RADIOMay 01, 2024

Is it a GOOD IDEA to Oust Speaker Mike Johnson BEFORE the Election?

Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie have announced their plans to file a Motion to Vacate the Speaker of the House. But Democrats, under the leadership of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, have promised to block the attempt. So, would trying to oust Speaker Mike Johnson actually HELP the Democrats? Glenn asked Rep. Thomas Massie to defend his reasoning for ousting Johnson before the election. Massie lays out the 3 “betrayals” he believes Johnson has committed and what he believes Jeffries is really plotting.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You can say a lot of things about Thomas Massie. Some of them true, some of them false.

But the one thing that is absolutely true. He stands on his own principles.

And he is unwavering. In those principles. He joins us now. From the great state of Kentucky.

Republican representative. Thomas Massie. Hello, Thomas.

TOM: How are you doing, Glenn?

GLENN: I'm very good. I'm very good. I don't understand this whole Mike Johnson thing, as Speaker of the House. I don't understand what happened to him. How we went so wrong. You know, people are saying, that, oh, this has been a scam forever. He's been, you know, a RINO and just in hiding. And now, getting rid of him at this point. What good is that going to do? Or even moving from this, because do you have the numbers to do it?

TOM: Great questions. Let me talk about how we got to where we are.

GLENN: Okay.

TOM: So Mike Johnson has betrayed us three times. Big betrayals. He did an omnibus bill, that did does and he gave the FBI a brand-new bill in that omnibus bill. And he didn't give us time to read it. He gave up on doing 12 separate bills.

That was the first betrayal. Second betrayal, FISA. This is the spying program that's been used to surveil Americans without a warrant. He cast the deciding vote on whether to have warrants or not.

And he voted against warrants.

This is against what he stood for, when he was on the judiciary committee, that I serve on. With Jim Jordan.

So something has changed there. He said he spent time in a skiff, that changed his time. Guess what, Glenn. I don't know if your listeners know this. I spent three and a half hours with him, to get him briefed by CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI, and DNI, and a FISA judge.

And in three a half hours. They didn't give us a specific example. Not one, of how spying on Americans, without a warrant, has helped them stop terrorism, to give them hypotheticals. But no example.

So that was the second betrayal. No warrants. Now, you can still be spied on.

It's reauthorized. Third betrayal. Just happened. This one we're still stinging from.

You may see the videos of every Democrat in the House voted for. For Ukraine.

Premeditated. Passed out Ukrainian flags. And basically humiliating us.

And I think speaker Johnson. If he's capable of having shame at this point. Should have been humiliated by that display as well.

I put the video of that on Twitter. And a search told me they would fine me $500 if I didn't take it down. So I reposted it.
(music)
Because look, you're not supposed to put video of what's happening on the floor. But that was video of things that were breaking decorum. Right? I was trying to provide evidence that they were in the wrong. And instead of prosecuting them, they came after me.

GLENN: Sure.

NEIL: Now, we got 8 million views on the video after I reposted it, and Speaker Johnson backed down on that fine because he knew how bad that looked. So third betrayal. Was that, you know, Ukrainian vote, where send the money overseas. We gave up all leverage on any border security.

They included some other bad stuff in it.

GLENN: Let's talk about the $4 billion to help people from the Middle East immigrate here to the United States. Including Palestinians.

Are you nuts?

NEIL: Yeah. And you see, Mike Johnson will not stand up against that.

By the way, those three bills that I just mentioned to you. You know what happened when they went to the Senate. After they passed the House. Chuck Schumer didn't even change the punctuation of any of those bills.

He must want any amendments to them. He wanted them exactly as Mike Johnson wanted them in the house.

Because those were Chuck Schumer's bills that Mike Johnson put on the floor.

He's already in the arms of the union party. The question you rightfully ask: Is why do this? Well, the people are always asking me, Thomas. Can you show us. Can you give us a list, of the good guys and the bad guys. Can you tell me who the good guys are. I have a primary. I have a vote in. I have a general election. Tell me the list. This list. You will have another list, we keep doing this. At great peril to ourselves.

The reason there's only a few of them that are willing to stand up and call this. Is because you put -- you put your reputation on the line. And people here hate transparency. They hate us for doing it. You will have the list next week. When the motion to vacate is called. Of who went to the king Jeffries. And the Uniparty to keep Mike Johnson in power.

