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

Meet the founding fathers of jihad

March 19, 2015
Staff

WRITER

This research was compiled by researchers of The Glenn Beck Program.

Watch the full episode of The Root on demand on TheBlaze TV. Get all the details HERE.

Before the 1930’s Muslims and Jews had a much different relationship. Jews moving back to their ancestral homeland was actually looked upon favorably to many Arab leaders. That began to change in the early 1930’s. Egypt was in the middle of severe economic hardship. A man named Hassan al-Banna began to teach that reason for their suffering was because of 2 things: western influence and…..the Jews. Al-Banna was more than just an agitator. His skills as a teacher and community organizer rallied hundreds of muslims to his cause. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded on a platform of hate. Rejecting western influence, establishing the caliphate, and death in jihad for Allah was the message.

"Allah is our goal, the prophet our model, the Koran our constitution, the Jihad our path and death for the sake of Allah the loftiest of our wishes."

The Muslim Brotherhood’s radical antisemitism soon got the attention of the National Socialists in Germany. The Nazis began funding them through the German diplomatic office in Cairo. Brynjar Lia said this in his book The Society of the Muslim Brothers in Egypt:

 “Documents seized in the flat of Wilhelm Stellbogen, the Director of the German News Agency affiliated to the German Legation in Cairo, show that prior to October 1939 the Muslim Brothers received subsidies from his organisation. Stellbogen was instrumental in transferring these funds to the Brothers, which were considerably larger than the subsidies offered to other anti-British activists. These transfers appear to have been coordinated by Haj Amin el-Husseini and some of his Palestinian contacts in Cairo.”

Zionism in the 1920’s had the effect of focusing al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood’s cause. They would find a like minded ally in The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini.

Amin al-Husseini was fiercely opposed to Zionism and the establishment of a national home for Jewish people in Palestine. He personally led armed revolts against Jews and organized mass riots. The British sentenced al-Husseini to ten years in prison, but he fled to trans-Jordan to evade capture.

In 1921 the British were looking to appease the Arabs so they pardoned al-Husseini of his charges and offered him the highest islamic position of the time, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It was at this time that al-Husseini began to use his position as the Grand Mufti to infuse Islam with fierce antisemitism. He made allegations that Jews were conspiring to attack the Al-Aqsa Mosque and other Muslim sites in Jerusalem. This escalated tensions further leading to riots were hundreds were killed and beaten.

In 1933, al-Husseini initiated contact with the German delegation in Jerusalem. The purpose of the meeting was to request the help of the Nazis in eliminating the Jewish threat from Palestine. What was his offer in return? “A pan-Islamic jihad” that would be in alliance with Hitler against Jews around the world.

“The Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist anti-democratic, governmental system to other countries.”

The Grand Mufti Of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini

The Mufti, inspired by the Hitler Youth, set of what he called the “Nazi Scouts” in an effort to bring Nazi Germany to the Middle East. They even used the swastika as their symbol. The Mufti traveled to Egypt meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood and other locations throughout the Middle East setting up similar groups. The head of the Hitler Youth, Baldur von Schirach, did the same. Funneling German funds into the Middle East, von Schirach  established the “Arab Club” in Damascus specifically to train recruits for the Mufti’s insurgency.

During this time al-Husseini continued to use his position as Grand Mufti to infuze Islam with fierce anti-Zionism. If anyone rejected these notions he would publicly ridicule them during public speeches. He founded the World Islamic Congress in addition to numerous other radical groups all across the Middle East. The most famous of these may be Izz al-Din al-Qassam’s group the “Black Hand”. Al-Qassam would later be the namesake for Hamas’ suicide bombers...the Qassam Brigades. The Mufti supplied them all with arms and weapons.

The culmination of this all was the Arab uprising in 1936. Arab militants attacked a Jewish truck convoy killing 2 Jews. A Jewish paramilitary group retaliated killing 2 Arabs. This set off the revolt. The Mufti formed a group called the Arab High Command that called for Arabs to strike back at Jews and Jewish businesses. Thousands of Jews were displaced and their farms and businesses were burned.

The British Government quickly moved in to put down the revolt. The Mufti was blamed for inciting the entire thing. He fled to Lebanon where he used Nazi funds to instigate another Arab revolt from 1937 to 1939. From Lebanon he went to Iraq where he continued to use his German connections to further antisemitism. He was one of the main supporters of the Al--Muthanna Club a pan-Arab fascist society. They, along with German ambassador Fritz Grobba developed programs to radicalize the Islamic youth modeled after the Hitler Youth.

