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.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.

Glenn: Texas judge deals a crushing blow to ESG agenda

The tides have turned — and now the very same banks that were pushing heavy-handed environmental, social, governance rules are running away from them.

In a significant victory, a federal judge in Texas has ruled that employers and asset managers cannot use environmental, social, and governance factors in employee retirement accounts. If this ruling holds up — which is likely, given the conservative composition of the appellate court — it will dramatically shift the balance of power between corporations and their employees.

This decision represents one of the most substantial blows to the ESG agenda to date. Companies that have been steering employees into ESG-focused investments, which prioritize progressive values over financial returns, now face legal repercussions. Continuing such practices would directly violate federal law. The ruling forces companies to re-evaluate their commitment to ESG initiatives, and many may withdraw from these funds before the case even reaches the appellate court.

Watching these corporations squirm as they try to backtrack and avoid legal repercussions is ever so satisfying.

The impact of this ruling could very well be the beginning of the end for the ESG movement as it’s been pushed by elites.

In even better news, BlackRock, a major player in the ESG movement, has officially left the United Nations’ International Association of Asset Managers. This is a direct rebuke of the global push for ESG initiatives and a major sign that the tide is turning. In contrast to the Glasgow Net Zero Conference in which the Global Financial Alliance for Net Zero — an organization championed by global elites — was pushing for ESG to be a central focus, BlackRock’s departure from the group signals that even those who were at the forefront of this movement are starting to distance themselves.

But it doesn't stop there. Every major U.S. bank has now announced that they too are leaving the U.N.’s Association of Net Zero ESG Bankers, another key part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance. For years, we’ve been warning that ESG in banking was one of the primary ways elites like Biden, the Davos crowd, and others were planning to reset the world’s economy.

The tides have turned — and now those very same banks are running away from ESG, a powerful signal of things to come. They know they’re on the losing side, and they’re scared that a new administration will come down hard on them for their involvement in these globalist initiatives.

In another win, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unveiled a shocking new rule that, if it survives, would prohibit many financial institutions from de-banking customers based on their political or religious views, or even certain types of speech. While the rule is not as comprehensive as we need it to be, it’s a step in the right direction — and it includes concerns raised by our allies about the dangers of ESG. The Trump administration has promised to come down even harder on the banks with tougher rules, and this is a very good start.

Watching these corporations squirm as they try to backtrack and avoid legal repercussions is ever so satisfying. Some are running for cover while others are desperately trying to ingratiate themselves with the powers that be. It’s clear that the backbone of these companies is made of rubber, not steel. They don’t really believe in the ESG values they preach — they’re just playing the game to get in bed with the political elites.

Now that Trump is back in town, these corporations are showing their true colors. They never cared about their customers or the values they forced upon them. It was always about the power they could acquire through catering to those in power at the time.

No company should be afraid of the president of the United States. But they’re not afraid of Donald Trump. They’re afraid of the return of the rule of law. They know that fascistic public-private partnerships between the government and corporations are on the way out. That’s a victory for freedom and a victory for the American people.

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