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

Bill O’Reilly Wants to Clear up the NY Times’ ‘Smear Piece’

October 23, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Bill O’Reilly was back in the hot seat on Monday’s show, answering Glenn and Stu’s questions about the latest New York Times piece on his record at Fox News. He clarified what the Times left out of the piece and exactly why he paid settlements after lawsuits he says made false allegations.

“No. 1: I want the story to go away because it’s brutalizing my family, and No. 2: I’m not going to run and hide because I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said.

Listen to O’Reilly in context and in his own words for his answers to these questions:

  • What were O’Reilly’s reasons for settling?

  • Exactly how many lawsuits did he need to resolve during his time at Fox News?

  • Why was the settlement $32 million if the allegations were false?

  • What is O’Reilly’s response to Megyn Kelly’s latest comments?

  • Would he make the same decisions if he could do it over?

So what do you think? Does Bill make a compelling argument?

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Friend of the program and friend of mine, Bill O'Reilly. Welcome, sir. How are you?

BILL: Taking a beating. But still standing.

GLENN: So, Bill, you and I spoke over the weekend.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: And I said to you that I wanted to ask you some honest questions. And just personal for me, because I -- you know, I don't know. And anybody can lie to anybody. But you would be -- I mean, you would be one of the greatest liars ever because of the consistency of your lies, if you were lying to me, and the consistency of your behavior around me and my staff, which we have toured together.

BILL: Sure.

GLENN: I have seen you on Friday nights. I have seen you in hotels. My staff has. And I have women that work for me. And we've never had any problem whatsoever, or an inkling that you might be one of those guys.

BILL: Yeah. Well, I was in the -- I've been in the broadcast business for 43 years. Twelve different companies. Never one time was there any complaint filed against me with human resources or anybody's legal team. Nothing. Zero.

GLENN: Megyn Kelly --

BILL: So I think the track record speaks for itself. And I think that people, when they look at the statement that we have posted on BillO'Reilly.com, when they look at the affidavit, and now the three letters that I sent you -- did you get the letters from Gretchen Carlson?

GLENN: I did. I wanted to know if I were -- was allowed to publish them.

BILL: Oh, yeah. Sure.

So what I'm trying to get across by coming on with you today, are two things: Number one, I want the story to go away. Because it's brutalizing my family. And number two, I'm not going to run and hide, because I didn't do anything wrong.

And I think that the evidence that we put forth is very strong. Very compelling. That the New York Times wants to take me out of the marketplace. This is the second time they've attacked me. And the article on Sunday regurgitated the first article. That was like 75 percent of it. They had to run it twice in case you didn't get it last April. And they know that I'm at a disadvantage, because I can't comment specifically on any case that has been resolved. That's one of the -- one of the --

GLENN: Stipulations.

BILL: -- legal -- legal compelling things, that when you resolve something, it is always done in a nobody says anything. And you know who knows that best? The New York Times. Because they settled a number of harassment complaints, in a confidential way. Yet in their article on page one today, screaming about, well, we shouldn't have this kind of provision, they don't mention that. And they don't mention a lot of things.

So I think -- go ahead.

GLENN: So, Bill, I want to ask you a couple of questions. The biggest question that is on everybody's mind is, okay. You can settle. But $32 million, coming out of your own pocket, nobody does that.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: So did you --

BILL: What do you want to say --

GLENN: So did you --

BILL: The only comment I could make on that issue, without getting the thing back into a legal arena, would be the first article that the New York Times wrote quoted figures and added them up. And it was wildly wrong.

But I can't confirm or deny anything, because once I do that, then it goes back into the legal arena, which you don't want. And they know that.

So they could say whatever they want to say. They know that. They know we're hamstrung, my attorneys and investigative team. We can't.

GLENN: Was this settlement by you alone, or was Fox involved?

BILL: I can't -- Beck, as I told you off the camera -- I know you have to ask some questions for your audience -- I can't comment on any specific case at all. If I could, I would. But I cannot.

GLENN: Can you tell me about the relationship that you had with Lis Wiehl?

