WATCH: "It's about control"

Tonight, one of the most shocking stories I have ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot. I’ve seen all the George Soros stuff. The government is snatching a child right out of its mother’s arms. This happened in California. All of the stories tonight that you will hear will have a common theme, and that is control.

We are living in a dangerous, dangerous time, and your neighbors better wake up from their slumber before it’s too late. A lot has changed in the last four years, but even more has changed in the last 86,497 days. That’s how many days have passed since these immortal words were penned: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These were the things that were given to us by God.

America, because of these words and the document that contained these words, became the land of the free. We were a beacon. Before we grew arrogant, we were a beacon, and millions of people packed up their entire lives and traveled halfway across the world. Even when we were arrogant, we were still the best in the world.

People would put their families on rickety boats and come over in Chevys. They weren’t even boats. They wouldn’t even know if they would make it alive, but it was worth it. It was worth a shot. In some cases, families were so desperate, they split apart. The patriarch of the family would make the trek in hopes of succeeding and one day have the means to bring the rest of the family to America with him, and they would do it over and over again. One by one, they would come.

In my own family, my uncle Leo was the only one who the family could afford to send to America. It was just before World War II. His family knew what was coming, and he knew he had to come to America. And the rest may never have made it. They didn’t know what exactly was going to happen to their home country in World War II.

I just read a story just a couple of days ago about a Jewish family here in America that split because they didn’t even know what would happen to America. But they took their two children and sent one to Californian and one to Illinois, and they didn’t even know about it, just to have a chance. That’s what America was, a chance, a chance to survive, a chance to breathe the air that was free, a chance to break the chains that would bind people all around the world in darkness.

Here was a beacon, a chance to pursue their wildest dreams, to pursue happiness, whatever it looked like for them…and the chance to worship God as they understood him, not with one formula. No promises, no guarantees, no fancy home or a job, just a chance, and people came by the millions, because this was the only place you had a chance.

Everywhere else you were controlled, and man is not designed to be controlled. We’re individuals, each of us unique. It’s that crazy leftist word that I don’t think – it’s like they say in the Princess Bride, you keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Diversity, that’s what America was all about. People are still coming. The question is, is America still delivering on its promise? Are we still a free nation? I’m not really sure.

The German family who fled here to homeschool their kids because of religious persecution, they would say yes, it is. Eric Holder is trying to kick them, however, out of the country. So are we? Anna and Alex Nikolayev, that’s the story of the kid that we told you yesterday. They came here from Russia of all places wanting to be free. They’re probably wondering if they were better off back with Putin in Russia. They live in the socialist state of California.

What happened to them is one of the most shocking things I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen it all. Several armed police officers in California, escorting a social worker from Child Protective Services, stormed into their house without a warrant and physically removed their infant baby right out of their mother’s arms. Anna was smart enough to set up a video camera just before they entered, and I’m glad she did, because the story is so incredible, I don’t think anyone would believe it if you hadn’t seen this.

VIDEO

Officer: So I’m going to come in and grab your baby and don’t resists and don’t fight me, okay?

 

I’m going to grab your baby. Don’t resist and don’t fight me. Are you kidding me? That goes against nature. Remember the bear cub thing that we talked about a couple of days ago? You go into a cave, and you’re like, I just want to hug the little cub. Mommy is going to tear you apart. That’s nature’s law.

It’s amazing, especially considering just a few months earlier, this government that pretends to care about babies so much that they made it legal to kill that baby just as long as you kill it in the womb before you can see anything happening. But you’d have to pry that baby out of my cold, dead hands. But what would you do as a parent?

It’s easy to talk big. It’s easy to say that would never happen to me. I’d tell them a thing or two. Really? Would you? Would you? Don’t you think you’d feel a little helpless? Would you even know what to do? Can you imagine how frightened this couple was?

Who wouldn’t be intimidated when police officers barge into your home demanding custody of the baby, and you’re thinking wait a minute, they can’t really do this, can they? And when they say yes, and if you resist, it’s only going to make it worse. You may never get your child back. What do you do, America?

Can you believe that we are living in this country now when I have to ask you that question, and you actually have to seriously ponder it? That’s the sort of thing that you would expect in North Korea or China and Russia, not here in America. Now these are, by all accounts, loving parents who are just trying to get the best treatment possible for their five-month-old baby, Sammy. That’s it. The justification CPS used was severe neglect, and I want you to understand this scene, because I want you to see if you can find any neglect, let alone severe, any neglect in this scenario.

Baby Sammy was born in a hospital with a heart condition. He goes home. He starts to show flu-like symptoms. Mom and dad are concerned, so they take him to the hospital. Boy, that doesn’t sound like neglect, does it? Now, they’re sitting in the hospital, and a nurse comes in and starts to give the child medication. Mom says, wait, what are you giving to the baby? The nurse says, I don’t know. The doctor just told me to give it to him.

Now, what do you say as a parent? Stop. I don’t know what you’re giving my child. What are you giving my child? I want to see the doctor. That’s what I would say. Is that neglect, or is that concern? Well, the doctor comes in, recommends surgery, recommends you’ve got to do it right now. Well, the couple had already previously been told that if they would wait to have surgery, the baby would be bigger and would have a better chance of surviving. Now what would you do?

