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

BLOGMarch 28, 2018

Adoption advocates ask Trump to intervene in ‘adoption crisis’ that started under Obama

Did you know that international adoptions have decreased worldwide by a shocking 80 percent in the last 14 years?

Nathan Gwilliam, CEO of Adoption.com, and Ron Stoddart, president of Save Adoptions, joined Glenn in the studio this week to talk about the international adoption crisis and how the number of adoptions in the U.S. has mysteriously dropped. They believe President Donald Trump will be sympathetic to their cause, so Adoption.com has created a White House petition asking Trump to investigate.

Watch the full clip (above) to find out why an Obama administration appointee who is “anti-adoption” was a key factor and learn how you can help.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: We have been kind of focusing on a few things in the last couple of weeks. One is, if Christians would just act like Christians, the world would be a much better place. If -- you know, I love the bumper sticker that says, Lord, save me from your followers.

The problem is not with Jesus, the problem is with a lot of people that say they're following Jesus and they're not. And statistics prove this out: There is no difference between somebody who doesn't go to church, doesn't believe in God, when it comes to marriages, alcoholism, drug use, any of this stuff.

That should tell us something, that we're attending church, instead of tending a church. And we brought in Nathan -- how do you say your last name?

NATHAN: Gwilliam.

GLENN: Gwilliam.

And Ron Stoddard. Ron is with Save Adoptions. And Nathan is the CEO of adoption.com. And first, tell me a little bit about adoption.com before you tell me why you're here.

NATHAN: Sure. So adoption.com is the connection engine for adoption. So if a family wants to adopt, they can put a profile online. And a woman who is pregnant, considering adoption can go and choose a family. Or we have photo listings of children waiting to be adopted. And families can go and look through thousands of photos of children and choose a child to adopt.

Or if an adoptee or a birth parent 20 years after the adoption want to find each other, they can put their information in, and we help facilitate a connection. So we connect people related to adoption.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I'm an adoptive father. And there is nothing better in my life than that choice to adopt. My children are everything. And, you know, we were afraid, you know, are we going to feel the same? Yeah, it's exactly the same. And it is a marvelous thing.

I tell you, if my wife -- if I could just -- if I could dye my hair so I didn't look like I look -- because my wife -- I'll say, we should adopt again. And she'll look at me, look at you. Like, we're going to adopt again.

So, anyway --

STU: That's a healthy relationship you got going on there.

GLENN: No, yeah, it's a little harsh.

Anyway, here's the problem: Adoptions -- overseas adoptions by Americans have gone down now 80 percent, and places like Romania have tried to pick up the slack before, and it didn't work. First, before we get to why this number is down, why aren't people in other countries like Romania, why doesn't adoption work like it does here? Do you know?

VOICE: Well, it does. There are people in Romania. But there are not as many people adopting in Romania because it is not culturally as acceptable as it is in the United States.

GLENN: That's weird.

RON: When we first started doing adoptions from Russia, very few Russian families would even consider adopting an orphan because they looked at them as children of alcoholics and socially inferior. But after Americans started adopting children from Russia and the Russians looked and said, maybe we're missing something here, now the number of domestic adoptions in Russia is much, much higher. And so we have an opportunity to show by example --

GLENN: Do you think that's a Christian thing? Is that a Christian trait that came from us or just something unique in us?

NATHAN: Brazil is the same way. A very Christian country, but they don't adopt their own children very much. It's the same -- same issue. It's a cultural issue. They're not used to going to an orphanage and finding a child and adopting a child.

GLENN: Huh.

RON: As you said, Christians ought to be doing it. So is it a Christian thing? It should be.

GLENN: Right. Right.

So now 80 percent drop in foreign adoptions. That's massive. And I warn you, the next few minutes are going to be to become excruciatingly painful to hear. In the former administration, that was the head of adoptions here? Helped setting the laws here and then?

NATHAN: She still is.

RON: Yeah, she is the chief of the adoption division, which is in the US State Department. And she's a civil service appointment, which is a problem in and of itself.

GLENN: Because she doesn't seem real high on adoptions.

NATHAN: She's anti-adoption.

GLENN: How could she have the job of being in charge of adoptions and being anti-adoption?

NATHAN: That's right. Why would we appoint someone to be our chief of adoptions in the United States, who is anti-adoption.

GLENN: When was she appointed?

RON: In 2014, she was moved from the Justice Department to the State Department.

GLENN: Any idea what the motivation was to put somebody anti-adoption in there? Why was that done? Don't speculate. If you know --

RON: Yeah. I think the attitude at that time, the hate convention had been implemented in the United States. And the focus of the government on any activity is to regulate and control. So she was moved into that position because she had experience in adoptions years earlier, even though she had a proven record of being opposed to the hate convention and the regulations.

GLENN: All right. So she put in regulations. They did not go into effect, because Trump came in. And he reversed them? Is that right?

VOICE: Well, Trump came in and said, we're going to require that you have -- eliminate two regulations for every new regulation you oppose.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

VOICE: So the regulation has already existed. But she proposed new regulations in September of 2016. That would further give them control over the adoption industry.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

All right. So what has to happen to get Donald Trump to -- I assume he's open to this.

What do we have to do to get him to kick -- kick her out, reverse these, what?

