Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Holocaust survivor promised to kill his tormentor - what happened when they came face to face?

November 17, 2014
Wilson

Writer

Martin Greenfield was only fifteen years old when he and his family were sent to Auschwitz and later Buchenwald. He endured brutal and horrific conditions, coming face with some of the worst Nazis of all time including Dr. Mengele. The Nazis beat him, starved him, and tortured him. To survive, he nearly lost his humanity.

At one point, while working for the local mayor, Greenfield stole the rotten food being fed to to the rabbits. When the mayor's wife found out, she had him beaten. He swore revenge, but something changed when they next came face to face. He shared the story with Glenn on his TV show Monday night.

"I worked in ammunition factory in Buchenwald, and then they took 15 people [to the mayor's house]. I was strong enough, so I was one of them, because the mayor’s house was bombed, that we should clean it up. So I went to work hard," he said.

Among the wreckage of the house, Greenfield came across live rabbits in cages that had survived the bombing.

"Carrying to the lady there with a baby, the mayor’s wife, I guess she was, to see, this is your white rabbit with the cage. A piece of crumb fell. We didn’t eat nothing. I survived maybe because I grew up on a farm. I knew what I could eat when I found grass or something that is edible. And I took the piece of thing to bite from the floor."

"She’s a Nazi. She tells the Gestapo I ate up the food from the rabbits instead of saying thank you for the rabbits," he said. Greenfield was subsequently beaten by the Gestapo.

Greenfield swore that he would kill the woman after what she did to him.

After the liberation, Greenfield and some other boys got a gun and went after her. But something happened when he saw her standing with her baby.

"When I came with a machine gun with my friend, and when I saw the kid and I saw her, all of a sudden that was when I became human again," Greenfield said.

"That was the day after the liberation where I became the kid that was brought up by my parents to believe in God, never to kill anybody, only to teach them and show them passion that was taught to me by God that I should never kill anybody. I never used a gun in my life."

"That day I was human again because of that woman."

Correction: This story originally referred to Martin Greenfield as Martin Green. It has been corrected. 

Read the transcript of the full interview below:

Glenn: Now, I want to introduce you to a man who chose hope in a completely hopeless situation and won. We were just sitting here in the break, and he was talking about how he is a servant at heart. He just wants to serve and make things better. His name is Martin Greenfield. He was 15 years old when his family was sent to Auschwitz, and he has a brand-new book out called The Measure of a Man. What a pleasure to meet you.

Martin: The pleasure is mine.

Glenn: Just a pleasure. The audience is going to be so excited to hear the rest of the story on your life, but let’s start at the beginning. You’re 15 years old. You met Mengele. You saw Mengele, and your family was separated. Can you tell me just a little bit?

Martin: I could tell you exactly what happened. When we arrived in Auschwitz from the ghetto at night on Saturday night locked in the cable car, you know, that we were with no bathrooms, nothing until we got there, the whole family together holding hands. My younger brother was four years old, and they sent me to put up as before I got there, so he held his older brother’s hand all night.

We got out, and I came in front of the man, and I looked at his boots, and I saw my picture, because you always as a kid look at the boots. Then I look up at the man, and the man moves me to the right. And then my mother and my brother she’s holding, he wants my mother to go to the right. My mother wouldn’t put down my brother. I let go of my brother’s hand. My mother took him to carry. My father to the right and everybody to the left, and I didn’t know nothing about Mengele or about ghettos. I was just barely 15 years old, not even 15, because it was March. August is when I would’ve been 15.

And I was a boy. I didn’t know about Gestapo or Mengele or the concentration camp, nothing. That was my feeling that minute. And then I was pushed to the right, and then my younger sister, she was blonde with blue eyes, and all of a sudden he put her to the right too. So three of us went to the right, and everybody, my grandfather, my grandmother, everybody on the left. I was on the right. Then we go to the right, and they take us to dress naked. And the guy comes over to shave my father and everybody when I was a kid.

And then they took us someplace, and they put the tattoos on my hand that I brought to show you anyway because I never let go of them. My number was 84406, no more name. My father was 84405, and my sister and they were so…but then I found out what Mengele did with the young blonde kids, that they practiced on them.

Glenn: So you go, you are in a horrific situation. Later…I hate to do this to your entire life. Please read this book, but let me just condense it down. There’s two things that I want to hit. One, you were at one point eating rotten food out of a rabbit cage, and the concentration or the mayor, his wife, caught you eating the food, correct?