King Jeffries, the reason he's supporting Mike Johnson, he got everything the Democrats want, without any of the blowback by having Mike Johnson as speaker. And they also -- they have some claims for other things.

They may resettle Palestinian refugees in the United States. And pay for it. They may want to make the funding for Ukraine permanent.

And before our next election, there's going to be another CR or omnibus or something.

That's coming September 30. So some people are like, well, why would you do this now, Congressman Massie?

Hasn't all the bad stuff -- hasn't Mike already done all the bad stuff to us?

Can't we just sit it out to the next election?

No. Because what Hakeem Jeffries wants more than anything is to be the speaker, and the only way he becomes the speaker is by getting the majority of the House in November.

And he knows Mike Johnson is the most uninspiring speaker we've ever had.

It will not do anything to inspire -- most likely to lose the majority under speaker Johnson.

GLENN: So what would the plan B. If you could get this to pass. I mean, well, first of all.

Let me ask you.

How many -- how many other Freedom Caucus members are standing with you?

NEIL: Well, I think before Hakeem Jeffries came out for Speaker Johnson. There were probably somewhere between 12 and 20 who didn't want to speak, but would have voted with us.

Now, I think, you may have maybe the entire Freedom Caucus. We'll see.

I know people outside of the Freedom Caucus.

Who said, if one Democrat votes to keep Mike Johnson. I ain't voting to keep him.

Because they know what that means. That means it's the Uniparty.

Now, the first vote will be on a motion to table. To try and prevent this from even coming up for appear actual vote. But people should understand, that is -- that motion to table, if they succeed. That is the only vote that will happen. And that is your list there.

Are those the people who saved Mike Johnson. Which Hakeem Jeffries. And all the Democrat leadership, said they'll do it. And some Democrat ranking file. There are some Republicans, who sit at the table. But that will be the vote. Now, if we could succeed.

Okay. If we could get past that motion to table. And maybe Hakeem Jeffries has only 40 Democrats, who are willing to walk the plank. I can imagine that will be tough for them and their primaries. Unless they're planning on retiring. Can you imagine? You've saved the Christian speaker, who is against abortion, and all this other stuff. And what's the -- anyways.

So I don't -- I'm not sure how many votes Hakeem has. But I think he helped us grow our numbers. Let's say we help them pass that vote. There is a motion to vacate. And Mike Johnson is vacating. At that point, who would we elect?

Well, we would like for Mike Johnson to avoid the scenario, I just described.

We're giving him a weekend to resign.

If he would announce that he's leaving, like John Boehner did in ten weeks.

And he won't be offended as we have votes to replace him while he's still speaker. We could go without ever not having a speaker.

We could keep doing subpoenas, and the judiciary committees. We could have hearings and pass all these wonderful old messaging bills that they love to pass. But if that doesn't happen, we'll have to elect a Speaker. We will be on the spot.

I think there are a dozen people, in the G.O.P. conference. Who have something in their entire life.

Whether it's political experience. Or prior experience nap qualifies them for the job.

Mike Johnson is a lost ball in tall weeds. I don't think there's some conspiracy, where they've got kids locked in the basement. Or something like that.

I don't think they have info on him, or blackmail material. I just don't think he can do the job.

And there's nothing in his life that prepared him for that. Let's find someone that can. Hopefully that will inspire people to keep them in the majority. Even Hakeem Jeffries bails Mike Johnson out, next week. They're not going to bail him out in January.

We know he's a lame duck speaker.

But he knows it. Let's get him out of there, before he causes any more mischief.

GLENN: What did McCarthy do better than Johnson?

NEIL: Oh, that's a great question. Under McCarthy, we did seven of the 12 bills. Okay. There's 12 separate bills. He said, we'll do an omnibus. We got seven of the 12. We got 7 of the 12 done. We had a thousand amendments. I'm not on the rules committee. We got votes on a thousand amendments to allow rank-and-file members to participate in the legislative process. When Mike Johnson came on board, he did two or three CRs. He ignored the 7 bills we had done. He made no effort to do the other five. And he said, you will get a two-part omnibus.

That was the bad thing.

The second thing, well, Kevin McCarthy could have cut a deal with the Democrats. And could have been still speaker now.

