Glenn: Why do I care about the Middle East?

Why does Glenn care so much about the Middle East? Quite honestly, a lot of it has to do with the scriptures. Faith and family are the foundation of who Glenn is and why he does what he does. But it's not just Glenn - The Bible has been around for thousands of years and heavily influenced America and the Founders. Glenn explained why the Middle East and Israel are so important during a candid and powerful monologue to open tonight's Glenn Beck Program.

Part 1:

Part 2:

As you’ll see in the next couple of weeks, I’m going to have some pretty frank conversations with you because my life is changing and needs to change some more. And I don’t think we’re all that different from one another.

What makes me different than most hosts on television is I’ll take you through the things that I’m going through because I don’t think we’re different. And I think they’re important. And tonight is a good example of the change in approach that I want to take on the program. I’m going to tell you why I care about things, not from a political standpoint, but why I care. And if you have a different reason, fine. But we have to be able to explain to people why things matter.

Before 9/11, I was a slug. I didn’t care about the Middle East. I didn’t know. I figured if it all went into a sinkhole…they want to blow themselves up all the time, whatever, I’m cool with that. I’m over here, they’re over there, whatever they want to do. But after 9/11, I admitted that doesn’t work, and there’s a lot that I don’t understand.

But I remember a listener called in and said what is happening to us? And I said I don’t know, but I vow to find out. And I will tell you, ever since that day, I’ve not stopped learning. I made a promise just as you did on that day, never again, and I’d figure it out. I’ve never stopped trying to understand the world around me, why the things are the way they are. That’s what led me to the idea of Progressivism and how bad it really was. And most importantly, not just why things are, but why I should care.

There are so many things that happen today, and you can’t care about all of them. So what is it that you have a gun to your head, what is it that matters to you? To me, what matters is my family and my God. That’s it. I like history because it teaches me what’s coming next, but the only thing that matters is my soul and my family.

So when it comes to the Middle East, I have something else I can look at, and you may disagree with it, but it’s important – if you disagree with the Bible that’s fine, whatever, but you have to understand the role it played in history, and why this matters. We are connected to Israel. We are wound in so deeply to Israel, and most people don’t even know it. The Bible and our own history shows us how, and I’m going to show you just a couple of things tonight.

And this is a history that I’m teaching to my own family because too many people no longer care about our history, no longer care about the history of, you know, God. They don’t care, and they’re trying to change our history to fit an agenda, and that’s what happened yesterday with Oprah Winfrey and now tonight with the Middle East.

Let me give you a little bit of history here, and excuse me, because I’m not the guy to go to on this, but in a real quick nutshell, biblical times, this is Israel. And Israel was split into two kingdoms, the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom. The southern kingdom was Judah. That had Jerusalem, root Jew, right? The ten tribes were up here in the north. That’s the Lost Tribes of Israel.

Judah remained, and they were cut off from Jerusalem. They started worshiping false idols. They became spiritually bankrupt, and God says in Jeremiah, he’s like, you know, you’re becoming the whore of the earth. What are you doing? And you’re passing it around to all of the other nations of the earth. Stop it. And he tells Judah you tell them to stop it, and you two get along. And they don’t, and they’re warned – you’re going to be taken by the Assyrians, and you’re going to be taken into captivity. Well, that’s exactly what happened.

Judah remained, but the tribes in the north, they were taken, and they went throughout the Assyrian Empire. The Kingdom of Judah was not scattered. This is where the term Jew comes from, Judah. Assyria at the time was the most feared nation on earth. Their name was synonymous with atrocity. They skinned prisoners alive. They cut off body parts. They pulled out tongues and eyes. They put piles of skulls on display so everyone knew, don’t screw with us.

Here’s what I find very fascinating on who they were. When they were finally defeated, they had all of these, this tribe of Israel as captives. But when they were finally defeated, the Assyrians and the Israelites, they fled, and they went north. And they fled out of captivity through the Caucasus Mountains. The Caucasus Mountains are where you hear the word Caucasian, the Caucasus Mountains.

