RADIOJune 24, 2024

Biden's DHS "Secret Police" Wanted You to Rat Out Your Neighbors?!

In a move right out of communist East Germany, news has broken that the DHS’s Homeland Intelligence Experts Group wanted to turn mothers and teachers into informants who rat out their neighbors for “domestic extremism.” The since-disbanded panel was trying to collect information on Americans and “get into local communities in a non-threatening way.” And at one meeting, suggestions on how to do this included re-classifying political dissent as a “public health” crisis. Or, they could always get corporate America to snitch on their employees! If that’s not the Stasi, Glenn warns, what is?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Stu, for the life of me, I looked at this story, and I just didn't recall it at all.

And I think this is -- this tells you something, that we have so many things going on in our country right now.

That a story this big, could elude us, or just talk about it once and then move on. Listen to this.

STU: Here. To be clear, this didn't elude us. It was actually in the show prep. If you're a subscriber to the newsletter, which gets all the show prep we do every day. You got this on September 21st, 2023, it was the lead story, that day in our prep, and we talked about it. But, you know, you're right. These things just come and go. Because every day is a new catastrophe.

GLENN: Yeah, listen to this one.

The Biden administration since disbanded Homeland Intelligence Expert Group, which reminds me, make sure you listen to the new podcast.

The Beckstory comes out tomorrow. Is it the third one or fourth one?

And it's all about experts, and how these experts. It's all part of the progressive plan for the last 100 years. The world will start making sense to you, like it's nobody's business. So, anyway, it's the homeland's experted group. They plan an influence operation, to persuade mothers and teachers to inform on dissident parents. And students suspected of domestic extremism. Now, as we told you after the passing of the Patriot Act, be careful. Because terrorism can be one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And we're seeing that. We're seeing that all the time. If you are standing up and you're standing up peacefully, you can go to jail. You can go to prison. You can stand up peacefully.
And, in fact, kneel down and pray in front of an abortion clinic.

And you can go to jail for ten years.

But you can burn down an abortion clinic, and they don't even look for you.

The panel created in September of last year, was to provide Streisand and perspectives on intelligence and national security efforts.

I'm quoting.

They included the Obama era, CIA director. John Brennan.

Gee.

How many times have we seen his name come up, and it's all related to bad, oppressive stuff?

Also, the X director of the national intelligence agency, James clapper.

Now, these were the guys, that during the 2020 election, were showing their credentials. Hey, I mean, want you to know, I'm a bigwig in the intelligence department. And let me tell you, this Hunter Biden laptop, that's dangerous Russian disinformation.

Okay. Conservative nonprofit, thank God for American First Legal, alleged in November, in a lawsuit in 2023, November. That the group was stacked with Democratic partisans. Now, listen to this.

This is how this thing was stopped. It was stacked with democratic partisans, and violated the federal advisory committee act, because of its lack of balance!

The Biden administration's inappropriate influence over it, and its lack of public notice and participation.

DHS agreed to disband the group and to provide American First Legal with the internal records as part of an out of court settlement in May.

I just want you to know, they don't stop these things. They rename them. They break them up. And they do them in other ways.

You can't say you were a lover of our democracy. And you're trying to save democracy, and put a secret council together, that is encouraging people to look at political dissent, and report on those people. So the government can do something.

In the notes from a September 2023 meeting, the Brennan Clapper group discussed ways for the Department of Homeland Security, to increase efforts to collect intelligence on Americans across the country.

And to get into local communities, in a nonthreatening way. Members noted, quoting, Americans have an ambivalent feeling of telling on each other, citing the failure of see something, say something.

No, we don't -- we're not ambivalent about that. We don't want to do that!

If I see somebody that is breaking the law, and I think they're doing something that looks like it might be terroristic in nature, yeah.

I will call the police.

But I'm not snooping and spying on my neighbors. The problem, one attendee summarized was, quote, how do we get people, or how do people safely report a concern about their neighbors?

One solution proposed at the meeting, was to reclassify -- listen to this.

One proposal was to reclassify political dissent as a public health crisis.

And to encourage Americans to report family members, or neighbors to the federal government, if they displayed any concerning behavior.

Yeah, well, here's some concerning behavior.

Trump Derangement Syndrome. Here's some concerning behavior: Putting together the Stasi. Here's some concerning behavior: Allowing illegals and gangs to come into our country, rape and kill our children, and still do nothing about it.

Who do I call for that? Quote, to get a mother or a teacher to come forward, it needs to be a public health catcher's mitt. So -- so they're saying, a Trump Derangement Syndrome. They're saying, if you disagree, it's because you have mental health problems.

Now, Stu, what was one of the ways that the Stasi and the Nazis could get people at the beginning, before they just said, we don't care.

To get people off the streets, who disagreed with them. Where did they put some of those people before the concentration camps?

STU: Hmm. Where did they?

GLENN: Asylums. Asylums.

STU: Yeah. That's very true.

GLENN: They put them in the crazy house. Because they were just crazy. Because to go against what is good for the common good, is clearly some sort of mental health disorder.

If DHS could not convince mothers and teachers to become informants. One member of the group suggested that the feds, listen to this, should turn to corporate America, as a resource of intelligence on their employees!

