Homeschooling family set to be deported, lawyer gives Glenn the latest

May 15, 2013

Writer

GLENN: I want to go right to Michael Farris. He is the homeschooling legal defense association head guy, and we have had him on a couple of times. Do you remember the family from Germany that left Germany because the State was going to take their children away because they wanted to teach them about God. They did not want them in public schools where it was Godless and teaching them things that they didn't want to teach their children. And so their children came over here from Germany. We had them on the TV show a couple of weeks ago. They are remarkable people, just remarkable people. They came over here, they did it the right way, they came through the front door. They have asked for asylum. They were granted asylum. They set up their life, they're working, they're not ‑‑ they're not on the government Dole, they're making money and they love America. And they're here for religious freedom. Well, Eric Holder decided, no, we're not going to grant you asylum. So he challenged the Court and said, I want to make a different, a different case. And the case that I want to make is homeschooling is not a God‑given right. You don't have a right to homeschool. So they're not really being oppressed because there is no right. The government can take your children and educate them any way they want to.

Yesterday the federal government overturned the case, so now they're no longer granted asylum. They have to go home. If they choose to teach their children about God, their children will be taken from them. If this isn't the clearest case of oppression, if this isn't a clear case of people who need a refuge, need to come here to America so their children aren't taken away merely for their belief in God, merely for their belief that they should be able to teach their children, I don't know what is. This case has everything to do with your children. This case really is not about the Romeike family. This case is about what this government's about to do to you and your children. That's my belief.

Michael Farris is here. Michael, shocking decision yesterday.

FARRIS: It was, Glenn. I had a hard time containing my emotions. I got a call as I was driving to the office when I got in. It was all I could do, but it was very fast, it was very one‑sided, and the court was ‑‑ in oral argument there was one judge that was incredibly aggressive and hostile. We were holding out hope for the other two, but it didn't work out that way.

GLENN: Why was he hostile? Why was he hostile?

FARRIS: Well, what he was saying was basically everybody should obey the government.

GLENN: Jeez.

FARRIS: I mean, and to some degree that was the essence of the opinion is that because there's a compulsory attendance law for everybody in Germany, then tough beans. Just because it applies to you in a particularly harsh way, that's too bad for you. It's ooh general law.

GLENN: Well, wait a minute. Then couldn't you say that about the Jews that were in Germany?

PAT: Couldn't you say that about the Cubans who come here for asylum from Cuba?

GLENN: I mean, there's ‑‑ so it's applied to you harshly.

PAT: Yeah, tough.

GLENN: Oh, well, there's a lot of people that are in Cuba that don't have harsh conditions.

PAT: Sorry you don't like communism. That's ‑‑ you should obey the law.

FARRIS: That's exactly the point, and they make the argument essentially this, that the only value we're going to protect is equal protection, which throws individual liberty into the trash heap. And ‑‑ because these people are standing on individual liberty claims. They are not saying that the law as written only applies to them in some peculiar way. The harshest of the punishment clearly is aimed at the homeschooling, and the real essence of an asylum case is to prove persecution, and the essence of persecution is the government's motive. And that's real clear. I mean, the law is extremely clear on that point. Yet, they do not even quote, they do not even cite the statements by the Supreme Court of Germany, by the court of appeals of Germany, by the federal ministers of Germany that say out loud very explicitly we are trying to stop religious and philosophical minorities from getting a foothold in this country. That's what they say, out loud. And they ‑‑ by ignoring that motive is the only way they get to the conclusion they've reached and if we ‑‑

GLENN: So this is not just ‑‑ this is not just an attack on homeschooling here in America. I'm just trying to ‑‑ I'm trying to figure out where this, where this case actually goes, why, out of all the cases that you could pick, why Eric Holder said this one. And so this one not only appears to me to be about your right to homeschool your kids here in America but also religious liberty.

FARRIS: Oh, it does. And it goes with, you know, what we're seeing with the IRS and the attack on conservatives. You know, the fact that home ‑‑ Christian homeschoolers are seen as philosophical conservatives, the administration is dedicated to philosophical liberalism or progressivism, and they support their friends and they attack their enemies. And they are ‑‑ you know, that's not what the court decision's about, but that's what Eric Holder is about. Eric Holder I believe cannot offer a legitimate justification for why we're pursuing leniency for 11 million people who came here illegally and at the same time trying to deport this one German homeschooling family. There is no logical argument that can explain that disparity.

GLENN: Especially they are not on the government teat.

FARRIS: Yes, exactly.