VOICE: Move her to a more appropriate position, that would use her skills in a more positive way.

STU: Very nice way of saying that.

VOICE: Put someone in that is pro-adoption if you're going to be in charge of a US adoption program.

GLENN: Wow. Okay. So what do you have people do?

NATHAN: So we believe Donald Trump would be very supportive of this, if this just got on his list of priorities, if this became something that he focused on. So we've created a White House petition. We started promoting it yesterday. Had been 2500 signatures this morning. The White House promises that if it reaches 100,000 signatures, that they will respond. The petition was actually created on petitions.whitehouse.gov. If your listeners wanted to find that petition, they could go to adoption.com. And right at the top, there's a bright yellow bar with a link to it. Click on that link.

GLENN: Sign the petition.

NATHAN: Sign the petition.

GLENN: Okay. So he'll look at it, if we have 100,000 signatures and take it seriously of correcting this.

How long will it take to reverse an 80 percent decline?

RON: It will take years. But, of course, it has to start with a person being put in that position that wants to increase adoptions.

GLENN: So we have a problem in America where we have a need for foster parents. And it's a lot easier to adopt a little child, than it is to adopt a 12-year-old. If it takes years to fix this, the problems in the other countries of -- because I got to believe. I mean, our foster system is not a pleasure. I can't imagine what it's like in some countries. Not good.

NATHAN: Well, most countries don't have foster systems. It's a system of orphanages. And you look at the outcomes of those children. You look at as many as 50 percent of the girls that age out of those orphanages are -- end up in prostitution. And you look at the homelessness at 60 percent or higher. You look at the suicide rate of 10 percent. Just ridiculously poor outcomes for the children that age out of those orphanages.

STU: You've been talking about this 80 percent in foreign adoptions. How much of that has to do with the Russian sanctions that we've heard so much about?

NATHAN: Very little.

RON: Very little. Russia closed in the end of 2011, and the decline has continued. So, yeah. There was a time when China put a pause on adoptions, that caused some of the decline. China's one-child policy was changed. That caused a little bit of it. But there are so many countries that are not even engaged in adoption because the US puts restrictions on them. If they do not have an administrative system for tracking documentation when a child is born out in the boondocks, then we suspect that there may be fraud with the documentation. So a country like Nepal, with children available for adoption, the US will not allow adoptions from Nepal because we don't trust their documentation.

NATHAN: And the key question about Russia isn't whether Russia closed its doors or not. The question is, what has the State Department done to help open those doors? What support have we provided to these countries to help them implement robust and ethical adoption programs? And that's the piece that's missing. We need a State Department that is innovating and helping create the type of adoption system they want, instead of trying to regulate everybody out of existence.

GLENN: So I want to take a quick break and come back. Ask you this question: I know there are people that, you know, will come across this interview and they'll say, well, why don't we start in our own country?

There's some problems here with adoption in our own country and some things that we can take care of and some things that, you know, we all should be aware of. There is a need in our own country. And let's talk about that and that concern, when we come back.

(music)

Again, you go to adoption.com. Adoption.com. Look for the banner up at the top and sign the White House petition. To get this Obama appointee removed from the State Department, or at least in this position, where she's overseeing adoptions. She's anti-adoption.

Do this at that now. Adoption.com.

GLENN: The United States is down 80 percent in -- in international adoptions. And that's because there is somebody that was appointed by Obama to the State Department, that is anti-adoption. And has put all of these rules and regulations in to stop international adoptions.

It's wrong and it's dangerous for humanity all around the world. And we're asking that you would go to adoption.com. And you'll see a banner up at the top. Click on it. It will take you to the White House for a petition. The White House has promised over 100,000 signatures. And they will take this up and review it.

So let me -- let me -- let me pick it up where we left our conversation with Nathan and Ron about international adoptions and adoptions here in America. Why not focus on the kids that we have here?

RON: That's a great question. Children in the United States and our foster care system were very important, and they need to be adopted. Children in orphanages in the United States are very important and they need to be adopted. It's not an either/or question. There are plenty of loving families that would love to bring these children into their homes. It's a matter of complexity, not a matter of numbers of families. We need to simplify the system and make it easy enough that these families can bring children home.

GLENN: I will tell you, I adopted my son Raphe. And Tania and I were terrified. I mean, she was beside herself for three years. We adopted in Texas, where it's pretty clear, you know, the new parents are the new parents, period. But still terrified that some -- somebody would come knocking at the door and say, yep. He's not your son.

RON: God touches our hearts in different ways. And sometimes we're motivated to adopt an orphan. And sometimes we connect with a 15-year-old child in the foster care system.

GLENN: Yeah. But we -- we have -- there are laws that -- I mean, that stuff does happen, but it is getting better here in America, isn't it?

VOICE: Yeah. And Texas has some of the best laws in the country. But unfortunately, that does happen.

GLENN: Okay. So --

VOICE: Working with the government is worse than labor.

GLENN: It is. It is. If you talk to my wife -- had two biological children and adopted twice. The labor that she went through with her biological children was nothing, compared to what we had to go through, to adopt.

GLENN: Yeah. No, it is.

But this is -- if we can correct this, we correct so many other problems.

NATHAN: That's correct.

