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

Mercury Confidential: Laurie Dhue talks about her remarkable career and what it's like to host For The Record

August 22, 2013
Wilson

Writer

By Meg Storm

Ever wonder what goes on behind-the-scenes at Mercury Radio Arts? Just how do all of Glenn’s crazy ideas get done? Does anyone ever get a chance to sleep? Well, over the next few months we are going to take you inside MRA, giving you the inside scoop on everything from publishing to special events, 1791 to TheBlaze. We will be interviewing members of our New York, Columbus, and Dallas staff, bringing you all the info, so you can know what it’s really like to work for Glenn.

Previous Installments: Kevin Balfe, Liz Julis, Joel Cheatwood, Eric Pearce, Michele Vanderhoff, Tiffany Siegel, Joe Weasel, Buck Sexton

Don’t miss Laurie TONIGHT on a brand-new episode of For The Record at 8pm ET only on TheBlaze. Not a subscriber? Start your 14-day free trial HERE.

Laurie Dhue is one of the most recognizable names in news. She is the only anchor to have hosted shows on the three primary cable news networks – CNN, MSNBC and FOX News – and her experiences span from running the teleprompter at CNN in the late 1980s to anchoring primetime news programs. She has met presidents, traveled the world, and been the voice of some of the most important news stories of the last two decades.

Laurie began working with TheBlaze in March as the host of For The Record, and she joined the team full time in July. Starting in September, you will see a lot more of Laurie as she anchors the ever-expanding primetime news updates on TheBlaze TV, in addition to hosting For The Record.

Born in North Carolina and raised in Atlanta, Laurie always knew exactly what she wanted to be when she grew up. “I was lucky,” Laurie said. “Unlike most of my college friends, I knew what I wanted to do by the age of 19. I had an internship at CNN in Atlanta the summer of 1988 – before some of TheBlaze.com folks were even born – which changed the course of my life.”

She attended the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where she studied political science with a concentration in dramatic arts. Laurie was a member of the varsity swim team, an academic all-American, and a member of the Loreleis – a female a cappella group that toured the East Coast. “I still love to sing, and one of these days I’m going to do a cabaret performance for my friends,” she said smiling. “I’ve been saying this for years.”

It was the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta that ultimately jump-started her career. “The Democratic National Convention was held in Atlanta the summer of 1988, and I was smack in the middle of all the excitement,” Laurie explained. “As a booth runner for the anchors, including Larry King, I was responsible for everything from delivering scripts to making coffee, procuring sandwiches and straightening ties. The highlight was meeting Walter Cronkite.”

“I went back to UNC that fall knowing that I wanted get into news. At that point, I had not yet declared a major and the folks at CNN advised me to get a liberal arts degree and not limit myself to journalism,” she continued. “‘We’ll teach you more in a month than you’ll get in the next 2 years sitting in a classroom,’ one of my mentors told me. It was true. I learned an incredible amount in a very short period of time. I interned for CNN the next two summers – including an internship in London the summer of 1990 – then began working there full-time in the spring of 1991. The headquarters and main studios were in Atlanta at the time, though now most of CNN’s shows are based in NYC.”

When Laurie first started at CNN, her job was very much behind-the-scenes. “Between 1991 and 1997, I did just about every job at CNN you can imagine,” she said. Those jobs included running teleprompter, running scripts, checking show rundowns, pulling tapes, logging tapes (“one of the more tedious and humbling experiences”), running tapes, etc. You name it, she did it.

“Eventually, I became a guest booker and segment producer,” Laurie explained. “After a couple of years of researching and writing the anchors’ interviews – in the pre-Internet age – I knew I had to pursue my dream of being on-camera. I knew I had it in me and truly thought it was my destiny, I just needed a chance.”

