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

Doc Thompson Questions Activist's Promise of Non-violence at Trump Inauguration

January 18, 2017
Staff

WRITER

One of the hallmarks of American democracy is the peaceful transition of power every four to eight years. However, liberal activists unhappy with the election results seem bent on disrupting Inauguration Day with protests and civil disobedience.

Doc Thompson from The Morning Blaze With Doc Thompson, joined Glenn's radio program to report his encounter with Lacey MacAuley, a leader of activist group Disrupt J20.

According to its website, Disrupt J20 is a "collective of experienced local activists" who are "planning a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the Inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations --- the Inaugural parade, the Inaugural balls," paralyzing the city.

While MacAuley assured Doc of the group's dedication to non-violent civil disobedience, Doc uncovered additional information that directly contradicted MacAuley's claim.

"James O'Keefe and Project Veritas released their first video that seems to show they want something a little more than just civil disobedience, possibly some things that are pretty dangerous," Doc said.

In a second Project Veritas video, activists called for illegally shutting down the metro and punching people in the throat.

MacAuley brushed off these statements, saying it was a ruse for the interview.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: We have Doc Thompson with us. He does mornings on TheBlaze Radio Network. And you have been kind of taking my approach of, hey, let's listen to people.

DOC: Right. Right.

GLENN: And it has paid off in a big way. Tell us how.

DOC: I was following your other approaches in life, and those weren't working out so well for me.

GLENN: Right. Yeah, I know.

DOC: So this one -- so a couple weeks ago, we found about this J20. This is the Disrupt J20, where they're organizing all of the different little factions. Anybody who is opposed to some of our ideals, for whatever the little issue, abortion, gun control, whatever, to bring them all together in DC and do whatever they can to actually disrupt the inauguration.

On some level, to stop him from becoming president, which is a little nutty to me. We found out about it. My producer Chris Cruz said, "Okay. Let me try to get them on." And he amazingly got a lady by the name of Lacey MacAuley to come on. Apparently, she doesn't have access to the Internet to find out about me. So she actually agreed to the interview.

GLENN: But you were honest with her.

DOC: I was. I was. A lot of people think that by asking tough questions or that I'm satirical, over the top at times, that I'm going to treat them that way. And we didn't. We heard her out. She said some things that the audience objected to. Some things I did as well. I didn't debate every issue, but we talked about the Disrupt J20. And she said it's non-violent. They just want to disrupt. Civil disobedience. She used phrases like that.

And I said, "Listen, I will stand with you for your right to express your First Amendment rights. I will stand with you. But not for violence, not for breaking the law, anything like this."

So then James O'Keefe and Project Veritas released their first video that seems to show they want something a little more than just civil disobedience, possibly some things that are pretty dangerous.

GLENN: Is she in the video?

DOC: She is not in the first one. But they mention her in the second one, which was released late yesterday. So after the first one was released, the day before yesterday, we interviewed her yesterday morning, and she said basically that the people in the video that were calling for stink bomb, acid -- I can't remember the type of acid it's called -- to be put in the ventilation or the sprinklers off, that they knew -- and I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially they knew that the person that was talking to them was not one of them. And she said, we knew it was some sort of scam. We didn't know who. It could have been police.

GLENN: So you make it worse?

DOC: That was my question. I said, "Why would you incriminate yourself? They can use this as evidence." And she really didn't have a great answer for that. But she stuck to, this was all just a big ruse that they were putting on for whoever was interviewing them essentially.

GLENN: Right.

Uh-huh.

DOC: And then the video came out yesterday that seems to show a little bit more. So I have a clip if you want to hear it, of yesterday's interview with her, where she mentions a couple of things like that and then also talks about James O'Keefe.

GLENN: Okay. Here it is.

DOC: Once again, I'm going to offer you the opportunity to condemn any acts of violence or anything that would get anybody hurt this week in DC.

LACEY: Well, thanks very much, Doc. This is absolutely something that we articulate and reaffirm at every single one of the meetings of Disrupt J20. And, you know, this is a commitment to harming no one.

DOC: You believe James O'Keefe is working on behalf of Nazis, or he's doing the work of Nazis, white nationalists?

