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

Comedians Nail the Problem With the PC Culture

April 18, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Comedians have historically crossed the lines drawn by the rest of society. They did it in the 70s and 80s with religion, racism and a host of other issues. Today, as the PC culture tries to normalize itself, comedians are the ones pushing back.

"They weren't ever making these kinds of points in the last 20 years. They were not making the, Hey, get control points," Glenn said Tuesday on radio. "They were making the point of, We've got to move forward. We've got to progress."

RELATED: Denouncing Dave: Chappelle’s New Comedy Called ‘Homophobic’ and ‘Transphobic’

To illustrate the change, Glenn played several excerpts from contemporary comedians like Dave Chappelle, Jim Norton and Patton Oswalt.

Has the PC pendulum swung back enough so we can have a little common sense and laugh at ourselves again?

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 9:56 from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Who was it -- was it Dave Chappelle? Do you have that Dave Chappelle cut? There's that Dave Chappelle where he talks about -- how is the African-American losing here?

JEFFY: They are.

GLENN: Yeah. He's like, we're -- we've lost our place. I mean, we've struggled forever and ever and ever. And now, where are we? And he's not the only comedian. Who is the other comedian?

STU: Yeah. Patton Oswalt Did something kind of on this where, you know -- again, these are not conservatives.

GLENN: No.

STU: These are liberals who are like, wait a minute, guys.

GLENN: And so was -- what's his name? Louis C.K.

PAT: Here's Dave Chappelle on the gay movement. Oh.

STU: Right now, I don't think it's sounding that loud. I think louder would be better.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Well, he's got a very quiet voice. I don't know if you've ever seen him live, but he's very, very, very quiet.

CHAPPELLE: I get it though. I understand why gay people are mad, and I empathize. You know what, I'm just telling you as a black dude, I support your movement. But if you want to take some advice from a Negro, pace yourself. These things take a while. Just because they passed the law doesn't mean they're going to like you. Brown vs. Board of Education was in 1955. Somebody called me a (bleep) in traffic last Wednesday. That's how long it takes. It takes a minute.

(laughter)

PAT: He's really funny.

GLENN: He is. He's really genius. He's really genius.

PAT: Really funny.

STU: So we have a bunch of clips here of comedians. I'm going to take just a quick break here with Mr. Pat Gray to make sure he has the most updated emails.

GLENN: You're saying that maybe there's an F-word or two?

STU: I'm saying we need to be careful to make sure you're playing the most updated.

GLENN: All right. We'll take a quick break here and then we'll make sure that we -- we've rinsed out their mouths.

[break]

GLENN: Welcome to the program.

So, you know, we were talking about political correctness and -- and who is -- who is at the top of the food chain? It used to be white males. That's long gone. You're at the bottom --

PAT: We're at the very bottom.

JEFFY: Long, long ago.

GLENN: Very bottom. Then it was females. But females are no longer at the top. Then it was homosexuals. Homosexuals are not at the top. It might be transgender. But I don't think so.

Who is at the top of the female -- it's not the African-American anymore. As you just heard from Dave Chappelle.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, listen, we've got about four comedians that are right now out, who are not conservative --

STU: At all. Exact opposite.

GLENN: Play this. Play this cut.

STU: It's Patton Oswalt.

GLENN: Listen to this.

OSWALT: I could not be a more committed, progressive, feminist, pro-gay, pro-transgender person, but I cannot keep up with the (bleep) glossary of correct terms. I'm trying! I want to help, but, holy (bleep), it's like the secret club password. They change it every week. And then you're in trouble. That's not the word we use. (bleep). It was just last week. I have hemorrhoids. My (bleep) is falling out. I want to help. I know I'm an old this (bleep) white (bleep), but don't give me (bleep) because I didn't know the right term. (bleep) RuPaul. RuPaul got into shit for saying "tranny." Ru (bleep) Paul. RuPaul, who she laid down on the barbed wire of discrimination throughout the '70s and '80s so this new generation could run across her back and yell at her for saying "tranny."

(laughter)

PAT: So good.

JEFFY: That is a fact.

PAT: Oh, that's --

STU: I mean, that's amazing that a progressive -- comedians are even noticing how far this has come. And they're not going to agree with the conservative audience on the points behind it. But that's kind of the issue here. You're even taking your own allies. And people who are rooting for you and want you to get everything that you want. And you're still torturing them over these things.

PAT: The same comedian, Patton Oswalt. Was it his nephew that's gay that came to him and was talking about how bad things were.

STU: I think it was his nephew, or maybe a friend's nephew.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Yeah.

OSWALT: Moved to LA. Came out of the closet. Told his parents. His parents went, duh. Now he's happy. He's married. Happy. He's running a business.

