Disturbing Details in the Flimsy Case Against Mother Amy Fabbrini

The case of Amy Fabbrini, an Oregon mother whose children were taken away after the state declared her IQ was too low to parent effectively, has touched Glenn deeply.

“It's just so outrageous what is happening,” Glenn said.

Jason Buttrill, head researcher and writer for The Glenn Beck Program, met with Glenn last week to “get down to the absolute nuts and bolts” on what exactly is going on with this case.

The state has alleged that Fabbrini and Ziegler aren’t fit, even though there is no evidence of abuse or neglect. According to court documents, Oregon has alleged that Fabbrini doesn’t understand the basic needs of her children and can’t be a safe parent.

After hearing from a listener who works for CPS and digging deep into the court case of Fabbrini, it turns out the case is even worse than they originally thought.

“We have seen all of the documents,” Glenn said.

Buttrill discovered that Fabbrini, along with the child’s father, both graduated in the middle of their class. Beyond that, there are actual quotes from case workers claiming that Fabbrini is “lazy, dirty and retarded.” There is even speculation that one of their children might be diagnosed with autism, therefore the court is hoping to give the child to a family with more means that is better able to take the child to a specialized school.

“This cannot stand,” declared Glenn. “The state cannot take children away because of low IQ. They cannot take children away because of a possible diagnosis in the future.”

GLENN: There is a story out of Oregon we've been telling you about all last week of Amy Fabbrini and her children. They have been taken away from a girl who we have been told, the state says is -- has too low of an IQ to be able to take care of her own children. The more we get into this case, the more we are, like, something is just not right here. And last Friday, I had a meeting with Jason Buttrill, who is with me now, and he's our lead researcher on the Glenn Beck Program, and we had a kind of come to Jesus meeting on Friday because we all had concerns. And we were, like. Okay. We have to get down to the absolute nuts and bolts on this. We need to go up. We need to see everything. We need to meet everybody. We need to know for sure before we go any further on this. Because it's just so outrageous what is happening.

So they were working on that over the weekend, and I get this forwarded to me from Jeffy. Do you know this guy, Jeffy? Or is he just reaching out to you?

JEFFY: No, he was just reaching out.

GLENN: So he's a guy, he wrote, like, five or six pages. I'm just going to give you a couple of highlights. He wrote five or six pages and said, look, I work for child protective services.

PAT: He's an attorney for them.

GLENN: Yeah, and he said I've seen this from the inside and, you know, don't jump on any bandwagons.

So here is word of caution. I want to just take you through this because what he points out were exactly my questions on Friday. And we have an update for you, and it's a pretty stunning update.

He says word of caution. Glenn, I understand your gut reaction is to defend parental rights and be wary of the state, and this is wise. However, the statements you make, the overgeneralizations, and your assumptions are alienated to a whole group of people that have a horrible job.

First of all, I want you to know if you work for CPS, I don't think you're a horrible person. I think you have a horrible job. I really do. I don't know how I would do it. But I want you to know I would bet 95 being probably overgenerous on the other direction, 95 percent of cases that CPS deal with, they probably get right. But when they get those 5 percent wrong, we should all be concerned. This is like death penalty stuff. It's not, like, hey, the electric chair works 95 percent of the chair. 95 percent of the people, they, you know, they were rightly accused and rightly judged and rightly killed.

Yeah, it's that 5 percent that is concerning because this is a death sentence for a family. But I don't think that C PS, the people the people are bad. I've worked in both rural and metropolitan areas as an attorney in child cases. All the sex abuse, domestic abuse, blah, blah, we do not have time -- now, listen to this because he underlined it. We do not have time to worry if someone has a low IQ or wants to teach their children at home. We deal with parents who are the worst of the worst. We try to save those people from terrible circumstances, including sex trafficking, as you do. There are thousands of us who get up every day to save children in horrible situations. Please stop overgeneralizing.

Well, I don't believe I have overgeneralized. I do not like CPS because of the 5 percent of cases that we have dealt with. The -- when there is a problem, it is devastating. Most of us aren't out to get your kids. I don't think you are either. Just like most people are not out to take my guns. But there are those with that agenda, and that is disturbing.

