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

PART 2: Glenn Talks With Independent Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin

August 11, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Evan McMullin, a former CIA agent, officially entered the presidential race on Wednesday as an Independent candidate, hoping to offer Americans an alternative to what he believes are two terrible choices. He joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday to talk about why he's qualified to be president, the three major issues he believes America faces and why he's far better suited for the presidency than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Following the interview, Glenn asked his co-host what they thought about McMullin.

RELATED: PART 1: Glenn Talks With Independent Presidential Candidate Evan McMullin

"Generally liked him. He's better than some of the other choices," Stu said.

"Liked him," Pat said.

While McMullin appears to be a serious, worthwhile candidate, Glenn identified his biggest challenge:

"Is there enough time for people to listen to him and get comfortable with him? You know, let's see him in a debate. Somebody like that has got to be tested some way or another," Glenn said.

Listen to Part 2 of Glenn's interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: We're talking to Evan McMullin from EvanMcMullin.com. He's running for president of the United States.

Evan.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: Are you going to get on the ballots?

EVAN: Yes, we've got a multi-pronged strategy. I've got a phenomenal team who has been working on this for months to prepare for this, to prepare for a time at which they had a candidate to run.

We are going to be getting on ballots here in the near-term. We'll be rolling those out. We're excited about that. There are a number of ways to get on ballots. There's a lot of misunderstanding about that. People think that it's only via petition. But there are actually a number of other ways. And we're going to compete across the country.

GLENN: How do you respond to people who say you're a spoiler and you're going to cause Hillary Clinton to win?

EVAN: I would just say this: I mean, look at the numbers, Donald Trump, when we entered the race three days ago, was down 10 percent against Hillary. So he's losing already to a super weak candidate.

GLENN: Yeah, but those numbers are probably going to come back. They usually do, after, you know, somebody else's convention. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

EVAN: Sure. Sure. Yeah, well, what I would say to that, sure, Donald Trump could, you know, rise in the polls a bit. But listen, Donald Trump has alienated so many groups in America. I mean, you just look at the numbers, and, you know, you can find them where he's polling so terribly among women and Hispanics. You name it. I mean, he's just alienated so many Americans. He just can't win that way.

PAT: He does have 1 percent support among blacks.

EVAN: What's that?

GLENN: He does have 1 percent --

PAT: He does have 1 percent support among blacks.

GLENN: So he's got that going for him.

EVAN: Well, that's good. He should be given a certificate.

GLENN: Yeah. Give me -- tell me what you think the biggest crisis that is coming our way.

EVAN: Well, I wish I could -- I wish there were only one, but I think there are three.

GLENN: Give me two. Three. Okay. Go ahead.

EVAN: Can I give you three? I'll be quick.

GLENN: Sure, yeah.

EVAN: Number one is we absolutely just must defeat Islamist terrorism. I know how to do it. I've been there, done that. We have to do it. And let me tell you something, and a lot of people don't think about it this way: We have to beat Islamist terrorism because the more we allow that threat to metastasize and expand, the more our civil liberties here at home come under threat. So it's not only the attacks and the lethality of those attacks, which is also obviously a priority, to prevent that, but the greater the threat is, the more the government needs to say, "Okay. Well, we're going to do this for security. We're going to do that for security." And our civil liberties start to get peeled back.

And so we have to go on the offensive and destroy these evil threats abroad before they -- before they do that to our country. And so that's one.

Number two is I think we need more economic opportunity in this country. We need to be better about fighting -- smarter about fighting poverty as an issue. I'm very passionate about. We need to be smarter about creating an environment here where -- where -- where companies thrive so that people and families can thrive. So that there's jobs and growth and all of this. The government is in the way of all of this. We need to get it out of the way. That's another thing.

GLENN: Can you give me any specifics on that?

EVAN: Well, yeah, for example, you know, it's true that our trade deals have resulted in sort of some shifts -- some industries shifting from one place or another, and jobs can be lost and all of that. And also due to automation and new technologies, some people are losing their jobs. I think we -- we need to -- we need to listen -- to listen to that reality. It's happening.

