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

Ann Coulter "heartbroken" that loss deprives America of President Romney

November 08, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Ann Coulter has been one of the most vocal personalities in the media in the months and weeks leading up to the election. A staunch Mitt Romney supporter, she told Glenn on radio this morning that she was heartbroken that America was denied a Romney presidency, believing the candidate would have found solutions to a lot of problems facing the country. However, in the interview she addressed two key reasons for his defeat: the power of incumbency and the immigrant vote. You can read a rough transcript of the interview below and watch it in the clip above.

Below is a rough transcript of the interview:

GLENN: Let's see we couldn't get Ann Coulter to call the fat bastard the fat bastard from New Jersey last time. At least admit that the pictures of Chris Christie, and Barack Obama walking down the tarmac together look like Larry the cucumber, and Bob the tomato. Now --

PAT: You're a veggie tails fan.

COULTER: Huge.

GLENN: We thought Larry the cucumber. Archibald the asparagus he kind of looks like Barack Obama. If Barack Obama would use a monocle, and Bob the tomato, that's who they are.

COULTER: I'm really enjoying this today.

COULTER: I will put in an emergency call to Chris Christie to find out if it's true that he wept when he met Bruce Springsteen. That may be the first thing that's going to knock it down.

GLENN: Say it.

COULTER: But I do have an important update for you.

GLENN: You have a Chris Christie problem. Say it he's a fat bastard. I think that the hurricane hurt with or without Chris Christie.

PAT: Chris Christie certainly didn't help.

COULTER: And I think it's the real problem and I certainly hasn't thought about it. That was the whole reason I was so wild about Chris Christie midway through Obama's term, and famously if we didn't run Chris Christie, and we'd win Romney and I was wrong about that. Romney was the best candidate we could have run this time. But the reason --

GLENN: But he did lose.

COULTER: I do know that. I think Chris Christie would have lost by more. I hope I'm wrong about that because we may run him in four years. It's almost impossible to take out an incumbent. Republicans have done it in 80 years and that was Ronald Reagan. I thought Chris Christie was the galvanizing star. I know so many people that have never worked in politics. And I would say half of them if that man ever runs for President I'd come and work for him. He was exciting like Ronald Reagan. I don't think Sandy made a huge difference. And but incumbency was the main thing of all. One important update I have because neither Chris Christie is not going to be our President at least today, and Obama is, and he did Obama did the same thing with the Michael Bloomberg. That's why he wrote that endorsement in the "New York Times". I got that tip from insiders in New York. That was a shakedown for an endorsement playing with federal relief disaster funds. Why I said Chris Christie invited Obama in. He had to care about New Jersey. He needed federal disaster relief funds, and as quickly as possible. And if you read Bloomberg's story in the "New York Times" after Sandy hit get down to the last paragraph, and see if that sounds like a ringing endorsement.

GLENN: I got news for you the Chris Christie is even less the man he is. Believe me I've seen the picture. He's quite a man. What I like about Chris Christie when he standing in front of people, and he knows what he believes and he says it. He stands in front of the cameras, and I'm sorry that's just the way it is. He's real. I love that. But if folded --

COULTER: I think he knew what happened when he became governor the first time. At the beginning of the Obama Department of Justice said no no no left child funds for you because you didn't produce the October 2006 numbers.

GLENN: There's an difference between an education number that nobody can get your arms around, and Chris Christie getting on television. The one thing he's good is the television camera. But I didn't kiss Romney's butt either, and Obama's butt. And our state was affected by it. I think people would have lined up to help him.

COULTER: It's very hard to prove that the government is being more incompetent than it is. When they're working hard it's difficult to tell the difference that they're purposefully getting there slowly.

STU: That's a good government that states shouldn't be dependent on federal funds.

COULTER: Yes. That's why $1 million I'm heartbroken that Romney was going to be our President. He was going to fix so many things. To have America deprived of having this President who could have fixed so much that is broken is heartbreaking. But I do think we'll -- we're going to work hard. Not only do you have the law of the incumbency President. The other side of the is 2004. It didn't occur to me until two nights ago because I thought John Kerry was a jackass. And yet still two years later Republicans were wiped out in the congressionally Lexis. Which suggest that Americans were not thrilled with Republicans. Yet they voted to reelect George Bush. This is all segment of the society including us what we ended was the exact same President, and basically the same Senate, and basically the same house. Nothing changed after all this, and how powerful incumbency is. But the other flip side to reelect the other side the power comes roaring over. And no more Sharron Angle's, and Todd Akins. When it comes time to pick a President. I think Romney was hurt. And sometimes this is inevitable. It wasn't inevitable to have that the primary go on and go. It definitely hurt Mitt Romney. Obama was spending money denouncing Romney as a rich elitist out of touch Country Clubber in Ohio. He always knew that Ohio was in play. Even more than them I loved Herman Cain, and 999 but if you haven't won a major election and not just in a little house seat you're probably never going to be President so you shouldn't run.