May I ask, what more information does our government need on us as individuals?

They already know -- we know that they are listening to us.

Now, I don't mean that they're actually. Somebody is on the other line, actually listening in.

They don't need that. They now have AI. And key words.

So if you're on the telephone.

And you're talking to somebody.

And you mention the word assassination, that key word highlights it. And that record is pulled out.

And that's when it's analyzed. We already know they're doing this. We already know, they track. If you're a person of interest, and be careful on what that means.

If you're a person of interest, what can they do?

Well, they'll go in to your social network, and they will see. And we know they're doing this without being people of interest.

Just topics that they find disturbing.

So if you're online. They will look, where did that idea come from?

They'll do a tree, and they'll do a tree to all of your friends and relatives to see who is spreading this.

They're doing that. What other information too they need, from corporate America?

My gosh! Have you ever worked for a really vindictive person?

Have you ever worked at a place where your bosses were just scumbags? Can you imagine if they had the power to report you to the federal government, on just any old thing?

They said, that the corporate America should be considered as a resource of intelligence on their employees. Because there is an industry ecosystem. Companies are internally collecting open sources.

Can we engage and use those products?

Plans have strong echoes of East Germany's secret police agency. The Stasi which relied on a network of unofficial informants to report friends, families, and neighbors as potential dissidents to the socialist regime between 1950 and 1990.

So do you know what happened? Do you know why, when people come here, the thing that people used to say about America, is they're so trusting.

Americans are just so open. And they'll invite you into their house.

And, you know, they'll just talk to you.

And there's nowhere on earth like that.

Do you know why! Because we've never had a Stasi.

We've never had to worry about our neighbors on the payroll of the federal government, turning us in. A month. We did. During Woodrow Wilson. We did all of this, for three years, under Woodrow Wilson. And it is why there wasn't a single progressive elected for ten years. Because it took our breath away! Thanks to American first legal, we're able to get the Biden's team personal documents, outlining the strategy to monitor and intimidate any dissenting views. It's shocking to see such intolerance and paranoia in written form. The Revelations are the first installment of what the AFL is calling the Deep State diaries. They promise that many more documents obtained are going to be released soon. Now, you want to talk about releasing documents, here's the other thing, that our federal government is doing. This is why Stu and I lost track of this story, until -- until AFL came out and sued and won! Because there's so many of these things. Let me tell you something else. If you believe in democracy, one man, one vote, which we have that portion, when we go to vote for a representative! That's why we're a representative republic. A democratic -- democratically elected representative, government. A republic. Anyway, if you believe one man, one vote. Then you should be the strongest person on voter fraud. You should be the number one person saying, wait a minute. Wait a minute. I believe the people and the people alone should decide.

Then you should be the strongest in standing up and saying: And no one should be able to influence that! Notice they tried to take the money out of it. Okay? But they leave all of those loopholes open for people like George Soros. And as long as their party is doing it, it's fine. I don't want my party doing it. I don't want any party doing it. I want one man, one vote. There's no reason our elections are not secured by block chain, right now. There's no reason for this.

But let me go a step further. Let me tell you some of the details of the voter access, executive order.

Ten-second station ID. Okay. So one of the first executive orders that Joe Biden put in, was his voter access executive order.

And what this -- what this -- let me say this. All that we know, is that it was an all government executive order. So every branch, every -- every part of our government, was ordered by the president, to make sure that they can give and grant voter access, to as many people as possible.

Now, we have -- we have sued the government. We, as people, have sued the government for it. We have issued FOIAs. Watchdog groups. Election integrity advocates.

They suspect that Biden is using taxpayer money to further his campaign for reelection. This is executive order 14019.

The executive order requires all federal agencies to use federal funds, hmm. Biden bucks. And resources to promote access to voting.

Even though it promotes the executive order, the Biden administration, as benign.

The Biden administration is taking a variety of measures to order -- to make sure that this is under wraps. That their voter registration plan is kept from any kind of daylight.

In particularly, the administration is steadfastly denying Freedom of Information Act request. And battling in court, to hide the details of how the executive order is being implemented.

Why wouldn't you want people to know, how you're making voting easier?

The administration is even invoked presidential privilege on two occasions. One, involving a public records lawsuit, by a watchdog organization.

Voter integrity groups. Again, like American first legal foundation, is also filing lawsuits attempting to find information about Biden bucks.

Even when the Biden administration does provide documents in a response to an information request about Biden bucks, the executive order, the documents are redacted, in an outrageous way.

In at least one case, all of the communication that we -- that was FOIAed, was blacked out, except for two words. Those two words: This is.

That's all they would allow you to see. Information about how the USDA is registering voters is especially important.

Since it deals with predominantly Democratic voter groups, such as welfare recipients.
One concern is the USDA may be issuing letters to the state agencies, that administer SNAP and WIC programs, instructing them to conduct voter registration activities in a partisan manner.

The Biden administration is also refusing to be transparent about its listening session, discussing the executive order.

Held notoriously, with partisan far left organizations, such as the George Soros Open Society Policy Center.

