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.


To learn more or get involved:

• Visit Sherrene Hagenbach online at

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.


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.


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 But it's spelled with a K. So it's

GLENN: Okay.

SHERRENE: And my email address is

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.


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.


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.

PROOF That Biden's DOJ is COLLUDING With Trump Prosecutors?

PROOF That Biden's DOJ is COLLUDING With Trump Prosecutors?

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is demanding that the Department of Justice turn over documents related to several of the prosecutors going after former president Donald Trump. These documents, Bailey believes, will prove that the White House is colluding with these prosecutors to attack Biden’s political opponent and keep him off the campaign trail. Bailey joins Glenn to make the case that these prosecutors — including Alvin Bragg and Letitia James in New York and Fani Willis in Georgia — should be disqualified. Plus, Bailey also explains why he has threatened to sue the city of Kansas City for doxing Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have the Missouri attorney general. He is demanding a couple of things. First of all, that the Department of Justice turn over the documents related to several of president Trump's prosecutions as the prosecutions appeared to be part of a coordinated effort, by the DOJ, that involved the White House. Andrew Bailey. The attorney general is with us now.

Andrew, how are you, sir? All of the time doing well, thank you. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. Thank you. You are one of the really good AGs in the country. And I have to tell you, it is -- the first of the last of the line, are the AGs. And if you guys go dark, it's up to the sheriffs.

And I would like to not get to the sheriff part. So thank you for everything you're doing.

Tell me -- tell me about what you're looking for, from the Department of Justice. Why you're looking for it. And what the response has been so far.

ANDREW: Well, and, Glenn, I appreciate you covering this story, extensively. Everyone can see the elicit witch hunt prosecutions that are going on from Alvin Bragg's office, from Fani Willis' office, from Leticia James' office, and from Joe Biden's crooked Department of Justice.

GLENN: And we know already -- do we not know for a fact, that there are ties directly to the White House. That they're coordinating.

ANDREW: That's right. Yeah. They're absolutely coordinating. The Biden Department of Justice has become the nerve center for a coordinated witch hunt prosecution of a political opponent.

And it's not designed to obtain a legal ballot.

It's basically designed to take anyone running against Joe Biden. Off the campaign trail.

How do we know this? Because they've deployed resources at the state level.

That's illicit collusion. And I'm talking about Matt Colangelo, this was the number two ranking official at Biden's crooked Department of Justice.

A long time ENT activist, with deep ties to the Democratic Party, who has now taken a job with Alvin Bragg's office. And it's leading the prosecution in the courtroom in Manhattan at the state level, against President Donald Trump.

That is sufficient evidence, to disqualify the prosecutors. And we demand record. We need to have transparency. I think they have enormous liability on their professional license you're. Civil liability. And potentially criminal liability.

At some time, we have to talk about prosecuting the prosecutors.

GLENN: Thank you. May I just call you, Andrew.

ANDREW: Yes. Please.

GLENN: So, Andrew, how unusual is it for that kind of a -- a transfer of job -- I mean, does that happen?

Is this just our speculation?

ANDREW: Well, in isolation, it wouldn't be a problem in and of itself.

The problem comes from the elicit motivations that can be imputed to these prosecutors.

Let's talk about Alvin Bragg for a second. Which, by the way, I love that his website for his office is one standard of justice for all. How does this guy keep a straight face while saying that?

This is an individual who worked for Leticia James, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, who has been involved in civil litigation against Donald Trump when he worked at the New York attorney general office.

There's no way a court in Missouri would allow him to prosecute that criminal case. Even -- even if there was a criminal case, which I don't concede that there is.

It's not supported by the facts for the law. We covered that extensively. We talked about that, ad nauseam.

But the elicit motivation of the prosecutors is so evident by the previous behavior and statements that Alvin Bragg has made. Same with Michael Colangelo. I mean, the DOJ cases against President Donald Trump are also equally specious in nature.

In other words, not supported by the facts of the law. So Joe Biden keeps documents at his garage, where anyone can get to them. And he's too old to know what he's doing. So let's let him off the hook. Despite the fact, he's somehow the chief executive of the United States of America. But we're going to go after President Donald Trump, who had the authority to declassify the very documents he was in possession of, that were in a safe. So, again, you've got Matthew Colangelo reading all of that, and now going to help Alvin Bragg. That is conspiracy of impropriety at a minimum, and I believe there is actual impropriety. Substantive impropriety. The political motivation of the prosecutors is to sufficient to call into question the judgment in those cases. Couple with the fact, they brought baseless charges from the facts of the law.