PAT: I like that.

PAT: So no former pizza skew tiffs, and no other members.

COULTER: Nobody has won an election. I think preferably for governor. I don't think that a house member can do it.

PAT: Governor or Senator.

GLENN: Ann, take a deep breathe.

COULTER: But that probably won't be until 2024.

GLENN: Take a deep breath. Remember you're the one that like Bob the tomato. You remember this. -- this country is split right down the middle, and everybody everybody on the right is saying maybe we should be more moderate. Are you out of your mind.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: I'm so sick of this, and John Boehner, John Boehner I have to tell you. What a fat bastard that guy even though he's not fat. He's growing in size in my mind every single day. What is wrong with that guy.

COULTER: You have to keep the pressure on these guys. I would like to think that he was saying that for media consumption.

COULTER:

GLENN: No he's not. Even "The Blaze" is running this. Everybody is publishing their list who can run in 2016. If somebody tells me one more time Jeb Bush I'm going to hang myself.

COULTER: Thank you. And he and his rotten family, and the "Wall Street Journal".

GLENN: You say that about the Bushes and but you won't call Chris Christie a fat bastard which is half true.

COULTER: One teeny tiny mistake he made. All of these Republicans who have telling us all this time don't worry immigration. Illegal immigration it's fantastic we're going to turn the Hispanics into Republicans just like the Italians. When the Italians came here. This is back in the 20s 30% of them went back home because they didn't make it. We got the creme de la creme. You get here, and the Democrats immediately start giving you government assistance. Thus I was in despair for the first 16 hours after the election results came in. Because we are heading for a tipping point. Whether we hit that in this election or not. It was all 1965 Teddy Kennedy's immigration act. 60% of the legal immigrants come from the third world, and government gets them on assistance, and they have automatic democratic voters. Maybe we can get them in 100 years. But it's too late. They vote by race. And a white person could vote nor a Democrat or Republican, and no one will say you voted for the Democrat. How could you vote against your race. That is sad to immigrants from Senegal, to blacks and Mexicans and Hispanics. There is this ethnic voting, and Democrats have gotten them, and it has nothing to do with the economic opportunity. We ought to get as many as we can. I think Mitt Romney was right in the first debate. We can appeal to them by offering them freedom.

GLENN: I have news for you. I think if the Republicans if they don't change their behavior in this 2-year period they're not going to have anybody left. They're not going to have anybody left. I don't care about these guys.

COULTER: There was nothing wrong with Mitt Romney's position on things. It wasn't like he was John McCain.

GLENN: I think Mitt Romney was the best candidate we have run since Ronald Reagan.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: You know you don't know anybody anywhere. But I thought.

COULTER: He was a little that way with Reagan though he had spent a lot more time in public life, and but he didn't run as the caricature as the liberals portrayed him as.

GLENN: No, he didn't. He was a great candidate. I thought he was a great candidate. The thing though is in four years from now this country is going to be -- either this Utopia works or we're a full-fledged fascist nation or we are coming into because executive orders exist, but we could get into the 2015 and this nation has been pounded into the ground because we did nothing for four years except make it worse, and if we're still standing, I'm sorry but the John Boehners of the world are not going to be it. You're going to look for somebody like Rand Paul. And Rand Paul may not be strong enough at that point.

COULTER: I love Rand Paul. The only thing I'd say about him. It reminds me one of my points what we need to avoid, and that is I think people saying we need to be more conservative. I think they're fighting the last war. Mitt Romney was plenty conservative. He was the most conservative on issues like illegal immigration, on tax reform and on government. He was the most conservative is and fact that he was presentable, and attractive, and didn't call Obama a Kenyan anti-colonialist, and demanding some form of the poorism that isn't related to the issues. The poorism in craziness.

GLENN: But we're getting to the point. We have three Supreme Court justices that are going to die in the next three years.

COULTER: We've got to pray for them.

GLENN: Look how that worked out. So we've got three Supreme Court justices. The principle thing that the only thing that will save us in four years will be the constitution. We will be so far off the rails in four years. There won't be anything left in four years. Other than there's somebody making stuff up outside of the margins.

COULTER: Which is why we can't be running -- I think there are no Rockefeller Republicans any more. There are no liberal Republicans who're pro choice as they say whoever run as a President as a Republican anymore. I think that the problem is more the poorism issue. Rand Paul it was the same thing. It is the same thing with poorist libertarians. Berry Goldwater contrary as I describe him, Barry Goldwater nearly destroyed the Republican party by his civil rights act. He wiped Republicans out.

GLENN: You know how I feel about progressivism. You have to take it step by step. You can't eat the whole thing. It won't work. But you've got to start moving in that direction.

COULTER: Yes. And demanding purity or crazy positions -- we can't do any of this unless our candidates get elected. They talk about their positions that are popular, and not suppress the ones that are unpopular.

GLENN: I'll come your way if you just say he is a fat bastard.

COULTER: Good to talk to you.

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.