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

Super Pac Insider Sheds Light on Bribery, Delegate Math

April 15, 2016
Jon Boldt

Writer

Glenn's open opposition to Donald Trump’s candidacy has him taking shots from critics on every side. Breitbart, Drudge Report and Alex Jones --- to name a few --- have relentlessly attacked Glenn's character and intelligence with twisted facts and false allegations, making their true colors known.

The latest conspiracy theory now circulating is that Glenn has received millions of dollars from a pro-Ted Cruz super PAC in exchange for his endorsement and stumping on the Texas Senator's behalf.

Drew Ryun, political director for Trusted Leadership PAC (the super PAC in question) joined The Glenn Beck Program on Friday to shed light on the “bribery” and to talk money and math as the campaign heads towards a contested convention

Listen to this segment or read the transcript below.

The "Evil" Super PAC

GLENN: Drew Ryan is the political director for the Trusted Leadership PAC, which is one of those evil super PACs. Why are you so evil?

DREW: Well, you know, it's just one of those things.

But really what it is, is a super PAC is --- we run as, in a sense, a parallel PAC to a political campaign. And usually super PACs are filled with trusted operatives that the campaign knows and is comfortable with. And there's a high wall between us, according to the Federal Election Commission, that we can't communicate with the campaign. So we look to see where the campaign is, what the message is from the candidate, in our case, Senator Ted Cruz. And where they are playing. And we will look at financial reports and see what ad buys they've made, the message that they're driving. And we will, in a sense, serve to drive that message home.

Now, a super PAC is not constrained in the way that a campaign is. A campaign is locked in at a certain rate for maximum donors that can only give $2,700. A super PAC, the donations are unlimited. So we deal a lot with the major donors that help fund TV, radio -- in our case, a lot of highly targeted voter ID and grassroots rallies.

GLENN: Do they know that you have given me -- you've funneled through my charity $8 million right directly --

DREW: See, I would love to know where that money is.

GLENN: I've already spent it.

DREW: Oh, you have? Well, if you could actually find a way to get it back, that would be great too.

GLENN: Right.

DREW: But, you know, unlike, say, the Jeb Bush super PAC that blew through $100 million or Rubio's PAC that went through $70 million, we have raised and spent right at $30 million. So for us, it's one of those things where every dollar matters and how we spend it matters.

GLENN: Yeah. Because it's -- you really have a problem -- everybody has a problem right now that the money is staying off -- you know, a lot of people came in early. And a lot of the money has stayed off and said, "You know what, I don't know who is going to win it." Is that true or not?

DREW: No. We're actually seeing some movement in our direction, as it becomes clear that we're going to a contested convention. And there is a delegate path where Senator Cruz could win this on the second ballot at the convention. So we're starting to see a lot more movement from some of the traditional, what we could call establishment donors inside the Republican Party.

Delegate Math

GLENN: Can you go through the delegate math? Because this is -- this, I think, is going to be really confusing for Americans, that this isn't stealing the election. This is the way it's done. It was done this way in 1976. It was done this way in the 1950s. Abraham Lincoln won the presidency this way. This is the way it works.

DREW: So what happens in a lot of these presidential elections is you have pools of delegates to the national convention sometimes that are picked a year in advance. So what you're seeing is when you have, say, a Donald Trump win South Carolina and take all 50 delegates, unfortunately for Donald Trump, he found out that those delegates had been picked a year in advance, and he would not have a say in who these delegates would be. These are not Trump delegates, per se, that will be going to represent South Carolina at the national convention.

GLENN: If he had the 1237, they would have to be Trump delegates.

DREW: They would have to be -- in fact, they are bound on the first ballot. So when you look at how a Republican Convention works and obviously a Democrat as well, you have delegates that are bound through certain number of ballots. So a lot of states, if a candidate wins, again, going back to South Carolina, Donald Trump wins all 50, those delegates are bound by the by-laws of the party to vote for him on the first ballot. But if he doesn't get to 1237 -- and there's an increasing likelihood that he won't -- then all of a sudden those delegates become unbound for the second potentially third ballot of voting on the convention floor. And that is danger for Donald Trump.

STU: They can do whatever they want at that point, right?

DREW: They can do whatever they want to at that point.

Voting Their Conscience

STU: Does Donald Trump have any sway over them? If he says, "Look, I want you guys to continue to vote for me."

GLENN: Because we've heard that you can bribe these people. You know, you can give them golf memberships, let's say you own beautiful golf courses all around the world.

DREW: Let's just say that the law regarding bribery and delegates at a national convention is murky at best. There's always the possibility there may be some things going on like that, particularly from a Trump campaign. But, yeah, once the first ballot is over, a lot of state delegates are released to vote their conscience in the second or third ballots.

GLENN: So let me ask you about the delegates. Because you've done this before. So the delegates -- who are these people generally? Because I would think -- let me tell you why I'm asking this question. And then you can take it where you want to go.

One, bribery. Are they believers enough to be offended by that? And two, how are they going to react to somebody threatening to give out their address, their phone number, their hotel room?

DREW: Well, let's start from that second question and work our way back. I think you'll have a very vociferous reaction to being threatened. A lot of these folks are party loyalists. When you look at who usually goes to the conventions, it's usually a party. We don't have contested conventions. As you referenced, 1976 was the last time we had a contested convention inside the Republican Party.

These are also conservative grassroots organizers. These are not traditionally on either camp Trump-type people. So when you look at the Trump loyalists --

GLENN: Why do you say that? Why do you say that?

