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

'Globalist': You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

September 22, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Redefining words is a very dangerous thing. It's happened on the radical left for years through political correctness, impacting both society and politics. Old school Blue Dog Democrats didn't see it coming until it was too late, and the entire Democratic Party was taken over by radicals.

The same thing is now happening on the conservative side, with words like "nationalism" and "globalism" being morphed into new meanings.

"I want to show you the first example of me finding it on my own social media," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program. "I contend so many people will agree with a quick reading of this that it seems harmless, but it is absolutely the alt-right. This is the earmark of everything changing in language, and so suddenly that you will not even notice you've been sold into slavery."

It's time to pay attention and read between the lines.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these definitive questions:

• Is "nationalism" tied to improving the lives of Americans or neo-Nazis and racism?

• What does Bob in Pocatello say about the rejection of the virus that is globalization?

• Are iDentists online practitioners of dentistry?

• Do you think the alt-right should produce films on faith for your church?

• Would Thomas Jefferson have been for or against tariffs?

• Is American exceptionalism the same thing as American nationalism?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 1:20:50, from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN:  I want to show you a post on my social media.  And let me just -- let me read it to you.  And don't overthink it.  Just tell me if you are kind of comfortable with it.

We/me is a crackpot theory, saying the we generation and the me generation.  It's clearly not a crackpot theory.  It is very well researched.  But this is somebody who happened to be watching the show from The Vault last night, where I mentioned it.  

And the we/me is a crackpot theory.  Don't accept a binary choice, America.

STU:  Hmm.  I thought we were supposed to -- isn't that we've been told for months?

GLENN:  Listen to this:  American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic-oriented, nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.  Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.  Modern nationalism and populism in America is a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

(chuckling)

American nationalism and populism is a wholesale rejection of the virus that is globalization.

PAT:  This is just written by Bob in Pocatello.  Right?

JEFFY:  Right.

(chuckling)

PAT:  Bob just happened to be watching, and he thought, "You know what, I'm going to pop off something to Glenn."

GLENN:  With no followers.  No pictures.  No friends.

STU:  He wanted to sign up to social networks, just to post that particular paragraph and then never post again.

GLENN:  And then never post again.

PAT:  It's interesting though because you can be okay with all of that, mostly.  Almost all of it, you can say, yeah --

JEFFY:  Oh, on the surface, absolutely.

GLENN:  On the surface.

PAT:  I agree with that.  On the surface, I agree with that.

GLENN:  If you read it again, you're like, "Okay.  Wait a minute.  American nationalism.  No, I'm not for nationalism.  That's not good."

STU:  Right.  But patriotism.  People conflate those two terms.  Those are very different.

GLENN:  Yes.  Yes.  They're very different.

STU:  And we've seen nationalism rise and what it does.  But this is trying to save that term, right?

GLENN:  Yes.  To reintroduce this term.

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  Okay?  To reintroduce it.

STU:  Yep.

GLENN:  Listen to this again.

American nationalism -- it's not racial or ethnic-oriented.  Why would you say that?  Because nationalism is tied directly to neo-Nazis.

PAT:  And racism.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And also, by the way, very specifically the people who are the intellectual heads of this particular movement have very specifically talked in overt terms about race and ethnicity being vitally important to this.  I mean, this is --

GLENN:  No, they're not racists.  No, no.  They're identists.

STU:  Right.  But, I mean, they've said, "We need an ethno-nationalist --

PAT:  They're dentists on the internet?

GLENN:  No, they're identists.  They're identists -- 

JEFFY:  ID.  

GLENN:  No -- yes, they recognize the identity of people, but that's not judging people on race.  It is looking at the identity of people.

PAT:  I see.

GLENN:  So if you want to call it racist, that's an old term.  That's -- that describes old things.  I do believe that we all have an identity that is unique from where all of us originally came from.  And there's nothing wrong with pointing out someone's identity.  You're black.  I'm white.  But I do believe there are specific things that are different in each culture.  And perhaps we shouldn't live together.

STU:  This is --

PAT:  Perhaps we shouldn't live together.

(laughter)

GLENN:  Okay.  Did you hear what I just said?

JEFFY:  Yes.

PAT:  Yes.

