Thanksgiving dinner tables are notorious for arguments to break out and with how divided we are politically these days, you might be a little nervous for the coming holiday. But great news! A new poll shows only 3% of families actually argue over politics at Thanksgiving. Thanks to the non-stop blitz by the media attacking Donald Trump, we are all just so sick of it, we're just gonna let it slide this year. So eat your turkey in peace and save your best arguments for 2020, it's going to be a crazy ride!
Tucker Carlson has been all over the world recently speaking to powerful leaders. After his interview with Vladimir Putin, he spoke at the 2024 World Government Summit and that got Glenn thinking: Is something else going on here? Tucker has been a popular vice-presidential choice among Trump fans … is he gaining experience before the big announcement? Would Tucker even be interested in the vice presidency? Glenn breaks down his theory, as well as another theory on whether Vice President Kamala Harris will invoke the 25th Amendment against President Biden.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Let's get into the news of the day here. Yesterday, Biden was, you know, speaking with King Abdullah of Jordan.
And I don't know if you saw this video, do we have the video actually, of him wandering over the podium.
Okay. Now, he doesn't know where to stand. He's looking at the ground. Looking for tape.
That's what he's looking for. He's looking for a tape mark.
And he goes and stands behind king Abdul. And he says, I'm sorry.
And he realizes, he's on the wrong side. Like it matters. That he's just taking his orders.
It is really -- it's really been an amazing thing. And really, what happened, why this is so important right now, is because of Special Counsel Robert Hur. He did a report last week, just let me bring you up to speed, in case you didn't.
The handling of all the classified documents. That, you know, Biden said, hey, they were secure. No, they weren't. They were sitting in a box next to your Corvette. That's not secure for top secret documents.
Okay. It's just not.
But Hur comes out. And he says, well, you know, he just appeared in the testimony, while we were investigating this.
He just seemed like a -- a nice old well-intentioned man, who doesn't remember much.
Doesn't remember much?
He couldn't tell us when he was right now. And couldn't tell us, when his son died.
Okay. That's a problem. That's a real -- that's a problem.
Now, I think, first of all, Grassley, and everybody else that are, you know, oversight on all of this, Grassley and Ron Johnson, they've asked for that tape. They want to see it themselves.
I wouldn't be surprised, if Joe Biden was kind of all there.
Was not a doddering old fool. Could answer when he was vice president.
I think there's a movement to get Joe Biden out by the Democrats.
Now, I'm not saying that, you know, I think you're going to find he was a doddering old fool. On that tape.
But there is a movement now to get him out.
Because his -- his poll numbers are remarkably low.
He doesn't have a chance, when it comes -- if he's the guy, there won't be any debates.
And can you imagine how bad he'll be in six months from now?
So yesterday, if we have the Kamala Harris, see if we have it.
No, we don't. The -- yesterday, Kamala Harris came out. And she was asked by the Wall Street Journal, so, you know. Biden looks like there's a chance that he's not going to make it.
Are you ready to be vice president?
What she said, is really, really important.
She said, I'm ready to serve.
There's no question about that.
Now, that's a bold statement for any vice president, to make.
I don't know of a time, where a vice president has made that.
If they have, and I can't think of one, but if they have, they have gone on to say, but the competence of this president is not in question.
He is fine. And there's no need for me, to be prepared, other than every vice president needs to be prepared.
Okay? She didn't say that.
She didn't say that. This is a first. She's always answered that question, like I just said, a vice president answers that question.
In defense of her president. She's not saying that this time. The problem is: How are you going to get this guy out?
His family is all for it. Just getting rich off of his back. His family, I think is engaged in elder abuse. This is one of the worst families I've ever seen.
Anyone who would treat their father or grandfather like this.
And let him make a fool out of himself like this.
Is not a good family. They don't care.
But if the family is for him serving. And he is for him serving.
You have to evoke the 25th Amendment. The only one that can really do that. The cabinet has to have support. And it has to start with the vice president.
So the vice president is going to be -- is going to have to be the one to come out and say, we have to evoke the 25th Amendment.
Will she do that?
And then what happens to the election, because she's the only person.
Get this. She's the only person in Washington, that has a lower score, of likability, than Joe Biden.
