Why RFK Jr.’s Former Running Mate OPPOSES Casey Means for Surgeon General

May 09, 2025

WRITER

President Trump’s nomination of Dr. Casey Means for Surgeon General had many MAHA fans cheering. But RFK Jr.’s former running mate, BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan, has major reservations. She joins Glenn, who has been a fan of Casey, to explain why she believes there are stronger candidates. Means, Shanahan claims, may have “conflicts of interest” because of the “biometric harvesting company” she founded and its close ties to Silicon Valley. Shanahan also questions whether RFK Jr. is playing “political 4D chess,” or if she was lied to when she was promised that the Means siblings wouldn’t be in government. Is RFK Jr. reporting to someone other than Trump? Shanahan explains why she believes it’s possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan. Nicole, how are you?

NICOLE: Glenn, how are you doing?

GLENN: I am very good. It's great to have you here.

So I want to ask you, the Surgeon General thing, are you for Casey Means? Or not for Casey Means?

NICOLE: Well, I will tell you who I am for, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

NICOLE: I'm for all of those Americans. Those hundreds of thousands of doctors, seeking truth, honesty, and dignity in our medical system once again. That is what I'm for. That is what propels MAHA into existence.

That's what propels Bobby Kennedy into the position of running for president of the United States. That's why I joined the campaign. It really is about listening to this group of doctors that did the right thing during the COVID pandemic.

That spoke up, when it was dangerous to speak up.

That lost their licenses. And so when I hear from that base, concern or research. About individuals, in and around MAHA.

I have to listen to them.

And I do listen to them.

Because oftentimes, they are right. They're brave, and they're principled. So the concern I've been hearing from that group of people is that MAHA -- you know, any movement. MAGA had this issue too of infiltration by different groups that are more self-serving, than they are for the movement itself.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

NICOLE: And so just one example, Casey Means is a founder of a company that does biometric harvesting. She's very close with many of the big data biometric harvesting companies.

In Silicon Valley. And this -- I noticed with all these people. You do not want them running in a government position that is responsible for everybody equally. Right?

GLENN: So wait. Wait. Wait.

What is -- what is that?

They're harvesting, what?

NICOLE: Well, so biometric data is anything between heart rate data, to all of the data that is collected from your FitBit or high glucose monitor. It could be labs. It could be -- then there's all the DNA harvesting. And big data that's being done.

So, you know, I think that the base -- MAHA really came from medical freedom. And medical sovereignty.

And the idea that we have to keep conflicts of interests. Out of the government.

And so when I -- you know, see some stuff going on. That we could be doing better.

Right?

Our job.

And I learned this from the MAGA base.

Our job is to ton seek the best possible people. For government, that are truly putting the principles of this country first.

The principles of American sovereignty first.

GLENN: So you wrote yesterday.

It's very strange. It doesn't make any sense. I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr. in the Senate confirmation, that neither of these siblings would be working under HHS or an appointment.

And that people much more qualified would be. I don't know -- I'm sorry.

RFK very clearly lied to me. Or what's going on. It's been clear in recent conversations that he's reporting to someone regularly, who is controlling his decisions, and it isn't President Trump.

With regards to the siblings, there is something very artificial and aggressive about them. Almost as if they were bred and raised as Manchurian assets. Wow!

NICOLE: So keep in mind, I was responding to Dr. Suzanne Humphries.

Who was also expressing very similar sentiment.

GLENN: Concern. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

NICOLE: Concern. There's better candidates.

So what's going on? I also heard from other MDs in the field.

That there was another doctor that RFK had wanted for the position. Very, very qualified doctor.

And -- and, you know, he was caught by surprise as well. By -- by this other choice.

So, you know, there's -- again, they -- they don't call it the swamp for no reason. Right?

GLENN: Right.

NICOLE: And, you know, I'm not officially within the administration at all.

In fact, I decided to take the path of staying an independent --

GLENN: Smart.

NICOLE: -- media person. Which I think -- I think and you know this, Glenn. It's really important that when you are an independent media voice, that you -- you stick by your principles. And that you are not just a mouthpiece for any government organizations.

That you're really on the outside, reflecting back the hopes and wishes of the constituents.

GLENN: Yeah. There's -- it's very hard to do.

I mean, I take stances against the president.

And for the president. You always have to -- you always have to balance, you know, I have my opinion.

And I'm never going to be bought out by anybody.

I'm never. But you also want to make sure that you're being fair to the people that you trust. And I know you have trusted RFK for a very, very long time.

And for what struck me on this. Is, you know, I don't know if RFK lied to me. Which I hope he didn't, or what's going on. It's been clear in recent conversation that he is reporting to someone regularly, who is controlling his decisions.

That's a remarkable thing to say, especially about RFK.

Because he does not strike me as somebody who is afraid of somebody else.

NICOLE: You know, I don't know if it's fear or that he's playing political 4D chess. And, again, they don't call it the swamp for no reason.