After a failed coup attempt in Iraq al-Husseini was forced to flee yet again. This time European fascists intervened more directly. Italian MIlitary Intelligence (Servizio Informazioni Militari) smuggled the Mufti out of Iraq and into Italy.

The Mufti arrived in Rome on October 10th 1941.Just 2 weeks later he would be in meetings with Mussolini. The topic was for Axis support of an Arab nation that included Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan. The homeland for the Jews was to be destroyed. The Jews living there...exterminated.

Al-Husseini’s proposals were accepted by the Italian foreign ministry. The Mufti was sent to Berlin to discuss his terms with Adolf Hitler himself.

Hitler made it very clear to the Mufti that, although he wouldn’t make a public statement, he supported Arab liberation. His eventual goal was to hunt down the Jews that resided in Palestine under British protection. After that, Palestine was for the Arabs.

Al-Husseini stayed on in Germany throughout the war. There he would learn radical antisemitism from those that perfected it...Hitler and the Nazis.

The Mufti wrote this in his memoirs regarding his relationship with the Nazis:

"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews." The answer I got from the Fuehrer was: 'The Jews are yours."

The Mufti collaborated with men like Adolf Eichman (orchestrator of the holocaust) and Heinrich Himmler (head of the SS). He was taken on tours of German concentration camps. Knowing full well of Hitler’s “Final Solution” al-Husseini deliberately persuaded European leaders not to send their Jews to the national home set up in Palestine. Where did he want them sent? To Poland...Auschwitz.

To the Hungarian foreign minister:

 "I ask your Excellency to permit me to draw your attention to the necessity of preventing the Jews from leaving your country for Palestine, and if there are reasons which make their removal necessary, it would be indispensable and infinitely preferable to send them to other countries where they would find themselves under active control, for example, in Poland, thus avoiding danger and preventing damage."

In 1943 Heinrich Himmler took the Mufti completely under his wing. He asked al-Husseini to help in the creation of a Bosnian SS unit. After Bosnian Muslim clerics preached out against joining with the Nazis, he personally travelled to Sarajevo to throw the weight of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in favor of Hitler.

"The active cooperation of the world's 400 million Muslims with their loyal friends, the German, can be of decisive influence upon the outcome of the war. You, my Bosnian Muslims, are the first Islamic division and serve as an example of the active collaboration....My enemy's enemy is my friend."

For his help in exterminating the Jews while with the SS Heinrich Himmler wrote the Mufti this letter of appreciation (telegram):

"To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory. Signed: Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"

Today you might notice that radical Islamic ideology sounds the same all over the world. Whether it come from Syria or Iran...Sunni or Shia. That’s because they all had the same teacher.

In 1940’s era Middle East one of the most popular things to do was to listen to radio broadcasts while at cafe’s, restaurants and public squares. Tuning in every day were thousands and thousands of Muslims all listening to a radio show broadcast from a radio tower in Zeesen, Germany. The station’s star became the most famous man in the Arab world at the time...The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini. In between Arabic music and recitations from the Koran, the Mufti mixed in anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda. Besides Hitler, no one else at the time promoted antisemitism and anti western ideology like the Mufti did. It was via the Zeesen radio transmitter that the Mufti helped to transform Islamism into the radical forms we see today. Al-Husseini skillfully blended the words of the Koran with the ideology of the National Socialists in Germany. Fierce anti-semitism, strong opposition and rejection of the western world, and a longing to create a radical authoritarian government that for them was a Sharia dominated Caliphate.

With Zeesen radio providing the inspiration and the Muslim Brotherhood’s community organizing radical Islam spread like wildfire. Muslim Brotherhood numbers went from around 1,000 just before the Arab uprising in Palestine in 1936 to hundreds of thousands by the end of WW2. When WW2 ended the Mufti attempted to flee to Switzerland but was caught and arrested by the French. They transported him to Paris and placed him under house arrest. The French, in order to improve their status in the Middle East, eventually decided to grant the Mufti amnesty and send him to Egypt. A known war criminal that led SS units, campaigned to send Jews to Auschwitz, and the head of their propaganda to the Middle East. Despite all that and multiple requests to extradite him to try him for war crimes he was still sent to Egypt.

European Nazi fascism had effectively been defeated in Europe but had now been exported to the Middle East. It should now seem obvious that it’s no coincidence how the rise of National Socialism in Europe occurred parallel with the rise of radical Islam in the early 1930’s. The Mufti’s escape to Egypt uniting him with the base of the Muslim Brotherhood sealed the deal.

