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

'The Country Would Be On Fire' If This Michigan Woman Was a Man

August 09, 2017
Staff

WRITER

A 38-year-old mother in Michigan has been sentenced to up to 15 years in prison after having sex with two boys aged 14 and 15, respectively.

Brooke Lajiness, a mother of two from Chelsea, Michigan, was convicted on multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct, Michigan Live reported. Assistant Washtenaw County Prosecutor John Vella made the case that Lajiness was “clearly a predator,” saying that she sent the boys naked pictures of herself on Snapchat to lure them into sexual acts.

Glenn, Pat and Stu discussed the horrifying story on radio Wednesday.

“She said at her sentencing, ‘This has been the biggest regret of my life.’ You think?” Glenn asked rhetorically.

“You made a conscious effort on several occasions to make arrangements to meet my son,” the mother of the then 14-year-old victim wrote in a statement, “sneak out of your house, start your car, leave your husband and children at home and drive to my son’s father’s house, back into the driveway between midnight and 4 a.m., wait for my son to run the driveway, commit a crime and leave.”

Lajiness pleaded guilty in June to several counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct as well as counts of providing obscenity to children and accosting a child for immoral purposes.

"If this was a guy, if this was a guy that was doing this to, you know, 15-year-old women --- the country would be on fire," Glenn said.

GLENN: On Monday, a married mother of two in Michigan, who had sex with two boys, one 14 and one 15, he -- they -- they were lured into sex with her. She sent naked pictures on Snapchat. She's 38 years old. She was sending the boys pictures of herself in a bathtub and performing sex acts. She would go to the boys' house and drive up into their parking lot after 1:00 a.m., between 1:00 and 4:00. And the boys would sneak out, and they would have sex with this 38-year-old woman in the car.

Michigan State Police said they started conversing and exchanging nude photographs while they were still in middle school.

Thirty-eight years old. She said at her sentencing, "This has been the biggest regret of my life." You think?

(chuckling)

"My family means everything to me, and I've caused them a great deal of pain for these regretful choices that I have made."

PAT: Oh, clearly her family means everything to her.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: That went without saying, didn't it?

(laughter)

GLENN: Pat's having a really hard time with this.

(laughter)

PAT: It's pretty clear, man, her husband, and her children were uppermost in her mind.

(chuckling)

STU: Well, I think it's true. She was trying to expand the family.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: She loved the family so much, she was doing the act that expands it.

PAT: Uh-huh.

JEFFY: The biggest mistake of her life was getting caught.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Hey, who doesn't -- who doesn't, as a son, like to have the most popular mom in school? You know, you like hearing that your mom is cool. She's the -- oh, your mom is great. I wish I had a mom like that. You define maybe having a mom like that in a different way than perhaps she is defining that.

PAT: Yeah, I think so. Yeah.

GLENN: So the mother of one of the victims said, "You made a conscious effort on several occasions to make arrangements to meet my son, sneak out of your house, start your car, leave your husband and children at your home, and drive to my son's father's house, back in the driveway between midnight and 4:00 a.m., and wait for my son to run into the driveway, commit a crime and leave. Did you know this was wrong? Did you ever worry that you were doing harm to my son?"

Mom said, "The guys now at school pick at him. They say it's cool that he had sex with a mom. My son shared with me that the guys at school have no idea what he's going through."

STU: They pick on him by saying it was cool?

GLENN: She said the guys at school now pick on him, and others say that it's cool. So he's trapped in this world of a 38 -- if we -- if this was a guy, if this was a guy that was doing this to, you know, 15-year-old women --

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: -- the country would be on fire.

PAT: Sure. Yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: On fire.

STU: Definitely a double standard on this one.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: There's no doubt.

GLENN: I mean, and I don't know. Is that right? I don't know.

GLENN: Is that right? No.

STU: Yeah, I think maybe -- maybe it is. Maybe it is.

(chuckling)

PAT: Maybe it is.

JEFFY: Stu, I'm with you. You have no idea. You may want to rethink your thinking because I'm with you.

PAT: I think maybe it is.

STU: Oh, wow. I think maybe it is.

PAT: We know you're with him, Jeffy.

GLENN: Yeah, wait a minute.

PAT: That's another thing that goes without saying.

GLENN: You're leaning towards the Jeffy side. You must know that you're wrong here.

STU: Right. This is not a good step in my life. I'm obviously developing the wrong way.

PAT: It's really not. But we do have that bias, don't we? Because what you're thinking that, you know, the kids -- that was the greatest thing that ever happened to them, right? That's your thinking. Now, if those were girls, you would not be thinking that.