They are not being transparent. Does that mean that they're doing something they're proud of?

Does that mean they're doing something that you're going to be happy about?

When they are just opening up the borders and letting anybody in, and they'll tell you all about it. But they won't tell you about what they're doing to register voters, as the federal government. Problem. Big problem.

Argentina's Javier Milei DESTROYS the U.N. in SCATHING speech

Argentina's president, Javier Milei, gave a must-hear speech to the United Nations that should put the United States to shame. Glenn reads the speech, which "sounds like a Founding Father" and a Declaration of Independence from the U.N. Glenn compares Milei's speech, which denounced the globalist "Pact for the Future" and promised that Argentina would fight for freedom, to the Biden/Harris administration, which is fully behind the U.N.'s plans for a One World Government.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Javier Milei got up yesterday to the United Nations, and this is worth reading almost verbatim.

Listen to this.

To the authorities of the United Nations. To the representatives of the various countries that make up the United Nations and to all the citizens of the world, who are watching us, good afternoon. For those who won't be not know, I'm not a politician.

I'm an economist. A Libertarian, liberal economist. Who has never had the ambition to be a politician. I'm an economist.

A liberal libertarian economist who has never had that.

But I was honored to be -- honored with the position of President of the Argentinian Republic, in the face of resounding failure of more than a century of collective policies.

This is my first speech, in front of the United Nations general assembly. And I would like to take this opportunity with humility, to heart the various nations of the world, to the path that they have been treading for decades, and the danger of this organization's failure to fulfill its original mission. I do not come here to tell the world what to do.

I come here to tell the world, on the one hand, what will happen if the United Nations continues to promote collectivist policies, which they had been promoting under the mandate of the 2030 yenned. And on the other hand. What are the values of the new Argentina, that we defend?

I do want to begin giving credit where credit is due. The United Nations. And he goes into 70 years of blah, blah, blah, blah.

Then he says, the successful model of the United Nations whose origins can be traced back to the ideas of president Wilson. Oh, yeah. He goes on to Wilson.

I want to be clear. On the position of the Argentine agenda, the 2030 agenda, although well-intentioned in its goals is nothing more than a supernatural government program, socialist in nature.

Which seeks to solve the problems of modernity with solutions that violate the sovereignty of nation states. And violates people's right to life, liberty, and property.

It is a agenda that pretends to solve poverty, inequality, and discrimination, with legislation, that will only deepen those problems.

Because world history shows us, the only way to guarantee prosperity, is by limiting the power of the monarch, guaranteeing equality, before the law. And defending the right to life, liberty, and the property of individuals.

Does this sound like a Founding Father?

It has been precisely the adoption of this agenda, which obeys privileged interests, the abandonment of the principles outlined in the universal declaration of human rights and the United Nations, that has distorted this role of this institution, and put it on the wrong path.

Thus, we have seen how an organization born to defend the rights of man, has been one of the main proponents of the systematic violation of freedom.

As for example, with the global quarantines during the year 2020, which should be considered, a crime against humanity.

In this same house. That claims to defend human rights. They have allowed bloody dictatorships, such as Cuba and Venezuela to join the human rights council, without the slightest reproach.

In this same house, that claims to defend women's rights. They allow countries that punish their women for showing their skin, to join the committee of the elimination of discrimination against women.

In this same house, systematically they have voted against the state of Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East, that defends liberal democracy, while simultaneously demonstrating a total inability to respond to the scourge of terrorism. In the economic sphere, collectivist policies have been promoted that threaten economic growth.

Violate property rights.

Hinder the natural economic process, preventing the most underprivileged countries in the world, from freely enjoying their own resources, in order to move forward.

Regulations and prohibitions, promoted, precisely by the countries, that developed, thanks to doing the same thing they condemned today. Moreover, a toxic relationship has been promoted between global governance policies. And international lending agencies.

Requiring the most neglected countries, to commit resources, they do not have.

To programs, they do not need.

Turning them into perpetual debtors, to promote the agenda of the global elites.

Nor has the tutelage of the World Economic Forum helped. Where the ridiculous policies are promoted, with Malthusian blinders on.

Such as zero emission policies. Which harm poor countries, in particular. To policies linked to sexual and reproductive rights.

When the birthrate in Western countries is plummeting. Heralding a bleak future for all.

Nor has the organization satisfactorily fulfilled its mission of defending the territorial sovereignty of its members. As we Argentines know, firsthand, in relation with the Maldivian islands, we have now even reached the situation, in which the security council, which is the most important organ of this house has become distorted. Because of the veto of its permanent members, has begun to be used in defense of particular interests of some.

Thus, we are today, with an organization, that is powerless to provide solutions to the real global conflicts.

Such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Which has already cost the lives of more than 300,000 people.

Leaving a trail of more than 1 million wounded in the process.

An organization, that instead of confronting these conflicts, invests time and effort into imposing on poor countries. What and how they should produce.

With whom they should associate. And what they should eat. What they should believe in, as the present pact for the future intends to dictate.

This long list of errors and contradictions has not been gratuitous, but has resulted in the loss of credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of the citizens of the free world in the denaturalization of its functions. I therefore, would like to issue a warning, listen to this.

