BLOGAugust 01, 2017

Heartbreaking: Glenn Sheds Tears With Mother Whose Children Were Taken by the State

Oregon couple Amy Fabbrini and Eric Ziegler lost custody of their son Christopher about four years ago, shortly after he was born. Fabbrini gave birth to their second son in February --- and he was taken by the Department of Human Services before leaving the hospital. Fabbrini and Ziegler claim the state took these actions because of their low IQ.

Tuesday on radio, Glenn spoke with Fabbrini and her advocate Sherrene Hagenbach, who was appointed by the state as a volunteer supervisor during the couple's visits with their children. Hagenbach was relieved of her position after siding with the couple. She's on record as saying there's "no sign of abuse" and that Fabbrini is "perfectly qualified to have and hold and love her children."

"I am so bothered by this story. I think you will be, too," Glenn said.

The story unexpectedly hit Glenn hard.

"I don't know what you expected her to sound like, but she sounded perfectly normal to me. She is a mother who loves her children. Sorry this . . . hits close to home. I have a daughter with cerebral palsy who is a wonderful . . . and would make the best mother ever," Glenn said emotionally, following the interview with Fabbrini.

The couple has gone through rigorous testing to prove their competency, but their children remain in foster care, awaiting adoption.

TAKE ACTION

To learn more or get involved:

• Visit Sherrene Hagenbach online at aktionnow.com

• SIGN THE PETITION to get Christopher and Hunter back in their parents' care

• DONATE via GoFundMe to assist with the family's legal expenses

GLENN: In light of Charlie Gard and now Alfie Evans, and in the past, it was Justine Pelletier, governments and hospitals are taking children from their parents. And we want to make sure that you are aware of this. We welcome Sherrene Hagenbach, her mentor, and Amy Fabbrini, the mother who is going through this in Oregon. Amy, how are you?

AMY: I'm doing good. Thank you.

GLENN: Tell me -- tell me what's happening to you and what's happening to your children.

AMY: So Christopher, my oldest, he was taken -- he was taken into CPS custody almost four years ago. And we have been fighting the state for almost four years now to get him back, trying to represent him as best as we can, trying to get our story out there, trying to get a lawyer, an attorney that will represent us in court so we can get our -- get Christopher back. We have a trial coming up in December to terminate our rights for Christopher.

And then Hunter, he was born in February. He was two days old. CPS came. Took him right from the hospital. I didn't even get to bring him home. So since then, we've been fighting for him as well. We've been getting our story out there to try and find someone that can represent us so we can go up against the state to get our kids back. And we just -- we want our story out there so they know that you can get your kids back.

GLENN: Amy, are -- are you a good mom?

AMY: I'm a wonderful mother. I love my boys. I would do anything for my boys.

GLENN: Sorry. This has caught me off guard. I have a daughter of special needs. And so this has caught me off guard. I'm sorry to be emotional with you.

What does it feel like to now have to be on national radio with people discussing your IQ and saying that you're not smart enough to be a mom?

AMY: It's -- it's been hard. But it's worth it to get my story out there so that people know that you can get your kids back, as long as you just fight. Fight for everything you have because your kids are worth it.

PAT: Has a lawyer stepped up to help you, yet, Amy?

AMY: I have a court-appointed attorney and an appeals attorney. But I would like to see if I could find someone that's out of state that can better represent me.

GLENN: Sherrene.

SHERRENE: Hi. I'm doing good. Thank you.

GLENN: You worked for the state of Oregon?

SHERRENE: So, yes. Actually, I was a volunteer. So I'm a professional mediator by trade. And I went there to just volunteer my time in the community. And because of my credentials and education, they put me in the role of a caseworker that came into the home and observed visitations with the children.

GLENN: What did you observe?

SHERRENE: Well, first, I should preface this with I've had over 20 years' experience working with children, youth, and families.

So my undergrad is in psychology. And I have, you know, a ton of certificates regarding safety and health and abuse. And what I found when I came into the home is a home. I found two parents that just loved their child. It was just Christopher at the time. It was last summer.

And definitely, my first impression was that Amy, in particular, didn't speak to me very much.

GLENN: Didn't --

SHERRENE: She was very insecure.

GLENN: She didn't, what?

SHERRENE: She didn't speak with me at first. It took about four weeks at least to gain her trust in me as a caseworker.

And once she felt comfortable with me in the home, you know, it was -- it was clear to see that she had had years of -- you know, just this unhealthy relationship between her and the state of Oregon when they came in. So, you know, I just had to build that trust up with her. But I just saw a loving environment. There was -- you know, they've got the same dog apparently for the last five years. There's really nothing going on, at all, that I discovered other than maybe they were depressed and, you know, that was -- that was the only thing that I could see. And obviously, if they had their children back, that depression would have lifted.

GLENN: Yeah.

SHERRENE: In the ten months I had worked with her after -- she's just. She's got her voice now. She's fighting. You know, she's -- she's really looking for more than an advocate. Because we live in a small town here. And that's been the hardest thing for me is, one, to speak out against Child Protective Services and care for my family. My stepdad is a lawyer and judge in town. And my mom has got a pretty high position. So I wanted to protect them. But also stand up for people that don't feel like they have a voice and they're not being heard. So I'm pretty much the lone star out here. (chuckles)

And their attorneys are representing them. But, you know, they all know each other here. So I know that they're not being fought for properly.

GLENN: So -- can you hang on just a second. I need to take a quick break. I'm going to come back after a commercial break. We'll continue our conversation.

[break]

GLENN: Welcome back to the program. We're talking about Amy Fabbrini, who the state has decided -- the state of Oregon that she does not have a high enough IQ to be able to have her two children. Her first child was taken from her after being fine in the home and living for two or three years with mom and dad. And her second child has just been taken from her at the hospital at birth. Go ahead, Amy. Did I get something wrong?

AMY: Yeah. Christopher was only in our home for like four days when CPS came and took him.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: So, Amy, what is the thing -- talking to the mother, who, remember, is not smart enough to have her own children, according to the state of Oregon -- Amy, what caused this? Why did the state come over to your house? What was the complaint?

AMY: The initial complaint was that we had an ex-friend that was living with us. And they called CPS and reported that the father, Eric Ziegler, had been neglecting Christopher. He hadn't been picking up on his keys (phonetic). He wasn't cleaning him properly. And then there was also put in the report that he wasn't properly feeding our dog. That was the first report. And that's why CPS came in and took Christopher.

GLENN: Okay. And so the woman who came out -- Sherrene, you were the person that came out with that report?