What’s interesting is the Assyrians who were very good, meticulous record keepers, and who were just brutal, they settled in Italy and in the Germany area and the Russian area where Fascism comes from. But the Israelites, the lost ten tribes, they went north, and they started to scatter the other direction, and they went to the coastlines, generally in the area where our pilgrims came from.

Judah kept the Torah alive. Those who were taken captive by the Assyrians, Caucasians over the mountains, and they started to populate the western part of Europe. All of Western civilization is based on the laws of Israel. And our entire history is directly tied to this moment. Our pilgrims thought that they were completing the journey out of captivity from Moses.

The Statue of Liberty reflects this. On her base, she’s got a broken chain. She’s carrying the tablets. She has the rays of light. That’s God’s light. She’s a symbol really of Moses, and she is depicting his descent from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments, what keeps us solid, the Ten Commandments, the law of God.

Okay, that’s just one, but I contend these symbols are everywhere. And you can believe ’em or not. It doesn’t really matter to me. I’m talking about me, why I care. Let me show you this. If you’re anywhere around the president, Air Force One, or you’re sitting here in the office, you’ll see this flag. And we see this flag sitting behind the president a lot, but nobody really ever looks at this flag, and what this flag really means.

What’s on this flag? And I’m just going to show you a couple things. There’s more, and we’re going to get into it later. We know about the olive branch for peace and the arrows for war. There’s much more to tell about this. There’s 13 olives and 13 leaves, the 50 stars around the shield, from many one, but what’s this? And what does this have to do – why would I be telling you this when we’re talking about Israel?

Well, when Joseph from the Bible, when Joseph is with his brothers, he tells his brothers that he had a dream, and he said I had a dream where the sun, the moon, and the stars all bow down to me. You mean like the sun, the moon, and the stars? That’s what this is, the sun, the moon, and the stars. Nobody talks like that. Nobody says the sun, the moon, and the stars unless it’s biblical, so is the concept of unity biblical – out of many, one, one God.

There’s strong symbolism with the number 13 being represented everywhere, 13 arrows, 13 stripes, 13 stars, 13 olives, 13, 13, 13. Yeah, I know, well that’s the 13 colonies. That’s what everyone will tell you, and that is one answer, but there is another one that many people believe. Thirteen, what else is 13? Twelve disciples surrounding Jesus, but more importantly, I think, the 12 tribes of Israel.

Well, there’s only 12 tribes, Glenn. What do you do with 13? Hmm, except the tribe of Joseph split into Manasseh and Ephraim, and those were in northern Israel. That’s the northern Kingdom of Israel. That’s the 13 tribes. Okay, hogwash. That’s all garbage. Okay, you say that’s not what any of these symbols mean on this flag. Okay, that’s reasonable, okay.

Let me take you to not the Presidential Seal; let me take you to the Great Seal of the United States. It’s the same eagle, right? Except where you have the sun, the moon, and the stars, what replaces it? Well, it’s this thing here. I don’t even know what that thing is. You don’t know what that is? I know, that’s pretty hard. It’s 13 stars again but strangely 13 stars in the shape of the Star of David. Wow, why is that in the shape of Star of David?

Well a couple of reasons – one, Haym Solomon. He was the guy who helped us. We are bound; we owe the people of Israel – Haym Solomon, that’s why it’s in that triangle. Now, what’s this surrounding it? I don’t know. Well, when Moses led his people out of Egypt, what did they follow during the day? Oh, cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. That’s what this means.

By the way, you can find the image on the back of your one dollar bill, and if you really think that’s a stretch, if you really think okay, Glenn, that’s crazy, well, you’re right. That one was done in, I don’t even know when. In the late 1800s is when they finalized this, and then I think it was, I don’t know, Wilson or one of them that finally said okay, we’re really going to use this one all the time.

