Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn Has Hugest, Most Special Show Ever — And Mexico Paid for It

February 10, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

It don't get much better than this, folks. Glenn had the most fabulous, most special show ever on Wednesday following the New Hampshire primary. He didn't provide a whole lot of detail on how the show was special --- it just was because he said so. And --- drum roll, please --- China and Mexico paid for the whole shebang. It was "uge."

"Oh, my gosh, this is huge. It's spectacular. It's special. New Hampshire is such a special place. The people are special, and I'll always remember them," Glenn proclaimed.

When asked by co-host Pat Gray if it was the greatest show God ever created, Glenn answered with certainty and bravado.

"I would say that this show that I'm doing --- I'm going to make this show great again --- and I'm going to be remembered as the greatest show host that God has ever created," Glenn said.

Not only was the show "uge," but it was paid for by other countries and businesses.

"This is a beautiful door. And I've made Mexico pay for this door. They paid for this door," Glenn revealed. "I told them they had to pay for it. And look at this beautiful door. That's the way it works. That's the way this show works."

The other fantastic thing that made this show so good, so fast and so strong --- Glenn's new look. He was killin' it with a new sunburned, racoon-eyed look.

"I look good, don't I? Do I look good, beautiful, handsome? The most fabulous guy ever?" Glenn asked.

Actually, he looked a little like Donald Trump during his New Hampshire victory speech.

"Here's what happened," Glenn explained. "Last night I was watching the Donald's speech and I fell asleep in a bed. And I got up this morning and here I am."

Glenn fell asleep in a bed? A regular bed or a tanning bed?

"Let's move on to the show," Glenn said. "We have a beautiful show. A magnificent show. Probably the greatest show that God ever created for you on today's program."

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: My gosh! This is going to be the most fabulous, the most special, the ugest show you've ever heard. It is going to be the most special show we've ever done. In fact, it is so special. It is so uge -- China -- I mean, we've got a show. It's called we've got a show. And it's happening right now. And let me tell you this, it's going to be so special, so uge. We're going to make China, and we're going to make Mexico pay for it right now.

(music)

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, this is huge. It's spectacular. It's special. New Hampshire is such a special place. The people are special. And I'll always remember them.

PAT: Would you say that this is the greatest show that God has ever created?

GLENN: I would say that this show that I'm doing -- I'm going to make this show great again. And I'm going to be remembered as the greatest show host that God has ever created.

STU: You're going to do a show so good and so fast and so strong, believe you.

GLENN: What?

STU: You're going to do a show so good.

GLENN: Yes, so good.

STU: So fast.

GLENN: So fast.

STU: And so strong.

GLENN: And so strong.

STU: Believe you.

GLENN: Believe you.

PAT: No, you would say believe me.

GLENN: Believe me. Okay. I'm going to do a show so good, so fast, so strong. Believe me.

JEFFY: There you go.

PAT: Wow, I do. How could I not?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know.

PAT: How could I not?

GLENN: Ask me how I'm going to do the show.

PAT: How are you going to do the show?

GLENN: I'm going to get Mexico to pay for it.

PAT: How are you going to get Mexico to pay for it?

GLENN: I'm going to get Mexico -- look, it's called we got a show. And we're going to do this show. It's going to have a beautiful -- come here. I just want to show you something.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I just want to show you something.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: This is a beautiful wall. Wouldn't you agree this is a beautiful wall?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And look at this door.

PAT: It's a beautiful door.

GLENN: This is a beautiful door. And I've made Mexico pay for this door. They paid for this door.

PAT: Did they pay for it because you told them they had to? That's a beautiful door.

GLENN: I told them they had to pay for it. And look at this beautiful door. That's the way it works. That's the way this show works.

PAT: Did you just come in legally through that beautiful --

GLENN: I came in legally through that door. And anybody can legally come through that door. As long as I say -- the damn Muslims will stay out of that door, I'll tell you that. We'll keep those damn Muslims out of that door.

PAT: Of course. Because, look, it's called we have a country. And we got to be safe.

GLENN: We got to be safe. And we're going to start winning in this room --

PAT: Just until we understand what's going on. When we figure out what's going on, then Muslims can come back on.

GLENN: Because we don't know what what's going on.

PAT: What's going on? I don't know.

GLENN: I don't know what's going on.

STU: Kind of a vague idea to reverse that policy.

PAT: We'll figure out what's going on. Then we'll let Muslims come back in through that big, beautiful door.

STU: What --

GLENN: It's called we have a show.

JEFFY: It's called management.

GLENN: Can I say this? Do you see that wall? It's beautiful.

STU: It's fine.

GLENN: 18 feet. Probably 18.

PAT: No. Twenty feet maybe.

GLENN: Twenty feet. That's a 20-foot wall here. And I want you to notice. Not only here, but over here. What do you call this?

PAT: I call that a door.

GLENN: What kind of door?

PAT: A beautiful door.

GLENN: That is a beautiful door right here.

