Mark Levin explains why we now live in ‘post-Constitutional’ society

On radio this morning, Glenn spoke to fellow conservative author and radio personality Mark Levin about his latest book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public. Much like Glenn, Mark has been making the case that the principles and values that founded this nation have unraveled. In his new book, Mark provides a thorough look at the beliefs of the Founding Fathers and the language of the Constitution itself to put forth a plan to restore the American Republic.

Today’s radio interview marked the first time Glenn and Mark had ever spoken, and they quickly found that they agree on a lot of things – mainly, there is an ever-growing need to restore America.

“Tell me about the amendments because first of all, I don't think people understand what has been taken out of our Constitution and how much we have been changed in the last hundred years,” Glenn said. “People don't even understand the czars are not Constitutional and everything that has happened. You're calling for a Constitutional Convention.”

“We live in what I call a ‘post-Constitutional' period. And you're well familiar with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement. We have to accept the fact that they won. They did win and this utopian statism and Constitutional Republicanism cannot coexist. And they don't coexist,” Mark explained. And the circle of liberty around every individual is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking… So if you believe in the Constitution, then you have to believe it's time to reestablish it.”

“And the Framers gave us one way to reestablish the Constitution, should the federal government become oppressive. And that's George Mason's own words from the Constitutional Convention,” he continued. “And two days before the end of at that Convention, in Philadelphia, he stood up and he said: ‘Look, what if Congress becomes oppressive? What if this new government becomes oppressive? Short of violence, what can the people do? Congress is not going to propose amendments to the states to fix themselves.’ And so, he insisted that the states have the power to get together and propose amendments to all the states – still requiring three-fourths ratification. And so, we can talk about the culture, and you do and I do, and we can talk about aspects like that. But when we're talking about the Constitution, people say, ‘I thought Levin he revered the Constitution, now you want to change it.’ No, I want to bring it back. And the book has some of my ideas.”

With that idea in mind, Glenn and Mark went on to discuss the practicality and ramifications of undertaking such a movement.

“Pat and I've been talking about the Constitutional Convention. We talked about it for years, and Pat said, ‘No, no, no,’” Glenn concluded. “I think there's something to this case. And I think Mark just made that case.”

Watch the entire interview below:

Read a rough transcript below:

GLENN: In this last week, we have seen in Texas, and in South Carolina, the Constitution being taught in textbooks in ways that you don't even recognize the Constitution anymore. Being taught in, in ways that make the Second Amendment really only four militias and if you're trying to stop the quartering the soldiers in your home, only at peace time it's really amazing what's going on and it is prompted me this week, to say to you that I don't, I don't think you are losing your country. I think you've lost your country. I think we've lost at least one generation, perhaps two. And if we don't start immediately restoring the information and putting things back we're not going to make it.

Mark Levin is a talk show host who has the number one non fiction book now for three straight weeks. And it is called The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. Mark how are you sir?

MARK LEVIN: I'm good nice to meet you. How are you?

GLENN: Nice to meet you I was trying to, I asked this morning if we had ever met or even spoke to each other I don't think we ever have?

MARK LEVIN: We have never.

GLENN: Well, I'm glad to have you on the program.

MARK LEVIN: And I want your audience to know you sent me a very kind letter. And you're a patriot and you're fighting like hell and this is very, very important.

GLENN: Tell me about the amendments because you have at first of all, I don't think people understand what has been taken out of our constitution and how much we have been changed in the last, in the last hundred years people don't even understand the czars are not constitutional and everything that is, has happened. You're calling for a constitutional convention.

MARK LEVIN: We live what I call a post-constitutional period. And you're well familiar with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement. We have to accept the fact that they

won. They did win and this utopian statism and constitutional Republicanism cannot coexist. And they don't coexist. And the circle of liberty around every individual is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. People think I'm prone. I can go to of movies, I can go bowling I can get my IPhone. That's not what we're talking about. You're not free to pick your toilet. You're not free to pick your light bulb, yet you're free to pick your rulers. This doesn't make any sense. And we have this pubic by at this time all powerful central government the federal government that exists today is not in the Constitution. So I start with that premise. And I start with the premise that the Supreme Court is constantly rewriting Constitution as is the President and Congress and this massive fourth branch the Government. This administrative state that's not even in the Constitution. So if you believe in the Constitution, then you have to believe it's time to reestablish it.

And so, the framers gave us one way to reestablish the Constitution. Should the federal government become oppressive and that's George Mason's own words that the Constitutional convention. And two days before the end of at that convention, in Philadelphia, he stood up and he said, look, what if Congress becomes oppressive. What if this new government becomes oppressive. Short of violence, what can the people do? Congress is not going to propose amendments to the states to fix itself. And so, he insisted that the States have the power to get together and propose amendments to all the states. Still requiring three-fourths ratification. And so, we can talk about the culture and you do and I do and we can talk about aspects like that. But when we're talking about the Constitution, people say, I thought Levin he revered the Constitution, now you want to change it. No, I want to bring it back. And the book has some of my ideas.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Are you talking about a constitutional convention because, I have heard people talk about a constitutional convention before.