We are at the end of a cycle. Collectivism and moral posturing of the woke agenda. Have collided with reality. And no longer have credible solutions to offer to the world's real problems.

In fact, they never had them. If the 2030 agenda failed, as its own promoters have acknowledged.

The answer should be to ask ourselves, if it was not an ill-conceived program to begin with.

Except, that reality can change course.

We cannot pretend to persist in the mistake, by redoubling on a bet. On an agenda, that's failed.

The same thing always happens with ideas coming from the left.

They design a model, according to what human beings should be, according to them. And when individuals freely act otherwise, they have no better solution, than to restrict, repress, and restrict their freedom.

We in Argentina have already seen with our own eyes, what lies at the end of this road of envy and sad passions. Poverty. Brutalization. Anarchy. And a fatal absence of freedom.

We still have time to turn away from this course.

I want to be clear about something, so there are no misinterpretations. Argentina, which is undergoing, a profound process of change, has decided to embrace the ideas of freedom.

Those ideas that say, all citizens are born free and equal before the law, that we have inalienable rights, granted by the creator. Among them, are the right to life, liberty, and property.

Those principles which guide the process of change that we are carrying out in Argentina.

Are the principles that will guide our international conduct from now on.

We believe in the defense of life for all. We believe in the defense of property for all.

We believe in freedom of speech for all. We believe in the freedom of worship for all.

We believe in the freedom of commerce, for all.

And we believe in limited governments. All of them.

And because in these times, what happens in one country, quickly impacts the others. We believe all people should live free from tyranny, and oppression. Whether it takes the form of political oppression. Economic slavery. Or religious fanaticism.

That fundamental idea, must not remain mere words. It must be supported in deeds. Diplomatically, material. Through the combined strength of all countries, which stand for freedom.

This doctrine of the new Argentina is no more and no less than the true essence of the United Nations organization. That is the cooperation of the United Nations in defense of freedom.

If the United Nations decides to retake the principles that gave it life, and adapted again, to the role for which it was conceived. You can count on the unwavering support of Argentina and the struggle for freedom.

You should also know, that Argentina will not support any policy, that implies the restriction of individual freedoms of trade, the violation of natural rights of individuals.

No matter who promotes it, or how much consensus that institution has.

For this reason, we wish to express officially, our descent on the pact of the future. Signed on Sunday, and we invite all of the nations of the free world to join us.

Not only in dissenting from this pact, but also in the creation of a new agenda for this noble institution.

The agenda of freedom. From this day on, know that the Argentine republic will abandon the position of historical neutrality, that characterized us. And will be at the forefront of the struggle in the defense of freedom.

Because as Thomas Paine said, those who wished to reap the blessings of freedom, must as men, endure the fatigue of defending it.

May God bless the Argentines. And the citizens of the world. And the forces of heaven.

May they be with us.

Long live freedom. Damn it!

How great is that?

I mean, this guy is quoting our Declaration of Independence. And throwing it in our face.

The Declaration of Independence. And Thomas Paine. All of our founding principles.

And he is saying. And look at Argentina. It is turning around.

And he's saying, this has to be done. Because this yenned 2030, this new pact for the future, which the United States passed, signed, excited about, he said, it is -- it is going to cripple the entire world.

And he's right. You want second citizenship? Maybe Argentina is the place to get second citizenship.

STU: So how -- the question is just how long he will be there. That would be my only concern. Because he seems to be promoting all of the right things. And abandoning historical precedent of --

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Historical neutrality. That's a big change.

GLENN: Does he have enough people, to support him?

And not only that, but also, can he grow that?

And teach that to so many others?

I mean, we had -- you know, we had all of our Founders, in a row.

And we started from Catholic Church.

And it took about 20 years to really screw it up.

STU: Part of the reason why I think it's possible, is because he's loud.

Right? Have I think part -- one of the problems we faced over the past, you know, 100 years or so. Is like, hey. We're obviously the most successful country.

Everything is working really well. We all know it's because of capitalism, and freedom.

Everyone else should know it too.

And over time. You know, with exceptions.

Certainly, you would say Reagan was an exception to this. Someone who really loudly spoke for the benefits of --

GLENN: Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a loud defender of property and freedom. And individual --

STU: Yeah. He's just more.

He's still active. I'm thinking more of a historical context.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

STU: I think as with Milei. If he becomes -- if he's able to set this country on -- on this path and make it obvious, what is -- why it's succeeding throughout, and definitely another edition to this, and still up for debate. But if it succeeds, which so far, it really is.

But, you know, it's short-term. We don't really know for sure.

If it succeeds long-term, I think there could be really a major change in the world.

GLENN: Yeah, there could be.

All you need is one spark. You know, the one thing that stuck out to me, in his speech, was one of the last paragraphs.

As Thomas Paine said, those who wished to reap the blessings of freedom, must as men, endure the fatigue of defending it.

How many people do we know, say, I'm just tired. I'm just worn-out. I just don't want to look at it anymore.

Remember that line. Those who wish to reap the blessings of freedom, must as men, endure the fatigue of defending it.

