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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn interviews Ted Nugent

January 30, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Conservative activist and musician Ted Nugent called into the radio program this morning, where he and Glenn discussed the ongoing gun control debate, the bias in the media, and leftist hypocrisy. Read a transcript of the interview below.

GLENN: Ted Nugent's on the line. Hey, Ted, how are you, man?

NUGENT: Hey, greetings. A peaceful revolution morning to you, Glenn.

GLENN: It's it's insane what's going on. It's insane.

NUGENT: It really is, yeah. And thank you for exposing that. I love when you spotlight cockroaches so we can stomp on them. I appreciate it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. No, why are you getting violent with cockroaches now? What is that with all the violence, Ted? Cockroaches, you're stomping on them now.

NUGENT: That makes the environment cleaner when I do.

GLENN: You were you were on CNN and they were trying to bait you into violent revolution.

NUGENT: Well, you know, there's a great gal at CNN, Deb Feyerick who did a wonderful, positive, honest piece about guns and I stood there stunned watching it last month. So when they offered to come to my ranch to do an extensive interview, I spent seven hours with them yesterday

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait.

NUGENT: And I

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. With her?

NUGENT: Yes.

GLENN: All right.

NUGENT: With Deb Feyerick and her crew. And you know how they are. They are very gushy and positive throughout the day.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

NUGENT: But they also tried to weave in questions about an armed revolution building steam across the interland and I squinted and said, I don't know what you're talking about. I know there might be someone talking about that, but I hang out with some pretty wild eyed guys and I've never heard a hint of any reference to an armed revolution. We're going to have a revolution at the voting booth.

GLENN: So where did they get that? Did you ask her? Because you should report anybody that's having an armed that's reporting to you about an armed revolution? Jeez, CNN, you should report those people.

NUGENT: Yeah. Well, you know, up there in New York what Cuomo and Bloomberg are doing are so extraordinary, so anti Constitution, so anti common sense that there are probably some people very frustrated and angry that may have expressed something that hinted at that. And I said I've never heard it and I'm engaged with working hard, playing hard America in every state in this country and no one has ever mentioned anything like that. We're getting more involved and more engaged and we're going to vote the bad guys out of office as soon as possible.

GLENN: So what did they react how did they react to that?

NUGENT: Well, they kept bringing it back up, but I I kept straight and narrow and I denied any such reference or any such indicators. And they were you know, 99% of the interview, Glenn, I think is going to be very positive. I nailed it was about hunting and gun rights and the role of Second Amendment with certain semiautomatic firearms technology. And you know me. I mean, I slammed the door shut on it. But she had to play devil's advocate, and I made sure I mentioned that if you argue with me, you would be taking the side of the devil. So go for I.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: So it's only by the way, it's only the 1% that anybody cares. I mean, 99% of it was good. The 1% will be the one that they focus on.

NUGENT: And I believe, Glenn, that they will edit it with honesty. That's what they did with the gun issue in New York.

GLENN: (Laughing.)

NUGENT: I really do. That's why I allowed Deb Feyerick. She seemed to be honest and genuine in her pursuit and

GLENN: Hang on.

NUGENT: I know I'm terminally hopeful.

GLENN: I almost believe you. I mean, come on, man. You're not that dumb. Really? You really believe they will edit it honestly?

NUGENT: I really do. I saw the piece they did on guns previously.

GLENN: Uh huh.

NUGENT: And it was 180 degrees, 180 degrees opposite of these, the basic CNN stance. So I knew that they were countering the CNN mantra, and I believe this will this piece will do the same thing.

GLENN: Well, that's great. I mean, at least it wasn't NBC because they edit everything.

NUGENT: Oh, boy, do they ever. I really

GLENN: They edit everything.

NUGENT: By the way, I filmed the whole thing as it's taking place. And it's just like the CBS interview a few months back where I did snap because I was passing a kidney stone live on the air.

GLENN: They make CBS makes me do that too.

NUGENT: Yeah. And it was a 2 1/2 hour interview. And I've got to tell you I would be 100% proud for you and my children and my friends and honest Americans to witness the 2 1/2 hour interview I did with CBS, but they took out the one minute where I snapped. And that's typical of those networks. But I really believe that what Deborah did on the gun piece recently on CNN that she will approach it the same way with my interview. And I gave them seven hours. So they're planning on multiple series.

GLENN: Hey, let me ask you something, Ted. I have officially given up on the Republican Party. I don't I don't care for them at all anymore. I they won't get a dime. I will campaign against people giving them any money.

NUGENT: Isn't that a shame, Glenn? I agree but it's a shame. We have to work to fix that, yeah.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't think it's fixable. I think that everybody needs to start walking for the exits and if they decide they are going to change, great. You know, I don't know if I'll even trust them if they come running after and saying, okay, okay, okay, we get it. But these guys in Washington, they don't get it, they don't care to get it. I mean, I don't even know who these guys I don't know who these guys are anymore and I'm just done with it. I think it's time that we, you know, we flush everybody in the media says, you know, the Republicans are dead and it's because they won't compromise. No, the Republicans are dead because they don't have any values. They don't have any principles. They don't even though who they are. All they are is about winning and that's why they're losing every time.