GLENN: We correct homelessness. I mean, tell me about the rates of those in prison and homelessness and everything else.

VOICE: Well, a statistic I heard the other day, the CEO of the United States Institute Against Human Trafficking said that 60 to 70 percent of the children who are trafficked come out of the foster care system.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

RON: So the foster care system is good, but it's temporary. And you need to get those kids out of the foster care system, into a permanent home, as early as possible.

NATHAN: And the same thing happens internationally. We've seen statistics that as many as 50 percent of the girls that age out of the orphanage, that leave the orphanage without being adopted end up in prostitution. Going back to your original question, we've heard statistics a lot, that up to two-thirds of children within 18 months of aging out of the foster care system, two-thirds of the children end up either homeless, in jail, or dead.

The statistics for these kids -- the outcomes for these children that age out of an orphanage or a foster home are ridiculous. The question isn't whether we should adopt from the United States or internationally. The question is let's do everything we can to get them adopted. All of them.

RON: All of the above.

GLENN: And people say, there are not enough people. There are plenty, right? That want to adopt.

RON: There are.

NATHAN: A recent study from the Dave Thomas Center For Adoption show that 85 million Americans have considered adoption. And they said that the biggest reason they haven't adopted is the complexity and the cost. We need to focus on reducing complexity and reducing cost, instead of increasing regulations.

GLENN: Amen. Amen. Thank you guys, so much. Appreciate your hard work. And everything you do. And let me just -- let me tell you, as a dad, married to a wonderful woman who we couldn't have children and we wanted it so desperately and we worried about adoption, let me tell you, it's the greatest thing ever. The greatest thing ever.

RON: Amen.

GLENN: Go to adoption.com. And please sign that White House petition. And get that Obama appointee out of the State Department and correct that problem today. Adoption.com.

Thanks, guys.

'Young Turks' Host: Democrats Need to WAKE UP | Ana Kasparian | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 237
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

'Young Turks' Host: Democrats Need to WAKE UP | Ana Kasparian | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 237

“I can’t believe I’m hearing you say this,” says Ana Kasparian, producer and host of "The Young Turks." Although she and Glenn have always represented opposite sides of the political aisle, in this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," they find a surprisingly wide array of topics to agree on. They agree that the “mainstream media plays defense for the Democrat Party” and that we must ban government stock trading. Although she once bought the mainstream narrative, Ana woke up to the reality of the border crisis when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott started busing migrants to blue cities, and she recognizes there is a “problem with Biden neglecting the border.” Glenn admits that the Democrats were right about Big Pharma, he was “wrong about the Iraq War,” and that he, like Ana, is totally flabbergasted by the pro-war Democrats and Kamala Harris welcoming an endorsement by Dick Cheney. The pair debate the limits of free speech, states' rights, abortion, federal minimum wage, and unionized workers before strategizing how to get money and corporate interests out of politics. Ana reveals that she was not “surprised on election night at all,” and, even though her audience hates when she says so, “Trump is funny.” Both Glenn and Ana hope these kinds of conversations can begin to heal our national division and help us come together to create a more perfect union.

Jewish reporter SLAMS Canadian cops who arrested him at Hamas rally
RADIO

Jewish reporter SLAMS Canadian cops who arrested him at Hamas rally

‪@RebelNewsOnline‬ founder Ezra Levant was recently arrested in his Jewish neighborhood in Toronto, Canada. His crime? “inciting a breach of the peace” by standing next to a group of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas protesters. Ezra joins Glenn to describe what happened and how the police decided to “take out the quiet Jew and let the noisy Hamas ones continue.” But this dystopian story also has a good ending. Just a few days later, the protesters returned. But they were met by Ezra and a crowd of 100 counter-protesters: “We took back the streets.” Ezra explains why it’s vital that America hold onto its rights and also comments on Donald Trump’s threat to put massive tariffs on Canada.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to talk to you a little bit here about justice.

Right now, we are -- we are living in a world. And hopefully, Donald Trump is going to be correcting some of these real errors of -- of our ways.

We are a world that has gone truly insane. And our neighbors up in Canada are just as insane.

If not more so. They're farther down the road.

A good friend of the program. A good friend of mine is Ezra Levant.

He is Rebel News, which is kind of like TheBlaze up in Canada. He is Jewish, and he has just been arrested. He was arrested.

In fact, I want to play the video of him being arrested. He is only standing, as a journalist, filming in his own Jewish neighborhood, a Palestinian, you know, protest.

If I can call it that.

I want you to listen to what happens. The exchange between him and the police.

Listen.

VOICE: I want you to take this.

VOICE: So you're refuse to go leave?

VOICE: I'm refusing to leave.

VOICE: Why?

VOICE: Because I'm a Jew. I'm a citizen. And I'm your boss. And I don't leave --

VOICE: Well, you know what, in the interest of keeping peace here and public safety. You're under arrest for breaching the peace.

VOICE: Good!
(applauding)

GLENN: This is his neighborhood. He's not an outsider. This is his Jewish neighborhood!

VOICE: I'm being arrested because I'm standing on the sidewalk in my city. I'm a Jew, who lives in this neighborhood. And I'm being arrested because the police say that's the path of least resistance.

VOICE: Zionist!

GLENN: Amazing. Ezra is with us now.

