Will Our Economic Bubble Burst Before the Election?

October 13, 2016

Writer

Harry Dent, author of the new book The Sale of a Lifetime and editor of Economy and Markets, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday to discuss the economic crisis facing America and what experts are calling an imminent crash of the stock market.

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

• What's the artificial bubble that's about to burst?

• Is Glenn going to sell all of his stocks?

• What does Harry Dent recommend for investors?

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

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Harry Dent, author of the new book The Sale of a Lifetime, editor of Economy and Markets at HarryDent.com.

Welcome, harry, how are you?

HARRY: Yeah, nice to be back, Glenn.

GLENN: In the 1980s, you kind of woke up to the stock market cycle. And you began to track this in a different way than everybody else. And you called the bubble of the '90s. You called the bubble of the early 2000s and 2008. And I've been following you for a while. And the one that is coming is gigantic. Would you agree?

HARRY: Yeah, it is. Because, you know, we have two natural bubbles with tech bubble and internet and then with the Baby Boomers peak and spending, which was into 2007, which like you said, we predicted 20 years before that happened, that we we'd have a greater boom than anybody thought. But then it would peak around 2007.

Of course, we've had quantitative easing ever since to try to ease the pain, and that still didn't work. But now we've got a third. And what I hate about it, totally artificial bubble that's all about printing free money. You know, $12 trillion of free money printed around the world.

And since zero interest rates were not low enough, now we've got to go negative in more and more countries. This is insanity to just force people to keep buying back their own stocks with companies or borrowing that little bit more or speculating more. Traders and stuff. And that's all we're growing on. So this is much more dangerous.

And I call this the third and final bubble. And when we peak into the '60s and early '70s, we had three higher highs in the market and three bigger crashes. And, of course, the last one, '73 to '74, was the big one. And that's what I'm seeing here, that 2017 to 2019, approximately, is going to be the time when we see a crash that's bigger and deeper than 2008 and '9. And it actually puts us into more of a depression than just a great recession.

When you grow debt, two and a halftimes GDP for 40 years, you're going to have a debt bubble. And that's going to cause financial asset bubbles and stocks and real estate commodities and everything else. And those bubbles are going to have to unwind. They have to, or you can't go forward in life. The economy can't move forward.

So we've been putting this off now for seven, eight years, which means, it's like a drug addict taking more and more to keep from coming down from the high. When you finally get hit and go to detox, it's not going to be pretty.

GLENN: But you know, a lot of people have taken this hit. Greece is probably the biggest. They've taken their hit.

Germany, they're still out of control. But they're still thinking that they're going to now bail-in. China spends more and more money. I mean, in your book, you talk about these ghost cities that are -- I mean, I was struck by this.

The Changsha City Sky Dream. You write: It was meant to become the world's tallest building at 2,749 feet, 202 stories, built in the shortest time. Imagine building a 202 story building. The Chinese wanted to build it in 90 days.

HARRY: Yeah.

GLENN: We built --

HARRY: It was the first prefab skyscraper. Oh, my gosh.

(chuckling)

GLENN: It's now a fishing hole. The whole thing was stopped and collapsed, and now they just -- the big hole in the ground where the foundation was. They've just filled it with water, and the locals are using it to raise fish.

But, anyway, there's another country completely out of control.

HARRY: You know, it's worse than that, Glenn. I mean, now the latest thing, Shenzhen, which is the most bubbly, large city there, they're now selling apartments, 66 square feet, the size of a decent closet, for $132,000, seven to ten times the income of the people in that city to get a closet to live in. I mean, if that's not a bubble, I don't know what is.

GLENN: So, Harry, the whole thing looks like it's coming down. Is there going to be any system that survives?

HARRY: Well, what happens at a time like this, this is when you can't listen to your stockbroker or even a good financial adviser. Because every -- you're going to have a big reset. We've had bubbles and everything, from this endless low and zero interest rates and endless stimulated economy and printing of money. And this is always going to happen, when this happens throughout history.

