Lou Pelletier talks to Glenn about the contempt of court charges and what comes next for his family

Despite the fact that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed for Lou Pelletier, the father of 15-year-old Justina Pelletier who is being held against her parents’ will, to be held in contempt of court, Lou joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss what comes next in the fight to save his daughter’s life.

Below is a rough transcript of the interview:

GLENN: I can't believe that Lou is coming on again, but he is on the phone with us now from Connecticut. Hello, Lou.

LOU: Good morning, again. And again, many, many thanks to you and your team for spreading the word of Justina's nightmare.

GLENN: So what happened? When did you hear -- can you even talk about any of this?

LOU: We're all in, Glenn. We're here to save my daughter Justina.

GLENN: Okay. So when did they call you and tell you, and what could possibly happen to you now?

LOU: I was actually at the train station, which was -- speaking of another system -- took forever to get back from New York to Connecticut last night. But I was at the train station waiting and I got the email from my attorney that Mass DCF has filed the contempt of court for speaking to the media, which violates the gag order.

GLENN: And the punishment for that is what?

LOU: It can either be a civil punishment, but it could be criminal.

GLENN: So speaking out to try to save your daughter you could -- a civil punishment would be that they will fine you.

LOU: Correct.

GLENN: Which is, good news is, I don't know if you know this, you don't have anything left anyway. So good luck collecting that one. But the other is you could go to jail. How long could you go to jail for?

LOU: Don't no.

GLENN: Do you know now what you're going to -- what's going to happen? I mean, when do you -- how do you fight this, what, do you go -- have to go to court now? What, because you're doing it again.

LOU: As of now we do have a regular court date session scheduled for February 24th, this coming Monday. I have not heard if we need to be there earlier. Because the first time when this whole gag order issue came out, which was November 17th, I literally had to hop in a car and get to Boston within two hours to be in front of the judge. So who knows if they'll wait until Monday, the next scheduled court date, or they'll try to do something sooner.

GLENN: All right. So tell me what else happened. Tell me, is there any good news that has happened since yesterday?

LOU: Well, again as I said when we first got on, thank you so much. People have been flagged us obviously with donations, with God bless each and every one of you people out there because we are fighting the two-headed monster, the ultimate David against Goliath, State of Massachusetts and DCF, Harvard and Boston Children's Hospital. And their pockets are pretty deep. So again, many, many thanks to everybody that's contributed.

GLENN: Well, I want you to know, Lou, that I was in the meeting this morning and we wanted to call and verify what we had heard, that, you know, you were getting hit from DCF. And I instructed TheBlaze and all of my entire, you know, media empire, if you will, TheBlaze television, TheBlaze.com, Blaze Radio that this is the story, we are doing this story that we've done this one other time before and it was with Terri Schiavo. And so I pushed all the chips in the center of the table today, and we will do whatever we can to help right this wrong and --

LOU: Thank you so much.

GLENN: -- make sure she's not forgotten. I think they are literally trying to bury this story.

LOU: Because there's other pieces too that also need to come out because, you know, it's so hard even in an hour to try to explain the length of what's going on.

GLENN: Give me --

LOU: One of the things I didn't even mention, when Justina was 6 or 7, she had a stroke which we didn't even know about it. It was the left side of her brain. It was a massive stroke. Severely impacted her short-term memory. So one of the things is stress, that little thing that we've been living with for the last year, for somebody who has a stroke and has mitochondrial disease can push them over the edge, could lead them to another massive stroke or worse.

GLENN: Seizures, yeah. Well, is there anything that you -- anything that we can do right now, anything you want to share before we let you go and spend time with your attorneys, who I'm sure you're going to be spending time with?

LOU: Biggest thing is, as I said yesterday, there are people with the power to stop this now. The governors of both states hide behind legal things. But the governors, the attorney generals, DCF commissioners all have the power, executive authority, to stop this.

GLENN: Do you have the numbers and everything on FreeJustina.com?

LOU: They're out there. They have been posted. If you go to the -- there are other, along with, you know, the original site was a Miracle for Justina, which, the judge even put a gag on that. Part of that November 17th gag order was we were not allowed to add anything to the A Miracle for Justina website. So many other websites have been spawned.

GLENN: What do you mean you're not -- what do you mean you're not allowed to add anything to that?

LOU: When that gag order was issued, first of all, we knew nothing of it. It was set in a sidebar basically. You know, we were just told to not add anything to the Free Justina -- to A Miracle for Justina. And this whole idea that we can't speak to the media and all this stuff, you know, was not said directly to us, which, jeez, I thought we had the thing called the First Amendment and that's why we're at the stage we're at right now, making sure we get the word out to try to save our daughter's life.

PAT: Lou, has Duval Patrick said anything about this at all? Has he brought this up? Has he mentioned it?