We work with parents to get their kids back. We're overworked and have too little resources. We know this is a system that is only a Band-Aid against greater moral and social problems.

Two. I'm sure that there are state workers who are everything you expect them to be. The Fabbrini situation may be the one where you're right. And if you are, I stand beside you denouncing it. However, there are a few red flags that I noticed.

Listen to these carefully. One, this story lies on a conspiracy, the CPS, state, court, the parents' attorneys, possibly the children's attorneys if they were appointed, all know that Fabbrini can care for the children, but simply think she's not smart enough. Is this possible? Yes. However, highly suspicious, even in small town. Maybe this town is rotten to the core and completely corrupt. Again, I don't think so. Being skeptical, how did you know all the individuals are corrupt and Fabbrini aren't being honest? Two, Fabbrini and her friend worked for the state and fired are the ones telling you their children were taken away because their IQ. My guess is you've never seen the filed against her. I would imagine that you have no proof that the state worker was fired for simply standing up for Ms. Fabbrini, unless you have your only getting one side of the story. She may be totally honest in this matter and the can state may state she has a notice IQ but the state has no evidence it affects her ability to parent. I have never heard of such a case. I have had many cases where parents lie about the abuse and neglect, and I must remain silent as to what the true combinations are and the evidence I have against them.

I have doubts, three that Ms. Fabbrini does sound completely coherent. Ms. Fabbrini claims the state won't let her have her kids because of low IQ. She is clearly coherent and articulate. So the premise of her story is that there was never any danger to her children but the state got ahold of her IQ and claimed that based on her IQ alone, she could not care for the children. The court. CPS, state, and attorney then ignored the fact that she is intelligent, articulate, and coherent. Internal Revenue time she brought forward proof just by showing up, they would go back to the IQ. Glenn, this is either absolute evil or ridiculous.

You may hate CPS, but this story is absurd. I may be wrong. I can tell you that in impersonal, there must be more to this story. I would ask you another question. Ms. Fabbrini's story is absolutely true. Why she has not sued the state. Can you imagine the state? State takes be able because fully capable home has IQ over 70. If it was motivate of self interest. Please note that I am just being skeptical. I do not deny that this could happen. We should be wary of a state having too much power. Just don't demonize all of us, blah, blah, blah, this state makes all of us who try to protect children look bad.

STU: That's a great e-mail, by the way. A great listener who is looking out for the show and trying to give us a broader picture. That's --

GLENN: And it's exactly what we were talking about on Friday. Because I said the same thing. Guys, that just doesn't happen. Until I see it with my own eyes, I need to see what's going on. And I need to -- I need to talk to everybody going on.

Jason, I have now seen the documents. Can I read this? Summarize this?

JASON: I would paraphrase.

GLENN: Paraphrase this. They are -- there are four conditions the state of Oregon is going after these child.

JASON: This is their case.

GLENN: This is their case. This is the documents that we have seen from the court.

One, the dad has limited cognitive abilities. Two, the mother is unwilling or unable to be a custodial resource.

Three, the mother has limited cognitive abilities. Four, the mother doesn't understand the basic needs of her child and lacks the skills necessary to be a safe parent.

That's the case. That's the case. So what this guy just said, you know, he's never -- well, you have now. We have seen all of the documents. That is the case, and I'm going to go a step further in a minute. But first, can you go through those four things with us, Jason?

JASON: Yeah, and I -- just like you said. I had the same reservations. I was, like, there's got to be something we're missing. You know, what's being reported is obviously not the story, so I want to go in to see the actual court documents that basically say, no, this is what happened. I'm assuming as soon as we see that, we're going to see some kind of crazy incident that happened. And that's the real basis of the case.

Well, we did some digging around after that meeting, we had a source come forward, and we've seen everything. I mean, everything. We've seen everything from their IQ levels, we've seen transcripts of past educational facilities, we've seen everything.

GLENN: Yeah. Just so you know, they graduated -- both of them graduated in the middle of their class.

JASON: With average grades.

GLENN: Yeah, average grades middle of the class. So if you're too stupid, then why did they get a diploma -- what does that say about all the other kids that will eventually be parents?

Okay.

