Shakespeare: Too White for Ivy League Students

The outspoken and fantastically fierce Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke filled in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program today, Tuesday, December 20.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 3 for answers to these questions:

• Will consumers ditch Cheetos for healthy snacks?

• Would you eat a PepsiCo quinoa or spinach dip at a party?

• Was political correctness given its last rights on November 8th?

• Why does diversity exclude white people?

• Are black lesbian poets more diverse that white male playwrights?

• Can tweets cause seizures?

• Is assault via the internet a federal crime if it crosses state lines?

• Have people killed in the name of Black Lives Matter?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

DAVID: Thanks for staying with the Glenn Beck Program. You're going to think this story came out of the Onion, you know, that satirical newspaper. But actually, this comes out of the Wall Street Journal.

Did you know that the chief executive of Frito-Lay has vowed to turn the maker of Fritos, Cheetos, and potato chips, and Pepsi into a health juggernaut? I'm not kidding.

This story here says: But while consumers say they all want to eat healthy, often all they really want are potato chips.

It goes on to say: But buoyed by less-healthy snack brands such as Doritos chips and Cheetos Puffs, PepsiCo's sales and volumes are on the rise and its profit margins have expanded in 15 quarters straight. Selling junk food. Yeah, that's what people want from Frito-Lay. They don't want health food.

If I want eat healthy, I'm not going to -- if I want to eat healthy, I'm not going to buy Frito-Lay products. I know where the produce section is in the store.

So it goes on to say that these are hard chews for big food companies. Taste is the biggest factor in snack purchased.

No kidding. Salt. That's what they want to taste.

So it says here: When people get together, they have snacks like potato chips and pretzels. They don't all sit around and snack on granola bars.

It says: Norman Deschamps' head market researcher Packaged Facts.

It's a lot easier for a food behemoth like PepsiCo to generate revenue by tweaking just the Lay's brand of potato chips, the world's top selling food brand, than to start from scratch with quinoa or spinach.

It says: The world's biggest food companies have been trying to wrap up healthier offerings for years, but consumers haven't given up their love for all things sweet and salty.

Do you think you'd have to pay a researcher to tell you that? This is fascinating.

If I was a shareholder, Frito-Lay, I wouldn't be happy about this. I'd say, keep selling the junk food. You know, McDonald's tried this.

McDonald's, hamburgers and fries, that's what people want when they go to McDonald's. But we've turned into the nanny state. Where government -- the federal government and the state government -- remember New York with Mayor Bloomberg and his elimination of the Big Gulp sodas to try to get people to eat and drink in a more healthy fashion? The government -- the federal government steps in and puts all these requirements on the food makers. Now they have to list all of the ingredients and all of the caloric intake and how much sodium and fat and carbohydrates. I never look at the wrapper at that crap when I go to eat it. If I'm eating a Baby Ruth or a Butterfinger, I just rip the package open and start eating it. I don't care what the ingredients are. I know what it is. It's a candy bar. It's sugar covered with chocolate. It tastes good.

I know where to find cucumbers and carrots. So we -- you know, you look at the stuff here from McDonald's. You know, they try to get into the healthy food eating. Remember that? They had this healthy menu section in their restaurants. It bombed.

You know, there's some people that went in there and wanted a salad. I wouldn't go to McDonald's to order a salad. You know what people want when they go to McDonald's? Grease!

Because it tastes good. French fries, cooked in oil. Hamburgers, which are -- they're Quarter Pounders with cheese. Now it's a double Quarter Pounder with extra cheese. And now they put bacon on it. That's what people want from McDonald's.

So McDonald's abandoned that healthy menu. You know why? They were losing money off of it. They realized -- they came to the realization, which they didn't have to pay some marketing research guy or woman this. They could have just asked me. How do you think this is going to work? We're going to offer a healthy menu at McDonald's. I'd say, "Are you guys nuts? Do your stockholders know this?" Do you know what people want from you, McDonald's? Quarter Pounders with cheese, french fries, and shakes. That's what they want. They don't want wraps, salad wraps. You know, some people eat that. They don't go to -- if you're a healthy eater, do you go to McDonald's to get your health food? Don't you go to Whole Foods or one of these other places that, you know, has a little healthier menu? Who -- what person that wants to focus on healthy eating steps foot in a McDonald's? What, so they can order a shake and fries with their healthy wrap?

I mean, this stuff is insane. It really is.