And you know what’s amazing – it’s not your decision. It’s theirs. Their confidence in the quality of the care is a little shaken, because the doctor disagrees with the other doctor they just saw, and the nurse was like, I don’t know. I just give the baby whatever the doctor says. So they say, you know what, we want a second opinion. They want to go to another hospital. They want to make sure that they do the right thing before they start cutting the chest open of their child.

So they go to another hospital to get a second opinion. The second doctor says you know what, your baby is hydrated, healthy, clears the baby to go home. You’re fine. Now, does this sound like anyone even at all neglecting their children? After they left, the first hospital calls CPS and sends officers over to hospital number two. The officers show up, and they say, “Where’s the baby?” The doctor writes it all out. The baby is fine. I sent the baby home. The officers are totally satisfied, and they leave.

But that’s not good enough for the state of California. Oh no, it’s not over. Twenty-four hours later, CPS shows up at their home with armed police, breaks into their home. They do not have a warrant, and they essentially kidnap the child. Now I’m going to give you tonight a positive update to the story, and we’re going to be talking to the parents in just a few minutes, but the damage has already been done.

How can this possibly happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? A child snatched from their mother’s arms…can you imagine? I’m just imagining what my wife – what would you do? How does it happen? Well, it’s easy – Progressives. You see, they know better than you. They’re smarter than you. They know – what do you know, really?

And God is out of the picture, so they are in control. See, it used to be God, then you, then the government. That’s the way our founders set it up. God was up here. He gave rights to you, and you say, I’m going to loan some of these rights to the federal government so they can do the things that I don’t have time to do so I can pursue happiness. That’s the way it worked.

But now government is at the top, you are underneath government, and God doesn’t even figure into the picture anymore. And if God doesn’t issue you your rights, who does? Certainly you don’t. Who are you to issue rights? The government does, and if the government starts to issue rights, they can issue them. They can issue rights over here but not over here. They can take them back. They can trample them. They can change them, because their rights, not yours.

They can do anything they see fit, because they have occupied the space of God, and this is exactly what our founders knew. The children don’t belong to you. You might’ve birthed them, but anybody can do that. They belong to the community. If this sounds insane, well let me remind you of the MSNBC promo, not just somebody in a panel going, oh yeah, I misspoke. No, no, this was a scripted promo from NBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry.

VIDEO

Melissa Harris-Perry: We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children, so part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

Sometimes I just fall to my knees and I ask God, how is it I can’t break through? How is that I can’t break through to the American people? How is it? How do we do it here? What is wrong with people? I’m the conspiracy theory? I’m the one pushing conspiracy? Are you watching the news?

Drop the private notion of your kid belongs to you. The collective controls them now. That’s insanity. Well, we’ll make better decisions when the collective is in control. Really? Do orphanages, are they better? Because those kids are controlled by the collective. All the Progressives think that they are going to be the one that finally solves it.

It’s the ageless socialist, communist riddle – how can we achieve this perfect utopia, collectivist society where it doesn’t end in starvation and, you know, people getting shot in the head? Well, it hasn’t happened yet, and it’s not going to, because it’s impossible. Man is designed to be free and chart their own course, not to be controlled. We are not designed to be lumped into groups or collectives. We can do that by choice, but we are designed as individuals. Look at your fingerprints – individuals.

We are completely and totally unique, and that’s diversity, the way it should be. And no one else in the history of the world is like you, but Progressives are trying to defy the laws of nature. Can I ask you this simple question: Can you imagine anyone having a greater love for your child than you? Besides your spouse, is there anyone? I think God, but that’s it. That’s it. No state, no group, no government, no social worker, nobody, no teacher, nobody can love my child more than I can love my child. That’s my child.

Yet, they keep trying to take me out of the picture and you out of the picture, because you parents, you just don’t know. We went to school for these things. Really? Parents now at a New York school are up in arms – but they’re all bigots, remember that – because they weren’t notified that students were forced to attend and participate in an anti-bullying presentation on homosexuality and gender identity.

Now, this is a program that they took 13- and 14-year-old female students, and they lined ’em all up. And they were forced to ask each other to make out and to pretend to be lovers. My 13-year-old daughter is going to be forced to stand in line and look another girl in the eye and say, “I want to be your lover”? What, are you insane?

The male students participated in a workshop which presented them with the idea that they should always have a condom in their pockets at all times. You never know when, you know, you’re going to need a condom. My 13-year-old son – thank you very much. They also got tips on how to identify – and I love this one – “a slut.”

So this is a seminar designed to create a bully-free environment, bully free, except for sluts. Well, I guess maybe sluts aren’t people. You can bully sluts, because they’re sluts, but just make sure you have a condom in your pocket when you do, because, you know, she’s a slut, you know what I mean? And you gotta have that condom, unless she’s a slut that likes to be slutty with other women, and then she should be in the other line.

