Glenn talks to Michael Farris of about the need for a Parental Rights Amendment

There are a considerable amount of stories in the news recently that revolve around the rights of the parent. In Massachusetts, the Pelletier family is fighting to regain custody of their 15-year-old daughter Justina after the state took custody of her in February 2013. Just this week, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the German family seeking asylum because their home country forbids homeschooling. Fortunately, the Romeike family was ultimately granted “indefinite deferred action status,” but the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal speaks volumes. In New Jersey, a 19-year-old has taken her parent’s to court to demand child support even though she chose to leave the house because she did not wish to abide by her parent’s rules.

In all of these cases, the rights of the parents have been called into question, and on radio this morning, Michael Farris of joined Glenn to discuss the work his organization is doing to introduce a ‘Parental Rights Amendment’ to states around the country.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“That’s what I wanted to talk to you about, Michael, because you also run And you and David Barton have been working on some things. I called David a couple of weeks ago and I said, ‘David, what can we possibly do?’ And he said there is a law in six states that has been passed, and it stops things like Justina,” Glenn said. “You have a right to discipline your child the way you see fit. You have a right to raise them you see fit – religious education and health care are all under this particular law that has been passed in six states.”

The Parental Rights Amendment focuses on two key principles:

  • Fit parents should be allowed to direct the upbringing of their children.
  • American legislators, not international tribunals, should make the public policy for America on families and children.

Glenn asked Michael to explain what the passage of the amendment at the state level will combat.

“It will stop the government from assuming that it has the ability to parent your child… That whole philosophy needs to be stopped dead in its tracks,” Michael explained. “And we need to say: Parents are in charge of raising their kids… not the government, not the courts, not the public schools, not the kids themselves. Only one person can be the decision-maker for a child. It’s going to be the parents. Not any of these other things.”

Pat raised the obvious concern of how this amendment will effect the prosecution of child abusers. Michael explained that cases of child abuse undoubtedly satisfy the “compelling interest test.”

“If you need to stop child abuse, that’s compelling interest. And what it boils down to is: Our statute requires them to have evidence of that,” Michael explained. “If you’re going to intervene in a family with kids, you have to have evidence that they’re harming their child. You got evidence that they’re harming their child? Okay. That’s fine. But if you don’t have evidence that their harming their child and you can’t prove it in court, then you need to let the parents raise these kids.”

You can learn more about the Parental Rights Amendment and what you can do to get the legislation passed in your state HERE.

Glenn believes this legislation will be fundamental to maintaining parental rights and freedoms.

“I so appreciate what you guys are doing… We need to do everything in our power to stop it, and then rely on God,” Glenn concluded. “What we can do is pass this in all of our states. And you can find this at Michael, thank you so much for all the work that you do. I think you’re a very important organization.”

  • landofaahs

    And make it almost impossible for government to mess with the God given rights of parents. If abuse is present then file charges just as if someone attacked his neighbor for instance. But you are innocent until proven guilty. But government is guilty until proven innocent.

    • Jennifer J. Martin


      ✪✪✪ ✪�✪✪ ✪✪✪ ✪ㆥ✪✪✪ ✪✪✪Glenn asked Michael to explain what the passage of the amendment at the state level will combat.

    • Shawn Cameron

      Yes and while the charges are being filed and the wheels of justice slowly turn the abuse continues. Then if God forbid the child dies before the case comes to court everyone blames social services for not acting quickly enough. The key word in the description is “Fit parents”.

      • landofaahs

        I’m sorry but we cannot dismiss the rights of people for expediency. heck why don’t we just throw people in prison without trial. I could just as easy say that you cannot take children from their parents because social services often put those so-called protected children in the custody of even worse people. The trail of abuses of children taken from their parents is well documented, so why would we take the child from their parents when they could die of abuse with social services. You are a moron and frankly probably one of those we need to worry about.

        • Shawn Cameron

          “I could just as easy say that you cannot take children from their parents because social services often put those so-called protected children in the custody of even worse people.”

          That statement alone tells me you simply don’t know what you are talking about and frankly watch too much TV. Do you have any experience in dealing with the foster care system? Are you, or do you know any foster parents? Have you ever known someone who worked for child services or have you yourself? Or are you simply talking about things you really know nothing about?

          Substantiated abuse of foster children is very rare, but when it happens it makes the news (as well it should because 1 child being abused is 1 too many) Numbers vary from year to year but it’s about 5% on average. So saying that children are “often” placed in more danger is simply incorrect.

