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

Burgess Owens: The NAACP Keeps People Angry and Hopeless to Shamelessly Breed Black Voters

September 24, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Burgess Owens, former NFL star and author of the book Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Friday to address the current state of race relations across America and what role, if any, the NAACP has played.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Burgess Owens is an NFL legend and the author of a book Liberalism: Or How to Turn Good Men Into Whiners, Weenies, and Wimps. And really tells it like it is and is a good friend of the program.

Hello, Burgess, how are you, sir?

BURGESS: Glenn, good talking with you again, my friend. Looking forward to our discussion today for sure.

GLENN: I want to talk to you a little bit about what's happening on the streets of North Carolina, what's happening on the streets of Tulsa. But first, your thoughts on Betty Shelby, the police officer being charged with manslaughter in the first degree.

BURGESS: You know, I haven't had a chance to get any real information on what's happening there, what's happening in Tulsa. So I'm just going to -- I'm going to hold off and make my decision on my conclusion on that until I can get a little more information. I do have a very strong impression about Charlotte. I'd love to talk to you about that.

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second, I've understood from the alt-right, that we're now living in a post-fact world and that's a good thing. I mean, you should be able to comment without facts, Burgess.

All right. So let's talk about -- let's talk about Charlotte. Because yesterday afternoon, I saw a press conference with the NAACP. And the NAACP was there in Charleston, South Carolina. Kind of trying to whip things up, when there was a shooting -- oh, no, no. South Carolina, when they were trying to whip up the -- after the shooting in the church.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Remember when we went?

PAT: Charleston, yeah.

GLENN: And they were doing the same thing. Yeah, in Charleston. And now, in Charlotte, yesterday, they were doing the same in North Carolina. Can you comment a little bit on the NAACP?

BURGESS: Yeah, well, the NAACP, you have to understand, they're not trying to find justice. They're not trying to find fairness or even bring American people together. They have one issue and one thing that they're after right now. At the end of the day, they are shameless in breeding black voters. They want to get the black community up in arms and angry, more hopeless than they've already made them, so they go out and vote in November. At the end of the day, that is their goal.

It didn't matter what happened. In this case, here's a black man, a black policeman, who shot a black man with an armed -- a firearm. You have black police chief. You have a white Democrat mayor. All that is a perfect scenario for our affirmative action community that we have today. But yet it all takes in our community today, six weeks out, is for some black person to get shot. It doesn't matter why. Is to have the NAACP and their group trying to get in and rev up their voters.

GLENN: You've talked about the history of the NAACP that I don't think most people know. You talk about it in your book. And it's fascinating.

BURGESS: Yeah, it is -- the an interesting process when you understand the stealth that's been going on in our nation for a long, long time.

For those who are just hearing for the first time, the NAACP, back in 1910, when it was formed, was not formed by black people. It was formed by 21 white, socialist, atheist, Marxist, race-control Democrats. It was an environment at the time -- keep in mind, during that time, the race -- the black race was one of the most competitive, industrious, patriotic, Republican communities in our country.

And so in order to get into that community to do the things they needed to do, to take us down the route they have, they needed to use stealth, and they needed to use the face of another black person, W.E. DeBois, who is also a socialist and communist.

And that is actually what is happening today. It's a playbook they've used for a long time.

Today, they use the black BET to message out anti-police, anti-white messaging. And keep in mind, look at the people that are making the biggest noise. I can guarantee that they always have the same source: Black Entertainment Television, which is actually owned by white liberal Democrats, the Blackstones and Viacom, who have been messaging the black community for a long, long time to get them where they are today.

GLENN: So let me ask you about this: Here we have this police officer in Tulsa, who is first degree manslaughter. Going to be charged with that. And I don't know the situation anymore than anybody else does. I think every single shooting should be looked into.

BURGESS: Yes.

GLENN: But we also know black officers are much more likely to shoot and discharge their firearm than a white officer is. And we also know there has been an increase of, what is it? A 20 percent increase of violence and killings of -- of officers in the last year. And nobody seems to pay attention to that.

What you have is a situation to where the -- the officers -- black and white -- are going to be paralyzed with fear of doing anything, or they're going to get in trouble. And here's where I think the black community loses. If I'm a -- if I'm a cop and I'm called into a predominantly black neighborhood and, you know, there's something -- gunfire or something else. I'm thinking I'm saying, "I'm not going. I'm not going." Or if I go, I'm staying way away from this, because I don't want to be involved. I'm going to lose in this.

BURGESS: Well, you know, Glenn, the thing is, when you look at who has been hurt by this whole process, it is the black community. Not only -- and it's in a couple of ways. Not only for those innocent black -- those in the community that really do need the help and support. Because not only are the criminals -- the criminal element being empowered, encouraged. But you have again -- in this case, you have policemen who really want to do the right thing, but are afraid of not being backed up, not going in.

It is really a shame to see this dual process of division. And it comes down to one simple thing: This is why it's so devious, what's happening now.