GLENN: They are not on the government teat. Everyone else comes over here that they are trying to excuse, every single person that they are trying to excuse comes over here illegally through the back door and then is taking all of our services. These guys are not taking the services. They are actually ‑‑ are they employed?

FARRIS: Yes, they are ‑‑ they are music teachers. They have students who come and take music lessons from them.

GLENN: Are they paying their taxes?

FARRIS: Absolutely.

GLENN: I mean, these people are paying their taxes, they're employed. Are they using their real names?

FARRIS: They are using their real names.

GLENN: Have they stolen Social Security numbers?

FARRIS: No.

GLENN: I mean, why are we attacking these people? It is absolutely incredible to me.

FARRIS: This is what the administration wants. They want the people that fit the profile you just outlined and ‑‑

GLENN: And I will tell you this. This goes into exactly what we talked about last week on For the Record. We did a special For the Record. The first half was on the Coptic Christians that this administration is paying no attention to and they are being slaughtered, they are being raped, and so many are coming over here and trying for asylum. We still don't know if they are going to get asylum or not. I mean, are those Christians going to get asylum or are we going to send those guys back, those people literally to death? Oh, this ‑‑

FARRIS: Well, if the administration's going to be consistent, they are going to take a stand against those people as well because they don't fit the profile that the administration is looking to Curry. You know, what we are learning every day about this administration is they are not interested in constitutional principles except as a grounds of suppressing people, they are not interested in obeying the First Amendment and they are certainly not interested in religious freedom. They have a political agenda, they punished their enemies, they reward their friends. And Coptic Christians, German homeschoolers, American homeschoolers line up on the wrong side of the track and so rights, liberty, all of that gets thrown away when Eric Holder and Barack Obama are involved.

PAT: So Michael, what happens now? Where do we go from here? You're appealing this, right?

FARRIS: We're doing a motion for rehearing to the entire sixth circuit. Every court of appeals decision is decided by three judges at the outset. In rare cases all the sitting judges will decide to hear it on bond, and there's 15 judges that are active judges in the sixth circuit. You don't count the semi‑retired judges that are senior status, but 15 judges, and we have to get one of those judges to, you know, say they want to circulate the petition and then they take a vote. And if a majority of the 15 say we want to hear the case, then we go into briefing and another oral argument.

GLENN: Do you think you have a ‑‑

FARRIS: If they don't, then we go to the Supreme Court.

PAT: So that would be the next step is if they turn that down, you're going to the Supreme Court?

FARRIS: Right. The appeal to the fifth circuit, what we just did is an appeal of rights. They have to listen to us. The two appeals that are left are discretionary. Neither court has to grant even a chance to make the case. They first decide whether they think it's important enough to take the decision and so ‑‑

PAT: What are the ramifications for the three million or so homeschoolers here in this country? Is it ‑‑ does this affect those of us who homeschool that this isn't just some right that we have to do with our children?

FARRIS: Not directly but it builds a precedent about what are rights and what are privileges. And the position of the government ‑‑ the sixth circuit decision in that regard was better than the government's position, but it's a far cry from, you know, a clean defense of rights. They said basically American homeschoolers may have the opportunity to make a case that's different because they can rely on the constitution, whereas we don't judge Germany by our U.S. Constitution.

GLENN: My gosh, then we don't ‑‑

PAT: They are not living in Germany, however.

GLENN: I mean, this is incredible to me.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Then why do we take a single person from Cuba or China ‑‑

PAT: Right.

GLENN: ‑‑ or the boat people.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Why didn't we take the boat people and send them all back? Why didn't we take the Jews ‑‑ I'm sorry. We were under a progressive administration. We did actually send the boat of Jews back. So at least they are being consistent.

FARRIS: They are being consistent.

PAT: Unbelievable. Wow.

FARRIS: And so, you know, so they pay a little bit of lip service to the rights of American homeschoolers, but the essence of a government's argument is this: Homeschooling and religious freedom are not individual rights that are protected. They are privileges that the government can grant you or not grant you. And if they have a broad general law that bans your rights, then just because they're privileges, they go away. That's the ultimate government position and, you know, what the sixth circuit opinion will sort out to be in the long run, it's a building block in the wrong direction. It's not a complete eradication of our rights, nor could it be since it's just a circuit court opinion. The Supreme Court and the justice department can do more damage to us. They also can vindicate us. And there's no reason Eric Holder can't end this mess today and just simply say, "You know what? I'm going to grant them asylum." He could do it today. And he doesn't have to wait for any more court decisions. If he wanted to get the, you know, to do something to show he has a little bit of an evenhanded spirit about him ‑‑

PAT: No way. No way. There's no way he would do that.