NUGENT: I think they

GLENN: So why don't we form a party that has actual principles that I'll bet you 80% of this country could actually because the problems are so big, the solutions are basic. Basic principles that all thinking people can get around.

NUGENT: I concur.

GLENN: Why wouldn't we do that.

NUGENT: Well, I concur the time has never been more obvious than right now and I think the glowing violations of the GOP is that they are not holding Eric Holder accountable for Fast and Furious, they are not holding Hillary Clinton accountable for the deaths of four Americans that were totally unnecessary.

GLENN: Crazy.

NUGENT: And there's so many examples but those are the two most heartbreaking examples.

GLENN: Let me give you hang on. Let me give you another one. How about, we have John Kerry now, a guy who trashed our troops, lied about our troops in Vietnam, he's now our Secretary of State.

NUGENT: Agreed.

GLENN: How about this one, how about this one: Let me give you this story. I don't even know if you even know this. An 11 year old boy is recovering from surgery following a vicious incident last Sunday in which he was mauled by three unleashed pit bulls. This is in the District of Columbia. Suffering wounds to his legs, arms and stomach and chest before the dogs were shot and kill. Now this is right in the heart of the District of Columbia and here's what happened. Kid got a new bike for Christmas, he's riding it down the street. Three unleashed pit bulls attack this kid on the bike, throw him off the bike. They're biting him, chewing apart. This kid is screaming. A guy in his house grabs his gun, shoots the pit bulls, saves the kid. You ready? D.C., the shots alerted a D.C. police officer around the corner. They've now arrested the guy who shot and killed the kids and they are looking into it. The rescue may have been illegal.

STU: Shot and killed the dogs?

GLENN: Shot and killed the dogs.

NUGENT: A perfect example of doing the universally known right thing and being punished. Remember the Navy hero in New York City who shot with his Navy M 9 a multiple paroled felon he caught at 4:00 a.m. in his young son's bedroom. Instead of arresting the paroled felon, they arrested the Navy hero for saving his son's life, Glenn. And I could go on and on for are 100 hours with examples of this government and this system doing the absolute wrong thing against people who do the absolute right thing. It is absolutely insane.

GLENN: Ted Nugent, you know what I think the best thing that you can help me with and help America with is gathering together a bunch of attorneys that will help defend people on their right to bear arms.

NUGENT: You're absolutely right.

GLENN: And know who these guys are. The biggest names in attorneys that will help people because this government is going to do basically what they did in Ruby Ridge where they get you basically on a technicality and there's going to be a standoff. And people have to know don't stand off. Do not do that. You call this number and somebody in an attorney firm will come and represent you because you want your day in court. You want your day in court.

NUGENT: I think you're absolutely correct. And that positive sense, that common sense is alive and well in hundreds of sheriffs and sheriff departments in this country that are standing up to this government and the federal government with their constitutional violating Second Amendment infringement. So I think there is a growing pulse. But you're right about that. If you attempt to stand up to what's right, you will be shot and killed.

GLENN: I will tell you this. You know, I've said make friends with your deputy. I would like to go out on parole with the deputies. I'd like to be deputized. I'd like to go out with the sheriffs and help in any way I possibly can. Whatever you need, sheriffs, whatever you need. Sheriffs are your best friends.

You know Waco, the sheriff at Waco actually liked the Branch Davidians. Said, "I didn't agree with them, I thought they were nuts, but they were really nice guys." If the federal government would have gone to the sheriff, the sheriff probably could have gotten that all done without killing all of the families.

NUGENT: I believe that.

GLENN: Ted, thanks so much, man.

NUGENT: God speed, Glenn.

GLENN: Hey, when's that story going to be on CNN?

NUGENT: They say the first segment will air tomorrow night, Thursday night. I don't know exactly what time but as soon as I find out, I'll

PAT: We'll call you back and find out how pissed off you are when you find out that they betrayed you.

NUGENT: No, I'm eternally hopeful.

GLENN: All right.

NUGENT: I think the I think I'm pretty good at this. And like I did on Piers Morgan, I handed him his guts on his own show. So they did

GLENN: You know the only problem with that is, is that was just such a silent death, nobody watched it. Nobody saw it. Nobody's watching Piers.

NUGENT: Did you notice that?

GLENN: Nobody's watching it. Thanks a lot, man. I appreciate it.

NUGENT: All right. Live it up, man.

GLENN: By the way, an extended interview in the March issue of TheBlaze magazine, extended interview with Ted Nugent. He's the cover story, TheBlaze magazine. You can find out all about it at TheBlaze.com.

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.