Caller Shares Another Horrifying Story From Georgia Child Services

Not knowing where your child is would be a horrifying nightmare to most parents – but what happens when your child is essentially kidnapped by the state?

TheBlaze listeners called in to share their stories about child protective services after Georgia dad Sean Harris joined the show on Friday. Harris went to pick up his daughter from her normal after-school care, only to find that Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services workers had taken her to another county for questioning because they mistook her for another child.

“This isn’t the first time this has happened, and it’s not going to be the last time,” Glenn Beck said on Friday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program.”

Glenn pointed out that the state not only took someone’s child without permission, but also may have put another little girl in danger because she was the one who was supposed to be with DFCS.

“This child who is possibly in an abusive [situation] is in trouble,” he said.

Caller Brian in Georgia, who described himself as a certified officer with a state department, shared a terrifying story about incompetent DFCS workers not intervening with an abusive parent who would leave her child to go shoot up heroin. In the case of Harris and his daughter, Brian said the DFCS officer who took the wrong child should be arrested on charges of kidnapping.

GLENN: We're glad you're here. There's a story of -- a story of this horrible situation in Georgia, just a suburb of Atlanta, where a dad goes to pick up his 7-year-old daughter from school. She's not in the after-school program. She -- in fact, they check in and go, wow, no. She wasn't even on the bus coming here. They call the school. The school gives them the runaround. Dad immediately knows, "Okay. Something really bad is happening."

He calls 911. Gets into the car. Can't even imagine being him, driving to the school. He gets to the school. They're still giving him the runaround. The police show up, takes them 20 minutes before the school finally says, "Okay. She was taken by the state." What do you mean she was taken by the state?

She was taken by -- I don't remember what they called it there. But it's basically the Department of Children and Family Services. DFCS, I think they call it. And she's returned later in the afternoon. The daughter is freaked, as you can imagine.

This isn't the first time this has happened. And it's not going to be the last time. And DFCS in Georgia hasn't even called the dad back. The attitude when he called was, "Look, you got your daughter back. Everything is fine." I have to tell you, I am not a -- a violent man by any stretch of the imagination. You've kidnapped my child and took them into another county. I -- I don't care who the hell you are.

As a protective animal, I would have had a hard time with restraint. I would have had a really hard time.

STU: Several stories like that lately. I have no idea how Charlie Gard's parents made it through that.

GLENN: I don't either. I don't either.

STU: I have no freaking idea. And I don't know what it ends in. Because it might just be complete self-destruction. You're at that point -- I would completely break down every ten seconds. And all you would want to do is beat the crap out of everybody. In this sort of situation, you would. You shouldn't obviously.

GLENN: It's your child.

STU: Yeah, but it's your instinct.

GLENN: You have to remember, the reason why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is so valid is because the Second Amendment is not really talking about guns. I mean, it is. But it's more than that. It is the right to defend yourself and your family. That is a natural right. That is -- that right is in every animal. Go up and pet the pretty little kitties. They're lions. And mom will rip you to shreds. And dad will feast on you. It's a natural right to protect your children.

And the state expects you just to say, "Oh, okay. Well, you did what I would -- and so would everyone in the country, deem kidnapping." And I'm supposed to take it? No way.

STU: You know, he obviously handled it a hell of a lot better than we're talking about handling it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: But the other thing is, I don't know that I could trust bringing my kid back to that school.

GLENN: Never. Never. Never.

STU: They didn't even alert me.

GLENN: No.

STU: They wouldn't even tell me the truth once I got there.

GLENN: But they will tell you, if he was -- if that child was in danger because dad was, you know, an abuser, you can't.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Because then what happens? Then she goes home and Dad says, "What did you tell them?" And beats her.

Well, there's a couple of ways you can deal with this. And one of them is don't take the children off school premises.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I've dropped my child off to that school. You don't have a right to leave that school. You will screw my child up.

They're called into the principal's office. That happens. They're called into this office. They come into the principal's office. And in the principal's office, there's another door that leads to the secret room where the secret police are from the state, and they question them there.

That's even better than taking them, not only off school property, but then taking them across county lines.

STU: It's incomprehensible.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, it's crazy.

STU: I wonder what -- do we have any idea what happened to the actual kid that was supposed to be taken?

GLENN: No, and we shouldn't. I mean, this just happened. But, you know, God forbid, now this story is out. Now if that dad is an abuser, this child who is possibly in an abusive -- is in trouble.

Oh.

STU: Real danger.

GLENN: Real danger.

STU: That's terrifying.

GLENN: And, you know what, take it. Take it. Because the state, they're doing this for your good. They're doing this for your protection. If they can just help one child, it's all worth it. So you'll just take it. I hope this family has the biggest badass mad dog attorney that they can possibly find.

Brian in Georgia. You're an officer, police officer, or one with DFCS?

CALLER: No, I'm a -- I'm a state certified officer. I'm not going to say with which department, or I might get in trouble.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

CALLER: But, yes, I hope they do have a great lawyer. I had to call you when I heard about this. Because the number of times we run into DFCS and the horror stories I could fill your head with, you wouldn't sleep at night. You wouldn't, Glenn.

I've had to call them out at 3:00 in the morning for a child wandering the streets. We can't find mom because she went to go get high. And mom shows back up an hour later. And DFCS is like, "Well, mom is there. So we're not going to come out. We'll deal with it Monday." But this is Friday night.

What happens to this child in the meantime? Mom is here. She knows what's going on. And then I've had to stop DFCS workers who did almost the same thing here, where they call us because of a disorderly parent. Well, you have the wrong child. And in this case, I would have arrested this DFCS worker for kidnapping. It fits every statute in the book for it.

GLENN: Really? Really? Thank you. Thank you.

CALLER: I would have.

I would have. Because -- especially if the father was upset. Hey, look, what do you want me to do? I'm at your service here. DFCS clearly screwed up. 90 percent of the workers we run into don't give a flying hoot about doing anything really. They want to do their paycheck. They have to do their follow-up reports. And once in a while, they'll do something great. And I'm sure there are some DFCS workers out there who are great, but I haven't run into them.

GLENN: Wow, Brian --

CALLER: DFCS is completely screwed up.

GLENN: -- you know, I tell you, you've just restored my hope in humanity by saying that you would have arrested this person for kidnapping. Because that's exactly what it is. Exactly what it is. Except the state did it.

CALLER: Yeah, that doesn't matter.

GLENN: So what should people do?

CALLER: The government is held to the same laws we are.

GLENN: Yeah, they don't think so.

Brian, so what should the average person do?

CALLER: Other than taking safeguards and making sure you keep track of your kids and calling. And calling us and hoping an officer will do something shows up. And, of course, this mad dog attorney, I hope they have Johnny Cochran or somebody.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Brian. I appreciate it.

STU: He would do a terrible job today. He would not be able to handle that case.

GLENN: Yeah. Is it too soon? Is it too soon?

PAT: No. It's been almost 20 years, hasn't it?

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

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

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

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

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

And:

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

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

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

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

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

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

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.