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

Is Scott Turner the man to lead the GOP into a new era?

December 08, 2014
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

This morning on radio, Glenn was joined by Scott Turner. Turner is a former NFL player for the Redskins, the Broncos and the Chargers and is currently a Texas state representative, running for Speaker of the House against Joe Strauss.

Glenn strongly believes that Turner could be the man to lead the GOP to a new era. Glenn described Turner as "a good Christian man who really truly is, I think the leader for the future. And would be tremendous to have as our Speaker of the House."

When discussing why Turner considers it so important to be on the record promising to be accountable for all his promises he said:

"We go to our constituents when we're trying to be elected and telling our constituents who we are, what we're about, and our conservative values and principles. And so I think that when you vote on — I know when you vote, you have an opportunity to say, hey, this is who I am. This is — I'm going to do it what I said I'm gonna do and I'm gonna vote. I'm going to put my name on it and be accountable for everything I do in this House as your elected representative and your servant leader. So I think it's vitally important that myself and all 150 of our members take that vote."

Watch to see Glenn and Turner tackle some hard hitting topics such as the ongoing protests, homeschooling and the progressive movement.

GLENN: We have to have Scott Turner on. He was in the NFL. He played for the Redskins. What a racist. Played for the Redskins, the Broncos, the Chargers. His name is Scott Turner. He's a Texas state representative and he's actually now running for Speaker of the House against Joe Strauss, who Joe Strauss is a complete and total fraud. He is a rhino, entirely a rhino. And I think Scott Turner is the guy to lead the state and the GOP into just a new unbelievable era. And that election happens on January 13th. But Scott is here. Hi, Scott, how are you?

TURNER: Hi, Glenn, how are you doing, brother? Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. Can I take you to the NFL and tell me what you thought about "I can't breathe" —

PAT: "Hands Up Don't Shoot" demonstrations and all this stuff.

GLENN: All these things happening in the NFL?

TURNER: Yeah, you know, and obviously these guys are — you know, demonstrating their right to express themselves. But you know, as you were saying before, it would be great to be informed on really what happened and really what's going on, because an informed people is a more powerful people. And as far as these guys raising their hands and all these slogans and that that and the other, I'm not in agreement with it. I wouldn't do it. Obviously they have the right to do it. But I think that as an NFL player, the stakes for us are higher to be role models and examples and also to be educated and informed in order so we can educate and inform other people. And I think that Ben watson, the tight end for the New Orleans Saints, if you saw what he wrote in his description on Facebook, I think was a great illustration or a great example of yes, you could be confused, you can be frustrated, and you can be embarrassed, but also he brought it down to say, you know what, it's not a skin problem. It's a sin problem. And the gospel is the answer. And it deals directly with the character of our society and the walls of our society. That's what we really need to be concentrating on.

GLENN: So let's talk about the state of the union and the state of our state.

TURNER: Yes.

GLENN: We're in real trouble.

TURNER: We are.

GLENN: And the — I for one, Scott, I mean, you know, obviously people notice when people are black and white, et cetera, et cetera, but for the most part, I think my generation, I'm 50. I think my generation doesn't really see color and I know the 30-something and 20-somethings definitely don't see color. Yet we're going in the opposite direction as a nation.

TURNER: Right.

GLENN: How do we fix this, Scott?

TURNER: Well, you know, again, I think — and that's a great question. But I think people that have been given a platform such as yourself and me and others that we have to come out and be bold in our convictions and encourage society and encourage people in our sphere of influence to educate themselves, to get to know people who don't look like you, and also not to believe everything that you read or see in the media, because the media's job is to make stuff the same as it is not.

You know, perception is everything. And it's the cruelest form of reality. But people need to continue to not only educate themselves but deal with people that don't look like

them. If you're a white guy, go talk to a black guy and vice-versa. Whatever your culture or skin color may be. But I think guys like you and I and others who have these tremendous platforms we need to step out and be the greatest examples of what we can. It doesn't matter what your skin color is. It's the content of your character. And also being careful of believing everything that the media says because the media has a huge part in spinning this and making the hype of what it really is not.

GLENN: Talking to Scott Turner, a former player for the Redskins, Broncos, Chargers, now state Texas representative. And running for Speaker of the House. And Tea Party favorite. He's 42 years old. The Dallas County GOP just endorsed him for speaker of the House, among other Republican groups, which I think is phenomenal. Here we are looking at Texas, becoming another California. And they are working in the mountain west, Idaho, Montana is under attack, Colorado is — is another California. And they're trying to do this here in Texas. How serious — I don't see Texans really understanding how bad this is. Can you explain how bad this is in Texas?

TURNER: Yeah, you're talking about the proving movement in Texas. The Progressive movement —

GLENN: Yeah.

TURNER: You know what, Glenn, it's kind of a blessing and a curse in Texas that we're very fortunate and we're doing good here in job, economically, job creation. And a lot of times, you know, people can become complacent and say, that will never happen here, that will never happen to me. But the reality of it is is there is a great movement, you know, to turn Texas, not just blue but to make Texas like other states in our country. And that's why I've been shouting from the rooftops and I know you have and others, that listen, the reality of it is that we're doing fine right now but we are under attack from people who don't believe like us, that want to turn Texas into a liberal, Progressive state. And so I would implore people to pay attention. To get active and to get activated in their communities and making sure that Texas remains not just the most conservative and red state, but the Lone Star State that doesn't look like California or Oregon or some of these other states.

