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

Tomi Lahren: I'm Brave Enough to Put Myself in a Position Where I'm Going to be Attacked

December 01, 2016
Staff

WRITER

A ridiculously-titled article from GQ Magazine labels Tomi Lahren of TheBlaze the 'queen of the alt-right.' The article follows an on-air interview Tomi did as a guest on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.

"That is a ridiculous title for her. She was a Marco Rubio supporter. There's no evidence of that at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Additionally, during the interview with Noah, the host deliberately misinterpreted Tomi's comments about the Ku Klux Klan, painting her as downplaying or being ignorant of the group's horrific activities.

"This is what I'm trying desperately to beg the press not to do. Please, no one will listen to who the alt-right is. This is five percent of the right. No one will listen to who those people are if you paint the brush that everyone is alt-right. Because they're not. Tomi Lahren is not," Glenn said.

Tomi joined Glenn on air to discuss the interview with Trevor Noah and how she's ready, willing and able to take the heat.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Listen to the first hour of the podcast today, where we showed you what happened with Tomi Lahren last night in GQ, based on a Trevor Noah interview on The Daily Show. Which, he is just horrible.

But she was denounced as the queen of the alt-right. Tomi Lahren is not an alt-righter. She is not. And -- she is a Marco Rubio supporter, for the love of Pete.

And while we disagree on a lot of things, this is why Donald Trump won. Because people are so sick of the press getting away, editing, and saying whatever they want. The big gotcha moment was her saying -- and I'm just going to give it to you like the press is, "So what did the KKK do?"

What did the KKK -- well, if you don't know, I can't help you. That's the way the press is reporting it.

Let me give it to you in context. Look at what Black Lives Matter is doing. They're calling for the death of a group of people. They are terrorizing people. They are setting cities on fire. Well, tell me, what did the KKK do?

Well, gee, now, that's different, isn't it?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And that's why the press is despised. And until the press corrals themselves and starts looking at themselves, nobody is going to listen to them when they say, "This person is good. This person is bad."

Tomi Lahren is with us now from the Blaze. Hello, Tomi, how are you?

TOMI: I'm doing well. Thank you, Glenn.

You know, we're used to this as conservatives. We're used to this as being outside of the mainstream idea. So I knew -- I had an idea that this was probably going happen. But at least we put ourselves out there, right?

GLENN: No. And I actually thought you did well.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And actually so did GQ. I mean, GQ wanted to hate you. You know, they took their typical shots, but they couldn't even hate you. In fact, they said you didn't give them the stereotypical angry, you know, right-wing hatemonger that they were obviously wanting.

TOMI: Well, I smiled through the whole thing.

And I have to say, the way that some of Trevor Noah's fans and others on the left and what have you are responding to me is vile in many ways. I've seen Twitter.

But Trevor himself, after the show, I was actually very impressed with the way he handled me. He said, "Hey, you know, I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I'm glad we could have the conversation."

Same thing happened with a few folks from the left today saying, "Hey, I think you did a good job. We disagree, but you held your own." I smiled through the whole thing. I was in obviously a tough crowd. I don't think that there was a conservative or a supporter in the crowd.

GLENN: Oh, no.

PAT: No way.

TOMI: And I just smiled and -- and took it. Because at least I'm brave enough to put myself in a position where I'm going to be attacked. And I think I held my own. And I'm happy with it.

GLENN: Oh, I think you did more than hold your own, myself. And Trevor Noah was -- I mean, he's just horrible. And I'm sure he's a nice guy and everything else. But he was just horrible.

And when it came to you -- we seem to feel this way. Did you feel this way? It was like he wasn't even looking at you. He couldn't make eye contact with you.

TOMI: He -- I think -- and I don't want to speak for him because I don't know what's in his heart and his mind. But I feel that a lot of times -- and you know this better than anyone, Glenn: The liberals, they want to come at you. They want to demonize you. And so they don't want to humanize you. They don't want to look at you and say, "Hey, you're an actual person." They want to look at you and say, "You're a racist. You're a bigot. You're the alt-right." And if they look at you and actually engage with you, it makes it harder for them to put you in that pigeonhole. So I think there's some of that going on.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Wow.

TOMI: I tried to laugh. I tried to have a good conversation. On the outset, I was told it was supposed to be late night comedy. We were supposed to have fun and disagree.

And then sat down, and right in with, "Why are you so angry?" And I sat down thinking, "I'm not angry. I'm typically a pretty happy person. But I guess if we want to go there right off the bat, that's fine. I'll play that game."

PAT: Tomi, did you ever ask anybody on the staff when did Trevor Noah ever engage in comedy?

(laughter)

PAT: Did you ever ask that question? Because that's a legitimate --

GLENN: Yeah, because we haven't seen any comedy coming from him. And neither has America. Neither did GQ.