It's just, at some point, there's certain decisions, that are worth fighting for.

And I do appreciate what a very complex political environment this is.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

NICOLE: And I do understand that even within these agencies, there are groups that are intentionally keeping and withholding information from the new leadership.

So, you know, I -- I fully appreciate how complicated it is.

So I fully appreciate how complicated it all is, but there are definitely things that the base is -- is, you know, like, this is an easy one. This could have gone better. Right?

You don't truly -- and, you know, everyone is guessing what precisely this 4D chess is all about. And why these moves are being made. And trying to anticipate the next one.

But it's something that I think that, you know, there's just certain things that indicate that whomever he's giving -- whoever his chess coach is. Could be making some better decisions for him. And --

GLENN: But Casey.

I mean, when I talk to the twins, during -- or after COVID.

They seemed pretty clear on what was bad and what was good.

They -- they both seemed to be good on -- on COVID. And the vaccines. Didn't they?

Or is my memory --

JEFFY: They talk a great talk.

I will say, I was once a fan of it as well.

It was only after I received many comments from individuals, in and around the transition team.

As well as new research that came up.

And then really, like, you know, when the base expresses these things and provides that degree of inquiry, and it shows that kind of concern.

I think we owe it to them.

GLENN: Yes. I agree. I agree.

ANNA: Yeah.

GLENN: So overall, how do you feel things are going?

NICOLE: I think, again, there's been a lot of focus around food dives. Meanwhile, there's millions of people suffering from vaccine injuries, that still feel very neglected.

So I do think -- I do appreciate the executive order, regarding gain of function and limiting overseas research.

GLENN: And shutting down a dangerous -- and shutting down a very dangerous bio lab here.

NICOLE: Yes. And there are many of these bio labs that are kind of flying under the radar.

GLENN: Right.

NICOLE: So it's a big step in the right decisions sedition. I'm a huge Jay Bhattacharya fan. Probably one of his biggest.

I really am excited for him, as he built out his team.

I hope, he has a very, very strong team around him. In the next coming weeks. Because he's going need to it.

As far as HHS goes, you know, I would love to see Bobby bring in more of those doctors that have been around him for the last ten years, very regularly.

Because these are the individuals that, you know, I -- I trust these people with my life. They have sacrificed everything to do the right thing time and time again.

They are so deeply principled. They will never take a check over helping a patient out.

And they actually do have the answers. So I'm hoping to see more of those people around Bobby too.

GLENN: So I'm wondering because this is the way I feel about a couple of things with the FBI. And Intel.

That if I don't see some people in the next year or so, go to jail, or at least brought in for a fair and honest trial, you know. I don't want to just scoop people up. And just assume that they're guilty.

But build a good, strong case. Bring it to trial.

Have it a fair and honest trial. And let the chips fall where they may.

But if I don't see some prosecution, at least. I think I'm very upset at the G O.J.

Pam Bondi. Head of the FBI. Kash Patel. And I don't -- and I'm trusting them so far, that they are doing that.

Do you feel the same way at all, about -- you know, if you don't see some people who go to jail there, that clearly lied about the vaccines.

If they don't go to jail. You have -- you really haven't fixed anything.

You're just eating around the edges.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah. I think that really explains it. And this is why I think it's important to continue to voice those concerns, because they're only going to grow and mount.

And it really is the American people, that were sold this vision of accountability.

And as we want to see it. We have to see it. Anywhere. Several months into the administration now.

HHS, you know, lags behind the Oval Office in terms of getting going.

But they're -- people were seriously injured. There were many crimes committed against the American public.

Crimes committed against our bravest doctors. Crimes committed against children.

We need accountability.

We really, really need to see that.

Because, you know, there's -- there's a preciousness in this moment. We have to -- we have to deliver. This country deserves it.

GLENN: And, I mean, if we're -- if we can't correct the things that, for instance. Washington State. Just passed a law where if there is another pandemic, everybody seems to be, you know, claiming there's another one, right around the corner.

But if there is another pandemic, that they will have absolute control, over what you put into your body. And what you do. That's terrifying.

NICOLE: I do.

And those emergency orders, they will scrutinize them. They have revisions.

GLENN: Washington State just revised it to just codify it. Washington State just codified it. It's crazy.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah.

So I would like to see more focus around that, not Red Dye 40 and not Kellogg's.

I'm totally fine leaving Kellogg's alone, in favor of HHS spending. All of its energy. And all of its focus. And all of its leverage, making sure that we are actually properly ready for the next pandemic.

And not to cause the catastrophic harm, that was caused during COVID-19.

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan. She's got the podcast Back To the People. And it's now coming to Blaze Media.

It's the same podcast she's been doing. Now as she says, with a wider reach. Glad to have you.

Nicole, thank you very much.

NICOLE: Thanks, it's a pleasure to come on.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again.

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.