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

Were Trump’s Comments During Puerto Rico Visit ‘Insensitive’?

October 04, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Following a public clash with the mayor of San Juan, President Donald Trump visited Puerto Rico, a trip that went smoothly for the most part – although some of his remarks were not as diplomatic as they could have been.

“Now, I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico, but you’ve thrown our budget a little out of whack because we’ve spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico, and that’s fine,” Trump said in his address. “We’ve saved a lot of lives.”

Trump didn’t seem to realize that even though the government is working to help Puerto Rico, there are still a lot of people hurting and struggling.

“When you lay out facts that way, they come across insensitive,” Doc said on Wednesday’s show while filling in for Glenn.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn along with Kris Cruz and Kal. We have to get on to other news including President Trump in Puerto Rico. Before we go any further, I am going to need a disclaimer at this point. I Doc Thompson support much of what the president has done and I think he has been unfairly criticized by the media. I didn't vote for him and I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. I do support him as president and hope he does good things and I have given him fairly high marks on things like the Supreme Court nominee he put forth. Having said that, we will now criticize President Trump. Did you like that?

President Trump has been pretty good with the handling of natural disasters. He did what a president does. You open up the purse swings. There is going to be FEMA money, natural disaster, all of this. Both the governors of Florida and Texas did a good job for the two hurricanes that came through. But President Trump was very good there.

They tried to criticize him, they being the media and the left, for those two. It didn't happen. He did a pretty good job. For Puerto Rico, he did a good job early on but they were not letting it be and had to find ways to come out and criticize him.

I was fine with him criticizing the mayor of San Juan. She is clearly a leftist and was pretending like President Trump was leaving them high and dry even though he had opened up the purse springs and sent the military and National Guard and sent the trauma guard. Having said all of that, when he went to Puerto Rico he looked goofy.

KRIS: It is a sign I like from Trump. When he is visiting things like this, I was super excited. Everything he did literally checked by box.

DOC: Even the throwing the paper towels?

KRIS: We had a good follow-up. He knows he have good basketball players. I will give him that. He was like Puerto Rico, here is your chance.

DOC: He's a good jump shot. But at the full court press he is horrible. He is not playing good D or hustling to the other end of the court and where is his rebound.

If you want to apply him as a jump shot specialist that is fine but you have to play both ends of the court.

KRIS: I will give you that.

DOC: That is the type of sports take you normally don't get on the Glenn Beck program and by that, I mean sports talk.

His comments about money and the budget in Puerto Rico not inaccurate. I know he is a guy who just kind of throws it out there. You got to know you are going to step in it. I know he is not concerned about the media or the left criticizing him but you are not as effective of a leader when you say things like he said.

Here is President Trump talking about the budget:

I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico. You are throwing our budget out of whack because we have spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico and that is fine. We have saved a lot of lives. Every death is a horror but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina and the hundreds of people that died and you look at what happened here with really a storm that was just totally overpowering. Nobody has ever seen anything like this.

DOC: This goes to my point when we started the show we don't give each other the benefit of the doubt anymore. He brought it back a little bit when he said people have died. That is fine. He was drawing a comparison to Katrina and that is fine but that is going to get you in trouble every time. As much as many didn't give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean bad things, he also didn't realize there is a lot of people hurting right now. There is a lot of people in Puerto Rico that are struggling. When you lay out facts that way they come across insensitive and in normal circumstances we would say man up, get a little tougher there and that is fine. But while people are still in this much parallel. There are people that are still facing all kinds of challenges. Health challenges. Food and shelter challenges in Puerto Rico. Maybe it was a callus comparison and not good timing. Probably shouldn't have gone there.

I agree. But he was right with the comment about Puerto Rico mishandling their money. Even when I visited Puerto Rico, I looked around and I was like wait a minute. What is going on here? To be a beautiful island. Tourists in San Juan. And you have all this wasted money? Where is it going?

DOC: Puerto Rico just had a default. They went through billions of dollars. This has been something they have been struggling with for decades and keep trying to get out in front of it. There was a bond issue like a lot of different places in America.

States/cities. That was an issue. But you are supposed to plan for those things.

You are supposed to have politicians that say during the lean times when you have stuff coming in you have to put things away and plan for the lean times. Puerto Rico has had sketchy politician and people who have not done what is right. They are not prepared it. We are going to be on the hook at one point for the debt of loss of Puerto Rico like we would be anywhere else. One way or another that is coming. Trump even suggested that.

KRIS: Trump also said he is going to wipe out the debt.

DOC: How is he doing that?

KRIS: I do not know.