LOU: Not to me personally.

PAT: Has he spoken to anybody in the media?

LOU: No.

PAT: No?

LOU: But if you just Google Mass DCF and Duval Patrick, he's had a few other things going on in his plate up there.

PAT: Yeah.

LOU: Kids, you know, a third of the Mass DCF social workers not licensed, kids dying left and right you understand their watch. You can just pick your -- you know, they are trying to get rid of Olga Roche, the DCF commissioner who Duval Patrick is backing to the Nth degree. So I think that's been taking up a little bit of his time versus the story of a child that not even from his state that they have full control over.

STU: Good news is people are starting to move here, Lou. Right now on Twitter nationally, the hashtag freeJustina is trending for the first time that we know of. And that's the people just starting to wake up on this story and just starting to hear about it. So at least there's some positive momentum.

GLENN: Can I tell you something, Lou? I thought about this, this morning in the meeting. As you're sitting there in bed at night and if you're anything like my wife and I, you know, we'll go to bed and that's when we really start to talk, and I have to believe that there have been times when you have said "We've got to speak out. We have got to do this. We are going to post on -- we're going to post on Free -- or A Miracle for Justina. We're going to do it." And you had the argument back and forth, "Honey, you can't. Because it will make things worse. Because if you make things worse, then what good are you? And we've got to keep the family going." I mean, you have had to have those conversations with your wife.

LOU: Many times. Because it's a double, double-edge sword. Can something happen to me? Well, I'll take the bullet for that. But even more importantly, can they do something even worse to Justina, above and beyond what they've already done to her. You know, she's defenseless. From the get-go she's totally been treated than any other patient when she was at Boston Children's. That's verifiable and identifiable. Hidden, you know, holidays and things where everybody else could see their families and talk to them, she was never allowed to see or talk to them, on Easter, Mother's Day, you name it, you know. So tell me that they haven't had their own agenda for Justina from the get-go.

GLENN: Lou, people are probably going to start listening to this for the first time. This will start to hit people in a different way. And I know my wife said this, I know Pat's wife said this. I don't know if Stu's wife said this. But when we went home and we said this to our wives for the first time, each of our wives said, that can't be. There's got to be something.

PAT: This is America.

GLENN: This is America. There's got to be something we don't know. Could you just address that, for anybody who is hearing this for the first time that say "There's got to be something about the family, there's got to be something here that's not being told"?

LOU: The bottom line is, you look at two key components of this situation. Number one is a doctor who diagnosed her, Dr. Korson from Tufts Medical Center. He's the one that officially diagnosed, you know, Jessica, Justina's older sister, with a medical -- a biopsy to prove that she has mitochondrial disease. So Dr. Korson, who's been treating her successfully for almost two years, has not been allowed to have any involvement in her care. Number two, the doctor she came to see who transferred from Tufts to Boston Children's just a month earlier who Dr. Korson wanted her to see because he was involved with her whole stomach scenario, her GI system, was involved with putting in the cecostomy tube which really saved her life because she wasn't able to go to the bathroom, he has been blocked. I mean, when Justina was taken over by Mass DCF roughly on February 14th, about a week later Dr. Flores tried to go see her. My wife was in the room, my other daughter. We were downstairs and visiting. Dr. Flores came into the room, gave my daughter a big hug, gave my wife a big hug. In the blink of an eye, a social worker came into the room, literally grabbed Dr. Flores by collar and dragged him out saying, "You're not allowed to see this patient. You cannot be in here."

PAT: How can a social worker stop a --

LOU: A social worker.

PAT: -- physician from seeing a patient? That's inconceivable. That's amazing.

LOU: It's all verifiable.

PAT: Wow.

LOU: This is the world we've been fighting. This is world we've been dealing with. It's like at times you wonder, is the whole world crazy and we're the only sane ones? Or maybe we're the crazy ones. It's -- you get to a point where left and right just don't -- nothing seems to add up anymore. You know, in the last piece -- and I have to repeat this -- is regarding this gag order. The largest newspaper in Massachusetts came to us back in April because there was many other people this had happened to. We were going to be the final piece to this story, and everybody knew that this newspaper was going to be printing a story. DCF, the legal system, the judges. But no gag order. It wasn't until the local Fox Connecticut station aired the story on November 17th seven months after the Globe announced they were going to publish the story that a gag order came out. So why was there no gag for seven months when the largest newspaper in Massachusetts was going to print something but then Fox Connecticut was going to air something and all hell breaks loose. Those are the things that just make you shake your head, among so many other things.

GLENN: Lou, thank you so much. We'll talk again.

LOU: Glenn, God bless. God bless America.

GLENN: All right. Thank you. Bye-bye.

Learn more about how you can help the Pelletier family HERE.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.