And this goes kind of in line with this other thing I came across here from The Daily Signal. Ivy League students tear down Shakespeare portrait in the name of diversity. That's how crazy this world has become -- actually this country, with this political correctness, I hope on November 8th of this year was given its last rights. I really do. It's going to take some time.

It says here: Students at the University of Pennsylvania have removed a portrait of William Shakespeare and replaced it with a picture of a black lesbian poet for the sake of having greater diversity.

The large Shakespeare portrait had resided near a staircase in Fisher Bennett Hall for years until a gaggle of activist students removed it and placed it in the office of the English department head. In its place, they taped up a photograph of Audre Lorde. I guess she's the black lesbian poet. Never heard of her.

The portrait won't be moved back, according to a statement from the English department head because a white male Shakespeare didn't embody the value of diversity.

To which I would ask, why not? If you listened to the program yesterday, you heard me ask -- or say that, you know, a lot of these -- these liberal mainstream media that were picking on -- picking apart Donald Trump's cabinet nominees as being too white -- and I said, "Somebody needs to ask these people: What do you got against white people?" So the diversity has to be to the exclusion of whites. You can't have whites, blacks, Hispanics. It can only be blacks, Hispanics, lesbians, transgenders, Muslims, but it can't include whites?

So this -- this department head said: Students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.

So that doesn't include Shakespeare? He can't be a part of the inclusiveness -- their inclusive mission? Shakespeare can't be a part of the diversity? It can only be a black lesbian poet?

This is part of that totalitarianism on college campuses. The left knows better than anybody else, control the language, you control the narrative.

It's Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. We have to take a break. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. Merry Christmas from your host today, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Here's another one that you think you would find in the Onion. This Newsweek writer claims assault by tweet from The Daily Caller.

Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald claimed Friday he was assaulted by a tweet that caused a seizure. Now, the seizure part isn't funny. But assaulted by a tweet. My God, would my Twitter handle be in trouble.

It all started with a tweet Thursday from Eichenwald's account that said @Jew_Goldstein to his wife: You caused a seizure -- I'm sorry -- this is his wife: You caused a seizure. I have your information. I've called the police to report the assault.

That's why I said you would think this was out of the Onion. This guy would call the police because someone sent him a tweet that he says caused his wife to have a seizure.

So it says the Twitter user Jew_Goldstein had sent a gif. G-I-F. An animated video of changing colors with text that said, "You deserve a seizure." The account has been suspended by Twitter.

Newsweek told The Daily Caller they could confirm that Eichenwald's wife, what she said was true. Oh, yeah, that means -- if Newsweek said it, then that's confirmation -- that's enough confirmation for them, I guess. It's not enough confirmation for me.

Eichenwald himself went back on Twitter Friday to say he's taking a hiatus from the social media site as he works with law enforcement to bring this guy to justice.

(chuckling)

You've got to be kidding me, that the police would even respond and spend time on -- I wonder what police agency this is. It doesn't say here.

The Newsweek writer also suggested that the FBI might get involved.

(laughter)

No, this is not from the Onion, folks. This is from TheDailyCaller.com.

So he wrote -- and this is this Eichenwald -- at this point, the police are attempting to determine if this is a federal crime because it appears to be crossing state lines.

(laughter)

The FBI did not respond to an inquiry about whether assault via internet gif is a federal crime.

Speaking to that, let's talk about fake news. Unbelievable.

And I want to talk about this Russian hacking -- all this uproar over Russian hacking and how the Russians were to blame for defeating Mrs. Bill Clinton and the Democrats. It was the Russians that led people in the swing states, including Wisconsin and now Michigan, that hadn't gone Republican for several decades -- and Pennsylvania, how it was the Russians -- I mean, I live in Wisconsin, right?

I voted for Donald Trump. Supported Donald Trump. What these stories suggest is that I was going to vote for somebody else. And I said, "Well, you know, since the Russians have hacked, I guess I'll go vote for somebody else. I guess I'll vote for Donald Trump." I mean, this is insane.

But this is what they've glommed on to. Remember, they started with the, it was James Comey's fault. That's why she lost. Then it was fake news. And now it's the Russian hacking.

And since not much is going on in the political world, most of the media is content to just report on this, this Russian hacking. And I'm not here to suggest. Because I don't know. I'm not hear to suggest that Russia doesn't try to hack into databases. They don't try to get an edge. The Americans do the same thing. But to say this caused Donald Trump to get elected is insane.

