Trump Aide Calls for a ‘Conversation’ About ‘the Definition of a Wall’ – What?

September 18, 2017

WRITER

President Donald Trump famously vowed to build “a great wall” on the southern borderduring his presidential campaign.

What’s going on?

Trump and Republicans have made some attempts to get funding for his promised border wall. But last week after meeting with Democrat leaders, Trump said, “We will build the wall later.”

Who is confused about the definition of a “wall”?

White House legislative affairs director Marc Short appears to be. “I think that what the definition of a wall is, is something that we all need to have a serious conversation,” Short said over the weekend on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

The border will be secured by a “myriad of different structures,” Short said.

Last week, Trump tweeted that “The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.”

In another theory, Steve Doocy of “Fox & Friends” asked last week if the wall had “become symbolic.”

When is a wall not a wall?

On Monday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program,” Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere were perplexed over this new confusion about what a wall should be since Trump seemed to be definite during his campaign.

The reasoning behind a physical barrier on the border was so the next president can’t simply change immigration policy.

“We’ll be going back and forth, every four years,” Glenn said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Stu, I -- could you just do me a favor? Could you just Google something for me?

STU: Sure.

GLENN: A wall.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Could you just Google that for me?

STU: Like the definition?

GLENN: The definition of a wall or wall.

STU: A continuous vertical brick or stone structure that encloses or divides a corner of land.

GLENN: No. Get to the one that says a concept of amnesty.

STU: I'm going to be scrolling for a while I think to get to --

GLENN: You don't think that's -- scroll amnesty wall. Google that. Amnesty wall.

STU: Amnesty wall.

GLENN: Because there's a new thing happening here -- and we're going to play the audio here in a second, where everybody is saying, "No, he didn't mean a wall, wall." Well, what the hell did he -- wait. What?

STU: You thought he meant a wall, wall?

GLENN: A wall, like the one that I thought we all agreed on was the definition of the four-letter word, wall.

STU: See, he didn't mean a wall. You're thinking of a wall like a wall you would use to separate to --

GLENN: Right. Yes. Yes.

STU: That's a common mistake, that's --

GLENN: Okay. What did he mean when he said -- no, he was talking about a concept. When he was talking about hanging solar panels.

STU: On the concept, yes.

GLENN: What kind of concept holds solar panels up?

STU: A wall concept.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: A solar wall concept hangs solar panels.

GLENN: So this wall, it's a wall concept, is that like an occasional table?

STU: Yes. I think it's like an occasional table.

GLENN: I mean, it's an occasional table. I don't know what it is the rest of the time, but occasionally, I think it's a table. I don't know what that means. So maybe this is a concept wall, like an occasional table. But I will tell you, if that indeed is true, occasional tables are always still tables.

VOICE: Is it a real wall that you're talking about, or a fence?

VOICE: I think that what the definition of a wall is something that we all need to have a serious conversation. In some cases, it will be a bollard fence, which was in fact, was appropriated last year. And we've already begun construction --

VOICE: In that tweet, the president tweeted yesterday, the wall, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls will be --

GLENN: This is Mark Short over the weekend from the White House.

VOICE: That's a far cry from there will be a wall and Mexico will pay for it.

VOICE: Well, Wolfe, there's already, in fact, in many cases along the Rio Grande River levies that are built. And, in fact, are higher in some cases than what the wall would be.

So, yes, it is a myriad of different structures along the wall that we expect to be secure to make sure that Americans are safe.

VOICE: He promised the wall, and Mexico will pay for it. Will he deliver on that promise?

VOICE: The president is going to deliver on his promise.

VOICE: How are you going to convince the Mexicans to pay for it? They say there's no way they're going to pay for it. The president of Mexico, he says, that isn't happening. We all saw the transcript of that conversation he had the president.

VOICE: Yeah, Wolfe, I've doubted the president before. I've been proven wrong. I suspect that he's going to make sure that that wall is built and that Mexico will pay for it.

STU: We have to have a conversation about what the word "wall" means.

GLENN: What do you mean?

STU: Because we were told there was going to be a wall.

GLENN: A physical wall.

STU: And now we have to have a serious conversation about the definition of a wall.

GLENN: No, actually we don't. Here's -- from Fox & Friends, here's Steve Doocy.

VOICE: Has the wall almost become symbolic? I mean, I know the president ran on it. It was a mantra. But at the same time, border crossings have gone down dramatically.

GLENN: Yeah.

VOICE: And you were talking about how the wall exists in certain forms. And there's money to go to it. It has to come from Congress. But do you think we'll get to the point where maybe they won't build a wall.

GLENN: Hmm. Maybe they won't build a wall.

STU: So the definition of wall is mantra? It's mantra?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So it's not a wall, wall? Like when I think of a wall, I think of a wall.

GLENN: No. It's -- this is more of cotton in a vase. This is more decorative.

STU: Oh, it's decorative?

GLENN: It's decorative. The wall is more decorative. And gets us to start a conversation, which is another theory that was passed around this weekend.

VOICE: So is Trump going back on his promise on the wall, or was the wall his blunt way of raising the issue? Saying build a wall is just a catchier way of saying, fix our borders. Face it, saying I love you is way better than saying, "I have a biological attraction to you that may wear off at some point."

STU: I -- wait. So it wasn't a wall. It was a catchier way of saying control the border? That is what it is?

GLENN: That's clearly what it is.

STU: It's clearly what it was. So when they're saying wall, what they're saying is basically amnesty?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: Okay. So it's --

GLENN: Yes. See, here's the deal: Look, I understand people -- people are going to -- people want to live here.

They want to live where Fox is telling them to go live because you don't want to feel like you were duped. And I understand that.

And it is human nature. And you want to give somebody -- you've trusted -- you've put a lot of stock into. And so you don't want to feel like, "Oh, wait a minute. He was lying." So what you will do is you will lower the standards. It is the Overton Window. You will lower the standards and you will say, "Yes, well, him just saying that has turned around people coming across the border." Well, why is it? Why is it we wouldn't have a conversation in America on -- on amnesty, and why wouldn't we have a conversation on any kind of border security that seemed reasonable to people? We wouldn't have that conversation because we said, the next president that comes in, all he's going to do is reverse it.

You have to have a physical wall because the next president -- and so we'll be going back and forth. Every four years, we'll just be going back and forth. And we can't do that. That was your reason.

And now, people just don't want to feel humiliated. And they don't want to feel like they were duped. And so they are -- they're giving themselves an out. Please don't go over the cliff with the rest of society. Please don't do that.

There has to be something that is true and solid like a wall in your life, that you say, "Okay. I'm not going to cross this wall."

STU: So you're saying I can cross those lines when I need to is what you're saying? In my life -- there are certain lines that I can kind of just move over when needed?

GLENN: Exactly right. Except completely reverse it.

STU: Then everything will be fine.

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