Beware: Fake News Is Propaganda and Must Be Vetted Before Sharing

December 06, 2016

Writer

It was Founding Father John Adams who said this about our government:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

"This system of freedom is not designed for the people we are becoming," Glenn said Tuesday on radio. "You can't have a free people if free people won't do their work."

Part of that work includes vetting news sources in a post-factual society. It requires personal responsibility.

For example, if a reader encounters a news story about Hillary Clinton running a child prostitution ring in a tunnel system underneath a pizza parlor in Washington, DC, said reader might want to further investigate the source before showing up at the establishment with a weapon.

"It requires you to engage your brain. And it also requires you to have something we used to call common sense," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 2:12, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: All right. I want to talk a little bit about Pizzagate. And beyond Pizzagate, the trend of fake news. I keep -- we keep saying this for the past couple of days. I keep coming back to -- and, Pat, you would know this. Isn't it John Adams who said, "This system is wholly inadequate for an irreligious and uneducated people?"

PAT: And immoral.

GLENN: And immoral people.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: This system of freedom is not designed for the people we are becoming. You can't have freedom -- look at the solutions on fake news.

We should have some sort of vetting system with Facebook.

Or, you could do the work and engage your head and say, "Hmm, A, does this make sense? B, how come it's only on yournewsatthehour.com.ca.tv? Why am I only getting it from this one source? And let's look at the source.

Do we know anything about the source? People don't -- people read the headline. They're lucky if they read the first paragraph before they share it.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And some of the studies have found, you know, 80 percent of people or more don't read the stories they share on Facebook. They see the headline. They share it.

GLENN: Right. They read the headline. And that's --

STU: And how many headlines -- how many times have we read stories where you click on the headline, and you're like, "Oh, my gosh."

And then you read the story, and you're like, "Well, that's not it?"

PAT: Well, how many times have you posted something on Facebook, and you get some angry responder -- and they address -- they're yelling at you about the things you address in the context of the post.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Well, I -- that's what I addressed. That's what this is -- you should read the post. They never do. They never do.

GLENN: They don't even read the post.

STU: They don't even read it.

GLENN: So you can't have a free people if free people won't do their work.

PAT: Yeah, there's got to be some personal responsibility.

GLENN: Personal responsibility. It requires you to engage your brain. And it also requires you to have something we used to call common sense.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I mean, common sense tells you -- what is the Pizzagate story? The Pizzagate story was that Hillary Clinton was running a prostitution ring of underage prostitutes in a tunnel system underneath a pizza parlor in Washington, DC.

STU: In the middle of the campaign. She was like, "Yeah, I'm going to run for president. But also the child prostitution thing."

PAT: Well, they did talk about pizza a lot in the emails. So obviously that was code.

GLENN: So you have to believe that, A -- I mean, how bad -- this is -- this is, again, the problem of the press and the problem with people like us is demonizing people. Once you demonize -- there was nothing -- there was nothing anyone could say to the left about Donald Trump that they would ever believe, in a good way. And there's nothing that anyone on the right could possibly say to convince you that Hillary Clinton was not the most evil person in the world.

So the first hurdle is already done because of conditioning. We just make you into a person who is the worst person in the world. And I won't listen to anything else because everything I have seen on my side of the media, on my side of the feed, tell me that that's a bad person. And if anyone on my side starts to say, "Well, wait a minute, guys, they've been gotten to, they're afraid for their life, somebody has their family, or they've been paid off to say those things."

PAT: Sold out.

GLENN: There's no way to cross those lines.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So we're already bifurcate the country. We already Balkanize. And so now the possible truth about the other side can't jump over that chasm.

So the first thing you had to believe is that Hillary Clinton would be so evil that she should be -- well, she would also be competent enough to run a prostitution ring of underage kids. There's step one. Step two is, there's a tunnel system underneath Washington, DC, for pizza parlors. Not for the government, but for pizza parlors. Three, she's running this during the campaign. Four, when somebody calls to order pizza, that's when they're ordering a child for sex.

STU: Do you want --

GLENN: Is there more?

STU: Do you want the full list of terms? I have the full list. Buzzfeed came up with the full list of terms that I thought was pretty interesting.

GLENN: Buzzfeed was debunking this.

STU: Yes. There's a whole -- it's a really interesting story about how something like this spreads. Which, you know, interestingly with this one spread from literally nothing. It was just someone randomly tweeting that this was going on. Started with a person saying that October 30th, right before the election, right? People are right at the height of their sensitivities of the other side.