She's -- you know. She likes school buses. And maybe school buses like her.
But not a lot of the drivers like her.
Now, that's something to watch.
There's something else, and this is absolutely a Glenn Beck theory. I have nothing to base this on.
I just, as a fiction writer, let me put that hat on, and tell you something, that I noticed a pattern of.
And it's because I read the story that is completely disconnected from this story that I just told you.
But I read this story first. And then I read another story, that I'm going to tell you about next.
Back-to-back. And it got me to thinking.
And it's a complete, you know. This is just a fictional theory.
But I want you to hear it, they can say.
Let me give you this story.
Tucker Carlson fired back at former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton on Monday, calling her a child.
After she criticized his interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Carlson, was blamed by Clinton.
And Clinton called him a useful idiot. During an interview, that aired Wednesday evening, on MSNBC.
That's weird. Because today is Wednesday.
Carlson brushed the criticism off. At the appearance of the world government summit.
Hillary Clinton called this gentleman, speaking of Carlson, this honorable gentleman, that he is playing the role of a, well, you say it.
Prompting Carlson to say, that he hadn't seen Clinton's interview.
And he -- he was wanting to say, you know, useful to it.
But you say it. He didn't.
Instead, he said, I didn't see the interview.
And Hillary Clinton is a child. I don't listen to her. By the way, how is Libya doing?
Great put-down. Great response.
Now, the thing is, where did he say this?
He said this, at the World Government Summit 2024 in the Middle East.
Why was he at the World Government Summit 2024? He just left Moscow. Where he was meeting with Vladimir Putin just a few weeks before.
Wait a minute. He was speaking with Milei.
And then before that, he was in Hungary, speaking with the head of Hungary.
Wow, he's getting a lot of experience.
He's going to be -- this is my first thought.
He is taking the place of all of those respected journalists, that we had at one time. Where we respected them.
And they would go and do the big heavy interviews. And they talked to all the world leaders.
And then I thought, wow.
He'll know all the world leaders, and have spoken to them, personally.
Which is weird. Because I'm not sure Kamala Harris has done all that. Which then made me think, wait a minute.
Vivek Ramaswamy, and Tucker Carlson are the ones that were on the list, the top two names. Given to Donald Trump. Of who they would like to see as a vice presidential nominee. And when I first read that or heard that from the president, he said. Or I said, huh.
File it away. Immediately, my thought was, Tucker is a TV guy, though.
Not going to do that. Maybe he would be a spokesperson for the president.
Not the vice president.
He doesn't have the experience.
Wait a minute. Yes, he does now.
Stu, complete -- I mean, this is complete fiction. Complete fiction.
STU: I mean, I -- I like it as a hot take.
I mean, I don't know that I believe it.
You know, his --
GLENN: No. I don't believe it. I don't believe it.
GLENN: It would be smart for Donald Trump.
STU: It's a fun theory.
If you were setting this up.
This would be the type of thing, you would him to do.
To be on the stage like this.
I don't know that interviewing these world leaders, necessarily, gets you vice presidential experience, per se.
Look, Tucker Carlson has had a lot of experience in this world. Has been around for a lopping time.
He knows these topics.
GLENN: He grew up in Washington. He knows that town. He knows how it works.
STU: And it's certainly a way of raising, his -- not only his profile.
But also a profile of a foreign affairs picture, that's not always been germane to the Republican Party.
But is increasing in influence. And is certainly in line with the president's theory on foreign affairs.
So I -- I mean, you look, I like it as a hot take. I like it as a theory you're throwing out there.
But I don't know that I buy it.
GLENN: I have to tell you, if I were running -- if I wanted the presidency, or somebody that had asked me, hey, you know, think about running.
The thing I would do was exactly what Tucker Carlson is doing right now, and it would give me keys to the kingdom. Either kingdom I choose.
It's very, very, very bright.
Very bright of Tucker Carlson.
The U.S. Senate leadership is not giving up its effort to pass a massive war bill that will fund Ukraine, Israel, and likely even Hamas through aid to Gaza. This audience helped defeat the previous bill, which was disguised as a “border” bill. But Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joins Glenn to warn that the Senate likely has enough votes to pass the same crazy package, just without the border parts. But there’s still a chance to stop it if YOU speak out and call your senators.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So, Mike, what the hell has the Senate done this time?
