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

Stop Pretending Conservatives and the ‘Alt-Right’ Are the Same Group

January 23, 2018
Staff

WRITER

A recent USA Today news article wrongly tied Nazi Twitter accounts and the Daily Stormer to the conservative group PragerU.

CEO Marissa Streit joined Glenn on today’s show to talk about why conflating conservatives who believe in American principles with white supremacist hate groups is a serious problem. It’s ridiculous and inaccurate to list PragerU as part of an article about the “alt-right,” a group generally characterized by nationalist and white supremacist ideals.

PragerU, which makes educational videos on conservative topics, is suing Google and YouTube for arbitrarily censoring and demonetizing its videos on U.S. history; Christians who are persecuted worldwide; American leadership; and other topics.

Looking for the petition discussed in this podcast? Follow this link.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: There's an incredible story that was in USA Today.

Alt-right escalates war against Silicon Valley. Pledges to expose bias against conservatives. The alt-right. If you read this story, it talks -- you know, it talks about Nazi groups. It talks about the Klan. It talks about the website. The Daily Stormer. Which is a Nazi website.

And then, lumped in along with everything else, is Prager University.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think there's a difference between Dennis Prager and Hitler. One of them might be the whole Jewish thing.

The other might be that one is driven by facts. Prager University, if you have not seen a Prager U video, this is something that you need to turn your kids onto. You need to share them. You need to support them in any way you possibly can.

Prager University is -- is not a flash point. They are facts and fact-driven.

It's why you never see them taken apart. You don't see a, you know, Prager University facts are wrong, website. Because they're fact-driven. And not emotionally driven.

They are being painted as the alt-right. That just shows that the media has absolutely no idea what the alt-right is, or worse yet, they do, and they don't care.

We have the CEO of PragerU on with us. You've been on before. Melissa (sic), how are you?

MARISSA: Wonderful, thank you for having me on.

GLENN: So, you know, how are things at the office when you read about you and the alt-right and the Nazis all being, you know --

MARISSA: You know, I wish it was laughable because it's almost laughable. But, you know, a few things I know you know about me. First of all, I'm a Jew. Dennis Prager is a Jew.

GLENN: Whoa, when did the Nazi party start to let Jews in?

MARISSA: I mean, we couldn't be further away from the alt-right. Basically, nothing that we believe in, the alternative right, which is basically the alternative to the right, the alternative to conservatism, has more in common with the left than with conservatives. We actually have a video on that, by Mike Knowles.

But this is -- this is a typical tactic of the left. They conflate any of the bad guys with conservatives. And try to make consumers and the audience assume that because we are the bad guys, it's okay to take us down.

As you know, Prager University's videos are completely fact-based. To claim that we have in common with the right is a typical tactic to try to undermine our efforts and our lawsuit against YouTube.

GLENN: So, Marissa, you and I have talked about this privately and on the air before. There is a concerted effort by, I believe, the big four, Facebook, Apple, Google, what's the -- what's the last one? I'm trying to think. The big four.

Anyway, there is a -- there is an effort to silence the voices of anyone on the right.

I mean, what Facebook is doing now with, you know, hey, tell us what news sources you think are credible. That's going to put places like Breitbart, TheBlaze, Daily Wire. It could put us out of business. And they know it. And they know it.

How do we survive in this world where -- where Google and Facebook can control so many eyeballs and are -- and are using these kinds of tactics to ban people who are really trying to be reasonable like PragerU.

MARISSA: You know, Glenn, I can't tell you how much I appreciate that you get this. Because this is so dangerous. As somebody who works with millennials and runs an organization that specifically is geared toward speaking and educating millennials, this is very, very dangerous. This is exactly why we've taken on this lawsuit, because the public needs to be aware of the fact that these big fours, as you're saying, have an ideological bent. They have an ideological bias.

And they're not afraid to do whatever it takes to take conservatives down. And that includes lying about who their -- their content creators are.

And, I mean, they hide information from us. This past week, we had another issue with Twitter. It's -- it's pretty unbelievable what's happening out there. I'm not sure what can be done. But the public needs to be aware of the fact that they are in control of the biggest communication platforms in the world. And if we don't do something about it, it's going to get real bad, real soon.

GLENN: Well, it's really disturbing. You know, people don't know this. But Facebook runs an algorithm. Not only are they now saying that we're going to choose which news sites are credible and which ones aren't, and we're not going to spread ones that we think are not credible, I can guarantee you, there's nothing on the right that is going to be deemed credible to Facebook.