Breaking into the media industry has never been easy, but in the early 1990s it was especially difficult to become an on-air talent without having previously spent some time in a small market. “In those days, it was much tougher. If you wanted to be an anchor or reporter, you had to start in a very small market,” she recalled. “I begged my boss to let me talk to the then-President of CNN, Tom Johnson, about doing something, anything, on camera. He saw how serious I was and agreed to let me do updates on the CNN Airport Network – yes, such a thing existed back in the day – but only in my spare time, nothing could interfere with my segment-producing job. So I taught myself how to use the teleprompter and practiced for hours and hours. My first Airport Channel hit lingers in the back of my mind somewhere. I don’t remember the moment, but I do remember thinking ‘Well, I’m on my way.’ It felt absolutely natural to me.”

Laurie’s big break came a few months later, in the summer of 1996, when she was offered the chance to anchor overnight news updates for CNN’s sister network Headline News (now HLN), but she would have to continue her producing job as well. As you can imagine, it was a pretty busy schedule.

“It was a hectic time,” Laurie explained. “By day, I was booking and pre-interviewing guests. By night, I was anchoring the news. I slept very little, but I didn’t care. Within six months, in January of 1997, I was offered a full-time anchor spot on CNN, becoming the youngest anchor in the network’s history. I anchored the midnight, 1AM and 5:30AM shows for a year – sleeping from 7AM till 3PM, which I really never got used to – then I moved to weekends.”

She anchored CNN Saturday and CNN Sunday for a year, before getting a call from her agent saying NBC was interested in meeting her. Laurie flew to New York and met with the NBC executives about hosting her own weekday show on MSNBC. Beginning in 1999, Laurie anchored several shows for MSNBC – covering breaking news and reporting long-form stories as well.

“My goal had always been to get to New York City, so I was thrilled to get the chance. Saying goodbye to my life, friends, and family in Atlanta was tough, but I knew it was the right decision and fell in love with the city the day I arrived,” Laurie said. “I had the privilege of reporting from Times Square on New Year’s Eve in 1999, which is one of the highlights of my career. Celebrating the turn of the millennium  (remember how the world was supposed to end on Y2K?)  with several million people was rather extraordinary!”

In mid-2000, Laurie made the move to Fox News. During that time she offered primetime news updates during Special Report with Britt Hume, The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity, and On the Record.

“I also hosted weekend shows and got the opportunity to report from the Middle East for several months over a period of two years,” she explained. “I later joined Geraldo At Large as a news anchor/primary correspondent and had a weekly segment on The O’Reilly Factor called ‘The Dhue Point.’ During my eight years at FNC, I also anchored live hourly updates on Fox News Radio. I was the voice of the official launch!”

It was during her time at Fox News that Laurie made the decision that would ultimately save her life. After battling alcoholism for some 15 years, Laurie made the decision to get sober on March 14, 2007. She chose to go public with her recovery a few years later, and her admission surprised many in the industry who knew Laurie and the quality of her work. She recently opened up to Glenn about her struggle with addiction and her road to recovery:

“Glenn and I have a commonality: we are both in recovery from alcoholism and share the beautiful, challenging journey through recovery,” Laurie said. “He has been nothing but supportive about the work I do in the recovery community, encouraging me to continue my public advocacy, and acknowledging that my battle with addiction has made me a stronger person.”

Laurie left Fox News in 2008, and founded her own media training and communications consultancy, Laurie Dhue Media, which helps people prepare for media interviews of all kinds. She fronted several corporate broadcasts, in addition to co-hosting The PIX 11 Morning News in New York City for several months – an experience that provided its own set of unique challenges. “Local morning news is a completely different experience, very fun but a lot harder than it looks,” Laurie admitted. “I also had to get up before 2AM every day, which was rather horrible.”

At the end of last year, opportunity once again came knocking when Joel Cheatwood, President and Chief Content Officer at TheBlaze, reached out to Laurie. While she never crossed paths with Glenn at Fox News, Laurie was familiar with TheBlaze.

“I first heard about TheBlaze TV when it was still GBTV. After Glenn left Fox News Channel, I, like millions of other people, was curious about his next act. When I learned that he’d created his own online-only network, I thought: That’s smart. He sees the future and it’s not network news,” Laurie said. “In the back of my mind, I thought it would be interesting to meet him and perhaps even become an occasional contributor, if it was a good fit.”

In January, Laurie traveled to Dallas to meet with Glenn and Joel, an experience she described as “an instant meeting of the minds.”