          “I’m sorry but we cannot dismiss the rights of people for expediency”

          You’re correct, we can however protect children from abusive or neglectful parents. Or are children not people who have rights as well?

          “heck why don’t we just throw people in prison without trial.”

          No, but generally before a trial a person is arrested (as in placed in jail) and often depending on the severity of the crimes they are accused of they are denied bail and forced to sit in jail (prison) while awaiting trial, sometimes for months. As in with child services if the children are considered to be in immediate danger they are removed from the home and (in my state) a trial is held within 3 days (commonly referred to as a 72 hour hearing) in which the parents and child services present their case to a judge and he or she determines if the child/ren should be returned to the parents or retained by the state. Hardly a “dismissal” of anyone’s rights when comparing the two.

          “You are a moron and frankly probably one of those we need to worry about.”

          As usual someone has to resort to name calling, As far as you being “worried about me”, not quite sure what you mean there. I’m not looking to take your kids I have enough of my own. Three, two of which are adopted. Because their bio-dad didn’t want the responsibility and their bio-mom loved her meth and cocaine more. But hey I guess that was her “right”. Yeah for 3 years I heard all about her “rights” failing drug test after drug test, refusing to get a job, police constantly called to her house to break up fights. Then child services found out she had been hiding a pregnancy as she gave birth to a dead baby with a host of drugs in its system. That was when her rights were terminated and my wife and I were able to give those kids the home and life they deserved. They’re both honor students and overall good kids. Should they have been returned to her to continue being neglected and turned into drug addicts like her or worse because that’s her “right” to do so?

          The “God given right as a parent” like most of our rights has to be exercised with responsibility and if we don’t we run the risk of losing that right (just as felons have had their 2nd Amendment rights taken away). Someone’s “right” to be a parent does not trump a child’s “right” to physical and mental well being. If my believing so makes me a moron in your opinion, then that’s your opinion. As I said I agree with the description as its read in the article;

          “FIT PARENTS should be allowed to direct the upbringing of their children.”

          But (in my opinion) “Making it almost impossible” for child services to make that determination therefore making them powerless to protect children…………………..

          IS MORONIC!

          • landofaahs

            I could not even make it through the 2nd paragraph of your crap. You are no doubt a person who makes their living in the “break up the family” industry. Your type look for reasons to do so. How many families are broken up for frivolous reasons? Od course you have bogus numbers I’m sure for that too. However at some point in time, parents will start protecting their families from evil people like you. Some day you might mess with the wrong people. Our conversation is over because your type are not worth my time. Just don’t mess with my family, period. +

          • Shawn Cameron

            LMAO Thank you for your cowardly and intellectually void response that pretty much proves what I pointed out in my second paragraph, that you don’t have the first clue as to what you are talking about.

            I can check your response off line by line as the typical response by someone who has been called out for talking out of their ass. Yeah and I apologize for being so long winded before I should have considered who I was talking to and perhaps written my response in broken sentence fragments or even caveman talk, so that you could better understand it.

            As for my bogus numbers, feel free to as Glen Beck says “Do your own homework.” but people like you don’t like facts getting in the way of their twisted little world views. Your paranoid delusions about the “break up the family” industry (great stock options BTW) tell me you may need some professional help. Oh and you may consider things like sexual abuse, physical abuse, children being rented out to perverts so mom can support her drug habit “frivolous reasons” and you can side with those who do such things. But I will side with those who protect children from such people.

          • landofaahs

            Your talking out of your mouth and ass because they are both interchangeable parts. I just enjoy those stories when one of your ilk picks the wrong family to mess with and you Nazi types get a chance to get your butts sued. As far as do my homework I am on you. It won’t be difficult.

          • Shawn Cameron

            “Your talking out of your mouth and as because they are both interchangeable parts.”

            Where to begin? With “and as because” you’ve invented a new way to butcher the English language, congrats Or just with the whole “Pee Wee Herman-esque tone of that statement. Your on me? It won’t be difficult? Somehow I get the feeling you’re the kind of person that finds chewing with your mouth closed difficult. And was that supposed to scare me? Please. Nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic.

            The fact that you are a coward has already been established;

            “Our conversation is over because your type are not worth my time.”

            That’s internet speak for “Well shit he’s smarter than me so I just better back out”, and you should have. Because with that last response you went full blown idiot. Oh yes and I noticed you’re now following me since before I wasn’t worth your time. Please continue to do so, you might actually gain some form of education. I try to do my part for the mentally handicapped.