GLENN:  And if you're hearing this from a friend and somebody who you think is a conservative -- and you will.  I'm telling you, this is coming.  You're going to start hearing this from your church friends, people you trusted, and they're going to make a great case because they're changing the language.

STU:  This is Candle In the Wind and Candle In the Wind 1997, where like Princess Diana died, and we're going to release the same exact song with like three different lyrics.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  That is what this is.  It's the same pitch.  It's the same thing that you think it is.

GLENN:  Same song.

STU:  It's just using new terms and trying to overtake old ones.

GLENN:  And using emotions to push it to the top of the chart.

STU:  Yeah, yeah, yeah.  One of the terms that is attempting -- and it's an interesting, somewhat subtle thing that's happened over the past year or two, which is the term globalist -- now, the term --

GLENN:  Uh-huh.

STU:  I would not consider myself a globalist at all.  I mean, for example, we've been doing this show for how long.

PAT:  Why are we globalists?

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  Hang on just a second.  Hang on.  Before you get into this, I just want to set this up.  Globalism is a tripwire of nationalism.  Okay?

Once you hear your friend, who -- why are you hearing the word "globalist" all the time now about people?  Where is that coming from?

STU:  Yeah, all the time.

GLENN:  That's coming from people like Breitbart, who are into the alt-right, and they are poisoning the well.  And globalist is your first sign of warning.  Hang on just a second.  What do you mean by globalist, exactly?  And I'll bet that's what you were going to make the point on.

STU:  That's exactly what I want to go into because we've been doing this show for a long time.  There's been things that have, you know, leaned towards globalism, that the talk radio audience, generally speaking, rejects, as do I.  Things like the United Nations making our decisions on our military.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And, you know, global climate treaties that --

GLENN:  IPCC.  Yeah.  The IPP --

STU:  The Kyoto treaties -- yeah, Protocol.  

PAT:  Nobody has been more anti-globalist than we have.

JEFFY:  Right.

STU:  Exactly.  Having global entities control what we do in our country.

PAT:  Right.

GLENN:  Even some global trade agreements.  We need to have trade agreements.  But are they about -- for instance, the T- -- what is it?  The TPP?

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  The TPP is an Asian global look at things.  And it is an Asian pact that supersedes our law.  

STU:  And there's elements of many of these agreements that we've fought against.

GLENN:  Uh-huh.

STU:  And so the idea that we would look towards global entities to influence our policy and the way we deal with our things here, we reject and have rejected for a long time.  And the talk radio audience, with that definition of globalist, has always been against that.

PAT:  But they've changed it now.  Right?

STU:  But now you notice -- and you say Breitbart.  But really, Alex Jones.  Breitbart and Alex Jones are one and the same at this point.

GLENN:  Absolutely.  Alex Jones is who he is, and everybody knew it.  And now one step closer to the media is Breitbart.  So one step closer to the average person as --

PAT:  And Drudge.

GLENN:  And Drudge.  Anyone want to talk about the new movie Torch Bearer?  Torch Bearer is a new movie, when man stops believing in God, he'll believe in anything.  Sounds really good.  Phil Robertson is in it, everything else.  You know who the producer is?  You know who the executive producer of this film is?

PAT:  Yes.

GLENN:  Who?

PAT:  It's Bannon.

GLENN:  Bannon.

PAT:  Bannon.  What's-his-face, Bannon.

GLENN:  So Bannon, who is Trump's campaign manager, who is, yes, we're providing a platform for the alt-right --

PAT:  Yeah.

GLENN:  -- is now producing films on faith for your church.

PAT:  Unbelievable.

GLENN:  Congratulations, America.  Congratulations.

PAT:  Wow.  Unbelievable.  

GLENN:  You are sliding into a cesspool that you have no idea what is coming your way.

STU:  On the globalist thing, to finish that, the old definition was, you know, international agreements and things that we were skeptical of.  We don't want to be controlled by international bureaucracy.

PAT:  Anything.  We want our sovereignty.

STU:  We want our sovereignty.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And a lot of times that has gone along with having borders and border security.

PAT:  Right.

GLENN:  And we are for Brexit.  I'm for Brexit.

STU:  Yeah.  I believe in sovereignty.  I don't like the European Union.

GLENN:  Yep.  Don't like it.

