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

WATCH: Dave Rubin's Conversion From Progressive to Classical Liberal

February 22, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Toss away the labels and groupthink, and you've got a solid chance of helping a progressive believer see the light --- as long as they let reason, not emotion rule their thinking.

That's exactly what happened to Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report and former progressive who now calls himself a classical liberal. Rubin, who recently filmed a video with Prager U about his conversion, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday.

"I think something happened to 'progressive' in the last couple of years where it went from at least some healthy dose of true liberalism, classical liberalism and it's become just an authoritarian mess," Rubin said.

"So maybe I was a little late to the party on some of that stuff. Maybe I have just a high tolerance for some old-fashioned BS. Really, if you look back at my show for the last two years, I've spent the last two years of my life trying to get some of the good liberals to realize what's happening, and I think I succeeded at some of that. But clearly the progressives are going off the deep end."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Dave Rubin. A talk show about big ideas and free speech. He does the RubinReport.com. I was out in Los Angeles, I don't know, a few weeks ago. Stopped by his beautiful studios in Los Angeles and did about an hour with him. I found him to be extraordinarily engaging and not the guy I thought, had you known that he used to work at, what Was it? Young Turks Network, which is run by a crazy guy, in my opinion.

But Dave is with us now. Hi, Dave, how are you?

DAVE: Glenn, it's good to be with you. I should tell you before we start that I am actually on vacation right now on an undisclosed island. I've been off the grid for about five days. So I have no idea what's happening in the world. I still have five days in front of me here. So this is the only on-the-grid thing I'm doing. So whatever we do here, let's just not ruin my vacation.

GLENN: Okay. So that we shouldn't tell you what happened over the weekend. We'll leave it -- we won't ask you any of those questions.

DAVE: Yeah. Well, we should probably stay away from that.

I did -- you know, I opened my phone once, just to check what time it was. And I glanced at my Twitter feed for a second. I can see a lot of crazy things are happening.

GLENN: Yeah, crazy things are happening.

DAVE: I don't have to tell you, Glenn, you know, when you do what we do, the amount of information you can be slammed with, coming from every angle, constantly, it actually does take a toll on the brain.

GLENN: No, it does.

DAVE: And I desperately needed a little break. So I'm in the midst of that break right now, but I'm looking --

GLENN: Well, jeez, I'm sorry that we scheduled this on your vacation.

DAVE: No, I thought I could do one thing to stay -- otherwise, I could really end up being one of these full-time vacation people. And then it's over.

GLENN: Those are crazy.

So, David, you said you used to be a progressive.

DAVE: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: And you've just done something with Prager University, where you say how progressives have now taken to banning words, et cetera, et cetera. But that is who the progressives were at the beginning. They've never really changed. They have -- they have tried to make themselves appear as though they are classic liberals, but they're not.

What gave you the -- what woke you to this?

DAVE: Well, more than anything else, I've always considered myself liberal first. So I remember literally 1988 when I was in a seventh grade social studies class, and Michael Dukakis was running against George H.W. Bush, and I remembered, you know, in the media they kept calling Dukakis liberal, liberal. And I remember at some point during that, we were doing a mock election in the class. And Dukakis had to run away from the word "liberal." And that just made no sense to me.

I thought, liberals care about minorities. Liberals care about social issues. Liberals seem to be nicer people. You know, this is me in seventh grade.

And over the -- I think 20 years or so since then, I still have remained true to my liberal principles. And we can go through all of those things: I'm for gay marriage. I'm pro-choice. I'm against the death penalty. I'm for reforming the prison system. Et cetera. Et cetera. I'm for strong education. All those things.

And I think something happened to progressive in the last couple of years where it went from at least some healthy dose of true liberalism, classical liberalism, and it's become just an authoritarian mess. And, you know, I've had plenty of people on my show, you included and guys like Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro and a few others, who have said, you know, at their core, even though they're conservatives, they're really conservatives now because there are classical liberals.

And so maybe I was a little late to the part on some of that stuff. Maybe I have just a high tolerance for some old-fashioned BS. Really, if you look back at my show for the last two years, I've spent the last two years of my life trying to get some of the good liberals to realize what's happening. And I think I succeeded at some of that. But clearly the progressives are going off the deep end.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me -- when you say you're trying to get liberals to understand, what do you mean by that? And where are you seeing progress?

