is the head. And she's discussing about how they'll reverse the body to be born feet first so that they can get this procedure done, get the organs and still crush the head inside.

PAT: In a partial birth abortion.

STU: Which is blatantly illegal. Which she goes on to admit that she can't do unless she acts like she didn't mean to do it. Like if you go down the road and something goes wrong, you can still theoretically do this under the law, but with the intent in advance, you certainly can't. It's a federal crime.

VOICE: Yeah. Most of the other stuff can come out intact. It's very rare that they have that effect (inaudible).

VOICE: To bring the body cavity out intact and all that?

VOICE: Yeah. Exactly. Then you kind of (inaudible).

STU: So basically. You can't pick up any of that. It's too hard to hear. She's saying, you can get the rest of the body intact. It's worth hearing with the audio, so you know this stuff exists. We're not making this stuff up. She says, at one point, we've been good at getting the heart, lung, and liver because we know, well, we're not going to crush that part. I'm basically going to crush below. I'm going to crush above and see if I can get it all intact.

This is a human body. A live person she is talking about this way.

She goes on to, you know, talk about, you know, the procedures they go through. Specific procedures that they go through to avoid damaging these organs that they can sell. And they have screen shots of the online order form. This --

PAT: It's soul crushing.

STU: It's soul crushing. It's one thing to talk about a bad organization that could potentially hopefully get shut down or at the very at least have trouble because of this. What we're talking about is human people.

PAT: It will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. It will be interesting to see if anyone talks about this today.

STU: Can there be anymore of an open-and-shut case? This is not one of those things where you're guessing at their intent. She's telling you.

PAT: No. And like you said, it's not some janitor at Planned Parenthood that they caught on an open mic. This is a top-level executive.

STU: Because some of the videos you've seen, oh, well, they're registering voters. Some person registering voters making $9 an hour tells you to break the law. That's one thing. This is one of the executive-level people at Planned Parenthood saying it's their procedure to intentionally avoid partial abortion law.

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.