STU:  What it's now turning into is, do you believe in free trade?  Are you against tariffs?  Are you for or against legal immigration?  Do you think we should have any interaction with -- with our allies?  Do we have any role in the rest of the world?

If you believe any of those things, all of a sudden now you're a globalist.

PAT:  Globalist.

GLENN:  If you don't believe in tariffs -- tariffs are the most destructive thing to the free market, which is what we are based on as conservatives --

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  If you're against tariffs, you're now a globalist.  Well, tell that to our Founders.

PAT:  If you're against Donald Trump, you're supposedly now a globalist.

STU:  Right.  And that's certainly where a lot of this comes from.  

PAT:  Yeah. 

STU:  And a lot of the passion behind it, obviously, because we're in the middle of an election season.

GLENN:  It goes way beyond him.

STU:  But, I mean, look at -- I can't remember -- was it Cruz or maybe Pat Toomey, when they were running, they were running ads against them, saying, "Hey, did you know that -- I can't remember which one it was.  But they were talking about free trade and how it's helped us.  But it's also helped lift billions of people out of poverty.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STU:  And the fact that we've lifted Chinese people, for example -- a billion Chinese have come out of poverty because they've started to embrace a little bit of capitalism and free trade.

GLENN:  Bono just said this.

STU:  It's a great commercial for what we believe.  Rooting for the success of people in other nations, wanting people to not starve to death all of a sudden is some weird definition of globalist.  I mean, these things do help the rest of the world.  I think free trade has been one of the most positive things that has ever happened to this planet, but it's also helped us.

GLENN:  Here's why nationalism is so wrong, and here's why saying that we are a unique country is right, but it is not the people.  American exceptionalism is not the people.  We're no different than anybody else.

Yes, do we have different work ethics?  Did we have different ethics than other countries?  Yes.

Do we now?  Not so much.  Do the Chinese or do the Saudis understand American exceptionalism?  No.  Does that make them different people?  No.  It means they don't buy into the idea of America.

America is not a country.  It's an idea.  It is also a country.  And nationalism glorifies the country and its people.  What patriotism should be is the -- the glorification of the idea that we aspire to.  The idea that we all men could be free, that all -- that all men can pursue their own happiness.  And it's a very subtle difference.  But if you don't get it, you are on the train to hell in these times.

I want to end this segment real quick just by reading this again, and I want to you listen because this is going to become -- I don't know how many people in this audience -- but I am still convinced that this audience is going to be the audience that will be remembered for pulling the republic out of the fire.  I'm convinced of it.  And I don't know when that happens.  And I don't even know if it's because of what you do, other than teaching your children these things.  Maybe it is because of what we do collectively that teaches our children and our children save the nation or bring it back.  I don't know.

But for those with eyes and ears, please hear me.  Let me read this again.  American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic oriented.

Yes, it is.

Nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.

That is true.  That goes to the point on globalists.

Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.

So what they're saying is:  We can keep foreigners out of here, and that's better than -- well, you're giving a binary choice here.

Modern nationalism -- modern nationalism, let me tell you, is exactly the same as old-timey nationalism.  Modern nationalism and populism.

What is populism?  Populism is nothing but tyranny of the majority.

Modern nationalism and populism in America is just a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

Oh, my gosh.  Hello, Germany, 1930.

American nationalism and populism is a whole scale (sic) rejection of the virus -- hello, Goebbels -- of globalism.

Please, please, know the tripwires.  Please know, national -- nationalism is suicide.  Populism is suicide.  That the tripwire of globalism doesn't mean what you think it means.  To them, it means anything other than America, first and foremost, and nothing else.

STU:  It's okay to prioritize America.

GLENN:  Right.  It's fine to prioritize.  

STU:  That's what you should do.  But it does not mean -- 

GLENN:  It means a complete withdrawal and enemy outside -- it is complete isolationist, protectionist, and no trade deals.  Even our Founders made trade deals.  And we protested tariffs.  What do you think the Tea Party was about?  It was a rejection of tariffs.  And that's what nationalism is doing.  And it is coming.  And it is coming beyond this election.  And it will only gain strength after this election, no matter who wins, because this is not about Donald Trump.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Inigo Montoya (played by Mandy Patinkin) from The Princess Bride.

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.