Glenn reacts to the stunning update in the Justina Pelletier case

Editor’s Note: Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver and Lou and Jennifer Pelletier will be discussing the ruling on Wednesday’s Glenn Beck Program at 5pm ET. Not a subscriber? Start your 14-day free trial of TheBlaze TV HERE.

In a shocking ruling, a Massachusetts judge ruled Tuesday Justina Pelletier – the Connecticut teen who has been in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families for over a year – will remain in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families.

As TheBlaze reported, Suffolk County juvenile court Judge Joseph Johnston granted “permanent” custody DCF. This decision was in response to a motion filed by Justina’s parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier, and her court-appointed lawyer for a “conditional custody” plan. Until this point, DCF only had temporary custody of Justina. That temporary custody had been in effect since February 2013.

“The judge has ruled for permanent custody to go to the state,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “Now, how is that even possible? Two weeks ago, they said to the DCF that they had to prepare to move her to Tufts and prepare her to move back with her family. Two weeks later, he says the exact opposite? Something is wrong here.”

Justina’s parents plan to pursue all options to reverse the court’s latest decision, and it should be noted that the term “permanent” is not quite as finite as it may sound.

Yesterday, the Pelletier family’s spokesman, Rev. Patrick Mahoney, told TheBlaze that, in his understanding, the ruling is not meant to imply that Justina will never be returned to her parents.

“It’s not a lie, but it’s not 100 percent accurate,” Mahoney told TheBlaze. “In putting the word ['permanent'] out without explaining it, it appears to the casual reader that somehow the Pelletiers have completely lost of Justina until she’s 18 years old and that’s not the case.”

At this point, many are probably questioning the role of the parent’s in this case. After all, how could something this sensational actually happen in America? Glenn maintained, however, that in all his and his staff’s dealings with the family, there have been no red flags.

“The Department of Children and Families have been to this family's house,” Glenn explained. “If this family were so monstrous, they would remove the other daughter who has the same disorder… They would remove the 95-year-old grandmother. There's something wrong here, and it's not with the family.”

Late last night, Judge Joseph Johnston’s ruling was published by the Boston Globe and also provided to TheBlaze anonymously. The ruling sheds some light onto the reasoning behind the “huge” decision. TheBlaze’s Jason Howerton isolated four key details from the document, which are outlined below:

4. The judge argues that “credible psychiatric and medical evidence” suggests that Justina Pelletier suffers from a “persistent and severe Somatic Symptom Disorder,” not mitochondrial disease as she was diagnosed with previously.

Justina “is a child in need of care and protection… due to the conduct and inability of her parents, Linda Pelletier and Lou Pelletier, to provide for Justina’s necessary and proper physical, mental, and emotional development,” the ruling states.

3. Justina’s parents “significantly hampered” DCF’s efforts to find a “suitable placement” for the girl, according to the ruling. The parents, obviously, want their daughter to come home with them instead.

“While Justina was at Children’s Hospital, the parents were verbally abusive to Justina’s hospital providers. Family members of other patients complained that Justina’s parents stated their children were being kidnapped by Children’s Hospital,” the ruling says. “They threatened to call the F.B.I. They called hospital personnel “Nazis” and claimed the hospital was punishing and killing Justina.”

The court also accuses the parents of using “profanity” directed at DCF personnel.

2. The judge has determined “placement of Justina in the conditional custody of her parents is not in her best interests at this time.”

Judge Johnston officially ordered Justina into the custody of DCF, “subject to the parties’ right to review and redetermination” six months from the adjudication on Dec. 20, 2013.

1. Psychological and clinical evaluations of Justina’s parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier, are “necessary.”

However, the judge declined to order the evaluations to be conducted by the Boston Juvenile Court Clinic.

“These are evaluations, along with other services, that must be coordinated by the CT DCF for this Connecticut facility,” the order states.

Ultimately, a young girl’s life hangs in the balance, and Glenn urged his audience to continue to pray for Justina and her family.

“It’s not just this case. There is a real problem with DCF. A real deep problem with DCF,” Glenn concluded. “I don’t know what’s wrong. But I beg you to pray.”

Read the entire ruling below:

Justina Pelletier ruling

Editor’s Note: Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver and Lou and Jennifer Pelletier will be discussing the ruling on Wednesday’s Glenn Beck Program at 5pm ET. Not a subscriber? Start your 14-day free trial of TheBlaze TV HERE.


I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.

'The fool builds walls': China blasts Trump over tariffs


I can picture it now: Thousands of years ago, Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, standing before hordes of his followers, in the Qin Dynasty, with a bright red bamboo hat on, and chanting, "Build that wall!"

It took a couple centuries to build the thing, but it got built. And it has been carefully maintained over the last 2,000 years, but, today, the Great Wall of China is so massive that astronauts can see it during good weather conditions from the lower part of low Earth orbit. The wall boasts over 3,000 miles of towers and brick embankments, with over 1,200 miles of natural defensive barriers. It's worth mentioning that the Chinese government is also exceptionally good at imposing digital walls, so much so that China ranks worst in the world for internet freedom.

RELATED: Trump is following through on his campaign promises. Here are the top 10.

So it's a little strange to hear an editorial run by a major news network in China criticized President Trump for his proposal to build a large wall along the southern border of America.

"Following the path of expanding and opening up is China's best response to the trade dispute between China and the United States, and is also the responsibility that major countries should have to the world," the author wrote. "The wise man builds bridges, the fool builds walls."

Similarly, the Pope told reporters in 2016, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel."

Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

If you've been to the Vatican, you know that it is surrounded by enormous walls. The same goes for all the celebrities who live in heavily walled compounds—a safety measure—but who have also vehemently criticized President Trump's plans to build a wall.

You know the adage: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses." Perhaps the phrase needs an update: Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

An immaculate Nazi doctor hovers over newborn. He probes and sneers at it. "Take it away," he says. This is the very real process that Nazi doctors undertook during the era of Nazi Germany: Nazi eugenics, the studious, sterile search to find children who would define a pure breed for the German lineage. The Übermensch.

RELATED: Glenn responds to advocates of aborting Down syndrome babies: 'No better than Nazi Germans'

During a speech to a delegation of Italy's Family Association in Rome on Saturday, Pope Francis referred to this cruel Nazi practice, which he used as a comparison to the increasingly popular process throughout Europe of "ending" birth defects, by offering abortions to women who have babies with chromosomal defects.

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

I have heard that it's fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first months of pregnancy they do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first offer is: let's send it away.


I say this with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized about what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today we do the same, but now with white gloves.

When CNN got the quote, and it shocked them so much that they had to verify the quote with the Vatican—in other words, it didn't fit the usual narrative.

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

The Pope also addressed claims that he has dedicated himself to LGBTQ causes:

Today, it is hard to say this, we speak of "diversified" families: different types of families. It is true that the word "family" is an analogical word, because we speak of the "family" of stars, family" of trees, "family" of animals ... it is an analogical word. But the human family in the image of God, man and woman, is the only one. It is the only one. A man and woman can be non-believers: but if they love each other and unite in marriage, they are in the image of God even if they don't believe.

The media have largely seen Pope Francis as the cool Pope, as the Obama of Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see how abruptly and severely that perspective changes.