SHERRENE: I am not the first person that came out with the initial report.

GLENN: Okay. And what did that first report say? That report took the child away?

SHERRENE: Yeah. The first report was called in supposedly by a roommate of theirs. And the second report was actually from Amy's father who was upset that she decided to move in with the father of her child.

GLENN: Okay.

SHERRENE: So they've just gone with that for, you know, the last almost four years now.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Sherrene, you have been with Amy over the last couple of years. You see her quite often, or not?

SHERRENE: Yes. So I was placed in the home as a volunteer. I gave my time. So I was placed in the home last May of 2016. And performed weekly visitations for three hours a piece with Amy, Eric, and their child Christopher.

GLENN: Over the last -- over the last year?

SHERRENE: So it was from May of 2016 until August of 2016, when their attorney asked for my -- my observations, because Child Protective Services was not releasing them. So --

GLENN: And, Amy, when was the birth date of your second child?

AMY: February 16th of 2017.

GLENN: February of 2017?

AMY: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: So, Amy, I have to ask you a tough question because this is what the people who are against you say, that you didn't know that you were pregnant until you had your child. And they find that unreasonable. It has happened before with people who are supposedly intelligent. But it is difficult to not know that you're not pregnant. Can you tell me about that. Is that true? What happened?

AMY: So that was with -- that was when I was -- I didn't know I was pregnant with Christopher. And I didn't. All I thought was -- because I have -- I have kidney issues. It's been passed down through my family. So when I was getting these -- when I was getting these pains in my side, I just thought it was my kidneys acting up. I had no indications that I was pregnant. I didn't have any movement or anything.

GLENN: And when you had no -- when you weren't having your period, is that normal for you?

AMY: Yes.

GLENN: And were you -- were you growing in size? Did you look pregnant?

AMY: No.

GLENN: Sherrene, can you help me out on that.

SHERRENE: Yeah. So, Amy's figure has just -- it's just always been the same ever since I met her actually. And when I came into the home last summer, she actually -- we didn't know at the time, but she was beginning, you know, her pregnancy for the second child. And she had stayed the same since the first time I've met her until today. She looks exactly the same. So -- and she just gave birth in February. How big are you? What is your size about?

GLENN: We don't have to get into that -- we don't have to get into that. Please.

AMY: It's something where you just -- you just can't -- you don't notice. It's just -- it's the way that she's built. But she did know she was pregnant with Hunter, the second child. And we discussed extensively about her coming forward. But they just had an incredible amount of fear that they would take their child. So --

GLENN: Which they did.

SHERRENE: Which they did, yeah.

GLENN: So your aunt, Amy, agrees with you and your husband and Sherrene, that --

AMY: Yes. She does.

GLENN: Your children are now up for adoption by the state.

AMY: Christopher is.

GLENN: How do you feel about that?

AMY: I don't feel it's right. He shouldn't be put up for adoption. He should be with us. It's completely wrong.

GLENN: Sherrene and Amy, how can we help you? Is there anything, first of all, that I've missed?

SHERRENE: Well, I would like to advocate that Amy and Eric have remained together. They live in a three-bedroom, two-bath home. It's owned by Eric's father. And they've taken extensive courses on parenting. What abuse and neglect looks like. Health and fitness. I mean, they are very proactive in showing the courts that they want to learn what they want them to learn. And that -- and they're proving to the courts and to everybody around here that they're very capable of learning. They're -- the IQ that is given, you know, is debatable anyway. That can be subject to depression, all kinds of things.

GLENN: Yes.

SHERRENE: But she's very articulate. They're very sweet. They're very kind. And what could help them is finding good representation to help them advocate for their rights to have their children. That is truly what we're looking for, for this family.

GLENN: How do they get in touch with you?

SHERRENE: They can go to either my website or they can contact me via email.

GLENN: Okay. Give me the information right now. Yeah.

SHERRENE: Okay. So my website is www.aktionnow.com. But it's spelled with a K. So it's A-K-T-I-O-N-N-O-W.com.

GLENN: Okay.

SHERRENE: And my email address is support@aktionnow.com.

GLENN: Sherrene, thank you for -- you know, you're in a small town, and you have apparently a very visible family. And it takes guts to stand up and to do it with class and grace. And it sounds like you're doing that. And God bless you for standing up.

Amy Fabbrini, we will not forget you, and we will further this story on any platform that I have to do with. And I will do everything I can to help you out. And I wish all of the best. And we'll talk to you again soon.

Back in just a second.

AMY: Thank you so much.

GLENN: God bless you.

[break]

GLENN: On a personal note, if you just joined us, we did an interview with a -- a mother of two children in -- in Oregon that have just been taken. One of them had been taken from them a few years ago. They have been fighting to get their child back. A -- a mother and father.

Father has a borderline on the higher end IQ of mental disability, 66. Mom has an IQ of 72. I don't know what you expected her to sound like. But she sounded perfectly normal to me.

She is a mother who loves her children. Sorry this is -- this hits close to home. I have a daughter with cerebral palsy who is a wonderful -- and would make the best mother ever.

(crying)

And I can't imagine what it would be like to have to defend your intelligence and to have everyone calling you stupid, when most likely, that's the way you have felt your whole life anyway. And all of the cruel remarks that probably came your way through your whole life, to now have a child and have it taken from you at the hospital, when there is no sign of abuse nor neglect, is an injustice that is beyond comprehension to me.

As I started this break, on a personal note, last night, I have these sweet women who -- who come to the studios. And they pray. And they pray for us. And they pray for me. And we're in my studios or office last night. We had a great conversation. And the last thing they said was, "What can we pray for, for you?"

And I said, "Two things." And I would like to ask you to pray for the second thing more than the first. But I said, "Empathy and courage."

We can't solve anything unless we can feel one another, unless we really have empathy for what people are going through, and we can stop seeing things through the prism of policies or even the Constitution. But start to feel where other people are.

I need more empathy for people. And I have been praying for that gift. But at the same time, I know that we will find things like Amy. And I need the courage and the -- the spine to be able to walk through it. And not because it's difficult, but because it's hard on the heart after a while.

And so if you would join us in -- in that prayer, I would appreciate it. I would appreciate it.

So what they're looking for is an attorney that can represent them. They're in a small town, and it sounds a little incestuous this town. No, I don't mean to speak ill of this town. I don't know anything about it. But we all know how small towns are and can be. And once people make their mind up about a person, it's hard to reverse that. I found very early on, the great joy, which in some ways, was so hard. And I didn't like it. Moving away from my family and my own hometown, you become that -- whatever people have known you as -- you know, I was -- you know, I -- to my sisters, I was their stinky little brother. And, you know, you -- you just grow up, and people have this image of you.