JASON: So the limited cognitive abilities right off the bat. That's two of their main cases and actually their main case on this is completely out the window. If you're basing it off of their IQ, which some psychologists that tested them just gave them this number. I mean,ios how that's admissible in the court, and I also see that it's completely refuted because they graduated in the middle of the class, just like I graduated in the middle of my class. Am I a case worker at this place as alleged to have said, am I retarded? Can I not care for my children?

GLENN: So imagine a case worker, and we have the actual quotes. Imagine the case worker saying this person is lazy, this person is a mess. What was the second one?

JASON: Lazy, dirty.

GLENN: Dirty.

JASON: Retarded.

GLENN: And f'ing retard. Now, imagine, that's the case worker who's writing this up. And followed it up with quote I will never -- I will never let this person have their child. I will never allow them to have their child. Okay? After calling somebody an f'ing retard, I will never allow them -- and, by the way, when that was said, Jason, what else was happening with the case worker? What was he doing?

JASON: He was outlining for the parents, setting up -- so, yeah. And I just want to add in that this -- what this was said is potentially very explosive. It's an alleged statement, and we're actually following up to get more background on this specific person and his statements. But at the same time, this allegedly was said, he or she is putting out a plan, like he's supposed to do by the state, to give them their kids back. So the statement is "I will never let this person have Eric have his kids. But at the same time, he's saying, well, look, complete this class, complete this class, have these visits, and we will reunify your children with you."

GLENN: Now, the reason why he says that's explosive is because this person has allegedly, we have -- this isn't allegedly, but we have not gone into their cases yet. But we have had others step up who happen to have the same case worker who are saying I am not willing to go on the record, unless you guys are seriously going to finish this because this guy will never let us have our children. We have the same kinds of problems with this case worker.

Several parents, several people going through it, same exact case worker. They didn't know who the case worker was. We do. They don't.

JASON: So that points -- those are the biggest points. One and two. So basically your worst fears about this case, it just couldn't be about IQ. No, we're looking at the documents right now. We can tell you that is their case.

Now, point three, which I noticed you did give me a look on one of them. She's unwilling or.

GLENN: Unable to have custodial resources.

JASON: I thought that was odd, so I made a follow-up call on that. That stems from the interview where the case worker said that Amy wanted to put the kids up for adoption. But that is refuted, and it's very obvious now that she's not willing to put the kids up for adoption. She's not willing. She's fighting.

GLENN: So then there's this:

The mother does not understand the basic needs of her child and lacks the parenting skills necessary to safely parent the child.

Now, this is marked new allegation.

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Can we talk about this?

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead.

JASON: This is the most frightening thing in the case, in my opinion.

GLENN: Terrifying.

JASON: This was added in as a new allegation, and it says in the documents new allegation in parentheses. They have no cases to stand on at this point. So now they're prolonging this out. It has been four years that he's been with the foster care parent. So this goes to -- they had some doctor say that the kid -- and I think this is brand-new information that he might be diagnosed with autism.

GLENN: Might.

JASON: Might. They're not sure because he's still so young, they won't be able to really tell for another couple of years. So they don't really know. But he might. So in that case, because of the means of the family, they're not the richest family. Because of that, they think that, well, he'll be better off with a family with more means. That has the means to send them to, you know --

GLENN: A special school.

JASON: So he can develop at a faster rate. It's an allegation. It's alleged. None of this is -- I cannot believe this is even in a court Doc.

GLENN: And since when have we turned into a country that says a parent has to give up their child, even if they do have autism and give that child with autism with a wealthier family because they'll be able to provide. I feel horrible for the foster parents. I feel horrible for the foster parents because they've done the right thing, and now they've bonded with this child. I feel horrible for the child. But this cannot stand. The state cannot take children away because of low IQ. They cannot take children away because of a possible diagnosis in the future

BlazeTV host Mark Levin said his new book, "American Marxism," provides proof that we're not just facing a coming Marxist revolution — it's already here.

Many Americans remain unconvinced, believing recent moves from the far left and the Democratic Party are just passing phases. But this is not a "fad," Levin told Glenn Beck on the radio program Tuesday.