And we need to do better -- we need to be better at helping -- helping people be retrained and find new opportunities and continue on. And so one idea that I've had that has worked well elsewhere is to use apprenticeship programs, so maybe we give an incentive for companies to say, "Okay. Well, this man or woman lost their job in this factory because it moved somewhere else, but, you know, I'm making microchips. And I'll bring them in, and there's some incentive to do that. I'll train them up, and they can -- they'll get on-the-job training while they're working, and then we help those people move forward. We help the economy, and we help these families. So things like that, I think we need to do. But it's also about lowering taxes, simplifying the tax code.

PAT: Yes.

EVAN: And most importantly, just cutting back on our -- just -- there's just so much overregulation and such little due process that -- and such -- and such uncertainty, regulatory uncertainty that's a real big challenge that companies face. We've got to limit that.

GLENN: Your third problem that you think we might hit?

EVAN: Government reform. We need to transfer more power back to the people. And that has everything to do with federalism and the Tenth Amendment. We must do this. We live in a large -- there are 330 million people here in this country. It's a big country, geographically. The idea that a centralized government in Washington is going to be able to serve well and be accountable to the people is just fantasy. There needs to be more power to the states, and the people's representatives in Congress also need to have their rightful Article One authorities restored.

GLENN: Can you tell me -- Mitt Romney has made some disparaging comments about the Tea Party. Where do you stand on the Tea Party, the values of the Tea Party?

EVAN: Well, listen, I stand with anybody who understands the -- again, federalism. I stand with anybody who understands and supports the Tenth Amendment, anybody who understands that the power of the government comes from the people and only from the people. And therefore, the government is accountable to the people.

This is -- Glenn, this is something I'm passionate about. Our Founders founded this country with the why, as Simon Sinek, the commentator says -- he talks -- every company needs to have a why. That why for our country was the pursuit of happiness.

If people are going to pursue happiness in their way, they need to actually have a -- a say in their government. And that power needs to be close to them, even though they may delegate it to their representatives. So it's a pursuit of happiness thing for me. That's what federalism is about. That's what the Tenth Amendment is about. We've got to get back to a system that allows people to pursue happiness the way our Founders intended.

GLENN: Pat has probably the best question of the day.

PAT: Well, I mean, I'm glad we've talked about some cute little subjects, but can we get to the real issue?

EVAN: Oh, boy. Here we go.

PAT: I'm wondering if, as president, you would seek a constitutional amendment and maybe even an executive order in the meantime, pending a constitutional amendment, to force your will in making BYU a part of the big 12?

EVAN: Yes, I will absolutely do that.

PAT: You will do that?

EVAN: Yes.

PAT: You have my vote.

EVAN: Okay. Good. All right.

GLENN: What a surprise.

EVAN: I got one. That's great.

PAT: You've got at least one vote.

STU: Wait. You're not voting for yourself? Shouldn't you at least have two?

EVAN: Oh, that's true. That's true. That's right. Yeah, I'm in too.

PAT: Are you married? I mean, hopefully we can at least get a family vote going there too.

GLENN: Are you married?

EVAN: I'm not married. But I want to promise the American people, since I'm making important campaign promises right now, guys -- thank you for that -- that I will not leave America without a First Lady if I'm elected. And it is my biggest aspiration in life to be a husband and a father, and I'm working on it.

(laughter)

PAT: Is there anybody --

GLENN: So, yeah. Is this like the Oval is the greatest chick magnet of all time, or is there somebody that you're thinking about?

EVAN: I really --

GLENN: Is there an announcement you'd like to make here?

EVAN: I really do not want to -- can I just not answer that question? Have mercy, please.

(laughter)

Yeah. That's a tough one. I just better keep my mouth shut.

PAT: So seriously, Evan, the deadline is tomorrow for Utah. Right? For ballot access.

EVAN: The 15th.

STU: The 15th. Okay. So you've got a few more days.

PAT: Okay. So you've got four days. You can make it in four days?

EVAN: Oh, yeah.

STU: A thousand signatures there. Right?

EVAN: Oh, yeah, we've got an army of volunteers out there taking care of this. The threshold of a thousand --

PAT: And what do you do in a state like Texas where the deadline has already passed?

EVAN: We'll probably file a legal challenge there.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Do you -- do you have the money to do this?

EVAN: Money is pouring in. Pouring in.

PAT: Is it really?

EVAN: Yeah.

PAT: I mean --

EVAN: Yeah. Yeah. From small donors, regular people who are just so frustrated. I'm telling you -- and you know this, 70 percent of Americans are just unhappy with the direction of the country. They think it's on the wrong track. And then we have two candidates that are historically unpopular and profoundly unprepared to face the challenges that this country faces now.

