Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Their Insurance Didn’t Want to Cover This Family – Then the Audience Stepped In

August 14, 2017
Jon Boldt

Writer

Last week, Russell Cruzan II and Michelle Budnik-Nap joined Glenn on radio Monday to share an update on their son Russell Cruzan, who suffers from the same debilitating genetic condition that Charlie Gard had.

According to the Michigan couple, their insurance company didn’t want to cover the baby’s appointment with a mitochondrial specialist in Boston because Priority Health thought a nearby geneticist was sufficient for Russell’s care. Known as “Bubby,” the baby has mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, a rare degenerative genetic condition that affects organs and muscles. While there is no known medical cure, medical specialists have been able to improve quality of life for children with the condition.

The insurance company’s Facebook page blew up with lots of comments following the couple’s interview on radio Thursday. Dad Russell Cruzan had the latest update on Monday morning: Priority Health’s medical director is now handling the case, and the family is moving forward with the company to work out covering the baby’s initial appointment with a specialist.

The family should have an answer for their case by Wednesday, he said.

GLENN: Hmm.

I believe it was on Friday, we had Russell Cruzan on. His son is Bubby. Bubby is a newborn, less than a year old, who has been diagnosed with the same disease that -- oh, shoot, now I've forgotten his name.

STU: Charlie Gard.

GLENN: Charlie Gard has had in England. When we first had him on, we just talked about how the family is and everything is going on. Insurance was fine.

Last week, we found out that their insurance company is not going to cover a -- a doctor's appointment or allow them to go out of state because, "You've got a geneticist." Well, no.

The geneticist in the state says, "I'm not an expert in this. There's one guy that is an expert. And the baby needs to see an expert." This isn't like -- this can't be solved in -- at a doc in the box. We need a specialist on this.

So we found out that they were trying to get an appointment. By the end of the day, I think the fundraiser that we started in the morning was up to $40,000. And -- and we were also looking for information about the insurance company on what the insurance company was going to do, whether they would reconsider.

I got this note: Glenn, Thursday after we got off the phone, Priority Health called me and said that it was indeed denied. Their case. But I needed to file an appeal as fast as possible. He then said that their Facebook was blowing up with all kinds of comments.

I tried to file the appeal, but the email server was down, perhaps from all of the emails and comments from your awesome supporters. They then called me this morning, I think this was Friday and said: Don't worry about the appeal right now. The medical director is now handling our case and is going to talk to geneticist. And they're trying to see if they can get this approval done for us. Thanks so much for all of the help from your listeners. We'd be lost without you guys.

Russell, welcome to the program.

RUSSELL: Hey. How's it going?

GLENN: Good. What a rollercoaster this is.

RUSSELL: Yes, it is.

GLENN: Okay. So tell us what has happened.

So I really want to provide a free commercial for Priority Health, you know, and let people call in, like you, who have had, you know, problems where they've solved it. Are they going to solve this problem, do you think?

RUSSELL: I'm really hoping they do. It sounds like, after Thursday, it sounds like they started backpedaling a lot.

GLENN: Okay.

RUSSELL: They're like -- I mean, all the negativity they were getting and everything. They did tell me, come Wednesday, they'd have an answer for me. And they did talk to our geneticist and the one we're trying to go see.

GLENN: Great.

Well, here's what we would like to do: And you can -- you can offer this. You know, when they decide that they are going to, you know, show the -- you know, cover Bubby and -- and -- and make sure that he can go to a geneticist and the insurance company recognizes, of course, that, you know, they don't know more than the actual experts in the field, that they're there to cover and write checks, not to make diagnosis or health care calls. I'd love to have their representative on to be able to give them the accolades and point out that this is an insurance company that, you know, has a heart and is doing that.

And if they choose not to cover -- you know, they said by Wednesday, let's stay in touch. When they come back, if they choose not to cover, I'd also like to give them free advertising. And we'll pick a day. And I just want to hear from just those people who have filed, you know, for things and then had Priority -- what is it? Priority Health?

RUSSELL: Correct.

GLENN: Yeah, that had Priority Health turned them down, but then correct -- I'm sure -- I'm sure there's tons of stories where they filed and everything went fine. It was all corrected.

So whatever your story is with Priority Health, I'm going to give you an opportunity to have a nationwide audience. And we'll dedicate the entire show to Priority Health, to show -- we'll have the listeners and people who actually have Priority Health explain what a wonderful health care company and provider this provider is.

Everything else good, Russell?

RUSSELL: Yeah, everything else is going great.

GLENN: Good. Do you have the appointment set?

RUSSELL: Yes, we do. August 24th. They have agreed to let us pay out of pocket, which will be easily done now with all the support that we got from everybody after that show.

GLENN: What is it up to now? Do you know?

RUSSELL: Almost $57,000.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Fifty-seven thousands. Well, that's good.

All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. And we'll -- you just keep in touch with me. And let's make sure that one way or another, everyone knows exactly how great Priority Health is.

RUSSELL: Sounds good. Thank you very much.

GLENN: You're welcome. Thank you.

If we just used our power for good, as opposed to evil.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What we could accomplish.

JEFFY: That's what I tell myself, looking here at PriorityHealth.com.

GLENN: Oh, you know what, you can write to them on their Facebook page. They love it.

STU: Well, you're optimistic though on the way they're going to handle this. Right?

GLENN: I am. I am.

PAT: Well, who wouldn't be? I mean, surely there can't be too many stories from Priority Health customers where things have gone bad, right?

JEFFY: No.

PAT: There can't be -- I mean, nobody is perfect. Maybe there's one or two. But I'm sure if we opened up the phones on Thursday to find out more, you know, we would only hear a couple of stories.

GLENN: Right.

STU: We probably won't.

JEFFY: If any.

PAT: If any, yeah.

GLENN: If any. They're probably a great company.

PAT: Maybe this is the only snafu.

GLENN: Right. But that's why I want to open it up. I want to hear from all those people that have said -- that will tell us, "Hey, I had this with Priority Health, and everything was covered. And we got it covered in time. And there was no problems. And they wrote the check."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: "And they're just the greatest company of all the time."

PAT: That's exactly what I expect to hear.

GLENN: That's exactly what I expect to hear too. So we'll open that up for the people who actually pay the probably very low premium and very low deductible as well, for Priority Health. Anxious to advertise for them.

STU: And to be clear, that's the only time -- we would only do that if we had an indication or a concern that this was of more frequent occurrence. If they were able to handle this claim the way that they're supposed to, I mean, there's no reason --

PAT: We would be happy to talk about that too. Right.

GLENN: I would be happy to have the CEO on.

STU: And he could tell us about --

PAT: And thank them.

GLENN: And tell us -- and thank them. Sincerely thank them for taking a look at it.

PAT: Yeah. Because obviously mistakes happen.

GLENN: Right.

STU: That's why they have an appeals process.

GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. Wish that it didn't take a huge radio show to --

PAT: Either way, it should be a fun day for them on Thursday.

GLENN: Oh, it's going to be a fun day for them.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. One day perhaps -- one way perhaps a little more fun than the other.

PAT: Perhaps.

GLENN: Perhaps.

JEFFY: Eh.

GLENN: Huh?

JEFFY: If you say so.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.