RADIOJune 24, 2024

Why Would Biden Give Trump THIS Major Advantage in their First Debate?!

After winning a coin toss, President Biden’s campaign team had an important choice to make: They could either choose which podium Biden will stand behind or whether Biden will have the last word at his first presidential debate with Donald Trump. Glenn and Stu are shocked to find out that they chose … the podium. So, why would the Biden team allow Trump — who they call a danger to democracy — to have the last word?! Is his entire campaign team that incompetent?! Glenn and Stu discuss this, along with the other weird rules for CNN’s debate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Donald Trump is going to be debating Dr. Death really, is what I'm calling him. He's just -- he's deadly. He will walk out on stage.

He will just wipe the floor with Donald Trump. I think that's what we should start saying. Because we're setting expectations so low for him, and so high for Donald Trump, that unless it is, you know, something where it's body blow after body blow after body blow. And it's done perfectly right after Donald Trump, he will appear to be the loser. I think people's expectations now are just, he didn't fall asleep.

He didn't fall asleep.

STU: I think it's a real worry. You know, because that is how people look at this situation, in a lot of ways. I do think though, it is hard to -- I don't know if you can blame people who are saying these things. And setting these expectations.

Because I think at the end of the take, those expectations were set by Joe Biden. When he, you know, waddles across the stage and can't get a sentence out. I don't know how you hide it.

I don't --

GLENN: Because that -- you know, look, as bad as the State of the Union Address actually was.

It looked good, because he had -- you know, he was like pounding on the desk. You know, that's got to stop. And he was awake and alert. And could form sentences for most of it!

You know, that is the expectation. And I think they -- and I have no proof of this. But it's happened before, with presidents, and you don't know about it for 20 years. Or 60 years. In FDR's case.

They juiced him up. You know, they'll go out and they will give him. Hey, is Dr. Nick around?

Make him perform. And so he looks good in -- he looks better.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Then what he really is, I think.

STU: His biggest moments have not been his best moment.

Which has been something -- I guess give them credit for whatever cocktail they've come up with.

GLENN: Right.

STU: I don't know. I will say though. What I'm saying is, I don't know if you can blame like conservatives for pointing it out.

Like, it's -- it's like, the setting of expectations, is a rhetorical device, right? You can put it out there.

And you can adjust that slightly. But I just think the American people see it. And that's what they expect. So the fact that he exceeds those expectations. I don't know if that can be manipulated on a party's messaging on the other side.

It will be interesting to watch. Because I honestly -- he really does need. You know, Biden took this debate. And kind of threw it out there. Like, I'll do this with you anywhere, any time.

And Trump is like, okay.

So he's taken on a bunch of weird rules. There's a bunch of strange stuff going on.

GLENN: First of all, they're sitting down.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: There's no audience. You can't interrupt one another.

I guess they're shutting Donald Trump's microphone off.

I mean, all the things that would -- that would help Donald Trump, have been taken off the table.

And now, the press is saying, I don't know why Donald Trump would do this. I mean, every -- every rule is in Biden's favor. Yeah.

Because he knows that when it comes to inflation, cost of living, war, everything else, you don't -- he doesn't have a lot to defend here. You know what I mean?

He's going to have a hard time defending it, if he was crystal clear, even on meth! You know, whatever it took, give him meth!

And he was just great. And thought he could fly. He still would lose on the facts. And I think Donald Trump was like, all right.

We'll take you.

I don't care what your rules are. Fine.

STU: No. And he has to. He has to.

To get in the -- you know, the same room of Joe Biden, in front of the American people is crucial for Donald Trump.

And he has to defend stuff like the border. We've talked about this for a while, going back now, a couple of World Series.

We're now finding out, that hundreds of thousands of people have come in these additional legal pathways. It's something we talked about on the air, at the time. To ease the, quote, unquote, pressure at the border.

The Biden administration went in there and said, basically, well, fly direct into these cities. And make appointments. And we won't count those as people coming into the country.

And that's happened now, with hundreds of thousands of people. The numbers just came out. They're really high. As you might expect.

And these aren't people that were counting them. When we're talking about how many people are crossing the border illegally. And coming through with asylum and all these other things that they're complaining about. They just took those people that would have been at the border, and flew them into Cleveland. And they're like, well, that solved the problem at the border. No. That didn't solve the problem at the border. Let me ask you this, Glenn. From a strategy perspective. I think this is fascinating, and I don't really understand it, and maybe you do. You know, when you go into overtime of a football game, right? You have the coin toss.

The coin toss, you have a choice as to what you want to do with that power. If you win the coin toss, you can either pick the end zone you're going to defend, or you can pick whether you get the ball first or second.