MIKE: Well, the Senate this time has yet again, put together a bill that now appears quite likely to pass. That you and I's Democrats. Sharply divides Republicans. On an issue where most Republican voters.
And most Republican senators are adamantly opposed to the Democrat's position.
But Senate Republican leadership, and a small handful of others, have given the Senate -- the Senate Democrats more than enough votes. To where it looks like, they will be able to pass this thing. In the next 48 hours or so.
Really is too bad.
Still stop it. All the Republicans. Still band together.
We could still top it.
The clock is ticking.
GLENN: You have Murkowski, and Romney.
So, you know --
MIKE: Yeah. But the remaining -- the remaining 31 of us, who didn't vote for this.
Have strong concerns, big concerns. Concerns that are backed up by voters all across America.
Not -- not all of them Republicans, by the way. But certainly an overwhelming super majority of Republicans, in the country, have great difficulty for this.
With this. You know, I stood on the Senate floor all day, on Saturday. I spoke for four continuous hours, trying, again, and again and again. To get amendments pending.
Amendments pending in the Senate. Meaning, they're in the cue, to be voted on.
To be addressed. Democrats wouldn't less us do it. I put up an amendment for example, making sure that this -- this aid wouldn't end up going to Hamas.
You send this through any of these entities. Through the UN. They make a lot of, hey, about the fact, oh, well, we cut UNRWA out of any aid.
Oh, great. There are 19 UN agencies, operating in Gaza. And guess what, you said aid to Gaza. We're going to send this to Gaza, but not Hamas. It's not real.
I don't know how to -- that's like saying, we'll give money to the UK. But it won't go to the British.
It's not a thing.
GLENN: So hang on.
$90 billion. What's in this package?
What are we sending?
MIKE: All right. So up to $92 billion in the package, about 60 billion of it goes to Ukraine.
Within that portion of it, you've got about 8 billion, that goes to direct economic assistance, and to the Ukrainian government.
Where the Ukrainian government is expected to spend that, on things like, paying all of Zelinsky's bureaucrats. Every government employee, in Ukraine. Civilians. The whole thing. For an entire year.
They're also free to use that for their own welfare benefit system.
They're also free to use that for their own sort of Ukrainian crony capitalism. Sort of thing.
Which they've got going on.
We've got actual instances of this type of aid that we've given to Ukraine over the last couple of years.
Being used to buy people concert tickets in Ukraine.
To shore up the viability of clothing stores in Ukraine.
Sort of real mother lode of opportunities here.
Opportunities for those who are close to the Ukrainian corruption.
Now, look, we could have a real debate here, if this were just military aid.
But there's so much in this package. That is not military aid.
It's going to other things.
Also, in the bill, you've got a total of between nine and $10 billion.
It's going loosely speaking to some humanitarian aid.
And it just says in the different account, that add up between nine and $10 billion.
It says, that they can go to this loose humanitarian concerns, in and around Ukraine, and in and around Israel.
Which in theory, the Biden administration could chapel most of even all of that aid to Gaza.
Guess what Gaza does, when we get that humanitarian aid.
It's not Gaza broadly. It's Hamas.
Well, Hamas in the past, used our aid money, whether funneled through the United Nations, as it usually is. Or it built tunnels.
They buy arms. They prepare to attack, to attack innocent civilians -- and to do the whole thing.
MIKE: This is giving them more of an opportunity to do that very thing that resulted in October 7th. But make no mistake, Hamas is not content with October 7th.
That's just a preview of more things to come. All they need are the resources. And apparently, we provided them with those.
PAT: Mike, it's Pat Gray.
Just to be clear, I want to make sure I understand, you are anti-American concerts then, as well as anti-Ukrainian clothing stores.
GLENN: Yeah. I got that too. Good catch, Pat. Good catch.
PAT: Thank you. He was going to let that slide. And I don't want it to.
GLENN: Mike, I have to tell you --
MIKE: Ukrainians -- not on the American taxpayer dollar. That's my position.
PAT: Huh. Wow.
