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

EXCLUSIVE: Proof That Liberals Are Working to Remove Bill O'Reilly From Fox News

April 19, 2017
Staff

WRITER

George Soros-funded Media Matters has a history of conducting smear campaigns against conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Their latest target looks to be Bill O'Reilly, host of the wildly popular and number one-rated cable news program The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. Glenn shared on radio today an email that suggests the liberal watchdog is behind the advertiser exodus from The Factor. The email is from Mary Pat Bonner of The Bonner Group.

RELATED: If Bill O'Reilly Goes, It's the Beginning of the End of Fox News as We Know It

"The Bonner Group, according to the New York Times, was paid $6 million from Hillary For America -- or whatever it was -- and Media Matters to raise money," Glenn said. "They are the largest fundraiser for Media Matters, at least in 2013, and raised $11 million for Media Matters. This is the Hillary super PAC group and the super PAC for Media Matters. That's who Mary Pat Bonner is.

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 19:42 from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I've only got three or four minutes here. And I don't want to start down this rabbit hole of -- of what happened to us and what's now happening to Bill O'Reilly. And I have the proof. I'll do it after the bottom of the hour break. But I do want to share with you the letter that I have from -- I have 30 seconds? So I can't share it now. I thought I had a little more time. I'm going to share the evidence that I find absolutely astounding, that Bill O'Reilly sent to everybody -- all the papers that I read said, "Well, he has evidence." Well, did you ask for the evidence? Because I know it was really super, super hard. I wrote to Bill and said, "Hey, do you have the evidence?" And then his attorney sent it to me. So I know it was really hard. But nobody's -- nobody's running with this. Why? Because it's a game that works and is being played on you. Next.

[break]

GLENN: All right. I want you to know that you need to write and call the Fox News Channel today, if you buy into what I'm about to tell you, and tell them, "You can lose your advertisers, or you can lose your viewers." But you have to put some spine back into the Murdoch family and the Fox News Channel board because you're about to lose Bill O'Reilly. And this isn't about Bill O'Reilly. This is about Media Matters. And this is about a system that I want to show you, if I have time now -- otherwise, later in the show -- has worked before.

I called Bill last night and said, "Hey, I'm reading that you guys have evidence. Can I see the evidence?" He said, "Let me call my attorney." Calls his attorney. His attorney -- I get up this morning, and I have this.

Now, I've just tweeted this. We've posted it at GlennBeck.com. And I believe a story is going up on TheBlaze soon about it.

It's from Mary Pat Bonner. Now, who is Mary Pat Bonner? Mary Pat Bonner runs what's called the Bonner Group. The Bonner Group, according to the New York Times, was paid $6 million from Hillary For America -- or whatever it was -- and Media Matters to raise money. Another source -- we're not sure. We only have one source on this -- said that Media Matters paid the Bonner Group $1.4 million in 2013 alone, to raise money. They are the largest fundraiser for Media Matters, at least in 2013 and raised $11 million for Media Matters.

This is the Hillary super PAC group and the super PAC for Media Matters. That's who Mary Pat Bonner is. So Mary Pat Bonner who is trying to raise money for Media Matters sends this out: An O'Reilly update call. Subject line. It came out Thursday April 13th, 2:53 p.m.

For years, Bill O'Reilly has been one of the worst purveyors of misinformation on Fox News. A serial misinformer, pushing many of the most extreme, sexist, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic conservative theories on TV.

PAT: Such a lie. Name one. Name one.

And she -- they don't obviously.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly is -- he's the most moderate of conservative television.

PAT: Completely reasoned.

GLENN: He is -- he never would connect the dots. He never does connect the dots. It's one of the biggest complaints, at least of this audience of Bill O'Reilly. They're like, "Don't worry, Bill will come along once the New York Times is there." I mean, Bill is --

PAT: And he's always said, "I deal in facts. I don't extrapolate. I don't connect dots."

GLENN: Right. I don't get ahead of the news. So he's not a theorist at all.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: (sighing)

Additionally, recent bombshell New York Times investigation found Fox News and Fox host Bill O'Reilly had paid $13 million to settle with five women who accused the host of repeated sexual harassment or verbal abuse.

