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

As the Election Turns: Our Real Life Soap Opera

September 29, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

A presidential election, murder, an international beauty contest --- it's the stuff of daytime TV. Yet, it's all happening right before our eyes. Are we living in a real life soap opera?

Who better to weigh in than a real soap opera writer?

"In fact, we have a soap opera writer --- Ellen," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Ellen Wheeler, Head of Content at Mercury Radio Arts, also happens to be an Emmy-award-winning actress and former writer for Guiding Light.

"Imagine if I come to you and I say, Okay, all right, so far we've done all the things that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have done. These are the characters. Now, we're going to have her bring up a Miss Universe that he called Miss Piggy, and we're going to smear her. But what they don't know is that in Venezuela she drove the getaway car in a murder," Glenn said.

With experience on two major daytime TV shows that included playing evil twins, Ellen shared her unique perspective.

"It's always been one of my favorite things when real life trumps -- ha ha -- trumps what you could write in a soap opera, and people would say, You can't write that story line. That is too outrageous," she said.

Could Ellen have gotten away with writing the storyline in As the Election Turns?

"People would have beat me up for writing a story like that," she admitted.

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

• Did Anderson Cooper get Alicia Machado to admit to being accessory to murder?

• How proficient is Alicia Machado's English?

• How famous is Alicia Machado in Venezuela and Mexico?

• Does Alicia Machado have a past?

• Does anyone really care about this?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Here's the problem: Is there anyone in this story -- when I heard the Anderson Cooper interview with Miss Universe, honestly, you could -- soap opera writers would look at what's happening, and they would mock this. They would say, "Okay. Come on."

In fact, we have a soap opera writer, Ellen, is this -- is this soap opera of the last year and all of the things that are going on -- imagine if I come to you and I say, "Okay. All right. So far we've done all the things that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have done. Okay. These are the characters. Now, we're going to have her bring up a Miss Universe that he called Miss Piggy, and we're going to smear her. But what they don't know is that in Venezuela she drove the getaway car in a murder."

ELLEN: It's always been one of my favorite things when real life trumps -- ha ha -- trumps what you could write in a soap opera, and people would say, "You can't write that story line. That is too outrageous."

GLENN: So you know, Ellen is an Emmy-award-winning actress. And wrote -- did you just write Guiding Light?

ELLEN: Guiding Light.

GLENN: Okay. And she was on -- I know just.

She wrote every episode of like -- for three years. And she was on Bold & Beautiful and everything else.

ELLEN: So there's no story I can't make up.

GLENN: And you played an evil twin.

ELLEN: I've played an evil twin twice. Three times, if you count real life, right? Three times if you count my own marriage.

But --

GLENN: Wait. There might be something to delve into on some point on that.

ELLEN: But I do think it's fun when life is bigger than the weird art that you could create. And people would have beat me up for writing a story like that.

GLENN: Right. They would say no way anybody would believe this.

ELLEN: Yeah.

GLENN: No way. The only thing that we haven't seen so far is an evil twin. That's the only thing. Or -- oh, my gosh. Oh, maybe, wait, wait, wait. Maybe Zuckerberg is right. We're in the Matrix. Oh, please let this be a dream. Please let me wake up in the shower. Please let this be a dream, like it was in Dallas.

JEFFY: But we have kind of seen the twin, right? With the Hillary double.

PAT: Yes. We kind of have.

GLENN: Yes, we have. So we only have the dream sequence left. And that ends happy.

PAT: So this was Miss Universe. Which that is a little bit presumptuous of us, right?

GLENN: Can we downgrade her to at least Miss Galaxy?

PAT: At least Solar System. We know she's maybe the most beautiful in the solar system. We have no idea about galaxy or solar system.

GLENN: Right. Right. And who are we to judge?

PAT: But here's the Anderson Cooper clip.

ANDERSON: You said that, you know, the Trump campaign will try to discredit you. There are reports that Trump surrogates tonight have been referencing and pointing to on CNN and elsewhere about an incident in 1998 in Venezuela where you were accused of driving a getaway car from a murder scene. You were never charged with this. The judge in this case also said you had threatened to kill him after he indicted your boyfriend for the attempted murder. I just want to give you a chance to address these reporters that the Trump surrogates are talked about.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Now, you're watching this, and you're thinking to yourself, there's no way this can be true.

PAT: Right. You're thinking, she's going to say, "Absolutely not."

GLENN: Right. There's no way this can be true.

PAT: The Trump people are making that up.

GLENN: Because Hillary would never pin her hopes on a Miss Universe thing who, oh, by the way, also assisted in a murder. Right?

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Here's her answer.

ALICIA: He can say whatever he wants to say. I don't care. You know, I have my past. Of course, everybody has --

PAT: You have a past.

ALICIA: Everybody have a past.

PAT: Oh. Yeah, but not everybody has participated in a murder for a past.

GLENN: No, wait. Wait. Wait. And so far, I'm still believing her. When I'm watching this, I'm still going, okay. Maybe she's just saying -- he's just --

PAT: I'm not. At that point?

GLENN: I'm thinking, he can say whatever he wants. He's just making this up. She's going to come back and say, "That's ridiculous." But you know Donald, he says whatever he wants to. He believed the National Enquirer. I thought that's where she was going at this point.

ALICIA: I'm no saint girl.

PAT: She's not a saint girl.

GLENN: Saint girl.

PAT: I'm not a saint girl.

GLENN: So when I heard that I thought, "Well, let's see, Mother Teresa is technically a saint, and she didn't murder anyone, that we know of."

PAT: She set the bar way too high.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: By not murdering somebody. Come on, we can't all do that. We can't all do that.

