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

Man in the Moon, Tower of Babel & Rabbi Lapin

March 21, 2013
Wilson

Writer

There’s a part in Glenn’s July 4th ‘Man in the Moon’ show that features a stunning Tower of Babel replica - so what the heck is the Tower of Babel doing in a July 4th celebration? Glenn talked on radio today to Rabbi Lapin, the man who explained the history of Babel to him better than anyone.

Transcript of interview is below:

GLENN: I have with me one of my dear friends and he's the best teacher I think. I said on the era minute ago, I have such respect for David Barton and I think he's one of the best teachers known in America. Rabbi Daniel Lapin is David Barton on steroids, not on speed but on steroids. And I was just showing him a picture of something that's coming from the American Dream Labs for Man in the Moon and this is in construction now and I think it's actually finished. I'm just waiting for the film on it. But this is a model of the Tower of Babel that, when I'm telling the story of America in the Man in the Moon thing for independence week in Salt Lake, part of that has to include the Tower of Babel. And that came from a conversation where he taught me the story, Rabbi Lapin taught me the story of the Tower of Babel and it is so clear what the ‑‑ the Lord is so consistent, and we are battling the exact same problem over and over and over again.

RABBI LAPIN: Well, that's what the first nine verses in Chapter 11 of genesis, that's not just a silly story about some anachronistic nation that's vanished in some primitive archeological artifact. No, it's actually a blueprint for the faithful allure of socialism which will live and burn in the hearts of men until the end of time.

GLENN: He has a new book called Buried Treasure: Secrets For Living from the Lord's Language, where he is taking Hebrew and showing ‑‑ for instance, I love this, and this isn't in the book and let me just make this side note. One of the things he taught me was, "Glenn, there is no such thing ‑‑ there's no Hebrew word for retirement. It's not in the Bible. There's no word for retirement, not part of God's plan."

RABBI LAPIN: And it's a really bad idea because what it really suggests is that when I've got mine, I'm getting out of the game and talking my ball and going home.

PAT: And how many people seriously die shortly after retiring?

RABBI LAPIN: It's definitely not part of God's plan for humanity. You're right about that.

GLENN: Okay. So one of the things in the book you talk about, there's only one word for blood and money.

RABBI LAPIN: Yes. In Hebrew ‑‑

GLENN: And so when you're reading ‑‑ you're reading the scriptures, you have to know which way it's ‑‑ similar.

RABBI LAPIN: It's always like that, yes, and this is not like this in English. For instance, the sole of my foot has absolutely nothing to do with fried sole that I like with french fries.

GLENN: Right.

RABBI LAPIN: And we don't sit around figuring out ourselves what could one have to do with the other. But in Hebrew anytime one word applies to what appear to be two concepts, what we do is we wrap those two concepts and they are actually, by combining them and integrating them, some fundamental truth is divulged and ‑‑

GLENN: So the same word, it's "dam."

RABBI LAPIN: Correct. That's exactly right, yes.

GLENN: So "dam" is the word for blood and "dam" is the word for money. So you're saying that God's language is saying those are the same how?

RABBI LAPIN: Sure. Well, one of the ways they are the same, of course, is that they are both your life force and, in fact, scripture says blood is the life force. And we've got to recognize that money isn't this dreadful, awful thing that hangs onto us like germs or like an article of clothing we might put on. Money, our money is actually our life force. If we didn't ‑‑

GLENN: Hang on just a second. That sounds to me like you're worshipping money or that you've put money ‑‑ you've made money more than a vehicle that can drive either way.

RABBI LAPIN: Ah, and this is why we're not allowed to, in Judaism we're not allowed to eat blood. And number two, think about it. There's a real problem if you see blood. Anytime you actually see it, something's wrong. It's not a good thing. When you see money, when it's too evident, that suggests the love of money. That's something else entirely. So money should do its work behind the scenes, as it were, the way blood does it work thinned scenes.

PAT: Makes sense, doesn't it?

GLENN: I just love you.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: You are so clarifying on stuff. The thing that you said last night, we were talking about the pope.

RABBI LAPIN: Yes.

GLENN: And when you talk about the pope, first thing you do is you call a rabbi. We had really ‑‑ we had actually one of your really good friends. He just flew in from Rome to be with us last night, and it's really good news about this pope. We did our homework, we've talked to several people, and we really believe this guy is a ‑‑ he could be, he could be the best pope in the history of the church and he very well looks like he's going to be the same kind of pope as John Paul was, which is help the poor. He was described as really kind of a Mother Teresa. Not a government thing. It's an individual thing to help.

But as we were talking about this, we started talking about the world and the president going over to Israel and you said something that I had never heard before. In fact, the reverend said, "Where is that in the Bible? Show that to me." When the Jews left Egypt ‑‑

RABBI LAPIN: Yes.

GLENN: ‑‑ not all of them left.

RABBI LAPIN: Correct.

GLENN: Explain.

RABBI LAPIN: Well, the verse in Gene‑ ‑‑ excuse me. The verse in Exodus says ‑‑ and in Hebrew it says (inaudible), the children of Israel went up out of Egypt 1/5th. And since the early 17th century with the King James translation of the Bible, they've had trouble translating that word because it raises so many more questions than it answers. "Wow, what are you talking about? Like only 20% left?" Well, yeah, that's exactly right. And so most English translations fudge that Hebrew word and turn it into something else. They might say the children of Israel left with weapons in their hands.

