Australian Author Recounts 'Awful' Ordeal Trying to Legally Enter the U.S.

October 12, 2016

Writer

Nick Adams, author of the new book Green Card Warrior: My Quest for Legal Immigration in an Illegals' System, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Wednesday to discuss his harrowing experience trying to legally enter the U.S.

"The United States had a little jihad against Nick. Now, he has his green card," Glenn said.

In his book, Adams details what was supposed to be a routine meeting with the Citizenship and Immigration Service, part of the Department of Homeland Security.

"I got an absolutely awful individual at the U.S. Consulate in Sydney. And that sparked the beginning of what would be ten months of absolute turmoil, impacting my finances, impacting my health, my family's health, my career. And it was just something that I will never ever forget," Adams said.

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

• Why does Nick love America so much?

• How have Nick's pro-American ideas negatively impacted his career?

• Why does Nick believe America is still the most optimistic, energetic place?

• What does Nick describe as political correctness on steroids?

• Who put Nick on a No Fly List and why?

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

GLENN: Nick Adams, author of a new book, Green Card Warrior: My Quest for Legal Immigration in an Illegals' System.

Nick is a good friend of the program, been a friend of ours for a long time, and the last time he was here, he said, "I don't know if I'm going to be able to come back." The United States had a little jihad against Nick. Now, he has his green card now.

It has taken you how many years?

NICK: Four and a half years.

GLENN: Four and a half years. How much money?

NICK: $50,000.

GLENN: $50,000. Now, here's what happened. Because the book details all of this, and it's a great read. And if you really want to know what's happening in our country, read this book.

You were -- you were on the track to get a green card as a -- what do you call it? Extraordinary Ability?

NICK: Extraordinary Ability green card. That's right.

GLENN: So what you have to do is prove that you're the top 1 percent of your field, your profession, and you can get a green card. But you were put on a No Fly List.

NICK: Well, that's exactly right, Glenn. So I had an Extraordinary Ability green card approved petition. So the Citizenship and Immigration Service, part of the Department of Homeland Security, they make the assessment on whether or not you qualify for a green card. The very last step for anybody that is going to get a visa or a green card to enter the United States is a formality meeting that occurs at the local consulate or embassy in your home country, where you pony up and you show your passport, the original of your birth certificate, your police check, and your medical check. It's meant to be very routine, very procedural.

Well, mine was anything but. I got an absolutely awful individual at the U.S. Consulate in Sydney. And that sparked the beginning of what would be ten months of absolute turmoil, impacting my finances, impacting my health, my family's health, my career. And it was just something that I will never ever forget. I mean, I -- those --

GLENN: So who was the individual? Let's start with this. You said -- I mean, your idea of America came from a doctor who diagnosed you with cancer when you were really young and helped cure you. And you've always looked up at America.

You have been so pro-American that you actually were losing jobs in your home country because you were not liked because of your view of America, correct?

NICK: Well, that's exactly right, Glenn. I think -- all my adult life, I've been fighting the ogre of the left. It started when I was a third-year university student, and I was denied an internship at the national broadcaster in Australia.

It continued when I was involved in politics, being publicly elected at the age of 19 at the local government in Sydney and becoming the youngest deputy mayor in Australian history at 21, when the little totalitarians in my own conservative party decided to vilify me because I was outspoken.

It continued when I was a high school teacher. And, yes, you're right, as I've gained prominence in the United States, particularly in the last or three years, I've become unemployable. I can't get a job in Australia because I go on Fox News, because I go on TheBlaze, and because I'm a patriot.

And that's a really, really big problem. And it's part of the reason why I wanted to come to the United States. So I recognize that I --

GLENN: It's not going to get better for you here.

(laughter)

NICK: Well, I'm working on turning it around. I'm working on turning it around. Even with all of the problems that America has got right now, this is still the most optimistic, energetic place. This is still the place where you can rise above the circumstances.

GLENN: So when you were going into the consulate -- you describe it in the book as a very gray, drab, and mean person that you're coming into and a drab, ugly building.

Would you have felt the same way if that was the image of America that you had when you were young? You had the -- I mean, it's not the same image.

NICK: Well, no, it's not. And it's really interesting, Glenn. That the consulate looked and felt entirely different to real America. And I know that that's something that's close to your heart. Real America is warm. There's enthusiastic patriotism. There is generous hospitality. There are people that are really colorful and identities.

And this place was just political correctness on steroids. I mean, it was -- there was nothing on the walls. It was completely and utterly gray, as I describe it in the book, and as you have outlined.

So I -- I mean, I went in there wanting to get my job done. And, unfortunately, I couldn't.

And this is the first documented case that we have of the State Department. Because all consulates and all embassies come under the State Department. This is the first documented case we have of the Hillary Clinton State Department, of the John Kerry State Department, of the State Department under the Obama administration, using the legal immigration office to vet or screen potential immigrants based on their politics.

Because what our investigations uncovered -- and this is all in the book. This is explosive. This is a tell-all. Green Card Warrior is a tell-all, explosive, blockbuster book, which I think is going to impact this election and catapult immigration back to the forefront of discussions.

Because what's happening right now is just wrong. Good people struggle to come here, and bad people get to come here legally. And now investigations uncovered that the individual that was at the center of this has got political views that are the opposite of mine, has a different sexual orientation than me, and it's very clear that all of that fit in to my case being sent back to citizenship and immigration services with a recommendation that it had been revoked.

GLENN: Okay. Now, wait a minute. Did this person put your name on a No Fly List?

NICK: Well, I don't know for sure if that person put me on a No Fly List. I was on a No Fly List because my family and I, as I detail in the book, were trying to fly to the United States. I was with my mum and dad, and we were turned away.