DAVE: Well, look, liberalism at its core is live and let live. People don't understand that anymore because it's been so conflated with progressivism and leftism. But at its core, liberalism means you're liberal in that you're for liberty, for human dignity and liberty, and you have your life to do as you see fit and pursue happiness as you see fit for yourself and your family and the people around you and all those things.

Now, that, of course, sounds a lot like Libertarianism. And I talked a bit on my show about it. And we talked about it a couple weeks ago, about a little bit of a difference between classical liberalism and Libertarianism, where a classical liberal, generally, you see a little more utility for the government, where Libertarian is kind of hard to pin them down exactly. You know, some of them don't want driver's licenses. Like, it's sort of all over the map.

So where I've seen success is that I've seen a lot of former progressives -- I mean, my email blows up every day, and my Twitter and all that, of former progressives saying, "Wow, this isn't what I signed up for. Maybe I didn't realize it." It's a lot of young people, which is interesting.

So for someone like you, that's saying progressivism was always this. I think for younger people, because of the social stuff -- so something like gay marriage, where progressives were leading the charge on that, it made it seem like progressives were the good guys.

But already that's a couple years ago. It's the law of the land now. And I don't see really people on the right fighting it. And even when I sat down with you, you said maybe it's not -- I think -- I don't want to totally paraphrase you, but you basically said, maybe it's not what I would have wanted. But it is the law now. And kind of live and let live.

And I think that attitude is really what can build bridges. So for me, the idea that right now I feel that I can build a bridge with Glenn Beck much more easily than I can with people on the left is a huge political shift for me. But, you know, that's what life is all about, that you change and people change. And you have to try to find places where you agree instead of just screaming that everybody else is a bigot and a racist and the rest of that nonsense.

PAT: Dave, usually people don't take kindly to somebody on their side saying things like this. And, you know, having any kind of change of heart. Are you getting a lot of -- are you getting a lot of pushback? Are you getting a lot of virulent tweets and response from what you've been saying lately?

DAVE: Yeah. I mean, look, you know, the way we interact these days, because we're all doing it behind a computer, because so many people are doing it anonymously and, you know, create all these fake accounts, it's hard to pilfer any truth out of what really matters or whatnot. Yeah, I get a couple bad articles --

PAT: Yeah, you can't be very popular at the Young Turks Network anymore, right?

DAVE: Well, look -- yeah, well, none of those guys will talk to me. And really, there was a direct line through -- over the course of the last two years, and particularly the free speech stuff, when Charlie Hebdo happened and when that whole blowup happened on realtime between Sam Harris and Bill Maher versus Ben Affleck, where they were trying to explain really complex issues related to the difference between the nominal average Muslim person and what an Islamist is and what a jihadist is and all of this stuff. Really complex stuff. And just the knee-jerk response to yell bigot and racist. And that if anybody didn't immediately say they were for gay marriage, the second you were for gay marriage, then they're a homophobe.

And if they immediately aren't okay with the bathroom designation that you want, the second you want it, they're a transphobe. Or all of these things.

This isn't -- it's not a mature enlightened way of thinking. It's actually completely the reverse of that.

And I'm a firm believer -- Glenn, you know this. I'm married. I'm gay married. Okay. So, you know, I think that I can show people that you don't have to bark and shame people into liking you. No one likes that. What you can do is be a responsible human being and show people that that's okay.

And so these guys -- look, the progressives have used all these words to the point that they're meaningless. And what I hear now, and I've done a couple videos on this recently, is that when you've pinned everybody else to be Hitler basically -- because this is what they're doing: Everyone else is a bigot and a racist and Hitler, blah, blah, your only other out then is violence. And I think we're already seeing the underpinnings of that. And I suspect we're going to see more of it unfortunately.

GLENN: I will tell you, Dave, I sat with you -- and, first of all, let me correct you on one thing.

DAVE: Yeah.

GLENN: I was -- I'm -- my stance on gay marriage has been the same since the late 1990s. And that is, while my faith says that's not right, my stance on that is, that's not my decision. That's between you and your God and you and whoever. And the government has nothing to do with it.

DAVE: Yeah.

