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

Five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America, again

November 01, 2012
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. - Barack Obama, 2008

When he said that five years ‑‑ five days before the election four years ago, most of America didn't even pay attention. Most of America didn't even know what that meant. And when we started pointing out, this guy is going to fundamentally transform the United States of America, I said you will come to a day where you won't even recognize this country anymore. You will wake up in the morning and you won't recognize it. Have you felt that way yet? Because I have. I hit the wall to where I really truly do not recognize my country anymore when we left the guys on the roof painting the enemy. With a laser in Benghazi and the president saying "No." When we said, no, you know what, we're not going to go after the Black Panthers," I didn't understand my country anymore. When the president said the cops acted stupidly, when the president said, you know, Trayvon, he could be my son" with absolutely no evidence, nothing, I didn't recognize my country anymore. When I can see this media spin, and I mean, we've all had this conversation ever since we were young. If you're a conservative, you've had this conversation for a very, very long time. I mean, they're all liberals. The spin is out of control. But not like this. When they will cover, when they will take a man like Jack Welch and throw him under the bus because he said there's something wrong with the jobs numbers, they're cooking the books. I don't know how they are a he doing it but I've been in the business long enough to know they're cooking the books. It's not 7.8 unemployment, they're cooking the books. And they go and throw the man, a legend like Jack Welch and throw him under the bus and then not report that ADP ‑‑ this is the payroll service. They feed in some of the stats to the labor department. They've just announced that, oh, they changed the way they calculate unemployment. And it looks like that may have affected their number. It looks like unemployment was cut down by a third to half. Oh, so you mean Jack Welch is right? At the same time the president is saying, "Oh, by the way, we may not have those labor statistics this week. We may have to wait until next week after the election because of Hurricane Sandy," and nobody says anything. I don't recognize my country anymore. When I see people standing in record numbers twice in one year at the mall in Washington, when I see people reading the Constitution, when I see people arguing about the Constitution, when I see people having real debates, when I see people leaving the parties because they say, "I don't want anything to do with the pears," you know what, the Republicans had their chance; they blew it. I think they've sold us out. When I see conservatives say that, I don't recognize my country anymore... in a good way.

Look what's happened to us since the president of the United States said those words. Fundamentally transform the United States of America. We're five days away again. The exact same spot four years later. We will fundamentally transform back to our values, our traditions and our principles. Upon this, upon which this nation was founded. And I'm not saying we're going to go back to George Bush. I don't want to go back to George Bush. I don't think you want to go back to George Bush. But that's the choice in five days. To go back to something that makes sense. Real transparency. The truth. Not a bunch of these cronies in Washington, not a bunch of bogus facts and bogus jobs where we all know it's not true. But closer to the way we were on 9/11, after the attack, closer to the way we were on 9/12. To where we all started to break through our fear and we just did the right thing, Republican and Democrat. Are we going to go there, or will Barack Obama finish the job he started and close the book on what we have always known as the United States of America, one that never gives up, one that never sits down, one that never says, I don't know, I'm too tired; I don't know, we're just an oppressor nation. Are we going to believe the lies that have been told to us? Because that is the choice, and I know that seems radical, at least it does four years ago when we were saying it, but I think we've made a very good case. And the easiest way to make this case is just to paraphrase President Obama: Let me be clear, as I've said in the past, judge me by the people I associate with.

Who I associate with on economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed chairman Paul Volcker.  If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate foreign relations committee or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO. Before debating healthcare, I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members.  Before immigration debates took place in Washington, I talked with Eliseo Medina and SEIU members. - Barack Obama

You notice that there is, you notice that there is a difference between the president, the way he is even speaking. Because the way ‑‑ the man wears a mask. He will say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. And when he's speaking to mainstream America, he sounds just like you. But when he's speaking to radicals and labor unions and revolutionaries, all of a sudden he's got a whole different sound to him. Because the president is a fraud. Who does he associate with? Radical, revolutionary Communist Van Jones. Marxist professors. Radical anti‑Israel buddy Rashid Khalidi, Marxist spiritual advisors Jim Wallis, Jeremiah Wright, you know the list. And it is excruciatingly long. And yet today we have another one, one that we were told to dismiss, the civil rights icon, the man who delivered the benediction prayer at Obama's inauguration, Joseph Lowery, a man who gave a prayer that day that we all said, "Now wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute." But everyone told us, "Dismiss it."

