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

Why Is Sean Hannity Mad at Glenn?

August 30, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

On his radio program Tuesday, Sean Hannity expressed his frustration with conservatives who have not boarded the so-called Trump train, specifically accusing Glenn of "attacking" him "every day."

Business Insider reported Hannity saying the following:

RELATED: Behind-the-Scenes Photos of the ‘Contentious’ Meeting with Sean Hannity, Ben Sasse and Glenn Beck

"Well, let me just say to all of you. And that includes the commentator class. That includes the Jonah Goldberg class, that includes radio talk show hosts. Glenn Beck is like on a — it's a holy war for him at this point. I mean, he's off the rails attacking me every day. Blaming me for Trump. Well, no. I was fair to everybody, Glenn. Whether you want to admit it or not. I know I was fair. My conscience is clear. And I, frankly, I'm proud to pull the lever for Donald Trump with a clear conscience.

We checked the radio transcripts and compiled every reference Glenn made to Hannity during the month of August. What we found didn't sound like "attacking" and it certainly wasn't "every day," but we'll let you decide. Here's what Glenn had to say about Hannity all five times his name came up this month:

THURSDAY, AUGUST 11TH

GLENN: All right. I want to go over a little bit of what Sean Hannity said. And I'm actually going to agree with Sean Hannity on a lot of what he said. And he took people on from the G.O.P. that are standing against Donald Trump or at least not supporting Donald Trump. And there are some things that I don't agree, but a lot that I do agree. And I think I have a way where we can all come together, something where both the people who agree with Sean and the people who agree with me can actually come together and protect our country. And it's probably where we should begin to focus. And we'll get into that here in just a second. I don't want to do it an injustice by trying to cram it in here.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

GLENN: Let me go to Sean Hannity and what he said last night, because I actually agree with him on some things. Listen to this monologue.

SEAN: Is it time now for Republicans who refuse to endorse Donald Trump -- are they now sabotaging his campaign? Because if they continue to do what they're doing and Hillary Clinton wins, will they be responsible for supporting Hillary Clinton's radical left-wing agenda?

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Flawed thinking here.

PAT: And it's almost progressive thinking. That's exactly what Obama does: He sets up a straw man argument, and then he sets it on fire. Well, that's...

GLENN: Yeah. I'm not responsible for Hillary Clinton.

PAT: No.

GLENN: We warned --

PAT: We said it all along.

GLENN: We had to beat Hillary Clinton. And we warned -- if we weren't powerful enough to get Ted Cruz to be the nominee, we're certainly not powerful enough to have Donald Trump trailing by 13 points.

PAT: No.

GLENN: I mean, if we had the power of 13 points, Ted Cruz would be the nominee.

STU: You and your math.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. So it's not us. We agree, Sean, with you that Hillary Clinton is a disaster. And the idea that Donald Trump said was, I don't need those constitutionalists. I don't need them. And those are his words.

PAT: He should be talking to Donald. Not us. Not only does he not need them; he said he didn't want them.

GLENN: Right. And that's totally fine. His plan was, I'm going to reach across the aisle, and I'm going to get a lot of Democrats and I'm going to get Bernie Sanders supporters. Well, that's not happening. And one-fifth of the Republican Party doesn't want anything to do with Donald Trump. One-fifth. You cannot win with one-fifth of the Republican Party not saying that they won't vote for you. But his plan, as we said, won't work. His plan from the beginning is, I'm going to win New York. I'm going to win Pennsylvania. I'm going to win a lot of Democrats. Well, that's not happening. Okay. So go ahead.

SEAN: Time to name names. Bill Kristol. Former Governor Mitt Romney. Susan Collins. Jeb Bush. Ted Cruz. Ben Sasse. Lindsey Graham. Meg Whitman. And many, many others. Now, if they keep up their stubborn, their stupid game and continue to lick their wounds, well, this is what they will be responsible for.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. I'm not letting you two talk. (Laughter.) Not letting you two talk.

PAT: Well, again, it's just that, that's not the issue. The issue is not our wounds. The issue is not our feelings. And he knows that.

GLENN: Right. It's our principles.