"This isn't progressivism, or social activism, or democratic socialism. This is Marxism. Now, it may not be Marxism in every particular. But it's an Americanized form of Marxism," Levin explained.

"You need to pay attention to what's taking place ... You've seen it with your own two eyes. You saw the riots all summer long. You saw Black Lives Matter, which is headed by an openly proud Marxist. You see Antifa, which is a Marxist anarchist organization. You see the media, that you have been watching and reading, endorse every single one of these movements," he added.

"People have been brainwashed, or ... haven't been paying attention. They view this as a passing fad," Levin went on to say. "It's not. We all need to wake up to this. And if we have little differences, moderate Democrats, Libertarians and so forth, you better put them aside right now. Because we have a common enemy. I say enemy, not opponent. Not adversary. Enemy. And we need to be focused on defeating that enemy, rather than fighting among ourselves."

Watch the video clip below to hear Mark Levin explain how our individual freedoms are in serious jeopardy:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

Electric vehicles are the wave of the future. They are so much better for the environment. At least that's what we have been told, but is this correct?

On his TV special, Glenn Beck explained how electric vehicles (EVs) might not actually be the environmental solution we've been led to believe. In fact, they may not be a solution at all.

Glenn shared a recent article from LiveScience that reported:

A 2014 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked at the entire life cycle of an EV's emissions, from mining the metals required for the batteries to producing the electricity needed to power them, and then compared this with the average emissions of a gas-powered vehicle. The team found that when electric vehicles are charged with coal-powered electricity, they're actually worse for the environment than conventional gasoline cars.

He next shared an article from The Greenage, which stated:

The Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated that manufacturing a mid-sized EV with an 84-mile range results in about 15 percent more emissions than manufacturing an equivalent gasoline vehicle. For larger, longer-range EVs that travel more than 250 miles per charge, the manufacturing emissions can be as much as 68 percent higher.

Noting how electric vehicles and other fossil-fuel alternatives require the use of mined minerals like lithium, cobalt, zinc, copper, and nickel, among others, Glenn quoted an International Energy Agency report that warned reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement "would mean a quadrupling of mineral requirements for clean energy technologies by 2040. An even faster transition, to hit net-zero globally by 2050, would require six times more mineral inputs in 2040 than today."

"Can [you] predict which country is the world leader in processing the minerals needed for these batteries? Right, China," Glenn stated. "The average EV requires over 200 kilograms of minerals. The average gas vehicle requires 40 kilograms of minerals, mostly copper. A single EV has 22 pounds of lithium in it ... yet another way that the green reset of American energy is putting us all at the mercy of Communist China."

"Oh, and remember during the Obama administration when the world was gonna end' over fracking?" Glenn asked. "Well, the Institute for Energy Research now says, and I quote, 'Mining and processing of lithium, however, turns out to be far more environmentally harmful than what turned out to be the unfounded issues with fracking.'"

Watch the video clip from Wednesday night's episode of "Glenn TV" below for more details:

Want more Glenn TV?

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

SAVE $10 WITH PROMO CODE GLENN.

We've heard a lot about the 1776 Commission over the past several months. From the mainstream media, you've heard lies and slander: It was a racist panel put together by President Trump to peddle a whitewashed version of American history.

In reality, the 1776 Commission was established by President Trump in the fall of 2020 with the purpose of promoting "patriotic education." Not to mandate it, not to propose legislation – simply to PROMOTE it. The media and academia lost their minds over this now controversial idea that we should teach young Americans to appreciate the nation they've inherited. And predictably, just hours after Biden took the oath of office, he signed an executive order to dissolve the 1776 Commission, calling the commission's report "offensive and counterfactual."

Glenn Beck presents the 1776 Commission's report in its entirety, because unlike the media and President Biden who want to hide it from you, Glenn wants you to seek the truth and celebrate Independence Day with pride.

Watch a preview below or catch the FULL, 5-part presentation of the 1776 Report on BlazeTV.com or Glenn Beck's YouTube channel.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

I am an Irishman and in 2006, I was blessed with the opportunity to spend Independence Day in America. It was a magical experience I will never forget and one I am desperate to repeat.