          • Shawn Cameron

            “I just enjoy those stories when one of your ilk picks the wrong family to mess with and you Nazi types get a chance to meet your creator.”

            This comment proves what I originally said you watch too much TV. Please give me an example of these “stories”.

            Oh and don’t use anything you saw on Criminal Minds or one of the dozens of Law and Orders or CSI’s because, and I know this is probably going to blow your belief system out of the water but, ‘they’re not real’.

          • Anonymous

            I applaud you for adopting your children and giving them a good home., however, there are indeed many cases of children being abused, lost and dying while in state custody. Please Google Massachusetts DCF and you will see what’s going on up here. The incompetence and dirty tricks of a few have caused public outrage and demands for reform. It should be easy to take children out of abusive homes, but it should be impossible to take children out of loving homes. There should be a solution that satisfies both agendas. I don’t pretend o know that solution might be.

          • Shawn Cameron

            I don’t know what is going on in Mass. but I will research it when I have some time. Yes you’re correct there are many cases of that, and as I said 1 is 1 too many. Landofaahs was attempting to say that it happens to most of them, and as I pointed out that is simply not true, it makes for good TV, but still not true.

            Corruption should be investigated and dealt with swiftly, but keep in mind much like criminals blame the police, DFCS clients blame the social workers. So I’m always skeptical when I hear someone cry fowl, I dealt with one for 3 years as I said. Not saying that all of them are doing that, just please understand because of my personal experience I don’t just take it at face value.

            I agree with you 110% it should be easy to remove them from abusive homes and impossible to remove them from loving homes. The solution is as the article says proof. As I said I don’t know about Mass. but here they have to go before a judge within 72 hours and justify their decision as to why the children are removed, and none of them I know want to look like a fool in front of the judge.

  • The Blue Tail Gadfly

    There goes Glenn again, promoting the charlatans that wish to undermine the US Constitution. The Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) is another Trojan Horse Amendment that actually empowers the federal government, which is the exact opposite of what the sugar coated title suggests.

    Michael Farris also runs the Convention of the States Project which advocates a Constitutional Convention and the Balanced Budget Amendment (which legalizes unconstitutional spending).

    Here is a link explaining what Michael Farris’ PRA actually does:

    And here is another on the lies being put forth in their push for a Con Con:
    Wake up to these “conservative” pied pipers who are leading America off the cliff before it’s too late.

    • Mike Nelson

      I’ve realized that you’re fairly pessimistic toward almost every organization… but are there any that you do endorse or agree with? I seem to recall that you have spoken well of some, but can’t remember who, anymore.

      • The Blue Tail Gadfly

        “I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me… And there are some things, of course, whose side I am altogether not on; I am against them altogether…” ~Treebeard, The Two Towers

        I haven’t came across any organizations that I would endorse, but then again, I am only looking at the ones that are always being promoted by the “conservative media”. A person should know who they are jumping in bed with before hand. When looking behind the curtain, you find many of the same players involved, very incestuous.

        No surprise, the left is setup in the same manner.


        “Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed.”
        ~Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802.

        • Mike Nelson

          I believe that I begin to understand your position…

          You are a Constitutional purist, then?

          Do you think that an Article 5 Convention, given the apparent modern lack of understanding of the Godly values of the Founders, could be successful in terms of improving the lot of We, The People?

          Or would you sooner endorse something more resembling revolution?

          I know already that we view capitalism/socialism/communism differently, so no need to explain at that level, unless you are so compelled, but as you consider this personal query, be aware that although I tend to extol Biblical virtues and strive to develop and improve my personal Faith, that I find so many religious organizations to be utterly blind to individual Faith in their endorsement of doctrinal purity and tradition. A perfect example of this is the various Synods of the Lutheran following.

          • The Blue Tail Gadfly

            Hi Mike, sorry for the delay.

            I’m a purist until someone can present a rational and logical argument for amending the Constitution. I’m all for repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments ASAP, but that can be done without an extremely dangerous Convention, as was the 18th Amendment.

            As you are probably aware, when our Constitution was originally written, it did not contain a Bill of Rights. Why? Because the Framers were worried it would be interpreted that if a Right wasn’t enumerated in the Constitution, it would mean it didn’t exist.

            People like Michael Farris are playing on America’s ignorance of the Constitution to advance their hidden agenda. The Parental Rights Amendment and the Balanced Budget Amendment gives the federal government broader authority and does nothing to limit it.

