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

What did Glenn say was 'masterfully done by Donald Trump'?

August 26, 2015
Staff

WRITER

At a press conference Tuesday, Donald Trump did something that Glenn called "absolutely unbelievable" and "masterfully done" on radio Wednesday. While he hasn't had very many good to say about Trump in the past, Glenn was quick to acknowledge Trumps boldness when he saw it.

"He does not flinch. He does not look nervous," Glenn said.

Watch the segment or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: This is why people like Donald Trump.

Yesterday, in a press conference, I think you're seeing the beginning of top-down, bottom-up, and inside-out. The bottom is crying out from somebody at the top just to take control and say, enough is enough!

Yesterday at a press conference with Donald Trump, he had Jorge Ramos from Univision who everybody worships now as a god. Jorge Ramos. You're going to be on with Jorge Ramos. Oh, my goodness. He asks really tough questions. He's going to really go after you. You don't mess with Jorge Ramos. You don't do it. So Jorge Ramos just stood up from Univision and interrupted the press conference. And Donald Trump wouldn't have anything to do with it. I want you to listen to the whole exchange, and we'll analyze as we go on. But this is from start to finish, unbelievably satisfying and masterfully done by Donald Trump. Listen to this.

DONALD: Okay. Who is next? Yeah. Please. Excuse me. Sit down. You weren't called. Sit down. Sit down. Sit down. Go ahead.

JORGE: I have the right to --

DONALD: No, you don't. You haven't been called. Go back to Univision. Go ahead. Go ahead.

PAT: Jeez.

JORGE: You can't deport 11 million people. You cannot deport 11 million people.

(inaudible)

GLENN: Now he looks off to the side, and he has him escorted offstage. He looks for security, and they escort him out of the room.

PAT: Yeah. He's telling Trump he has the right to ask -- no, you don't. Not in the middle of my press conference here. I'm calling on people that will stand up and then ask me the question.

GLENN: We are all looking for someone to tell the press that they're not gods. We're all looking for somebody to tell the press, shut the hell up. They play by their own rules. They think they can do whatever they want. This is not only Jorge Ramos. But this is also reflective of Occupy Wall Street. Reflective of Black Lives Matter. Somebody is waiting -- top-down, bottom-up, inside-out. Somebody is waiting for somebody to take control of the situation. And we are so hungry for it. And so what Trump has just done is he's set himself up for the rest of the campaign, I'm not going to take any crap. No crap from anybody. You're going to play by my rules. Which is the sign of a leader. That's what a leader does. He takes control of the room, otherwise you have chaos. And he does it fearlessly, which is something the United States of America and all of us that live here -- well, and maybe not Jorge -- all of us want somebody just to say, look, these are the rules, and you're going to live by these rules.

There are no rules. For the last eight years, we haven't had any decorum. There are no rules. Anybody can get away with anything. And nobody says anything. So when you're watching this or listening to this, you're immediately going, oh, thank God. How many times have you wanted to say to the press, just shut up and sit down? And that's exactly what he did. Top-down, bottom-up, inside-out. This is the beginning of it.

STU: He also on this one -- is Ramos even fairly considered the press? He's just an immigration activist. That's all he is. The guy is an immigration activist.

PAT: Yeah, he is.

STU: It's ridiculous at this point to call him a journalist or a member of the press.

PAT: A journalist is tell him, you can't deport these people. Well, who are you?

STU: That's your opinion. And it might be right. But as a journalist, you're not supposed to be up there telling a candidate what he can and cannot accomplish. That's not your role.

GLENN: Correct. So he goes on. He kicks him out.

(inaudible)

DONALD: Sit down, please. You weren't called.

JORGE: I'm a reporter, and I have --

DONALD: Go.

GLENN: Now he just told his security, go.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, stop. How many times have you seen this? And people have chanted, USA, USA, both with the Republicans and the Democrats. And they tried to cover this ugly exchange.

Trump doesn't even flinch. There's nobody in there because it's all press -- there's nobody in there to cover this exchange. They're just covering it with their cameras. But he doesn't even need anybody. He does not flinch. He does not look nervous. He just says, take him out. Enough. Enough. Really masterfully done.

PAT: That's where his confidence comes in handy.

GLENN: Yes.

VOICE: That's Jorge Ramos of Univision. He's being escorted out of the room. He was asking a question, and Donald Trump says I didn't call him. That's why he was being removed. Jorge Ramos refused to back down. Let's listen there.

PAT: Jorge Ramos refused to back down?

STU: Press helping their own on that one a little bit.

PAT: Yeah, a little bit.

So then later on, they allow him back in.

GLENN: No, you didn't play the rest of it. You don't have the rest of that clip. In the rest of that clip, Donald Trump is asked something about Jorge and he says -- and this is really critical that you pay attention to these things. He said, I don't even know who that guy was. I don't even know who he was. What? I have no problem with him. I don't even know who he was. Excuse me, Mr. Trump. He said go back to Univision. You know exactly who he was. Okay?

JEFFY: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: This is really important that you understand that Donald Trump is very slippery. Everybody -- everybody who is watching this. Who wants control of the border and wants -- would like to slap the press across the face for the last eight years. We're all celebrating. But don't dismiss the bread crumb of the presidential candidate being slippery on the truth, to put it kindly. I don't even know who he was. You said go back to Univision.