GLENN: Right. Right. So I have to tell you, Mike, every -- at every corner, it seems, since 2008, when we're talking about big money.
The American people have not had any relief. The big corporations have gotten it. The big banks have gotten it. The fed has gotten it.
Foreign countries have gotten it.
The now -- the clothing stores in Ukraine, have gotten it.
But the Ma and Pa -- I had to buy a black suit over the weekend. And I went into this great, legendary clothing store in New Haven, Connecticut, called Ferruchi's.
And as I'm -- I'm talking to the guy behind the counter. And he's like, COVID killed us, man.
It killed the clothing industry. They're struggling. The people that made really good suits for like Brooks Brothers or things for him.
He said, they used to have 2,000 employees. He said, they got down to I think 150 employees. Now they're back up to 500.
And everything is changed.
And not a dime has been helping out these companies.
They destroyed us.
And -- and we were buying -- you know, people were getting stuff.
And they were getting concert tickets here in America.
While the real people trying to keep the doors from falling off, no pun intended with Boeing.
Because they're apparently working to keep the doors flying off.
The people who are really doing the hard work.
They never get the break from this government.
MIKE: Never get a break from it. And it never sleeps. It never stops spending.
The more we spend, with multi-trillion dollar deficits. Year after year after year.
It starts to add up. And it starts to make every dollar that we have. That Americans earn, through their hard work.
You know, the average American household, every single month, has to shell out an additional thousand dollars just to live.
Just to put a roof over your head. And groceries on the table.
GLENN: So what is this really all about?
What is this really all about?
Who is really getting the money here?
What -- what favors are being done? What NGOs are taking that money, and then funneling it back to an election here?
MIKE: Well, the biggest single beneficiary from these probably defense contractors.
People who make -- look, they're -- there are plenty of people who are patriotic. And who are not part of what I would call the military-industrial complex.
And by that, I mean those who worship at the altar of war. So that they can make more money. Profiteering off of war.
But there are a number of those.
And it's a real thing.
It's been since president Eisenhower. That the bigger it gets, and the more powerful it becomes.
And I would say, the military-industrial complex is the single biggest beneficiary from a package like this.
Sometimes, some of my colleagues will even let the mask slip.
Some of my Republican colleagues have done that in recent weeks, by saying things like, look we have to get this thing done.
We should get this thing done.
Because this will create American jobs.
It's good for us.
GLENN: How. How.
MIKE: It will create American jobs. Because. Because when we put these, you know, men M tens of billions of collars into these weapons procurement contracts, for weapons, by the way.
That are going to go to others. And not us. And that are actually going to commandeer our procurement process in such a way, that we'll have access to weapons for our own uses, later, rather than sooner.
That employs people in America, that employs people who make a lot of these weapons systems, that we will be sending over there.
But the pieces that are -- we have a stash of them.
We have already exhausted a lot of them.
It's already going to take us. Even before we add this package to it. Years, possibly this will 2030 or 2035.
To replace a lot of this stuff.
What happens -- we can see more and more of this stuff. While unable to produce more of it at home.
It really is concerning.
We become less and less capable of protecting the American homeland from whatever attack might face here.
It's deeply concerning.
Mike Lee in the Senate.
Fighting hard, along with -- they're about 13 of you, are there not?
How many are fighting?
No. No. There's 31.
MIKE: Who were opposing this.
GLENN: Yeah. Right.
MIKE: That means this is an overwhelming super majority of Republicans in the United States Senate.
And yet, our Senate Republican leadership is all for it.
They're teaming up with Democrats.
MIKE: Democratic policies. The United Nations on issues that are particular to the left. This is concerning.
GLENN: Okay. Last week, gang. You -- you stopped the bill in the Senate.
On the border. You have to do it again.
You make a difference. You do make a difference.
Call your senator. And say, in no uncertain terms.
You're not to keep giving my children and my great, great, great children's money away!
We don't have the money
We don't have the -- enough is enough.
Mike, thanks for the good fight.
Appreciate it. God bless.
MIKE: Thank you very much. Good to be with you.