Ezra.

This is crazy!

This is absolutely crazy, what's going on.

EZRA: Glenn, I've never been arrested before. They handcuffed me, and they took me to jail for a few hours. And they said that I had incited a breach of the peace.

Now, I wasn't doing anything unlawful.

I was actually just debating with those cops.

Because I wanted to film.

You called it a pro-Palestinian rally. I think it was more than that.

It was pro-Hamas.

They had set up this really macabre display, of they were reenacting the final moments of Yahya Sinwar, the now deceased head of Hamas, where he was sitting in a chair covered with blood or whatever.

So these Palestinian activists came into the heart of a Jewish residential community. They weren't protesting outside an embassy or a political target. They were just in the middle of a bunch of apartments, in a very Jewish neighborhood.

So they were targeting Jews as Jews. Canadian Jews.

Nothing to do with the war overseas. They were putting on this sort of reenactment of their hero, the head of Hamas.

And I thought this was so astonishing. I just wanted to anymore it.

I wasn't even interact winning them. I mean, wanted to film it.

You sort of heard the jeering. Jew, Zionist, or whatever.

The top cop said to me, that by being there, I was inciting a breach of the peace. I myself was not obviously breaching the peace.

But these pro-Hamas thugs were. And they essentially vetoed being on my own sidewalk. This is public property.

I wasn't in some, you know, private place to be trespassed or something.

And the cops arrested me, the path of least resistance, which you mentioned when it happened, because there was about 20 of them.

And one of me. And instead of upholding the law.

They said, just take Ezra out. Because we know he's not going to riot. We know he's not going to get violent.

Take out the quiet Jew. And let the noisy Hamas ones continue.

That's just crazy. And, you know what, I don't regret being arrested.

There's no way that I was going to leave. Because they were saying, you're committing the sin of being Jewish on the sidewalk.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to leave just because you say Jews can't be there.

And you heard them say that, as I was arrested.

GLENN: Ezra, is there a chance, you go to jail for this, that this is upheld in Canadian court now?

EZRA: Well, I did go to jail for a few hours. Then they released me without charge. Now I was so upset with this precedent, that -- that was about nine days ago, that that happened. So two days ago. The same Hamas protesters, came back to that same Jewish neighborhood. And I said, this can't stand. So I sent an email out to our viewers, and I said, come stand with me. We will be peaceful.

We won't engage with the Hamas ones.

We'll just stand on the public sidewalk.

And, you know, just assert our rights. We'll take back our streets.

And I said, be aware, that we may be arrested.

But if that's where we are.

We need to know.

So 100 people came out two days ago.

100 people. And the police saw my email.

So they put out a tweet. The night before.

Saying that they reserved the right to arrest people.

So they were trying to scare my people off.

But I showed up.

On Sunday morning, and 100 people were there.

And I led them across the street. And we stood there, and I think the police sized us up.

And thought, there's 100 of them. We really can't arrest the one of them.

It was no longer in the path of the least resistance.

So we took back the streets.

And it was a victory. And I think we undid that terrible precedent that was set.

You can't arrest a peaceful person.

Because someone else is threatening them.

GLENN: They're doing it in England too, though. Doing the same thing in Glenn England.

EZRA: Oh, yeah. Well, you know what, I'm interested in the UK. One of our former employees, Tommy Robinson, is in prison right now for publishing a documentary on X.

And I always say, I go to the UK, because it's a dystopian time machine to see what Canada would be like in five years.

Maybe further down the road than that. Glenn, I would say to you and your American viewers.

Hold on to your rights. And if you want a picture of what America would look like, if you had lose your rights.

Look at us.

And that's why I was so relieved.

When Donald Trump won.

Because I think he will turn back the excesses.

GLENN: Oh, I think so too.

Let me ask you, Trudeau said that if Benjamin Netanyahu steps foot in Canada, he'll have him arrested.

EZRA: Justin Trudeau has sided, not just with Palestinians, because I can understand making the case for innocent civilians and being harmed as collateral damage in a war.

And you can be compassionate for Palestinians. I -- you can do that. But -- but Trudeau has gone much further.

He -- he has been so supportive of Hamas.

I don't know if you know this, Glenn. They literally made an English language video, thanking Canada. He was -- he has absolutely turned against Israel at the United Nations.

He -- he routinely condemns. He -- he republishes misinformation.

And hoaxes about Israel.

That Hamas circulates.

And when it's disproven. He doesn't correct.

He's whipped up, what I call an anti-Semitic crime wave.

For the last year. Not just hate crimes.

Because, you know, sometimes while it's a hate crime. Or a thought crime.

Or a word crime.

I'm talking about crimes.

Mazel tov cocktails being thrown at synagogues. A Jewish girl's school in my town, shot up with guns, twice. Constant vandalism. Constant uttering death threats.

Trespass. Mischief. Vandalism.

And I'm pretty much a Libertarian on free speech.

I don't like it when people say anti-Semitic things. But I understand that that's part of freedom. But first of all, not for foreign nationals.

If you're a guest in our country, if you don't have tenure in our country, get out. Instead of deporting these thugs, he's bringing in thousands of, quote, refugees from Gaza.

And I would say to Americans, be careful.

