RADIOSeptember 24, 2024

Were Trump rallygoers ATTACKED or accidentally injured in Tucson?

Rallygoers who sat behind Donald Trump’s podium at his recent rally in Tucson, Arizona, have reported suspicious injuries to their eyes. Some emergency physicians have suggested that these injuries could be the result of extreme exposure to lighting. But others believe that a chemical agent may have been deployed. So, what’s the truth? Glenn and Stu review the evidence. Plus, they run through some of the biggest oddities about the second failed Trump assassin: How did he get a gun as a convicted felon? Why did he appear to serve no jail time? And why are these attempted killers so often on the FBI’s radar?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: What about the story, TheBlaze, spoke to a journalist, who then spoke to ten people, from Tucson.

Did you hear about the Trump rally in Tucson?

Let me give this story from TheBlaze.

After attending a Trump rally in Tucson, Arizona, last week. Roughly 20 attendees, reported mysterious symptoms such as blurred vision. And facial swelling, following the event. While we still don't know what happened, many are speculating that a chemical attack took place.

Could the strange illness, that affected the attendees be the result of more political violence, incited by Democrats and the mainstream media.

Political journalist, Christie Kelly. Joined Jill Savage and the Blaze News tonight panel to discuss this deeply concerning situation.

According to Kelly, this was not an ordinary rally. Primarily, because there was a lot of consternation going into the rally. The namesake of the venue. Linda Ronstadt, published a social media. A lengthy post, stating her displeasure with Trump for even being there.

You know, there's always something good that comes out of even the worse. I now know. I can answer the question if someone asks me: Is Linda Ronstadt still alive?

I know the answer. I know the answer. So let's look at the bright side.

Kelly who has spoken with a lot of people. Ten of them, who have come down with some sort of mystery illnesses, all of whom happen to be seated tremendously behind Donald Trump.

Blaze Media asked one of these people -- Kelly said those afflicted individuals reported that everything in the rally, went fine. However, right after the rally, strange maladies began setting in.

Every person that we spoke to, said 20 to 30 minutes after they left the rally, they began to get blurry eyes. Blurry vision. Some said, their nose started stinging. And they started feeling redness, that progressively got worse.

Adding that the majority of people she spoke with. Did then end up in the ER.

Some were referred to their ophthalmologist, gave me the paperwork. Which included, bilateral ocular chemical burn in the eye.

The emergency room physicians were less definitive indicating that the strange systems could have been, quote, a result of extreme exposure to lighting. Or potentially

An irritant in the air.

However, the opposite that ophthalmologist reports indicated that it was some sort of chemical burn. Despite both the event center and local law enforcement being notified of the situation, we have not received a statement from either the facility, or the Tucson police.

Thankfully, the Trump campaign is taking this initiative on to find out exactly what happened.

So what happened there? What happened there?

Does anybody -- I mean, does anybody care?

Seriously, does anyone care, anymore?

This is now -- and it could be just some chemical that we're on big -- I mean, they just don't use these lights anymore. But, you know, like, big stage lights that burn really hot. And maybe they were new. And they had some chemical.

I don't think that's happened since like 1971. But maybe. Maybe.

But why did it only affect the people that were directly behind Donald Trump?

Now, let's go back, and look at some of the other things.

So we have a problem with the FBI. And then we've talked about it before.

The FBI, the suspect was on our radar. Oh.

Were they? They were on your radar?

Oh, well, that's good. Do you mean radar range?

Is that a microwave you're looking at? Well, yeah. There was a sticky note. Put his name out on a stick zero note.

And just taped it to the microwave door. Because we were making popcorn. And thought, hey. Every time we make popcorn. You should look into that guy.

What does that mean, they're on their radar?

The FBI told Just The News on a statement on Tuesday, that it receives thousands of tapes every day, which is fielded through its National Threat Operations Center in West Virginia.

The tips involving a threat to life. Serious bodily injury. Or significant violent action are treated the highest priority. And are referred to the appropriate, FBI field office, or other relevant offices. Through this process, the FBI was notified about the dangers of certain people, that could pose at least a threat.