MARK LEVIN: No.

GLENN: And that is a frightening prospect. You're talking about something entirely different.

MARK LEVIN: First of all, the Constitution doesn't talk about a constitutional convention. The article five talks about a convention of the states to propose amendments. There can't be a constitutional convention. The language that the framers in Philadelphia wrote, was two methods for amending the Constitution one led by Congress, the other led by the states. Either we believe in federalism or we don't. They did. It's the states legislatures in particular. Not the governor, not the Court, the states legislatures.

GLENN: Do we need, how many dates do we need and do they all have to show up can one state start it and say, this is what we, this is what we propose we do. And then they try to sell it to other states.

MARK LEVIN: That's the way it would work. I mean, they're not going to say, hey, guys let's have a convention and amend the Constitution. No, states are going to start, what used to happen is states would have meetings. That's what they meant by convention. And they would talk and they try and work out their differences and they come up with agreements. And then they would sends them back to the states for approval. The Constitutional convention, itself, in 1787, people wrongly state, you know they were there to amend the articles of confederation. Well I looked at the, at the commissions and that's what they recalled. That were given the delegates to the Constitutional convention and they were not there ten out of the 12 states to amend the Articles of Confederation. They were there to draft a constitution.

And so, people attack our constitution as some kind of bastardized process. There wasn't a bastardized process. And as you know Rhode Island didn't even send delegates to the convention. So, what we're talking about here, the language is limiting within article five. But we're talking about here I a convention of the states for proposing amendments and still requiring three-fourths of the states to ratify. What the --

GLENN: What's the most, where would you say you start?

MARK LEVIN: In terms of the amendment.

GLENN: That you could win? And that are you saying that you do all of them? Or are you saying we start with one and get that passed and then do another? How does this work, Mark?

MARK LEVIN: The way it works is, that the state Legislature would decide how many one, 10, three, subjects will be raised at this convention. The state legislatures picked the delegates, as many as they want. Each state gets a vote. We know this from past practice. One vote. Each state. At the, at this convention. And they can bring up multiple subjects. They can bring up one subject. The State legislatures can withdraw their delegates this their delegates are out of control and the states in the end, three-fourths of them have to decide if what comes out of this convention is acceptable or not.

GLENN: I see, I mean, the things that you spell out in the book, I happen to agree with. Term limits on Congress. Term limits the Supreme Court. The super majority can override the Supreme Court rulings. Make the U.S. senate a voice for the States again. Amen. However, you and I both know, the game that we have all been duped to some level or another, the people we thought were on our side, are not really on our side. The GOP is a nightmare. And perhaps a bigger nightmare than the Democrats, because they are, their people are awake, their people that support them are saying, no, we are electing you to do these things. And then they go in and say they're going to do them but for instance, you know, the universal health care they voted 41 times against this they say. They're not going to defund it.

MARK LEVIN: No they're not. And that's why this is the recourse. Because it by passes Congress. It by passes the GOP establishment. It bypasses the Supreme Court, the President, the bureaucracy. This is completely bottom up. The people working with state delegates and state senators, it's states legislatures.

Let's me tell you this, Glenn. In this system doesn't work,we're done. That means it's over. Because the top down system, the Progressives placed in the Constitution, with a centralized authoritarian ubiquitous government. We can't get anywhere with that. We can argue, we can win an election here and there, we may get arrested for four years or eight years.

GLENN: No, if you think Mitt Romney, I was not for Mitt Romney. He was my last choice. And I'll never go down the GOP road again I'll never do it again I'm not going to listen to that argument ever, ever, ever again. And if you think that Mitt Romney would not have been going into Syria and making a similar case, I mean he was making it during the election.

GLENN: So what do we do about it?

MARK LEVIN: Well, you a, don't go down the party road and you don't listen to the GOP anymore. And I think one of the things we do, is we look at the framers. And the framers said, this sort of thing likely to happen. George Mason said it's going to happen. And he said there has to be a way out. And the way out that they provide us with, that's for some reason people fear the State legislatures. Look, I know there's dark blue states out there. There's all over the place. I don't believe in static economics and I don't believe in static politics. Things get worse and they are going to get bad. Because you can see what their fighting over. They're fighting over crumbs in Washington this government almost wrote the way it operates now, it keeps moving in one direction. At some point in some way they have spent a hundred years or more driving us over the cliff. We need to spend, 20, 25 years, some period of time, trying the process with the framers gave us. Use th Constitution to save the Constitution.