United Nations JUST APPROVED the framework for a One World Government

The United Nations kicked off its 2024 General Assembly by approving a group of game-changing proposals that are practically the framework for a One World Government. Glenn’s co-author for “The Great Reset,” “Dark Future,” and his upcoming book, “Propaganda Wars,” Justin Haskins, joins to break down what this “Pact for the Future” will mean for America, especially right before the 2024 election. While the final versions of the proposals were slightly less terrifying than the originals, plenty of draconian agreements were still approved that would give the UN a terrifying level of power over member nations — and the Biden/Harris administration is fully on board. Haskins explains the 3 main proposals, including one that aims to give the UN power over the development of artificial intelligence and the “fact checking” of “disinformation.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins. He is the coauthor of the Great Reset.

Dark Future. And the latest book that we've been working on the last year. Which releases October 22nd.

You can preorder it now.

Propaganda Wars. Kind of an important book for today. Especially with everything that we're talking about.

But I want to talk to him now about what has happened at the UN, this weekend. With the United Nations Summit of the Future.

Justin, welcome to the program.

JUSTIN: Thanks, Glenn. Good to be back with you. Wish I had better news.

I'm getting the reputation around Mercury Studios, being kind of like the angel of death.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. I know. I know.

Pretty much everyone who is coming on the show today, is kind of like, huh. More good news for you, huh.

Thank you for watching this so closely. First of all, explain what the Summit of the Future was.

JUSTIN: Yeah. So the Summit of the Future was the culmination of several years of work, really began in the COVID era of 2020, 2021, with the UN secretary general producing this report called our common agenda, which is something that you talked about in several shows and specials and things like that.

And so the culmination of all of that was this summit of the future, that they just held over the weekend. Prior to the start of their general assembly.

As you -- as you noted, there were three agreements, all of which came out of our common agenda.

Passing a future declaration, of future generations, global digital compact.

All of this is meant to dramatically extend the power and influence of the United Nations. That's the whole point of it.

And I don't think it's coincidence, that they designed it. In fact, I know it's not coincidence. But they designed for all of this.

They planned for it, to be proposed and approved immediately before the 2024 US presidential election.

There's a reason for that. Because this is about making sure, that there are plans in place. Infrastructure in place.

If Donald Trump does not win this election. That will further the agenda, of the Biden administration, and sort of the Great Reset crowd.

Moving forward, no matter who wins.

GLENN: So talk to me about the pact for the future. There are three separate parts. And you can look all of this up online.

But give me the summary on the pact for the future. What is that?

JUSTIN: Yeah. So the pact for the future is a very large document, that includes tons and tons of commitments by member nations.

It was approved by basically the entire United Nations over the weekend, including the United States.

In fact, Secretary Blinken, last -- or yesterday afternoon, gave a speech praising the Pact for the Future.

So it includes all kind of radical provisions. Probably the most important one, the one that we have pen looking at, most closely, is something called the emergency platform.

The idea behind this, is to give sweeping powers to the UN secretary general.

In the event of a future, what they call global shock.

Which is not clearly defined in the document.

The idea is essentially to expand the power of the secretary general, so that they can better manage at the UN. International crisis, okay?

So they have COVID in mind when they wrote this. So there is some good news on that, the language for the document, at the last minute. And I've been tracking the various revisions and versions and stuff. Changed. They took some of that emergency platform language out and replaced it with this vague promise, to have the Secretary General develop a plan in the future.

And so they essentially kicked the can down the road.

I think because that provision was becoming a little too controversial.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

This is so fascinating.

So they -- it was that the secretary general, could just say, this is an emergency, a global shock.

And it is a -- let's say, a financial shock.

And we've got to stop everybody who is disagreeing with the central banks.

We all have to stand by the central banks. And we have to do this and this. And he could dictate what happens in each country. Could he not?

That's wait it was originally written.

JUSTIN: It was really vaguely worded to give him sweeping powers.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: While also respecting natural -- to give him sweeping powers. In the event of an emergency.

Correct. Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Now, did they write this, in the way that Democrats write things.

Where it's past. And it says, pretty much, at the -- at the time of implementation, and at the discretion of the secretary.

Such-and-such will happen. Did they find it that way?

Or does he actually have to come back and propose things? Or is it at his discretion?

JUSTIN: He has to -- so up until the very end, the draft was very specifically asking him to give basically, lay out the -- the specific plans for an emergency platform. The -- the final path language says. This is the actual language.

Consider -- they want the secretary general, to consider approaches to strengthen the United Nations system response to complex global shocks.

Within existing authorities.

And dot, dot, dot.

But, in other words, provide -- we want to you repropose all this stuff in the future.

So it did not actually come into international law, under this agreement.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Hang on just a second.

One other thing.

When we say it passed. There was no actual vote, right?

It was, you could vote against it.

Which nobody did. Isn't that right?

JUSTIN: Yeah. They do this a lot at the United Nations. Where they pass things by consensus is what they call it.

And it's essentially to pass things without having to form things.

But it's in essence, passed. Yes.

GLENN: That's crazy.

So the declaration on future generations.

What was that?

And this one did not have anything removed from it, right?