And, you know, the only time you really want to pick, when you're talking about what end zone to defend, is if maybe super windy conditions, you can make the argument. You know, but generally speaking, you never pick that one.

You pick whether you want to get the ball first or second, because that's the more important thing. So with this debate, they did a coin toss. And the decision was similar here. They had a choice. Joe Biden won the coin toss. So he was give up a decision to make.

Number one, you can pick which side of the stage you can be on. Left's podium. Or right's podium.

Or which -- I mean -- or --

GLENN: That's the one -- I can guarantee you, no matter what the or is. He picked that one.

STU: Or you can pick whether in closing statements, you go first. Or you go last.

GLENN: You go last. That's the one --

STU: The obvious choice here, you go last, right?

You have the final word in front of the American people.

GLENN: Right. You go last. If Donald Trump says some crazy thing about Hunter Biden at the last second and his closing statement. You would have a chance to answer it. You would have a chance to have the final word of the American people here.

What a big advantage that is, right?

Joe Biden won the coin toss, and picked the right podium. And now Donald Trump will be making the final statement in the debate. Do you have any concept as to why he would do that?

GLENN: No. Let me throw another wrinkle into this. Joe Biden must make that decision. Okay? It wasn't like they called Joe up. Hey, we won a coin toss.

STU: Coin toss.

GLENN: And, you know, here are your choices.

I know why --

STU: The right side.

GLENN: This wasn't done by him. It was done by most likely a committee or something.

This is not just his senility. It's --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: From the people who brought you the end of the Afghani war. I mean --

STU: You think it's incompetence.

Because my other thought was, maybe they are thinking? And let me throw this out there.

Whatever drug cocktail they're pumping into this guy. He has to be pumped up after that first 40 minutes. By the end, it will be a disaster.

And the last thing that they want, is the final vision of this debate, to be Joe Biden going.

GLENN: That is -- that is a possibility. That is a possibility.

However, you know, the closing statements, if you have the last word. And you know he's going to be bad.

You're suspecting that he's going to be.

All Donald Trump has to say, for his closing statement is, look, I understand you for inflation. I understand what you're going at the gas pump.

I understand how you feel about your safety. And the border.

I understand how you feel about all of these things.

You just heard him. Is that the vigorous leader that's going to solve these problems?

I mean, there's just no way. I would never let somebody have the last word.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In a debate. And especially, if you think he's going to be like...

STU: It's -- that's an incomprehensible one. I mean, does he -- he thinks that highly of -- that's my good side. I want to be on the right side. What --

GLENN: That is a possibility.

STU: That is possible. I guess.

GLENN: Hookers tell me all the time, this is my best side. I'm going to get that sex worker vote this time. I'm telling you.

STU: That's a weird development. I'm telling you. I cannot understand that at all. But we are less than a week away from that debate. Never happened this early. This is a very, very strange situation that happened in June. All these rules. And the dates. All these things.

I think we were initially designed for Trump to say no.

To say -- I will make these rules and requests so ridiculous. I'll be the guy who will say, I wanted the debate. He will be the guy that says no.

GLENN: Absolutely. Absolutely.

So that way, he didn't have to debate later. Because I offered a debate.

He wouldn't do it. And most people wouldn't have remembered that it was in June and everything else.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Donald Trump had no way. Nowhere to go, but to say yes. And I think he's eager. I think he can't wait.

I mean, the chance to sit in front of Joe Biden. You know, the only problem is, I wish it was -- I wish it was actually fair. We would have a drug test beforehand.

You know, and -- and these guys would actually talk about things, instead of just pounding on each other.

Because Donald Trump would win -- anyone would win against this guy's record. Anyone would win.

STU: Yeah. And there was a report from I think it was Maggie Haberman from the New York Times. Who, again, is a left-wing journalist.

So you could say, maybe this is inaccurate. But she does seem to have a lot of sources inside the Trump camp.

And her point was interesting. And I think hopeful. If you are someone who wants to see Joe Biden no longer be president. Which is, Trump has told confidants, that he regretted cutting Biden off a lot in the first debate 2020. We pointed that out, at the time. Like, you needed to give Biden.

GLENN: Let him hang himself.

STU: Right. You needed to give him that space.

And he didn't. Because he was trying to be aggressive. And trying to cut him off.

And saying he was lying about this. Which he was doing at times. But you also have to give Biden room to look horrible. All the things we know he loves on a daily basis. The American people need to see that. And he regretted that from the 2020 debate. If that report is true, it's good. I think he's being thoughtful about the strategy here, which is really important. This is a really important day.

GLENN: I think he is.

You know, Donald Trump, he knows television.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he just knows it.

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.