So everything has to reset. We even have a bond bubble. Normally, treasury bonds would be a safe place to go longer term. But they're going to have to at least correct it first from their own bubble, from central banks pushing down their yields to zero and negative, before they can grow again. And stocks have to come down. And real estate -- commodities have already crashed. I've been telling people for years, "When bubbles burst, it's not 20, 30, 40 percent. It is 70, 80, 90." And commodities have already collapsed, 70 to 80 percent, proving that when bubbles burst, they crash. They don't just go down slowly, and they don't just correct. And that's going to have to happen to everything else. So there's nowhere to hide. So the thing you do is you just get out.

I'm with HSBC. We said, hey, we're looking like we're going to break a key trend line up, which we did this morning. And the markets could be starting to crash again. And I never know exactly when it's going to happen. And the market never makes it easy. But it is going to be nasty. And one of the other things we've warned people, almost every bubble has had this happen, especially in stocks.

The first crash, even though the bubble is going to end up going down 80 percent on average, the first crash is going to be 40 to 45 percent in two to three months. And that happened in China last year. That happened in 1929. That happened in the tech bubble. It happened in the Nikkei bubble in Japan. And that's what we do in this book. We look at all major bubbles in history and say, "Look, these are not black swans when they crash. They build predictably over a period of time. They grow exponentially. But when they crash, they crash at least twice as fast. And half of that happens in the first two to three months." So you're an idiot if you don't get out a little early. If you want to wait until it's proven, you're going to be down 40 percent before you can react. That's not good investment strategy.

GLENN: So, Harry, I'm the average person, I don't have -- you know, I have a 401(k) or if I have a stockbroker. I barely even know his name.

HARRY: Right.

GLENN: And I go to the stockbroker, and they're going to say, "Look, keep it in. You know, this is long-term. You're going to lose money now, but you're not planning on pulling it out for another 20 years anyway. You leave it in."

HARRY: Yep. And that is why you cannot listen to these people now. Eighty percent of the time or more of that is right. But I tell people all the time, "When you see a major long-term generational spending wave peak, like in '29 or '68, and especially when you see a bubble like 1929 -- 1929 crash was 89 percent in stocks in less than three years, and it took 24 years to get back to even. If you had been a retiring person with a 401(k) plan back then, you would have been dead before you got back to even.

So that is not -- stocks don't always come back, not when you see a major bubble burst and/or when you see a long-term trend. Even in '68, that was not as much of a bubble boom.

But when the Bob Hope generation stopped spending, and when inflation and OPEC set in, it took 54 years to get back to even on that. Manhattan real estate, it crashed the most in the '30s. The greatest city in the world, supposedly, which people think can't go down.

Took into the mid-50s even longer than stocks to get back to even. So you have to get out of the way. And what we do in the book is we say, "Look, there's going to be different sectors over the, next, two, three, four, five years that are going to crash and bottom."

And, you know, we show models for bubbles to show, okay. You can know about how much downside there is. In real estate, it's more like 50 to 60 percent. In stocks, it's more like 70 to 80. In commodities, 80 to 90.

When you see that bubble get erased, then you can get back in long-term and listen to your financial adviser again.

But right now, they will tell you the wrong thing. I can guarantee you. They will just say, "It's all right. You're diversified."

Diversification didn't help in 2008 and '9. And it will help less now. And this is the final bubble crash. There's no way the fed can pull this stunt again if we go into a worst downturn. They're going to lose all credibility.

So you got to just get out of the way. And I'm just saying, look, we have four major indicators, which you mentioned a lot of them earlier, that all point down the same time into late 2000 (inaudible) -- we just got about a three-year period here of extreme danger, after that, you can feel better about stepping back in.

But, hey, what's it to miss three years of stock games when the stock market has, by the way, gone nowhere in the last couple of years, and commodities have only gone down?

