Glenn to Sen. Jeff Flake: I respect you, but you’re talking to me like I'm a 3rd grader

April 25, 2013

Writer

Glenn has always been a fan of Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) because of his fiscal conservatism and spending discipline. But Sen. Flake raised some eyebrows when he chose to join the so-called ‘Gang of Eight’ with the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Schumer to pass ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform.

This morning, Sen. Flake joined the radio program to discuss the latest developments in the immigration legislation, and it is safe to say things got a little heated. Glenn’s primary concern with the Gang of Eight’s proposal is the four Republicans are making too many concessions and not getting enough in return. Sen. Flake, meanwhile, attempted to defend the policies.

Glenn pointed out that Sen. Flake recently remarked “nothing focuses the mind like a bad election,” and “for a variety of reasons, its time” to take action with immigration reform. “I saw your quote,” Glenn said. “Is this being pursued for political reasons or security reasons?”

“Keep in mind, I've been pushing for immigration reform during my entire 12 years in the House of Representatives,” Sen. Flake responded. “I'm not a Johnny-come-lately just because of an election. I think that this makes good policy sense. And what makes good policy sense is usually what makes good political sense as well.”

Sen. Flake went on to explain what he sees as one of the most important part of the bill, spending an additional $500 billion on more manpower at the border. “That’s just the start,” he said. “We recognize we need better and more fencing, more manpower, more surveillance.”

Considering the promise of a better, more secure fence has existed for several decades now, Glenn could not accept Sen. Flake’s notion that this time around would be any different. “What is it now that the fence is going to get built,” Glenn asked.

“Well, it isn’t built now. Like you said, it isn’t complete,” Sen. Flake said “We do need more fencing. There are certain areas of the border that fencing does not make sense – it makes more sense to have surveillance and other things, rather than a barrier like that.”

“I respect you. I like you. I think you have done a great job in Washington. I think you're one of the few that have kept your soul while there,” Glenn reiterated. “But you are talking to me on this issue like I'm a third grader. Like I don't understand that we do need to do something on the border.”

“Could you please, without doing Washington double speak that sounds like John McCain from 1987, tell me how we are actually going to deal with this,” Glenn continued. “How you would believe the Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham actually are going to do anything this time?”

Sen. Flake explained that simply building a fence will not solve the problem. Instead, the bill will implement a ‘second border’ through e-verify.

“If people can’t work here, fewer will come to live here,” he said. “We’ll have a legal framework for people to come and return home. You combine that with the employer enforcement, and finally being able to determine if a Social Security number is not just valid but is not used by 12 other people around the country at the same time. That's improvement. That's a good thing.”

Furthermore, Sen. Flake explained that the ultimate goal should not be sealing the border but securing it. “Yuma, for example, every morning between the hours of 4 and 8AM you have 10,000 legal crossings of the border in one port, one land entry. And that’s a good thing because they come and work in our fields and return home. And so what we need is a secure border. We have a better situation than we did a few years ago. It needs to be much better still. But in order to do that you need not only reinforcements on the border and to strengthen the border. You need the workplace as well.”

In addition to the problems American’s face at our southern border, the Boston Marathon bombing has proven there is currently an equal, if not greater threat coming from overseas – those entering the U.S. on student visas, work visas, etc. “We have 15,000 people from hostile Muslim countries on student visas that haven't shown up to their schools,” Glenn said. “How are you going to enforce that?”

“That’s exactly it. 40 percent of those here illegally now didn’t sneak across the border. They came on a student visa or vacation visa or tourist visa that have overstayed,” Sen. Flake said. “We don't have an entry, and exit system. We know when they enter. We just don’t know if or when they leave. That’s a problem. It’s a huge problem that we have. And until we have an entry, exit system that works, we're going to have this problem.”

“That is provided for in the bill. And funding is provided to bring it about,” he continued. “I'm not saying any system is going to be perfect. You're going to have people sneaking across the border or overstay visas. But you’ve got to have an entry, exit system that works. That’s what we are trying to do with this bill.”

Stu was still concerned, however, that the comprehensive nature of the bill allowed for a path to citizenship that resembled amnesty too much.

“Amnesty is an unconditional pardon for a breach of law. This is not an unconditional pardon,” Sen. Flake explained. “Those who're illegally and wish to stay will have to pay a fine… If you want to have RPI status, come out the shadows and work, then you have to pay the fine in order to get RPI status. That's the bottom line. If you're unwilling to do that then you can't get on this path.”

But Pat wasn’t buying it. He referenced previous legislation from the 1990s that required similar fines that ended up being virtually impossible to enforce. People who avoid the fine will continue to live in the shadows, just as they do now, which means nothing will change as a result of this bill.

“It's a long, arduous path. It really is,” Sen. Flake reiterated. “I submit that they will come forward… I think the vast majority of them will. If you take the flip side of that and say they won’t come forward, then what are we to do now? Why is the situation today, which is de facto amnesty, better than trying something like this?”

Glenn said that he will not be on board with the Gang of Eight’s plan until something is done about the border. Sen. Flake was quick to remind Glenn, however, that the only way to get something passed in a polarized Congress is to compromise.

“When you do a bill that can get through Congress, you do make compromises. There are things that I don't like necessarily about this bill,” Sen. Flake said. “But the reality is there are only 45 Republican and 55 Democrats, and in order to get something through the Senate that will go a long way towards fixing the border and the situation we have now – you're not going to have the exact bill that you want.”

“I do respect you,” Glenn said to Sen. Flake. “And there are not a lot of people that can come on the show and take this line of fire and do it with grace. You haven’t convinced me. But thank you for coming on.”

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

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