Everything about the day was magical. I can remember every little detail: seeing the pure joy on people's faces when they saw family members, not seen since Christmas; enjoying burgers and hot dogs being grilled to perfection in the mid-afternoon; jumping on a boat and witnessing an awe-inspiring fireworks display with the feel of a cold beverage in my hand; coming ashore and sitting around an open fire, toasting marshmallows.

As fun as these activities were, they are NOT what made the day magical.

The day was and is made magical remembering WHAT Americans are celebrating: being thankful for the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the idea of America which improved EVERY aspect of our world.

I would be honored if you would allow me to share five pivotal points from the Declaration, explaining how they started America on the path to becoming an exceptional nation, and how you can learn from the founders' example today.

1 The Layout

Take a look around society today, and you will notice a prevalent theme. The majority of people are angry, upset, and frustrated. They love to highlight the parts of society they view as a problem and tear it down. This requires zero talent. Even newborn babies with no verbal skills and very little knowledge of the outside world will let you know when they are unhappy by crying for a clean diaper, food or attention.

History is filled with people complaining and starting wars because they feel they have been wronged and sought a future "free from their oppressor".

Thomas Jefferson and your founders were different. Before mentioning any issues with the King (they waited 1338 words), they first explained their vision and how America would be different from other nations. They boldly declared that all men were created equal and have a God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This principle of explaining what you are for has a long track record in American society and has long lead to effective change.

This principle of explaining what you are for has a long track record in American society and has long lead to effective change. This includes famous speeches by John F. Kennedy declaring, "We will go to the moon by the end of this decade," or the great Martin Luther King Jr. telling everyone how he "had a dream."

LESSON: Tell the world what you stand for -- not what you stand against!

2 Role of Government

I have spent over seven years with The Blaze, promoting your founding principles and explaining how America is unique and different to every other nation in the world. Every principle, policy, plan and idea can be traced back to one core principle: How we view government and its role in society.

On the surface of history, it is very easy to believe that our world is very different and would provide many different answers to this simple question.

Just look at our world today and you see many different power structures. England retains a monarch. European countries, like mine, are democracies. Iran is a theocratic-controlled country. Russia is an oligarchy. Inside those countries, you will notice differences in ideologies between communism, socialism, fascism, liberalism and even conservatism.

YES, they all look very different. However, if you look deeper into those countries, you will notice they all view government the exact same.

Government is a central agency that possesses the power to be the moral arbiters of society, the ability to be the great equalizer and most importantly they are the provider of rights.

Does this mean every government uses this power every day?

NO.

Clearly, there are governments around the world who are more open to freedom and view government as the last resort. However, every country believes government always has that power and there are situations when government must take control for the "greater good".

If you doubt this, look at the response to the coronavirus pandemic. Even countries that love to talk about freedom and identify as freedom-loving, removed their citizens' rights in the name of public safety. You witnessed everything from governments shutting down businesses, banning you from traveling more than three miles from your home, limiting the number of people you could have to visit your own house and enforcing you to wear a mask.

How could they do this? Because government is the power structure of all these countries and providers of rights. Any government that has the power to confer can also rescind them under the right circumstances.

Your founders were very clear that they did not share the world vision of an all-powerful government.

The idea of America is different. Your founders were very clear that they did not share the world vision of an all-powerful government. You can see this by reviewing the structure of the Constitution, but that foundation was started in the Declaration of Independence when they spoke about the Law of Nature and Nature's God, which highlights ALL rights come from God. You are born with these rights and it is the government's sole responsibility to ensure these rights are never taken away.

3 RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Take a step back and look at the public discourse today. You will notice the majority of people love to talk about their rights. My friends on the right love to talk about their right to free speech and guns. My friends on the left love to talk about their right to healthcare and abortions. When was the last time you saw anyone online talk about their duty and responsibilities? It's not a very popular topic.

Your founders were not dumb men.

Their genius was understanding the laws of nature and basic first principles. They researched world history -- from the great empires of the past to senates that were supposed to last forever, examining why they failed. While there are countless reasons for each, understanding one concept is critical. When freedom becomes all about rights and forgets about responsibilities, it creates a vacuum. Historically, the government always fills that vacuum. This creates a prime opportunity for a tyrant to come to power and solve a public need and always ends the same way - gaining more power and stripping you of your individual rights.

