The Nazarene Fund and The Middle East with Johnnie Moore

Making their way to eastern Europe --- just in time for Christmas --- is the first group of refugees being saved by The Nazarene Fund. How are they feeling?

According to Johnnie Moore, author of Defying ISIS, they're still in a bit of shock, wondering if this is too good to be true. Having experienced persecution and the ravages of war, they're astonished by this outpouring of compassion.

The families feel comforted about their final destination --- an eastern European nation that is selectively taking Christian refugees only. Of course, there's trepidation in the mix as well, and the fear that --- as Syrians --- they might be mistaken as former members of ISIS.

Glenn and Johnnie discussed on air today how The Nazarene Fund is providing a bit of peace and security for a persecuted and desperate community.

If you would like to help rescue highly vetted Christian refugees, make a donation by visiting #NeverAgainIsNow or calling 844-637-2791.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Johnnie Moore is joining us now because he has been on the front lines leading the fight to bring in Christian refugees. And, Johnnie, can you tell me the difference between a Christian refugee? I mean, how dare you make this racist and this Islamophobic differentiating point, but can you tell me the difference between the Christian refugees and the Muslim refugees?

JOHNNIE: Yeah, exactly. And it's really, really simple. There is no Christian member of ISIS. Not one. Not a single Christian member of ISIS.

And, by the way, all these Christians, are Middle Eastern pacifists to begin with. You know, they wouldn't even know what to do with a gun if they found one.

I mean, this is totally, totally incomprehensible last week when the president spoke most passionately in an hour-long press conference at the G20, he spoke most passionately about what I characterize as discriminating against Christians. Because that's what he's decided to do.

And, you know, what's so strange about this, Glenn, is that the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the UN convention on genocide, official State Department policy, every nonsectarian, nonreligious NGO in the world has always provided special treatment to those who have been persecuted for religion. And yet for months, we've been saying -- we've been saying it, we've been very, very clear about it, that it seems like this administration is discriminating against Christians, and they denied it. The State Department released press release after press statement after press statement, and then the president just came clean last week in front of world leaders at the G20 and made it very, very clear, Christians aren't welcome from the Middle East in the United States, unless they just slip in.

GLENN: He's saying that there is no genocide of Christians.

JOHNNIE: No -- and he's said it from the beginning. And it's crazy. I don't even know how he believes this. A million Christians are gone from Syria in five years. A million Christians. Over a million Christians are gone from Iraq in the last seven or eight years. I mean, this is like -- it is really, really, really shameful. And the fact that the president spends all of his energy, you know, trying to make those of us who want to provide special treatment to genocide victims look like bigots at this time when we're facing a just total crisis, when it comes to the fact that, in Europe and the United States, we haven't a clue who is here. I mean, this is really, really terrible. And it's very, very, very dangerous.

You know, and, by the way, he speaks, you know, caustically about all this stuff. You know, last week he said sarcastically, "What do these Republicans, what do these conservatives want? You know, they're scared of widows and orphans from Syria." Well, you know, the truth is we are scared of widows and orphans from Syria because we don't know if they carry the ideology.

You know, why is this woman a widow? Did her husband die fighting for ISIS? You know, what have they been teaching their children? What about the communities they're going in, in the United States? Those of us who are close to the situation know two things: The first thing that we know is, the vast majority of Muslims aren't going to strap a bomb to themselves. The second thing we know is, those that are often ideologically led by the woman in the home. It's the woman that teaches the ideology to the children. And oftentimes the husbands, you know, follow that path. So, you know, I think a lot of us that are close to the Middle East are -- are terrified of the fact that we're not scrutinizing things.

And, you know, the other side of this too is, we right now at the Nazarene Fund with Mercury One, we have employed former United States intelligence agents that are doing our own vetting of our own Christian refugees before resettlement. And I was just talking to one of them last week and she told me. She said, "You know, vetting is difficult for professionals. It's difficult for CIA people." So the fact that we're leaving this to untrained UN people or, you know, immigration people, it's just -- it's just really, really scary, Glenn. Just so many things to be worried about right now.

GLENN: How do you argue this with your friends? If you're listening and your friends are going to be around a Thanksgiving table, and I can guarantee you, some of them are going to say, "We have to bring the Syrian refugees in. We have to. This is so un-American to say 'no' to Syrian refugees." How would you argue that?

JOHNNIE: I'd tell them how compassionate are we being, if we're endangering the United States of America, endangering our own children? You know, it's absolutely true that most of these refugees aren't going to strap a bomb to themselves. But it's absolutely true that the United States of America hasn't effectively figured out how to discern who is and who isn't dangerous.

And, you know, we just discovered last week in a Senate hearing, Glenn, that there were five individuals who were recruited by ISIS that worked in the United States airport, including LAX. You know, the airport I fly out of every day of my life. I mean, there are really, really alarming, alarming things. And, by the way, don't mention the fact that, you know, Europe has embraced such -- such an you attitude of tolerance, like you were describing moments ago, that they allowed all of this to fester.

You know, and those of us that have been studying this and close to this, this wasn't a surprise to us. Paris wasn't a surprise. You know, when I wrote my ISIS book a year ago, one of the most startling pieces of information I stumbled upon was that 31 percent of the Arabic language tweets in Belgium that mentioned ISIS were in support of ISIS.

And, you know, this information was in the public domain a year ago. I remember being in France in Leone just seven or eight years ago with a group of students from Liberty University. We were distributing food in a poor community, a poor immigrant community outside of Leone. And we were run out of that immigrant community, like people throwing stones at us, literally throwing stones at us. I mean, this has been allowed to fester.

And now we're living in a global world. And so right now, one of the things that we know is at least 1800 French citizens, French citizens with French passports traveled over to Syria. They fought for ISIS because they have French passports, unless they're on a list. And everyone has admitted, the EU and the United States has admitted that our lists are insufficient. Those people with French passports can fly back to France. They can get on a French plane and because of the visa waiver program, they can arrive at any airport in the United States and do whatever they want unless they happen to be on a list.

And the FBI director told our Congress just over a month ago that our Syrian list is dismal. And, by the way, a number of people in France were on our list, but we're still incapable of organizing our intelligence and working cooperatively with other countries that these people were just sort of allowed to warned around Europe. This is really, really a precarious moment.

GLENN: Johnnie, I know that the first group of refugees is coming out of Syria here in the next few weeks, before Christmas. How are they feeling? Because I would imagine -- I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking, "If I'm one of them and I see the world collapsing around, I'm -- I don't know where to go, I don't know what to do." Because you're not going to escape this -- you know, what are they feeling?

JOHNNIE: I think they're sort of feeling two things. And the first thing is, they're still feeling that this is too good to be true. I just -- I think down deep inside, they're all waiting for something to fall apart because they're not used to the world showing this type of compassion to Christians.

And we keep telling them, "It's not too good to be true. It's actually going to happen." And secondarily, I think they actually feel a bit of comfort because they're going into a country in eastern Europe that very, very early on stood up and said, "We're a Christian country, you know, we're more than happy to take Christians, but we're not going to take everyone." And I think that provides another level of security.

And then you have on the same token, because of the way the migration system in Europe has been allowed to function, you know, without -- without sufficient regulation and vetting, they're also fearful that people will confuse them as persecuted Christians for Syrians that -- that, you know, might be former members of ISIS. I mean, this is what's so, so crazy, you know, about the situation, that -- that they're facing.

I mean, the world is in total upheaval. Everyone is confused. Our leaders are doing crazy things. I mean, just today, you know, I was reading the news from Iraq. And Russian missiles have accidentally gone into Iraqi airspace where ISIS isn't even. So you can imagine what could happen if a Russian missile, because of their imprecise activity, ends up falling on Baghdad. I mean, we could just have 1,000 apocalypses in every direction that we look. And so what we've done is we've carved out a little bit of peace and security around a really, really persecuted and desperate community. And we're bound and determined that if all hell breaks loose around them, that they will be saved and they will have a future and we will have done our part.

GLENN: Johnnie, we thank you. And we pray for you. And we pray for the refugees that we're trying to get out. If you would like to assist, you can go to now.mercuryone.org. Or you can call 844-637-2791. And make a donation. I went to a book signing this weekend. People came with 5-dollar, 10-dollar checks, hundred dollar checks, and one family came with a 10,000-dollar check and said, "We really want to help a mom and a dad get their family out of there."

JOHNNIE: Wow.

GLENN: Johnnie, thank you very much, I appreciate it.

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.

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.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.