Martin: Oh, you mean that was later the next in Buchenwald?

Glenn: Yes.

Martin: That was the worst thing that happened to me.

Glenn: And so you’re eating this, and she comes out.

Martin: Can you imagine? I work in ammunition factory in Buchenwald, and then they took 15 people. You know, I was strong enough, so I was one of them, because the mayor’s house was bombed, that we should clean it up. So I went to work hard. Me, they put in the basement to clean up the basement. It was bombed. The Americans bombed it because Roosevelt, whatever, because he made that deal with Stalin.

Glenn: Right. Right.

Martin: So I was there, and I cleaned up, and I find live rabbits. Can you imagine a boy saving, find something, like all of us know, saving any kind of life? Carrying to the lady there with a baby, the mayor’s wife, I guess she was, to see, this is your white rabbit with the cage. A piece of crumb fell. You know, we didn’t eat nothing. I survived maybe because I grew up on a farm. I knew which I could eat when I found grass or something that is edible. And I took the piece of thing to bite from the floor. She’s a Nazi. She tells the Gestapo I ate up the food from the rabbits instead of saying thank you for the rabbits. Can you imagine this, a woman, instead of saying you got my rabbits, so he should beat the crap out of me?

Glenn: Now here’s the turning point. There’s so much to this story that I really want you to please read this.

Martin: I’m going to tell you this whole story exactly what happened to me.

Glenn: We have to take a quick break, and I want you to tell me, because his life is truly amazing, and I want you to tell me the story, because you passed on an opportunity to hurt back, and then you’ve taken your life, and you have been with how many presidents now?

Martin: So you see this is what upset me a little bit.

Glenn: Hang on. Wait, don’t go into it yet. Just how many presidents have you been with?

Martin: I started Eisenhower liberated.

Glenn: Eisenhower.

Martin: Eisenhower liberated me in concentration camp. He came with his other general, and they saw the piles of bodies that they couldn’t burn. The Jews were on the bottom, and I was the only guy because the Czechs, they didn’t march me to death because of my Czech friends. They said you are a Czech. You’re not a Jew. Stay with us. So I was the only Jew the rabbi found. He was looking for a Jew. He said, “I’m a rabbi. Are you Jewish? I’m looking for a Jew.” I said I’m a Jew. I’m a Jew. Come over here, talk to me. So he came over and talked to me.

I said you’re not a rabbi. You’re Jewish. You’re a soldier. He says no, I’m a soldier rabbi. So I’m asking you one question. Can you do me a favor, not for me, for my 4-year-old brother that I know now that he was burned? Where was God? Not for me, because I might have sinned. Maybe I deserved to be here, but my four-year-old boy had no sins whatsoever. He didn’t live long enough. He could have been a rabbi like you. Why didn’t God help him?

He says I can’t answer you because I’m not prepared to answer your questions, so I started crying. I started crying because I said to him who am I going to ask? You’re the rabbi. You’ve got to help me, thinking because I believe in God, save me. So I’m not asking for myself. My brother could have been a rabbi like you. You don’t know what he would have become. God didn’t know yet because he didn’t sin yet. All of us maybe have a little sin. Whatever happened, God is a busy man. I understand that.

[break]

Glenn: We are having the greatest conversation. We’re going to have to continue this online because we have three and a half minutes, and you have to know what this man has done since, because he dresses the presidents. He dresses stars. He has made the suits for…I mean, this guy has gone on to do amazing things, but the best thing, let’s go back to the lady that when she had you beaten for stealing the food.

Martin: I am telling you that that lady that hurt me that I was going to shoot, I was going to kill, I was going to do everything—

Glenn: You threatened her.

Martin: But when I came with a machine gun with my friend, whatever, and when I saw the kid and I saw her, all of a sudden that was when I became human again. That was the day after the liberation where I became the kid that was brought up by my parents to believe in God, never to kill anybody, only to teach them and show them passion that was taught to me by God that I should never kill anybody. I never used a gun in my life.

I want to just deal with people and instill in them something that was taught to me to be a person that respects somebody else, not kill them, teach them how to become a person, believe in God like I do. And that day I was human again because of that woman.

Glenn: You went to her house. She was holding her baby.

Martin: I went to her, and I didn’t kill her. And I went a second time. The only thing I wanted to take her husband’s car, and I took the car. Who’s going to drive? I do everything. I found the car, and I drive it to the camp. It doesn’t matter. It’s just that I thank God that my parents brought me up the right way, and from then on, I educated myself, and I worked hard.