(laughter)

GLENN: I'm not a saint. No, I think you understand the definition of the word "saint."

STU: I mean, I think obviously this plays to whether this is going to be an effective campaign for Hillary Clinton.

PAT: It's not.

STU: Does anyone think -- does it make it okay to call a Venezuelan woman Miss Housekeeping because, in the future, she might commit a crime, or she might do porn in the future, after the incident where you call her Miss Housekeeping?

GLENN: Yeah, no. So here's the thing: The trouble with this is there's no good guys in this soap opera. There's nobody. I mean, no soap opera lasts when you don't have somebody that you're rooting for, somebody that you like. Where the best character in this is a Tony Soprano.

JEFFY: Yeah, maybe.

GLENN: So you kind of -- after you kind of feel dirty. When you're like, I'm not entirely comfortable with rooting for Tony Soprano. Oh, yeah, but it's fun.

This eventually isn't fun. And you're just left with that dirty feeling of rooting for Tony Soprano. At some point -- I mean, honestly, think of all the people surrounding both Trump and Clinton.

Do you have friends like those guys do?

You know, yeah, I want you to meet Sandy. He went into the national archives and was smuggling things out of his underpants, but he's cool. Oh, this is Miss Universe. And Donald Trump was calling her Miss Piggy, and she assisted in a murder. But she's great. You don't have these kinds of friends on either side.

Oh, this is -- I want you to meet my -- my new CEO. He -- he's a big fan of, you know, the neo-Nazi movement. He's helping rebrand that whole thing right now.

(laughter)

PAT: Well, if there's anybody who needs re-branding, it's the neo-Nazis.

GLENN: The Neo-Nazis. Skinheads.

PAT: They don't have a good PR firm.

GLENN: Yes, they do. It's called Breitbart.

(laughter)

JEFFY: Chelsea opened the door for Trump to be able to respond next time though, right? I mean, because she responded saying that, "Oh, it's just a distraction from his inability to talk about what's actually at stake in this election."

PAT: Oh, that's --

JEFFY: So now Donald can say, "I'm fighting back. I'm punching back."

ANDERSON: You said that, you know, the Trump campaign will try to discredit you. There are reports that Trump surrogates tonight have been referencing and pointing to on CNN and elsewhere about an incident in 1998 in Venezuela where you were accused of driving a getaway car from a murder scene. You were never charged with this. The judge in the case also said you had threatened to kill him after he indicted your boyfriend for the attempted murder. I just want to give you a chance to address these reports that the Trump surrogates are talking about.

ALICIA: He can say whatever he wants to say. I don't care. You know, I have my past. Of course, everybody has. Everybody have a past.

GLENN: Murder and threatening judges.

ALICIA: And I'm -- a saint girl.

GLENN: You're no saint girl?

ALICIA: But that is not the point now.

PAT: Hmm. Uh-huh.

ALICIA: That moment in Venezuela --

GLENN: Uh-huh.

ALICIA: -- was wrong.

GLENN: Wrong.

ALICIA: Was another speculation about my life.

GLENN: Hold it.

ALICIA: Because I'm a really famous person in my country.

GLENN: Wait. Stop. Stop. She is denying it

PAT: She's essentially admitting it.

JEFFY: No, I think it's the other way.

STU: She's saying that moment was wrong. There was a lot of speculation.

PAT: It sounds like she's saying it was wrong of her to do that.

STU: I think she has a tenuous grasp on the English language.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Well, that's clear.

STU: She says that moment -- that was wrong, and there was a lot of speculation.

GLENN: Okay. I thought she was saying that moment, like me driving the getaway car.

PAT: That's what I thought she was saying.

GLENN: Oh, okay.

STU: Right. Right.

ALICIA: Because I'm an actress there and in Mexico too.

JEFFY: Wait. What?

GLENN: I'm an actress.

JEFFY: Yeah, I haven't seen those videos.

ALICIA: He can use whatever he wants to use.

The point is, that happened 20 years ago.

GLENN: Stop.

STU: They're not real though.

PAT: She's admitting it. That happened 20 years ago.

GLENN: That happened 20 years ago.

PAT: Something happened, and she was a part of it.

STU: By the way, so is the reason you're on Anderson Cooper. That also happened 20 years ago.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

STU: Is a little less important than a murder investigation.

GLENN: Murder. Yeah.

Wait. Wait. Wait. So she's accused of driving the getaway car for her boyfriend who murdered somebody, and then threatening the judge that I'm going to kill you. I think that's kind of an important thing to decide whether -- I mean, it has nothing to do with Donald Trump calling her Miss Piggy. And Miss Housekeeper, Housekeeping is worse.

STU: But isn't this --

GLENN: Maybe, maybe, I don't know.

STU: Isn't this Hillary Clinton just using a play from Donald Trump's playbook?

You can call Ted Cruz's dad the murderer of JFK. Everyone starts talking about it. You direct the conversation to that for a few days. And the fact that in the end, that you're completely wrong, what does that even matter? The point is, she got 84 million people to hear him calling a woman -- a Venezuelan, Miss Housekeeping. The fact that she has issues later on -- two and three days later -- when they fact-check it on Anderson Cooper is meaningless. I mean, this is the same tactic he's been using the entire campaign. And she's using it too. That's where we are in 2016.

GLENN: We are as what's his name, Yiannopoulos, or whatever his name is -- we are in a post-fact period.

Featured Image: Actress Alicia Machado speaks onstage during the NALIP 2016 Latino Media Awards at Dolby Theatre on June 25, 2016 in Hollywood, California. (Photo by John Sciulli/Getty Images for NALIP)

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.