GLENN: Find it real quick, Pat, will ya? Do you remember which ‑‑

PAT: Do you know what verse it is?

RABBI LAPIN: How awful that I came here so unprepared.

GLENN: No, no, no, no, I'm sorry. In Exodus.

RABBI LAPIN: I can find it.

GLENN: Yeah.

RABBI LAPIN: It's in Exodus. It's going to be somewhere around about Chapter 12 in Exodus, somewhere there.

GLENN: Okay.

RABBI LAPIN: And the English translation will probably say something like the children of Israel went out of Egypt armed, or something like that.

GLENN: Why did they translate "1/5th" to "armed"?

RABBI LAPIN: Because in Hebrew 1/5th is meaning 5, and the word "five" is always linked to a hand, five fingers to a hand. And so what they ‑‑ you know, unarmed combat or empty‑handed. So here they threw in and they said, well, it must mean ‑‑

GLENN: How do you know that that's not the way they meant it, that that's not what ‑‑ that only, only 1/5 left? How do you know that that's what they meant and not that they carried weapons with them?

RABBI LAPIN: Ancient Jewish wisdom, about 2600 pages of densely packed Aramaic text from the time of Jesus 2,000 years old, and before that it was completely oral. What happened is Moses was on Mt. Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights, and a large part of that time the background was being explained because there are many bizarre mysteries in the five books of Moses that on the surface of it appear to be very, very strange. And as soon as we know some of the background, we know exactly what's going on and we understand why these things are. The whole point of the 20% is to teach us not only that even in spite of Moses, in spite of the miracles, in spite of the ten plagues, bottom line is 80% of people are going to say "Give me security. Just let me ‑‑ you know what? I'm okay with the Egyptians. They have problems, they exact a lot of texts..."

GLENN: This is so amazing because it was only 20% ‑‑ correct me if I'm wrong, Pat. It was only 20% that went with the founders. It was really only about 20% of the American people who said, "I'm willing to die for this." Right?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Wasn't it?

PAT: It was a small percentage.

RABBI LAPIN: It always is. And, you know, it's the rule in business as well. People who are professional salespeople know that 80% of your sales come from 20% of your customers. In the final analysis, in every epoch and in every orbit, it's about 1/5 of the people that deliver.

GLENN: So that explains why. So is the tipping point, you know, with, for instance, taxes, is the tipping point really truly 50/50 or 49/51? Because what we're having a problem with is people are saying, "Well, you'll never be able to turn it back because so many people are comfortable. They get money back and so they're comfortable."

RABBI LAPIN: When the takers exceed the makers, I think we have a problem.

GLENN: But you have only 20%. Because that's the problem. The reason why people take or they want security is they are afraid to risk.

RABBI LAPIN: Yes.

GLENN: More people are not entrepreneurs I believe because it's scary. It really is scary. To come out and say, "You know what, I'm going to do this. I'm going to leave ‑‑ I'm going to leave the comfort that I had." I mean, when I was at Fox, they told me, you're not going to leave. Nobody ever does. You're not going to leave. And I'm like, "No, I'm going to leave because I am an independent person and I'm an entrepreneur." But that takes a different kind of person to go out and strike it out on your own.

RABBI LAPIN: You better be able to live with fear.

GLENN: Yeah.

RABBI LAPIN: You better be able to live with uncertainty and above all what I find to be the defining characteristic and I've known you long enough, if I may say, to know that you possess this and that is faith. You can't do it without faith, which is why entrepreneurialism never thrives in a socialist or atheistic environment.

GLENN: I didn't know that, either. Is that why Europe doesn't have ‑‑ and that's why ‑‑ that would explain why Israel is so for its size, is so huge on so huge on entrepreneurial spirit and everything else.

RABBI LAPIN: There's no other way to explain it because ordinarily GDP is a function of population. Georgia has 10 times the GDP of Rhode Island and it's got 10 times the population. So the numbers match. Israel's four contiguous neighbors, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt have about ten times the population of Israel. You'd expect them to have ten times the GDP. That's actually closer to the other way around. And the only explanation is that Judeo‑Christian biblical culture focuses very much on the idea of faith, which is why the founders put the words "In God We Trust" not on the walls of churches but on the money. Because that is where it comes from. It absolutely depends on a faith. And Koranic culture does not possess the same focus on faith that biblical culture does.

GLENN: You are going to learn more from this one book, Buried Treasure ‑‑ this is the second edition, Buried Treasure by Rabbi Daniel Lapin than you will learn anyplace else. In fact, before I went on the air, just to show you that I love this man and I think he is really truly one of the greatest teachers alive today. I just asked him, I said, "You know, when you're in town, will you schedule some time and when you're in town, I'd like him to come and teach me, you know, and so I can learn and really be a student of Daniel Lapin. He is brilliant, and it is not ‑‑ it's God stuff that you will learn. Again the book is Buried Treasure: The Secrets for Living from the Lord's Language. Rabbi Lapin, it's available anywhere or you can go to RabbiDanielLapin.com and pick it up there. Thank you very much, Rabbi.

RABBI LAPIN: Thank you, Glenn. Great being here.

GLENN: God bless. All right. Back in just a second.

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.