Because Trudeau is bringing in hundreds of thousands of people in Canada, who share these outrageous beliefs.

And we have a porous border with you.

So don't think that they're -- some of them are trying to get into the US.

That's why Trump is trying to strengthen the border with Canada.

And I hope it takes effect.

I hope that Canada gets more serious.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this.

There are a lot of Canadians that are saying, this tariff that Donald Trump is talked about with Canada will kill us.

And hurt America, as well.

If Trudeau does not abide with the border restrictions, if he doesn't fall in line with our laws.

Donald Trump is not bluffing.

He does not mind tariffs.

And he is going to -- I mean, he will crush any country, that is -- is doing damage to the United States. He means it.

EZRA: I believe Trump means it. But I also believe he doesn't want to put the tariffs on. He is just trying to get --

GLENN: Yes, it's the way he negotiates.

The one thing you have to understand. Unlike most politicians, Donald Trump never threatens, he makes promises. You do this, and I'll do that.

You do this, and I'll do that. And he means it.

EZRA: It's worth rereading The Art of the Deal, where he explains how he negotiates and how he reframes things and takes dramatic positions.

It really is a decoder for a lot of his political talk. But what is he demanding from Canada? Nothing that we ourselves shouldn't demand from our own government.

He's demanding two things from Canada. Stop the drugs coming over the border.

Especially China-made fentanyl that is trafficked throughout the states. And number two, stop the illegal immigration.

We should want both of those things on our own basis. And the fact that it takes big brother, and America to smarten up is embarrassing.

We should have done those things on our own. I think Trudeau suddenly has a decision to make.

Does he want to just play to the cameras, and have woke press statements?

Or is he going to be a grownup now, and get serious?

And be productive, and have a working relationship with our best friends and allies.

And I don't know.

I mean, Trudeau. He's so low in the polls.

He may try to, Glenn. Turn this into an election issue.

I'm going to stand up to Trump. And the conservative candidate is a Trump puppet.

He may actually try to run in the next Canadian election.

Not in the Canadian conservative party. But like a shadow boxing campaign against Trump.

I wouldn't put it past him.

He hates Trump. The feeling is mutual.

Both men have disparaged each other in the past. I look forward to the day when we get past the Trudeau era, because he's made our country a darker place.

GLENN: He really has.

Ezra, I'm glad things are working out. Stay safe, my friend.

You are a huge target, and a force for good up in Canada.

Thank you. Buh-bye.

TN Attorney General EXPLAINS why Supreme Court should BAN trans hormones for kids
RADIO

TN Attorney General EXPLAINS why Supreme Court should BAN trans hormones for kids

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over a Tennessee law that bans doctors from giving transgender puberty blockers or hormone treatments to minors (or, as supporters call it, "gender-affirming care"). Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who argued for the law in front of the Supreme Court, joins Glenn to review what happened, what’s coming next, and what evidence he has that these procedures should be banned for kids.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Many of us look at transgender care, as butchering.

As insanity. As something that honestly returns to the Weimar republic of the 1920s.

This has been around for a while, and it's junk science. And it's dangerous to our children. Look, you're an adult, you can do what you want, I guess.

But when children are affected. That's what's in front of the Supreme Court, and the guy who brought this case to the Supreme Court, is the Tennessee attorney general.

Mr. Attorney General, Jonathan, how are you, sir?

JONATHAN: Great. Great. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: So I listened to the case. And I don't know how you your head didn't explode with some of the questions that were coming from some of those on the left. Sotomayor for one. But overall, how did you feel it went?

JONATHAN: I think we did a great job of getting our points across. I mean, it went on for two and a half hours or so.

The court asked a lot of questions. They're clearly thinking hard about this.

It will be a long time, before we get our opinion. I think we did everything we could, to win this case. I feel really good about our part about this.

And now it's up to the justices.

GLENN: You know, there was a -- well, first of all, tell me exactly what the case was.

What does it actually cover, and what will it do, if it's decided in -- in favor of Tennessee?


JONATHAN: So we have a law in Tennessee, a journal assembly law that prohibits giving juveniles puberty blocker, hormone treatments, or surgery for the purpose of gender transition. Surgery was not an issue in this case.

So this was just about whether the Constitution presents the state from banning puberty blockers or treatments for the purpose of gender transition.

So if we win, our kids will remain in effect, and kids won't be able to be subject to that in Tennessee.

Potentially, depending on how we win, it could mean that all laws dealing with gender identity, are reviewed under a rational basis standard.

Which gives the people's elected representatives, a lot more latitude. As to how they regulate.

GLENN: You know, when you were -- when you were discussing this, and it was Justice Sotomayor that said, every medication has, you know, side effect.

Even aspirin has side effects.

I don't know how you took that question seriously.

But you answered it very well.

Explain to the average person, why this is so different, than anything else, that is prescribed for kids.

JONATHAN: Every systematic analysis of the evidence shows little to no benefit for kids.

From these treatments for gender dysphoria.
Meanwhile, the risks are enormous. They face losing fertility for the rest of their lives, never being able to have children.

They risk having -- kids don't know what they're giving up. They risk tumors and blood clots and cognitive disorders and bone density disorders. All sorts of serious life-long medical complications.
And, meanwhile, the evidence is, this doesn't help them.