And it will undermine the credibility of whatever illegal convictions they ultimately obtain.

GLENN: So tell me what cases you're looking at. You're looking at Alvin Bragg. And you're looking at -- shoot. What was the other one you just --

ANDREW: Leticia James. Fani Willis.

GLENN: Yeah. All of them.

ANDREW: All of them. Yeah. There's a document in history. This isn't just some conspiracy theory.

I mean, your listeners will recall in 2016 how the DOJ Deep State conspired to perpetrate the Russian collusion hoax against President Trump to undermine his presidency before he took office.

And think about those text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

You're telling me, that isn't going on between Leticia James, Alvin Bragg, Matthew Colangelo. Fani Willis. The whole crew. And so we know this evidence is out there. And it needs to be transparent for the public.

GLENN: So is there a statute of limitations on any of these?

ANDREW: You know, it depends on what facts are uncovered. But I don't think we're at any risk of losing ability to hold the wrongdoers account. Again, that can take many different forms.

First and foremost. We, need to expose this so the public knows what's going on here.

It was never about an actual criminal case against President Trump it was always about getting him off the campaign trail.

Now, once that is established, which, again, circumstantial evidence gives rise to the reasonable inference today. But we're in possession of the documents that we believe will reveal an actual substantive impropriety. Then we start talking about censor. Having a civil suit for violation of his civil rights. And if crimes were committed, on absolutely criminal prosecution should be on the table. For far too long, the conservatives have allowed this law fair to go on. It's gotten worse and worse and worse, to where now, Missourians are being denied access to their chosen political candidate, their chosen presidential candidate, President Donald Trump.

GLENN: So you know law fare is the wave of the future. If President Trump wins, they're going to make what happened on January 6th, I think look like, I think a walk in the park. And they are lawyering up like crazy.

Law fare is the future. How do we turn that around?

ANDREW: Well, it's tough, because as conservatives we believe in the rule of law. We believe that the tradition of the Constitution still means something, and that we elevate the rules of the game above the players and the outcomes.

And so the only way to serve those rule of law principles, but also fight back against law fare is to hold those perpetrating lawfare accountable. And that's what I seek to do in this instance.

GLENN: Now, how likely are we to get these documents?

ANDREW: Well, I'm not going to be stonewalled by Biden's crooked Department of Justice. They may play that in the courts of New York. Which, by the way, shame on the judiciary in the State of New York for not disqualifying these prosecutors. And from, you know, allowing these appearances of impropriety to perpetrate, even from the bench in this illicit witch hunt prosecution. At the end of the day, this will not stand in Missouri. We won't be stonewalled by the Department of Justice. They have a responsibility of transparency.

Especially the heightened sensitivity over the presidential election. And so these are serious allegations. They need to live up to their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, and we are going to shine the light of truth on this, as soon as practicable.

GLENN: And when we have the document case, when they turned over the documents, we found solution, did we not?

ANDREW: That's absolutely true. Again, this is a documented pattern of behavior. That extends far beyond the current presidential election sile. It goes all the way back to 2016.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Let me switch subjects. The Kansas City Chiefs, which full disclosure, my family and I, we root for the Kansas City Chiefs all the time.

And, you know, we love the Hunt family, and everything else. What happened there, is -- is such an attack on, honestly, freedom of expression for your religion. He's speaking -- I mean, the left always says, you can keep it in your house of worship.

Well, that was a religious university. And he got a standing ovation. Nobody seemed to really be offended by it. And they have gone after him, and docked him.

What are you doing?

ANDREW: Yeah, well, look, we're not going to let city officials and Kansas City who doxed Harrison Butker in retaliation for his free expression of his faith, of his religious beliefs. We're not going to let them violate the Missouri Human Rights Act that exists in order to prohibit that kind of discriminatory behavior.

And you're right. If anyone has watched the commencement address itself, I would commend for everybody -- you know what he said at the beginning? You know what Harrison Butker said?