By going away, you can start fresh. And so I don't know Amy's story in this small little town and what they thought of Amy. But I know what the state worker thought when they went in and they found no abuse and no neglect. So we need somebody -- and would Kelly Shackelford -- would this be something -- he is, what? Is the Liberty Counsel? I mean, he does more religious freedom, but he might know somebody that could take on a case like this.

STU: Yeah, that would be interesting to hear. I mean, because there's a lot to this story. But if you back up for a second -- and I don't mean to get scientific, but it's like, this is just completely bonkers. Like this woman -- you expected to hear something completely different from that interview. At least I did. And I know that's totally judging a book by its cover, but...

GLENN: We never -- we had never talked to her before.

STU: No.

GLENN: Our phone screeners had never talked to her. Our producer had not talked to her.

STU: No.

GLENN: Talked to the mentor or the state advocate who was her state advocate until the state fired her. Talked to her. But we didn't -- I mean, I did not expect that conversation.

STU: It's similar to the Charlie Gard thing in a way, that, you know, there is a line you can find with a story like this. Where if they are so disabled that they can't do basic functions of life, there may be -- you know, there's an argument to have. This is not that case. I mean, she's smarter than 80 percent of the people I interact with on a daily basis.

GLENN: And they're taking parenting classes. And his parents are around. And they have help. And the -- the people are aware of them.

I mean, this is why you -- I mean, I will tell you, I feel like adopting their children and building a house next to mine and giving them the house and we would be the adoptive parents. But we would right next to them and they could keep the -- I mean, that's what families are supposed to do. Not state. That's what the family is supposed to do.

You have your child live close enough to where the grandparents help. You don't just take the children away. And, again, the state found no evidence of neglect.

STU: And it's important to note too, IQ is one of those things that has been beaten into our heads for decades and decades and decades as this actual measure of intelligence, that it has some level of accuracy to it. There's no real -- you cannot decipher. These are not accurate enough measures to decipher the difference between someone who has a 72 and a 78 IQ.

Listen. This is from a Canadian university. Dr. Adrian Owen did a huge study, the largest study ever on IQ and the accuracy of it. He was the senior investigator in the Canadian Excellent Research Chair in cognitive neuroscience and imaging at the university's Brain and Mind Institute. When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ or of you having a higher IQ than me is a myth. There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence.

And we're taking people's children away based on some random test they took on some day. Some number that has no real basis in science anyway. And just the sniff test here. You listen to this woman speak, and blatantly she has the intelligence to raise children.

How many people have you met in your life and you think, "Those people shouldn't have children?" This is not one of them. I mean, this is an absolute horror show. A complete outrage!

And how have we not heard more about this story? How does she not have the help that she needs? I mean, look, you may look deeper into this story and find something that indicates something different. But, I mean, so far, we have not found it. And I think just by -- on its face, you listen to that interview, if you heard that interview, I mean, there are times -- and you could not tell the difference if it was the mother or the mentor. Speaking.

GLENN: There was at least one time that that happened. I wanted to ask who is speaking.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I could not tell the one who had their master's in -- what did she say it was? And the one who just graduated from high school. The one whose kids are being taken away because they're not smart enough and the one who has all the degrees and certificates to be hired and sent in by the state to do family counseling and observations. I mean, when you can't tell the difference between the two, there's a problem.

STU: And do we live in a country in which the state decides whether they'll allow you to have your children? Or do we live in a country in which they're your children and with only the most incredible exceptions and incredible circumstances would the state even consider stepping into -- into a parent/child relationship. That is the country we're supposed to live in. And if we live in -- I mean, I know Oregon is a lot different than other states. And maybe this wouldn't happen in other states. I don't know. But this is a complete outrage, on its face.

GLENN: So here's what I want to say to you: Have you -- my aunt was -- she married an abuser. And he wasn't abusing her at first. Not physically. Before they got married. Mentally, he was. My grandfather spotted him a mile away. And all the way down the aisle, my aunt told me, my dad, I thought at the time just wrecked my ceremony. Because grandpa was walking her down the aisle and said, "Please. Please, Joanne, don't do this. Please, don't do this. Please, don't marry him. Please turn around right now and come with me. Please, I'm your father. I'm begging you."

And she said, "Dad, stop it." When they got to the end of the aisle, he kissed her on the cheek and said, "I will always be your father. And I will always be there. But I cannot be there to watch my daughter be abused. When you are done, you let me know."

And he gave her to this abuser. She would come over to my grandfather's house from time to time with a black eye or whatever. And she would come crying to my grandmother, her mother. And grandpa would answer the door. And his heart would break. And he would look at her, and he would hug her. And she would cry. And then he would look at her and say, "Are you done yet?" She'd say, "Dad, no. You don't -- he stopped listening. And he would walk away. And grandma would spend the time.

Until that time came when she came home and said, "Dad, I'm done" -- we never saw the abuser again. He went away. And they had a very easy divorce.

I think it involved my grandfather and the man who became my uncle and her husband later showing up at his door with a shotgun or two, but I could be wrong. But here's why I tell you that story: Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Are we done arguing politics? Are we done making that the center of our universe? Because I'm done. I'm so done.

That's not getting us anywhere. This, we can make a difference on. This, we can do. This is a noble cause. This is something we should be spending our time on.

I'll pick this up tomorrow. But today, I just want to ask you that question. Are you done yet?

If you are, when you are, let me know. Because we have to focus on other things.

RADIO

Lee Strobel: We got this WRONG about the Christmas story

Renowned Christian author Lee Strobel joins Glenn Beck this Christmas season to discuss the new updated version of his book, "The Case for Christmas." Plus, he dives into the REAL history and facts about the nativity story, including some parts we may have gotten wrong...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Lee, welcome to the program. How are you?

LEE: I'm doing great, Glenn. Great to be with you again.

GLENN: Yeah. I love talking to you. I'm really excited to hear the case for Christmas. Now, you were an atheist?

LEE: Yes.

GLENN: And we've talked about this before. Your eyes opened up. And how did you get to the place to where you're like, okay. Let me see if I can make the case for the baby Jesus in the manger?

LEE: Well, yeah, being an atheist. My wife became a Christian. So I decided to try to rescue her from this cult that she had gotten involved in. So that launched me on to an investigation into the historical reliability of Christianity.

