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.

Without civic action, America faces collapse

JEFF KOWALSKY / Contributor | Getty Images

Every vote, jury duty, and act of engagement is civics in action, not theory. The republic survives only when citizens embrace responsibility.

I slept through high school civics class. I memorized the three branches of government, promptly forgot them, and never thought of that word again. Civics seemed abstract, disconnected from real life. And yet, it is critical to maintaining our republic.

Civics is not a class. It is a responsibility. A set of habits, disciplines, and values that make a country possible. Without it, no country survives.

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Civics happens every time you speak freely, worship openly, question your government, serve on a jury, or cast a ballot. It’s not a theory or just another entry in a textbook. It’s action — the acts we perform every day to be a positive force in society.

Many of us recoil at “civic responsibility.” “I pay my taxes. I follow the law. I do my civic duty.” That’s not civics. That’s a scam, in my opinion.

Taking up the torch

The founders knew a republic could never run on autopilot. And yet, that’s exactly what we do now. We assume it will work, then complain when it doesn’t. Meanwhile, the people steering the country are driving it straight into a mountain — and they know it.

Our founders gave us tools: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, elections. But they also warned us: It won’t work unless we are educated, engaged, and moral.

Are we educated, engaged, and moral? Most Americans cannot even define a republic, never mind “keep one,” as Benjamin Franklin urged us to do after the Constitutional Convention.

We fought and died for the republic. Gaining it was the easy part. Keeping it is hard. And keeping it is done through civics.

Start small and local

In our homes, civics means teaching our children the Constitution, our history, and that liberty is not license — it is the space to do what is right. In our communities, civics means volunteering, showing up, knowing your sheriff, attending school board meetings, and understanding the laws you live under. When necessary, it means challenging them.

How involved are you in your local community? Most people would admit: not really.

Civics is learned in practice. And it starts small. Be honest in your business dealings. Speak respectfully in disagreement. Vote in every election, not just the presidential ones. Model citizenship for your children. Liberty is passed down by teaching and example.

Samuel Corum / Stringer | Getty Images

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Start with yourself. Study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and state laws. Study, act, serve, question, and teach. Only then can we hope to save the republic. The next election will not fix us. The nation will rise or fall based on how each of us lives civics every day.

Civics isn’t a class. It’s the way we protect freedom, empower our communities, and pass down liberty to the next generation.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.