We have a president who's been president for eight years. We have the second black attorney general after eight years. And it's interesting that the message that's being given to everybody -- America, is that the black race is truly inept. The black race cannot on its own stand up and best the black -- the white race, who has been their oppressors for 150 years. And this is why, when we disconnect ourselves from our past, our history, you have a narrative, in which now we are sitting back as victims, supposedly waiting for politicians and white legislators to give us the right and the power to do what every other culture has done in this country. That is to rise up, become the best we can be, and develop great successful people to lead status.

GLENN: You know, Burgess, we were doing -- we're talking to Burgess Owens. He's the author of Liberalism. We were talking about families and the destruction of families. We were doing a serial on it. And the black family was, you know, by 1960, the strongest family unit in the country. Now it is by far the weakest.

And the turning point, strangely, seems to be the Johnson administration and the Great Society. Have you ever done any research -- because we -- this piqued my interest.

Gee, that seems strange. And wait a minute, Johnson was a huge progressive racist. I wonder who wrote the Great Society bill. I wonder if there were these racist progressives in there that wrote this maybe even intentionally to tear the black family apart, knowing that it would disintegrate. Do you think there's anything to that?

BURGESS: Glenn, I'll tell you. It's interesting because I've done my history and done some research. At every point along the last 100 years -- and keep in mind, when I talk about the hundred years since 1865, the black race was doing so well. In other words, we were --

GLENN: Yep.

BURGESS: Again, we had 50 percent of black Americans that were part of the middle class. We had a the highest percentage of entrepreneurs. All those things. We had the strongest commitment to marriage.

Every single facet of change happened because of Democratic policies. Whether it was the Davis-Bacon Act, which took the entrepreneurs out of the marketplace, with the high unemployment or minimum wage now that keeps young teenagers from actually ever getting experience and work.

Look at those -- those young people who are rioting, looting, and stealing, think about it. You're looking at young men who are not working, who have no hopes -- have not been educated. Have no hopes of working. They're all walking around with their pants down to their knees, and they're upset because they can't get ahead or they don't have an opportunity. That's been all accomplished through a change of self-perception through the white liberals at BET and the policies of liberals that have stopped this from moving forward, like we had in the early '60s.

GLENN: We have something going on, the Ferguson effect. I mean, if it -- do you believe, Burgess, that if the president would have come out and said, "Hey, we're going to look into Ferguson. I'm not going to comment on this. But stop the rioting that's -- you're burning down your own city. Stop it." If he came out strong, do you think we would be in the situation we are in right now?

BURGESS: I'd say, Glenn -- we can look back in history and look at a man who had the greatest opportunity in the history of mankind to bring our country together.

The reason why white Americans and blacks voted for this man was because of the promise of getting past race.

We have never been more divided. More -- we're now turning black people into racists. Unapologetic racists.

And when you start to do that -- first of all, the blessings that go with anyone who has that kind of spirit goes away, very big time. And we cannot have conversations -- real reasonable conversations about how to get past this, until we get past the judgment that we now have of color. And we've got even worse than that -- we're now judging people based on the color of the uniform they're wearing.

GLENN: Yeah.

BURGESS: Now blue is becoming a racist call. That's how we've gone.

GLENN: But I'm looking at the Ferguson effect, which says now, since Ferguson, murders in the 50 biggest cities in the US have spiked 17 percent in the black community, as a result of cops being unwilling or reluctant to go in and police neighborhoods because of the fear of being labeled a racist. 17 percent jump in -- in murders in those communities.

That is a -- the liberals have been the champion of those who are crying racism.

BURGESS: Well, the thing you want to add to that -- and you're absolutely right. This is common sense. In all of us -- when we do our job, at the end of the day, we want to be with our family. We don't want to go into any situation or we come out with not good a chance of coming out alive. At the end of the day, we're dealing with a empathy-free liberalism does not care about the end result. It just cares about stealings and its goals. And, at the end of the day, we have more blacks now being hurt in so many different ways. And this has been the history of the Democratic Party. And so I -- I really do hope -- and this is where I think we have a conversation now, that as a total country, blacks and whites, we really start to look and hold these people accountable who have overseen the black misery that has happened over the last decades now.

GLENN: Burgess Owens, Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men Into Whiners, Weenies, and Wimps. Thanks so much for being on us, Burgess. Appreciate it.

BURGESS: Thank you, Glenn. Look forward to the opportunity to talk more as we move this thing forward.

GLENN: You bet.

Featured Image: Charlotte NAACP President Corine Mack, left, and Pastor Charles Jacobs pray where a man was shot the night before outside of the Omni Hotel September 22, 2016 in Charlotte, NC. Protests began on Tuesday night following the fatal shooting of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott at an apartment complex near UNC Charlotte. A state of emergency was declared overnight in Charlotte and a midnight curfew was imposed by mayor Jennifer Roberts. (Photo by Sean Rayford/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.