I did it that for two years, until I became convinced that in light of the evidence, it would take more faith to become a Christian. So I became a Christian, ended up believing journalism and so forth.
GLENN: Amazing.

LEE: And written many books about it. But I wanted to do a book on Christmas. Because in the Christmas season, there seems to be a more spiritual openness, than any other time of the year.

GLENN: Yeah.

LEE: Even when I was an atheist, I felt more spiritually sensitive during the time of Christmas. I don't know why. I guess because it permeates the culture.

GLENN: Yeah. I think it's because we see hope. We see goodness in one another.

LEE: Yeah.

GLENN: It's different.

LEE: Yes. Exactly. But how do we know if it's based on reality?

How do we know? We can all enjoy the parties and the gift-giving and so forth. But how do we know it's really based on historical reality?

That's what really intrigues me as someone who is a history buff.

GLENN: So take me through that. How do we know?

LEE: Yeah. We have two really early, independent, but consistent reports about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago.

One comes from the Gospel of Luke. Now, Luke, was -- I love this guy. He was an investigative reporter.

There was a companion of St. Paul, and Luke said -- he didn't say, well, I'm going to tell you about something that happened in the distant past once upon a time. No, he said, I carefully investigated everything so I could write an orderly account about the certainty that took place. He's claiming, I'm writing about what actually took place.

I believe he writes from Mary's perspective. I think he may have interviewed Mary. If he didn't, I think he interviews Hosana and Joanna, who were friends with Mary, who he mentions in his gospel. And then we have Matthew. Matthew was also -- he was a disciple. Matthew was -- was right there in the first century setting. He later became a leader in the church of Jerusalem. And one of the other leaders was a guy named James, who was the half brother of Jesus.

So James, I think communicated to Matthew, kind of the male perspective. For the birth of his brother Jesus.

GLENN: Hmm.

LEE: By the way, I was talking to a woman the other take. And she has a young child. I was talking to her about this.

And she said, yeah. If you ask my husband about the birth of my child and you ask me, you will get two different perspectives.
(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

LEE: It's the same birth. We're talking about the real situation.

So we've got this two really early reports. That are independent, that are consistent with each other. And then we have a very interesting report in the gospel of Mark. Now, Mark is writing based on the recollections of Peter, who is one of the inner circle with Jesus.

And he starts his gospel later in life. So he doesn't have a birth narrative. But interestingly, in Mark 6:3. He refers to Jesus as Mary's son. Now, in first century Jewish culture, you would never do that. You were always your father's son. It would have been Joseph's son.

Even if Joseph were already deceased, he would always refer to him as Joseph. And, no. He referred to him as Mary's, and I think there's a wink, that says, yeah, yeah, I know.

Joseph wasn't his biological father. And then we have John, who writes the last gospel.

He doesn't repeat a lot of the historical stuff in the first three gospels. He writes from a grand theological perspective about the incarnation. And with him was the word, and the word was with God. And the word was God.

And then the word came into our world and dwelled among us. So it was very theological. But interestingly, John had a disciple, who he mentored.

And that guy wrote the letter. And in that letter, he says, Jesus was, quote, really and truly born of a virgin. Where did he get that idea?

I think it was from John, who wrote the gospel of John.

GLENN: So is it concerning at all. Because I've heard this argument before. You know, when -- when the gospels all same say the same thing, it's pretty clear. But they can't even decide. They can't even agree on the last words of Christ when he's on the cross.

And is it -- is it -- does it matter. Should we be concerned that only two of the four gospels talk about the birth?

LEE: No. I don't think so. Because first of all, those are two solid sources historically and very early. Mark gives us a reference to the fact that Joseph was not the biological father. And he also portrays Jesus as being the Son of God. And John, of course, was a theological take on the reincarnation. He's basically saying the same thing. So, no. I don't think are a problem. And the differences in the gospels I don't think are a problem either. Because as someone trained in law, if you're in a trial, and the witnesses get up. And they all say the exact same thing, you object. And say, Your Honor, collusion.

They got together, they worked out the story, and you can't trust it.

But when you have different perspectives, people emphasize different things. There's, for instance, a technique that was used in ancient literature, that was used today.

That was called literary spotlight. What that means, somebody will focus on what one person is saying or doing. And other purpose will focus on other people who are involved in the same scene. But it's not contradictory. They're just focusing on different aspects of the same scene. So when you look at what the -- yeah.

GLENN: No. I'm sorry to interrupt. Finish. And then I have a question.

LEE: Sure. When you look at the literary techniques that were used in the first century by (inaudible) and so forth. These historians. And you use those literary techniques in writing the New Testament. These discrepancies between the gospels virtually disappear.

GLENN: So let me take you here: And I believe in the story. So, but I want to push back as hard as I can on this.

LEE: Sure.

GLENN: You know, the virgin birth is so hard for people to accept. And especially once you look at Greek mythology. This is the same story. They're just plagiarizing. This is half man, half God.

LEE: Right. Right.

GLENN: So how do you respond to that?

LEE: Yeah. I actually deal with this in my book. This is totally bogus. This was invented by German theologians in the 1800s. In the early 1900s, the Christians responded to it.

They refuted it. But now, it's come up again. I think as the internet has dredged up these old arguments. For instance, you have the most famous example is Dan Brown in his book and movie the Da Vinci Code. Where he says, oh, well, you know, crusades just copied all this stuff. He said, there was an ancient myth called Mithras. And Mithras was born of a virgin on December of the 25th.

He had 12 disciples. He tied for world peace. He was resurrected from the dead.

So now Jesus is just kind of plagiarizing. The story of Jesus was invented by people and plagiarized from Mithras. Well, I investigate that. And what do you find?

You find in the actual myth of Mithras.
Number one. He was not born of a virgin. The myth was he emerged fully grown, naked, wearing a hat out of a rock.
(laughter)

GLENN: But, I mean, it's the same thing!

LEE: Yeah, I guess you could say the rock is a virgin. But, I mean, secondly, born on December the 25th. So what. We don't know the date Jesus was born. It's not in the Bible, where the ancient records are recorded. Ancient Christians did not care about birthdays. Third, he didn't die for world peace.

He was known for killing a bull. Fourth, he didn't have 12 disciples. According to one version, he had one disciple. According to another version he had two disciples. He wasn't resurrected from the dead. There's nothing in the myth -- it's about him dying. And so nothing about a resurrection. So all of these parallels, supposed parallels disappear when you investigate what actually took place. You know, people say, well, Alexander the great. You know, there was a myth that he was conceived by Zeus.