JUSTIN: As far as I know, no. This was the idealistic one. This was the idea behind this was to get younger people more involved in -- think Greta Thunberg type.

More involved in their international agreements, creating a new position at the United Nations, specifically for that purpose.

All these state commitments. Socialist policies. About reducing inequalities within nations. And battling climate change and all of that.

That one to me, was the least objectionable, of all of them. Just because it was so idealistic and vaguely worded. That I don't know damaging it would be, to be totally honest.

GLENN: And the global digital compact is the third part. And that passed.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. This is the most damaging one, I think. I think this is the most serving one. This passed as well.

Essentially, what this is meant to do, is a few different things.

It's meant to traumatically increase global governance of artificial intelligence.

They want to create a couple of different new organizations. Independent international scientific panel on AI. And the global dialogue on AI. And governance programs.

They want to have more collaboration with big tech. Public/private partnerships. Additional funding into that. All of this is dying to embed artificial intelligence and other majority technologies, with left-wing social justice goals essentially. And they're very clear about that in the document.

So that's a huge thing. We've been warning about for a long time. You know, Dark Future was all about that. We talked about that a ton in Propaganda Wars, and how emerging technologies is going to manipulate every part of our society.

And then, of course, misinformation, disinformation. A safe and secure internet. These kinds of things are riddled throughout the global, digital compact.

This is probably the largest propaganda effort, the UN launched. The largest propaganda effort, I think this -- in modern history.

You probably have to go back to, like the Soviet Union or something.

Before you'll find something like this. They want to create all kinds of different collaborations with the media.

With big tech companies. To control the internet for misinformation. Disinformation. Hate speech. Et cetera.

So specifically, here's an example. This is from the agreement. This was what was actually approved.

Just one of many examples. Quote, provide, promote, and facilitate access to, and dissemination of independent, fact-based, timely targeted, clear, accessible, multi-lingual, and science-based information to counter mis and disinformation.

Strengthening independent and public media. And supporting journalists and media workers. Obviously, we're talking with people who share in their values.

So we're talking about creating fact-checking apparatuses at the United Nations.

Creating and disseminating these so-called fact-based, you know, science-based assessments. Which we've learned in COVID. And other areas. That that's just -- whatever the UN wants it to be.

It's not actually fact-based and science-based.

And collaborating with social media companies. And big tech companies. Which means the opposite side doesn't get to counter it.

They're very clear about calling for social media companies, to ramp up content moderation, and make their platforms more secure and all this other stuff.

So really, you could summarize the whole document like this. The whole point of the global digital exact, is to get everybody off the internet. That the United Nations doesn't like. To silence people, who are not going along with it.

And to create a vast propaganda network, that is going to constantly be pumping out, their own form of misinformation. And disinformation.

All in the name of allegedly getting to the truth. Which of course, is not what they're doing.

GLENN: We just talked to the FCC commissioner, Brendan Carr.

About the sale of the second largest broadcasting group in America and 200 radio stations.
It was paid for with foreign money. Is against the FCC regulations. No more than 25 percent can be from foreign. But Soros wrapped up a bunch of foreign money.

And for some reason, they bypassed the law, that says, that has to go through the Department of Homeland Security and has to have a security check, et cetera, et cetera. So he's going to -- as soon as they officially announce it. Which could be as early as next week, the sale will go through.

We're on some of those stations. You have this happening. The only one that is standing in the way of the global effort to shut voices down.

The only one with any real clout is Elon Musk.

That's one man against the world.

JUSTIN: Yeah. And they want to stop him too.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. This just has empowered all the countries around the world. And empowered them through the United Nations.

And gave them really kind of a blank check, to stop people like Elon Musk, with anything that it takes. Did it not?

JUSTIN: Oh, without a doubt.

I mean, that's the whole purpose of the global digital compact.

That they just passed.

We've talked in previous weeks about this new EU, ESG system that they're building in the European Union, which is also designed to do similar things.

You know, they're trying to close down all of the off-ramps. You've said that for a long time.

That's what they've been doing. And they're almost finished with the job. They don't want people to have any ability, to counter what they're saying in a meaningful way.

Yeah. If you want to sit around your kitchen table and talk to your family about things going on in the world, fine.

But don't do it in public. Don't do it in a meaningful, public way. That's essentially what's going on here.

And as information, and data, and communication has become increasingly more centralized, it's becoming easier and easier and to control it. And manipulate it.

And that is such a huge part of what's going on right now, at the United Nations.

And elsewhere. It's really hard to stop, you know, a thousand newspapers across the country.

It's not hard to stop like five social media companies.

Or five big tech companies. It's not that hard to do that. Or to force them to reform their ways. And that is exactly what's going on here.

And it's incredibly disturbing, but that's the plan.

And there's a reason why, that they're doing all of this, in the final days, final weeks, you know, before the -- the presidential election.

GLENN: Okay. So I know that we have -- I have scheduled an hour with you.

But I feel compelled to talk to the audience, one on one a little bit. Right after this.

So can I get you to come back tomorrow. Because you've talked about the governance of artificial intelligence.

But we haven't talked about the global wealth transfer. Or the embedding the GDP with ESG.