Not only are they doing that, and that hasn't even started yet, that is coming very, very soon. They are also changing their algorithm, which is, you know, their right to do. Et cetera, et cetera.

But I will tell you that not my website, thank God, but one of the conservative websites went from their largest day ever and their largest quarter, just keep growing and growing and growing -- in one day, they lost 90 percent of their traffic. Because Facebook targeted the algorithm differently. There's no way media companies, especially on the right, that, you know, are not getting big funding, there's no way to survive.

MARISSA: For social media platforms to claim that the reason that some of the conservative platforms are not getting as many views is because of some sort of algorithm, is -- is ridiculous. Because at the end of the day, who is writing the algorithms? You can't just say, well, it's the algorithm's fault. A human being is behind writing the algorithm. And that's the main issue.

GLENN: I agree. I agree.

MARISSA: They are writing algorithms that are suppressing our information. We see this -- I mean, YouTube has admitted to us. In writing, they've sent us an email saying, we review your content, and we deem your content inappropriate for a young audience. So they make us look like we're some evil bad guys. And because of that, they can block our -- our content and our information, which is exactly what was done in this USA Today. Whoever reported on this, is totally irresponsible, to conflate PragerU with the alt-right is basically irresponsible reporting.

GLENN: And, you know, I have to tell you, the Young Turks, one of the most irresponsible group of people I have ever seen, they got a 20-million-dollar funding from people including Jeffrey Katzenberg.

And I can also guarantee you that their YouTube channel is never going to receive anything. They'll always be spread by YouTube. They'll always be spread by Google. And they are indeed radicals.

I mean, just look up the definition and the history of the Young Turks. And you kind of know where they're coming from. And yet, Dan Rather joined them because they've been normalized.

MARISSA: It's interesting you bring up Young Turks because they have done video responses to some of our videos. And, you know, they get millions of views on -- on the videos that they create. And YouTube has no issue with that. But when PragerU creates videos on opposing views, you know, our videos end up getting demonetized and restricted.

GLENN: And, you know what, I have no problem -- if the Young Turks wants to present an opposing opinion to PragerU, more power to them. But it should be on an even playing field, and we should not be having this nonsense back and forth, algorithms, and people that we know through the words of Media Matters themselves, that they are inside of YouTube and Google and all of the big four, trying to help them understand what radicalism is on the right. They have absolutely no idea. And by -- by coming after people like PragerU, you are only making the alt-right much stronger. Do you agree with that?

MARISSA: First of all, I agree with it. And secondly, the alt-right is actually not as big as they claim it to be. But they create this hysteria around the alt-right. And then they conflate conservatives, conservative Christians with the alt-right in order to make us look like -- again, like the bad guys. In order to justify their efforts to undermined our efforts. I mean, if you think about it, the alt-right has more -- again, they have more in common with the left. They are obsessed with race and identity politics. They reject Christianity. Many of them are actually atheists who reject God. They have a disdain for the individual. They're obsessed with group identity, as anti-American as a concept as it gets. They have more in common with the left. But they try to make conservatives look like they're the same thing as the alt-right. And it's all under one specific agenda, which is to undermine those who have opposing views to theirs. And they'll do whatever it takes. Anything from lying, you know, making up facts that are obviously, you know, lies.

I don't know where it's going to end. This is why we need the public to help us. This is why we're suing YouTube. We have a petition. I invite, you know, your audience. Many of your -- I know that many of the people who listen to you have already signed our petition. But there needs to be a public outcry over this.

GLENN: I cannot urge you strongly enough to get involved.

I mean, PragerU is taking on not YouTube. Google. You don't take on Google with, you know, your hat in your hand.

We must band together. This may be one of the more important lawsuits that are fought in our lifetime. Because your voice is going to be silenced. There is no ifs, ands, or buts. When Prager University is deemed as radical and something that YouTube really needs to watch over and this he need to make sure they keep it away from kids, we have real issues.

When they -- when the press starts to compare PragerU with Nazis, we have real issues. And you will lose your voice. And it's happening right now.

Where can you go to sign the petition and help?

MARISSA: So if you go to our home page, PragerU.com -- P-R-A-G-E-R-U.com -- you'll find an icon. Just click on it. All we're asking for is that you put your email in. We want to show Google and YouTube that there are people out there who are upset about what's happening. And you can help us in whatever way you can. We just want to make the public aware and put some pressure on Google to change their ways.

GLENN: Marissa, thank you so much, God bless.

MARISSA: Thank you. God bless you. Bye.

GLENN: My best to Dennis.

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.