PAT: Mark, once of the arguments against the convention route has always been once you open it up you open it up to everything and they can change things like, maybe they make that, maybe they try to make the Second Amendment about militias only and not the rights of the individual. So, how do you, how do you address that concern, do you just believe that you wouldn't get 37 states to, to adopt that amendment?

MARK LEVIN: In advance, the states have to decide what the subject matter is, where they're going to go with it. I don't believe there's going to be two-thirds of the State that say, states legislatures that say let's abolish the second amount amendment. But if they do, it's over. In other words, where do we go? If that's the position of the federal government, and the position of a super majority of the State governments, it's over, isn't it?

PAT: Yeah, it would be.

MARK LEVIN: Bottom line is, if the people want to surrender to tyranny. It's over either way. If you want to surrender to tyranny, then it's tyranny they get.

GLENN: You're making a very good case here, Mark. I'm really at that points to where look if this is what you want, I'm never going to make a part of it. I'm not going do go, I won't play your game. I would go on my dying breath fight for freedom as I understand it and fighting for the Constitution of the United States of America. And I will instill it in my children. But if that's what you want to do, just let's be open and honest about it. That's what you want, that's what you're voting for, good. Go for it. Take it.

MARK LEVIN: But the thing is, the reason the left has never gone through this approach, never, and the reason they would fight this approach, is they are getting damn near everything they want tomorrow down. They've not going to wants to work bottom up. And let's keep something in mind. There are tens of millions of us who still love this country. Who still love the Constitution. Who still revere our heritage. And we're looking for ways to deal with this. And we can keep beating our heads against the wall, elect more Republicans. Well, we had six years of Bush in the House and senate and other than Obama, it was the profligate out of control periods in federal recent federal history. So we can do that. But.

GLENN: Look at all the people in the house. They have the chance to stop the universal health care. They have the chance to stop it right now. And they're not doing it. And those are Republicans.

MARK LEVIN: I'm with you, that's why I wrote this book. I'm with you.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK LEVIN: What I'm saying is, look, here's the thing. People aren't perfect, our institutions aren't perfect. There's no absolute 100% foolproof system or proposal that can be made. Countries are not guaranteed perpetual existence. They are just not. When people say what can we do, what can we do. I rack my brain and I do what I usually do. I go back and look at our founding and I look at our history and even before then. And the framers, even though they set up this magnificent constitution, they were concerned that if would be breached. If you don't have people of virtue in these positions then you have what, over tyranny. So, this, this is the approach that they left us. I just thought it was time to remind people about it. To make the case for it. I mean -- I hear all the mights. I hear, you know, the convention can be hijacked. Hhjacked by whom. They're not going to get three-fourths of the states to abolish the Second Amendment. And as I said, if we do it's over we have to look somewhere else I guess, but that's not going to happen. Because the Legislatures decide who the delegates are. They can pull them back. And you'll always can have 13 states stop anything. Stop anything. If we can't find 13 states to stop something, do you know right now,13 states can't stop the Supreme Court. They can't stop Congress. They can't stop an imperial president. In other words, it's not like we have this magnificent constitution that's being complied with. We don't. It's not being complied with. So, what's the alternative? If somebody else has another plan, I would love to see it.

GLENN: Mark, I have to tell you, there's, I think people expect that everybody's going to come up with the answer and, and you know, people I get people yelling at me all the time. Why are you doing this, why are you doing that. Well, because I play my role in the -- I don't have all the answers. I have no idea. I'm not a constitutional scholar. I'm not a attorney. I know my role. And my role is to try to effect the culture. That's where I am headed and that I think is an important piece. But we all have to understand that we each play a different role. Each of us. And you know, just like the founders, I mean, I am always, I'm always amazed at how Thomas Payne and George Washington, got together and if it wasn't for those two men, each of them, coming with their own special talents, the American experiment would've never happened. Never happened.

And yet, they died hating each other. And one's an atheist and one reveres God. They couldn't be two more different. Men that there were there. And you look at Sam Adams and, I mean all of them. Each of us play a role and I have to thank you for playing your role. Really, really good case. Really good case. And maybe you're onto the answer. Somebody needs to figure out how to fix Washington. And I certainly don't know how the hell to do it because it's a mess. Good job.

MARK LEVIN: Well thanks, Glenn. I don't know that I have the answer. I'm just trying to remind people what the framers argued for and it's certainly worth taking a look I think God bless you and your staff there.

GLENN: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Mark Levin, the Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. I am so busy reading other books right now, on other topics, but I don't know if that wasn't a case to read this book, I don't know what is. Pat and I've been talking about the Constitutional convention. We talked about it for years and Pat said, no, no, no. I think there's something to this case. And I think, I think Mark just made that case. It's the Liberty Amendments. Restoring the American Republic available everywhere books are sold.

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.