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

Hillary Wants You to Suspend Reality and Live in Her Alternate Universe

September 28, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Conspiracy theorists came out swinging following the first presidential debate, accusing Hillary of wearing a robotic cough suppressor that also alleviated symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Unfortunately, it was a waste of time. Hillary's alternate reality provides more than enough fodder to prove she's completely unfit for the presidency.

RELATED: Which Hillary Lie Bothered You Most During the Debate?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these suppressed questions:

• What illogical reason did Hillary give to prove she has stamina?

• Does Glenn wear a robotic cough suppressor?

• Do women deserve equal pay if they do as good of a job as men?

• How long would it take a person devoid of corruption to testify before Congress?

• Does filing for bankruptcy make you a good businessperson?

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

GLENN: Holy cow. We have to -- can we start at the conspiracy theory of the day?

STU: Of course.

GLENN: Have you seen the conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton's robotic, anti- -- or her cough suppresser.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Her robotic cough suppresser.

STU: So stupid.

PAT: I haven't seen that.

STU: Isn't it just her microphone?

GLENN: Yeah, it's her microphone. Yeah, it's a -- a hidden device -- a hidden device on the back of Hillary Clinton's clothing.

PAT: What?

GLENN: It was an instrument that sends impulses to the brain to alleviate symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

You'll never guess who came up with this one. I like to call it a battery pack.

(laughter)

STU: For the microphone that she's wearing plainly.

GLENN: Right. Well, that's what it is: A battery pack and transmitter for the microphone. Which you can see, there's the battery pack, and then you can see underneath her like sweater thing is the microphone cable going up. And if you look at the picture of her standing the other direction, which I don't think I have, you see that her microphone is right there.

STU: Right. Which we are all aware of --

GLENN: And show me your battery pack.

STU: Oh, it's right here.

GLENN: Right here. There's your battery pack. Here's my battery pack. But if you're on television, it's always in the back.

STU: And they normally don't want you to see it.

GLENN: Right. And if you're wearing a dress with women, it is usually underneath their dress. And they look like they have a big huge bump right to the center of their back, where -- like, they clip it on the bra usually. Is that the way they do it? Underneath, yeah. So they clip it no their bra, so it looks like they have this big square box. That's why you never see Megyn Kelly from the back.

PAT: All women on television have Parkinson's disease, and that little device helps them control it.

GLENN: Well --

PAT: It's weird.

GLENN: -- it's not Parkinson's only, Pat. It's a cough suppresser.

PAT: Oh, what else is there? Okay.

JEFFY: I mean, if you're going to hide it, what a perfect place that is --

PAT: Cough suppresser. Is there such a thing? Does such a device exist?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Then you would think Michael J. Fox would have that at all times. Right?

GLENN: Yes, yes. And he would be fine. Yeah. Why take medicine? Why not just have the Parkinson's --

PAT: The little device that helps you suppress it. I mean, I'd wear that all the time if I had it.

GLENN: I'm wearing it now.

STU: If anything, it proves Hillary is nuts. It's, of course, her incredibly lengthy testimony in front of numerous corruption investigations, which is essentially her excuse.

Oh, yeah. You don't think I have stamina? Well, I sat in front of an investigation for 11 hours and answered questions about how corrupt I am. So that proves you're wrong.

That's not making a point you want to make, Hillary.

JEFFY: Made it pretty good though.

PAT: Yeah, she coughed her brains multiple times on that, if you remember that. She coughed her brains out several times.

JEFFY: Yeah, she did.

STU: That's not a --

GLENN: Her actual brains came out?

PAT: Her brains came out.

GLENN: Wow.

JEFFY: It was ugly.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that was an amazing moment in the debate that for some reason, Trump missed her excuse for saying how healthy she was, was to say she gets berated through lengthy questioning and testimony in front of Congress. That's not something you want to brag about: I was in front of Congress because people think I'm really corrupt, and I had to answer questions for 11 hours. They couldn't get me out of there in an hour because I'm so corrupt, they kept me 11 times that amount.

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second, his excuse on knowing how to run the country is because he's a good businessman. And to prove that, he's gone bankrupt, what, four or seven times?

PAT: Four times. Uh-huh.

GLENN: And that's just him knowing the laws and knowing how to use it. That's good business. And his defense of being a good businessman is, I go bankrupt. I know how to do it. Oh, and I don't pay taxes because I'm super smart.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: I mean, both of them were using these defenses, that were like, "What?"

PAT: So bad. So bad.