PAT: People can come in and out of that door.

GLENN: Beautiful wall, beautiful door. Guess who paid for that?

PAT: Mexico and China.

GLENN: Mexico.

PAT: Just Mexico on that one. Because you said they were going to pay for it?

GLENN: I said they're going to pay for it.

PAT: And they did.

GLENN: Right. That door over here, you know who paid for this door?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Look at this door. We have three days -- actually we have four doors. See this door, this is a beautiful door, right? Know who paid for that one?

PAT: It's a beautiful door. Mexico.

GLENN: Nope. Home Depot. I walked into Home Depot and I said, you're paying for that door. And they said, what do you mean we're paying for that door? And I said, you're paying for that door. You see this one over here, this is a beautiful door.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Beautiful door. This is the fourth door in this room. See this one. Know who paid for this one?

PAT: That big, beautiful door.

GLENN: That door.

PAT: That's actually a smaller beautiful door than the other big beautiful --

GLENN: Yeah, it's a smaller door. You know who paid for that one?

PAT: Lowe's. Because you told them too.

GLENN: Lowe's paid for that. I walked in and said, you're paying for that door.

STU: Because you have a trade-in balance with Lowe's, where you've been paying them.

GLENN: That's exactly right. They need my money at Lowe's. So I go into Lowe's and I tell them, you know what, this door, you're paying for this door.

PAT: At first I bet they said, no, we're not. That's ridiculous.

GLENN: At first they called the police. But then they paid for the door because I said to.

PAT: Because you said to. Okay.

GLENN: So, anyway --

PAT: I would vote for you for best show.

STU: Yeah. Although I did want to ask one show detail, which is you look a little different today.

GLENN: What do you mean I look different. It's radio show.

STU: Well, we broadcast on TheBlaze TV as well.

GLENN: I look good, don't I? Do I look good, beautiful, handsome? The most fabulous guy ever?

STU: Yes, but it's different.

GLENN: What do you mean? I don't understand what you're saying.

PAT: You look a little like Donald --

GLENN: Here's what happened. Last night I was watching the Donald's speech and I fell asleep in a bed. And I got up this morning and here I am. So maybe it's my hair --

STU: You fell asleep in a bed?

GLENN: Let's move on to the show. We have a beautiful show. A magnificent show. Probably the greatest show that God ever created for you on today's program. I really liked the humility of Donald Trump last night. I thought it was really good. I thought -- I like the way he thanked and said congratulations to the other people that lost. It was really nice.

PAT: Wasn't that nice?

GLENN: It was heartfelt. It was uge. It was uge. And sincere. And here it is.

DONALD: You know, when I came out, I heard the end of Bernie's speech, and I heard some of the beginning.

(booing)

DONALD: No, no. First of all, congratulations to Bernie. In all fairness, we have to congratulate him. We may not like it. But I heard parts of Bernie's speech. He wants to give away our country, folks. He wants to give away -- we're not going to let it happen. We're not going to let it happen. I don't know where it's going with Bernie. We wish him a lot of luck. But we are going to make America great again, but we're going to do it the old-fashioned way. We're going to beat China, Japan. We're going to beat Mexico at trade. We're going to beat all of these countries that are taking so much of our money away from us on a daily basis. It's not going to happen anymore.

PAT: It's not going to happen anymore. I love that. You know what else isn't going to happen anymore? Drugs. They're not going to happen anymore.

GLENN: Drugs aren't going to happen anymore?

DONALD: And by the way, for the people of New Hampshire, where you have a tremendous problem with heroin and drugs. You wouldn't even believe it. You see this place and you say, "It's so beautiful." You have a tremendous problem.

The first thing always that they mention to me, "Mr. Trump, please do something. The drugs, the heroin, it's pouring in, and it's so cheap because there's so much of it. And the kids are getting stuck. And other people are getting stuck." We're going to end it. We're going to end it at the southern border. It's going to be over.

PAT: Wow. It's going to be over. Drugs are going to be over.

GLENN: He's going to end it. It's beautiful. Well, he's going to end it at the border. The southern border. Northern border, it will pour in on the northern border. Southern border, not going to pour in anymore.

PAT: Well, there isn't going to be a big, beautiful wall.

JEFFY: People are still going to get stuck. Younger people, older people, they're still going to get stuck from the --

GLENN: No, he's going to end that. He's going to end that. Don't ask for any details. But he'll end that. He's a guy that can get a sunburn in a snowstorm, so he can do things that most people can't do.

PAT: And nobody mentions it.

GLENN: That's the weird thing. That's the weird thing. Nobody seems to want to talk about the odd sunburn that he had from the snowstorm.

STU: So it's like freezer burn?

GLENN: It might be freezer burn. HEP he might have been wearing snow goggles and opened the door and freezer burn on his face.

STU: So you think it's right if people were to mention like a really odd appearance thing that is really --

GLENN: No, I just think that it would be something that somebody might say.