Five times they've received one. That was a potential threat.

That was on their radar.

That went on to commit mass shooting. Or attempts, to kill Donald Trump.

We know the most recent events. First assassination attempt. And now the second assassination attempt.

This guy, Ryan Westly Ralph, allegedly aimed an AK-47, that we know nothing about through the fence at the golf course.

He was charged with possession of a firearm, as a felon. And possession of a firearm, with an obliterated -- there's that word again.

STU: Yeah. Every time.

GLENN: -- serial number. He had been flagged by the FBI back in 2019.

So he was on the radar, for several years.

He was also, the subject of a previously closed tip to the FBI. Where he was allegedly.

Allegedly, he was a felon in possession of a firearm. Well, there was no allegedly about it. He was, for some reason, doesn't this sound strange.

Just ask yourself, gun owners. Would this happen to you?

If you had been a convicted felon, because you were even just brandishing a firearm.

But he went actually in and had a stnadoff with police. And he had a fully automatic weapon. Do you think you would have been judged guilty, in a court of law. And then just like, you know, you're on your own recognizance. And not paid any time in prison.

Why did that happen? He has several run-ins with the law, and he's never put in jail.
Why?

Now, you could come up with all kinds of theories. But they would involve conspiracies.

And I don't want to get into conspiracy theories. I'll get into conspiracy facts.

But I only have theories, on this one. One of those theories does not explain any of that.

But it does -- it does lead one to caution, that this government has so much information on all of us.

That within five minutes, of being asked, AI could find people like this.

That are unstable. That could be used. That have an axe to are grind. That have access to weapons. That they could just have AI suggest to them, in no way traceable. You know, you really have a responsibility to kill the president.

That's the world we're living in now.

And the government has that direct power.

I'm not saying that they have used it.

I'm saying, you cannot trust that kind of power, in the hands of a system, that you don't trust.

Who trusts it?

And I asked that of Democrats.

If you trust this, I mean, I think you're crazy. If you trust this system, what happens if Trump gets in? Do you trust that system?

See, unless you're planning on a one-party system. Somebody is going to get in, that doesn't agree with you. That's why, you don't want any of this stuff happening, no matter who is president.

Your guy or the other guy. You don't want this kind of power, in the hands of an out-of-control government.

And the only way you make sure that you don't have the power, in somebody's hands, that you don't trust, is that obey the law, and you demand that the law be enforced equally, all the time. Pragmatism I don't know how -- I really don't know how more Americans don't understand. The danger, that we're all in.

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.

How to DEPROGRAM your friends from the anti-Trump CULT

The Democratic Party is going down a dangerous path. It has convinced millions of Americans that Donald Trump is the single greatest threat to the country. It has punished people for daring to question the narrative. It has turned neighbor against neighbor and brother against brother. Sound familiar? We saw the same symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. So, what’s really going on here? Glenn runs through Steven Hassan’s 50 attributes of cults and compares them to the modern Democratic Party. The results are shocking! Plus, Glenn gives his advice on how you can help your loved ones escape this cult.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a lot I want to talk to you today, I just said a couple of minutes ago. Before we went on the national broadcast. That there are some things, that I have had on my mind, for 20 years. Some things that I hoped that I would never have to say to you.

But today, just very well may be that day. There's some really important things that are happening around the world.

For instance, the UN is voting in, all of these really Draconian laws. This week.

And we're going to get into that next hour.

It is the formation of one global government.

And we're all for it. Did you know that? That's happening right now.

Today. We'll talk about it coming up in just a second. We're not talking to each other. You know, I think every day of my friends and my -- some of my family members, who are -- who are living in a dream.

They just -- they hate Donald Trump so much, they just can't get past it. And they think that, you know, I'm delusional.

I know you have this in your family. You you've got to remember, my family -- you know, I'm the stinky brother. I'm the -- I was the youngest. So, you know, what does Glenn know? Nobody in my family is impressed by me, so -- it's a good thing too. It keeps humble.