But he has a nephew who goes to his old high school. And so he's really protective of this kid because his nephew is openly, proudly, defiantly gay. Going to high school. And my friend is like, if anyone gives him (bleep), I will burn that (bleep) to the -- he's so protective. And I get it.

So he went back for Thanksgiving, and he's talking to his nephew. And he goes, is everything okay at that school? You know, I went there. I didn't have the best time. If you ever, like, want to like talk to me about it. How are things? Are they -- are they oppressive? Are they mean?

And his nephew started choking up and said, "Yeah. You know, it's -- it's pretty rough there. You know, they're still really oppressive. And it's pretty harsh." And my friend, the way he put it to me was my -- my inner Liam Neeson woke up, right? He was -- like he was thinking, "Give me a name." Like he just wanted a --

(laughter)

But he kept his cool, and he was like, "Well, just. Let's talk about it. What's going on? What are they doing to you?" And his nephew said, "Well, you know, for instance, my gay lesbian transgender club at school, we wanted to have our prom the same night as the straight kids' prom, and they're going to make us wait two weeks to have it. So it's just really oppressive, you know."

(laughter)

And my friend had to stop himself from saying, "You need to shut the (bleep) up because I don't think you know what oppressive means."

(laughter)

GLENN: How true is that?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: Because, you know --

PAT: Very.

STU: There was no gay or lesbian club when the uncle went there. There was no gay or lesbian prom. And the fact that you had to hold it on a different day, that actually seems more special. You get your own day. It's amazing that -- to see that happening in -- you know, in the world of pop culture. I mean, comedians who are, you know --

GLENN: And comedians lead the way.

STU: And they're the ones that will constantly walk over lines that the rest of society has drawn. You know, they -- and they've dawn this forever. They did it with religion back in the day.

GLENN: And they didn't do this before. They didn't -- they weren't ever making these kinds of points in the last 20 years. They were not making the, hey -- hey, get control.

They were not making those points. They were making the point of, we've got to move forward. We've got to progress.

STU: Look at these hicks that are stopping -- and they still make those points. There's no doubt.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

STU: But you're right. It's the opposite. It's like, wait a minute. We're trying to help you. And, still, you're torturing us over these things. I mean, that RuPaul point is amazing. I mean, I don't remember that story.

JEFFY: That sure is.

STU: But, I mean, if RuPaul is getting heat for not being transgender friendly enough, you might be going too far here.

GLENN: You might?

STU: You might be over the line.

GLENN: You think?

Well, if you want to be a hatemonger like that, Stu.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Then you can hate all you want. The rest of us know.

STU: The rest of us? The rest of us know?

GLENN: Yeah, the rest of us know.

PAT: The enlightened ones.

GLENN: The enlightened ones.

STU: But the Chappelle thing is new. Patton Oswalt.

GLENN: I know there's a Louis C.K. thing too.

STU: There's also a Jim Norton. Do we have a Jim Norton clip as well? His latest Netflix special has -- I hope they edited this one.

(chuckling)

Jim Norton can --

PAT: Yeah, he can get dirty.

GLENN: If they didn't edit this, I just want to say goodbye now. Thank you -- thank you for the time spent listening to us and all of your support over the years.

STU: We do have a delay built in, so if anything happens, you'll be fine.

GLENN: Here we go.

NORTON: But it's funny. The whole country is trans crazy. And we're really obsessed with it. And it's so funny how when the new thing happens or becomes in the lexicon, you can't joke about it on TV. Like, I tried to do a Caitlin Jenner joke. The networks were like, no transitioning jokes. And I'm like, well, it's not even a mean joke. And they were like, yeah, but we just don't like it. They've been marginalized.

I'm like, look, just because you've been marginalized doesn't mean you're removed from the humor spectrum like everybody -- like it wasn't even a mean -- first of all, the network canceled her reality show. How (bleep) is your reality show when you are on a Wheaties box. You're now a woman. You were a Kardashian. You killed somebody driving. And then, just boring. There's nothing happening.

(laughter)

And I think Hollywood means well. I think their hearts are in the right place. But it's a little bit phony. Some of it is just a little bit fake. Because you know how they can't talk about Caitlyn without saying how beautiful Caitlyn she is. Have you seen how beautiful Caitlyn is? No. She looks like the gypsy from Thinner.

(laughter)

PAT: Oh, my.

STU: He's awesome. But, I mean, that -- look, I mean, that's, what? Three big comedians. You also mentioned Louis C.K. Maybe we can run that clip for tomorrow or something. But like, it's a bizarre trend. It's strange to hear from these people.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: It shows that perhaps the PC pendulum is swinging back closer to the, you know, let's have common sense and being able to laugh at ourselves and each other just a little bit here. No execution for words. Safe zones are ridiculous.

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.