HORROR: Mom wants right to "euthanize" her disabled children

On a recent episode of Dr. Phil, a mom with two handicapped kids (kids that are now adults) describes why she wants the right to euthanize her severely-disabled children. Glenn explains that when the children were young she had them put in a home, and visits them a few times a month, but now, she wants to “put them out of their misery.”

“Janet and Jeffrey were able to make a decision about life, they would opt for suicide. There have been times when I thought of doing something myself, but the saying "Walk in another man's moccasins," unless you've been there, don't judge,” the mother said when describing the situation about her children on Dr. Phil.

“Now, how does she know that, first of all?” Pat asked. “How do you know that? If they were able to make a decision, they would opt for suicide? You know that for a fact? You know what they're feeling?”

“We’re opting for suicide. That’s not a reasonable decision,” Glenn added. “You don’t even let adults make that decision. Suicide is not an option.”

In this video from the Dr. Phil episode the mom, Annette, explains why she only visits her children two times a month. In the video she compares her children to newborn babies – an odd description in an argument to ‘put them down.’

A mother of seven, three of which are disabled, vehemently disagreed with the Annette’s desire to kill her children. She, like Glenn, was disgusted at the thought of what was being debated in this show. “I'm sorry that those children are the way they are. I'm sorry that my child might be that way someday. I will not euthanize my child because it's too much trouble for me. I will not euthanize my child because the government doesn't want to pay for it,” she said.

You can see the exchange in the clip below:

Frustrated by the way the argument is being positioned, Glenn brought up a good question: Why are we calling this euthanizaing? “Stop using the word "euthanize." Stop using the word "euthanize." We don't even use that word with animals. We put them down. And that's what she's talking about, putting them down. Killing them. Why do we have to use "euthanize"? If it's okay to do, what you are doing is killing them.”

“Yeah, this is just another pro-choice effort,” Stu replied. “Instead of calling it abortion, let's call it choice.”

Glenn brought up the point that we don’t call killing “euthanize” on death row, we call it putting someone to death. The show is advocating injections, so why the language change?

After the mother of seven spoke up and defended the lives of Annette’s children, Attorney Geoffrey Fieger, who gained notoriety for his outspoken defense of the late assisted suicide advocate, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, joined the debate.

“You know we're not disagreeing here. The only question is nobody should ever make you do something you don't believe in, and the same with Annette. Government shouldn't make her do that,” he said.

This statement caused a disturbing roar of applause from Dr. Phil’s studio audience. “The most disturbing part of the exchange is the reaction of the audience. Now, you want to know where our country is headed, I want you to listen to this. And not only listen to Dr. Phil but listen to the audience,” Glenn said.

Glenn warned listeners that if you look back at history, the reaction of this audience to what they are witnessing is extremely disturbing. At the beginning of the show, Glenn explains that Dr. Phil polled the audience members to see who agreed and who disagreed – only three disagreed with the mother’s desires.

“Almost everybody in the audience, but again, you know, you hate to bring up the Nazi references but it’s a fact,” Pat added. “This is how it started in Germany.”

He explained that “compassion” was supposedly the excuse in Germany when they started killing people, and it began with the handicapped, not the Jews. When all was said and done nearly 300,000 handicapped people had been killed. It ended up coming down to contribution to society.

The comments being made to support the arguments made by this woman about her disabled children are a red flag if you pay attention to history. Glenn noted both George Bernard Shaw and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger as examples of what this kind of thought can lead to. It is a slippery slope.

Glenn explained that the day after he saw this segment on Dr. Phil there was a story of this seven year old girl from Pennsylvania who has no hands, and just won the penmanship award. Her name is Annie Clark, and on Friday, she, along with an audience of about fifty parents of special needs children, will join Glenn on GBTV at 5pm ET for a show you do not want to miss.

Critical race theory: The education trap

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

The fall semester isn't far away. If you aren't prepared for that, someone else is. Predatory behavior. The most important takeaway from this piece is, whatever is happening on campuses right now is what is going to play out through the rest of society in about 30 years. We're seeing it right now with Critical Race Theory.

It started on the campus. It started in the classroom. And our children are set to be the next victims in the cultural warfare for a nightmare that seems like it will never end.

Colleges are manipulating the system.

It's a little ironic that colleges are overflowing with Marxist professors who preach the Gospel of Karl Marx in their classrooms, because academia in America is the perfect example of capitalist achievement. If anything, colleges are manipulating the system in a way that should make Marxists furious. And they hurt the people that Marxism is supposed to rescue.