Or any of the other things, that are now locked in on the globe. Can I get you to come back, same time tomorrow?

GLENN: Of course, yeah. Let's do it.

Dustin, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

SHOCKING testimony DEBUNKS the "Jan. 6 insurrection” claim

Rep. Barry Loudermilk joins Glenn Beck to review newly-released testimony that should close the case on the "Jan. 6 insurrection" narrative. Not only is Donald Trump now on record calling for the National Guard to be deployed on that day, but Rep. Loudermilk believes there's evidence that Pentagon officials "purposefully DELAYED" that request. The National Guard was actually ready to go that morning, he says. But the Pentagon "likely premeditated" how to subvert Trump and put its own restrictions on National Guard deployment.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have representative Barry Loudermilk with us.

He is going to talk to us about the newly released transcripts from January 6th.

And the transcripts that show what Donald Trump said in the days leading up to January 6th, urging the Pentagon to take extra security measures to keep January 6th safe.

And they didn't do it. Representative from Georgia. Barry Loudermilk.

Barry, how are you?

So tell me, what this is actually showing us.

Because it's not just -- if I may read the president, what he said.

There's going to be a large amount of protesters here on the sixth. Make sure you have a sufficient National Guard or soldiers, to make sure it's a safe event.

I don't care if you use guard or soldiers, active duty soldiers.

Do what you have to do, just make sure it's safe.

That's what the president said, leading up.

What --

BARRY: Yes. And that was a sworn testimony, by General Milley.

To the Department of Defense, inspector general.

And that conversation happened on January third. Three days leading up to January 6th.

GLENN: And when did he testify to that?

BARRY: He testified to that, it would have been later in 2021, to the department of defense, inspector general.

Now, what got us in this direction, we were investigating, the two delays of National Guard coming to the Capitol.

There was the first -- the US Capitol Police chief summoned. He said the same thing the president did.

There will be a lot of people here.

We're in the middle of COVID. A lot of the Capitol police officers are being quarantined or they're sick. He didn't have a full force.

He wanted some additional forces, and requested DC National Guard. Now, that requires an official request for the DC National Guard.

Because the president can't just deploy military forces without a request. It's a separation of powers issue. Under current law, that had to come from the Capitol Police force.

Which pretty much, Pelosi will be involved in that decision making.

For whatever reason, his request was denied, internally. Within Congress.

So he had made a request, even on to January 6th.

He had made requests, like when the outer perimeters were breached.

He wanted national guard. That was denied. That was denied. Finally when shots were fired in the Capitol, Democrats were like, well, we need help.

At 2:30, the former request was made to the Pentagon, send the troops.

Now, we already know, as you just brought up.

That President Trump had ordered the National Guard to be ready for deployment.

That was the order. That's what General Milley said.

And we know that they took that seriously. Because the National Guard, on January 6th, was mustered at the armory, less than 2 miles away from the Capitol, with riot gear ready to deploy.

They were already there.

So we know, that somebody already took that seriously. So, but from 2:30 when the request was made, there was about a three-hour delay, before the order was given, for the National Guard, to deploy.

That's what we started looking into.

Now, there -- the IG started looking into that as well. The Department of IG. Their report was the National Guard wasn't ready. That's the reason they didn't go.

It was the National Guard's fault. Well, we started having senior officers. And enlisted members from the National Guard. Came to us, as whistle-blowers, and saying, that isn't at all what happened.

So we started launching an investigation, into the DOD IG report. And after, this has been months and months of battle with the Department of Defense.

Quite frankly, that's the 8,000-pound gorilla, in this town.

I didn't think we would get anywhere. Providence, something broke loose. And they provided us all the evidence that they had acquired, the DOD IG in their investigation.

Which was 44 transcribed under oath. When we got those, we realized, this was a huge cover-up.

Because they were purposefully. The National Guard was purposefully delayed by the Pentagon. They did not want the National Guard here. They didn't like the optics.

Some were -- that was most of -- nobody liked the optics. We even had senior officials who were saying, my ultimate plan was to make sure the National Guard never got anywhere close to the Capitol.

GLENN: Jeez.

So tell me about Christopher Miller. Because if I'm reading this right.

He's the acting Secretary of Defense.

He said, the president commented that they were going need to 10,000 troops, the following day.

I interpreted it as a bit of presidential banter, or President Trump banter that you're all familiar with. And in no way, shape, or form, did I interpret that as an order or direction.

On January 6th, everyone was like, did you hear the president's speech?

I'm like, the guy speaks for 90 minutes.

It's like Castro or something. No, I got work to do.

I was cognizant of the fears, that the president would invoke the insurrection act, that would politicize the military in an antidemocratic matter. And just before the electoral college certification, ten former secretary's of defense signed an op-ed piece, publishing in the Washington Post, warning of the dangers of politicizing and using inappropriately the military. Nothing like that was going to occur, on my watch.

BARRY: That's correct. And that was testimony that he gave to the Department of Defense, IG under oath.

What he's talking about. Liz Cheney, kind of orchestrated and advance an op-ed by former defense officials. Basically setting the stage. You know, to -- they were afraid that Trump was going to come out and try to use the military to stop the count.