Well, even Alexander the Great's own mother, Olympias said, it's not true. It's crazy. It's a story. It's not true.

So every one of these supposed myths that predated Christianity, none of them are parallels to the story of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

GLENN: All right. Let me take a break, and then I want to take ask you about one word, one Greek word that shed new light on the traditional Christmas story.

More with Lee Strobel here in just a second.

So tell me about the one, the one Greek world that opens things up.

LEE: It really does say he went about the common perception of Christmas. The common idea of Christmas that people have is it's Mary and Joseph because of a census had to go to Bethlehem to register.

And they get there. And she's about to give birth. And they go to a lodge or an inn, and they meet an old entity who says, sorry, no room, dear. And throws the door in her face. So they go off to a stable. And she gives birth among the animals and puts the baby in a manger.

Well, what that comes from. Just a second in the gospel of Luke, where he says, the baby was placed in a manger because there was no room for Mary and Joseph in the katalima.

That's the Greek word. Katalima. So the question is, what does that word mean?

Does it mean an inn? There's no room at the inn? I don't think so. And most scholars don't think so. That's how it was translated in the King James in 1611. But it's probably not the best translation.

So let me explain something. How a house looked in the first century Bethlehem. There was one large room, broken down into two parts. The larger part was the living area.

That that's where people would live, eat, sleep, and then there was a couple of steps bound to a smaller area where the animals were brought at night.

And they were like pets. They may have a couple goats, a couple sheep, and there was a manger there, but because there was a couple of stairs up.
They would sometimes come you up in the living room area. You know, how cute are they?

They're like little lambs, like pets. And so there was a manger also, in the living area. While some of the more wealthy people had a katalima, a guest room. It had a separate entrance. And it made their house bigger.

What apparently happened, is that Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. And they went to a home of a relative and knocked on the door. They said, hey. We're here for the census. And they said, oh, that's great. But you know what, we have a lot of people here for the census.

There's no room for you in the guest room, the katalima. But you can give birth in the living room. And, yes, there is a manger there, and, yes, some of the animals may have come up the stairs because of the commotion of what was going on. And, yes. There was -- the baby was probably put there in a manger.

Now, in the year 1395, John Wycliffe, who did a translation into English, in the Greek Bible.

GLENN: Right.

LEE: Translated it as a guest room.

The New International version, which is probably the most popular translation in America today, does not use the word "inn." It uses "guest room."

Now, in writing this account, he knew what word to use. Katalima. He uses it one other time. And in that other instance, it was also a room in a house. There's another word he uses, andohayan (phonetic), which is a Greek word that means an inn. And he does use that word when he talks about the parable of the good Samaritan. So he knew, if he wanted to use the word inn, he would have used andohayan, but he didn't. He used katalima.

And the conviction of most scholars, it gives me a guest room. There probably was no inn.

GLENN: Wow.

LEE: Yeah. It's kind of mind-blowing after everything we've heard. And, yeah.

LEE: The other thing is, in first century Jewish culture, the value of hospitality was so high, that -- it would have been impossible for an innkeeper to turn away a pregnant Jewish woman. I mean, he would have been ostracized. He would have been run out of town on a rail. It would have destroyed his business. You could not do that because the value of hospitality was so high.

And we don't even know there were many inns in Bethlehem. It was a small town. Five hundred people. It wasn't on a main crossroads. There may or may not have been an inn there in the first place.

So I think the majority of scholars, I think would agree, that the word really means guest room, and not an inn.

GLENN: That changes everything!

That changes your whole vision of that. You know what I mean?

That's -- that's mind-blowing. That's just totally mind-blowing.

LEE: It is! And not only that, the image we have is that Mary is on the verge of giving birth, as she's arriving. And makes it urgent.

That's not in the text either! It just says that while they were in Bethlehem, she gave birth. It doesn't say they were in Bethlehem five minutes or five days or five months. Now, where the idea, the urgency comes from is the book of fiction that was written in 200 A.D.. A lot afterwards. No real historical connection. In that fictional account, Mary Joseph are approaching Bethlehem, to get 3 miles away from Bethlehem.

And she had to give birth. And so they went into a cave. And she gave birth to some animals in a cave. That's the idea of where a cave come up. Because people to envision her giving birth in a cave. That's really fiction. That doesn't have historical reality written -- you know, way, way later.

GLENN: I have so many questions, Lee. Can I have you back next week?
LEE: Sure!

GLENN: I have so many questions on this. I would love to have you back next week on this.

Because I want to talk to you about the Old Testament. Because people say, well, they just wrote that in later. Because they knew, he was the fulfillment. So they looked, and they just jammed this story together.

But you have the answers to -- to all of that. I would love to have you back next week.

LEE: Absolutely. Just let me know.

GLENN: You've got it. Lee, thank you so much. God bless you. Merry Christmas, we'll talk to you next week. You bet. It's a fascinating book. You've got to read it. The Case for Christmas. It -- while, I mean, you just did. It will turn everything upside down. And I love those kinds of things that make you think and look at things in a new and different way.

Lee Strobel, I think he's one of the best.

He's an author for the case for Christ.

But his new book is the case for Christmas.

How you can know for sure, what was laying in that manger. And where was that manger?

Was it in the kitchen, apparently?

I don't know.

RADIO

THIS proves who REALLY rules the world

The Department of Energy is preparing to finance up to 10 nuclear power plants to help the development of AI. Glenn Beck is both thrilled and furious. Glenn explains why this energy issue reveals who really rules the world.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Chris Wright, our energy secretary, told an exclusive interview with the Free Beacon. That the Department of Energy, under Donald Trump is preparing to finance up to ten nuclear power plants, to give us a renaissance of nuclear energy. I have to tell you, I am both thrilled about this, and a little pissed. And maybe it's just me.

But we've been talking about nuclear energy since I was a little kid. We've known that nuclear energy was the answer since the 1950s. But we've not wanted to do it. And there's been all kinds of protests. And you all kinds of lefties that are out. Saying, oh, you can't do that. You'll kill everybody on the planet. In the meantime, we've not built nuclear energy plants. Okay? Haven't built them. We have reinvented them.

We have -- we have reinvented them. We made them small. There's no China Syndrome. Nothing else.

But they've been there for a while now. Still can't do it. Oh, the planet is going to catch on fire soon! It's going to be so hot. We're all going to die. Nuclear energy, which has zero emissions. No, can't do that. Because maybe. Possibly, what if? Even though, it's the safest energy man has ever produced. Let me say that again.
It is the safest energy man has ever produced. But you can't have it. I can't have it. I need energy for my house. I need energy for my office. No. You don't get it.