America, when I got that green card, I became an American like you and later a citizen. When I got my citizen papers, the guy questioned me with stupid questions, and I said can I ask you a few questions? He didn’t know about the Constitution. He didn’t know everything what I knew. I read every book about America. I says you’re supposed to work for me. I pay you. You should know more than me. I should have your job. You should have mine.

But this is what I became. This country, I thank the soldiers. I saw there that you read the letters, what I wrote in the post. I thank the soldiers. I wrote those letters. I wrote this letter about a woman. I wish other people would read the same thing and behave what I had the experience to go through.

Glenn: What happened to her? She died.

Martin: So thank you for having me.

Glenn: Oh my gosh, thank you. It is such an honor. It is really truly an honor.

Martin: The honor is mine.

Glenn: I want you to read this book, The Measure of a Man. You have to know this man’s story. We’ve only touched the surface. Thank you. God bless you.

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Al Drago / Stringer | Getty Images

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

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced that four members of an anti-capitalist extremist group were arrested on Friday for plotting coordinated bombings in California on New Year’s Eve.

According to the Department of Justice, the suspects planned to detonate explosives concealed in backpacks at various businesses while also targeting ICE agents and vehicles. The attacks were supposed to coincide with midnight celebrations.

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

The plot was disrupted before any lives were lost. The group behind the plot calls itself the Turtle Island Liberation Front. That name matters more than you might think.

When ideology turns operational

For years, the media has told us that radical, violent rhetoric on the left is mostly symbolic. They explained away the angry slogans, destructive language, and calls for “liberation” as performance or hyperbole.

Bombs are not metaphors, however.

Once explosives enter the picture, framing the issue as harmless expression becomes much more difficult. What makes this case different is the ideological ecosystem behind it.

The Turtle Island Liberation Front was not a single-issue group. It was anti-American, anti-capitalist, and explicitly revolutionary. Its members viewed the United States as an illegitimate occupying force rather than a sovereign nation. America, in their view, is not a nation, not a country; it is a structure that must be dismantled at any cost.

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

“Turtle Island” is not an innocent cultural reference. In modern activist usage, it is shorthand for the claim that the United States has no moral or legal right to exist. It reframes the country as stolen land, permanently occupied by an illegitimate society.

Once people accept that premise, the use of violence against their perceived enemies becomes not only permissible, but virtuous. That framing is not unique to one movement. It appears again and again across radical networks that otherwise disagree on nearly everything.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements do not share the same vision for the future. They do not even trust one another. But they share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed. The alignment of radical, hostile ideologies is anything but a coincidence.

The red-green alliance

For decades, analysts have warned about what is often called the red-green alliance: the convergence of far-left revolutionary politics with Islamist movements. The alliance is not based on shared values, but on shared enemies. Capitalism, national sovereignty, Western culture, and constitutional government all fall into that category.

History has shown us how this process works. Revolutionary coalitions form to tear down an existing order, promising liberation and justice. Once power is seized, the alliance fractures, and the most ruthless faction takes control.

Iran’s 1979 revolution followed this exact pattern. Leftist revolutionaries helped topple the shah. Within a few years, tens of thousands of them were imprisoned, executed, or “disappeared” by the Islamist regime they helped install. Those who do not understand history, the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.

ALEX WROBLEWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This moment is different

What happened in California was not a foreign conflict bleeding into the United States or a solitary extremist acting on impulse. It was an organized domestic group, steeped in ideological narratives long validated by universities, activist networks, and the media.

The language that once circulated on campuses and social media is now appearing in criminal indictments. “Liberation” has become a justification for explosives. “Resistance” has become a plan with a date and a time. When groups openly call for the destruction of the United States and then prepare bombs to make it happen, the country has entered a new phase. Pretending things have not gotten worse, that we have not crossed a line as a country, is reckless denial.

Every movement like this depends on confusion. Its supporters insist that calls for America’s destruction are symbolic, even as they stockpile weapons. They denounce violence while preparing for it. They cloak criminal intent in the language of justice and morality. That ambiguity is not accidental. It is deliberate.

The California plot should end the debate over whether these red-green alliances exist. They do. The only question left is whether the country will recognize the pattern before more plots advance farther — and succeed.

This is not about one group, one ideology, or one arrest. It is about a growing coalition that has moved past rhetoric and into action. History leaves no doubt where that path leads. The only uncertainty is whether Americans will step in and stop it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

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

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.