STU: He just assumed he knew his exact place of employment.

GLENN: You knew exactly who he was.

PAT: Yeah, tough to get around that.

GLENN: Now, when he comes back -- Trump let him in. Because he said, I don't care if he comes back in. I don't even know who he was. But you don't care if he comes back in. He just will not disrupt the press conference. Which I thought was great. So they do eventually let him back in. And he calls on Jorge Ramos.

DONALD: Good. Absolutely. Good. Absolutely. Good to have you back. Okay.

JORGE: So here's the phone number (inaudible) -- it's full of empty promises.

You cannot deport 11 million. You cannot unite citizenship to the children in this country. You cannot build on --

DONALD: Why do you say that?

PAT: Listen to this guy. Again, an activist.

GLENN: He's saying you can't deport people.

PAT: You can't deny citizenship.

GLENN: Right. Because the children, they're born here. You can't deny citizenship.

PAT: Amazing.

DONALD: Well, a lot of people -- no, no. Excuse me. A lot of people -- no, no. But a lot of people think that's not right. That an active Congress can do it. Now, it's possibly going to have to be tested in courts. But a lot of people think that if you come and you're on the other side of the border -- I'm not talking about Mexico. Somebody on the other side of the border. A woman who is getting ready to have a baby. She crosses the border for one day. Has the baby. All of a sudden, for the next 80 years, hopefully longer, but for the next 80 years, we have to take care of the people. No, no, I don't think so. Excuse me. Some of the greatest legal scholars, and I know some of the television scholars agree with you, but some of the great legal scholars agree that that's not true. That if you come across -- excuse me. Yeah, just one second.

PAT: Also, if it is true, it shouldn't be, and we're going to change that. Right?

GLENN: Well, he's going to say that.

PAT: That's nuts. What other country in the world does that?

GLENN: That's what he's about to say.

DONALD: No, no, I'm answering. If you come across for one day -- one day and you have a baby, now the baby is going to be an American citizen. There are great -- excuse me. There are great legal scholars at the top that say that's absolutely wrong. It's going to be tested. Okay?

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. Now, brilliant. Just brilliant. The way he's handled that. He didn't seem like a hater.

STU: Yeah, he actually didn't seem as frustrated as I am as the fact that Ramos is constantly talking the entire time. He says excuse me and keeps going. He handles this really well.

GLENN: He handles it really well. For the people who feel like Pat who crawl out of their skin every time somebody says the Constitution says -- he says, in no uncertain terms, it's going to be tested. Cheers for Donald Trump. Fine. We're going to find out once and for all. We're going to test it. Fantastic. Where everybody else is dancing around this issue going back and forth and saying, well, our legal scholars say this. Legal scholars -- he's just saying, I'm going to test it.

PAT: And they would have folded under the pressure from Jorge Ramos.

GLENN: All of them would have. All of them would have.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Because they would have known exactly what the press was saying with Wolf Blitzer. And he refused to back down. He doesn't care. And I believe one of the reasons he doesn't care is because he is a strong personality.

Most of these people do not have the television experience that Donald Trump has. And when I say television experience. I don't mean that he's been on television a lot. I mean, that he's been on television a lot, being exactly who he is. And he knows, I can connect with the American people. This is what Reagan had. When you want to say that Donald Trump is the next Reagan, the only way that I believe you can compare the two is Ronald Reagan knew, I don't have to deal with you. I'll go right, straight to the American people. And I'll tell the American people what I think, and they will hear me over all of your spin. Okay? That's the only thing.

Donald Trump has that experience on television.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And he has the experience of knowing, he's got an audience. And he knows he can connect with them. And so he's absolutely unafraid of Wolf Blitzer. He knows Wolf Blitzer and everybody else will get on and say, well, he was this and that. He doesn't care. Because he trusts the American people and his ability to go around the press. He's bigger than the press.

STU: Yeah. Kind of an odd extension of something you've talked about for a long time. Which is know your principles. And the reason why you always talked about knowing your principle is because when you have a situation that would make you uncomfortable or rattle you, you have a principle to go to. You know something that's concrete, that will help you through a situation. Donald Trump doesn't have principle when it relates to policy. But what he does have, he has a principle that he knows he's awesome. He's the guy. So he can do whatever he wants, and he'll always be right. That's his principle. He doesn't have those moments of self-questioning in these things because he's so sure he's so great.

GLENN: Yeah. He'll pull the trigger every time.

STU: Yeah. And it does help him in these situations.

GLENN: It sure does. It might hurt him in other situations --

STU: Yes.

GLENN: But it helps him. And it is always -- what drives me nuts. Do you notice his experts? What did he say about his experts, the experts that agree with him?

PAT: They're the top ones.

GLENN: They're the top. Everything Donald Trump is always the top. The best. The quintessential whatever. The most luxurious. So he always -- is always thinking that whatever is coming his way, whatever he has been involved in, that's the best. This is another bread crumb you should follow. No one can ever challenge him because he knows.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because he's the best. He only accepts the best. So anybody who disagrees with him, they are second rate.

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.