The left wants to drive free expression of Christian beliefs from public discourse, and that's exactly what's happened.


ANDREW: That's what the left is doing to Harrison Butker. Now, the problem from a state law perspective is when the city, using an official Twitter account, publishes Harrison Butker's residence. Why did they do that? In retaliation. Like, you can't retaliate them, but for the free expression of their faith. And that's what's going on here. And luckily, I'm the bad guy.

Quinton Lucas the mayor of Kansas City within the last 72 hours has written an incendiary letter to me, accusing me of fanning the flames of racial discourse. What? That has nothing to do with it. You know you're doing the right thing, when the left baselessly plays the race card. So somehow, my enforcement of the statute intended to prevent discrimination is discriminatory.

Makes zero sense. That's when you know you're doing the right thing. We're going to fight for all Christians -- any faith community's ability to have free expression of religious belief, protected by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Missouri.

GLENN: And what are you going on that, Andrew?

ANDREW: We demand accountability and transparency there too. We've demanded documents about who manages the Social Security media accounts, who has access to it.

Why this post was tweeted out, when it was. We need to make sure that there's guardrails in place, to ensure that, again, the government has been weaponized to push a radical progressive discriminatory agenda in violation of state law.

If we have to, we'll go to court and put an injunction to put a stop to it.

GLENN: Andrew Bailey, the attorney general of Missouri. Always good to talk to you, Andrew. Thank you so much.

ANDREW: Thank you, sir. Appreciate you for having me on.

GLENN: You bet.

If you didn't hear Bill Maher's comments on the Kansas City Chief Kicker's comments, listen to what he said. Cut two.

VOICE: I couldn't more not like this guy. He's in big trouble because he said at this event. And this is the Catholic college. Conservative Catholics. And they -- he's now history's greatest monster. Again, I don't agree with much of this guy. I don't get the thing. He said, some of you -- talking to the women.

Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. Okay. That seems fairly like modern.

But I would venture to guess, that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you are going to bring into this world. I don't see what the big crime is. I really don't, and I think this is part of the problem people have with the left. Like he's saying, some of you may go on to lead successful careers. But a lot of you are excited about this other way, that everybody used to be. And now, can't that just be a choice too?

And I feel like they feel very put upon. There's only one way to be a good person. And that's to get an advanced degree from one of those asshole universities like Harvard.
I find it very ironic that he's saying, you know what, in my world, you know, we like the women to stay at home. And just have babies. And the college kids and the young people find this absolutely abhorrent. But they're demonstrating for Hamas.

Who make that a law. It's not just an opinion in Hamas. That you stay home and have the babies. We will enforce you for doing that. Okay. I just wanted to make that point.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I think Bill Maher has become -- and I don't agree with him on a lot of stuff. He is becoming my favorite liberal. Because he's an actual classic liberal once again. He's somebody who is just saying, freedom of speech, man.

Say what you want. Don't force everybody else.

Thank you, Bill Maher.

All right. Back in just a second. First, let me tell you about Ruff Greens. Your dog is a member of your family. You know that. He's also there to protect you if somebody else breaks into your house. So hypothetical situation here. Let's say you feed your dog kibble food. The burglar brings hamburger along and gives it to them.

I mean, you know, the burglar is like, hey. I will steal all your stuff. Because I just have a burger.

While your fateful dog is attacking you. Because he



Artificial intelligence has made some incredible advancements, from ChatGPT 4o's newest voice conversation features to a new device that can isolate someone's voice from across a room. But how crazy will things get? How long will it be until your autonomous car can make money on its own by driving people around while you're not using it? Will it ever start investing that money on its own? And if it's effecting the economy and making its own decisions...will people argue that it should have voting rights?! "The things that are coming ... nobody's prepared for this," Glenn warns. Plus, Glenn reveals that he bought a flamethrowing robot dog ... and is planning on running a few tests.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: We were talking about all this new technology coming out with the new version of ChatGPT and everything else. One of the things they've had is the realtime translation. And we've kind of seen these apps. Like, you get it on your phone. You can say something. It will translate. Then you can hold it up for the person, and you can hear it. It's now basically to the point where it's basically realtime. And they were having conversations between Italian and English in realtime conversation. And you think about how many jobs get eliminated by this stuff. Why would a translator be needed?