You're talking about very severe physical interventions for psychological

Problems.

With no evidence, that it's helping them with the psychological problems.

And so we're looking at a situation, where kids are really at risk.

Where there's not a good medical reason for putting them at risk.

And whether these people say, the Constitution prohibits the state from protecting kids. Even where the evidence is so powerfully in opposition to allowing this to happen, going forward.

GLENN: I think it was Justice Souter who asked the opposite side. What -- you know, you said that the -- the science backs this up.

Well, now we have all this new science, that is coming out.

You want to where a that statement?

What -- what has happened since you started this process, to the evidence, that's coming out, from everywhere now?


VOICE: So there was a lot of evidence beforehand, but the review in England is a large-scale, long-term study by an extremely respected pediatrician, that looked really hard at these issues. It's controversial around the world. You know, England is not a red state. It's not Tennessee. They were making these procedures widely available to kids for a while.

And they looked at the evidence, and they determined that they should not be doing that. That the evidence showed, that this was hurting kids.

They should severely restrict access.

And they did.

And the report gets into it thoroughly.

It's discussed with a lot of specificity with the court.

It shows there's no redemption in suicide. Which is one of the things we constantly hear.

If you don't let kids do this. They will kill themselves.

We don't want kids to kill themselves.

The evidence is doing these life altering interventions doesn't make a difference.

You know, they just looked at a lot of evidence from a lot of kids.

And it showed what we already knew.

Which is that there's no benefit to justify these radical interventions.

GLENN: So what does this mean, if it comes you out, the way we hope it does?

Does this have any effect on bathrooms and -- and -- and sports, or anything else?

JONATHAN: It really depends on what the court does.

There's a way that we could win. That's at that only deals with kid's transitions. Or there's a way that we could win that's broader. The court says the gender identity issues do not rise to the level of intermediate scrutiny of the Constitution.

In which case, a lot of the litigation of what we're facing with bathrooms. And school sports.

All the things that people have sued over. Are pretty easy to solve.

GLENN: Did you see any indication that any of the judges were leaning that way.

Were there any questions that made you -- gave you any indication that that was possible, or probable?

JONATHAN: It's -- there are -- there are indications that the justices are thinking about it. There were questions about sports that came up.
But I don't know whether that means, they're thinking about issuing a broad opinion, or they're just concerned about, you know, the potential effects.

And, you know, they want to think through exactly how this is going to play out. Because there's no constitutional law from the Supreme Court, on gender identity stuff.

We have one case about a very narrow, very he specifically worded statute.

And the lower courts have been all over the place. They need guidance. They need clarity on this issue.

GLENN: You know, you can't go into a tattoo parlor, if you're young, without parental -- parental permission.

You can't buy a gun, at 12, or 16.

You can't get married. There's all these laws, because we know, there -- you're not mentally prepared to make those kinds of decisions.

How does that logic not work for this issue?

JONATHAN: You know, there's this argument that it's sex discrimination.

Therefore, the Constitution provides a heightened level of scrutiny.

But we have done this forever.

To treat people differently based on their age. Kids can't consent to things that will have lifelong consequences.


Whether it's entering a contract or smoking a cigarette, the consequences for these procedures are so much more profound, and we think we have a strong argument that the state should be able to regulate this. Particularly, given the evidence, that it makes no difference. That it does not help. And it increases the risk of all these different horrible outcomes for the kids.

GLENN: The other side just seems, quite honestly.

And I don't mean to slam people. They seem unhinged.

I want you to listen.

This is a mom standing outside the Supreme Court building while you're arguing the case.

Listen to what she said about her child. Cut four.

VOICE: What motivated to you come out today?

VOICE: We're supporting our child violet.

And her access to the medical care that she needs.

VOICE: Yeah. We're here for her rights. And her ability to be who she is. And she's not going to let anybody silence her. And we're not going to stand in her way.

VOICE: And what age do you think most trans kids determine that they're trans?

VOICE: Mila told us, when she was one and a half. She's been telling us since she could speak.

So she knew since birth.

GLENN: Eighteen months? Eighteen months, she knew?

JONATHAN: Wow. That -- I have a 3-year-old. Last week, she told me she was a pirate.

Like, that's a true story, by the way. Gender dysphoria is a real thing. And it's really hard for kids to deal with it.

We have seen an explosion on these cases, that sure looks like something weird is going on.

And we -- I don't see how it doesn't come out, eventually, that there's massive over diagnosis.

In England, the doctors had over a 4,000 percent increase in the number of girls seeking hormone treatments.

And, you know, the evidence is very, very strong. That the large, large majority of kids, who have any sort of gender identity confusion grow out of it, unless they're put out on medications.

For most kids, this is a passing thing. It doesn't mean that it's not hard for them. Adolescence is really hard, and I have to think gender confusion makes it that much harder.

But most of them are going to grow out of it. And for all of them, the evidence of a benefit is minimal at best.

GLENN: Well, we'll be praying for the Supreme Court, and I thank you so much for you filing suit. And trying to get this corrected.

It's -- it's truly madness.

I don't -- you know, I don't -- I don't care what you do, as an adult.

I mean, I actually do. But it's not my business if you're an adult.

But if you can't decide things like smoking, drinking.