Sorry, try a windmill. But that doesn't work. Well, it worked when it was windy.

Okay. But now that AI -- now that these giant corporations need the energy. And there's no way for them to make the energy fast enough, and big enough, all of a sudden, green lights are everywhere.

Notice, nobody is talking about, we can't have all these nuclear power plants. We can't do that. Ten nuclear power plants.

Are now being green lighted and financed by our Treasury Department. Okay? Which is a good thing. If we don't have energy, we lose all of it. All of it. These -- these server farms have to have energy. And I warn you, gang, if we don't build them, what's going to happen?

Do you really think that you're going to get the power, that ace hardware is going to get the power over a Home Depot?

Do you think your house is going to get the power over a Google server?

Nope. They will start rationing for everyone else, to put all of it into the server farms. I guarantee you, that's what's going to happen.

So this is really, really good for the American people.

But, again, like I said, I'm kind of pissed. Because my whole right after, I've believed in nuclear energy.

And everybody has been against it. How many Chernobyl movies do we need to make?

How many lies about Chernobyl do we have to hear?

How many lies do we have to hear about what happened in Japan?

Or, my favorite: Three Mile Island.
No one died! No one died! Stu, wasn't that just steam that was let out, with such low emissions that it didn't affect anything, in Three Mile Island.

People quoted that forever.

STU: Yeah. The maximum radiation released was the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

Maximum exposure.

GLENN: And that stopped everything. That stopped everything!

That happened, and that movie, by Jane Fonda, the China syndrome. Which, by the way, was really good. The China syndrome came out, at the same time.

And everyone said no, to nuclear energy. And can you imagine, if we had nuclear energy, right now. How far ahead we would be?

Can you imagine? I can guarantee you, we would be using hydrogen cars right now. Because hydrogen can be made in the off hours. You have these nuclear power plants. When everybody goes to bed. They just keep the plant running. Instead of turning it down, they keep it running at a high level. And you can make hydrogen for cars, all night long.

Oh, my gosh. It's so frustrating.

It just -- it just goes to show you, who actually rules the world.

Is it you?

Or the giant corporations?

It's the giant corporations.

And it's really -- I hate -- I hate coming to that realization.

You know, I would like living in my little utopian world where everything was happy.

Everybody was like, oh, you know what, you know what, we're really good. No. We're the Constitution, republic, people listen to us.

Our politicians react to us.

GLENN: No. They really don't. They really don't.

But they can. They can. We just have to say, enough is enough. Enough is enough.

And believe me, anything that they can do to be able to shut you down and control you, and what is the best way to control people?
What's the best way to control people?

What's the absolute positively, I can control everything you do?

If I can control three or four things.

Your food. Your medicine.

Your energy. Hmm. And your money.

Because if I have your money, I can control where you buy food. What you buy. I can -- I can control where you travel to, how you travel. Oh, sorry. You can't go on an airplane, too dirty for you.

Leonardo DiCaprio needs that. Because he will give a speech about global warming. So we'll give him your credit, so you don't have it.

They control your money. If they control your food. If they control your medicine, are you -- are you noticing a trend?

I mean, everything that is happening here. They're killing our farmers.

There's your food.

They're just slaughtering our farmers. You know, metaphorically. Our farmers are going out of business. Our ranchers.

There's no reason.

We used to be the breadbasket of the entire world.

Why aren't we still?

Well, because we had to play in the global atmosphere. I don't want to play in the global atmosphere anymore.

I don't believe in all that crap.

I'll sell it to the globe. But why are we taking it in the shorts? Our people are hurting. We're buying our food, which we used to make here. We're buying it for overseas. And our farmers are going out of business. All this farmland, and who is gobbling it up?

Who is gobbling it up?

People like Bill Gates!

These giant industrial farms, okay.

And if they can control your electricity, already, I think it's in Mexico.

I know it's South America. I think it's in Mexico. They're already having problems. Some of these server farms. They're already having rolling brownouts in some towns in Mexico, just to keep the servers going, and if your servers run everything, can you imagine, you're on the east coast. Your servers start to go down. Do you think that because our entire economy -- our -- our whole system of money, banking, the stock market. Everything. It's all on server farms. No. It has to have. That's priority. That's priority.

It will be priority for that. Maybe hospitals, unless they just want to continue to reduce the surplus population to quote Scrooge.

But it will all go to the server farms. Before it goes to your farm and your house. Guarantee it. So good news, I guess, on that one.

The New York Times. This makes me so nervous. Wait, Stu. Why did you make that face?

GLENN: I mean, I get what you're saying, in theory, this electricity might go to sources that, you know, benefit from, but problem is nuclear energy.

It's basically unlimited.

You know, it is --

GLENN: These are smaller. These are smaller plants. These are -- these are designed for the server farms, not for the public.

STU: I -- I -- I agree with that. But I -- I don't know. I kind of take it as closer to proof of concept than anything else.

GLENN: Me too. Me too.

STU: If they dump money into these things, and they're successful, and there aren't massive problems, which all of these things I think would be the expectation, I think that there's a chance -- we might -- we might have a world that is not that far away. We have relatively cheap energy in perpetuity.

I mean, that's a massive promise and worth a little bit of risk of some of this stuff going to the wrong sources.

GLENN: I think you're absolutely right. But what time is it?

Oh, it's 2025. Next year is an election. Let's see how that works out. You know what I mean?
I talked to the president about this. I've said, you've got to get those power plants deep in construction.

You've got to find a way to make sure those things are bulletproof. Or it won't happen!

You lose the election in 2028, they're not going to -- they're not opening.

They're not opening.

It won't happen.

Because you've got the left.

And maybe it will happen. But it will never, never then be transferred to you.

You won't get one.

You will have a windmill.

And just to make it super efficient, it might be like one of those windmills from Holland with the wood pegs in it.

I don't think -- you may not get a real modern windmill. You'll get one that also doesn't work, but is really, really super old.

One of the things that bothers me, Stu. And I want to take a quick break. And come back to this. This is the New York Times. Why the AI boom is unlike the dot-com boom. Wall Street Journal. Wall Street is shaking off fears of an AI bubble.

Okay. And just to make it even a little scarier. Yes, Jim Cramer just came out. And said, keep your money with the stuff. Whatever he says seems to go the opposite.