STU: Should bring up?

GLENN: You know, you walk out and you look like you've just been freezer burned. You would think that somebody might casually just say, "Did he look odd?" Here's the thing. My wife walked in last night and she said, "What the hell happened to Donald Trump?" And I said, "What do you mean?" And she said, "Look at him." And I said, "Okay. So it's not just me?" She's like, "No, really. What happened to him? Is he really angry, except for the raccoon part around his eyes?"

JEFFY: Did you see your wife before you left this morning, after you fell asleep in a bed?

GLENN: No, I don't know what you're talking.

JEFFY: Oh.

GLENN: So do you have the part about Donald Trump where he said, "I want to thank all of the other guys. And, you know, look, we got to do it." You didn't get that?

PAT: No.

GLENN: It was really -- go back and look at his speech, and we'll play it later. It was amazing how he talked about the other people. And he begrudgingly said congratulations to everyone else. And okay. There I said it. You didn't hear that? Did anybody notice that?

JEFFY: Well, that's what he did with Bernie there too.

GLENN: Yeah, he said, we got to do it. We don't like it, but we got to do it. But it was even worse when he talked about the other people. He was like, there. Okay. We got it done. We had to do it. Where there was just no -- there was just no graciousness.

PAT: Well, there's none in him.

JEFFY: Yeah.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program:

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Al Drago / Stringer | Getty Images

Prosecutors stopped a New Year’s Eve bombing plot rooted in ideology that treats the US as an enemy to be destroyed.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced that four members of an anti-capitalist extremist group were arrested on Friday for plotting coordinated bombings in California on New Year’s Eve.

According to the Department of Justice, the suspects planned to detonate explosives concealed in backpacks at various businesses while also targeting ICE agents and vehicles. The attacks were supposed to coincide with midnight celebrations.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.

The plot was disrupted before any lives were lost. The group behind the plot calls itself the Turtle Island Liberation Front. That name matters more than you might think.

When ideology turns operational

For years, the media has told us that radical, violent rhetoric on the left is mostly symbolic. They explained away the angry slogans, destructive language, and calls for “liberation” as performance or hyperbole.

Bombs are not metaphors, however.

Once explosives enter the picture, framing the issue as harmless expression becomes much more difficult. What makes this case different is the ideological ecosystem behind it.

The Turtle Island Liberation Front was not a single-issue group. It was anti-American, anti-capitalist, and explicitly revolutionary. Its members viewed the United States as an illegitimate occupying force rather than a sovereign nation. America, in their view, is not a nation, not a country; it is a structure that must be dismantled at any cost.

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

“Turtle Island” is not an innocent cultural reference. In modern activist usage, it is shorthand for the claim that the United States has no moral or legal right to exist. It reframes the country as stolen land, permanently occupied by an illegitimate society.

Once people accept that premise, the use of violence against their perceived enemies becomes not only permissible, but virtuous. That framing is not unique to one movement. It appears again and again across radical networks that otherwise disagree on nearly everything.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements do not share the same vision for the future. They do not even trust one another. But they share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed. The alignment of radical, hostile ideologies is anything but a coincidence.

The red-green alliance

For decades, analysts have warned about what is often called the red-green alliance: the convergence of far-left revolutionary politics with Islamist movements. The alliance is not based on shared values, but on shared enemies. Capitalism, national sovereignty, Western culture, and constitutional government all fall into that category.

History has shown us how this process works. Revolutionary coalitions form to tear down an existing order, promising liberation and justice. Once power is seized, the alliance fractures, and the most ruthless faction takes control.

Iran’s 1979 revolution followed this exact pattern. Leftist revolutionaries helped topple the shah. Within a few years, tens of thousands of them were imprisoned, executed, or “disappeared” by the Islamist regime they helped install. Those who do not understand history, the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.

ALEX WROBLEWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This moment is different

What happened in California was not a foreign conflict bleeding into the United States or a solitary extremist acting on impulse. It was an organized domestic group, steeped in ideological narratives long validated by universities, activist networks, and the media.

The language that once circulated on campuses and social media is now appearing in criminal indictments. “Liberation” has become a justification for explosives. “Resistance” has become a plan with a date and a time. When groups openly call for the destruction of the United States and then prepare bombs to make it happen, the country has entered a new phase. Pretending things have not gotten worse, that we have not crossed a line as a country, is reckless denial.

Every movement like this depends on confusion. Its supporters insist that calls for America’s destruction are symbolic, even as they stockpile weapons. They denounce violence while preparing for it. They cloak criminal intent in the language of justice and morality. That ambiguity is not accidental. It is deliberate.

The California plot should end the debate over whether these red-green alliances exist. They do. The only question left is whether the country will recognize the pattern before more plots advance farther — and succeed.

This is not about one group, one ideology, or one arrest. It is about a growing coalition that has moved past rhetoric and into action. History leaves no doubt where that path leads. The only uncertainty is whether Americans will step in and stop it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.