I mean, I'm looking at this piece here from Rasmussen. And it says: The New York Times story titled Russian Hackers acted to aid Trump in election, is based on entirely, what else? Unnamed sources, including political appointees of current President Barack Obama.

Play that first clip for us, please.

OBAMA: But the larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even -- you could even rig America's elections. In part, because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.

And so I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes. And if you got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government.

DAVID: Now, that was before November 8th. That was President Obama. And that was when the Democrats were claiming at the time that Podesta's emails were hacked. They may have been. I don't know that the Russians did it. You heard the president.

He says it's impossible, with all the intricacies involved for them to -- not to get into these systems, but to swing an election. Then he accused Trump of whining. And he said -- this was before November 8th. If Trump gets more votes, Trump wins the election -- he apparently won the popular vote because of California. But if Trump wins the election, then she should graciously concede and let's move on. Well, that didn't happen.

So then we have all this stuff about the Russian hackers. There's no evidence at this point.

Now, post election, Obama has ordered an investigation into Russian hacking. Obama says, "We need to take action, and we will." Democrats are -- are saying that Americans believing fake news is sowing confusion.

This is incredible. The electoral college came back uneventful, no drama yesterday. I believe Trump ended up with 304, it might have been 305 electoral votes. Only two defectors in Texas, out of 36. And then he got one in Maine. I don't know if Maine doles theirs out proportionally or not. But one defector went for Trump -- I shouldn't say defector. He got one electoral vote in Maine. And Mrs. Bill Clinton got the other two. So he got 300 electoral votes. And the liberal mainstream media is saying, "Well, that's not a mandate. He better move cautiously."

I beg to differ. I like the fact that Paul Ryan, speaker of the house, has suggested that the Republicans need to go big on policy issues and policy recommendations. Don't squander this. You don't know how long it's going to last. They control the Senate, albeit, not necessarily filibuster proof. But they control the House of Representatives, and they control the White House.

I don't want to hear anymore complaining from the Republicans that they can't get anything done because they don't have any power. You strike while the iron is hot. You may not have the super majority for too long. The midterms are coming up in two short years. Often time, that favors the party out of power. So if we end up with a bifurcated Congress, where let's say the Dems win back the Senate -- I don't think they will, but who knows -- then we'll have gridlock. So they have to strike while the iron's hot. And they better.

We got to take a break. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. Coming up in the show is David French. We're going to talk about Black Lives Matter.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. In for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Let's go in this direction: I have on the line David French. David French is a staff writer at National Review. He's an attorney. Concentrates his practice on constitutional law, the law of armed conflict. He's a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And he recently penned an article in National Review, and it had to do with Black Lives Matter and this love affair with the late Fidel Castro. And I want to talk to him about that.

David, thanks so much for joining me today.

FRENCH: Thanks so much for having me, I appreciate it.

DAVID: Why don't you get right into it, this sickening essay from Black Lives Matter in terms of making Fidel Castro into some -- a guy that's to be admired?

FRENCH: Yeah, it's really amazing. Right after Fidel Castro died, Black Lives Matter published a piece, an essay -- I mean, you really have to read it to believe it. But it begins with: We're feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. And it's a really remarkable essay that laments his death, talks about his revolutionary street cred, and then essentially -- and then thanks him for sheltering some of the most vicious cop killers in American history.

There were black revolutionaries who killed police officers, three of them, for example, hijacked a jet after they killed a police officer at knife point, sent the jet to Cuba, and Fidel Castro gave them sanctuary. And so what we're talking about here is a man who not only had a human rights effort, where over a million people left his own island to escape and where he ruthlessly suppressed dissent, he actually harbored in the United States -- I mean, harbored in Cuba cop killers, and Black Lives Matter was praising him for that.

DAVID: You know, one of those cop killers is Assata Shakur, who was -- Werner Foerster, I think was the New Jersey state trooper that she killed or she was involved in the killing. He had pulled over these individuals, this car for a traffic violation. And in part, she got out of the car. She was a passenger in the rear seat. And went over. Werner Foerster had been wounded. So he laid in the street. She ran over to him, grabbed his firearm, and shot him multiple times as he laid on the ground there. She was caught. She was convicted. She was sent to prison in the state of New Jersey. I think it was New Jersey, yeah.

And she escaped. There was an unbelievable escape. Some people came in. They took many of the prison guards hostage. They got her out. She fled to Cuba. She resides in Cuba to this day. And she's one of the ones that I have pleaded with -- with no success, to the Eric Trump-led attorney -- United States Department of Justice to get her back after President Obama normalized relations with Cuba. I said, "Okay. Something good can come of this normalization of relations with Cuba. Let's get those cop killers back here." And, of course, they're not interested in that.