So I don't -- I don't know. But how are we in an AI boom or a bubble? Well, while we talk about that, maybe it keeps us from talking about the real thing that is coming with AI. And that is the employment bubble. Because I think the employment bubble is going to pop soon. And that's when you're going -- that's when people are going to come with pitchforks and torches. To the government. And to these giant companies that are -- that are pushing AI.

This is something that I've been talking about since probably 2005. It's going to happen. It's going to happen.

And I'm really super excited that I started working on an AI project.

But we're not firing anybody. We're still hiring people. We're just tripling our output to do more.

But when joblessness really starts to hit, that's a problem. That's a problem.

RADIO

A listener CALLED ME OUT. I'm GLAD she did

A listener recently called Glenn Beck out for something related to his new project, George AI. And he THANKED her for it...\

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Rebecca, in Texas, hi, Rebecca. How are you? Hello. How are you?

GLENN: Good. That's all right.
Good. I was calling because I -- I was showing him George AI the other day. And when you were speaking -- it looks great, by the way, well done.

GLENN: Yeah. It's a long way from being right, but thank you.

CALLER: Well, it was great. You had mentioned, and you referred to it as a "he."

GLENN: I know.

CALLER: And I was just curious how -- how it kind of evolved, to where you're calling it a "he." Is it because you're intimate with the algorithm? Almost in a sense you trust yourself so much that --

GLENN: No. No.

CALLER: Okay. So just kind of how you -- are you -- are you struggling with that?

GLENN: Oh, big time wrestling with that. I've said on the air, don't ever refer to it as anything but "it." And I do.

And I -- I don't know what's causing that, other than it can respond in a human way.

It can respond in a way that a human would. And so it is natural. And I'm glad you caught me on that. And I -- I have to ask all my producers, when you catch me on that. And if I'm saying he, instead of it.

Correct me!

Because this is a big problem.

I don't refer -- I might refer to it, as he. Which is a problem.

But I don't think of it as a person, or anything else.

I know -- when I think about him, I know exactly what it is.

It's just -- and it's a bad. It's the beginning of the slippery slope I think. It's a bad habit because when we're talking about an interview. I'm talking about an interview with him.

I'm never using. There's no other case where I'm saying, I'm doing an interview with it. And I need to. I need to.

But you seem very concerned about that, Rebecca.

Why is it? I agree with you. But what is your concern?

CALLER: Well, I thought it was -- you know, you told us, really -- I knew it as well. But just -- kind of just fear what it could be. And already, we're having a hard time believing our own eyes.

And so I just thought more of an interesting -- interesting note.

And just how easy it can be to fall into that.

GLENN: Oh, I know. I know. So you are -- you are the perfect mom. You are so great at being aware of all of this. It's why we had a discussion because people have said, Glenn, you don't want to call it George AI. Because everything is going to be AI eventually. And it will look outdated. And my view was George AI, we're not to that point yet, where everybody understands AI. And I wanted to always. You know, when we get into the video releasing of this. Next year. And this is not something that you'll even be able to recognize. But everything we create, beginning next year, everything is watermarked. So I'm going to know what's live, and what is AI. You can't take any of my videos and manipulate me, because there will be an invisible watermark that we know about, and we'll be able to go, not Glenn. That's AI. And the same thing with everything that we produce that is AI. It will be watermarked. And an invisible watermark, that we'll be able to say, no. That's not true. That's AI.

And everyone who is producing this kind of stuff needs to do that. And one of the reasons why I call it George AI, so everyone understands it's AI and not a person. You know, you said it looks great.

It's out of sync. The voice isn't right. The features aren't exactly right.

But it's amazing. But in a year from now, it's going to be remarkable. And that's when it is really important that people understand.

I was talking to somebody who just gave a talk at the White House yesterday. She called me for some -- you know, some AI talking -- you know, some thoughts on this. Because she represents families and moms.

And she was asked -- the president to speak to all of these producers of AI. And she said, Glenn, what do I need to know? I said, you need to know, anything anthropomorphic must be marked and parents must know and have a choice. So, you know, any of these plush toys that have AI capabilities, I think they should be banned.

I don't think anybody should be able to make any kind of AI doll plush anything.
That represents. Like a talking animal. Or anything else.

Because the AI is going to get so good. And it is going to be gathering stuff from your children.

And unless you have control of that, you know, on our AI. When we actually release the you full version of it.

You will have an opt out.

Do you want it to be able to you discuss things with your children and learn from your children on their educational stuff?

Not any personal stuff. Just educationally. Do you want it to evaluate educationally or not? And learn from that. So it can help your children learn better. Or not?

And then, all of that information goes into a vault, that you would control.

You could say, purge it. And we would never use it for anything else, but that. That requires a great deal of trust.

I don't know how many people would sign up for that. But that would give us an ability to help your child learn a little bit better.

But it also requires us to learn. Or the system to learn about your child.

When you're dealing with corporations that you don't know. You don't trust, that information is going to go everywhere.

And that's the kind of information that is going to go into these plush toys. And they're going to learn everything about your kid. And they're going to map everything about your kid.

And it's not good. And your kid will start to associate that cute little teddy bear just in a way that mom and dad don't understand, it's extraordinarily dangerous. So you -- thank you for calling in. Thank you for correcting me. I urge you as an audience to help me learn this. Correct me if I'm saying this.

I know Stu will, he loves to hammer me.

You know, if I make this mistake to correct me immediately, because that is a deprave, grave danger. It is a tool. It is a machine.

Period. Thank you for that phone call.

RADIO

Glenn's 2026 DOOMSDAY prediction has ALREADY begun

Earlier this week, Glenn Beck made his biggest prediction for 2026: the AI boom will start to cause major power issues, including blackouts and brownouts, for average Americans. But to his surprise, the strain on our grids has ALREADY begun...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me go to Alex in New York. Hello, Alex. Alex, are you there?

CALLER: Hi, Glenn. Yes, I am. Hi.

GLENN: Hi. Go ahead.

CALLER: Sure. So I'm calling in from upstate New York. Where we definitely have a situation on our hands here with the solar farms that the governor is pushing very, very hard.

They are absolutely using it as a land grab to take our best farmland. And in the case of near my farm here, they're trying to put in a solar farm on a protected grassland habitat, that New York State already designated as an important habitat except when solar comes to town. And we're currently fighting that up here. I meet with a coalition of people across the state. Really amazing people. Who are battling this, in every village in upstate New York here right now. And we definitely have a situation on our hands. I call it a runaway train.

GLENN: I got to tell you. Yeah, just keep fighting.