You know, be responsible for -- enough with a gun. You certainly should not be able to do things to your body.

That are permanent. And game-changing.

It's insanity. It's insanity.

We have to stop. Jonathan, thank you so much.

JOHN: It's an honor to be on the show. Thanks for having me, and Merry Christmas!

STU: Merry Christmas!

Jonathan Skrmetti. He is the Tennessee Attorney General, who argued just the day before yesterday, at the Supreme Court.

To protect children from gender procedures.

STU: We should, by the way, take what he said, seriously.

If his 3-year-old is about to plunder passing ships. We should report that to maritime authorities.

GLENN: And don't forget the pillaging and the raping.

STU: Yes!

Immediately. We must take it seriously.

GLENN: We must. If we can save one pillage, or -- pillagette -- pillage -- somebody. If we could save one person from being pillaged.

STU: One. Pillaged, uh-huh.

GLENN: We need to act now.

Isn't it worth it? Isn't it worth it?

The TERRRIFYING theory for DRONE sightings near Trump golf course
RADIO

The TERRRIFYING theory for DRONE sightings near Trump golf course

Mysterious drones have been spotted near the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey and the surrounding areas. The drones, which are large and loud, have reportedly caught the attention of local law enforcement and the FBI. So, who’s controlling them? Glenn explains who he believes are the 2 most likely culprits: Our own government and the Chinese Communist Party. Glenn also discusses a terrifying possibility: drones could drastically change the nature of warfare during the next World War …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So let me just start with the -- the drone sightings here for a second.

Because I don't know what's happening.

And, you know, the Department of Homeland Security is Mayorkas. Does anybody think he has any credibility, whatsoever?

He's like, well, I don't know what's going on. Well, you didn't know what was going on on the border, either.

The state police of New Jersey.

The FBI. And I don't know -- I don't know who to believe. I don't know if you can believe.

But apparently, everyone is saying, they don't know what's happening. And there are these -- these drones, that are now flying in for some reason, et cetera, et cetera.

And they were flying over the bed minister golf course. That's Trump's golf course.

They've been flying over Air Force bases. Et cetera, et cetera.

Do we have -- oh. We have a -- we have a clip from New Jersey news.

Listen to this.

PAT: The FAA has placed a temporary restriction on drone flights over Picatinny Arsenal, and over Trump national golf course in Bedminster.

When these drones were first spotted two weeks ago, the Morris County prosecutor's office said they posed no known threat to public safety.

But people want to know. What the heck are they? And what are they doing?

VOICE: It's normal to see red and green lights in December, unless they're coming from mysterious drones in the night sky.

VOICE: That's kind of unsettling. They're not up for 15 minutes. They're up for hours.

Some are very big, probably the size of a car.

VOICE: Mike Walsh says he's seen hundreds of them in the past two weeks from his Randolph backyard, and has the video to prove it.

VOICE: They kind of go slow. They come towards you. Then they'll change direction a little.

They're all going different ways. The drones have been spotted all over Morris County. Morris Town police sent an alert to residents Sunday, saying they are aware of drone activity.

And if the drone crashes or lands, do not approach or handle it. The FBI's Newark field office will only say, it's working with other law enforcement agencies to figure out what's going on.

But at the moment, doesn't have enough information to share.

STU: Hmm. Those are big too.

GLENN: What the hell is that? What is that?

I mean, that could very well be, you know, surveillance on the average American because maybe they're doing police work, or whatever.


STU: It could be.

GLENN: It could be our government doing it. It should not be. But like at the border, we do have drones, that are up in the sky. These are very large. Some of them are very large. You don't. You know, those aren't cheap.

And the very large ones aren't something that I -- I don't think the average person can purchase. Can they?

The really large ones?

STU: I mean, you might be able to purchase them. I know there's a size requirement for registering them.

And, of course, you know, we know that not everyone follows those rules.

But when you have a -- you know, the size is pretty small, to not register those. Those are way over the limit.

GLENN: Right, and they have the red and green lights.

And I don't remember which one means, you know, right and left or whatever.

But they have the red and green lights on each side. I don't think the ETs are like, you know what, we should follow the standard of putting, you know, the red and green lights on each side. So they know --

STU: Right. People think they're aliens.

GLENN: Some people think that this might be some alien thing. I don't.

STU: Okay. No.

GLENN: I think this is -- I think this is most likely our government.

Second most likely, you know, this is a China balloon.

Balloon. But a drone. This is just another thing that Biden knows about.

But I can't do anything about it anyway. What is it?

STU: Yeah. I don't know. That's a good question. It could theoretically.

You think of like an incoming president, who spends a lot of time, in one of these areas. Maybe they're doing some sort of security setup.

But, I mean, they would just tell us, if that was true. You would think. They would be like, hey. This is the federal government, doing these things.

This is why we're doing it. So I don't know.

GLENN: I mean, I was just at Mar-a-Lago with the president.

There were no drones, that, you know -- that I saw or anybody was talking about.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They're pretty good at security.

And they would just say, yeah. This is closed airspace.

You would know immediately, when they say that they're closing the airspace. If it's flying over that airspace, then it's obviously hostile.

Or ours!

STU: Yeah. You would -- I mean, I can't imagine. I could be wrong on this, of course.