Americans want something else. So, yeah, I mean, the metrics are unbelievable. I mean, people are helping out. They're chipping in. But, also, we're getting major mega donor interest. We've already had some really critical meetings on that. I'm going to be in New York next week for some -- you know, some follow-up meetings. You know, we're -- we're getting some good signals there too. So we're very excited, and we feel good on that end.

GLENN: Where is the Republican Party falling short?

EVAN: Well, let me say this: I -- I think that the Republican Party is certainly doing a lot more that's right, right now, than the Democratic Party. And I'm not trying to -- I don't desire to be super partisan here.

PAT: That's not saying much.

EVAN: The Republicans are at least trying to return power to the people, the Republicans in the House. So they got -- they have that going for them.

But I would say this: I think that it is time for the conservative movement to be more tolerant of people of variety of faiths and a variety of ethnicities and nationalities. Conservatism doesn't have to be sort of the Trump bigotry. And that's -- conservatism has nothing to do with --

GLENN: So hang on just a second. Do you think Trump is a conservative?

EVAN: I do not. But there are a lot of people who say that they're conservatives who are supporting Trump.

GLENN: Yes, okay.

EVAN: Yeah, no. I appreciate that clarification. He is most certainly not a conservative. And I feel like -- I feel like he deceived America by claiming that he is. People are so desperate in America for change, that they're willing to believe a total -- I mean, Donald Trump is a con man. I spent ten years in the Central Intelligence Agency. I know a con man when I see one, and I see Donald Trump coming from a mile away.

STU: How about the -- one recent specific policy proposal from Trump and Clinton -- Clinton proposed a 275 billion-dollar stimulus program to -- for our infrastructure. Trump when asked about that proposal said, "That's not enough. We need to double it. Actually more than double it."

EVAN: Wow, okay.

STU: Do you feel the need to -- what's your stimulus plan idea? Do you have a number? Do you want to triple Trump's? What's your --

EVAN: Yeah, no. Look, I think my stimulus plan is getting the government out of the way of free enterprise. That's my stimulus plan.

PAT: Thank you. That would be nice.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: I like that.

PAT: So if people like what they've heard, Evan, how do they help out?

EVAN: Go to EvanMcMullin.com. Chip in if you can. Every little the bit helps. You'll be joining many, many Americans who are doing the same. Sign up so that we can -- we can contact you and get you involved if you want to volunteer. We'd love that. Share -- share things about us on social media. You know, obviously we've entered this race late, not because we think that's the ideal way to do it, but because nobody else was going to and it was the last minute, so we jumped in. So we need to raise awareness as quickly as possible, so people can be helpful on all three fronts.

GLENN: At what point are you going to name a vice presidential candidate?

EVAN: Well, we're looking at people now. I mean, not in the extremely near-term, I think. We're getting some bases covered here as we launch at this early stage. But what we're looking for is somebody who understands what makes America special on a profound level, something that neither Hillary Clinton nor Trump certainly do.

GLENN: Will it be somebody that has some governing experience? I mean, you know, it's a pretty big job to take on and just go, "I got it."

EVAN: Yeah, no, I agree with you. I agree with you.

But, hey, listen, I'll say this about this: Our Founding Fathers had the -- the way they did it is they would tend to their fields, and then they would serve from time to time. And I'm -- I'm a big believer in that model. I think we need people with practical experiences and know-how to help America overcome its challenges. And the other thing I think we need --

PAT: So are you promising to also farm if you're elected president?

EVAN: I would love that. I would --

GLENN: You've got a date, you've got a farm. I mean, holy cow, you got a lot on your plate.

EVAN: Yeah. Yeah, I would love that. But I guess I'm just pushing back on the idea that it's got to be a career politician who has sort of worked their way up.

GLENN: Sure.

EVAN: I just don't think we need that. I think we need new ideas. And we also need -- we need leaders that put the interests of the American people before their own and that will have some character around that. And I just don't think we have that, clearly, in these two major candidates.

GLENN: Evan McMullin, thank you very much for being on the program today. Appreciate it.

EVAN: Thank you, Glenn. Thank you, team.

GLENN: Best of luck.

EvanMcMullin.com. EvanMcMullin.com.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin announces his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/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.