But it's hard. It's hard. Because I know what I know.

How do you talk to people?

Why can't they seat things that you see? How come they can't see, this isn't about Donald Trump.

It's not about Donald Trump. It is truly about freedom.

But they are being told, that Donald Trump is the biggest -- the biggest obstacle.

The biggest dangerous to freedom and the republic.

And I think in some ways, COVID-19 broke us. I mean, this has been happening for a while. But COVID-19 broke. As people who were once reasonable, began to call for the banishment, of the unvaccinated from civil society.

It was truly remarkable, what happened to us. People were saying, we should be sent to jail, if you didn't get vaccinated. Some people said, we shouldn't get medical care. Doctors, nurses, said they wouldn't treat people. You let people with cancer die. Death was divided by vaccine status. And treated accordingly.

Information was censored, quote, for our own good. Anyone who questioned the leader, or fell out of line was deemed as dangerous or literally accused of killing people.

Steven Hassan developed the BITE -- B-I-T-E model, by among other things, studying the brainwashing that happened in Maoist China. BITE, B-I-T-E, stands for behavior, information, thought, and emotional control.

BITE. And it identifies the patterns used by cults or Communists to manipulate their members. This is the same things that the Germans did. The Nazis did.

Now, there are 50 attributes to watch for.

But I want you to listen to this. I don't know if I'm going to have time to go through all 50. But I will hit many of them quickly. But I want to you listen to this. And compare them to your experience during the COVID-19 pandemic and right now.

Here's what a cult does to its people, to indoctrinate them: Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates from. Financial exploitation. Manipulation. Or dependence.

Restrict leisure, entertainment, and vacation time. Permission is required for major decisions. Does any of this sound like COVID-19?

Rewards and punishments are used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative.

You could go to work, if you're vaccinated. You cannot go to work if you haven't had the vaccine.

Discourage individualism, encourage groupthink, impose rigid rules and regulations, instill dependency and obedience. Deliberately withhold information. Distort information to make it more acceptable.

Systematically lie. Number 12, minimize or discourage access to non-cult sources of information.

Don't do your own homework. God forbid, you're not doing your own homework, are you?

Internet, TV, radio, books, articles, newspapers, magazines, media, all critical information.

Don't talk to anybody who disagrees with what the leadership says. And keep people so busy, they don't have time to think or investigate, and control through cell phone with texting, calls, internet, tracking. In a cult, information is tightly controlled.

Members are discouraged or forbidden from doing homework, outside of the cult.

Critical thinking and questioning are not just discouraged. They're seen as signs of betrayal.

Sound familiar? Encourage spying, on other members.

Extensive use of cult-generated information and propaganda, including newsletters, magazines, journals, audiotapes, videotapes, and other media. Require members to internalize the group's doctrine as truth.

Think, if you're not an antiracist, you are a racist.

And come to this program, that we're now having in your office. And internalize it. Say it.

Live it. Say it! Preach it!

Instill black and white thinking. Decide between good and evil. And organize people into us versus them.

The use of loaded language and clichés, that constrict knowledge. Stop critical thoughts, and reduce complexities into buzzwords.

Follow the science. He's an existential threat to our democracy.

Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, and constructive criticism. Forbid critical questions about the leadership, doctrine, or policy.

Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, destructive, or not useful.

Make the person feel that the problems are always their own fault. Never the fault of the leaders or the group.

You just don't understand inflation. You're part of this racist system. Promote feelings of guilt, or unworthiness, such as identity guilt. You're a white man.

You're not doing enough to save the planet.
Your family is really the problem. Your past is suspect. Your affiliations are unwise.

Your thoughts. Your feelings. Your actions are irrelevant or selfish. They -- they pile on social guilt and historic guilt.

This is not about -- I didn't write this. Historical guilt. Fear, shame, and guilt are very powerful tools.

Members are often told that leaving the group will result in catastrophic consequences.

Either in this life, or the next. Now, let me ask you: Catastrophic consequences. You mean like, everyone will die because of global warming, if you don't step up. And shout down everyone who is questioning?