I mean, it's seemingly like gone now. Maybe with the exception of like high level international, you know, discussions.

GLENN: You mean people might need to have universal basic income?

This is what we talked about, remember? Ten years ago, I said, there's going to come a time, no job. You're going to have to have universal basic income. My solution to that is own your own information. And sell it to these big, huge companies to Google, if you want to. That way, we all share in the information that they've just stolen from us.

But, anyway, there's -- I'll go one better. You now -- there is now a system out.

I've been doing research on security. Because we're rebuilding our ranch.

And, I mean, I'm putting a skiff in it. And everything else.

But I've been looking at all this different security.

And one thing I found just last night. It's amazing. Is you could sit in a restaurant, and you could target somebody, at a table.

You could have an earpiece in.

And you're talking to your device. And you look at the table. And they're across the room.

And you can say, please enhance the female's responses. The voice.

And it will turn their voice up, if you still can't hear, remove the sound of all other talking in the room.

And it will cancel all of the room, talking. Remove the sound of the dishes. Focus only on their conversation. I've seen it in realtime.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: I'll bring the video in tomorrow. I'll show you. It will do it in realtime.

And then, they're speaking a different language. Translate to English.

And you're hearing their voice, speaking in English.

And that's the only thing in the crowded restaurant you can hear.

STU: My God.

PAT: Unbelievable.


GLENN: It's incredible. And it's all in realtime.

STU: Is there going to be any need to learn a foreign language anymore? With this, you don't need to, right?

GLENN: No. Uh-uh.

STU: Of course, you go down a generation, when no one knows the language, and who will check the AI?

PAT: Yeah. Nobody is.

GLENN: Remember when I had the conversation 12 years ago with Ray Kurzweil. And I said, Ray, all of this technology makes us weaker. And he said, no. It will make us stronger.

Because you won't have to worry about keeping all this other stuff in your brain. And I said, really?

When GPS goes down, tell my kids to find their way to the store with a map. You have no skill without that.

And he thinks that we're just going to be learning so much more. Yeah, and television will be the greatest teacher on earth. What are you talking about?

STU: Yeah, it's like, it's not really learning. Right?

You could be the best at -- you know, Italian speaker in the world without learning one word of Italian.

And You're right. If this infrastructure were to collapse, or degrade in some major way, there's nothing to fall back on. We don't know how to do anything.

GLENN: There are things you can do.

There's -- in -- in my -- in my ranch, I'm really getting serious about security.

And I'm putting in -- it's not -- I can't remember what it's called. But it's like Alexa. But it's not connected to the internet at all. And it can control the house.

So you say, hey, Eric. I need to speak to everybody at the -- on the outdoors. And it will open up the microphone, and you can talk to everybody in the whole house, if you want.

Eric, call 911. It will do everything. But it's not connected to the internet.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: The -- I'm looking for things to protect the family, honestly.

My robot dog comes in two weeks.

STU: Wait. The thing that we talked about on the air, a couple weeks ago with the flame-throwing robot dog? You've purchased a flame-throwing robot dog? Oh, we have the video, in case people --

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Are you putting gasoline in it?

GLENN: I don't think I will use the flamethrower. However, they did it in the mountains. And they said, it's great to clear snow.

So look at this thing.

And at night -- look at, the laser.

It has a light on it.

PAT: On, wow. That's cool.

GLENN: The cameras. It will sense body heat.

So it will identify things.

STU: Wait. If you're not going to use the flamethrower.

Why would you want the robot dog.

GLENN: Well, I'm not saying that it won't be ready to use the flame throwing dog.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: For one reason, it can go and prowl around.

We have mountain lines. One thing.

And I would like it to prowl for the mountain lions.

But also, I think that would freak people out.

STU: Yeah. Yes.

PAT: I think it would.

GLENN: Freak people out.

And that, and we're getting a drone called, I think it's the -- one of the ones we're looking at. Is the sunflower.

And it -- you put devices in the ground, of up to 4 acres around your house. Okay.

And it geofences it. And if it senses anything moving on the property, and it can tell the difference between an animal and a human, and if it senses anything moving on your property, it automatically deploys and holds them in place.

Which I just think is -- I mean, technology is so amazing. On the things that you can do. I mean, you spend that.

