DONATE: #Bubby Is America's Charlie Gard, Help Him Get the Treatment Charlie Didn't

A couple whose son has the same debilitating condition as Charlie Gard shared their story on radio Tuesday.

Russell Cruzan II and Michelle Budnik-Nap in Kalamazoo, Michigan, had no idea that their baby Russell would be born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. In a one-in-a-million coincidence, both parents carry the same gene, and their baby had a very small chance of inheriting the gene from both of them.

“[Russell and Charlie] both have mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome; it’s just different gene mutations causing it,” Budnik-Nap explained.

It first appeared Bubby's treatment would be covered by insurance but the parents had some disheartening news shortly after their interview on Tuesday.

DONATE HERE

"About an hour after our interview with you on Tuesday, we heard from our local hospital. They were the ones that were working on the prior authorization. They had received a denial from... Priority Health, stating that they will not cover the mito specialist in Boston, because she's a geneticist. And he sees a geneticist here. They don't understand that there's a difference between, you know, a mito specialist and a geneticist around here," Michelle said.

"Hold on. Guys, we are talking about $10,000 probably, maximum. This audience should be able to do that in the next ten minutes," Glenn said.

"Could you please go to YouCaring.com and just search for Bubby Cruzan. B-U-B-B-Y C-R-U-Z-A-N. It's #Bubby. Look for Bubby Cruzan. And if you can, $5 -- I mean, the people in this audience, just giving $5 at a time, we should be able to make a difference so this -- this couple can go get just an initial appointment to see if their baby can be helped so we can fight the other battle with -- what's the name of the health care company again?

DONATE HERE

GLENN: I mean, if you thought the country had gone mad a minute ago, wait until we play the audio of some woman who was told on an airplane, "Wow, nice dress." Oh, my gosh. Wait until you hear the rant and what this woman is saying and who this woman is, in just a second.

First, we want to bring you up to speed on a story we covered a couple of days ago. If you remember the parents of Bubby Cruzan -- Russell Cruzan, the baby that was born and has the same disease that Charlie Gard had. We had the parents on.

They're from Wisconsin, I believe. Or Michigan. And they were really happy and bubbly. And we asked them, how are things going? They said great things about their insurance company, which may change. Their insurance company, which was priority health, I believe.

And they said everything was being covered. And now it's not. We got to get this story. Bubby Cruzan's mother Michelle is on the phone. Also, dad Russell is on the phone. How are you guys doing?

RUSSELL: Pretty good, how about you?

MICHELLE: Good.

GLENN: Good. Tell me what happened. Because we were hearing good things about this insurance company two days ago.

MICHELLE: Well, about an hour after our interview with you on Tuesday, we heard from our local hospital. They were the ones that were working on the prior authorization. They had received a denial from -- from Boston -- or, not Boston's -- I'm sorry. Priority Health, stating that they will not cover the mito specialist in Boston, because she's a geneticist. And he sees a geneticist here. They don't understand that there's a difference between, you know, a mito specialist and a geneticist around here.

GLENN: Right. And the geneticist that you have there in Michigan is -- is saying that, no, I'm the wrong kind of specialist.

MICHELLE: Yep. Yep. They're obviously doing everything they can. But they don't really have experience with his condition.

GLENN: So now what are you guys going to do? Are you guys appealing this? What is the name of the insurance company again?

RUSSELL: Priority Health.

MICHELLE: Priority Health. You know, we're working on an appeal right now. And we're also working with Boston Children's Hospital to see if they will allow us to make the appointment right now without insurance approval and, you know, possibly end up having to pay out of pocket. We just want to do everything we can to get little Russell to a doctor that can help him.

GLENN: Well, here again, we are seeing, you know, insurance providers -- in England, it was the state. In America, it is -- I'm sorry. What is the name of the company again?

RUSSELL: Priority Health.

GLENN: Priority Health.

Here we're seeing -- Stu, will you just remind me of that, in case I forget again?

STU: I don't remember the name. What was the name again? I'm sorry.

RUSSELL: Priority Health.

STU: Priority Health. Got it.

GLENN: Priority Health. Here we're seeing a company that decides that they know better than the actual doctors do. That's weird. Because the state over in England were listening to the doctors. Here in a capitalist, free market system, a company like --

PAT: And who was the company?

GLENN: Priority Health. Priority Health.

RUSSELL: Priority Health. Priority Health.

GLENN: They think they know more than the doctors, which is interesting. Boy, that probably should be -- I wonder if they have a website or if they have a Facebook.

Jeffy, could you look up Priority Health. So if they have a Facebook page.

JEFFY: Priority Health.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, they don't like it -- companies don't like when you start to tweet their name and say things like, "How could you do what the health care system did to Charlie Gard? Are we going to run the clock out on this child too?"