GLENN: So I was pro-gay marriage years before Obama and Hillary Clinton were.

DAVE: Sure.

GLENN: And yet I was the bigot. I just don't believe the government has any place -- you work out your marriage, I'll work out my marriage. I don't have a right to tell you what to believe, and you don't have a right to tell me what I should believe.

DAVE: By the way, Glenn, think what a beautiful thing that is. So first off, I apologize for misrepresenting your position.

GLENN: No, no, that's fine.

DAVE: But think about what a beautiful thing that is, that you as a Libertarian are saying, I don't care about this contract that you want to enter. Maybe my religion says something else. But I respect your ability to live as a -- as a human being on this planet, and I don't want the government in on that. And then a liberal from the same position -- a classical liberal could say, I believe that two people should be allowed to do the same thing that straight people are allowed to do.

So you can come to the same conclusion through different political lenses. And that's I think why this bridge is now being built between true liberals and Libertarians and some conservatives.

GLENN: Yeah, I would consider myself more of a classic liberal than a Libertarian. But people don't understand what a classic liberal is anymore.

DAVE: Yeah. I'm working on it. I'm working on it.

GLENN: So, David, where do we go from here? Because I keep asking this of people in the press and people on both sides, you have people that want to burn it down, literally. Steve Bannon calls himself a Leninist, wants to burn the whole system down. Then you have the people on the left that want to burn things down, and they are actually active in the streets. And nobody is willing to talk to each other. Donald Trump calls the press names. The press keeps calling him, you know, a liar.

We're not getting anywhere. What -- what's coming?

DAVE: Well, you're right that we have a toxic mess on our hands right now. Because when you have the left -- you know, we know they're okay with violence. And we know that these words -- as I said, they've pinned themselves in a corner. And now they have the perfect bogeyman in Trump. So, you know, they pin themselves -- imagine if Trump started to do some good things. Let's say the economy really took off. He lowered taxes. Trade deals worked out. He didn't care that much about the social stuff which I don't think he really does care about.

Well, they've talked about him as Hitler for so long, that they can't give him any credit, so they have to keep trying to undermine him. This is a huge problem. So I think for guys like us, the important thing is that we can show people that you are allowed to agree to disagree. You don't have to disagree with anyone on anything. I don't even know that I agree with myself on any given day of everything that I thought the day before. And that -- that's called being a human. That's just having a little humility. And understanding -- you know, it's so funny. I try not to get too caught in the Twitter thing. Because it's a world of its own.

But everybody has to have an opinion about everything. You know, so like we'll do -- Obama did the thing with Cuba. And suddenly people who I had never heard say a word about Cuba before. People who know nothing about politics. Everyone suddenly is an expert on our relations with Cuba. And everyone is an expert on the Iran nuclear deal, et cetera, et cetera. And I think what we have to try to do is be a little old-school in our thinking and be okay with sitting across from people and, you know, it's a big country. And, you know, we're going to disagree on some stuff. And the battle of ideas is the important thing.

And just because someone doesn't change the second that you change, it doesn't mean that they're a bad person. And I think that -- we can get some of this stuff across. But, of course, our job is harder. Because it would be a lot easier if we just started a coalition of people that happened to scream at people all the time. That's how you get clicks. That's how you get the numbers and all of that. But, you know, I'm not on this planet for that. I don't think you are either. And we got our work cut out for us.

GLENN: Dave Rubin from the RubinReport.com. Always good to talk to you, Dave.

Hope to talk to you again in the future. In the meantime, go back to the beach or whatever it is you're doing and forget about the rest of the world for a while.

DAVE: That -- that is where I'm headed right now. Thank you, Glenn.

JEFFY: Good luck.

GLENN: Thank you. Buh-bye. Dave Rubin. Good guy. Did a really interesting interview with me. I didn't know what to expect. Didn't know about this big change in him.

STU: I don't even take your calls on vacation. I can't believe he did.

GLENN: I know. That was crazy. Why would you do that?

STU: I have a tough time taking them during the workweek.

GLENN: I know. Yesterday I had the day off. And the phone rang and rang and rang. And I didn't answer it once. And that wasn't because it was a holiday. I just don't ever do that anymore. So if you were trying to call, and that was you, Stu, sorry.

STU: It wasn't, I promise.

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.