White supremacy Twitter account that presents itself as belonging to a Jewish lawyer in New York tweeted that the NYPD was looking into evidence --

GLENN: Why does it always have to be a Jewish lawyer? We have a guest on today --

STU: It's not. I mean --

GLENN: I know. I know. We have a guest on today: Jon Ronson. He's this fascinating guy, who's talked to people whose lives have been destroyed by the internet. And he said, I was talking to a member of the Aryan Nation. And they were talking about the Bilderberg Group.

And he said, "You know, I don't know how they can be a Jewish conspiracy because most of the people that go there are not Jewish." And he said -- this is the quote from the Aryan Nation guy.

Yes, they're not necessarily a Jew, but they are Jewish.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: Oh. Oh.

GLENN: Oh. Okay. Good. All right.

STU: So the -- the initial tweet from the white supremacy account said that Anthony Weiner's laptop contained evidence of Clinton involvement in an international child enslavement ring. Okay?

GLENN: They're so into that.

STU: Well, there you go. It's totally --

GLENN: They're not helping down in Haiti. They're abducting children for the pizza parlor.

PAT: Right. So then it spread to a message board. That message board was then posted by a guy who worked with a British conspiracy theorist and posted a site on yournewswire.com, which I know is --

PAT: Well, if it's My News Wire, then it's obviously news.

STU: It says it's news in the site.

GLENN: It says it's news in the site. Like ABC -- ABCNews.ca.tv.

STU: Yeah, there's some.

GLENN: Yeah, dot-tv or dot.co -- or, AU. That's what it was.

STU: The next story on Your News Wire, took a step by claiming an FBI insider had confirmed the claims.

Now, again, we don't have anything yet. So this is where we are right now. One random account on Twitter. And a woman in Missouri claimed that an NYPD source was telling them the Clintons were about to be brought down by a massive child trafficking sex scandal. One anonymous person on a 4chan thread who claimed to work for law enforcement and said something similar a few months ago, before news of the FBI, looking into emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop broke, and a conspiracy theorist who pulled these things together into a post and then used them to claim that evidence had emerged from the Clinton email investigation that a massive child trafficking and pedophile sex ring operates in Washington.

Your News Wire story from October 31st was then noticed by right-wing and fringe blogs. They began to aggregate it and spread it, as you would expect.

One site plagiarized the text from the original post. These guys have no ethics in their fake news. Plagiarism.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, if you can't get fake news people to write their own stories, what have we become as a nation?

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: 85,000 shares for that one. Now, Glenn, you post things on Facebook. You're active on Facebook. 85,000 is a big number.

GLENN: That's a lot.

PAT: That's a lot. That's a lot of shares.

STU: Because shares isn't just like, "Eh, I just happened to read it." Shares is someone taking the story so seriously that they're actually pushing it out. Now, whether they read it or not, who knows?

But they're pushing it out to spread it even further. And Facebook detects a story that is being shared widely and winds up it in even more feeds. Because that's -- it's a smart system. It's a -- I mean, Facebook -- by the way, these people are smart.

While many sites repeated the details from the original post, others introduced new baseless claims.

Subjectpolitics.com -- you guys big on subjectpolitics.com? They wrote a story with, "It's over. NYPD just raided Hillary's property. What they found there will, capital letters, ruin her life."

Well, of course, they did not actually raid the property. And the associated photograph was just a stock photo of the FBI doing something. Not at her house. Nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. Just the picture of the FBI carrying evidence in some unrelated case.

That one had 107,000 shares. And on and on and on and on.

True Pundit published a story the same day setting its own anonymous NYPD and FBI sources, listing new allegations. Ending the Fed posted a story and managed to generate significant engagement on Facebook.

They were known for promoting and making it to the Facebook trending. Remember the Facebook trending topics when they said Megyn Kelly was being fired. That story came from them, apparently. It goes on and on and on.

Now, three days later -- and David Goldberg, who apparently started this whole thing, then tweets the story from True Pundit saying, "My source was right." Well, True Pundit's source was essentially David Goldberg who tweeted it initially, three days earlier.

And this is how this happens. Hundreds of thousands of -- of shares.

GLENN: Can I just say something? Remember the story about George Washington saying that he was a big philanderer? It was a big that was -- this is all something that has been done to us before. There was a book that was the first one to take down George Washington. It was published in I think 1943. Look at the footnotes. I'll -- we'll post it someplace else, where we can show you the name of the book and the following book.