BILL: No, I cannot -- what we had -- what we have posted is an affidavit from Ms. Wiehl. It's one affidavit. That's posted on BillO'Reilly.com. That's it. We could post. We did. There it is. And I can't speak to anything other than that.

I know it's frustrating.

GLENN: No, it's really frustrating.

BILL: It's very frustrating for me. You can imagine me, sitting here, all right? Being accused of everything under the sun. And the endgame, let's leave O'Reilly with Harvey Weinstein. Let's make him that. That's what we want to do. All right? So we take him out of the marketplace forever. He never gets to give his opinion on issues again. We take him out because we hate him.

And the New York Times obviously hates me. It's dishonest in the extreme. And it's frustrating for me. But unless I want another seven or eight years of constant litigation that puts my children in the kill zone, I have to maintain my discipline.

GLENN: Okay. So --

BILL: The only reason -- I can tell you this, Beck. In 20 years plus at the Fox News Channel -- how long did you work there, by the way?

GLENN: Four years, three years -- two years. Ten minutes. I don't remember.

BILL: All right. I was there twenty years and six months. I resolved three things. That's all I resolved in 20 years and six months. I resolved three things. And the only reason I did resolve them was to keep my children safe. So I can tell you that.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me go one more place.

STU: We should point out, that's smaller than the reported number, Bill. Are you saying that the reported money is inaccurate.

BILL: All I'm telling you is the truth. Twenty years, six months, Fox News Channel, I resolved three things. That is the truth.

GLENN: Bill, on the -- on the Wiehl affidavit, the New York Times fails to recognize here that this is a legal document. And she is a member of the bar. And that if she signs something that was not true, she should be disbarred. She's not --

BILL: It's worse than that. And I'm not impugning or saying anything, I'm talking in a general sense now.

GLENN: She's not saying this. But the New York Times is just speaking for her. Go ahead.

BILL: Wait. Wait. If any American citizen signs an affidavit that's notarized, all right? It's under the perjury law. So you can be prosecuted, if what you're saying is not true. Which is why the affidavit becomes so vitally important.

And here's the kicker. We gave that to the New York Times. They had that. They did not print it.

Then their weasel reporter, the most dishonest man on the face of the earth, tweets out, "Oh, O'Reilly says we didn't mention the affidavit. And we did."

I didn't say you didn't mention it. I said you didn't print it. And you should have printed it up top, because that's the story. But they didn't want that to be out, because that wrecks their story. Which they had already written, no matter what I said or gave them. And we gave them an unbelievable amount of stuff, from day one of my tenure with Fox News. They know.

But they don't care. Because this was a hit job, to get me out of the marketplace. And then you'll have the left. Paranoid. Okay? You can back that up 50 different ways. Media Matters is involved. CNN is involved. I mean, it -- and it's beyond any doubt -- so, again, I will tell you everybody, we've got our statement posted on BillO'Reilly.com. Would he give you the affidavit posted. We've got letters from Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly to me, posted. Everything is there.

You still want to think I'm a bad guy. Go ahead. The truth is the truth.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on. I have to take a break. And then I want to come back and talk about what Megyn talked about today. Because this is a separate issue. But I think you should address that as well. Coming up in a second.

GLENN: This is Megyn Kelly on today's broadcast.

MEGYN: Malicious smear, claiming that no woman in 20 years ever complained to human resources or legal about him. Maybe that is true. Fox News was not exactly a friendly environment for harassment victims who happened to report, in my experience.

However, O'Reilly's suggestion that no one ever complained about his behavior is false. I know, because I complained.

It was November of 2016, the day my memoir was released. In it, I included a chapter on Ailes and the sexual harassment scandal at Fox News, something the Murdochs knew I was doing, and to their credit, approved.

O'Reilly happened to be on CBS News that morning. They asked him about my book and about Ailes, who by this time had been forced out in disgrace. O'Reilly's response?

BILL: I'm not that interested in this.

MEGYN: No? In sexual harassment? You're not interested in sexual harassment?

BILL: I'm not interested in basically litigating something that is finished, that makes my network look bad. Okay? I'm not interested in making my network look bad, at all. That doesn't interest me one bit.