The most controversial ad of Super Bowl LVIII was a spot from a group called “He Gets Us.” The ad featured depictions of Christians washing the feet of a diverse group of people, including a woman in front of an abortion clinic, an illegal immigrant, and a gay man. Many conservative Christians were outraged at this allegedly woke message, which they believe suggests that followers of Jesus are “oppressors” who should accept sinful behavior. But Glenn has a different take. He believes the ad could have been done better. But he WASN’T offended by the ad, and in this clip, he explains why.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: This one is possibly the one causing the most controversy, and it's all coming from the right. Cut three.
It is pictures of Christ, washing people's feet. Can you explain. I can't see them from here.
PAT: Yeah. It's just a whole bunch of images of people watching other people's feet.
GLENN: And they're --
PAT: They're normally poor, destitute.
GLENN: There's a gas worker. With a hippie.
PAT: And somebody's backyard, washing an elderly person.
GLENN: A black man sitting on a porch. Washing a white man's feet or vice-versa. Then the last one.
PAT: Jesus didn't teach -- he washed feet.
PAT: All right.
GLENN: Okay. So stop.
So the last one is the controversial one.
And some people have a problem. In fact, let me read Steve Deace.
Who I really like. I just happened to disagree with him, but that is the glory of TheBlaze.
We don't all have to agree, and we don't force each other to agree. You will say yes.
No. Yeah. We're against the whole fascistic kind of brainwashing kind of thing.
So I was reading a tweet, that -- is that Steve sent out, this morning.
And he said, how wrong was the he gets us ad at the Super Bowl.
Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, not the multitudes of unrepentant sinners as the ad depicts. Instead, for them, he freely offered himself up as a living sacrifice for their sins, which the ad never points out to them.
It affirms -- it, instead, affirms them in their sin. Just a vile, repulsive, heretical, and offensive ad. I can't get upset at Pfizer or Bud Light or anybody else, the spirit of the age. Secrets from his depraved mind.
When our answer fundamentally -- mind, when this, our answer, funded by wealthy Christians. It has been 12 hours. And I'm still mad.
I -- you know, I -- I kind of disagree.
I mean, they didn't -- I think they should have put somebody -- like, the Capitol Police.
Washing the feet of those on January 6th.
If you're going to have Jesus washing the -- of the foot of transgender. Or you have somebody else.
Washing the feet of the transgender.
I get it. I get it.
But how about making sure that the left is washing the feet of the right as well. You know what I mean?
Because Jesus came for all of us.
And the point of this ad.
I disagree. I'm not mad at this ad at all.
I think it was -- it could have been done better, by really pointing out, our real differences.
But Jesus -- let me ask you, Pat.
Which one of your children, are you so mad at, you would condemn them to hell.
PAT: None of them. No.
GLENN: No, no, no.
They've done something wrong.
Let's say one of them murdered somebody.
So you would never want to see them again.
PAT: It would have to be none of them. None of them.
GLENN: But wait. One of them is in BLM. And set fire to cities and stuff. So you will condemn that one to hell, right?
PAT: No. No, I'm not.
See, the -- we -- Pat told me one time. Just think of God, as a loving father. And you will understand him, and yourself.
And I said, don't think I can do that.
And God is everywhere.
And in the tree. And I still believe.
He is -- he is everywhere.
But you can understand him, and your role as a parent. Much better, if you imagine him to be the perfect, loving parent.
GLENN: He loves all of us!
Even the ones who have gone astray.
He would wash the feet of everyone.
Do you think Jesus was embracing adultery, when he road wrote in the sand.
And said, where are thine accusers?
PAT: He told her not to synonym.
That part of the story though is always left out -- by -- by, you know, people trying to condone whatever lifestyle that they think is fine.
And that's the problem. That's the --
So if that's the point you're trying to make about Jesus. That he condones everything we ever do. That's not right.
He still loves us, but he doesn't condone our actions a lot of times.
GLENN: Right. Right.
God is our father. We are his children.
He loves us.
The thing that we can learn from that. Is that we cannot hate our fellow man.
We cannot hate.
And that's the point of this.
GLENN: We can't hate our enemy.
We are not fighting enemies, that are flesh and bone.
We are fighting. I actually -- and if you really pray on this. These are not enemies of ours.
We don't own these rights.
These are enemies of his.