PAT: And he knows that.

GLENN: And to Sean, I believe our principles are very much the same. He's just going towards those principles in a route that we disagree with. And we're going towards those principles in a route that he disagrees with. And there's nothing wrong with that. We have different ways of getting to our principles. And he -- you know, he knows Donald Trump. I don't. He knows him. He trusts him. I don't think that Sean Hannity is evil or anything else.

He knows him, and he's talked to me several times, and he's like, "Glenn, you're wrong about Donald Trump." And it's not any kind of game he's playing. He's not getting money or anything. He believes Donald Trump. He knows him. I don't. I don't trust him.

But that's just the difference between us. And it's not that we're licking our wounds. It's not. It has nothing to do with that.

SEAN: Give a few examples. Of course that would be the continuation of President Obama's disastrous economic policies. And did any of them happen to listen to Trump's speech?

GLENN: This is where we totally agree.

SEAN: We have the lowest labor participation rate since the '70s. Lowest home ownership rate in 41 years. The worst recovery since the 1940s.

GLENN: He's right.

SEAN: Clinton will simply continue that failed economic agenda of Obama. Enforces Obamacare.

GLENN: Absolutely right.

SEAN: Now, Donald Trump told me last night he will repeal or replace it and have competition. Clinton will keep it.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

PAT: Donald Trump also told 60 Minutes, he wants -- and he doesn't care if it costs him votes.

STU: And he also said he knows it's not Republican.

PAT: Right.

STU: I want the government to pay for it.

GLENN: So the question is -- and this is, again, where Sean knows Donald and believes him that he's going to repeal and replace with free market. I tend to take a man at his word on 60 Minutes that he's going to repeal and replace with something that is 100 percent socialism.

PAT: He was adamant about it. In September.

GLENN: He was adamant about it. And that is his record of belief throughout his life.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Sean may be right. But I don't know Donald Trump. And a lot of people don't know Donald Trump. And the Donald Trump we do know changes his viewpoint to wherever he happens to be standing. And so that's the difference between us. I don't believe him on this.

SEAN: Open borders. Trump promises a wall. Clinton wants open borders. So which is better for national security and the American worker? Now, the refusal to use the term "radical Islam." Donald Trump will mention it. Liberal Supreme Court justices versus the originalists that Donald Trump has said that he will support. He wants people like Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the bench. On this one issue alone, this will impact this one for generations to come.

GLENN: Absolutely true.

SEAN: Hillary, of course, wants a 550 percent increase in unvetted refugees. Trump promises to vet them all, or else not let them in. Top-down Common Core education. That's failing. Hillary would continue that. We have a dilapidated military. Trump will improve the military and rebuild it. And the list goes on.

PAT: When did our military -- when -- wow, that's --

GLENN: No, we are in trouble. No, we are in trouble with our military.

PAT: Are they dilapidated?

GLENN: No, we are in big trouble. We are in big trouble. He's right on that.

PAT: I would not call our military dilapidated.

GLENN: I will put you in touch with somebody who will tell you exactly what's happened over -- we are in big trouble with our military. So Hannity is absolutely right on those problems. He's absolutely right. I want you to understand clearly, for the record, we've been saying this for over a year -- actually we've been saying this for four years because we knew she was going to be it. But as this went on, this is why we fought so hard -- this is why I endorsed somebody for the very first time. I endorsed the Constitution, not Ted Cruz. I started almost every speech, "I'm not here to endorse Ted Cruz. I am here to endorse the Constitution of the United States." I am telling you now, Hillary Clinton is an absolute unmitigated disaster for the country. Disaster. I happen to believe that Donald Trump, A, cannot nor will he win. I also think he is a very dangerous man that could end up being a bigger disaster for the United States.

So how do we solve this problem? We can either sit here and go back and forth. Sean said that -- he went on in his monologue calling people crybabies, et cetera, et cetera. And I was very offended by that. But I immediately thought, "You know what, I've said things like that about the other side." I have said things and disparaged people on the other side. And I regret it. Shouldn't have done it. So how am I going to point the finger at Sean Hannity and say, "Hey -- no. I did it too. We should stop that. And start to understand that there is one thing that we can come together -- there is one thing I can stand with Sean Hannity on and will stand with Sean Hannity on. And it won't be who to vote for. Although, I have never said, "Do not vote for Donald Trump."