What planet are we living on? Who thought this was a good idea? Some Progressive, over-educated numbskull, that’s who. We have the kind of government where bureaucrats are in charge, and parents have very little to say, either by design or by choice, because a lot of this is happening because a lot people are like, whatever. It’s just a school. It’s going to be fine. No it’s not.

The school superintendent shrugged off the criticism. I love this one. “[We] may require more notification to parents…” You might? You might require, really? Mom and dad, how are you feeling? Who has more control over your child right now, the school or you? Is your child with you more than the school?

Common Core is another control grab, federally mandated curriculum that forces every school to teach exactly the same way, homogenized, generic, zero chance of sparking any creativity in the children or in the teachers. They just jammed this one through the stimulus bill and bribed its way into most of the states, and parents have been left in the dark.

Now it’s finally being implemented in some states like New York, and the complaints are coming in. “Teachers, parents, and students complained that the tests were poorly designed, covered material that not been taught, and frustrated children to the point of tears.” Well, I hope the collective was there to hold them and wipe their little runny noses.

A professor at Columbia created a website for teachers and school administrators to share their feedback on Common Core. What did he find? Overwhelmingly negative, and these are the people who like Common Core. Let’s not forget, it teaches that Communism is everyone for everyone, and Capitalism is everybody out for themselves.

The masks are coming off, and we are seeing what Progressives are really all about, one word – control. Yesterday on radio, I played for you an admission from a gay activist. While I disagree with her, I actually have respect for her, because at least she’s being honest. This is Masha Gessen. Listen.

VIDEO

Masha Gessen: I mean, I agree. It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. You know, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out 30 years ago. You know, I have three kids who have five parents, more or less. And I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them into a sanctioned couple.

The world’s getting awfully complex here. I’m having a hard time following, keeping up. I could have a conversation with this woman every day of the week, every day of the week. At least she’s honest. These are the things the conspiracy theorists tell you that are coming down the pike, but nobody will believe you. Why, because they’re lying to you. They’re lying to you.

The institution of marriage is absolutely under attack, and if that happens, everything you know – families, parents, churches, all of it – gone. I know some Conservatives in this audience will not like this, but if you want to get married, I don’t really care. You can get married. You want to get married to a bike or a tree or a Buzz Lightyear action figure, I don’t really care. I really don’t care. Whatever dude, whatever – leave me out of it.

If that’s what your conscience dictates, I will support your right to be married in your church, and you can have the church of the, you know, the holy blue carpet, and you worship the blue carpet. I don’t really care. I’m not going to tell you what you can do in your church. Don’t you dare tell me what I can do my church.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. The value of that pact does not come from a government sanctioning it. It comes from God. I make a pact, a contract between my wife and God. That’s it. What God has joined together, let no man tear apart. That’s it. I have homosexual friends. I have homosexual employees. I don’t have a problem with it – whatever – good people, good people. I don’t think – maybe they’re conniving, but I don’t think so. I don’t think most people have her opinion; that they want to destroy my marriage.

We have to fight for the right to be different, to follow our conscience. Why is government even in the marriage business? Why are they in the parent business? I don’t want them in my bedroom. I don’t want them at a yard sale. I don’t want them at my kids’ lemonade stand or my living room or my kitchen.

They shouldn’t be in my marriage business, but they’ve done it now. And now they’re picking and choosing winners and losers, not only in marriage, but in business, everything. It’s only about control. They are trying to control what relationships you are allowed and not allowed to engage in. Meanwhile, they are putting all the structure in so they can watch every relationship.

When government has that kind of control over decisions that should be made by you, we all lose, even the ones making the decision. They lose, too. When the collective conscience trumps individual conscience, we are in trouble, trouble like crowds of people cheering at the demise of traditional marriage.

I think of the letter that came from Ben Franklin to Thomas Payne when he says, I’m an atheist. God doesn’t exist. How dare you? That was Ben Franklin’s response, how dare you? You are reaping all of the benefits from these people who have been listening to God. You don’t have to agree with them. Look at the benefit of this society. And now you say it’s nothing. How dare you?

Get the state out of my bedroom. Get the state out of my classroom. Get the state out of my hospital room. Get out of my life. Eighty-six thousand, four hundred ninety-seven days later, I’ve got news for you, it’s still about freedom. It’s still about freedom; however, we are now entering the time when we’re not celebrating its acquisition. We are now defending it from extinction. And it’s amazing, because the same kind of powers that seek control today are the same powers that the founders fled from in the first place.

This Fourth of July, we’re going to be out in Salt Lake City, and we’re going to do Man in the Moon. It’s a whole three-day weekend, and I invite you to come. We’re going to change the way we celebrate Fourth of July because it has to be. We have to put things back in its rightful place.

And one of the things we’re doing, we’re singing some of the traditional songs or performing them for you, but we’re not singing any of the traditional versus, because I don’t think we hear ’em anymore. I don’t think we listen to the lyrics anymore. You know what, you want to solve the problem here, maybe we should just start singing different stanzas from the Star-Spangled Banner. Maybe that’ll make people see who we really are and where we came from.

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.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.