And what it was, was a historian, a progressive historian that had the agenda of taking down George Washington. So he publishes this book. There's no -- there's no footnotes in this book. It's just stories about how bad of a guy he was. Another professor, he sees this book, and he's outraged by it. And he writes a book, all footnoted, and says, "None of this is true." For the first book sold an awful lot of copies. Then the book came out that said that wasn't true, that was all footnoted. Then a third book comes out and says, "This book is true," and uses footnotes referencing the first book. Okay?

(laughter)

GLENN: And that has gone on. And you can actually watch the tree of lies that has come from that one book. And they are all -- so the next book that is defending the first book, its footnotes go to the third book.

PAT: That's exactly what progressives have done with the Constitution. Using case law, instead of the Constitution.

GLENN: Correct. You don't even make it progressives. You just make it liars.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They start referencing each other as proof that that's --

PAT: Right. Well, we had another crappy decision that backs up this crappy decision. Yeah, but none of it is based in the Constitution.

GLENN: Correct. Right.

STU: If only there was a book that explained the tie between progressives and liars.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: If there was a book --

GLENN: What would you call a book like that?

STU: Maybe you would call it one of the two words. Progressive -- maybe Liars, I guess.

PAT: Who would write such a book though? I mean -- what a coincidence.

GLENN: That would be a number one times best-seller.

STU: Would it have footnotes in it though?

GLENN: Yeah, it would. And it would make a great Christmas gift.

JEFFY: It would be available?

GLENN: It would be available at bookstores and online everywhere, really. You can download it right now.

STU: Wow. It sounds like fake news to me.

GLENN: It does to me too. It's called Liars. It's available in bookstores everywhere.

[break]

GLENN: What's amazing about this pizza story is you also have to believe that no one else called to order pizza and then had like an underage kid show up at their house. And you're like, "No, I really wanted Canadian bacon and pineapple. I don't -- why are these Alusian (phonetic) kids all of a sudden in my house?"

STU: As conspiracy theories spread, it went to this pizza restaurant called Comic Ping-pong, which was I guess a place where people at DC really liked. And I think the owner is a Democratic donor and things like that. So he got tied into this somehow.

And they've been getting harassing calls. They got this guy who came up from North Carolina with a gun. And went in to investigate what he believed was a real child prostitution sting. And then left after he realized there were no tunnels --

PAT: Somehow he couldn't find the tunnels. They hid the tunnels so well, he could not find them.

STU: But this is -- it wound up growing into one guy on Twitter, yet again, saying, "I'm dreaming about -- this is from the Podesta emails. "I'm dreaming about your hotdog stand in Hawaii." This is code for something. Sex trafficking? So that piece of evidence, quote, unquote --

GLENN: The evidence is Podesta just saying, "I'm dreaming about your hotdog stand in Hawaii." That's the evidence that they're --

STU: Right. Because that's code.

GLENN: -- underage trafficking at a pizza parlor.

STU: So from that, they built a list of terms that you can find in the Podesta emails.

Hotdog equals boy. Pizza equals girl. Cheese equals little girl. Pasta equals little boy. Ice cream equals male prostitute. Walnut equals a person of color. And sauce equals orgy.

(chuckling)

STU: Now you have the real choice behind the story. Sauce equals orgy.

GLENN: Now, how do you stand against this? We'll address that, next.

Featured Image: Facebook logos are pictured on the screens of a smartphone (R), and a laptop computer, in central London on November 21, 2016. Facebook on Monday became the latest US tech giant to announce new investment in Britain with hundreds of extra jobs but hinted its success depended on skilled migration after Britain leaves the European Union. The premier social network underlined London's status as a global technology hub at a British company bosses' summit where Prime Minister Theresa May sought to allay business concerns about Brexit. (Photo Credit: JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images)

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Beware: Fake News Is Propaganda and Must Be Vetted Before Sharing

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Prosecutors stopped a New Year’s Eve bombing plot rooted in ideology that treats the US as an enemy to be destroyed.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.

When ideology turns operational

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

The red-green alliance

This moment is different

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

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.

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

Not-so-expert advice

A republic no more?

The path forward

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

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.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

Choosing death over care

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

The logical end of a broken system

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

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.

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.

How Sharia arrives

The warning from those who have lived under it

America is vulnerable

Wake up before it is too late