Colleges are an enterprise. They are Big Business. It means nothing to them to send thousands of students into debt—not if it means the campus will get a new fountain or another office for the Diversity and Inclusion department.

They'll never admit it, but a big part of their problem is that they have put so much into the myth of progress. They can't even admit that it's a myth. Because it's useful to them.

Roger Scruton once said:

Hence the invocations of "progress", of "growth", of constant "advance" towards the goal which, however, must remain always somewhere in the future.

In reality, they don't give a damn about actual progress.

That's how they have turned academia into instruments of social engineering. They use college to change society.

Their purpose is no longer educational. It's social. They're using the classrooms to cause social change.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere were joined by Pat Gray to discuss "woke" Olympic athletes.

In this clip, the guys discussed how "bravely" some athletes are for threatening to protest the national anthem, for twerking on stage, and for showing off how woke they are.

Glenn reminded America of actual bravery at the Olympics when Jesse Owens won the gold medal at the Berlin Olympics. "He [Owens] was oppressed," Glenn said.

Watch the clip to hear Glenn tell the full story. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Political commentator Bill O'Reilly joined the Glenn Beck radio program on Friday made an important prediction about President Joe Biden's chance of reelection in 2024.

O'Reilly told Glenn that former President Donald Trump was brought down because of COVID. "if COVID had not appeared, O'Reilly stated, "he [Trump] would have won reelection."

O'Reilly went on to predict that like Trump, President Joe Biden would lose reelection because of COVID. People saw a president who could not put out an intelligent fact-based message about COVID and people will remember that," he explained.

O'Reilly later added that "Trump and Biden are one-termers because of COVID."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: Marxism is a religion

Uttam Sheth/Flickr

Marx didn't actually tell his followers that the system needed to be destroyed. And it's not what Marx actually believed. Very few Marxists actually understand what Marx laid out.

Marxism isn't a list of demands and instructions. It's Marx's attempt to tell the future. Some of it he got right, most he got wrong. For example, he predicted the rise of automation.

Believe it or not, Marx was not an anti-capitalist. If anything, he revered it.

In a letter to Engels, he complained that too many people misunderstood his message, that his plan is to merge with capitalism. To make it new. He wanted to reify his brand of socialism, reify is a Marxist term, actually. It basically means to make an abstract idea concrete.

Marx didn't hate capitalism. He actually thought it was necessary. And he knew communism would never happen without the aid of capitalism.

Marx didn't hate capitalism. He actually thought it was necessary.

From there, he takes these ideas to some weird conclusions. Horrible conclusions. The main one being revolution.

What does the first phase of the Marxist revolution look like? How will we know if it has started? How can we tell if it's already begun? Marx's idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," where the working class would rise up in revolution and earn their freedom.

But what did Marx mean by freedom? Like so much of Marxism, it involves giving up your individuality, in service to the collective: "Only in community with others does each individual have the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible."

That's from his book The German Ideology, which he co-wrote with Friedrich Engels, the guy who paid all of his bills: "Free competition, which is based on the idea of individual freedom, simply amounts to the relation of capital to itself as another capital."

His idea here is that capital ruins any idea of freedom or individuality. And competition is what he uses as proof. In other words, Marx's definition of freedom has nothing to do with actual freedom, freedom as we know it.

He wrote, in Capital: "It is not individuals who are set free by free competition; it is, rather, capital which is set free."

He's saying that Capital manipulates our individual freedom and forces us to exploit ourselves. For someone who didn't believe in God, he sure had some fanciful ideas about the forces that control the universe.

For someone who didn't believe in God, he sure had some fanciful ideas about the forces that control the universe.

Marxists have always argued that capitalism is a religion. That our debt to capital is no different than our debt to God. Critical Theorist Walter Benjamin wrote an entire book called Capitalism as Religion, and wrote that capitalism is "the first case of a cult that creates guilt, not atonement."

There were many strains of socialism before Marx. There were entire movements, named after socialist and anarchist philosophers. But Marx was the one who figured it out, with the help of a rotating cast of people paying for his sloth, of course.

Marx's influence on socialism was so profound that socialism was practically re-named in honor of Marx. Marx has been deified.

He created a utopian society. Very hypothetical. It requires a working class that is devoted to daily readings of The Communist Manifesto.

This assumes that people who work all day — at a real job, where they can't just sit on the couch all day as Marx did — even have the energy to read dense theory when they get home.

Marx made a religion.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.