Al Gore down with eugenics?

January 31, 2013

Writer

Al Gore has been making the media rounds to promote his latest exciting book about the future or something - but his vision reeks of the disturbing science of eugenics. Yes, the ‘science’ progressives of the early 20th century promoted that featured breeding ‘undesirables’ out of existence - Al Gore is bringing it back!

On Morning Joe, Gore told the MSNBC hosts:

The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, wait a minute, not too fast.

"Do you know what this is? Do you know where this philosophy comes from?" Glenn said. "I can take out the books. You know what? I wonder if I have them here or at the library at home. I can take out the eugenics books that he is quoting, he is quoting from right now. Whether he knows it or not. This is genetics. This is eugenics nonsense that was discredited in World War II. This stuff, this stuff is extraordinarily dangerous."

"This is extraordinarily dangerous. This is the most dangerous ‑‑ look, we've been talking about abortion, we've been talking about the sanctity of life, we've been talking about all these things. But I'm telling you this is a gigantic warning sign. Because now you're ‑‑ now you're taking it on political philosophy. And now you're saying that that is now genetic, and we all know ‑‑ and what he's saying is that if you are a liberal, you want to ‑‑ you want to push forward. But you're an Neander ‑‑ you are born and termed at birth to be a Neanderthal and be a conservative and say you want to harm progress."

"Listen what they're doing. They are devaluing life, they are devaluing all life. You just had last week saying all life isn't equal, all people are not created equal. Already have that. Some people are worth killing. This is all the same eugenics stuff. And now you're born as either somebody who moves us forward or somebody who moves us back. When you know eugenics, when you know the history, you know that that's exactly how it started with Margaret Sanger."

Watch the video of Gore's comments below:

Glenn went into further detail on this story when he came back at the start of the second hour of radio. Below is the transcript of that segment:

GLENN: I would like to be less definitive and more exploratory on this Al Gore statement that I find unbelievably shocking. He was on MSNBC and he's talking about the human makeup, and I'm sorry but I have heard this language before. This is the language of eugenics.
PAT: Margaret Sanger.
GLENN: Margaret Sanger.
PAT: This is ‑‑ and what's‑his‑face, George Bernard Shaw.
GLENN: Get the George Bernard Shaw audio too ready, will you?
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: If you don't know, the progressives are the ones who came up with eugenics, and you have to excuse some of them in the early 1900s because science had just ‑‑ you know, in 1870, 1880, you had people like Edison saying there's no reason to wire everybody's houses with anything but DC battery power, you know, DC electricity because you'll never have anything in your house that is electric really except for lights. I mean, even Edison didn't see what was coming. Within ten or fifteen years, the whole world had begun to change and now there was science and that's where electric shocks came in: Let's do electric shock therapy. And you had Darwin and all these things were happening all the same time. And Marx. So you had Nietzsche, Marx, electricity, technology. Everything was changing and converging into one. So you had a bright, beautiful tomorrow. You had a beautiful better living through eugenics.
I have the books. Tomorrow ‑‑ or I mean, next week we'll do a special show on this because I ‑‑ you have to know this history. And in one of them by the guy who, I'm trying to remember his name. Shoot. It's a phantom, the Phantom Public is the name of the book by Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann is extraordinarily loved by the media. He is the father of modern media. He was one of the fathers of CBS and CBS News. He was part of the Wilson administration. Really dangerous guy. He helped put together the Council on Foreign Relations. And in his book called the Phantom Public, he talks about people who are just too stupid and they'll never get it and they will never ‑‑ they vote and they think they're doing the right thing but they just don't know and it's because ‑‑ because of genetics. Genetics just show that they'll just never get it, and they'll continue to push us into the background.
But he's ‑‑ he talks about how eugenics and scientists are now looking to ways to build the perfect voter, and someday we'll be able to weed out these genetic flaws in people and we'll have people who are all progressives. But in the meantime what we're going to have to do is brainwash and trick some of these people.
This was the great hope of the progressives during the Wilson administration and the Theodore Roosevelt administration from the turn of the century up until it was wildly discredited by the Germans.
We also, I'll bring in next week, letters from the Nazis to the progressives in California saying, "You brought all this progressive stuff over, you brought all this eugenics stuff; you guys, we can't thank you enough. May you never forget what you've done in Germany because you have now put the state on this track, and the things that we're going to be able to do because of what you taught us scientifically will never be forgotten." Oh, that's true. I mean, we even have ‑‑ we even have signs that say "Never forget."
They were responsible. It came. These ideas that happened in Nazi Germany came from the progressive movement in the United States of America, secondarily from the Fabian Socialists in England. It was a poison from the West that went east. And there are those who still believe it.
We had a ‑‑ we told you a story of a big lefty in Salon that wrote just last week that all, all men are not created equal. All life is not equal. She said, "Let's be honest. We all know that a baby is..." she said, "When I was carrying my children, I always knew that was a baby in there. So let's stop this bogus argument. We all know it's a baby. Let's just be up front and let's use the real argument: All life is not equal." That goes against everything that Americans used to stand for. But David Barton gave me an extraordinarily wild fact. Does anybody remember last night? I think it was 60% of the American people that voted didn't know that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, this last November. In exit polls, 60% didn't know. I mean, how do you win? How does America survive if you don't even know, not know the Constitution; not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is terrifying. So not all people are created equal.
You now have the president through executive order doing studies on who should and who shouldn't have guns. He's demonizing anybody who's on the other side, saying there's something wrong, and I will not have these people stand in the way of progress. He's coopting and now controlling our doctors and our hospitals. They have a death panel. It wasn't in the healthcare bill as we told you at the time; it was in the stimulus package. They are right now having a hard time getting anybody to go on this death panel because those are the people who are going to decide who lives and dies. And if you have an attitude that not all life is created equal, if you are funding death camps by the name of Planned Parenthood, forget about your FEMA camp. Your death camp in America is Planned Parenthood. And you're funding it. When the world is going towards no value on life and when your world is going towards a place where it's so egomaniacal, there is no one but them. No one but the individual. No one else matters. "I want mine, Grandma. You had yours. I was promised this." When you have a world that is so inner twined and in five years from now you will not recognize our society. The beginning of the singularity is already here. The merging of man and machine. The merging of reality and total virtual reality, but a reality you will not be able to tell the difference between.
Stu, do you remember when I said to you back in the Nineties there's going to come a day where you won't believe your eyes because they will be able to make any image on camera, any picture? It won't matter? You could just ‑‑ we're there now.
STU: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: Would you agree?
STU: Oh, sure.
GLENN: I'm telling you now you will not be able to tell the difference between virtual reality, real reality sometime down the future, probably within the ‑‑ in the next ten years. That changes everything. All of this technology that is going on right now, do you know who's teaching ethics on technology? No, that's not a rhetorical question. We can't find anyone. They're not teaching ethics. When it comes to technology, they're not teaching ethics. And so now Al Gore comes out and he says on NBC for all the world to hear, and if you know anything at all about eugenics, if you know about the early 20th century progressives when Hillary Clinton said she is cut from that cloth, "I am one of the early 20th century progressives," all eugenics, all Marxist want‑to‑bes, just they're not Marxists; they just want the Marxist utopia without the revolution. That's the 20th century progressive, early 20th century progressive. And they're almost unanimously cheerleaders for eugenics and weeding out the week. If you know anything about that, listen to what Al Gore just said.