But I have said -- and I have been very vocal about it, I have labeled Black Lives Matter as a hateful ideology. They foster division, as you write in your story here. They support an anti-cop rhetoric, cop hatred. And there are people who have killed law enforcement officers in the name -- name of -- of Black Lives Matter. Why do you think -- other than the obvious, you know, that they look at Cuba and they look atrophied he will Castro, that murderous dictator, and they idolize somebody like that.

FRENCH: Well, you know, they look at everything in the United States through one lens and one lens only, and that's race. And so Fidel Castro, as part of his anti-American campaign, decades-long anti-American campaign was constantly trying to create greater racial tension in the United States.

And one of the ways that he did that was by -- was by backing and explicitly supporting, both rhetorically and providing, you know, a home for people who are a part of organizations like the Black Panthers or the Black Liberation Army.

And so these guys -- these Black Lives Matter activists who are really the spiritual descendents, so to speak, of the Black Panthers, for example. They look at that history. And because they're only looking at it through the lens of race and race only, they don't realize -- or at least don't care, the extent to which Fidel Castro was cynically using American race tensions to advance its own agenda.

I mean, this is a guy who in Cuba discriminated against black Cubans in ways that were grotesque. And he was only exploiting racial divisions in the United States for his own communist means.

So he wasn't -- he wasn't some sort of social justice warrior. He was a communist dictator thug, but these people refused to see it.

DAVID: You know, part of the problem with this hateful ideology is these people who wrap their arms around it, people who have been invited to the White House, I should add, numerous times to hold counsel with the president of the United States, they don't know their history. They don't know the history here.

It's kind of like Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, you know, taking a knee. Sitting down initially and then taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem. He's another one that showed up at a post-game conference. You know, you do the thing after the game. He shows up with a T-shirt with a picture of Fidel Castro on it. And I look -- first thing I think when I see this: These people don't know their history. They don't know what they're talking about.

But when I look at Black Lives Matter and I look at how this ugly chapter and what it's been and what it's meant for the American law enforcement officer -- and like I said, a couple minutes ago, you know, it's led to the death -- people have killed in the name of Black Lives Matter. But this has also caused police in ghetto communities throughout the United States to not be as assertive as they need to be, to not engage in the kind of discretionary policing, quality of life enforcement, some people call it, and it has led to an increase of crime.

You look at the city of Chicago -- and I talked about it on the program yesterday. They're up to like 753 murders in the city of Chicago in 2016 alone, compared to about 495 last year. And last year's total outpaced the year before that. And in the city of Chicago, you have over 3,000 people who have been hit by gunfire in non-fatal shootings.

So you look at that sting across America, and then these people have the nerve, the audacity, to run around saying black lives matter. But you look at stuff like that, where are they? They're nowhere to be found.

Black people -- good law-abiding black people in many cases, children, you have seniors living in fear in these ghetto communities. And where are they? You know, they're nowhere to be found. And that's the phoniness of, you know, their mantra, the phoniness of their claim, their slogan, if you will. Black Lives Matter. What are your thoughts on that?

FRENCH: Yeah, it's one of the most clever marketing campaigns in history, that's contradicted by then about everything that the group actually stands for.

For example, on its website, it says flatout that they want to destroy the nuclear -- the Western prescribed nuclear family. Well, the destruction of the family is one of the main drivers of social conflict, not just in black communities, but in American communities at large.

And when it comes to -- to -- to violence, what you are seeing about the change in policing tactics, which are changes in tactics that Black Lives Matter has been pushing for, there's mathematical -- there's strong mathematical correlation.

If you look in -- if you look in Chicago, there's been a decrease in the number of stops. There's been a decrease in the number of -- consequently, decrease in the number of drug confiscations -- I mean, gun confiscations. A decrease in the number of arrests. And a corresponding dramatic increase in the number of murders. I mean, all of this is -- is very well documented. And so, you know, if you're talking about what -- what is it that saves black lives? Well, one of the key things that helped end the murder crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, was very aggressive policing. And also with -- and this is something that a lot of people don't realize, with the active and enthusiastic participation of black communities in the US. Everything from pastors to politicians, the congressional black caucuses out front in the late '80s and early '90s in trying to have -- in moving towards tougher policing. There was -- there were African-American lawmakers in states around the country seeking relief from this crime epidemic. And so it was the black community that really rallied in the late '80s and early '90s. And now along comes Black Lives Matter. As you said, they don't know their history. And they're trying to undo a lot of the reforms that the black community had led America in advocating for generations -- a generation ago, that has since saved countless lives. So I'm not sure, you know, which community they purport to be speaking to.