LACEY: Well, he basically is attacking our group, the DC anti-fascist coalition, and our targets are the people who are modern day Nazis.

DOC: They voted for Trump, they're looking for something different. But they don't necessarily stand with the Nazis. I mean, you understand the difference.

LACEY: Well, I think it's pretty clear to me that he's attacking a group that protests Nazis. So that puts him on that side.

GLENN: President-elect Trump until Friday. You don't think that he supports Nazi issues, do you?

LACEY: Well, I think there's basically a reason that these groups have been so celebratory of his policies.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

LACEY: Glenn Beck, your thoughts on that?

GLENN: Quite clearly misguided. I mean, I stand against fascism.

LACEY: Yeah.

GLENN: I stand against Nazis.

To tie Donald Trump -- actually tie him to Nazis is ridiculous. To tie Steve Bannon to the Nazi movement is not. But there is nothing in Donald Trump's history that shows that he is racist. Maybe the thing, Stu, that he went for the casino thing. That's probably the biggest mark of racist. But other than that, in his history, is he -- does he have that tendency that would show that he was a Nazi?

STU: Nazi, no. God, no. You know, even -- you talk about Steve Bannon, I mean, he -- there are obviously a lot of people in the alt-right that embrace those values and send people pictures of them in gas chambers and such.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: But most people --

GLENN: They've sent them to us.

STU: Even Ben Shapiro, who is an ardent critic of Steve Bannon's, has said he doesn't think he believes those things. He's using them for --

GLENN: Oh, I don't think so either. He's using them.

And I think that there is a case to be made that Steve Bannon is connected and using them. And Donald Trump was taking advice from Steve Bannon, but I don't think he's a Nazi.

DOC: It's funny though. There are so many subtle levels of this. Yes, clearly there are people in America that identify with Nazis. These people are crazy, right?

GLENN: But literally --

DOC: But there's many -- it's not everybody automatically in the alt-right, the right or whatever, is a Nazi just because we disagree. There's many, many levels that gets you closer and closer to that.

STU: Even a lot of the Nazis weren't Nazis as we think of them today.

DOC: Right. They were just, I got to do this, right?

STU: Again, that's horrible, but I'm not even talking about -- there were people in the party who didn't do all those things. Even back then, to assign -- it's true. It's true.

GLENN: No, I know it's true. You and I are both -- we're more well read on the Nazi movement than 99 percent of the Nazis.

STU: Right. And there's no reason to draw gray areas about the Nazis.

GLENN: Yes, right.

STU: They're all obviously horrible. My point though is even people who would today identify themselves that way weren't people who have killed 6 million Jews. This is why everyone gets so frustrated with Nazi comparisons. We all know how that ended up, so therefore everyone jumps to the end point of that. However, there was a lot of stuff early on, it wasn't so clear they were going to wind up killing 6 million Jews, even though Hitler very -- was very clear about his intentions.

GLENN: Again, people not taking him literally, but taking him seriously.

STU: Yeah, point is though, you can't compare -- I mean, obviously a comparison like that, where you're just throwing everyone -- half of this freaking country in the boat of Nazis is completely absurd.

GLENN: And to disrupt the inauguration destroys the main thing about America. And that is, we have a peaceful transfer of power.

That is one of the most stabilizing points that we can make to the rest of the world. Look, we strongly disagree. But we always have a -- a peaceful transfer of power. Even though -- I mean, we can compare this -- you know, the -- the Secret Service was not in effect with Abraham Lincoln. We didn't have a Secret Service.

Abraham Lincoln did not understand how divided this country was, until he made it to Baltimore. Most people don't know this, but there was a plot against his life, coming in for his first inauguration from Illinois. And he took the train to Philadelphia. And he was supposed to then take the train to Baltimore the next morning.

What people didn't know is he actually took a train -- he got into Philadelphia, and instead of saying, he went out the back door. And in the cover of darkness, went to -- I want to say like Hershey or someplace in that area. And then took another train in the middle of the night to Washington. And completely bypassed -- actually, no, it wasn't Philadelphia. It was Baltimore. He made it all the way to Baltimore. And it was the next morning they were going to kill him at the train station. So he took another train out and then rerouted to Washington. But it was in him walking, down the street to get out, where he heard all of the anti-Lincoln and anti-North sentiment on the streets. And he couldn't believe it.