The Mufti and the Muslim Brotherhood would continue to export Islamic extremism all over the Middle East.

The messages of al-Banna and Husseini influenced all the major names and groups associated with radical Islam and jihadists to this day.

Before the clerical regime of Iran took power in the Iranian Revolution in 1979 their leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was an avid listener of Zeesen Radio and a follower of Hassan al-Banna’s teachings. Khomeini was heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and translated all the works of Sayyid Qutb (Muslim Brotherhood leadership) into Persian. The modern day nation of Iran was founded on the antisemitic and jihadist principles of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Mufti Amin al-Husseini.

  • The Mufti’s cousin, Yasser Arafat, would become the head of the PLO.

  • The Muslim Brotherhood off shoot Hamas would be co founded by fellow MB member Abdullah Azzam.

  • Azzam moved to Jordan after the 6 Day War in 1967 where he led paramilitary attacks against Israel.

  • Azzam was also a professor on Sharia at the University of Jordan but was later deposed due to his radical teachings.

  • He took a position teaching Sharia at King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

  • It was there that he met a young Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden had the funds to go along with Azzam’s radical Muslim Brotherhood ideology. Together they traveled to Afghanistan to help fight the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union was defeated and retreated Azzam and Bin Laden stayed in Afghanistan. Their goal was to train fighters that would eventually go back to Palestine and fight the Israelis.

They called their group Al-qaeda.

Modern day jihadism was born, but had its ethos changed much from the 30’s and 40’s?

No.

The current leader and “Supreme Guide” of the the Muslim Brotherhood summed it up pretty nicely:

“The Jews have dominated the land, spread corruption on earth, spilled the blood of believers and in their actions profaned holy places. Zionists only understand the language of force and will not relent without duress. This will happen only through holy jihad.”

Nothing has changed.

In 2002 the state controlled Egyptian newspaper Al-Akhbar made this comment:

“The entire matter [the Holocaust], as many French and British scientists and researchers have proven, is nothing more than a huge Israeli plot aimed at extorting the German government in particular and the European countries in general. But I, personally and in light of this imaginary tale, complain to Hitler, even saying to him from the bottom of my heart, "If only you had done it, brother, if only it had really happened, so that the world could sigh in relief [without] their evil and sin.”

And this anti-Semetic and anti-western ideology is spreading.  Alfred Rosenberg, the head of the Nazi Party's foreign policy department, made this strikingly accurate prediction in 1938:

"The longer the fire continues to burn in Palestine, the stronger becomes the resistance to the Jewish regime of violence in all the Arab states and beyond that in the other Muslim countries too."

Modern day jihadists are using the same playbook, the same ideology, and the same propaganda used and taught by Nazi Germany. Not only is it “becoming stronger” as Rosenberg predicted but it’s also evolving. Al-Qaeda brought jihad global on an entirely new scale. The goal initially was this:

“We shall continue the jihad no matter how long the way, until the last breath and the last beat of the pulse - or until we see the Islamic state established.”

The evolution of radical Islam took another jump when a branch of al qaeda decided that the last portion of their mission statement should happen sooner rather than later. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Al qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, publically announced their split from Al qaeda and established the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham. ISIS was born.

On June 28th, 2014 al-Baghdadi made it official. The Islamic State Caliphate was established. The dream that was kick started in the 30’s by men like al-Banna and the Mufti, progressed by Azzam and Bin Laden, was now a reality under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

This evolution places significant interest on the end times.

The re-establishment of the Caliphate legitimized portions of the Koran that up until June 28th, 2014 weren’t relevant. According to Islamic teaching there will be a total of 12 legitimate caliphs. The 12th will be the last and will take Muslims to the final battle in Jerusalem. This will be the end of the world. Al-Baghdadi is now the 8th legitimate caliph. For them, it’s only a matter of time before the “armies of Rome” (the west) descend on the town of Dabiq and are conquered in a massive battle. After that an anti-Messiah will arise from the Khorosan area (Eastern Iran) and beat the caliphate all the way back to Jerusalem, initiating the end of the world.

So what does this mean?

The Islamic State is attempting to purify the world before the final battle. To do that they’re willing to call anyone that doesn’t convert and pledge allegiance to the caliph an apostate. That carries with it a death sentence. This includes other Muslims. This is a significant evolution and divergence from modern day jihadism. Not even Al qaeda was willing to go that far. They believed they were preparing for the days leading up to the re-establishment of the Caliphate. ISIS has declared that the caliphate has returned and it’s time to prepare for the next stage….the end.

 

 

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.