I think they're speaking for a media community that loves them a great deal. And like I said, they have a very clever marketing slogan. I mean, of course, everyone believes that black lives matter. But what's behind that slogan is a very, very radical agenda that is actually costing lives.

DAVID: Right. And, really, in essence though, black lives do not matter, at least to these individuals. They matter to you. They matter to me. Matter to a lot of people, but not these individuals. They put out some manifesto not too long ago where some of the tenets were, you know, railing against Israel for the treatment of the Palestinians. Railing against -- or demanding more money for global warming studies.

And when I read this manifesto, I said: You know what, black people do not care about global warming. They do not care about what's going on in Israel. Not that we shouldn't care about what's going on in Israel. We do. But I said, here's what black people care about: They care about jobs. They care about better schools for their kids to be able to go to. And they care about safer communities.

David, I want to thank you for joining us. Keep up the good work and Merry Christmas.

FRENCH: Thanks so much for having me. And Merry Christmas to you too.

DAVID: Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program, and we have to take a break.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. Final segment. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. This has been fun. Two straight days. This was new for me. I've done fill-in radio. I've told you that before. I've been a guest host nationally on some programs, as well as locally back home. But I've never done successive days.

I'll tell you, I got a new admiration, not that I didn't before, but for people who do this for a living, who are good at this, people like Glenn and others. He comes in -- he's got to do this five days and no weekends off, of doing other things. Putting these programs together takes a lot.

Again, I want to thank the people on the set here, the producers and everybody involved in the production of this program. You guys have been great. You really have provided -- you guys with the training wheels for the -- you know, in case the bicycle got a little wobbly, I'd have the training wheels to rely on. You guys are what makes the show go. I don't know if Glenn tells you that enough, but you do. He probably does. But thanks for everything that you've done. It's been great.

And, you know, it's kind of interesting -- I want to close with this. And, again, this is kind of like the gift that keeps on giving.

To rehabilitate the Democratic Party, Obama plans to coach young talent.

So Obama to the rescue again. He spent eight years destroying this republic, and now he wants to coach new talent.

He says here: What I'm interested in is just developing a whole new generation of talent, Obama told NPR's Steve Inskeep in an interview on Morning Edition.

There's such incredible young people, who not only worked on my campaign, but I've seen in advocacy groups.

You know, he's the community organizer.

I've -- I've seen passionate about issues like climate change or conservation or criminal justice reform, you know, campaigns too for a livable wage and health insurance, and make sure that whatever resources, credibility, and spotlight that I can bring to help raise them up, that's what I want to do. That's something I think I can do well.

Because, you know, he excels at everything. There's nothing that Barack Obama can't do. You know, there's no short suits in his talent box. At least that's what he thinks.

I hope that he's serious about this because what he'll end up doing is he will coach a generation of young starry-eyed liberals in the area of community organizing in this Democrat Party that is in free fall, will continue to flounder. So what I always tell people when they point out what's wrong with the Democrat Party -- I'm talking people on the right -- I say, "Be quiet. Leave them alone." I say, "They're doing fine. They will figure this out on their own." So we'll see what happens there.

Again, it's been a pleasure to be with you these last two days. I want everybody to have a very Merry Christmas, a blessed Christmas. A Happy New Year. And remember, Donald Trump is going need to all of us to provide that pushback against the people that want to see him fail. And he's going need to our energy as well in order to make America great again. Put the country first. Leave the other stuff out of it and everybody will be fine. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program. David Clarke. Thank you very much.

Featured Image: The first four folios of William Shakespeare's work during an unveiling for auction at Christie's King Street on April 19, 2016 in London, England. The preview of the sale commemorates 400 years since the death of Shakespeare (1564-1616). The auction will be led by an unrecorded copy of the first folio, the first collected edition of Shakespeare's plays, which contains 36 plays and is estimated at £800,000-£1.2 million.The folios will go on public display in London from 20 to 28 April and then later being put up in a four lot auction on 25 May 2016. The sale is expected to reach in excess of £1.3 million (Photo by Chris Ratcliffe/Getty Images)

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.