And we are supposed to -- we're not the gatekeepers
We're the welcoming committee. And we should be praying for our enemy. And loving our enemy.
And that's going to be harder and harder to do.
Do you know why Abraham Lincoln was killed by John Wilkes Booth. He tried twice.
The first time he was just going to kill him with his bare hands.
And it was at the point of the inaugural speech. We have in the vault, the only picture of Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth in the same photograph. It's an incredible thing.
Abraham Lincoln is given the second inaugural address, and he's kind of blurry. And he's talking and moving.
And the cameras need long exposure.
Up at the top, at the gate of the Capitol. Looking at just his eyes. And everything are so clear.
Because he was just boring a hole in Lincoln's head, is John Wilkes Booth.
And after Lincoln said, with malice toward none, and charity toward all.
Booth about lost his mind. Because he needed the north to hate the south. He needed the south to hate the north.
All he -- the only reason why he killed Lincoln was so that the right -- the north would rise up again. In anger, towards the south.
That's not Christ-like.
We don't -- we -- we should do everything we can. To push our anger aside.
It doesn't mean we condone. And it doesn't mean we stop fighting them.
We just don't hate.
And that's going to -- that's hard. It's because hate is very, very worldly, and hate is what's being pushed right now.
Montana father Todd Kolstad and stepmother Krista have accused the state of medically kidnapping their 14-year-old daughter after they refused to support her transgender identity. But the state’s Republican governor alleged that their decision had nothing to do with the transgender debate. So, what’s the truth here? Glenn speaks with the Kolstads, who share their side of the story. They discuss why they’re speaking out, what actions they’re taking next, whether their daughter is being sent to Canada, and how the Montana hospital they went to allegedly started suggesting transgender surgery on “day one.” Todd and Krista also claim they were asked to go to marriage counseling to accept their daughter’s transgenderism and accuse Governor Greg Gianforte of not doing enough: “We’re very disappointed in the way this has been handled. He has never reached out to us.”
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: The Krista and Todd Kolstad family in Glasgow, Montana, is accusing the state of Montana, the Child Protective Services of kidnapping their teenage daughter after the girl began to identify as a transgender boy.
The child's stepmother Krista explains the nightmare began August of '23 after they received a call that their 14-year-old daughter Jennifer had expressed suicidal ideations while in school.
Later on in the same evening, a case worker with the Montana Child and Family Services showed up at the Kolstad home, to speak with Jennifer, and do an inspection of the home.
During the interview with CFS, Jennifer claimed to have consumed toilet bowl cleaner and pain killer medications that day, in an effort to commit suicide.
Krista said, that it immediately struck her as being highly unlikely.
Not only did Jennifer not have access to other substances, you know, these kinds of substances unmonitored.
But Jennifer had expressed no symptoms of imminent illness that day. Despite the doubts, Krista and Todd agreed to take Jennifer to the local hospital on an emergency basis. They found in all the blood work and everything else. She had not consumed any of these things.
Copies of the medical paperwork to substantiate their claim. That Jennifer had not consumed any of the dangerous substances, confirms that there are were no abnormalities detected in her system. Her system was good. However, they consistently mentioned that Jennifer identifies as a male and wishes to be called Leo.
Krista says, she and Todd immediately their objections to the hospital staff known.
They're supposed to call her by her birth name.
We were very clear in the emergency room, that this goes against our values, our morals, our religious beliefs.
They told me to call a lawyer, if I have an issue, because they're going to do what the patient tells them to do.
Then she said, we came in, and our -- our daughter was talking about having top surgery. And being nonbinary. She took her complaint to the on-duty doctor. Doctor who dismissed her. He told me, why are you not more concerned that your daughter tried to harm herself, than what the aid is talking about with her?
They then tried to switch her out of state, to Wyoming. There are six facilities in Montana, that she could go to. They had a facility in Wyoming. The family looked it up.
Looked like kids were allowed to have procedures done, and hormones without parental consent.
So when the hospital called, they said, we have an opening in Wyoming. And she needs to go there.
Quote, she has to go. She's not doing any good here.
End quote. The parents said, not on your life. That's when things got ugly.
They showed up, CFS showed up at their home to serve us with papers. To take Jennifer out of our care, according to Krista. They told me, the reason was we were unable or refusing to provide medical care.