There is nothing that any evidence that we have obtained, or that we can find anywhere to indicate, that that was in his mindset.

But as I said earlier. Someone took what Trump said, as serious because the National Guard had already been recalled. They were mustered. They were ready to go, in the morning of January 6th.

In fact, when the -- the general commanding the DC National Guard, was showing, the vast is that a fair statement Trump made to General Milley.

He said, I would have taken that as a direct order.

Politics and your political beliefs should never be a factor involved when it comes to safety and security.

And I would also counter this.

If they were afraid, that there was an act of insurrection, that was going to take place. And they saw the violence, going on at the Capitol, that day, and that was an act of insurrection, that they participated in it, by hold back the very troops, that could quell it.

GLENN: Correct.

And, you know, there's one thing about taking an order that is constitutional. And one that is not. So, in other words, if he said, look, there's going to be possible riot, we need 10,000 troops there.

Let's make sure the Capitol is safe. Okay. Well, I'm worried that he's going to use those troops for something else.

No. Because the military has to -- has to execute what the president says, unless it's an unlawful order.

Then it is their responsibility, to not say, well, I was just following order.

In our country, you don't have that excuse.

So if it was an unconstitutional order. The Pentagon could have stopped it. Correct?

BARRY: Right.

GLENN: Instead, they were just subordinate. Is that the right word?

BARRY: That's right. It's subordination.

GLENN: Okay.

BARRY: But also premeditated. I think there was a case to be made that this was premeditated.

Because on January the 5th, the Secretary of the Army revised or sent a memo to General Walker, who was the commanding general of the DC National Guard.

And placed greater restrictions on him, on when he can deploy.

And how. They even restricted. You can't be armed.

Okay. It's all kinds of restrictions.

Basically what he said is, you cannot deploy without my express permission.

That I have to give you the order. That was unprecedented.

That was the day before.

So basically, General Walker is in the situation. Where President Trump called him directly.

And said, get over there. And the secretary of the army didn't tell him, he would be in subordination.

So there were greater restrictions placed on the DC National Guard.

Which to me, shows some sort of premeditation.

Maybe it was fear that Trump was going to go rogue.

But whatever. He's still the commander-in-chief. And the request was to get the national guard there. To help keep the Capitol safe.

Not to participate in anything. But to help keep it safe.

GLENN: Right.

You can't -- you can't convict somebody of future crimes. You know, you can't say, well, this is what he intended.

No. What he said, as the commander-in-chief, is keep the Capitol safe.

Now, if he would have said, you know what, go in and tell Congress. They are going to -- no, Mr. President. That's unconstitutional.

I will not give that order.

And if he got on TV, and said, you know, I'm -- I'm telling them now.

To go in.

The American people would not have been with him.

They wouldn't have been with him.

BARRY: Right. No, not at all.

But there's so many angles to this.

Here, one is how the DOD IG, out of all this exact same evidence that we're looking at.
How did they come up with a report, that it was the National Guard, that was the problem?

This -- I'm still getting my (inaudible) after this. There's no way, you could come up with that conclusion, unless you're just trying to cover for people who did things that they shouldn't do. Senior officers. Senior civilians, within the Department of Defense.

And so we're asking of the Department of Defense, IG. How can this be. And when are you going to correct this know.

Of course, we don't see any need to correct this.

We have seen this. But we have made all this public. People can make this decision for themselves. I have said from the beginning. I am coming to this from an unbiased opinion.

We will just get the facts up there, and let the facts speak for themselves.

And there's another angle to this, that is a problem.

There are -- there are senior executive level folks in the DOD, that testified one thing to the Department of Defense IG.

But testified the differently to the select committee on January 6th.

GLENN: They should go to jail. They're under oath.

BARRY: And this is something we are starting to look at right now, doing a side by side comparison to their story. Did their story change? Did they have a better understanding?

Or was it they were confident, that the DOD -- their testimony is the DOD IG would never make it outside the IG.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

BARRY: So it's just more layers of this story, the corruption that had to be cover-ups. That have happened. Regarding January 6th.

Because if it comes down to it.

The select committee on January 6th. Had a predetermined narrative.

They had -- before they started it all, Nancy Pelosi had already said what their final report was going to say.

GLENN: Right.

BARRY: And they were going to collect evidence to support it. And as we talked on this show before, any evidence that didn't support it, or actually told a different story, they suppressed. They hid, or they deleted. And fortunately, we've been able to uncover most of that.

GLENN: Congress man berry Loudermilk from the great state of Georgia. Thank you so much for this.

I mean, want to reiterate one more thing. This is the quote.

Anyone who wants to talk about January 6th. This is the quote.

And you can get it from the Subcommittee on Oversight. This is the quote from Donald Trump.

The day before. Hey, look at this. There will be a large amount of protesters here on the sixths. Make sure you have sufficient National Guard or soldiers, to make sure it's a safe event.

I don't care if you use guard. Soldiers. Active duty soldiers.

Do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it's safe, end quote. Donald Trump. January 5th.

That should close the case, on insurrection. That's the truth.