JEFFY: They didn't let you know ahead of time? They waited until you got to the airport?

NICK: That's exactly right.

And the not authorized travel document is in Green Card Warrior. So I was put on a No Fly List. I couldn't travel here. And there are so many things about the legal immigration system that people don't know.

Glenn, had it not been for some very courageous senators and congressmen that stood up for me and represented me to the Citizenship and Immigration Service, I likely wouldn't be able to be here today. Because had my application been revoked, had they agreed with the recommendation of this official in the U.S. Consulate in Sydney, not only would I not have gotten a green card, there's something in the law called immigrant intent.

And immigrant intent stipulates that if you have formerly demonstrated a desire to be a permanent resident of the United States and the government knocks you back, they reject you, then you are never, ever again allowed to reenter the United States in your lifetime. That is a fact that no one knows.

So here I am facing a lifetime ban of coming to the country that I love so much, that I've worked so hard to build a life and a career in. I was in negotiations with Fox News. Things were happening for me. I had a new nonprofit.

I had no future or career in my own country. And then the country that I love, I was staring down the barrel of never being able to go back. I was the ultimate refugee. But no one ever spoke about me. No one cared about me.

And those nights that I spent -- I mean, I get emotional when I think about it.

GLENN: How did you find out who this person was that --

NICK: Well, I showed some American-style initiative. You see, obviously consulates and embassies around the world these days understandably, because of the threats that are posed by people that don't like America, operate under very strict security.

So I thought, "Well, how do I go about and find out -- because you see, Glenn, I went to my attorneys. And my attorneys said -- I had the best of the best in Manhattan. And they said, "Nick, we've been practicing immigration law for four decades. We have never ever seen anything like this.

Technically, this is a thing called a consular return. It exists under the law, but it is used so sparingly. And anyone that uses this particularly in your case, with you being as high profile as you are, this is very clearly an abuse of power."

So I said, "Well, I've got to try and get to the bottom of this." They said, "We're probably never going to know." And I said, "Well, let me try and work on that."

And so I went through the equivalent of the State Department in the Australian government. So I went to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. And I managed to get my hands on a list of every single diplomat from every country in the world in Australia, and I went to the US section.

I was able to narrow it down to the U.S. Consulate. And I knew from a letter that we also have published in Green Card Warrior, the letter that informed me that my application was sent back, that the person who signed it was a vice consul. And I knew that I had seen this individual. Because he'd interviewed me. So I knew that I could match up the face with the name, but there were eight vice consuls.

So I went through social media. And I made sure that I found everything out. And I was able to capture everything on this individual's social media account. And it became very clear to me that public statements that I've made over the years concerning feminism only producing angry women and feminine men and my arguments in support of traditional family values and my love of America were the reasons why I was vilified. They wanted to vilify an enemy of the left.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Okay. The name of the book is Green Card Warrior: My Quest for Legal Immigration in an Illegals' System. Nick Adams is the author.

So you moved here to Texas. This part -- when I got to this part in the book, my eyes started to bleed.

JEFFY: There's more?

GLENN: Oh, yeah. There's two parts that will make your eyes bleed.

You're moving to Texas. The senators that you reached out to. Did you get help from any Texas senators?

NICK: Well, the only senator, Glenn, that I reached out to in all of my dealings, when I came to the United States to try and do something about it -- even though I had been advised by my attorneys to not come, that I should stay in Australia. And I prayed about that with my mum and dad. And they said, "Nick, you've done nothing wrong. You need to go over there and fight." And so I tried to muster up as much political support as I could, and I end up having six US senators and more than a dozen congressmen support me.

GLENN: This is going to kill you. This is going to kill you.

NICK: The only Senate office that I rang that did not offer assistance after I spoke to them was Senator Ted Cruz's office.

GLENN: Was the only one that didn't help?

NICK: Was the only one that didn't help.

GLENN: Okay. And the one that gave you the most -- ooh, this hurts.

The one that gave you the most help?

NICK: Was Senator Lindsey Graham's office, who were absolutely amazing, and I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to.

GLENN: Oh, dear God.

STU: Stations, we're going to edit out that last two minutes.

(laughter)

GLENN: Phenomenal. Absolutely phenomenal.

Nick, I'm glad you're here. And I'm glad you're around, just around the corner, staying here in Texas. Good to have you.

NICK: Oh, Glenn. Listen, I've waited all my life to be here. I can't wait to start my life properly. This is the best country in the history of the world. That's why I've come here.

I've come to make, not take. Give, not receive. I've come to try and turn this country around, not let it become the country that I left and like everywhere else in the world. This is such a special, special, special place. And I fought tooth and nail to come here. And now I'm going to clean up the left that tried to kick me out.

JEFFY: Hey, did you hear that? We cannot have somebody like that in this country.

GLENN: I know.

Green Card Warrior is the name of the book. The guy doesn't have a job. Buy his book. It's 9.90 on Amazon right now. Green Card Warrior: My Quest for Legal Immigration in an Illegals' System. Nick Adams, author of Retaking America. Green Card Warrior. Nick Adams is his name. Go buy the book right now.

Thank you so much, Nick, we'll talk again.

Featured Image: Close-up of a passport with cash, boarding pass and travel book (Credit: michaelquirk)

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Australian Author Recounts 'Awful' Ordeal Trying to Legally Enter the U.S.

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Prosecutors stopped a New Year’s Eve bombing plot rooted in ideology that treats the US as an enemy to be destroyed.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.

When ideology turns operational

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

The red-green alliance

This moment is different

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

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.

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

Not-so-expert advice

A republic no more?

The path forward

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

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.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

Choosing death over care

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

The logical end of a broken system

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

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.

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.

How Sharia arrives

The warning from those who have lived under it

America is vulnerable

Wake up before it is too late