Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

UPDATE: 15-year-old girl held at Boston Children’s Hospital against parent’s will still not allowed to go home

December 06, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Last month, Glenn shared the stunning story of Justina Pelletier, a 15-year-old girl who has been stuck in a hospital for the last nine months after the medical facility took custody of her when her parents argued against her diagnosis.

The hospital claims that the parents over-medicalized the girl, leading them to take custody. The parents have provided ample evidence that every time they’ve taken their daughter to the hospital or to the doctor, they did exactly what the doctors told them to do. But now the family finds themselves in a bitter dispute to get their girl home. It’s been ten months since they lost custody, and following the latest court hearing, Justina was still not allowed to go home.

On radio this morning, Cristy Balcells, executive director of Mitoaction.org, who is working with the Pelletier family to help them bring their daughter home, joined Glenn to discuss how Justina is doing and how people can help the Pelletier family. Learn more about Christy’s organization and how you can help HERE.

Listen to the interview below. Applicable audio begins around the 1 hour 34 min mark:

Read a transcript of the interview below:

BALCELLS: Thank you so much, Glenn, and thank you so much for helping to bring this issue to this level of awareness. It's really heartbreaking.

GLENN: This is -- this is not -- this is not the only case, and we'll get into that. But you have -- since we started talking about it, you're getting calls from people all over the country saying, "This is happening to me too."

BALCELLS: It's overwhelming. It's phenomenal. You know, we had high hopes yesterday because so many people have actually come forward to share their story and we felt like we had such a huge show of support from families, both in Boston and around the country, particularly who have had this type of experience with a child with a rare chronic disease at a children's hospital, where everything that the parent was doing was called into question and the parent was left powerless and was basically accused of harming the child when they were just trying to do the best they could to make their child better.

GLENN: I tell you, this is -- this is criminal what's happening. Cristy, explain -- explain, if you can. Tell quickly the story of what happened yesterday and what this means for the family.

BALCELLS: Well, here's what happened yesterday. Nothing. It's so incredibly frustrating. We had really -- and thought that we were going to see some progress because what else could we decide after 10 months of holding this girl captive in the hospital. Really, you need another week to get some more information? I'm flabbergasted and heartbroken for this family, and I speak on behalf of I think the entire community of parents who have children with chronic diseases and mitochondrial disease when I say that. We're horrified, and it really makes me lose faith in the legal system. I already had lost faith, I think, in our hospitals and in our medical system. As you know, I have a child who has mitochondrial disease as well, and it's an uphill battle. But to -- I had a little bit of faith left that the legal system would realize that if the child had been in the hospital for 10 months and they couldn't make her better while she was away from her parents, then maybe that original diagnosis should be reviewed again. And this little girl should be home with her family.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second.

BALCELLS: Instead they told them, they said, come back next week. We'll talk about it some more.

GLENN: Okay. So it's not that they haven't made her better in 10 months. It is that she has actually gotten worse in 10 months, correct?

BALCELLS: She has gotten worse, and that's probably one of the saddest parts of this story as well. So the family is terrified. They're under such a strict gag order that the family is so afraid to open their mouth even to ask for support from the people who are reaching out to them to help because they think that if they even say one word saying how they feel that that is going to be used against them as a reason to prove that they're negligent and that they won't get their daughter back.

GLENN: This is criminal.

BALCELLS: That's the first thing. The gag order is flabbergasting to me.

GLENN: This is absolutely criminal. I mean, if there was anybody in public office in the Northeast that I trusted, I would get them on the phone. But this is -- this is crazy. How can a parent have a gag order and be told not to say anything? That's their -- it's their child, for the love of Pete. How can --

BALCELLS: It's their child. Since when did you lose your right to even be able to reach out to the people who are there saying "How can I help you" and you're supposed to say "I'm not allowed to talk about it. My child is not with me. It's almost Christmas and I'm not allowed to talk about it." I mean, the devastation on this family is just -- can you imagine having your child taken away from you?

GLENN: I have to tell you --

BALCELLS: I almost think it's worse than the child dying because this is like a Purgatory that goes on forever.

GLENN: I have to tell you if I were the family, when this whole thing is over, I hope to God that they get the biggest damn attorney they can possibly find and sue this children's hospital until their eyes bleed. This is the -- this -- because this is not the only case of this. Tell me about the doctor who is vested in -- or maybe -- you may not know this. The doctor up at this hospital that is vested in this particular disease that they're trying to say the parents have inflicted on this young girl. Do you know this part of the story?