“Glenn’s candor was both surprising and refreshing. There was no intimidation, no ‘trick’ questions, just an honest conversation. Glenn and I talked about many things that morning,” she explained. “We asked each other questions, swapped war stories about our experiences in cable news, and compared philosophies. It just felt like a natural fit for everyone. Then it was a matter of figuring out what opportunity would best fit my strengths.”

Fortunately, it didn't take long for a good fit to come along. “In mid-March, that first opportunity came in the form of hosting the inaugural episode of the new investigative series For the Record,” she said. “I'm honored to host this program and grateful to work with an experienced, knowledgeable and fearless group that's dedicated to bringing viewers the truth, even if it's not pretty.”

For The Record is unlike any other project Laurie has worked on mainly because it is unlike any other show on television.

“For the Record is a return to investigative journalism the way it used to be: probing, unforgiving and fair. The program is built around the simple but essential principle of truth. There's no political agenda; rather, we dedicate ourselves to telling stories with sincerity and integrity,” Laurie explained. “Network news organizations have been known to spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours in focus groups designing their shows with their primary considerations being: Who's the audience? What's the main theme? Who will be the key sponsors? For the Record was designed differently. The mandate was simple: find stories the mainstream media either refused to report or simply didn’t have an interest in reporting. We've never had a discussion about target markets or themes. Finding stories has actually been rather easy because so many of them are either disliked or ignored by others. And the truth of the matter is, other outlets are simply too scared to report them.”

The stories may be easy to find, but with topics ranging from sex trafficking to Christian persecution, government surveillance to fallen heroes, the material is both time sensitive and emotionally sensitive.

“For the Record isn't easy to deliver. We've got sources and contributors literally around the world, many of whom have faced grave consequences to provide information,” Laurie said. “When you watch an episode you’ll never notice the late night cross-country flights – and the delays that go along with them – with gear in tow, the cold winds that pierce your body when you’re doing an interview in the dead of winter, the 8AM Saturday script writing sessions that sometimes linger into Sunday mornings. And you're not supposed to.”

The one thing that keeps both Laurie and the For The Record team going is the desire to provide TheBlaze audience and the world with these important stories that simply aren’t available anyplace else.

“Glenn has given us the gift of time, a precious commodity in this business. We take the necessary time and resources to tell the stories that need to be told, the stories no one else is telling,” Laurie said. “Many of our sources and interview subjects won't talk to any other new outlets because they know their words will be twisted. Our stories – in particular, the shows about the NSA whistleblowers and Extortion 17 – are getting plenty of attention. While we're gratified that Washington is sitting up and taking notice, that's certainly not our raison d'etre.”

With Laurie now a member of TheBlaze team fulltime, audiences will soon see her return to her roots – providing news updates throughout TheBlaze TV’s primetime lineup, in addition to afternoon news updates on TheBlaze Radio. She will continue to host For The Record and offer original commentary on various programs. Apart from her work for TheBlaze, Laurie began hosting a weekly talk show on Veria Living TV called Over the Hump in June, which tackles issues of concern to women.

Laurie’s career has taken her all around the industry, and she quite familiar with the trappings and shortfalls that often plague media conglomerates. One of the reasons she was so excited to join TheBlaze was because of the freedom it offered.

“Why did I join TheBlaze? That’s easy: the opportunity to be on the ground floor of something truly groundbreaking doesn’t come along very often, if ever. TheBlaze is growing by leaps and bounds, expanding every day as other media outlets downsize. Oh, and saying no to Glenn Beck is impossible,” Laurie joked. “The slogan, 'The Truth Lives Here’, is bold, just like Glenn. Glenn once told me that there are no sacred cows at TheBlaze except for freedom and decency. He’s both sincere and fearless, a rare combination in news, and isn’t beholden to anyone but the viewers. There’s no parent company telling him what he can and cannot say. I think that’s real freedom of the press!”

Don’t miss Laurie TONIGHT on a brand-new episode of For The Record at 8pm ET only on TheBlaze. Not a subscriber? Start your 14-day free trial HERE.

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.