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

Stephen King, massive hypocrite

January 28, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Updated: Glenn addressed Stephen King's hypocrisy Monday night - watch it in the clip above!

Notorious horror author Stephen King has decided to publicly bash the NRA for apparently promoting violence. He said they should have to be the ones who clean up the blood and ‘guts’ in the next shooting. For a supposedly brilliant it’s quite difficult to understand how he does not see the hypocrisy in this statement.

Transcript of segment is below:

GLENN: Plenty of gun advocates cling to their semi‑automatics the way Amy Winehouse and Michael Jackson clung to the stuff that was killing them. This is according to Stephen King in a 25‑page essay called "Guns. Guns. I don't like guns." It's a ‑‑ it's amazing. He says to claim that America's culture of violence is responsible for school shootings is tantamount to cigarette company executives declaring that environmental pollution is the chief cause of cancer. It took ‑‑ it took more than one slim novel to cause these teenagers to do what they did. Yeah, one, one slim novel? Don't you do, these ‑‑ Stephen King is the only one who can churn a book out faster than I can. And everybody's like, geez, my gosh, Glenn Beck is writing another book? Yeah, mine aren't 8,000 pages long. He's got book after book after book, and tell me the sweet "Cuddle by the fireplace and read to your children" books that he has created. They're all bloodbaths. And he says, "One only wishes that Wayne La Pierre and his NRA board of directors..." oh, please. Wayne, please make me an honorary board of directors, make me ‑‑ I'll empty the garbage. Please, I'd wear it as such a badge of honor, such a badge of honor to be ‑‑ I count it as one of my ‑‑ I might even want to have this engraved on my tombstone: Lifetime member, NRA, currently trying to make it post‑lifetime member.

So anyway, he says, "One only wishes Wayne La Pierre and his NRA board of directors could be drafted to some of those violent scenes where they would be required to put on booties and rubber gloves and help clean up the blood, the brains, and the chunks of intestines still containing the poor wads of half‑digested food that were some innocent bystander's last meal."

PAT: Good gosh.

GLENN: This guy's bad.

PAT: He's sick.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

PAT: Sick.

GLENN: Remember this is a guy who says all people in the military are stupid. Do we still have that?

PAT: I think so.

GLENN: This is a guy who says, you know, if you want to be ‑‑ you know, if you want to be in the military, don't read. Just be stupid.

KING: I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is that if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you got the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like...

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: Oh. So if you can't read, you have the Army. This guy is an America‑hating ‑‑

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: ‑‑ military‑hating dirtbag. And I hate it because I like his work.

STU: Yeah, he's one of the ‑‑

GLENN: I mean, he's one of the best writers, you know, of the 20th century. He's a great horror writer. He's great.

STU: But one of the most purely stupid political commentators in existence.

PAT: Oh, no question.

GLENN: He is just an idiot.

STU: Every time.

PAT: And to blame the NRA for this. When he pumps out the books and movies he pumps out, he's got no culpability for any of it.

GLENN: Here's the reason why: Because he knows, he knows that the culture of violence ‑‑ look. You have the American Pediatrics, you have the American Medical Association, you have every single study that has ever come out say ‑‑ any credibility, they all say movies and violent games with kids lead to these things. Not in all cases.

STU: And obviously the vast, vast minority of them.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But ‑‑

GLENN: But your brain is not formed. Your brain's not set really until it's like 25. But up until, like, 13 or, what is it, 10 or 13, it's really, you're laying new pathways down. You start to put this kind of violence and stuff, it changes the way you process stuff. And so it's proven. It's proven fact. And yet nobody wants to talk about this. And so he wants to make sure that he's the guardian. He's the guardian of the gate. "I'm Stephen King, after all. And I mean, I've written about shootings and guttings and everything else." He's poured it into your mind, and he's done it well. I read Stephen King novels. Scares the crap out of me. Although, you know, Stephen, there is another writer. I mean, I know you want to be the king of all scary writers. There's another writer. Who was the guy who wrote that book? Oh, man, I can't remember. I only read half of it. Scared the ‑‑ makes ‑‑ it makes Stephen King look like the president. Makes him look like a girl. You're a girl. Demon Game, Devil's Game? I can't remember. Scary.

So Stephen is out now. All he's doing is carrying all of the water for the culture, for those who want to put violence and blood and everything else in the culture and say that there's no effect. I'm sorry. I'm not saying regulate you. I'm not saying ban you. I'm not saying regulate the movies. I'm just saying be responsible, that's all. I don't want to put you out of business or anything else. Be responsible. And understand as a consumer be responsible and understand that this is affecting your children. Once your ‑‑ once your brain is formed and everything, some people are going to take, you know, Catcher in the Rye and they're going to read Catcher in the Rye and they're going to be like, "Oh, I've got to go kill somebody." Okay. Well, that's just because they're crazy. But when it comes to the youth, it does make a difference. I don't want more regulation. I don't want more power. I want the power to remain with the people, and I want the power of the people to be able to go, "You know what? Stephen King is an ass. Stephen King is an idiot. He might write a good book but I don't need to give him any more money," you know, or not. Again, I read his books, or used to. I read his boobs. I think he's a great writer. I like his stuff. I think It's one of the scariest movies, until you find out it's a stupid spider, you moron! You make us read 800 pages and you give us a spider in the end?