That's not true. Now, the Republican governor has come out against the family, and honestly I don't understand this. They keep saying, well, we don't take, you know, children out of the home.
If it's just a transgender thing.
But, yeah. I get that. But I'm looking at the document, immediate threat to danger.
There's nothing checked, except child needs medical attention.
And parents are unwilling to perform parental duties.
So that's the loophole.
Is this an out-of-control state agency, or what's happening?
We have both of the parents on with us, now.
I can't imagine being you guys.
Krista and Todd Kolstad, thank you for coming on the program.
KRISTA: Thank you for having us. We appreciate it.
GLENN: So, Krista, what do you -- why did the governor come out in defense of this?
KRISTA: You know, I don't have an answer for that. There's no reason for him to. It's not hard for him to say, I made a mistake. This shouldn't have happened. And apologize. I really don't know why he's coming out against us.
Todd, are you there?
TODD: Yes, I am.
GLENN: Is there any idea in your mind, is there anything that is happening or has happened in your home, that we don't know about?
TODD: Absolutely not.
It's as simple as that. We keep going back to what the garden ad litem said, when he went to our house. He saw that everything was fine. We have a very nice home. We have a comfortable life. And she flatout told us, she asked if we were going to be willing to raise our daughter as a boy with the transgender care.
And she said, if we aren't, then she said, we're not going to like what she has to say in court. And that's exactly how it went.
GLENN: Now, you've got a call just recently, that she's not in Montana. She's in Canada stop they moved her across state lines.
GLENN: And then out of the country. To her mother, who if I'm not mistaken. And correct me if I'm wrong, there's been some issues with mom, as well in the past, is that true?
KRISTA: That is true. There is some documented -- some documents that we submitted from counselors and what not, supporting our claims.
And also, you know, her birth mom just wasn't really involved in her life, the last seven years. Never called her. Never visited her. Anything like that. So this is really a stranger to her. So we do have some great concerns. That is a fact that I believe that Canada operates on a whole different system, as far as transgender care.
So we have some great concerns about her being there.
GLENN: Oh, yeah. Did you have joint custody?
GLENN: You did have joint custody?
GLENN: What were you going to say, Todd?
TODD: There was no custody battle with them.
We were on speaking terms with them. So there was no problem with that. It was CPS who initiated the contact with her in Canada. And then sort of pushed it to send her there.
GLENN: So what do you have remaining to do? What can you do from here?
KRISTA: Well, we're getting more lawyers involved.
We're challenging the gag order, based on our First Amendment freedom of speech rights. And we're continuing to speak out.
We just want other families to be aware, and by bringing light to our situation, we're hoping we can help others. And this doesn't happen to another family.
GLENN: So, you know, we've -- I've seen the documents from the state.
And the state and the governor say, that's not the reason why she was taken out of the house.
So this is -- and, you know, I -- I'm really uncomfortable, because we can't find anything bad on you guys.
And the state kind of -- it feels kind of like they're saying, well, we've got something else here. And we just can't tell you.
And I -- I mean, I -- it makes it hard. Have you -- have you guys tried to engage some of these, you know, law firms that are -- are out there to help parents like you.
Why do you have a public defender still?
KRISTA: Well, we are interviewing lawyers currently.
So, yes. We are engaged with the lawyers. And trying to get different legal representation.
TODD: So to better answer that. The world has changed drastically when it comes to finding an attorney. When you blindly look, Googling areas, family law. You have to find an attorney that has been practicing in your state.
Almost all of them are scheduling consultations, like eight months out. That's how busy they are.
And then when they hear the state, they don't want to get involved. So it's far --
GLENN: Yeah. But this one is -- I mean, the Thomas Moore Society.
I mean, there are places that you can call. And maybe you just didn't know about them.
But there are big organizations, that take these cases, and they move rapidly when it comes to children. Because, you know, seven months is a long time with a child.
And so I'm wondering, have you been contacted by anybody? Or can -- you know, we'll give you the phone numbers. That that's -- go ahead.
KRISTA: I was going to say, I have not heard of the Thomas Moore Society, so I will definitely look them up, and get in contact with them.