No comment on that. I don't know what that is. But if you're going to fire Bill O'Reilly, then you fire him based on that and be transparent. Let everyone know exactly what it was. But I will tell you, again --

PAT: We see no evidence on it. Right? Nobody has recordings. Nobody has photos. We haven't even heard the story.

GLENN: I mean, we haven't heard from Megyn Kelly -- Megyn Kelly isn't shy on what's happening.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: You didn't hit on Megyn Kelly?

PAT: If you're a serial hit-onner, you would think so.

GLENN: Yeah.

Thanks to Media Matters, O'Reilly and Fox News are now being held accountable.

Now, listen to this: Due to our advertiser education campaign, over 80 advertisers have currently dropped O'Reilly's show, and the momentum continues to build.

Stu, based on your past history, is that true or false? Eighty advertisers have already dropped.

STU: Yeah. That's usually not true. Usually not true. It's usually, you know, hey, here's some company that never wanted to be associated with this guy anyway that they've called up to make a statement about it.

GLENN: Wait. I have new information that will blow your mind from Media Matters.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: It's worse than that. Okay? We are currently at a critical juncture in this campaign, so I hope you can join Media Matters, President Angelo Carusone, to hear about the successes of the campaign so far and our plans moving forward. We're holding an update call next week Thursday April 20th at 2:30. Please RSVP to Doug Farley at DougWalterFarley@Gmail.com. Or call 212-683-2551, and he can send you the dial-in information. I look forward to having you join on one of these critical calls. Regards, Mary Pat.

There is -- there is the evidence that Media Matters, because Bill O'Reilly is a -- what did they say? A sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic conservative.

STU: Here's the ten things that we say about everybody.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: Right. That's why they're doing it. Now, let me show you what they're doing. And I'm not going to speculate at all. I'm going to take it from the horse's mouth himself.

This is -- came out April 6th, 2017. How a veteran of Fox News boycott does it. And this is from the New Yorker magazine, not exactly a right-wing blog.

This week, a number of companies pulled their ads from Bill O'Reilly's Fox News Show after the Times reported the host and his employer paid millions of dollars to settle accusations of sexual harassment and other inappropriate behavior.

Hang on. My screen has just locked up. Please don't do that to me now.

Angelo Carusone -- or whatever you say his name -- he's the president of Media Matters now --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- took the opportunity to begin tweeting from an account he set up in March 2010. Stop O'Reilly.

In 2009, Carusone's Stop Beck account pressured brands to pull the ads from the program of Glenn Beck, the conspiracy-minded conservative commentator who was then hosting on Fox News. It proved an effective tactic, partly in response to Carusone's tweets, advertisers began to disassociate themselves from Beck's show.

Now, we've always said, "That's not true. Mercedes Benz never -- never -- Kraft was never on my show." Just, it didn't happen.

Listen: Beck and Fox News parted ways in 2011, which we're going to talk about later today.

He started working then -- Carusone started working at Media Matters, the left-wing nonprofit that battles what he considers -- what he considers conservative misinformation in the media. What he considers.

Hmm. Do you want a man or one group dictating to sponsors and to media outlets what is misinformation and what is true?

He's now the president of Media Matters. On Tuesday, he spoke by phone about his Beck campaign in light of the ongoing O'Reilly situation. His account has been edited and condensed. I've never known any of this. Listen to this.

Quote, leading up to the summer of 2009, I was a second-year law student. And when you're a second-year law student in the springtime, procrastination becomes something that was the same time that Glenn Beck was on the rise. He was something different for Fox News. He was not the ideologically different, but his presentation, his manner was much more venomous and vitriolic than even the standard Fox News fare. And he was incredibly successful by all measures, in audience size, revenue, and the kinds of advertisers he was attracting.

My fear became that the market would actually create an environment where people who were doing what Glenn Beck was doing became the new norm when they should become an anathema. That's what planted the seed in my brain. Twitter had finally become more of a thing. You could access companies in a different way because your communications were very public and transparent.

I started the Stop Beck campaign right at the beginning of July saying, I'm just going to try to contact advertisers and say, "Hey, this is what Glenn Beck said today. This is what your ads are appearing next to," so that they would be able to see the association, what they were actually paying for.