DREW: Trump, when you look at his natural base is -- and he actually does have a base.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

DREW: 50 percent of these people, we've never seen before. They're independents. They're Democrats crossing over in these open primaries, which why the next six to seven weeks look tenuous. After we get out of the northeast and head towards Indiana and West Virginia and Nebraska, these are all closed primaries. It looks like a tough road for Donald Trump over the last five to six weeks in this primary. He's not going to have independents and Democrats crossing over and voting in the Republican primaries. When you look at the delegate pool, as I referenced earlier, a lot of these people have been picked by the party hierarchy, sometimes as much as a year before these primaries actually took place. These are not people that are naturally going to be going towards Donald Trump.

Devil’s Advocate

GLENN: Let me play devil's advocate, if they're establishment people, they're not likely to go to Ted Cruz either.

DREW: I think that all depends on Rule 40B. And there's been a lot of conversation about the impact that the rules committee will have on the 2016 convention.

GLENN: What's Rule 40B?

DREW: Let me roll this back a little bit. So you have a rules committee that meets a week before the convention. Each state or territory has two delegates per...

(ringing)

GLENN: Okay.

DREW: And you will have 112 members on the rules committee that will actually meet and decide what the rules will be for the convention in 2016. Rule 40B right now states that you have to win the majority of --

(ringing)

GLENN: Sorry. My phone is seemingly going off here. And I'm sorry for that. Go ahead.

DREW: It's totally fine.

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: Do you have any idea how to turn the thing off?

GLENN: No, because I never carry my phone. I don't ever use it. Somebody else uses it. I don't carry.

DREW: I love this show already. This is fantastic.

STU: For a guy that just got $8 million.

GLENN: I know. But I hire somebody to --

STU: Okay.

GLENN: They tell me.

DREW: You hire a phone Sherpa? You could hire two phone Sherpas.

GLENN: That's right. Yeah. So I'm sorry. I lost you at hello.

DREW: Yes, well, that's fine. Because I'm coming back to you.

All right. So when you talk about the rules committee, and I think that's a story that's going to become bigger and bigger as we go towards the convention. The rules committee always meets the week before the actual convention. Each state or territory gets two delegates a piece on this rules committee. So you'll have 112 delegates that will decide what the rules for the convention will be.

Currently, the party states that Rule 40B, you have to win the majority of delegates in eight states.

GLENN: Okay.

DREW: There will be only two candidates that will have the opportunity to be considered on the floor of the convention right now. Obviously, the rules can change the week before. And I'll talk about that later.

GLENN: How many states did Marco Rubio win?

PAT: One. He won one state. And a territory.

DREW: One. He won Minnesota. And a territory, Puerto Rico. John Kasich has won Ohio.

Playing Around With the Rules

GLENN: So there's only those two -- even if they're suspended, there's only those two.

DREW: Potentially. I mean, John Kasich may win Pennsylvania, but there are no other states that he can win. So at best, he'll win two states going in.

Right now, I think Ted Cruz is going to win 13 to 14 states when you look at the remainder of the states on the calendar. He's already won seven. And obviously Donald Trump will clear the threshold of Rule 40B. Something for your listeners and your viewers, however, if you start to see Republican National Committee men and women start appointed to the rules committee, there is a good chance that Rule 40B will change, and we potentially will go from a contested convention to an open convention. And that's when things potentially get crazy.

But if the Trump and Cruz campaigns are doing their job, you will see a rules committee stacked with their people and Rule 40B will stay in place.

GLENN: Is Donald Trump --

DREW: Paying attention? I don't know.

GLENN: Yeah, I mean, is he -- it's crazy. It's really crazy.

STU: From a guy who has pitched his campaign as I'm the guy who can get all these things done. I'm going to understand the rules more than everybody.

GLENN: Right. And I'm the guy who can hire really smart people. The people around him are dummies.

DREW: You know, he's running around saying, I'll hire the best people, how is it then if you hire the best people, you're hiring the guy that drove Scott Walker's campaign into the ground?

STU: He's a good candidate. I liked Scott Walker.

DREW: I liked Scott Walker. Literally he was my second choice in this election season, and Rick Riley drove his campaign into the ground in seven to eight weeks and blew through millions of dollars and yet he gets hired by Donald Trump's campaign yesterday.

PAT: Wow.

STU: They were saying, you need to define someone who has some ability. Which obviously Scott Walker saw something in Riley, but also, someone who was so down on their luck and had performed poorly that they would take the job with Donald Trump. And he's kind of the sweet spot of those two things, right? I don't want to put words in your mouth. That's kind of why they went to this guy. Because, I mean, he's not completely without ability. But he's in a tough spot because of the Walker campaign. Walker was one of the frontrunners. A good candidate. A guy who could really connect with both sides, sort of an establishment and conservative side. And his campaign ended before Jim Gilmore's did.

DREW: So what Stu is saying is he's taking the best available tier-three talent. You're right, he is.

JEFFY: He'll always have Lewandowski to consult with.

DREW: Well, of course. And Paul Manafort. And Roger Stone.

GLENN: Have you ever seen anything like this before?

DREW: No. And here's what I think is going on is, I don't think Trump expected to be in this long, to be honest.

GLENN: I don't think so either.

DREW: I think this was something of a protest campaign. He said a few things that resonated with the grassroots, with the disaffected. And all of a sudden, it's like he's taking off. And he doesn't have the infrastructure or the talent to see this thing to the end. Now, I think he's the least serious serious contender for nomination that we've ever seen.

Featured Image: Attendees to a Republican fund-raiser walk by protesters and activists outside of a midtown hotel which is hosting a black-tie event for the state Republican Party on April 14, 2016 in New York City. Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are all scheduled to appear at the event which comes days before New York will hold its primary. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

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.