Your founders feared this vacuum and warned against it TWICE in the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. They spoke about your right to alter and abolish your government, instituting new safeguards. Then they spoke about your right, and duty, to throw off the government and provide new guards.

LESSON: Freedom without responsibility will always lead to tyranny.

4 RACIST FOUNDERS

As an outsider, nothing annoys me more than the constant attacks on your founders and their brilliance. Were they perfect? NOPE. Should they be worshipped like Idols? NOPE. Are there things we can improve upon? Yes. For example, it's 2021; why does the post office need to be included in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?

Despite their flaws, they provided America with a great platform on which to build. If America is to survive and prosper, the IGNORANT attacks that America's founders were old racist white men with wooden teeth must stop. Why? Because it is a LIE!!!

I could write at length about this issue alone, but I will provide two simple facts.

Firstly, please close your eyes and imagine an actual racist (no, not your typical Donald Trump supporter). Imagine how they look, how they sound, what words they use and everything down to what aftershave they wear. Got that vision? Good. Now try imagining that vile, disgusting racist say the following:

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!

Did your vision say those words? Do you think people like David Duke would say them, let alone sign their name to a statement declaring this as a self-evident principle for the world to see?

Answer: NO!

The second fact requires you to have a reading of history before America. Thomas Jefferson could have very easily left these five powerful words out entirely or just use the accepted language of the day from the Magma Carta which stated:

"All FREE men are created equal."

If Jefferson and the founders were racist, why did they improve on the language of the day and declare this truth as self-evident?

If ...the founders were racist, why did they improve on the language of the day and declare this truth as self-evident?

5 FORGOTTEN FOUNDERS

If you look at culture and politics today, you will notice a common theme where everyone just wants to win, regardless of the cost. Society tells us winning is everything, and there is no room for failure. Is this true? Can society progress really progress without failure and sacrificing everything they have for the greater good?

American history is so vast and deep that it can be straightforward to focus on the great and famous leaders who survived like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin.

This particular weekend, I would like to briefly highlight three patriots who took the ultimate risk by signing the Declaration of Independence. They lost everything, and are sadly forgotten by many who teach history.

JOHN HART: John was a widowed farmer in New Jersey with 12 kids. He was rich, well-known in society, and employed many. When he signed the Declaration, troops attacked his farm with orders to execute him in Hopewell. He fled and eventually died in hiding.

FRANCES LEWIS: Frank was involved in international business and made a fortune on the mercantile exchange. Like John, he was rich, powerful and employed many. When he signed, he returned to find armed troops at his home, taking possession of it. They arrested his wife, starved and mistreated her and although she was later released, she soon passed away due to the horrific treatment.

RICHARD STOCKTON: Richard was a wealthy lawyer who studied at Princeton. He served on the New Jersey Supreme Court and had the respect of his peers. After signing, he was locked up, starved, tortured, and robbed of his possessions. His treatment was so bad that his final days were spent living on the charity of friends.

These brave men could have chosen a much easier road in life. They could have ignored the calls for Independence, paid any additional taxes to the King and still lived a great life. They had everything you would deem desirable in society -- money, earthly possessions, name recognition, and respect.

...these men... risked everything they had so everyone could have a brighter and freer tomorrow.

When they signed the Declaration of Independence, the only thing they could gain was an opportunity for absolute freedom. This ideal was so powerful that these men, and countless others, risked everything they had so everyone could have a brighter and freer tomorrow.

LESSON: Pursuing a higher aspiration is more important than winning.

Personal Request:

It is popular for Americans to say "Happy 4th" or "Happy 4th of July."

PLEASE STOP SAYING IT!

After reading this, realize how important and significant your founders to America and the world. It is disrespectful to them, their memory, their sacrifice, and everything they fought for. After all, would you go up to a Christian and say "Happy 25th?"

NOPE.

May I wish you and your exceptional nation a very HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!

If you enjoyed this column, I released a special on The Blaze this week where I did a deep dive into the Declaration of Independence with KrisAnne Hall. You can listen for free on Apple or Spotify or The Blaze.