Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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

September 18, 2017
Staff

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.

The Deep State's NEW plan to backstab Trump

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.