And you -- you don't have to worry. My family is different. We spend a lot on our security.

And man security. The one thing. When we're at the ranch at night. There's animals and everything else.

We had a mountain lion that was about probably I don't know. 15 yards from me.

Going into the studio the other day. You know, a couple of months ago. And it was freaky. And you're out. And you don't know.

And if you need security. I mean, the stuff that we have now. And it's all autonomous. That's what's so weird.

My son begging me. Please, Dad, let's not put all this autonomous things in there. No. The Chinese are fine. What are you talking about? It will be great.

PAT: So what does it autonomously do then? It just goes out and patrols? It decides where to go and what to do, when it sees something amiss?

GLENN: Yeah. It patrols, and it learns. And it can automatically deploy. Everything will automatically deploy, if there's a breach of the property.

It deploys. It alerts you, then tracks whatever is moving.

And, you know, I -- I just have a feeling, that if you're -- you're coming at night. And you're on my property. And you think you're going to steal something or whatever.

I don't know. The flame-throwing dog might freak you out. Then the drone above your head.

PAT: Yeah. Wow.

STU: I think what's fascinating too. We've all been used to seeing a Boston dynamics video, and jumping. And we think, wow. Imagine when that happens, in the year 2035. That will be available.

This is coming to your house in two weeks? This robot dog?

GLENN: Yeah. I will do a show on it. When we get it and I go up to the ranch this summer and we have it all deployed, I will do a show on it. The technology that is available today, is absolutely, it's -- I mean, it's futuristic. We're living in that weird world now. That we've watched in movies forever.

PAT: What are the odds though, that something can go wrong with it. And it uses its flame-throwing ability to burn your house down. Are there precautions?

GLENN: Yeah. That's why I won't put gasoline in it.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: You know, I don't think I need the flame throwing part.

What it has though, is the laser. The laser imaging.

The spotlight. The ability to -- it speaks to you.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Warning. Turn around. And move back.

You know, security is coming.

And, I mean, it -- I just -- I don't know. I don't think I would mess with a robot to go.

PAT: No. And it's going to be so unusual.

People will be stunned by it I'm sure at first.

But just so it doesn't set one of your neighbors on fire, who goes straight across your property.

That would be maybe a bad thing.

GLENN: You know, I'm sorry.

PAT: Oh, tarn it.

GLENN: My son now looks like fire marshal Bill.

PAT: Yeah. Not good.

GLENN: But it was just a little mistake. A little mistake.

No. I don't want to put anything in the flamethrower. I wanted to buy it without the flamethrower.

But you can't. It comes as a permanent attachment.

You can attach other things to it.

PAT: Wow. Really cool.

GLENN: You know on ARs? They have the gun rail.

It has a rail on top of it.

PAT: Unreal. So can you attach a gun to it, then?

GLENN: I don't think so.

But I have a feeling somebody could find a way. Not me, of course.

STU: No.

GLENN: But somebody could find a way to attach a begin to it.

I would put a Byrna launcher on it, in a second.

STU: What happens, if something goes wrong.

Is not even across your property line. It veterans out on its own. There's an error on it.

It does something, it's not supposed to do.

It shoots somebody. Or lights them on fire out on the street.

Who gets blamed for that know.

Who is the criminal? Is it you?

PAT: Has to be the owner. Yeah.

GLENN: This goes back to autonomous cars. It would probably at this point, be me.

But you could -- you could make the case, that it's not me. It's autonomous.

It's the company. I bought it. It geofenced. Why did it cross the geofence?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: It's not -- if it didn't -- if it did something that it wasn't supposed to do as you purchased it, I can't imagine that it would actually be your fault legally.

I don't know. I guess they go after the company. I don't know. That's a bizarre. We have a lot of these questions. That have been coming up. And a lot of answers.

PAT: And it will happen. It's inevitable.

Something will go wrong with some of them. And something bad will happen.

GLENN: This has been a long time thing coming. On what is free will and everything else.

I've been reading about this since the '90s. When it comes to technology.

Your car eventually is going to be able to make money on its own.

For instance, it's going to be -- you can park it. And then it will Uber all day by itself.

So it will make money. But it will also have so much technology in it, that it could invest that money in the stock market.