STU: Not think that way at all. It is sexism. But it is --

GLENN: Can I tell you something --

PAT: It is. And it's wrong.

GLENN: -- look at how hard we work to keep our children moral, to keep them on the right track, to try our best to help them through -- and then when they turn 18, you know, their life is their life. And they're going to make their mistakes and make their choices. And whatever. But to protect them as long as we possibly can.

You know, you send your kids to school and you know they're going to fall in with the wrong crowd. Or they could fall in with the wrong crowd. They could be doing things that -- your parents never knew what you were doing. Why do you think it was different with you? But you try.

To have a 38-year-old adult come and prey on your children is beyond understanding.

STU: Yeah. And this is an extreme case as to what age this went on. It was very early. Usually these things are typically like high school situations. And they're still wrong, obviously. I think there's an issue where, you know -- for example, saw this stat yesterday. The world record 100-meter from a female is slower than the best time for a high school boy in the last year. So the world -- all-time world record for a female is slower than the best time -- in high school this year for guys.

And so there's a physical level here of -- of victim versus predator, where a male, who is stronger -- and I know these things don't happen. We're not allowed to say these things anymore. But there's differences. Yeah, don't hire me at Google. There are differences between men and women. And I think when you see a man go after a younger woman in high school, you think predator to victim. Where the male in this particular case, likely was much stronger than the woman. It doesn't feel as physically -- it's manipulative mentally, and it's a physical act, but it's not a forceful act, so we categorize it differently. That's obviously not right because both acts are completely --

GLENN: It's not a forceful act. Look at the girls that are with R. Kelly right now.

STU: This is a -- yeah, bizarre story. Did we talk about that at all?

GLENN: Okay?

I don't know if we have. So with R. Kelly. And they're staying -- where is this? Atlanta? And they're -- I mean, have you seen the interviews? They're supposedly totally free to leave.

JEFFY: Getting help with their career.

GLENN: Uh-huh, yeah, right. So R. has all of these women that have really, truly been brainwashed. I mean, if you watch the interviews with these girls, they have absolutely -- I mean, are you free to leave here?

Well, I don't feel comfortable talking about that now.

Okay. Are you free to talk about R. and, you know, maybe the things that you guys are doing?

No, I'm not. You know, I just love him. I just love him.

I mean, it's creepy stuff.

STU: And R. is obviously not his first name.

GLENN: That's what I like to call him. His friends call him R. His friends call him R.

PAT: And you're friends with this dirtbag?

STU: Really? I don't think so.

(chuckling)

PAT: He's been in some really questionable situations for a long time.

(laughter)

STU: This is --

PAT: I mean, at least 20 years, right?

GLENN: This is the most bizarre surreal conversation I have had.

PAT: So weird. Well, he's a dirtbag from way back.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And continues to get away with it.

GLENN: Hang on. These girls are all of age. They're all of age.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: So who are you to say, who are you to judge?

PAT: That he started a sex cult? Uh, I'm Pat.

(laughter)

STU: But, I mean, that is a different story. It is interesting in that in 2002, he had the underaged girl sex tape, which is -- that's -- you're in criminal area here. If you have underage girls and you're living with a bunch of them, there's nothing criminal about that, unless you decide to marry them. Because that law -- that sort of love is not allowed. We all know all love is equal and all love is allowed, but not that sort of love.

PAT: Right.

STU: If you have married multiple people, then that is not allowed. However, R. Kelly living with them and having sex with all of them is completely allowed. I want to sure we understand, it's the level of commitment that is illegal. That's the problem here.

PAT: It's a strange, strange line. If you're more committed, you can't. That's not legal. Sorry.

STU: If you're super-duper into it and you actually sign legal documents, wow, that's terrible. But if you're just doing it on the side and you can -- you know, whenever you feel like, jump in and out of every relationship, totally fine. I want to make sure we all understand love is equal, except the loves that aren't equal.

(chuckling)

PAT: Bizarre.

STU: I always find that argument to be fascinating. I'm sorry.

GLENN: No, I remember being told, you know, that that idea of slippery slope would never happen. It's only a matter of time. And the only reason it hasn't happened is because --

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

GLENN: They don't have a PR firm. That's it. If polygamists had a PR firm and they were -- and they were on the left, absolutely they would be arguing for it.

PAT: Yeah. If it wasn't tied to religion, they'd probably already be -- it would be legal now.

GLENN: Yeah. And may I say, crazy religion.

PAT: Yes. You may say that.

GLENN: Okay. Good. I just want to make sure -- I'm not sure what's crazy anymore. I'm not -- I'm not sure where anybody stands anymore.

STU: They don't stand anywhere. That's kind of the problem.

PAT: Yeah.

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.