Hear the incredible story of how one man lost 400lbs in a single year

Brian Fleming's life was a mess. He weighed 625 pounds, drank a fifth of vodka every night, and ate nothing but fast food. But fast forward one year - and things are completely different. What happened? Glenn spoke with Brian about this incredible transformation on Wednesday's radio show.

On Tuesday, TheBlaze reported:

Last year, Brian Flemming weighed 625 pounds.

That all changed, however, when the Michigan man virtually met a stranger in England who convinced him to turn his life around. Now, one year later, Flemming is down nearly 400 pounds and is a recovering alcoholic.

But, after losing all that weight, Flemming is still not comfortable taking his shift off in public. A new video published late last week revealed why.

"He has a Facebook page. Team 383," Glenn explained. "It's his weight loss support group. He took his shirt off for that. People have been donating money so he can have the skin removed. But we were sitting here talking about - what is it like to lose almost 400 pounds in a year. Is that even healthy? How did you even do it? And what's your life like? I mean, everything had to have changed for you."

Watch that video below:

Below is a video of the interview, scroll down for the rush transcript:

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Pat and I were reading the Blaze this morning. We found a story about Brian Fleming. He lives in Michigan. And he lost nearly 400 pounds in the last year. And he's a guy who has not felt comfortable taking his shirt off. And he took his shirt off on Facebook. And he has a Facebook page. Team 383. It's his weight loss support group. He took his shirt off for that. People have been donating money so he can have the skin removed. But we were just -- we were sitting here talking about -- what is it like to lose almost 400 pounds in a year. Is that even healthy? How did you even do it? And what's your life like? I mean, everything had to have changed for you. So we decided, pick up the phone and call him. So Brian is on the phone with us now. Hi, Brian.

BRIAN: Hey, good morning.

GLENN: How are you, man?

BRIAN: Oh, I'm great. I'm great. Thanks.

GLENN: What an amazing year you've had. A, how did you decide to lose it? And then how did you lose 400 pounds?

BRIAN: Well, it's a long story. The whole time it took me 18 months altogether to lose 390 pounds.

GLENN: Did your doctor -- was he involved? Is it safe to lose that much that fast?

BRIAN: Well, I did see my doctor every three months while I was losing the weight. I had blood work done. Blood pressure, everything checked up on. I was taking proper medications. And he just kept saying, keep doing what I'm doing because it seemed to be working. But, yeah, it's been a crazy couple of years.

GLENN: So was this the all cocaine diet? How did you lose that much weight that fast?

BRIAN: Well, yeah, I started at 625 pounds. And at the time, I was drinking a fifth of vodka every single night. I was a chronic alcoholic. I was depressed. I was eating nothing but fast food. And I went back and took a look at it. I was eating probably over 7,000 calories per day at my heaviest weight.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Wow.

BRIAN: Yeah, when I was at my worst, I was playing a video game. Completely randomly got matched up with a woman in London, England. Her name is Jackie Eastham, and we got to know each other playing this random video game. And, you know, I got to know her better. Then eventually I opened up to her and told her how depressed I was and how big I was. And I was expecting some sympathy from her, and I got quite the opposite. She kicked my butt. She basically told me I was throwing my life away and kind of put things into perspective for me.

I found out at the time that she has myotonic dystrophy. It's a form of muscular dystrophy. And she has to stay very fit and very healthy to keep her symptoms at bay. So she saw someone like me throwing my life away, and she just wouldn't have it.

GLENN: Holy cow. What a godsend she was.

PAT: That's a great story.

GLENN: Hang on a second. Have you two met?

BRIAN: Yes, we have actually. Not this past December, but the year before, I went over to meet her in London England. It was the first time I had flown overseas. I went over and spent Christmas and New Year's with her the past two Decembers in a row. And we're best of friends. We're very, very close.

GLENN: Can we call her at some point? We won't call her now. But can we call her? I'd love to talk to her.

BRIAN: Oh, yeah, definitely. Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: Good. Good. Okay. Let's continue the conversation. So what did she say to you, when you told her and you were expecting sympathy, what did she say?

BRIAN: She basically used more colorful language than I can really say on the radio. But she more or less told me I was throwing my life away. Saying there are thousands of people out there that are fighting for their lives, you know, people that don't take their life for granted, and then there's me. I'm thirty years old. I'm just throwing everything away. And she basically just made me question what I was doing with my life. And it was the right motivation I needed at the right time. And October 2012, I quit drinking, cold turkey. And the weight just started pouring off of me after that.

PAT: Nice.

GLENN: So do you go to AA?