GORE: The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, "Wait a minute, not too fast." And when these natural tendencies are accentuated with political ideologies or for that matter religious factions and the other divides that are sometimes used to ‑‑ for advantage, then it can get out of hand.
GLENN: Can it? And then what do you do? So you are born just only able to understand the future or dragging us back into the past. And then people will put a label on that. You'll either go into religion or you'll become a conservative.
PAT: Well, if you're one of those that are holding us back, of course you'll go into religion.
GLENN: Yeah. Or conservative.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Otherwise you're a Democrat, a liberal, and you're an atheist. You're a scientist.
PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.
GLENN: Extraordinarily dangerous. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Maybe I've read too much history.
STU: I found the story, the study he's talking about. This is ‑‑ it comes from New Scientist, British weekly scientific magazine. The title: Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative. Delves into the research on the formation of political opinions. I remember us talking about the story when it happened because it talks about how conservatives are dogmatic, routine‑loving individuals while liberals come across as free‑spirited and open‑minded.
GLENN: That's how they come across, yes.
STU: Yeah. According to the emerging data, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. These views are deep‑seeded and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be a liberal is like trying to persuade someone to not have brown eyes. We have to ‑‑
GLENN: Oh, let's ‑‑ oh. Maybe we should get some twins.
STU: Then it goes on, dogmatic types, more conservative, those who express interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
STU: And an interest in different cultures.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
STU: People with high openness scores turned out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.
PAT: Openness? How do you describe liberals as open to anything? They're not open.
GLENN: They are not open to ‑‑
PAT: ‑‑ anything but their own opinions.
GLENN: You know, can I tell you something?
PAT: That's it.
GLENN: ‑‑ Penn Jillette is ‑‑ and I'm sorry I keep talking about him but I find him one of the most fascinating men I know. Penn Jillette is just fascinating. When Penn Jillette and I met, and I'll tell you, I say this over again, I really respect him, blah, blah‑blah, but I think he's a bigot. Old information. He's not. He's not. Penn wrote to me last week, last week or a couple of weeks ago. Because we were ‑‑ we have these fascinating ‑‑ I'd love to do a book just on our e‑mail exchanges.
STU: The Penn and Glenn letters.
GLENN: They are truly remarkable because I'm trying to understand his point of view and he's trying to understand my point of view I think. And we're coming back and forth and we have these just all‑day exchanges. I'm not kidding you, one of them was just on that guy in Florida that was having sex on ‑‑ pleasuring himself on a donkey, not in a ‑‑
STU: Right.
GLENN: Okay. And that's how it started, 8:00 on a Saturday. At the end of the day ‑‑ we just kept going back, you know, about, you know, 300 characters maximum and just keep going back and forth on it. Fascinating. At the end I kind of joked with him. I said, you know, I don't know if ‑‑ I don't know if we're closer or farther apart. I'm not really sure. I have to digest this whole conversation over a very long period of time, I said, but then again I'm a guy who would never be invited to your house. Going back to a reference that he said about the second or third time I met him at CNN and he said to me, you know ‑‑ I said, you're fascinating. I'd love to get together with you sometime. And he said, I'd love to. He said, of course you're never coming over to my house. And he was serious. He said, you know, because you're a religious freak. And he said, I'm never going to have you religious people over. He said it's like, why would I put a poison in my house? And I was shocked. And I said, boy, I thought, I thought you were a lot of things but I never thought you were a bigot. And he walked away and we've always ‑‑ we had for a while still a relationship but it was a weird relation ‑‑ it was terse. He wrote to me and he said, I apologize that I have never told you this, he said, but you changed me. He said, yes, I used to be bigoted against religious people, he said, but you've changed me. I'm not. He said, I apologize for all of that and I am sorry and I am trying to fight my closed‑mindedness on anybody that I don't understand or I don't agree with. He said, on all fronts. He said, so I apologize. And now he's become a really, a big defender of people who are religious even though he's not. And he doesn't understand it. That's an open‑minded person. And I'm sorry, that is not ‑‑ he doesn't call people enemies. That is not a liberal. That is not somebody who says, "You know what? I'm somebody who's going to, you know, we've got to wipe these people out or we've got to find out if we can ‑‑ no. I respect them for who they are. Everybody is different. And as long as we try to play nice and I don't try to shut you down or call you names, you don't do that to me. We all live together. It's like a family. Just, there's billions of us. You live in the house and you all try to get along, even though you don't agree with each other. We all try to get along. We don't try to wipe each other out. And I would never as a dad go and say to one of my daughters, "Well, genetically, you know, she's born like that. She only believes those things and she's going to fall into a religion" or she's going to fall into some ‑‑ she will fall into some atheists. If I'm a conservative, she will fall in with some atheists or she will fall into some liberals because she was born that way, you know." Oh, my gosh. What are we turning into?

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Al Gore down with eugenics?

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Prosecutors stopped a New Year’s Eve bombing plot rooted in ideology that treats the US as an enemy to be destroyed.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.

When ideology turns operational

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

The red-green alliance

This moment is different

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

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.

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

Not-so-expert advice

A republic no more?

The path forward

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

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.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

Choosing death over care

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

The logical end of a broken system

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

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.

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.

How Sharia arrives

The warning from those who have lived under it

America is vulnerable

Wake up before it is too late