He said, I will not do it.

The position is not that important to me.

We will make a Uniparty here, and share power. So that's another thing that Mike Johnson has expressed a willingness to do.

That Kevin wouldn't do. And finally, as a part of the debt limit deal, this last summer.

Kevin extracted, from Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer.

This is signed into law. And still law. That if you do a CR. And it goes past April 30th.

Basically, halfway through the fiscal year. There's a 1 percent cut.

And Kevin secured that from Joe Biden.

Mike onset had three choices, on the spending bills. When he came into office.

He could use the 1 percent cut option. He could have worked on the five other bills. Or he could have duplicate the omnibus.

He actually could have done the 1 percent cut option. That Kevin had secured.

And spent a lot of political capital on getting that provision in law.

So those are three things that Kevin did that Mike didn't.

And Kevin, put through of us on the rules committee.

That gave us a blocking position. Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, and myself. And we used that for good. We forced the 72-hour rule for the entire time Kevin was speaker. That's another thing Johnson threw out the window.

You don't always get three days to read a bill now. He's overriding his own rules committee. And he's going with Democrats to do it.

GLENN: Do you think this was -- you know, I write in some place.

You know, this was planned from the beginning. He's been lying in wait, trying to pretend that he was part of the Freedom Caucus for years.

Do you believe that?

ANN: Yeah. You know, what really confused me. Is the readiness with which, sort of the big spenders in Washington, DC.

Where they accepted Mike Johnson as a valid speaker candidate. After defeating Jim Jordan multiple times.

They found Jim Jordan unsuitable. But they found this junior member very unsuitable to the job, who had no experience. You know, had never been a chairman. Didn't have much staff.

And I think at that point, they got some assurance from Mike Johnson. That he -- or some feeling, that Mike Johnson would be a good guy to carry the water for the establishment here in DC.

And that's exactly what he's done.

GLENN: Hmm. Well, Thomas, when do you file? Is this Monday?

NEIL: Probably what will happen is we'll file Monday. Speaker Johnson, because it's a privileged resolution. The only thing that has higher privilege is motion to adjourn.

So he will have two days. Two legislative days to bring it up. So if we file it on Monday. The vote will either be Monday immediately. Or Tuesday or Wednesday.

If we file it on Tuesday. It would be either on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Would be the vote.

GLENN: You don't believe he will back away?

I mean, you put this, or Marjorie Taylor Greene did. She put this in line, to be brought up, as kind of a threat.

Hey, we're thinking about doing this. Don't push it.

And he did it anyway.

NEIL: That's right. So he called the bluff, and we're calling the bluff. And we will have this vote.

What I hope, Glenn, is that our conference chair. Our Whip. And our Majority Floor Leader would go to Mike Johnson.

We exhibit the leadership, that we put them on that team to exhibit. And say, Mike, it's over.

It's just not worth what you're doing.

You're going and partnering with Hakeem Jeffries. And the minority whip, and the minority conference chair.

We can't do that. So I would like to see them go, convince Mike Johnson as a team.

It's time for him to step aside. He could still do that.

And I know as improbable as it sounds. And as resolved as Mike Johnson seems when he gets to the podium. That's exactly how John Boehner was, until the five minutes he took to resign.

STU: Thomas, I know we only have about a minute left. But if the concern is that, you know, Johnson will work with Jeffries, when he's put up against the wall and do these things.

If you go forward with this, you're making Johnson's political life, dependent on Hakeem Jeffries saving. I mean, couldn't this potentially just make all of this worse?

NEIL: It's very painful to expose this. I think what we're illuminating. I don't think we're causing him to go in that direction. We're illuminating what actually exists in Washington, DC. And why you don't get the results you want.

Is because he's already in league with Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and Hakeem Jeffries.

And we're just illuminating what would be otherwise, I believe.

GLENN: Thomas, God bless you.

Thank you for standing up for your principles. Whether people agree or disagree with, you know, you and your stance.

I will tell you, that I have a lot of respect for somebody who will take the heat, because they won't sit down on their principles.

Thank you.

NEIL: Well, thanks, Glenn. People say, this is a lost cause. You shouldn't do it. People didn't elect us to give up. People elected us to try. And that's what we're doing.

GLENN: Thank you so much. Appreciate 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.