STU: Well, at least not since the end of primary. I mean, certainly --

GLENN: Yeah, during the primary. I have said since the end of the primary, I cannot, but I understand those who do. I really do. I understand why. Because Hillary Clinton is so bad. So I understand that. And I'll never say Sean is not a patriot for doing that. He's doing what he believes is right because we are facing two horrible, horrible options. However, here's where we can unite, the under ticket. If Hillary Clinton is president, the only thing that will have a chance of being a speed bump, not a stop, but a speed bump, will be a Republican Congress. And we know the Republican Congress will unite against Hillary Clinton. We know the press will throw in for her. You need a speed bump. It's not going to solve all of the problems of what she's going to bring, but it will at least slow her down and stop some of them.

So let's unite on the bottom of the ticket. You must go out and vote. Who you vote for at the top of the ticket is your business. Who I vote for is my business. Who Sean does --- his business.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17TH

GLENN: We have now lost Fox News. We -- Roger Ailes is out. By his own doing, but Roger Ailes is out. And Roger Ailes is now tying his wagon to Donald Trump. Sean Hannity, completely Donald Trump. Drudge Report, completely Donald Trump. Breitbart, completely Donald Trump. Much of talk radio, completely talk Donald Trump. In fact, one big radio network, which will not be named, is telling their hosts throughout the entire country, "You are not to say anything bad about Donald Trump, period." There is an edict. No more. Many of our talk radio programmers are telling their hosts and choking back up on the chain, and they're doing it, I think, because of ratings. But most of them are doing it because they're such strong believers of Donald Trump. There's no diversity. You do not talk ill about Donald Trump. And the Tea Party. Now, not all of the Tea Party. But some of the Tea Party. And if it's some of the Tea Party, all of the Tea Party now has been discredited.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 19TH

GLENN: So let me give you a prediction. If Trump wins, you're going to see Bannon as the chief of staff or the media arm and Breitbart and Breitbart web and radio, I think, will become his official media. He'll just -- you know how the White House now does all of their media and they're not letting the reporters in. They're just doing the media themselves, and you can get the pool feed? But they're producing all of these clips. And the press pushed back on Obama, but not too much because it was Obama. I think he's going to take it a step forward. Roger Ailes, I think, will be, you know, a consultant of some sort. And I think air talent like Sean Hannity, I think Sean will become press secretary. And I mean this sincerely. I think if he wins. Now --

STU: I mean, first of all, Sean would be great at that.

GLENN: No, he would be great.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24TH

GLENN: Sean Hannity. Let's play what we can of that one. Sean Hannity last night had Donald Trump on, and I want to take your phone calls. 877-727-BECK. And I want to hear from Donald Trump supporters, from people who are voting for Donald Trump, and tell me what you think about . . . he's softening his language on immigration and softening his policy and reversing some of his policy. Here's a little bit of what happened on Hannity last night.

SEAN: And this is where you seem to in the last week be revisiting the issue of sending everybody back that is here illegally. Tell us where you stand on that.

DONALD: We want to follow the laws. You know, we have very strong laws. We have very strong laws in this country. (Laughter.) And I don't know if you know, but Bush and even Obama sends people back. Now, we can be more aggressive in that, but we want to follow the laws. If you start going around trying to make new laws in this country, it's a process that's brutal. We want to follow the laws of the country. And if we follow the laws, we can do what we have to do. (Applause.)

GLENN: Stop. That's incredible.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25TH

GLENN: Now, here's the interesting place -- I want to play these three phone calls for you this hour and show you where I'm really confused with the Trump support right now. And we have to play some audio from -- that was cut out by Fox from Sean Hannity that shows, I think, how volatile this situation is. And the -- you can hear the volatility in this caller, where we start talking to him about, is Donald Trump betraying you? And he says no.

Featured Image: Fox News Host Sean Hannity speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2016 at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, outside Washington, March 4, 2016. (Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/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.