So --

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: So whose money is that? Is that the car's money? And if it has the ability to affect the economy, shouldn't it have a right to vote?
I mean, the things that are come, nobody is prepared for this. And it's all going to be here by 2030.

Is THIS How the Government Will CRACK DOWN on Dissent?

Is THIS How the Government Will CRACK DOWN on Dissent?

"Every warning light in me is flashing red," Glenn warns. As government agencies like the FBI and DHS warn of a rise in extremism, Glenn warns that THEY are the ones creating it. Whether they're foreign-born extremists, that our government is allowing to flood across our open border, or supposed home-grown extremists, which our government seems focused on, Glenn believes this might not end well. Will America face an attack in the near future? Will the government use an attack to paint half the country as "extremists," as it is already trying to do? While real criminals are being let off the hook, Glenn tells the story of a woman in Portland, Oregon, who got a harsher sentence than any BLM rioter for committing the "hate crime" of misgendering and confronting a trans person who was trying to use the women's bathroom. So, how long do we have before the crackdown on dissenters really begins?


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There are several things. Let me start this.

There are many things, that I believe that I shall never say.

But I shall never say the things that I do not believe.

Immanuel Kant. There are several things that need to be said. And to everything, there is a season.

My job is to inform you, also to entertain you. But to enlighten you, and warn you.

And I have felt this was a calling more than a job. It's the only reason why I still sit here. And there will come a time when those who are trusted voices, will no longer be able to be heard.

We -- we know this. Because of the attack on anybody that just disagrees. If you are for life, and you are praying, you can go to jail for 20 years.

If you are dying job of reporting, you can go to jail.
If -- well, let me give you this story from -- from Portland today.

A woman has now been convicted by a Portland, Oregon, jury of criminal harassment. A hate crime, after she mis-gendered and confronted a trans person using the women's bathroom.

Cassandra McIntyre told Rills Larson, a far left trans activist, formerly known as Ronald Larson, that they're a man.

And to get out after the male allegedly shoved another person to cut in line for the woman's toilet. The jury saw the video of McIntyre lightly shoving Larson during the confrontation.

She was sentenced to two years probation, plus community service.

That's longer than anyone for BLM or Antifa rioters. Or arsonists have ever received in Oregon.

Larson is a self-identified Marxist, queer, demi-binary trans woman. So these things are real. We also that know catch and release, is really happening, in almost everything now. With law enforcement.

It's not just a border thing.

It is also in our cities.

They -- we told you a story yesterday. Where four people who cut up two corpses. And then scattered them in a park.

Were caught. And then released.

Okay. Then we were also told on the same day, that the National Guard was being put into the subways of New York.

Now, the reason this is bad, we don't use the National Guard, for that. Unless it's -- you know, especially on an ongoing basis in a riot, maybe.

But that's your police force now?

The army?

Not good. And I wondered, because of yesterday, as they put the chain-link fence around the Capitol again. I was wondering, is that National Guard there because of crime? Is that National Guard there, to get people used to seeing the guard?

Is that National Guard there because our Department of Homeland Security said, every light is blinking red, because we are headed toward a -- a colossal terrorist attack.

So is the National Guard there for that, and they just don't tell us?

Every light in me, is flashing red, right now.

And my family, we're going through some difficult discussions and -- and we're -- this is going to be a till time.

And until I see the next president, or this president, legitimately sworn into office, I don't think my lights will start -- start flashing green or even yellow for a while.

There are too many things that could go wrong. And last night, our president was, again, setting us up.

Did you know that in Moscow, yesterday, the American embassy told Americans, to stay away from any large gatherings.

Because Intel says, that there are extremists, who want to bomb and kill people in the public square.

Now, who are those extremists?

The president did not talk about the extremists, that made his motorcade stop for ten minutes because they couldn't get through the crowd. With Secret Service, police, everything they had.

They couldn't get the motorcade moving through the crowd for ten minutes.

And the president immediately started to speak about war. And the war internally and externally.

And the war internally are the Trumpers. The war internally are January 6ers.

Well, I was just as mad, if not madder than most people. I warned against January 6.

Don't go. It's a trap.

And I was furious, on January 6th. And I still am furious, to anybody who was there. That broke the windows. Et cetera, et cetera.

And I don't care what political bent you're from.