Do they have a Facebook page? Look it up. It's Priority Health. I'm sure you could find it and maybe tweet Priority Health on that and ask them how this is -- how this is good for the family.

You have a YouCaring page. If you search for Bubby. B-U-B-B-Y. YouCaring.com. Can we -- if listeners wanted to help, you know -- you know, give you guys money to be able to pay for it yourself, will the hospital take self-funded people?

MICHELLE: We're working on that right now. We believe that if we had the funds to it, which right now we don't have any idea how much it would cost. But we've heard that -- another person said they had a 25-minute appointment there that cost over $2,000. They put the figure around 2800. But we're hoping if we have the funds, you know, after our travel and everything, that we would be allowed to pay out of pocket.

GLENN: So wait a minute. So you're just trying to get enough money to buy the airline ticket and the first doctor's appointment?

MICHELLE: We're -- we're working on it, yeah. Thankfully, Miracle Flights reached out to us after your show. Thank you so much. And, you know, they might help with that. But we still have lodging costs. Obviously, food for when we're there. Any expenses related to --

GLENN: Okay. Okay. Okay. Hold on.

MICHELLE: Pay for the appointment.

GLENN: Hold on. Guys, we are talking about $10,000 probably, maximum. This audience should be able to do that in the next ten minutes.

Could -- could you please go to YouCaring.com and just search for Bubby Cruzan. B-U-B-B-Y C-R-U-Z-A-N. It's #Bubby. Look for Bubby Cruzan. And if you can, $5 -- I mean, the people in this audience, just giving $5 at a time, we should be able to make a difference so this -- this couple can go get just an initial appointment to see if their baby can be helped so we can fight the other battle with -- what's the name of the health care company again?

RUSSELL: It's Priority Health.

GLENN: Priority Health.

PAT: And it looks like Priority Health is on Facebook. And they also have LinkedIn.

JEFFY: Twitter, @Priority Health. Facebook.

PAT: They're all over the internet.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: Yeah.

RUSSELL: They're one of the largest ones in the company.

GLENN: Huh, and what's their Facebook page?

RUSSELL: They should have like the most money. And they just don't want to cough it up.

STU: I think to get the Facebook page, you just go to Facebook.com and search for "Priority Health."

GLENN: Priority Health. That's how you do it? Facebook.com.

And I know companies, they like to hear on their Facebook page and they like to see on Twitter, they like to see people, you know, point all of the wonderful things that they have done. Now, sometimes, companies don't like it when you point out the heartless things that they might be forgetting to do. But I'm sure they have just forgotten that they -- the business that they all, you know, dreamt about getting into when they were kids and they were on the playground. Some day, I'm going to be an actuary. Some day, I'm going to be an insurance agent for Priority Health. I'm sure they've just forgotten those dreams from the playground and forgotten that they're there to help heal people.

PAT: You would assume by the name, Priority Health, that health is a priority. Wouldn't you?

GLENN: You would. You would.

PAT: You would think that, but...

JEFFY: Hmm. They've got a feedback button on their website too.

GLENN: Do they really? Priority Health has that?

JEFFY: Sends them a secure email.

PAT: That's interesting.

GLENN: Let's say you had $5 and you could go to YouCaring.com and you could help this couple raise money so we don't, as a capitalist, free society, do exactly to these parents what England's health care system did just a few weeks ago. Let's -- let's show the world that that's not the way capitalism works. That that's not the way free people behave. Let's get them into an appointment. And let's say -- if you have time after that, you might go to Facebook and to Twitter and just tweet something to Priority Health in a very nice, reasoned way. Because I'm sure they just need to be remind that health is their priority.

Guys, thank you so much. Michelle, Russell.

RUSSELL: Thank you.

MICHELLE: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: We'll check in with you again. God bless.

STU: If you go to @worldofStu, by the way, on Twitter, I tweeted the -- and I'm sure @GlennBeck will have it tweeted as well, the link to the YouCaring page. So make sure you can actually find it. And if you wanted to find any of the social sites, if you search Google for "Priority Health," you will see --

GLENN: Is that the insurance company?

STU: That's the insurance company they were just talking about.

GLENN: Priority Health.

STU: Priority Health is the name of it.

GLENN: The one that they paid to give them -- give their health priority. And then the doctor said, "No, I'm a different kind of DNA specialist. I'm really not a geneticist that can do this kind of work." And so the hospital and the doctor said they should go to this particular specialist. And Priority Health said, "No. That person is good enough for you."