So it's bubbled up so much that we think there's less than this. And Baron Rothschild always said, "The secret to my wealth was I always sold a little early."

GLENN: Harry, the -- you say that have cash on hand.

HARRY: Yes.

GLENN: I read a story yesterday that, you know, cash is crashing everywhere. And it's crashing because the central banks can't control it anymore. Our own central bank -- the Federal Reserve, has a white paper out, an internal white paper that was released that shows if this next recession hits, to make any impact, they believe they have to print $4 trillion in bailout stimulus money. And they said, "We're not even sure that would work." I mean, what happens to cash? Are you concerned about cash?

HARRY: I tell you, one of the things I show in the book is how all -- the total financial assets, loans, you know, mortgages, stocks, bonds, everything -- it's about $300 trillion, far beyond stretched any time in history. Can't even compare it.

That's $300 trillion. And in a time like the 1930s when these bubbles de-leverage. I'm talking about a minimum $120 trillion in financial assets, disappearing and not coming back for a long time.

So I would say, if the central banks want to offset the next downturn, they're going to have to print 100 trillion or more worldwide. I don't think they can get away with that.

So 4 trillion would not be enough. They don't know what they're talking about.

GLENN: I know.

EVAN: But they're just trying to slide by and keep the bubble going until they retire from office, like Bernanke or, you know, Obama now and any other president. Everybody just wants to push this thing down the road until the next administration or fed chairman comes in. Because somebody is going to have to take the consequences. You don't get something for nothing. If there's nothing I've learned in life, that's the number one lesson: You don't get something for nothing. And we've had the biggest for nothing economy for decades, but particularly since the financial crisis in 2008 and '9, when we've been living on printed money. You can't solve a debt crisis by creating more debt and printing more money. Because that's how you got there in the first place, printing money through debt. This is crazy.

GLENN: Harry, do you believe that you can trust the banks to keep your money in?

HARRY: No. Because they lend money out. And they've got -- I mean, Deutsche Bank is down 92 percent since its peak in 2007, and continuing to go down because they've got $55 trillion in derivative exposures. You know, four times or whatever -- six times the GDP of Germany or whatever. And bad loans in Italy and bad loans in Germany, bad loans with frackers in the United States.

You know, Italian and German banks and more and more banks have bad loans. And when those loans go bad, they only have 10 percent capital, which Deutsche Bank only has 3 percent because they've been battered. And you start losing money on loans. And all of a sudden, oops, you don't have the money to give depositors back because they lend against your deposits. And they're your deposits, not yours. They don't just raise capital and lend out money.

That's what a normal financial institution should do. They pledge ten percent of our deposits. And then like in the Depression, when those loans go bad, they're like, "Well, you know, we said we had your deposits, but we actually don't. We lost it. We lent it out, 10:1 to your reserves, in deposits, and we never -- and we didn't get it back." So you can't. You have to have your money in a brokerage account. I prefer to be with an independent firm that only does transactions. There's not invest in investment banking or speculate in the markets or lend money from mortgages online or anything. And you just have your money in your own name. They cannot lend against an account in your own name. They can lend against your checking or savings account.

GLENN: Okay. Harry, I've got literally ten seconds. I need a yes or a no on this. Do you think this bubble is going to happen fast enough to affect the election?

HARRY: Possibly, because we just made a big break today. So we could be down 10 percent in a matter of weeks. And, yes, a down market helps the outsider like Trump, and it hurts the insider like Clinton. We've said that for a long time.

GLENN: It could.

Okay. My grandfather -- my grandfather lived through the Depression, and he always said the people who made money during the Depression were the people that had money during the Depression that got their money out.

HARRY: Exactly.

GLENN: That's the premise of Harry's book, The Sale of a Lifetime. Everywhere now. The Sale of a Lifetime. Harry, always good to have you on. Thank you so much for the warning today.

HARRY: Okay. Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Harry Dent from The Glenn Beck Program

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

Will Our Economic Bubble Burst Before the Election?

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