FARRIS: ‑‑ then he would sign this today. I'm not expecting it.

PAT: Yeah.

FARRIS: I'm not holding my breath, but he could. He has the authority ask the ability to do it today if he wanted to.

GLENN: Okay. So huh. Let me ask you this. Crazy thought: Does the State have the ability to say we as the State are going to grant this person ‑‑ are going to grant this family an asylum?

FARRIS: Well, I've been thinking that through because usually they ‑‑ when it comes time to deport them, they have to get the sheriff to come and arrest the people. I think that the Tennessee legislature could pass a law that basically says we direct our sheriffs not to deport people under these circumstances. Not to cooperate. I think there is a path for exploration of a state override of the federal mandate in this particular circumstance, but that's something we're going to have to pursue. There's also the ability to go to congress and get them to pass individual legislation that protects this family. And if we fail in the courts, that's where we're going to go next. We will go and attempt that. I've told the family, you know, I've actually literally said it's going to be over my dead body they send you back to Germany. So I'm going to do whatever I possibly can do and I'm going to keep fighting. And I am not giving up on this. And, you know, we're in the seventh inning and we're behind at this point. But the ninth ‑‑ the eighth and ninth innings are still coming and we're going to keep fighting.

GLENN: Michael, you have my commitment. You tell the family that over my dead body as well.

FARRIS: All right.

GLENN: We're in this ‑‑

FARRIS: I am happy to stand shoulder to shoulder, Glenn, with you on just about anything. So thank you very much. And thank you for all you've been doing for this family for this case. Your generosity and your support have been absolutely exemplary and have led the way for others who have been willing to help as well. Thank you so much.

GLENN: How are you guys ‑‑ how are you guys doing on cash for all of this? Do you need ‑‑ would it help if people ‑‑

FARRIS: Well, you know, we ‑‑ you've been so generous with us that, you know, what's happened, you know, happened so far has been paid for. It's ‑‑ you know, we're good as of this moment. You know, there's going to be other things but, you know, we'll never turn down more help, but you ‑‑

GLENN: What is your Web address?

FARRIS: ‑‑ express generosity for what you've done today, that's for sure.

GLENN: Is it hslda.org?

FARRIS: That's the website, yep. That's the main organization. If people want to give tax‑deductible contributions, they should do it through the homeschool foundation. That's our (C)(3) arm.

GLENN: And how do you ‑‑ what's the web address?

FARRIS: They think just link off the main web address.

GLENN: You need a more clever website because nobody's going to remember.

FARRIS: Yeah.

GLENN: Hslda, Home School Legal Defense Association, hslda.org. Go there and ‑‑

FARRIS: That's what happens when you're ‑‑ the organization's 30 years old.

GLENN: I know. Thank you very much, Michael. I appreciate it. God bless.

FARRIS: All right. God bless you.

GLENN: All right. Bye‑bye. I think this is a ‑‑

PAT: It's crazy.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It's crazy.

GLENN: I think this is a case that a state could get around.

GLENN: Well, I don't know. He seemed to have some help there but I don't see how because the federal immigration laws trump the state immigration laws. It's a federal law, not state. And you can't ‑‑ you can't circum ‑‑ and that's why ‑‑ that's why the state couldn't allow Arizona, that's why they sued Arizona because you can't trump federal law there. That's why Texas has a hard time bumping up against federal law. With immigration it's really tough. It's tough.

GLENN: I cannot believe that this government is actually saying amnesty for everybody that's here.

PAT: Except these guys.

GLENN: Except these guys.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: Who are law‑abiding, came in the front door, actually have a case of oppression, religious oppression. This is ‑‑ but these people don't appreciate the founders. They think that the Euro, the Euro trash that came over here, you know, stole all this land and so that's why, you know, give it all back to the ‑‑ I'm sorry. The Hispanics? Hispanics? You mean Hispania? Spain? Give the land back to the Spaniards? Really? But the Euro trash that came over here, that's bad? Okay, I get it. That's the most ridiculous line I've ever heard in my life. If there is somebody who is from Cuba and they need help, we help them! We help them. If somebody is being ‑‑ if their children are being taken away, you know what? Are you telling me that if come country was taking away the right of a Muslim family to raise their children in Islam that this administration would not give ‑‑ they would not roll the red carpet out for them and lecture us on how we need to be tolerant and a better nation because all of the eyes of the world is on us? Really? Bullcrap. Enough is enough. Over my dead body.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep