Governor Abbott: Locking Your Doors Doesn't Mean You Don't Like Your Neighbors

March 02, 2017

WRITER

Texas Governor Greg Abbott called into The Glenn Beck Program today, March 2, a day that also happens to be Texas Independence Day.

"I'm speaking to you from the Sam Houston bedroom in the governor's mansion in the state of Texas. I'm living in a governor's mansion that Sam Houston lived in . . . the historical connection is profound." Governor Abbott said.

In addition to recognizing an important holiday for Texans, the governor also discussed current issues like the Texas Senate approving measures for a convention of states, as well as the status of building a wall on the southern border.

"Mexico is our neighbor, and we need to have a good relationship with Mexico. And we need to be respectful of them, and they need to be respectful of us enforcing our rule of law and protecting our own sovereignty. We can foster that goodwill while building a border," Governor Abbott said. "If we can do all of that, Glenn, this will be something that will have a lasting effect, a positive effect for both Texas, the United States and Mexico."

GLENN: Texas Governor Greg Abbott, the federal government is beginning to accept contract bids for the building of the wall along the border with Mexico.

Governor Abbott, have you heard anything about that?

GREG: I have. But before I say that, I know you have listeners from across the world. But here in the state of Texas, we're celebrating Texas Independence Day.

GLENN: I know.

GREG: This is the day we became an independent nation ourself, many years ago, on March the 2nd.

GLENN: Yeah. We have a last piece in our serial this week. We've been doing Texas history. At the bottom of this hour, the last -- is it the last one? Or is tomorrow the last one?

PAT: Tomorrow is the last one.

GLENN: Tomorrow is the last one. Today we talk about Davy Crockett and Sam Houston. Which Sam Houston is an amazing guy. Has to be a governor that you look back on and say, "How could I be half the man that he was?"

I mean, taking on and standing against slavery in the South --

STU: At that time.

GLENN: -- at that time was a big deal. That guy was really brave.

GREG: He's amazing. And as I speak to you this moment, I'm speaking to you from the Sam Houston bedroom in the governor's mansion in the state of Texas. I'm living in a governor's mansion that Sam Houston lived in.

GLENN: Wow.

PAT: That's pretty cool.

GREG: And so the historical connection is profound.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Greg, let's talk a little bit about the border wall. Do you believe it is actually going to be built?

GREG: Oh, I know it is. And as you were alluding to in your intro, the request for bids has already been issued. And people are making bids right now. The time period for the bids closes here in just a couple of weeks. The bid will be announced in early April. Meaning that the work is going to begin in early April. So the administration is moving very quickly on this.

This round of bids is what's called a first tranche. And it will involve three sections across the border. One of the sections is in Texas. It's near what we call the Presidio region. It's going to be about 1- to 200 miles southeast of El Paso, Texas. It's that border-crossing area that has been penetrated heavily by cartel activity. And it's kind of in urgent need to build the wall in that sector.

The other two new sectors will be in other states. I think, if I recall correctly, it is in New Mexico and Arizona.

Bottom line, this is the first of what should be three different tranches of adding wall to the border. And this is going to get done.

PAT: So, Governor, are they keeping you in that loop? Are you being involved in those discussions? Because it would seem pretty logical for you to be a part of that.

GREG: Yes. I just returned from a five-day trip to Washington, DC, visiting with administration officials. And this is where it was first announced to us, being the governors. We have an annual governors' conference in Washington, DC, at the end of February. And one of the topics was the border wall. And it was told to us at that time what was going to be taking place at the border. But frankly before that, several weeks before that, I was on a flyover of the border with a new secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, when we were talking about the very issue. So at multiple levels in multiple time frames, I've been informed about what's going on, and they are keeping Texas in the loop.

GLENN: So do you see a time, in a short period, relatively speaking, where the border is actually closed off, with a big, beautiful door?

GREG: Well, remember this, and that is, there are large segments of the Texas Mexico border and US-Mexico border that already have walls along there. Several weeks ago, I had US Homeland Security secretary John Kelly. And we flew around. And he got to see for the first time for him the border wall as it currently exists in the Rio Grande valley. And so there are large multi-mile segments of border wall already there, that are working very effectively, that serve as a funneling device for those who are trying to cross the border, especially cracking down on the cartels and what they are trying to do along the border.

GLENN: How are you going to get around the people who say you're going to cut my land in half -- I know this will be a favorite question of yours. The EPA.

GREG: The EPA is under a new regime. One of the people I met with in Washington, DC, is Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator. And he is restoring the EPA to its original intent, which is not to be the dictator-in-chief in Washington, DC.

But the EPA is supposed to work in collaboration with the states. And believe me, that's exactly what he's going to do. The EPA challenges will be greatly diminished. That aside, we know that private parties will be filing lawsuits along those lines.

But going back to the first part of your question, a lot of the easements, a lot of the right-to-ways (phonetic) have already either been purchased or agreements entered into by the United States government. Remembering this, because people forget, it was under the Bush administration that the border wall -- or let's call it border fence. They call it different names. Was initially entered into. If I recall correctly -- don't hold me to this, but you'll know this. And you'll be able to bring it up later.

I think even people like Nancy Pelosi voted in favor of it at the time. So there was a border fence in the territory or land needed for that border fence, stretching from Brownsville all the way to San Diego. And many of the segments are already either owned or have building rights by the federal government.

That said, there are portions that the federal government does not have. It could be private land. It could be other parts of land they don't have. And they will work around that.