But several agencies have contacted us. And we -- the -- from what I understand. And again, I'm not a lawyer.
From what I understand, the way it works, they don't practice in Montana. They have to find a lawyer that does practice in Montana. They become a cocounsel. The issue is, they are having a hard time finding lawyers that practice in Montana. That are willing to take this on with them.
GLENN: Pat is from the great state of Montana. Pat, what do you know about this governor?
PAT: Almost nothing. You know, I've lived in Montana for 40 some years.
GLENN: Yeah. I didn't know if --
PAT: I don't know virtually anything about him.
But, you know, Montana is perceived to be a Republican state. But they elect Democrats on a fairly regular basis.
GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.
PAT: And so maybe this guy has RINO tendencies. I don't know. How does you guys feel about your governor?
KRISTA: We're very disappointed in the way that this is being handled.
He's never reached out to us. The -- Kyrsten Juris (phonetic), I think her name is. The one that he's tasked into looking into our case, she called me personally. And she said, I am going to look at your case, and then I never heard from her again.
So I don't feel like there's a lot of action on their part.
GLENN: Well, we have asked the governor -- I think we have. He's invited now. And our producers will be reaching out again. We have been in touch with the governor's office.
And, you know, there's a -- there was something here that I was sent, that talks about that you are -- because you guys said no to sending her to Wyoming. Which I think I would have too. Yeah. Well, state of Montana is limited in disclosing the specifics of cases involving minor children in its care, due to the sensitive nature.
Broadly speaking, the state does not remove minors from homes to provide gender transition services or to use taxpayer funds to pay for those services while a minor is in the custody of the state.
But your child is not in the custody of the state. Child Protective Services, furthermore, the governor has asked the Department of Public Health and Human Services to codify a formal policy in developed regulation to clarify and ensure the definition of abuse or neglect does not include a parent's right to refuse to provide gender transition surgeries to his or her minor.
So he's suggesting policy. But we also have, you know -- I have seen the Department of Health.
CFSD. Does not investigate. Nor remove children based solely on allegations that parents oppose, and will not allow their child who has gender dysphoria, to transition genders.
So I think that's very consistent, with what they're telling you, but I feel that that's a massive loophole.
They're leaning on that.
TODD: Yes. You would like me to comment on that?
GLENN: Yes, go ahead.
PAT: Okay. So right from the get-go, day one at the hospital. A nurse in, that kept talking about getting top surgery in front of our daughter. They immediately started calling her a boy. Immediately.
And they started -- we turned and complained, but it was immediate.
And there was -- when they said that they were going to have a bed for her in Billings, we knew immediately, before that, that that was not going to happen.
Because they kept looking at our daughter with an unspoken language, like almost assuring her it was going to be Wyoming. So we knew they would pull that card. And Wyoming allows the transgenderism, not without parental approval on anything. Where Montana, the Dakotas, Idaho, those states do not.
We were able to stand right there and Google that.
GLENN: So let me -- I only have a minute left.
Let me read this statement. This came from the Valley County attorney: Had the motion been granted, Todd Kolstad's legal rights as a parent would have remained fully intact. The state of Montana would have no more involvement in his relationship with his child.
Mr. Kolstad and his wife objected to dismissal and requested the state remain involved.
Any statement made otherwise is false and inaccurate.
KRISTA: Well, if we can respond to that.
When we were in the courtroom that day, we asked that the birth mother call the investigated as a safe place for her -- because they said no matter what, they were going to send her to Canada. And so we had asked they investigate the birth mom, and make sure that's a safe place for a child to go. And we explained our concerns, and we had documentation supporting those concerns. So that's not exactly true. We would love to have children services out of our lives. Our lawyers, our public defender still, at the time said, this is -- let them investigate the birth mom on the record.
And so we were told, that that's all that they were doing. We didn't understand that we were -- you know, hanging out with CPS for another six months.
Further, they've asked us to go to marriage counseling to accept our daughter's transgenderism.
GLENN: All right. Guys, we will follow this story. Thank you. We'll probably talk again. Thank you so much. We're praying for you, and especially your daughter. That the right thing happens. Thank you. We'll be in touch.
KRISTA: Thank you.
GLENN: You bet.