DOC: Anything owed to the government he has control over? I don't know if he can unilaterally do that. He likely has money owed through the executive branch like military where he could wipe it out by paying for it somewhere else or something but he is not exclusively in control nor is he to any bond debt that would be owed to people outside the Federal Government.

KRIS: This is a quote he said. He said they owe a lot of money to our friends on Wall Street and we are going to have to wipe that out. You are going to say Good-bye to that. I don't know if is Goldman Sachs or whoever it is but you can wave Good-bye to that.

DOC: He wasn't talking government or executive branch but people on Wall Street. Here is the problem. Wall Street is not some inanimate object not connected to people. Wall Street is a system of investors and ways to invest. Companies and organizations that govern or regulate or you invest through.

Who invests? People. It is easy to say you will have to say Good-bye to that. You will have to do that when you are not the one who loses money. It is not just Mr. Goldman Sachs and I have trillions and I am able to forgive a few million dollars here and there because I am wealthy, Mr. Goldman Sachs. No, Goldman Sachs is a company that invests money for people. If they say Good-bye to that money they are saying Good-bye to the money from people who invested in Puerto Rico. How about you are the little old lady in Indiana who invested part of your retirement in something that invested in Puerto Rico. Should she say Good-bye to that money? Of course not. There are risks that come with it and if that is what he meant that is fine. But if he means we should give that up, that is crazy. It is not for him to say.

KRIS: And the market responded.

DOC: If he is talking about a reset, of course we have to reset. There is going to be a reset in the market. Today? I don't know. Five years from now? I don't know. Eventually it will reset. That is what markets do. It is inflated right now. Eventually it will reset and whether that takes it down 1% or 40% that is what will happen.

KRIS: It dropped to 33 cents on the dollar where last month it was trading around 50 sent on the dollar.

DOC: Another clip of the president.

We will help the people. $72 billion in debt before the hurricane hit. They had a power plant that didn't work before the hurricane. We will help them do something and get it back on its feet. But I am just very, very proud of the fact, you know, if you look at one statistic, 16 deaths. That is a lot of deaths. If you look at Katrina it was in the thousands. We had FEMA here before the storm even came. They were on the island during the storm and before the first storm. They got hit by two hurricanes. We are very proud of the job we have done. Very, very proud. We will have to try to get them back. The power is slowly getting on. The roads are open. The runways are open. If these people you have met today, all of the different people, first responders, these are incredible people.

I totally agree.

DOC: He is accurate. FEMA was there. I give him props. The $72 billion is how much they were out and defaulted on. And power plant trouble, sure. What does he mean we will take care of that?

KRIS: That is another thing that scares me. Puerto Rico is my county. But what does that mean? If a president is saying hey, we are going to take care of it. Last time I checked, well this president has money, but last time I checked the government doesn't owe money. It is my money. So that means I am going to pay for it.

DOC: Exactly. Where is that coming from? It is fine to lead on this but if he was saying we are just going to pony up money I am happy to help people in Puerto Rico even with public funds but I need assurances just like I do in the rest of America that you are actually doing what you have to do. Balance your budget, start paying down the national debt, start finding a way to pay for the unfunded liabilities that will come up over the next 10 years, get your spending under control, come up with a new tax plan, repeal Obamacare. You have to do those things before you promise to build a power plant in Puerto Rico or bail them out of $72 billion.

If the president wants to lead on some sort of primarily private/public partnership, fine. Puerto Rico, there is an opportunity to make money for all of us for Puerto Rico to be a testing ground. It is three and a half, four million people? Not huge geographically wise. But I think broadcast market. San Juan is top 20 or top 15. And it is American territory. Those are Americans.

If you have to rebuild the grid, Kris, let's do it right. Let's do fiber optics and wi-fi throughout the island. The government can't pay for it but if you show people an investment opportunity and we say people of Puerto Rico, I as a private company, want to build and this will be a bigger tourist destination there is opportunities that way. Lead that way. That is awesome.

KRIS: We learned during the morning headlines that Google is sending wi-fi balloons to connect people back to the internet.

DOC: They are what?

KRIS: Sending hot wear balloons.

DOC: Google, one of the most profound technology companies in the world today, that has been a trendsetter for a decade or more and on the cutting edge of things we don't even understand, their big technological solution to helping Puerto Rico get wi-fi established is balloons? Come on?

KRIS: Wi-fi balloons.

DOC: Balloon technology? This is it. We are employing the most advanced balloon technology available. We are here to help. We have balloons. Stand by, Puerto Rico. Hang on, we are inflating them now. You will be up in no time. We have got our IT balloon guys on the ground. They have made landfall.

Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck.

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.