We've seen some incompetent moments over the past few years.

I can't imagine if you've had hours of hovering over a property, owned by the incoming president, that this wouldn't be noticed and wouldn't be something that they were dealing with, if it wasn't -- if it wasn't the US government.

Right?

That's why that seems to me, the most likely explanation. That it is something that we're doing. For whatever reason.

You could say nefarious or positive.

But they wouldn't just let -- again, they let a guy just get on the roof in the middle of a rally. So, I mean, maybe they would just let.

It seems like they would stop this, if they didn't want those things there.

GLENN: Have you seen the drone fleets in China? Oh, my gosh.

STU: Oh, yeah. You've obviously seen like the drone shows that the -- the ones that are cool, and like for your entertainment.

I mean, you realize, with nefarious ideas, you could do lots of damage, with -- with just those.

GLENN: Oh, the Chinese military drones.

STU: Armies. Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, that are in these gigantic fields, and thousands of them are flying in formation.

I'm telling you, you watch. God forbid we get into World War III.

Our aircraft carriers are going to be the horses of World War I.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They're just going to be mowed down.

STU: I was watching a documentary. It was a series of nine documentaries.

And this was, I believe, number three?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Because me and my daughter went through all the Star Wars recently.

And they have that moment, where they go to the planet, where they've just been making all of these clones.

Or was it clones or drones? Two armies.

But it's clone wars, right?

And they just have a zillion of them ready to go. At my moment.

I kind of feel like, that wasn't a crazy sci-fi prediction.

Like, that is really going to be where we are with war, at some point, relatively soon.

Where it's not clones.

But --

GLENN: No. But it will be droids.

STU: It's drones and droids. Right?

And you have those situations, maybe not -- this is another documentary, I once saw.

But this one was -- it was something somebody had fallen.

I don't remember what the name of -- because they had about 12 of those in the series. It was like Morgan Freeman was the president. And they're out there at the lake.

GLENN: Yeah. Something is falling.

STU: Something is falling. At the very beginning. And 100 million drones come over the trees.

And just try to assassinate the president.

GLENN: Absolutely --

STU: Totally real.

GLENN: Totally real.

STU: Could easily happen at any moment.

You know, it --

GLENN: We have that technology.

STU: Yeah. I think a lot of normal people could put that together.

With not that much effort.

I mean, that's terrifying.

You look at what happened in New York, with the guy just walking up behind him.

Who -- you know, what's to stop somebody from doing that type of thing, with the drone? Except, they don't have to be standing there.

GLENN: Have you seen the video of the guy. I know I've shown it two or three years ago. The guy comes on stage. And says, this is the new weapon of war.

And he opens his hand. And it's about the size of a dragonfly. And he's got a mannequin on the other side.

And he says, watch what it can do. And he kind of just lifts his hand. And it flies up. And it flies around the audience.

And it has the -- it has the targeting on a screen, behind.

Okay?

And it shows his facial recognition, and then the target is the mannequin, facial recognition.

And it comes so fast. And it just goes exploding, goes through the guy's head.

Through the guy's head. The manakin's head. I mean, that's what's coming. There's no defense against stuff like that.

We are entering such a Brave New World.

And, you know, all the -- all the people that are in charge of this stuff, they all know, but why aren't we being informed of where we are?

STU: Yeah. I mean, because they are developing defenses for this.

And they might be able to come up for a defense for an aircraft carrier, possibly.

Yeah. They are developing those things.

GLENN: What are those ageist?

Ageist guns?

Ageist defense system? That are like 50 cal, and they fire like a thousand rounds a minute, or some crazy thing.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They can't -- they can't stop us.

STU: No, I don't think it's guns that they're trying it with, right?

There's -- again, I watched another documentary, but it was -- you know, you're talking like microwaves and things like that nature, to disable these things as it comes down.

But that doesn't protect the average person walking down the street.

You know, that might -- you might be able to protect at some level, against those things, when you're -- you're defending the president of the United States.

But when you -- when you're talking about, you know, the other sides of these things, not terrorist attacks. Who knows.

GLENN: Something the size of a fly. That could fly. Somebody opens the door of the West Wing.

And just flies. And then hides.

I mean, imagine.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We're there.

STU: You think of intelligence operations. You know, think of -- you know, think of what happened with Hezbollah. Right?

With pagers. And what happened when they -- you have officials going to Qatar. And what they think is an Airbnb, and then the whole thing just blows up.

People will have really intricate uses for these, and I think the truth is that a lot of these things end up. We have know idea what happened.

GLENN: Well, here's the other problem.

There's a story today. Marco Rubio is just pissed. So is Rick Scott. With the, you know, cyber security officials. You know, we have that, what is it, CISA? The Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency, or whatever it is.

And it's supposed to protect all of our cyber electronics and everything else. And be detecting things.

Well, you remember when the phone systems just went out, trial?

The global telecommunication systems went out, with several companies.

Well, we now know, that it was China that did that.

So China has infiltrated our telecommunication system. And they shut it down, to show us, we can shut you down. Right now.

CISA doesn't have any answers.

They're like, we -- we don't have any idea, who really it was, or how they did it.

What the hell are you doing?

You can't tell me how our cyber communications -- how our phone systems went down?

What good are you?