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Huh. I wonder how much Priority Health's -- boy, we should look into Priority Health because I bet they're not gouging people's eyes out as well. I bet they would love us to spend a day, several days, a freaking month going over what they do. Maybe I could take -- you know what, if Priority Health doesn't see the error of their ways, I'm going to dedicate Monday as an open phone day. And I will take the phone calls of all of the Priority Health customers that maybe feel their eyes are being gouged out. And we'll take those calls, and we'll let America know how much their health is a priority for Priority Health.

STU: Of course, we should give them the opportunity to do that.

GLENN: I know. I know. So I think they're going to find the error of their ways. I think they're going to be able to say, you know what, that's crazy. Because we misunderstood. It's not the same kind of doctor. And we don't know more than what the experts in the field know. And so we're going to -- we're going to make this a priority.

But in case --

STU: What, health?

GLENN: In case they would like some extra free publicity, I'm going to help them have all of the free publicity that I can possibly provide. And, you know, you always say, don't talk to the -- don't -- I don't want to talk to the salesman. I want to talk to the customers.

So if they're such a great insurance company, which I'm sure they are, they won't have any problem having customers call up and give them a free commercial all freaking Monday.

But I'm sure they're going to wake up.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.

"We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights," tweeted pro-choice organization NARAL.

“Now, I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical because his name is Brett," said late night show comedian Stephen Colbert. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday's. 'Hey everybody, I'm Brett, I'll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.'"

But as Glenn Beck noted on today's show, Steven Colbert actually changed the pronunciation of his name to sound French when he moved from South Carolina to Manhattan … perhaps to have that certain je ne sais quoi.

Watch the clip below to see Colbert attempt to explain.

Colbert's name games.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Before the President left for Europe this week, he issued a pardon to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond, and Hammond's 49-year-old son Steven. If those names sound familiar, you might remember them as the Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for setting a fire that spread onto a portion of federal land in Oregon. In 2012, the jury acquitted the Hammonds on some, but not all of the charges against them, and they went to prison.

After serving a short term, the Hammonds were released, only to be sent back to prison in 2015 when the Obama administration filed an appeal, and a federal court ruled the Hammonds had been improperly sentenced.

RELATED: 3 Things to Learn From How the Government Mishandled the Bundy Standoff

It was the Hammonds being sent back to prison that sparked an even more famous standoff in Oregon. The perceived injustice to the Hammonds inspired the Bundy brothers, Ryan and Ammon, to storm onto the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon with other ranchers and militiamen, where they engaged in a 41-day armed standoff with federal agents.

The presidential pardon will take some time off the Hammonds' five-year sentences, though Steven has already served four years, and his father has served three. The White House statement about the pardons called their imprisonment "unjust" and the result of an "overzealous" effort by the Obama administration to prosecute them.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

The pardon is the second major move President Trump has made since taking office to signal greater support of residents in Western states who desire to see more local control of federal lands. Last December, Trump signed the largest rollback of federal land protection in U.S. history when he significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Critics say President Trump's actions will only encourage other fringe militia groups in the West to try more armed standoffs with the government. But have these critics considered Trump's actions might just have the opposite effect? Making citizens in the West feel like the government is actually listening to their grievances.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

Artful Hypocrisy: The double standard is nauseating

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Max Mara

All right. Prepare to jazz snap, because what you're about to hear is perfect for the nauseatingly pretentious applause of the progressive crowd.

For one, it centers around an artwork titled "untitled (flag 2)" by German artist Josephine Meckseper. Smeared with black paint and the engraving of a striped sock, which according to the artist "takes on a new symbolic meaning in light of the recent imprisonment of immigrant children at the border." The German-born artist adds: "Let's not forget that we all came from somewhere and are only recent occupants of this country – native cultures knew to take care of this continent much better for thousands of years before us. It's about time for our differences to unite us rather than divide us."

RELATED: The Miraculous Effect Disney's 'Snow White' Had on a Downtrodden America

It frowns out at the world like some childish, off-brand art project. Sponsored by the Creative Time Project, the art project is part of a larger series titled "Pledges of Allegiance," in which each artist designs a flag that "points to an issue the artist is passionate about, a cause they believe is worth fighting for, and speaks to how we might move forward collectively." Most of the other flags have clouds, blank canvas laziness, slogans like A horror film called western civilization and Don't worry be angry, as well as other heavy-handed imagery.

"The flag is a collage of an American flag and one of my dripped paintings which resembles the contours of the United States. I divided the shape of the country in two for the flag design to reflect a deeply polarized country in which a president has openly bragged about harassing women and is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and UN Human Rights Council."

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully.

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully. They are expressing their opinions with their right to free speech. We don't have to like it, or condone it, or even call it art, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn't at least respect their right to freedom of speech. I mean, they'll probably be the same people who throw a tantrum anytime someone orders a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, but that's their problem, isn't it? We're the ones who get to enjoy a chicken sandwich.