He said later, "I didn't understand how divided we were as a country, that there were people willing to kill the people in the North. It wasn't just me."

I think we're close to that point again, to where we are so divided and the extremes on both sides have been so wound up by politicians, that they think now is their moment.

DOC: Imagine if they get what they want on Friday. It's like the dog that catches the car. What are you going to do now? What do you think is going to happen? We disrupted it. He didn't get inaugurated. Everyone is just going to go back to their life. Obama stays president. All hell breaks loose if they disrupt that.

PAT: And he's inaugurated anyway. They'll just go inside and inaugurate him. I mean...

DOC: And he gets inaugurated anyway.

GLENN: That's right. But that's what happens -- that's what people want. There are a great number of people now that want a crackdown. They want the chaos because they want the crackdown.

PAT: And we were such --

GLENN: She says she's anti-fascist. Well, what do you think -- how are fascistic states created? They're created by crackdowns because crackpots went and burned down the Reichstag.

DOC: I thought it was with marshmallows and rainbows. I thought that's how it was created. Wasn't it? Something like that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. It's really frightening to see the left -- and, again, the media has called a whole group of people Nazis. Not -- not what I said.

DOC: Right.

GLENN: These are Brownshirt tactics. And there's a difference between Brownshirt tactics and Nazis. While they were both Nazis, one is describing a person and a group of people. The other is saying, "You're using the same tactics here."

DOC: Did you see the second James O'Keefe video? The Project Veritas one? In it, at one point, one of the guys talking, he's like, oh -- this is one of the Disrupt J20 people. Let me call my comrade and see if he can blah, blah, blah.

GLENN: Comrade.

DOC: So you anti-fascist people are communist.

GLENN: Are communist. They're communist.

DOC: You think that's better?

GLENN: Right.

DOC: These are the people that believe that they are opposite sides of the spectrum. I do not believe that.

GLENN: No, they're not. That's total government. Doc, thanks so much for bringing that in.

DOC: Thanks.

GLENN: You know, your mom can fix those pants.

DOC: Okay. I'm flying immediately after this segment to DC. These are my TSA pants. Because, yes, it makes me uncomfortable when TSA touches me. But with these -- because I make them pat me down as part of my civil disobedience.

GLENN: Are they ripped in the butt or something?

DOC: Yes, they are. Right here. See right here. It's definitely going to make them uncomfortable.

PAT: Thank you for sharing that with me by the way. Thank you. That's okay.

DOC: That's for you, Pat. Rump shaker. Rump shaker.

GLENN: All right. Thank you. You've got to go off the set now. We're never going to get --

PAT: Don't you need to hit a flight?

DOC: I do. I got to go. I'm glad you said that.

GLENN: There are some things you can't unsee. And that's one of them.

PAT: I know. Yikes.

GLENN: But Tania and I were in Vegas this weekend, somebody would walk by, and I would be like, "You can't unsee that one." And she's like --

JEFFY: That's what makes Vegas great.

GLENN: -- "But you can replace it. Replace it with that one." And these people were -- oh, there was a woman that I saw at a really nice restaurant, dressed as a very nice hooker, I think. And Tania pointed out, "She might be." And I'm like, "Okay. Yes. I did see Pretty Woman. Maybe she is. But I don't think she was." You know how women go to Vegas and they dress like hookers?

STU: It's actually their city slogan.

GLENN: This woman was -- yeah, this woman was plump. And she honestly had a dress on. And she was probably 40. And she had a dress on where I could see the -- the cheek come down. Okay. I could see the cheek meet the leg.

PAT: Uh-huh. That's great.

GLENN: Now, she was standing with her butt toward me. And I said to Tania, "I'm torn. Because I want her to turn around to see how this works on the front." Because I said, "Just draw a mental line around." So I want to see how this works in the front, and yet I really don't want to --

STU: Especially in a food environment.

JEFFY: You have to see that.

GLENN: No, no.

JEFFY: You can't go to Vegas not to see --

GLENN: Again, there are things you cannot unsee.

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.