"We ask you to help us work for that day when blacks will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yella will be mella, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right. " - Lowery

When white will do right. We were told he's just a quaint little old man and, sure, he's living in the past because I haven't grown up in this world that President Obama keeps saying we are in. One of the most controversial prayers at any inauguration, ever, and we were told dismiss it. And it's very clear from this that he doesn't believe that whites have ever or could do what's right. But this past weekend, it rears its ugly red again. Racism again. Lowery said that when he was a young militant, he believed that all whites were going to hell. Then he mellowed with age and decided only most of whites were going to hell. There is your mellowing according to this radical. That the president chose as the person to give the benediction to bring us all together. Who did he choose? Someone who said, "Well, I used to believe all whites go to hell. Now I only believe that most whites go to hell." Does this sound like your pastor, your priest, your rabbi? Or does this sound more like Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright? Now he's amended this again. He told a rally at St. James Baptist church in Georgia he's back where he started. He's back to saying, "You know what? I now believe that all whites are going to hell.

Now, I understand people tell me that he was a valiant warrior and a just cause. He may have been a warrior in a just cause, but I'm sorry if you are a warrior in that just cause and you believe that all whites were going to hell. You are not a valiant warrior. That's not Abraham Lincoln. That's not Martin Luther King. That's not Gandhi, that's not Jesus. I don't know who that is, but that's not valiant. And let's be clear about that. Just because, just because you're for freeways, and one of the greatest advocates of freeway systems was Adolf Hitler doesn't make him a strong, valiant advocate for the international highway system. It goes without saying that if it were a clergyman that Romney had invited to pray at one of his events and that man later said all blacks are going to hell, the outcry would be vicious and deafening as it should be. It would cost Romney the election. And there would be, there would be no question of age. Do you remember Jesse Helms? There would be no question of, "Well, he's just an old man. He's just no questions asked. It would be over. This is why Romney is going to win, because there's enough Americans that are tired of the double standard and they won't accept it from Mitt Romney, either. If Mitt Romney gets in and he has the double standard and he says, well, hold me to a different standard, which I've never seen him do before, Americans won't put up with it. We're tired of it. We're tired of the lies, we're tired of the deceit, we're tired of the double standard. We're tired of being told and taught that we're something that we're not.

Now, our children are being taught this in school and we better grab onto our children, we better grab onto them fast. It was Karl Marx that said you give me one generation and I'll change the world. They almost have that generation wholly purchased now. And it's been done through our indoctrination of our school systems and through our television, through our movies, and it's got to stop and we've got to stop it right now. And that doesn't mean we have to round people up or have hearings or anything else. Get your kids out of school. You find a different way to educate your children. You stop giving your hard‑earned dollars and your hard‑earned time to those media corporations that are lying to you. That are teaching and filling your kids' heads with lies and deceit. How many of us even trust Disney anymore? Everybody was so excited about, "Oh, Walt Disney, they just did Star Wars." Great. Do you trust Disney? Because I don't. I don't ever sit ‑‑ I don't ever sit my kids in front of a Disney, the Disney channel and think, "Okay, they're safe." Not even ‑‑ not even for a second. I don't like my kids watching the Disney channel. Believe me I've worked for Disney ABC. I know how that game is played. I have good reason not to trust Disney ABC. And so do you because you've seen it.

The reason why Mitt Romney's going to win is because I've seen what happened with Chick‑fil‑A and there wasn't a single labor union bus involved in that. That was just moms and dads and people who go to church together and people who are just regular people who said, justify is justify. They may not have even agreed with the guy at Chick‑fil‑A but they knew he had a right to say it and they were sick and tired of it. Sick and tired of it. I am sick and tired of being told what the white man is. I am sick and tired of being told what this country is and is not. By people who have no idea what this country is and is not. They don't even have any idea what this country was at any given time. They can't tell you about Abraham Lincoln's real feelings. They can't tell you about George Washington and his real feelings. They can't put it into any historic context at all. They live in a bogus plastic Eurocentric world. And most Americans do not. Most Americans are not radical. Most Americans are good, decent, honest people who are now being told "You didn't create that. You didn't build that. You're no different than every other country." Then why? Then why have we been so different? "Well, because you've been stealing it from the other countries." Really? We've been stealing it? We have lifted more people out of squalor worldwide than any other institution, any other country in the history of the world. There has never been a country like the United States of America and there never will be. Never. The world will weep when the Western way of life is washed away. It's time to stop ignoring the obvious. It's time to take Obama at his word and judge him by the people whom he associates, associates with. Radicals. Radicals. Muslim Brotherhood radicals. Barack Obama has always and continues to associate with radicals, always. He's comfortable in their company but he is not comfortable with anybody from the TEA Party. He is not comfortable with anybody in a tricorner hat who says "I understand the founders; I like the founders." He is not comfortable with them but, boy, he is comfortable to have them work in the White House if they're a Communist revolutionary. He is comfortable with radicals because he himself is a radical. America, listen to these words once again.

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. - Barack Obama, 2008

And this time our founders have hope for real change.

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.