But let's go back to kind of the premise you're talking about here. And that is, I can't tell you there's going to be a yard by yard border wall stretching from Brownsville, Texas, to El Paso, Texas. There could be segments where there is not a border wall. But what I do know from talking to the administration, learning about what their game plan is, and that is, they are finally going to regain sovereign control over the border through multiple layers of security. One of those layers is a wall. A key factor is even a wall alone is not going to stop cross-border activity. You have to have boots on the ground so they are dedicating 5,000 more border patrol agents. Many more ICE agents so that they have the personnel which are needed, but also the detection equipment, the boats, the planes, cameras, et cetera, so that they are going to regain control of our border.

GLENN: So, Governor Abbott, how do we make this -- I mean, here's the problem that we've had now with the last administration. And, quite honestly, I fear with this administration, is it's not -- we're not changing laws, and we're not strengthening the laws. What we're doing is strengthening the Oval Office and the administration.

So this president can be great on the border. But what do we do -- what do we have at the end of this that, in four years or eight years, somebody else doesn't just come in and reverse it all?

GREG: Well, you raised an important issue from two perspectives: First of all, what the Trump administration really is doing is -- is -- as you say, they're not making new laws. They're finally applying and enforcing the laws, as they have long existed. The reason why we're in the problem that we are in today is because over a period of decades, there's been a gradual erosion in the enforcement of the laws.

And this is what's going to happen. When you refuse and fail to enforce the laws, in that people will continue to gradually evade them and not abide by them. And that is what has led us to the position today, where a new administration finally says, "We have to put up a wall."

After the -- after the current administration -- listen, life changes. And you can't say for certainty. Someone may not come back in and tear down the wall. Here's what we need to do to make it more effective. And that is, if you look at some of the concerns raised about the wall, especially concerns raised by Mexico, what really needs to be done is to establish both a better attitude and a better approach about why we're doing it. This is not a signal of hostility towards Mexico. This is a signal of our own concern of protecting our own home.

It's the way that you or your listeners act probably every night, that is many of you lock your doors at night. You don't lock your doors at night because you don't like your neighbor next door. You want to protect your own safety and your own family, living in friendship with your neighbors.

And that's the attitude that we need to foster with Mexico. Mexico is our neighbor. And we need to have a good relationship with Mexico. And we need to be respectful of them, and they need to be respectful of us enforcing our rule of law and protecting our own sovereignty. We can foster that goodwill while building a border. This will be a border wall. This will be -- and maintain our positive -- Mexico is a huge trade partner with us.

If we can do all of that, Glenn, this will be something that will have a lasting effect, a positive effect for both Texas, the United States, and Mexico.

GLENN: How do you feel about a tariff on Mexico?

GREG: You know, I've heard a lot of analysis about this. And especially when I was in Washington, DC, this past week and go through the analysis, and here is what I am hearing: It's called the border adjustment tax, or the bat tax. And I'm hearing the real reason for that is to pay for the other corporate tax reduction.

And when people talk about going through the mathematical equation of how the border adjustment tax is supposed to work, it seems like it keeps running into challenges. And I hear that the administration may not be in favor -- I hear the US Senate may not be in favor of it.

I hear that businesses may not be in favor of it.

And so it seems like it keeps running into obstacle after obstacle. And I would say it's tough to predict that the border adjustment tax will actually come into effect.

GLENN: We're just going to run out of time with you. So let me just get to the Convention of States. Passed in the Senate, are we going to see this push through? And do you have any idea what happened to Utah or other states as you're meeting with the border -- or, with the governors?

Are other states jumping on board, or is this taking a backseat now?

GREG: On the Texas side, remember that in the last legislative session that we had two years ago, the Convention of States' plan passed in the Texas House of Representatives.

So there's every reason to expect that those same representatives will not change their votes. They will vote the same way they did last time -- and so -- and it did not pass in the Texas Senate last time. So getting it passed in the Texas Senate was a game-changer. And it should lead to the passage in the state of Texas of the Convention of States.

Texas will join now a growing number of states that have passed a Convention of States. And when we do so, it unleashes me and other leaders in the state of Texas to explain to people across the country why this is needed. Remember this -- and I know we're running out of time. But let me make this really important point. And that is, I was not one of the leaders or a promoter of the Convention of States up until recently. What changed me and what brought this out of me, it was very simple, it was more than a philosophical idea. It was a practical idea.

My necessity for passing a Convention of States was borne out of filing 31 lawsuits against the Obama administration and realizing how not just the federal government, but the federal courts have been broken in, they had departed from our United States Constitution. And there's only one way that we as a country are going to restore our Constitution the way that it was intended, and that is for the people of the United States of America to take back our country and to restore the Constitution to what it was intended. Not rewrite it.

Remembering this, you, Glenn, you know, and your listeners know, you can recite what the Tenth Amendment said. And that is, all power not delegated to the United States in the Constitution is reserved to the states or to the people, period.

And that's the problem. It doesn't contain the additional clause that it needs, that says, and the states have the power to enforce the Tenth Amendment. And we need that additional clause in there so that courts will stop denying states the authority to enforce the Tenth Amendment.

GLENN: I think one of the best governors in America. In fact, people in Texas feel -- the last poll came out last week. Texans, asked their opinion of all of the statewide officeholders, including our US senators, who are awful popular here. Ted Cruz very popular, he -- Governor Abbott was the most popular by a wide margin. Congratulations on that. And thanks for being with us, Governor Abbott.

GREG: Thank you so much, Glenn. God bless.

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.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

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