BALCELLS: The doctor at Tufts.

GLENN: No, the doctor at -- the doctor at Boston Children's who is vested in -- yeah, who's vested in the -- what is the name of the disease that children's hospital is saying that she has?

BALCELLS: Somatoform disorder, psychiatric disease.

GLENN: Yeah, it's a psychiatric disease. And this doctor who is at Boston Children's, this is -- you know, she wrote her paper on this, this is her disease. And she is -- every single time this has happened in the past, she's been involved and she's -- I think she's trying to make a name for herself.

BALCELLS: Well, you know, it's kind of one of those positions, if your job is to be the naysayer of those things, you have to prove your position's worthwhile, right? You have to create work for yourself. I mean, we see that all the time. I really don't feel like any one doctor, though, can truly be held responsible for this. I think that this is just a horrific example of a broken --

GLENN: System.

BALCELLS: No one paying attention to common sense here, including the judge.

GLENN: So --

BALCELLS: I don't understand.

GLENN: Okay. So Cristy, what can people do?

BALCELLS: So here's what we're trying to do as an organization. We're mounting an advocacy campaign asking for donations to try to help this family mount an even larger legal response. And you can look at that at mitoaction.org/advocacy. And, you know, I think that the social media aspect is helping. I think that the national awareness and pressure from the media is helping. The family does feel that they are in a corner and they don't know what else to do. So we hope that by showing our support nationally, we can make a difference. We are talking now and have reached out to the legislature to try to emphasize how unjust this is and to ask for some transparency. I find it really appalling that in all of this time, no one has asked Boston Children's Hospital to be transparent with their decision to really, to make a statement and that it is always like the parent being crucified while the hospitals, you know, stands at the top of the mountain. I find that, you know, unspeakable, especially when in this case we're talking about taxpayers contributing their money to pay for this girl's ten-month hospitalization. Her family is not after money. They don't want a dime. They want their little girl to come back home. This child has no parents right now. She hasn't even been put into custody of, like, a family member or an aunt and uncle or someone who could at least be acting like a mom or a dad for her. She has no parent. She lives in a hospital room. Alone.

GLENN: And she is -- she is in a psych ward, is she not?

BALCELLS: She's in a psych ward at the hospital. With a guard.

GLENN: This is one of the --

BALCELLS: It makes you disgusted, right? It makes you sick.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. This is -- this is the kind of stuff that, you know, you read about in the 19 -- you know, from the 1950s and Sixties where you read about what they used to do to people who were, you know, crazy and they would lock these people up in institutions, and you watch them and you just turn away from it in disgust and you think, oh, thank God we're past that. No, we're not past that. No, we're not past that. That's what's happening right here. We have a young girl who is sick. Her parents are trying to do the best thing for her. The State has decided they disagree with the parents and the State wins. What this is saying to you, America, is you don't have a right of your own child. That child does not belong to you. That child belongs to the State. They're allowing you to take care of that child unless they disagree and then the State takes. And this is not like, "Well, we're just going to say Jesus at her at the top of the hour and hope that she gets better." That's not what this is. This is a child that was diagnosed with one disease at Tufts University. She goes in for something else at Boston Children's. They decide that that's -- "We don't agree." They don't have a right to another opinion? They have to take Boston children's Hospital opinion and so because the parents said to hell with that; we're taking our child. The hospital goes to the court and takes custody of the child and puts her in a psych ward. Meanwhile she could walk into the hospital -- now nine months later the girl can't walk.

BALCELLS: Correct.

GLENN: Because she's not about treated, she's not being treated for what Tufts University said she --

BALCELLS: For what she has.

GLENN: It's such an outrage. Listen, here's what I would like you to do. If you are able to donate any money, I would like you to go to mitoaction.org, mitoaction.org/advocacy and make a donation and help this poor family. This is a regular run-of-the-mill family. This is a family that is already -- they are trying to do the right thing for their kid. This is not a crazy family, none of that stuff. I want you to go to mitoaction.org/advocacy so these people can hire a really good attorney, so they can have somebody on their side that is really giving them a defense. Let's see if we can get this child home for Christmas. This is the biggest outrage. Go there and see if you can help out. Cristy, thank you so much and we'll talk to you again.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.