So let’s go back to the original seal, the one that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin and John Adams recommended. It wasn’t this. It was instead that one. Tell me that one, Moses leading the Israelites across the Red Sea by a pillar of fire. Hello? Look at the clouds around the fire in the center in exactly the same position as the eagle. Listen to me, the slogan that they wanted to have was opposition to tyranny is obedience to God, opposition to tyranny, to pharaohs, is obedience to God.

They felt Moses was the figurehead of America. So why am I telling you all of this? Man, I have been called an anti-Semite by everybody under the sun for the last six years. As soon as I started caring, the Muslim extremists started calling and writing, and we had to have security because Glenn Beck has gotta stop saying these things and stop saying that Muslim extremists are violent, or I will cut off his head myself. That was my favorite quote the FBI gave me from one extremist.

No, you’re not violent – you’ll cut my head off to prove that you’re not violent? Nobody wants to be a pariah. I didn’t care a few years ago, but after 9/11, I promised I would find out what was going on. So what is it? We are a nation that is based on Judeo-Christian values and the Bible, period. You might not buy into the olives and the branches and everything else. It’s fact. It’s fact. But there’s no way to deny that the majority of our laws come directly from the Scriptures, right directly from Deuteronomy.

And the Bible comes from Judah, not the northern tribe, the southern, Judah. They were supposed to preserve it, and they did. The people of Jerusalem, we owe our existence in many ways. We owe our laws to them. Do you really think that we – I am a religious guy. Others who are not will think this is hogwash, but I don’t care anymore. I haven’t for some time. I’m stating who I am.

We owe the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we owe our support and our allegiance, not blind allegiance, and I’m not talking about putting troops down on the ground. We have to be on not only their side but God’s side. When Thomas Paine wrote about his disbelief in God, Franklin felt compelled to write him, giving him a scathing critique. It was like father and son.

Here’s part of it. He said, he wrote to his adopted son, if you will, Thomas Paine, “I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?”

Samuel Adams wrote the same thing. He wrote, “When I heard you had turned her mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished, and more grieved, that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings, and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.”

Here’s what he’s saying, how dare you? You have actually grown up, and you have benefited from a society that has Judeo-Christian values. You don’t have to go to church. You don’t have to like church. You don’t even have to like God. But to condemn God and try to say to the rest of society that’s nonsense, how dare you? The only reason why we exist is because of God.

I feel like I have to shake the shoulders of some of my friends and look ’em in the eye and say without the Torah, without the people of Judah, you have no law. Ours doesn’t exist. Our country doesn’t exist. Nothing exists. You get rid of the Torah, you get rid of the Bible, nothing works anymore. Then what are our laws based on? Opinion, man’s opinion. Oh, well that’s good.

This is why I care about Israel and what we’re going to do tonight. If Israel goes, if the Bible goes, you need an entirely new way to govern, because ours is nonsense then. And that’s exactly what all the powerful on the earth would like. I want you to take a second and look at what they want to replace our government and our system with. They’ll tell you right now well, we’ll just kind of wing it. Oh really?

When they really get down to it, they’re all saying that the State Capitalism, as they call it, Communist China, State Capitalism, the model of China, that’s what the future is going to be. May I remind you, may I beg you, that system has people throwing themselves off of buildings. That system is evil. And we have gone dead inside, and we don’t even know it anymore. I don’t want to live that way.

The other model that is currently out there and being talked about is sharia law. Oh, well that’s crazy. Is it? Not for a billion people on earth based on the Qur’an. I don’t want that either. The other model will be something that nobody really has articulated yet. Don’t be silly. We’re not going to do either of those. Well, give it to me, because I’ve never sold a house, even a crappy house, with absolutely no idea where my family is going to live. Have you? Because I haven’t. Until you can show me the address of where we’re headed, I’m not moving. What are we doing?

Sorry, one thing I don’t want to do is get my blood pumping. I want you to sit down with your kids, and I want you to teach them. I want you to teach them American history like we told you last night. Thank you, Oprah Winfrey, sincerely. Thank you for reminding us about Emmett Till so we could remind America who he really was. And then I want you to teach your kids biblical history, because it is our history, and it matters as I will show you tonight.

 

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.