GLENN: So her complaint, Bill, that she filed was that you made it tough for people to come out against the network, because of statements like that.

BILL: Number one, she didn't file a complaint. Not that I know of. Never brought to our attention that Megyn Kelly did anything. All right? So I'd like to see it. Because I don't believe that's true at all.

Number two, what she did not say is that there's an anonymous hotline, and there had been for years at Fox News where anyone could have called up and say, "So-and-so is doing something to me, and you better stop it." All right? That's anonymous. Doesn't mention it.

Number three, I'd like you to read the notes that I gave you, Beck, to your audience from Megyn Kelly to me, the personal notes.

GLENN: Do you happen to have them in front of you? Because my i Pad just went down.

STU: Convenient.

GLENN: Hang on.

So Megyn Kelly wrote to you, "Dear Bill, what a class act you are. Something to my baby -- please come to my baby shower -- no, no, what a class act you are. Thank you for coming to my baby shower."

BILL: Coming to my baby shower. Right.

GLENN: "I was truly touched. I know how busy you are, especially that time of the day. It meant a lot to me and Dory. Thank you for the darling body suits and snugglies. It's kind -- no, it's hard to believe we'll soon have a human being in our lives to fit into those. You've become a dear friend, no matter what they say. And I am grateful to have you in my life, Megyn Kelly."

BILL: Yeah, that's letter number one. Letter number two.

GLENN: Letter number two: Thank you for the -- something on Dory's book --

BILL: Mention. Thank you for the mention on Doug's book. Doug is her husband.

GLENN: Oh, Doug's book. Okay.

I realize you didn't have to do that, especially after mentioning it already. I appreciate how supportive you have been to me over the years here at Fox News. You're a true friend and mentor.

And I want to give one more letter. This is the one -- and these are going to be published up at TheBlaze and GlennBeck.com. This one is from Gretchen Carlson.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: "Bill, thank you for being the calm in the sea. Thank you so much for supporting me. Thank you for being my friend. It means the world to me, G.C."

BILL: Yeah. So, look, I think that anybody -- any fair-minded person -- and I really appreciate you reading those to your listeners -- I think that they can now start to formulate a picture here.

Because the behavior that you pointed out at the beginning of the 11 o'clock hour, Eastern time is on the record. Forty-three years, no complaints. Twelve different companies. And then you, Glenn Beck known me for now, what? Ten years? Twelve years?

GLENN: Yeah, something like that.

BILL: You've been with me on the road. You know who I am. You know what I do. And now with the statement that we provided on BillO'Reilly.com, with the affidavit, this one affidavit, and with these three letters, two by Megyn Kelly and one by Gretchen Carlson -- a picture should start to emerge for any fair-minded person. And that's all I can hope for, that the American people will see that this is an attack on an American citizen, me, for political purposes. And you know what? It's done enormous damage to me and to my family. And it is a horror, and it should never happen in our country.

GLENN: Bill, what happens if companies settle lawsuits and then the affidavits and the nondisclosures don't mean anything?

BILL: Well, it's over now. Anybody who would be settling anything now is insane. Because --

GLENN: So is that --

BILL: In my case, all the confidentiality stuff was violated.

GLENN: You told -- you told me about a year ago, the biggest mistake you made was settling. So is this a good thing or not?

BILL: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

No, if I had to do it all over again, I never would have done it. But you got to understand how much pain this brings children. And I thought I could spare my children that. I would do anything for my children, anything to protect them. I would give up my life for my children. And that's why I did it.

But we actually thought that people would uphold their oath. And what they agreed to. And they haven't.

But let me get back to Megyn Kelly for a moment. I never had any problem with Megyn Kelly. In fact, when she was getting hammered earlier this year, I wrote a column speaking up for her. You know, I don't know why Megyn Kelly is doing what she's doing. I don't know why. I've helped her dramatically in her career. I gave her the name of her show, The Kelly File. She actually did a charity even for me. I mean, it is just incomprehensible.

GLENN: Okay. Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. We'll talk to you again, Bill. Try to have a better day. God bless.

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.