They said, "It wasn't funny. But that was okay." Yeah, it's only okay because it's Trevor Noah. That's what you expect. But anyway...

TOMI: But to disagree with a liberal or you disagree with anyone on the left or anyone in Black Lives Matter or whatever, you disagree with them, and you're automatically a racist. They disagree with you, and they're a social justice warrior. And they really came at you, and they did, you know, some kind of a great deed for their cause. But as soon as I open my mouth -- it doesn't matter what I would have said. If I would have went out there and said, "I love the Black Lives Matter movement," it wouldn't have mattered. I mean, they were already determined to paint me the way that they wanted to. And at the end of the day, we're used to it. So I'm not going to cry myself to sleep.

STU: Tomi, I know that they heavily edited the interview. I think it was 26 minutes long, and they only aired maybe six minutes of it.

GLENN: What a surprise.

STU: So there was a lot taken out of it.

But one of the more amazing parts of what they showed on TV was he repeatedly said to you he could not understand your point. He -- and he kept saying it. I can't understand it. I've tried so many times to understand your point, that Colin Kaepernick, the NFL quarterback who kneeled during the national anthem to protest it, your point was, he has a First Amendment right to do it, but I disagree with him doing it.

How can you be for speech and against speech? He legitimately could not comprehend that point.

Did he ever at any point clarify, or did you ever get to an understanding on what seems to be a pretty basic First Amendment point?

TOMI: Well, he wouldn't listen to me. And that's the thing, he kept saying -- and everyone still says today, "You didn't answer his question. How is a black man supposed to protest?"

Again, I was telling him, I'm not talking about his right to protest. I'm saying, I think the way he did it and the outlet in which he chose to express it, being our flag and our anthem, was wrong in my opinion, and I voiced that.

But he didn't want to listen to what I said. And then he just kept continuing, "How should a black man protest?"

Well, Trevor, quite honestly, Colin Kaepernick didn't vote, so there is one way that a black man can protest in an appropriate way. I mean, that would be a start, right?

But it's all -- it's all their narrative. I don't think it would have mattered what I would have said.

PAT: Uh-huh.

TOMI: Because the left, they fail to understand because they don't want to understand. I -- you and I both have this in common: We legitimately want to understand the worldview of the left, of the liberals, of opposing views. We want to put ourselves in that position to strengthen our own arguments.

The left doesn't seem concerned with doing that. They are happy where they sit. They are happy and comfortable, and they feel like they're martyrs for the cause.

But I think like you said at the beginning, that's changing now. You know, we've got Donald Trump as president. Love him or hate him, you've got a lot of Americans that voted for him and, like you said, that are just sick and tired of this crap.

PAT: Uh-huh.

TOMI: We are tired of being labeled. We are tired of being scapegoated for everything. And we're tired of not being listened to. So the times are changing. And I think that the Trevor Noahs of the world are going to start seeing that.

GLENN: Well, here's the thing: I was really impressed with Penn Jillette when he went to the atheist, what was that? Reason rally.

TOMI: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. They do every year.

GLENN: And it's all these atheists. And he got up. And what he said was really, I thought, impressive.

He said, "We cannot hate or treat people the way we feel we've been treated. We feel that we were yelled at, called names, and everything else. We can't do that to anyone."

In other words, let's love our Christian brothers and our Hindu brothers and everybody else who said, you know, atheists are bad people. Let's show them how we should react.

Do you feel you did that last night with Trevor Noah?

TOMI: Right. I think I smiled through it. We had a good conversation after the fact. I don't have any beef with the guy. I expected it to be that way.

And, you know what, at least they were kind enough to have me on the show. I appreciate that much.

Sometimes, as you know, they attack us, and they don't even bring us on. And they just want to attack us. So at least he brought me on. I hope to do more of these things. I hope that they --

GLENN: You realize, though, Tomi --

TOMI: What's that?

GLENN: You realize -- you realize that you don't need them. They need you. You know that, right?

TOMI: Well, and there was a part -- if you look at the extended interview, where he tried to tell me that I was now the mainstream because I pulled big numbers on Facebook. That doesn't make me the mainstream. It means that I'm more viewed than you are, but that doesn't mean I'm the mainstream.

GLENN: Right.

TOMI: I've been able to dupe the mainstream. So that doesn't make me a part of it. It makes me smarter than it.

(laughter)

GLENN: Tomi, was it worth doing?

TOMI: It was. Any time you're able to have these conversations, it's worth doing. At least it got people talking.

Like I told him last night, I could have gone on Fox News and then watched them kiss my butt. I chose not to do that. I chose to put myself in an environment where I knew I'd be challenged, and I will never regret that.

GLENN: Okay. Tomi Lahren, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

PAT: That's great.

TOMI: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Tomi Lahren. You bet. From TheBlaze. An up-and-coming, I mean, media powerhouse.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Tomi Lahren with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show.

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.