GLENN: I have to tell you, we — you know, we went out to vote and Pat and I both had to vote against a Republican who was running for school board. She doesn't believe in school choice. She doesn't believe in home-schooling. She doesn't believe in vouchers. I mean, you know, she was —

PAT: A citizen of the world type.

GLENN: Right.

TURNER: Is she from Texas?

GLENN: Yeah, she's from Texas.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, and she's a Republican.

TURNER: Right.

GLENN: People don't understand that the Republicans in some -- in some places and in some cases are just as bad.

TURNER: Right.

GLENN: And they're hiding in our system.

TURNER: Yeah, and you know what, Glenn, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on. If you guys recall back about 10 years ago when Washington had — the Republicans had the house, the Senate, and the presidency, and there was really no monumental legislation that was passed for the betterment of our country to speak of. Well, Texas, if we can, paints the same picture. We're kind of in a similar situation, where we have a new governor a new lieutenant governor, a new AG, new comptroller, AG commissioner, a 98-member majority, Republican majority in the House and eight new conservative members in the Senate. So we're primed, you know, to do monumental things and have monumental legislation here in Texas but there is an establishment guard of the Republican party that doesn't want to rock the boat. They want everything to be complacent and they think the status quo is good enough and that's like guys like me running for speaker, being in the house, are challenging the status quo and challenging the complacency.

GLENN: Why is it important for you to be speaker?

TURNER: As I was saying, Glenn, legislation, like school choice, to give kids — we got 300,000 kids in Texas that are in school districts that are underperforming but we're more concerned with the institution of education than we are with the children. But we talk about a skilled and qualified workforce. Well, school choice legislation dies in committee and dies in calendar under our unity leader or our current leadership. You've got stuff like comprehensive border security taking away the magnets for people to come here illegally, like implementing e-verifying, getting rid of sanctuary cities. When those things die in calendar, they don't come to the floor. So you have to have leadership that's bold and courageous to make those decisions and make this type of legislation to the floor for debate and the vote because Texans are calling for it. Those are the things that are going to secure our state, for the posterity of our state and prosperity of our state. But you have to have leadership that's willing to go against the political fray and bring things to the floor.

GLENN: That was part of the floor, Joe Strauss, with Common Core. He was not allowing certain things to be brought to the floor that would have stopped some of the things that were going on.

TURNER: Right.

PAT: Tell us —

TURNER: I'm sorry.

PAT: Tell us some of the other differences between you and Joe Strauss, Scott.

TURNER: Okay. Well, one, obviously is, you know, and if you look at my voting record and you look at what I've been able to do in the House, you know, I believe that I'm a true conservative leader and a leader, a servant leader that has the heart and the ear of the people in the forefront. And you know, I came into the House to make a difference, not just in my district, but in our state. And the way you make that difference is by standing on your principles and your convictions and not being one who can be bought or sold out, you know, to the special interests or to the lobby or what have you. And I think that separates the speaker and I, you know what, I'm conservative. You know, I don't just talk about it but I have a record of being conservative. And I have a servant's heart as far as leadership, whereby it's not about one man, it's not about the speaker, but it's about the team of people, you know. There's a lot of talent and skill in the House that can be utilized to decentralize the power whereby we can serve our constituents and our state better. So I think those are some of the most notable differences that we have. And to, you know -- I like to come from a business approach and not from a political approach. And running the House efficiently going forward.

GLENN: Scott, would you be the first black Speaker of the House in Texas?

TURNER: Yes, sir, I believe so.

GLENN: A conservative, a Tea Party conservative.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I mean, again, and — I don't know anybody who knows Scott, who looks at him and says, he's a black man, maybe we should — he's not. He's a good Christian man who really truly is I think the leader for the future. And would be tremendous to have as our Speaker of the House. I'm going to give you the audience a number here. I want you to call your state rep if you live in Texas at 512-463-0063. 512-463-0063. Dan Patrick running the Senate and you tell your — you tell your state rep that you think Scott Turner should be the next Speaker of the House. 512-463-0063. What are the odds, Scott? How does this work here?

TURNER: Well, you know, we'll vote on January the 13th. That's the first day of session. And myself and other members are calling for a record vote on the House floor. And that will be the first vote that we take where you vote on the rules and then you vote on how you will vote for the speaker. And then we take the vote for who's going to be the next leader of the House. And I think that's very important, Glenn, because to me, it's liberation. You know, there's no more hiding. There's no more smoke and mirrors. They're accountability for every member. We have to vote anyway. That's what we do. We vote on legislation. We take input from our constituents so this is the same.

GLENN: Why is it important that it's on the record for you?

TURNER: I think it's important because one, it's accountability. You know, and you know, we go to our constituents when we're trying to be elected and telling our constituents who we are, what we're about, and our conservative values and principles. And so I think that when you vote on — I know when you vote, you have an opportunity to say, hey, this is who I am. This is — I'm going to do it what I said I'm gonna do and I'm gonna vote. I'm going to put my name on it and be accountable for everything I do in this House as your elected representative and your servant leader. So I think it's vitally important that myself and all 150 of our members take that vote.

GLENN: Great." Scott Turner. Thank you very much. Good luck.

TURNER: I appreciate that.

GLENN: You bet. Bye-bye. I think this guy is exceptional and if you live in Texas, please call your state rep and tell them to vote for Scott Turner at 972-224-6795. And tell everybody you know. I have met with him several times off the air over the last year and a half. And I think he is truly exceptional. David Barton introduced me to him. He is a -- his soul is in really good shape. He is unafraid. He's young. He has no secret baggage. He doesn't care. He doesn't care. He's exactly what Texas needs as Speaker of the House. Scott Turner, 512-463-0063.

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.