            What Congress can legally spend money on has already been enumerated and over half of the federal government’s budget is unconstitutional. Instead of demanding the Constitution be enforced and elect people who will, these charlatans offer subterfuge.

            Endorse revolution?

            Since I am on the side of the Supreme Law of the Land, what I endorse is not revolution, that would be the ones who are undermining the foundation this country was built on.

            Re: “I know already that we view capitalism/socialism/communism differently…”

            Since I don’t know your views, perhaps you could explain where we differ?


            “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.” ~Judge Learned Hand


          • Mike Nelson

            I agree with you about the 16th and 17th; these should be obvious, but the construct of the bureaucracy today will never (imo) be pliable to rescinding these amendments. On the other hand, I’ve seen some really Evil things happen when Rule of Law is discarded, and the first thing that happens is that people get run over by each other, law enforcement, military deployment, hunger, disease, and yet still more. That is part of the reason I asked if you are more supportive of outright revolution, because – while I want to support a change of much more than can be done legislatively, at least without an activist president and a cadre of strongarms who would amount to coup, even if I agreed with their goals – that is a road of last resort, and things aren’t that bad yet.

            Bad enough for widespread civil disobedience, YES… but revolution… no.

            Regarding the lack of a Bill of Rights in the original founding documents… I believe that there was no Bill of Rights in the original Articles of Confederation for your cited reason, amongst other separatist concerns, and that the Constitution was not ratified UNTIL there was a Bill of Rights implicitly tied to the document. In fact, I believe that the attendees of the 1887 Constitutional Convention were censured (imprisoned?) for going farther than revising the Articles, and instead, creating a new founding document, which is why it took an additional four years and the elimination of two of the proposed twelve Amendments before 3/4 of the States would ratify – hence, Glenn’s 1791 line.

            I’m going on mostly memory here, and only a quick websearch for dates, so if I’m wrong, please correct me.

            Assuming I am correct (or at least mostly so), do not the 9th and 10th Amendments satisfy your (and 3/4 of the ratifying states’) concerns regarding usurpation of rights not specifically enumerated to the newly formed Federal Government? Surely, given 200+ years to see where we have allowed things to go, we can critique aspects as ineffective, but in that same regard, how, other than force, would you ascertain as a superior way to enforce aspects of these documents that have simply not been upheld?

            Clearly, for at least since Lincoln, there have been easily identifiable violations of the Constitution and BoR, but nothing is ever done about it, a practice that has become more corrupt than actually having written down what the state CAN do to We, The People. I exaggerate a bit, but not much; there is great harm in having unenforced laws on the books, just as there is great harm in not enforcing law, which as you correctly cite, is behavior coming from both sides (both of which imo are now to the Left of Center).

            RE: cap/soc/commie, I haven’t access to your locked activity, and probably wouldn’t have time to search for, the posts that led me to this conclusion, but I didn’t form that opinion lightly. Perhaps my view was formed by seeing a sharp response to someone with whom you took issue simply to make a point, or play devil’s advocate. Perhaps I took you out of context. Perhaps I’m just mistaken.

            I am a capitalist. Demand is the natural determinant of price/value, and supply is the ultimate arbiter of that price. Hence, a lack of supply leads to a natural increase in demand, and an over-supply leads to a natural decline. When an individual is prevented from going out and producing labor/goods/commerce, there is a problem with capitalism, but that is a different discussion, to which the word “crony” ought be applied.

            Socialism and Communism ignore We, The People, in favor of determining how much of something there will be, and letting the pieces fall into the hands of the aristocracy, politicians, and otherwise “socially dependable” or “valuable” people, as perks for playing the game the right way. This eventually includes everything from land, to weapons, to money, to food, to privacy, to anything else you can name, and both are merely oligarchy/monarchy/aristocratic hereditary rule by another name.

            Every other theory, to me, is pap.

            Anarchy and Capitalism are the ONLY forms of commerce that allow for persons to determine value and “fair trade” as a function of supply and demand, as well as to participate in ownership, and between those two, I cannot endorse anarchy.

        • Anonymous

          “No surprise, the left is setup in the same manner”. I’m glad you threw that in there. That allows me to agree with everything you’ve said. Extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are trampling on the constitution. Their ultimate goal -IMO-is to do away with it.

  • Connor

    I am all for this.

  • Oscar’s Wilde

    At every opportunity, each of us should take the opportunity to hone our intellectual Excalibur:

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.