There is one problem with the flag. It's being displayed at a public university. Imagine what would happen if a conservative art collective stained rainbow flags and called it an art project and raised it on a flag pole at a public university. Or if the University of Texas raised a rebel flag and called it art. And there's the key. If conservatives and libertarians want to be political on campus, do it under the guise of art. That'll really steam the preachy bullies up.

Last Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Over the coming weeks, we will get to witness a circus with politicians and the media competing with each other to see who can say the most outrageous thing about the candidate nominated and highlight who they would have nominated. We will then witness the main event – the hearings in the Senate where Kavanaugh will be asked questions with an agenda and a bias. Below are 6 things he (or any future nominee) should say, but will he?

Ideology

The folks in media on BOTH sides are looking for a nominee who shares their ideology. Our friends on the left want a nominee who is liberal and many of our friends on the right want a nominee who is a conservative. As the next Justice of the Supreme Court, I state clearly that while I have my own personal ideology and belief system, I will leave it at the door of the Supreme Court when I am working.

The idea of a Justice having and ruling with an ideology is wrong and not part of the job description – my job is to review cases, listen to all arguments and base my sole decision on whether the case is constitutional or not. My own opinions are irrelevant and at times may involve me ruling against my personal opinion.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a big word in politics and politicians love to demand it from people they help and nominate. As the next Justice, I should state I have no loyalty to any party, any ideology, or to any President; even to President Trump who nominated me. MY loyalty only belongs in one place – that is in the Constitution and in the oath I will take on a successful appointment; which in part reads, "

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Role of Government

During any confirmation hearing, you will hear questions from politicians who will bring up cases and prior rulings to gauge what side of the issue they share and to see how they rule. Would Kavanaugh show the courage to highlight the Constitution and remind those in the hearing that he won't always rule on their side, but he will enforce the Constitution that is violated on a daily basis by Congress? He should use the opportunity of a hearing to remind this and future governments that the Constitution calls for three co-equal branches of government and they all have very different roles on responsibilities.

The Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of Congress – there are 18 clauses under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants certain powers to the legislature and everything else is to be left to the states. If Congress passes a law that is not covered under those 18 clauses, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional? Likewise, the Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of the Presidency. The role of the President has grown un-Constitutionally since President John Adams and 1797 Alien & Sedition Act. If any President acts outside the clear boundaries of Article 2, or decides to pass laws and act without Congress, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional?

Damaged Constitution

Will Kavanaugh point out one of the worst rulings of the Court - the ruling of Marbury v Madison in 1803? This increased the power of the Court and started the path of making the Court the sole arbiter and definer of what is and is not constitutional. We saw this with President Bush when he said (around 2006/2007) that we should just let the Supreme Court decide if a bill was Constitutional or not.

This is not the government America's founders had in mind.

Every two, four, and six years, new and returning members of Congress take an oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States. Every member of Congress, the President, and the nine justices on the Supreme Court hold a duty and responsibility to decide on whether a bill is Constitutional or not.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government. It's time members of Congress and the President start to take their oaths more seriously and the people demand they do.

It is wrong for someone to abdicate their responsibility but it also puts Americans in danger of tyranny as the Supreme Court has gotten many decisions wrong including the cases of Dred Scott, Korematsu and Plessy v Ferguson.

Decision Making

If you have ever listened to any argument before the Supreme Court, or even read some of the decisions, you will notice two common threads. You will notice the Constitution is rarely mentioned or discussed but what we call precedent or prior case law is discussed the most.

Will Kavanaugh clearly state that while he will listen to any and all arguments made before him and that he will read all the rulings in prior cases, they will only play a very small part in his rulings? If a law violates the constitution, should it matter how many justices ruled on it previously, what precedent that case set, or even what their arguments were? Would he publicly dismiss this and state their decisions will be based largely on the actual Constitution and the intent behind our founder's words?

Role of SCOTUS

Lastly, will Kavanaugh state that there will be times when they have to make a ruling which they personally disagree with or that will potentially hurt people? Despite modern thinking from people like Chief Justice Roberts, it is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice to write laws.

The sole job is to examine laws and pass judgment on their Constitutionality. A law can be passed in Congress and can have the best and most noble intentions, but those feelings and intent are irrelevant if it violates the Constitution.

Conclusion

When you watch the media over the coming weeks, how many of these points do you think will be debated on either side? When you watch the confirmation hearings, do you think Brett Kavanaugh will make any of these points?

Lastly, put yourself in the Oval Office. If you knew someone would make these points, would you nominate them? Would your friends and family?