I don't care. You're not a friend of the republic. But now I also know, that there are things that have already been revealed. And things that are coming, that will show, our government was deeply involved in that.

And it's to paint half the country, as an extremist. I fear, Beslan, or something like it, is coming.

A group of terrorist attacks, that will happen in a week, that will so fundamentally shock the American people. And you heard fear in people I've talked to today.

I am afraid for my wife. I am afraid for my daughters. That will become a reality.

And people will scream, make it stop!

And extremists will be defined by whoever is in power.

And I believe this will happen before there's a change of power. I hope to God not. Pray, and if you can, pray on your knees. Beg for protection of the republic.

But when that happens, I believe that if they're not preparing, they're foolish.

But when the Department of Homeland Security issues the warnings they have been issuing, and nobody is talking about them.

And then the president talks about extremists in the country. And we have open borders. Where we know thousands, who wish us ill. Are now in the country. And we have no idea.

We have no idea, where they are. Who they are. What they're planning.

And we have them from all walks of life. We have them from China. We have them from Iraq.

I'm sorry. Iran. We have them from Gaza.

We have them from Russia, everywhere.

And anywhere. The people who hate us, are coming through.

And I'm sorry, they're -- you -- I'm sorry. If you -- show me the majority that are families with children.

They're mainly 20-something men.

And we know, that this is happening now.

I believe our government, at least has a plan, that they should have, perhaps.

To grab control of the country. And issue marshal law.

God forbid, if something like this happens.

And I think it could happen, before January.

And I often say to you, where you are, is where you will be.

When something like this happens, there will be so much chaos, if God forbid, it's a Beslan-like attack.

There will be so much chaos, that the government will have to say, curfew. Think of what they did in Boston. Remember when the Boston bomber was loose?

And they just shut the city down. Everyone, stay in your home. We're looking for him. He could be somewhere. He could even be in your home.

And extremists now, cover so many things. When that happens, are these Islamic extremists?

If there's -- if there's people that see it, because remember, I've said, for years. This is not going to be coordinated. This is going to be people seizing the opportunity. They'll see the weakness.

And they will seize the opportunity.

So I believe things like this. Some of them will be very well-planned out. Others will happen just because it's happening. And they'll say, go. Now! Go, go, go, go! God forbid.

I have no reason to say this, except for my gut. So please don't take this as gospel. Please don't take this as gospel.

This is what I do for a living.

And my job is to connect all the dots. And say, what's a likely outcome?

I don't know how likely this is.

But I will tell you, the people are here. The opportunity is now.

Much more than it will be in January. It solves a ton of problems. Our president last night, I'm not saying he was -- he's involved in anything like this. But he's setting the table for that.

We already have crime in our streets, and people don't feel safe. If you fear this, because you're not mentally prepared, not physically prepared, have not had a meeting place for your family. If things go wrong, here's where we meet.

You will be where you are, and they will be where they are.

Because people will say, dear God, just make it stop.

And when there's that much chaos. When people are afraid, for their own life, Hong Kong can be lost.

And all of those people that were protesting, are just disappeared.

And the world doesn't even see it. This show is not for everybody. And I understand that.

And I've been called all kinds of names for this. And I understand that. My family, at times, will say, dad, come on. And I understand that.

I can only tell you the things that I believe. I can only tell you the things, that I think are true.

I have prayed for 20 years, please, don't let these things be right.

There's nobody that would be more happy than me. And I do believe, there is a way, only if I put on the full armor of God. And shod your feet with the gospel of peace!

We can make it. And we will make it to the other side, of whatever comes our way.

But we'll be in much worse shape, if we're not mentally, physically, and spiritually prepared.

Congress Fights Over EYELASHES While Our Economy is in Shambles?!

Congress Fights Over EYELASHES While Our Economy is in Shambles?!

A House of Representatives committee hearing delved into chaos after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked Rep. Jasmine Crockett's "fake eyelashes." And it didn't take long for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to join in. When Glenn first saw the footage, he immediately thought, we've seen this kind of dysfunction before. Was this a weird 2024 version of the 1856 caning of Charles Sumner, which was a prelude to the Civil War? Or, at the very least, is this a sign of Congress' real priorities? While the country is facing a massive wave of inflation, Congress is arguing over ... eyelashes?!