That's how it started. I listened to his program every day. I tweeted out everything he was saying. Copied in sponsors. At the end of a month, Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist and said he had a deep-seated hatred of white people and the white culture. That caused a firestorm.

So you're already after -- you have nothing -- you just are looking for something to cause a firestorm. In Bill O'Reilly's case, a settlement that happened how many years ago?

Because of Roger Ailes, that was drug up again. Now we can make something of that. Big organizations got involved, which I was never ever conceived of. Who are the big organizations? People like Media Matters, George Soros. We told you this was being funded by big people, and big people were involved, including Van Jones' Color For Change. Oh, wait. Quote, I was just the Twitter guy, but Color of Change and other activist groups sent out petitions. I got a ton of new followers and new participants in my effort. And then all of a sudden, I had a blog. And Kraft, the cheese company, replied to one of my posts saying, "Hey, we're pulling our ads from the Glenn Beck Show," literally in just a comment. And that's how it all started for me.

About three months in, I was like, "Okay. Now I have a theory, but I need a strategy. What's the actual strategy for holding him accountable?" Because clearly, he was not off the air.

You'd think that if you would get X-number of big companies to leave that it's just magic he'll go away. He won't. I needed something bigger. So this is what I started to do.

Now, I want you to listen very carefully to this because it explains an awful lot. I've never known this. This is not some conspiracy theorist. This is his own words in the New Yorker last month.

You better make a decision, America. Because you're about to lose a big conservative ally and voice. And it's not just Bill O'Reilly. I'm telling you, Sean Hannity will be next. Then Tucker Carlson will be next. Until everyone complies with what they say is not misinformation, they will continue to go -- and once you have the big bear of Fox News out of the way, then they come for TheBlaze. Then they come for The Daily Wire. Then they come for all of us. I didn't say anything because I wasn't Bill O'Reilly, until they came for me, and there was no one left.

No one wants to say anything because they don't know if Bill O'Reilly is innocent or guilty on sexual harassment. I don't either. And if that's true, that's a different story.

But you need to understand there is something else going on. They're only using that.

Now, just like me, when I said that, I was thinking out loud. I'm trying -- I'm reading the -- excuse me. I was reading Obama's book where he said, "That's just the way white people will do you." Where he talked about his grandmother, you know, having a white attitude. And she was bred to not trust blacks.

Well, as I'm reading that, I'm thinking out loud, "I think this guy has a real problem with white people." Okay. That's not unreasonable to think out loud and say that, but not on television as if it's a statement. Stupid.

What happened? I gave them ammunition. What happened? O'Reilly may -- may have given them ammunition.

We've never seen it. But this is a game-changer. And I'll tell you exactly how he did it last time and how you're being played, when we come back.

[break]

GLENN: I believe we have Bill O'Reilly's attorney on. And I want to ask him about these -- about these accusations from these women because I don't want to discredit the women by any stretch of the imagination. I do not know what's happening there. But I want to tell you about what Media Matters and the Hillary campaign is doing, or I should say the Bonner group is doing to raise money and to get Bill O'Reilly off the air.

Okay. So this is how I started. This is according to the head of Media Matters. I listened to his program every day. I tweeted out everything he said to the sponsors. Blah, blah.

Hey, we're pulling our ads from the Glenn Beck show, literally in a comment.

About three months in, I said, okay. Now I have a theory. But I need a strategy. If you think you can get X-number of big companies to leave and it's magic, he goes away. But I needed something bigger. So what I actually started to do is I found a guy in the UK. Glenn Beck's show was simulcast there. He would watch the show and give me the advertisers list for the United Kingdom. Some of them were big advertisers that were never advertising on Glenn Beck's show here.

If you could get the UK division to say, "We're going to pull the ads from Glenn's," it would filter over to the states, and people would say, "Mercedes has cancelled." It became a shot in the arm for the campaign. Within a few months, every single advertiser on Glenn Beck's show in the United Kingdom had been cut off.

He didn't have anymore ads. No ads at all. They would run promos during the breaks.

What I wanted to do was make sure there was enough of an effect so if Glenn Beck was still on the air during the next shareholder conversation, Rupert would have to say there was a problem in the United Kingdom. I'll bet you the same thing is happening here.

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.