Those people should be put in jail. We don't have time to debate it.

Shunning all those who leave.

Giving a fear of being rejected by friends and family, if you leave.

Tulsi. RFK Jr. Roseanne.

Who else? Who else has left, and they've been completely shunned?

I'll tell you who else. Everyone else who has woken up. Everyone else, they all say, my gosh, I've lost all of my friends!

Phobia, indoctrination. Inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group. Or questioning the leader's authority.

That's not even -- that's not the whole list, by the way. Does it seem like maybe, we're witnessing this kind of stuff?

The antiracist stuff.

I can never be forgiven for that. No. The moment you're saying, you're not a racist, is taken as a proclamation of guilt.

And the cycle just begins over again.

Being an antiracist, it never stops. It never, ever stops.

It is really quite brilliant.

You know, you want to know, which one is building a cult.

Let me ask you: Which one has hired all of the best behavioral scientists, to help them form all of their policies.

It's not Donald Trump. Why would you hire a behavioral scientist?

Well, behavioral scientists are really a -- a modern version of propagandists.

How can I get you to do something, without you knowing I'm trying to get you to do something?

How can I play things off each other? It is manipulation.

All of the best behavioral scientists, are all working for the administration, and the democratic party.

It's all manipulation.

So what do we do?

I mean, because, they have -- they have sought out the people with vulnerabilities.

They have sought out the people who have a sense of guilt. Why are so many white people the ones who are telling black people exactly how to live? Why are they?

Because they have this sense of guilt, for some reason.

People with a vulnerability, also, you know, you've been kept down. You've been kept down.

If they can identify people that are vulnerable, the cult will offer an antidote.

And they have to -- they have to have a bad guy. They have to have a Satan, to point at.

So, what do we do about it?

How do we talk to our friends?

Well, there is no easy quick, I think we can do this in 40 days. That's not going to happen.

But I will tell you, as I was looking at the ways, you solve it, I realized, this is what has happened in so many relationships that I know of.

The wrong thing has happened. And it's because we don't know -- because we are looking at this like, wait. Think about this rationally. They can't. They can't. And that's no fault of their own.

They have been manipulated and brainwashed.

GLENN: So getting somebody out of a cult, is really hard, and very frustrating.

And it takes a long time. And you make a mistake, and you reset.

Because it's all about trust. No. I can't say that.

It's all about truly loving the other person. And listening.

And then, no matter how angry you might get, never expressing that anger.

Because if you want to save them, you must listen to them. And it's so hard. So let me give you some advice. Talking to your -- your family and your friends. This is -- this is going to become very critical.

Because even our own side, could splinter. And the only ones that will save the Constitution, even if it is just being lived in your own home, will be those who are exercising love in this way.

First, do not assume bad intentions.

There are people that have bad intentions.

But not everybody. Some of them actually believe -- most of them. If they're people you know. And they're your family.

You know them!

They -- they don't have ill intent.

They've been convinced that they're on the right side.

So don't understand assume ill intent.

And then it starts with asking questions.

I don't know, how my -- my friends got there.

I really don't.

How did you get there?

Wait. I really want to understand.

And if you try to defend yourself on this, you will lose, examine you will have to start all over again, some other time.

So you can't get angry. And you can't defend.

You just want to know the answer to questions.

And it has to be sincere. And it has to show respect.

Tell me about this. Tell me. I want to understand, Donald Trump and how you got there. And what you think. You've got to stay calm, which is another hard one. And then, you have to make the complete case. Your case. Complete case. Every single time.

It -- if you can do the first three, don't assume ill intent. And make sure that they know, that you're not blaming them for anything. Ask them honest questions. Stay calm.

Then you might be able to make your case.

But you have to make the full case. And it's got to be solid. The biggest problem we have now, we are -- we are becoming almost spiritually dead.

We're losing our spiritual well-being.

We've got a cultural revolution. A sexual revolution. We need a spiritual restoration, we need a national revival. Find all of this now, at GlennBeck.com.