BRIAN: Nope. I don't go to AA. I had Jackie as a great support structure when I quit. And she was there for me from the very beginning.

PAT: That's amazing willpower.

GLENN: Boy, I have to tell you, man. Hold on just a second.

You are an alcoholic?

BRIAN: Yes. I'm a recovered alcoholic.

GLENN: Okay. And you are -- and you were drinking how much?

BRIAN: I was drinking a fifth of vodka per night.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: Brian, that's not healthy. Who would have guessed?

GLENN: So that's amazing. So now you then stopped drinking, and then when did you stop eating 7,000 calories a day?

BRIAN: Well, cutting back on the alcohol, I mean, that cut basically 2,000 calories out of my daily diet right there. There's a lot of calories in alcohol, which I'm sure a lot of people may not realize or not. There's a lot of sugar in that as well. But when I cut that out, I noticed once I got over the withdrawals, they were very severe for about a week and a half.

GLENN: I bet they were.

BRIAN: I noticed my belts started to get looser on me. My pants got a little bit baggier, and I noticed my weight started to come off. So I started to think, well, I thought that was hypocritically of me to stop drinking and keep eating all the fast food. So I started cutting back on fast food. I started gradually taking things out of my diet that were unhealthy. And I got to a point where I was consuming a certain number of calories every day. And the weight came off pretty rapidly. The first three months, I lost a pound a day. So I lost nearly 100 pounds in three months.

PAT: That's awesome.

GLENN: There's a picture. We're putting a picture of you on TV now. Where you're standing in your pants, and you have both -- you're standing in one leg of your pants. I mean, it's like you've lost a person. It's amazing.

PAT: So what did you replace the fast food with? Did you just start eating vegetables and -- what was the specific calorie count you went to, to lose the weight?

BRIAN: Well, I couldn't stand vegetables at first. I never really liked them at first.

PAT: Me neither.

BRIAN: It was more cutting out the --

GLENN: Fast food.

BRIAN: The really bad foods. You know, I would typically go to a fast food and get the super-sized meals and get extra Chicken Nuggets with it. The single meal would be 2,000 calories.

PAT: That's what I'm talking about.

GLENN: That's what I'm talking about too. I'm in love with this diet. Wait a minute. This is not the healthy diet, you're saying?

BRIAN: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: All right.

BRIAN: Just started making healthier choices. You know, cutting out french fries and eating rice instead. Or, you know, sort of replacing certain menu items with more healthier options. You know, not all the fast food restaurants are entirely bad for you. There are certain items you can eat that are healthier. So I just kind of gradually weaned myself off the really bad stuff.

GLENN: Okay. Now, did you exercise?

BRIAN: Yeah.

GLENN: Oh.

BRIAN: I started at just five minutes a day one morning. I woke up and turned on the TV, and I just decided to walk in place for five minutes. That's all I could do at that weight. And I decided to wake up and do that every single morning. I woke up the next morning, I walked in place for five minutes. Turned on the TV. Eventually, I just started adding to that. I got to six, seven, ten minutes. Twenty. Eventually I got up to an hour every single morning. I turned on the TV and walked in place. And it kind of snowballs from there. I ended up walking outside. Then I started bike riding. And I just ran my first half marathon this past October. And I'm planning on running a full marathon this year.

PAT: I don't want to hear this kind of stuff. This is nasty talk now. This has gone completely off the rails.

GLENN: It really has. So we saw the picture of you with your shirt off. And, I mean -- I don't mean to be rude here. It was not a pretty picture. Have you raised money now to -- to have the surgery or not?

BRIAN: Yeah. Well, after losing all that weight, I have about 30 to 40 pounds of excess skin that is left over. And I'm at a point where I'm so active and I'm eating so healthy, I really am not going to lose anymore weight. I'm at the point where I can't do anything about it. And this excess skin has given me back problems. It's just preventing me from doing a lot of things that I love doing now. You know, running long-distance is a lot harder when you have 30 pounds of skin hanging off you. You know, it's not very easy. But it's one of those things where I was hoping to get the surgery done. I went and had a consultation. I found out it was over $20,000 to get the surgery done. And it just wasn't an option for me. So a really good friend of mine, Kay, created a GoFundMe page to raise money for this. And it's been going up since. So we're completely blown away. Jackie and I have been just unbelievably grateful for everybody's support.

PAT: Do you have enough now to have the surgery? Is there enough now?

BRIAN: We're really close. I think we're now over 18,000. The surgery is quoted at 22,000. So we're almost there.

GLENN: All right. So how do you get to it?

BRIAN: It's actually at GoFundMe.com. Then just do slash Brian Flemming. And that will take you to the page.