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Man!

PAT: Thank you. That had to be said.

STU: Yeah, no.

PAT: Had to be said.

GLENN: I'm a lifetime member of the NRA and I didn't even think about picking up a gun and coming and stalk you, my friend. And after 800 pages, you give me a spider. If the NRA membership made me a killer, you'd be long gone, brother.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Spider!

STU: But nobody has a higher opinion of Stephen King than Stephen King.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: I mean, this guy thinks he is the greatest thing ever.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

STU: And he constantly is commenting on topics like this and he's just a more ‑‑ in his own, in this essay he talks about how it's the NRA, it's the people like these that cause these incidents, it's not the culture. And then he talks about how he pulled his own book off the shelf because it kept popping up at school shootings. It kept popping up with all these violent teenagers and so he pulled ‑‑ I can't remember, Rage maybe was the name of the book, but he popped ‑‑ he pulled it off the shelf because he was worried about its impact on children.

PAT: Wow.

STU: But the culture isn't at all a problem.

GLENN: No, uh‑uh.

PAT: And Carrie is like a lullaby. That's like a lullaby for kids.

GLENN: The Shining? The Shining is great.

PAT: All of these bloodbaths that are just horrifying. Those are just sweet little tales. It's really the NRA that's the problem.

GLENN: The Stand. The Stand.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: It's a love story. It's a love story.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: You'd think that this guy would realize, you know, he's seeing that he wrote The Stand, that he's practically setting up the kingdom of Vegas. I mean, you're on the wrong side, Steve. You're on the wrong side. Come to the other side of the mountains.

STU: No, stay over there. I don't want you.

GLENN: Yeah, you're right.

STU: Seriously.

GLENN: I know how it ends. Go over there. We don't want you.

STU: I don't remember that book, but ‑‑

GLENN: We should never give up. We love you, Stephen.

STU: Well ‑‑

GLENN: We'd love you over here. We really ‑‑

STU: Well, I don't know what "over here" means but if "over here" means I have to talk to him in the next 50 years, no thanks.

GLENN: I'd like him to change his mind. I'd like you to ‑‑ I'd like you to find happiness. I'd like you to ‑‑

STU: That's up to him.

GLENN: I'd like you to find it.

STU: Good luck.

GLENN: You know, there in Maine. Not down here in Texas.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: But if you can find it in Maine ‑‑

STU: E‑mail us.

GLENN: ‑‑ e‑mail us. And I'm hoping before I get that e‑mail, we're hit by an EMP. I'd rather be foraging for food in garbage cans after an EMP than read your e‑mail saying, "I found Jesus."

STU: You find that, just ‑‑

GLENN: No, he's going to find him and it's going to be great and I wish him all the best of luck in finding Him. Now I'm ‑‑ you know what, Pat?

PAT: Hmmm?

GLENN: We should ‑‑ we should send the boys and bikes over to his house. I know where he lives. We should send the boys. Because I care so much.

PAT: No, I'm sensing some of that from you.

GLENN: We should call ‑‑

PAT: I'm sensing that.

GLENN: We should call every night every time you see one of those commercials on TV, call for your copy, "Hi, I'm Stephen King."

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: "I know you guys have come over to my house every day for the last four weeks, but this time..."

PAT: But this time I really want you here. I really want you here. And don't even listen to me when I say I don't want you here.

GLENN: Don't take no for an answer. Come in and sit down.

PAT: I think I might be possessed by demons. So make sure that you just don't listen to what I'm saying.

GLENN: Please ‑‑

PAT: That's just the demons talking.

GLENN: Please do it. Please do it.

STU: I'm calling you now because this is my one moment of sobriety for the day.

GLENN: I need help.

STU: When you come, I'm going to be hammered and I'm going to resist. Please, listen.

GLENN: I need your help. Listen. Please, help me, help me. Bring some Catholic priests with you. Bring ‑‑ heck, bring some Jehovah Witnesses with you. Just keep coming to my door.

PAT: I like that.

GLENN: Yeah. See?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That's ‑‑ and that's what Jesus taught.

PAT: Right. Yes. Be persistent.

GLENN: He was like, "Don't give up. Be persistent." I highly recommend. Get his address. I'm making a call the next time I see the ad.

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.