I don't know how you fight it in New York. But just keep fighting because there are -- there are communities around the country, that are fighting things like this, that are winning. I don't -- I don't know about New York, but we've got to have our farmland. And it kills me.

You know, I talked about this the other day. It absolutely kills me that we -- the people could not have nuclear energy.

No way we can have nuclear energy. But the minute tech needs nuclear energy. Oh, we're going to -- yeah, build as many as you want.

It's so disgusting. I want to talk about energy on something else. The solar thing does not work. And as a man who has spent maybe -- maybe a million and a half dollars on -- on alternative energy for the ranch I have up in the mountains that has no power to it. And over a 10 or 12-year period, I have just poured money into it, and it's a nightmare.

It does not work! It doesn't work. You can't -- you can't run anything of any significance. You know, running my -- just my studio alone, has been an absolute nightmare in there. It's not -- it doesn't work, okay? Solar and wind. It might be good for a little add-on, if you live in Phoenix. Or, I don't know. On the sun!

But it doesn't work, at least to the scale that we need. But just the other day. Do we happen to have the clip from the prediction show, where I made a prediction of what was coming next year on energy?

Can we play that happens?

I think in 2026. 2025 was the year, as I said, that we started really understanding AI.

And what was coming to some degree.

And we understood, oh. Energy is going to be a problem.

I think 2026 is going to be the first year that we see things like Texas having rolling brownouts for a week at a time. I think you're going to start to see the strain on the grid, by the end of next year, in ways that you would never have expected in the United States.

It's just growing exponentially.

I think -- I said that on show. We had a prediction show of what -- what the biggest stories are, and what are the predictions. When I said that, I'm like, you know, at the end of next year.

Let me give you this. From the Associated Press today: The amount of ERCOT's large load interconnection request ballooned to more than 230 gigawatts this year, a massive increase. Now, last year, December 2024, ERCOT needed 63 gigawatts. A year later, this December, the load that is required is 230 gigawatts! That's a lot more than they needed to go back to the future! This -- you're going to see the grids are not built for this.

More than 70 percent of the large loads are for the data center.

The data centers are just beginning to be built. We don't have the energy. And I'm telling you, this is going to be the Achilles' heel of this administration. And believe me, it will only be worst with a Democrat administration. This is going to be the Achilles' heel. Because we can't build these power plants fast enough, is -- and while Donald Trump is fast tracking these nuclear power plants, it's not fast enough!

Because as we build these data centers, what's going to happen is your energy. You're going to start having rolling brownouts. Also because of these data centers. You're also going to see the unemployment go up.

If you start to have high unemployment, high prices. And rolling brownouts, to where you're having a hard time with electricity yourself, but the data centers for the Silicon Valley companies, they're getting your power. I'm telling you.
The Bubba Effect is just the beginning. This will be an absolute nightmare for all politicians.

JASON: I'm so pissed off. This was -- I was on this show. They were like, hey, you want to be on a prediction show? You'll be squaring off against the guy who predicted Osama Bin Laden, the financial crisis, the caliphate, good luck, buddy.

And I'm like, I just knew it. I didn't know that it was going to happen that quick. But like, two days later --

GLENN: Two days later! Look, Texas is in trouble. And, you know, as goes Texas, so goes America. And so goes America, so goes the world.

Texas has got to get serious about -- and I know they are, to some degree. But the president has got to get rid of all of these restrictions, and Texas has to get all of these, and we have to concentrate on electricity. And not just electricity for the average homes. Or, I mean, for these data centers. But for the average homes.

The grids are already under strain. They're not -- you know, the problem is, if they start taking this electricity. Out of -- off of the grid, the old grid, you -- you can't pour more electricity into that grid. The grids are already at the breaking point. They're old!

They're brittle. They're not prepared for what we have to do. That's why, they have to build these nuclear power plants, at the server farms. Because they -- they cannot go on to the system because the system can't handle that much power. We're in real trouble. And everybody is still talking about solar power and everything else.

You're out of your freaking minds! Nobody has any idea. Stu, I'm sorry. Stu is like, "Watch your language, Mister."

STU: That F you hit really hard at the beginning. I was wondering what road we were going down.

GLENN: I mean, you're out of your mind. People have got to wake up to between now and 2028. I can't emphasize this enough. If you've listened to me for a long time and you've heard me say, "I'm telling you we're going to have a financial meltdown. And it's going to be the worst. It's going -- you know, you'll lose your 401(k), you'll lose everything. Get your money out of the system."

I was saying that in 2006, 2007, and no one was listening. Thank God a lot of the listeners were listening, and they saved their money and got it out in time. I'm telling you now, with just as much surety in this, the world is going to change in such profound ways between now and 2028.

In ways you cannot even imagine at this point. That you have to be -- forget your money. Forget everything else. You have to be spiritually in tune. You have to be rock solid in who you are. What it means to be human. What it means to be alive. What's important! What's not important.

You can't -- and this is so hard. I'm a guy who is in this business. I'm telling you, this is why in this last week, I've spent more time on that woman in Canada than I have on really important things that are happening politically.

Because the most important thing we can do is realign ourselves with truth!

Universal you truth. Humanity must be preserved. Your life is worth saving!

Your life is worth living.

Don't go down the road of madness with the rest of society.

Because right now, these gigantic corporations, you know, in Silicon Valley, they're promising us the only way out.

Listen to me carefully. The only way out to pay off our debt, or to survive our debt is to have something that takes our country and pushes it, our GDP up, you know, by ten points.

All of a sudden, if that happens, then we're starting to make more income, tax revenue, and we can pay the debt and afford the things that we've already spent money on.

If we don't have that, we're into -- into a different bad scenario world.

So they're promising us that.

But at the same time, they're promising us, we can pay the debt.

We can -- we can lead the world on this.

But we also are not going to have a lot of jobs.

Oh. And, by the way, to do that, we're also going to have to take energy.

And maybe for a while, take it from the people! People who can't afford food. Don't have jobs. Don't have meaning. Don't have power.

That doesn't lead to any place good at all. Warning! It's coming.

Please, please, pay attention to those things that are meaningful.

Glenn's Show Prep

Heartbreaking: Glenn Sheds Tears With Mother Whose Children Were Taken by the State

Lee Strobel: We got this WRONG about the Christmas story

Transcript

THIS proves who REALLY rules the world

Transcript

A listener CALLED ME OUT. I'm GLAD she did

Transcript

Glenn's 2026 DOOMSDAY prediction has ALREADY begun

Transcript