PAT: I would guess you will have necessary amount soon.

GLENN: Yeah. So GoFundMe.com/BrianFlemming. F-L-E-M-M-I-N-G.

So let me ask you about the experience of taking your shirt off and taking a picture. How scary was that for you?

BRIAN: Oh, it was incredibly scary. One of the things that I've been dealing with, there's a lot of anxiety. I had depression when I was bigger as well. And, you know, I haven't gone swimming in over a decade. I mean, it's been a long time. I've been too bashful. Even while I was bigger, I never wanted to go swimming because I didn't want people looking at me. Now that I've lost all this weight, I have all this excess skin. And I'm still incredibly self-conscious about it. I still haven't gone swimming. And it's one of those things I used to love doing when I was a kid. I figured, you know, eventually, I'll just have to get over it. It's part of my body. You know, maybe something that people need to see that side of weight loss. So I decided to make a video out of it. Put some pictures up. And just show some of our followers what it looks like to lose that amount of weight. And it's kind of been a liberating experience. You know, it was nerve-racking at first. But I think it feels good to just get it out there.

PAT: How has this changed your life, Brian? You must sleep better, you must be able to get around a lot better, you must go places you haven't been to in a really long time.

GLENN: What are the things that you have done or you have felt that you had forgotten about that just has been mind-boggling for you?

BRIAN: Oh. So many different things. I spread myself almost every day trying to new things. There's just certain things I took for granted before I was obese. You know, things like buckling my seat belt in my car. You know, the first day I was able to do that, it blew my mind. When I was 600 pounds, I couldn't buckle my seat belt. And going out to restaurants and being able to fit in the booth. And getting on a plane and flying to London. You know, I never thought I would be able to fit into a plane seat again. There's all these things I want to do. You know, ride rollercoasters. I haven't been able to fit on the rides. And now I'm planning to go to Cedar Point this summer. You know, sky driving. All kinds of stuff.

GLENN: How about catching the eye of somebody attractive? Have you noticed that -- I mean, that must be like somebody looking at you must be like, holy cow. And they're not looking at me and making fun of me. I mean, she might actually be interested in me.

BRIAN: Well, I don't know. I'm not very self-conscious about that. I haven't really picked up on it if that's the case.

STU: Not to hit on you or anything, but you're a pretty good-looking dude.

GLENN: There's no judgment here. He is hitting on you.

BRIAN: Appreciate it.

PAT: Did you have a job when you were 600 pounds?

BRIAN: I worked a few dead-end jobs here and there. I worked retail sales and just some jobs where I wasn't really going anywhere. I was spinning my wheels. I went to college at some point. I dropped out.

GLENN: How about now?

BRIAN: Right now, I work as a music teacher for a local high school. I teach saxophone with the Plymouth-Canton Marching Band. It's a fantastic group of kids that I get to work with.

GLENN: Holy cow.

BRIAN: And Jackie and I, we also started a weight loss support group that we call team 383. This was after my story came out. And we wanted to share with other people. Now it's grown to 11,000 members. We've been able to reach out and help other people with losing weight and dealing with their own issues. And all kinds of things. Even substance abuse. All kinds of numbers from all over the world. It's been fantastic.

GLENN: So that's at Facebook.com/team383?

BRIAN: We actually have a website now. It's team383.com. And you can go to our Facebook group from there. Click on the Facebook link. Like I said, about 11,000 members. They're all amazingly supportive. They come from all walks of life. It's just been an amazing experience. We're just glad to be able to give back and help other people.

GLENN: 383, the significance?

BRIAN: Yeah, when we created the group, we originally called it My 383-Pound Weight Loss Story. At the time, that's how much weight I had lost. And the members of the group kept calling it Team 383 and they just kept calling it over and over. And eventually it kind of stuck. So we decided to just call it Team 383.

GLENN: It's really amazing. Really amazing. Well, we'd love to get -- we'd love to get the woman who changed your life on the phone. So maybe we'll just put you on hold. Maybe we can arrange that. Do that tomorrow or something. We'd love to talk to her as well.

BRIAN: Sure. That would be great.

GLENN: I think it's a great story. You seem like a great guy. I'm glad the Blaze did a story on you so we could talk to you today.

BRIAN: Thank you for having me on.

PAT: It's a great story.

GLENN: Really great story.

PAT: In this participation trophy culture that we live in, someone who actually doesn't enable his behavior of drinking a fifth of vodka a day and eating fast food all day, 7,000 calories, and really takes him to task for it, that's pretty great.

GLENN: That's fantastic.

PAT: That doesn't happen very often.

GLENN: That's fantastic.

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.