STU: It's sort of a bizarre missed opportunity though. It seems like it happened a lot in the debate.

JEFFY: It sure did.

PAT: Yeah, what was the other thing that we noticed about Hillary --

STU: I like this one. First of all, she said during the debate -- this is a quote -- because she's going through this litany of things that Trump has said that is bad about women. One he said -- Donald Trump said then women don't deserve equal pay, unless they do as good a job as men.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: If they don't do as good a job, they probably shouldn't make the same amount of money.

STU: That's exactly --

GLENN: But I think --

PAT: But when they do as good a job, they should.

GLENN: Right. And if men don't do as good a job as a woman would do, then we probably shouldn't have to pay the man the same that the woman is paid.

STU: Exactly. That is an exact quote: Women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Yeah! Is anyone standing up against that?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And in the same sort of litany, she said something to the effect of, you know, Donald Trump called pregnancy an inconvenience for a business. Now, Trump's response to that --

PAT: And?

STU: -- I never said that. Of course, he did say it. So, you know, typical -- like horrible response. However, what if he were to go down the road of, "Look, we can be honest here. It is an inconvenience for a business to lose some of its most valuable workers for an extended amount of time."

JEFFY: And that's what he said -- I mean, that's what he originally said.

STU: Right.

The point here though is that, who cares? We have decided, and I have decided that it's more important -- human life is more important than how it affects a business. We believe in people who come -- and this would be awesome if he would go down this road. But it's like, I'm not going to sit here and be lectured about the value of pregnancy from a person who worships at the altar of Margaret Sanger.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: I mean, what a ridiculous thing to bring up. Yet, I didn't say that, was his response.

GLENN: Well, here's the other thing. And it goes kind of in this, where she's asking you to deny reality. He can't defend. He's worthless and incapable of defending principles. Incapable.

That would have been a great answer. Great answer. But he's incapable of doing it.

Let me give you -- oh, shoot. Now I just lost it. There was another one that she brought up. You're going to have to go to something else. Because I can't remember now. It will come to me as soon as I stop talking.

STU: You know why? Because that Parkinson's device you're wearing is screwing with your brain. That's why.

GLENN: It is. (coughing).

STU: He's turned it off. He's turned it off.

PAT: Oh, no.

GLENN: There was something else that she said -- oh, oh, I remember what it was.

They are so disconnected -- they're asking you to -- to deny reality. And if he would have said that, it would have been great. Look, are you kidding me?

I think even a woman would say, having a baby is a pretty big inconvenience in my life.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Being pregnant for nine months is a pretty big inconvenience. So let's not argue about inconvenience. Look at what you're trying to do, Hillary. You're trying to take something and have us deny the very reality that we know is true.

You have done that with al-Qaeda and ISIS, denying the reality. Denying the reality of people who are bombing things here in the United States, blowing us up, going into Fort Hood and shooting people. Has nothing to do with Islam.

This is one of the problems. Here's another one, Hillary, that you just said: I just said one of the bravest and most true statements that has been uttered by an American politician on the plight of the African-American in inner cities, that has been spoken since possibly Booker T. Washington. And that is this: The African-Americans that is living in places like Chicago, where their kids and their relatives are being shot in the street, are living in hell.

And you responded with, "Oh, but you forget about all the great wonderful churches." Yes, and I've also left out that I'm sure there's a few cold stone creameries in Chicago as well. I'm sure I've left out there's some other really great things that happen. But it's also a living hell. And for you to ask the American people -- no, forget the American people. For you to ask African-Americans to deny the reality that they're living in some sort of hell -- and, quite honestly, Hillary, one you would never allow your children to live in. Never. You would never move in.

Well, I'm sorry. You moved into Harlem because you have presidential security.

PAT: Well, they -- she didn't.

GLENN: Yeah, she didn't.

PAT: He moved his office there.

GLENN: Yeah. And Harlem isn't the inner city of Philadelphia or the inner city of Chicago.

STU: It's actually pretty nice at this point.

GLENN: Yes. It's very nice.

STU: Many areas of it are very nice.

GLENN: So she just -- that was the craziest thing is both of them were asking us to deny reality. I've never seen it like this before. I've never seen it this obvious before.

PAT: Had he responded with those -- in that way, he would have destroyed her.

GLENN: Destroy her.

PAT: She would be absolutely destroyed. This thing would be over. It would be a runaway.

Featured Image: Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton speaks during the first presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York on September 26, 2016. (Photo Credit: JEWEL SAMAD/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.