RADIOMarch 19, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Makes CRAZY Argument for MORE Censorship?!

During the Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tried to argue that the government’s First Amendment rights were under attack. According to her, the government should have the ability under the First Amendment to pressure social media companies to censor people. But Glenn had some other thoughts. If the government can violate your rights when there’s “trouble,” Glenn argues, then you don’t have rights. Glenn lays out how that’s NOT the US Constitution. That’s the SOVIET Constitution.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, I don't know if you heard Justice Jackson yesterday.

But woo!

Was she -- she's in tune with our system of government. Here she is, yesterday, where free speech is on trial. The government is making the claim, that their free speech is being limited, because they want to tell social media what to do.

And their First Amendment rights, are being trampled on.

Just so you know, the government doesn't have First Amendment rights. The First Amendment right goes to the people. And it says, that the government can't tell you what you can say and what you can't say.

Here is justice brown Jackson yesterday.

VOICE: Justice Jackson.

VOICE: My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways, in the most important time periods.

I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple of times, that the government can post its own speech.

But in my hypothetical. You know, kids, this is not safe. Don't do it is not going to get it done.

And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me?

Because I'm really worried about that. Because you've got the First Amendment operating.

GLENN: Okay. Sure. Uh-huh.

VOICE: In an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's perspective. And you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems.

GLENN: Okay. Sure.

I would love to help you with that. I would love to help you with that. Let me help you.

And I appreciate your asking for help. Don't usually experience that, you know, cry for help on understanding any of the amendments, let alone the first one from a Supreme Court justice. But I appreciate your willingness to say, I really don't have a clue as to what I'm doing here.

See, we have a Bill of Rights, that was built -- our country is built, up like any other country in the world.

And our Bill of Rights came from a -- a Founding Era, where they had been really living under the thumb of a tyrant. And so they knew tyranny firsthand. And it made them very, very skittish about governments, and what they could do.

Because when governments speak, that's one thing. The government can speak, and say, hey. This is bad. You shouldn't do this.

But when governments coerce people, especially businesses, well, they've got an awful lot of power.

And that can turn into tyranny quickly.

Now, the -- the Bill of Rights was written, and especially the First Amendment, was -- was written, for those bad times.

You know, you -- I know you're worried about, well, these -- I mean, freedom of speech is great. Unless things are, you know, troubled.

Well, okay. But that's why think wrote this down.

Our documents are a negative charter of liberties.

So it means that the Bill of Rights, apply to the citizens, but not to the governments. The government cannot do anything to violate these rights. And if, you know, it changes when there's trouble, or when the government feels there's trouble, well, then, you don't really have the right, do you?

And I really don't have any shackles, on the presidency. The administration, or the government.

What you have, actually, is another Constitution, written in 1936. It was really great. Because of the way it -- I mean, it was way advanced.

All voting restrictions were taken off. Universal direct suffrage. The right to work.

Guaranteed by the previous Constitution. In addition, to 1936, and, by the way, I'm not talking about Germany. Okay.

1936. The Constitution recognized the collective and economic rights. Including the right to work. The right to rest. The health protection.

Care in old age. And in sickness. The right to housing and education and cultural benefits.

It was really a cutting edge Constitution. Because everybody wants that stuff, right?

You have a universal right to it.

And all of the government bodies, had to help provide those things, because you, the citizen have a right.

And they want right direct election, of all government bodies. And they -- they reorganized it, at 36.

And they just -- they streamlined the government. You know, so there wasn't a lot of red tape. So Article 122, in the -- in the Constitution, said that women, are accorded equal rights with men.

Now, this is 1936.

Think about how advanced this is.

Women have equal rights with men, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life.

In fact, they were really the first one to make sure that there was, you know, kindergartens, and a universal right to kindergarten, and maternity leave, and prematernity, and protection of the mom and her interests.

It was really, really good. In article 122. In 123. That was the equal rights for all citizens.

It was -- it was equity for everybody. Irrespective of their nationality or their race.

In all spheres of life. And they wanted to make sure that there was racial inclusiveness, and no hatred, or contempt. Or restrictions of rights and privileges on account of nationality or race.

And if you did any of these hate crimes, it was punishable by law. So this is now the -- the Soviet Constitution of 1936. And it was the longest running Constitution of the Soviet Union. And it was great. Article 124, guaranteed freedom of religion.

Including the separation of church and state. And school from church.

And 124, it ensured all citizens the freedom of conscience. Freedom of religious worship. And freedom of any anti-reckless propaganda, recognized for all citizens. Which was nice, and in 124, Stalin, in the face of real stiff opposition there, eventually said, you know what, maybe we should talk to the Russian orthodox church. Maybe we should allow them to exist. And he did, kind of. But it was all within the Constitution. Because see, this Constitution is a Constitution of positive liberties. Unlike ours, negative liberties. Telling the government what it cannot do. Theirs is a positive liberty. All the things the government must do.

And article 125. Remember, this is 1936. Article 125 of the Constitution, guaranteed freedom of speech in the press. And freedom of assembly.

Then they said, look, the Communist Party really needs to come together.

And we can have diversity in the Communist Party. But it's only one party in the free elections. So you could -- you could do that.

Now, this Constitution, was written in 1936.

And it was thoroughly democratic. Thoroughly democratic.

I mean, yeah. Once the writers of the Constitution. And the organizers, you know, finished it. They were imprisoned, and/or executed right after. Because they were counterrevolutionaries. And, you know, you have to get rid of those people.

There were some people that were just too radical. And they were the writers of the Constitution. But, you know, that's an old dusty document.

Sure, it was written last week. But they didn't foresee everything.

So they started the great -- the great terror.

Is what it's called.

I don't know what happened during the great terror.

But it coincided with the signing of the new Constitution.

But everybody was protected. You could say whatever you want.

You know, you could look at the great terror, or the subcategory of the great purge.

And say, hey. You know what, they're stepping on those rights. There. Those people.

But they are people that the state really doesn't. You know, the state really needs some authority to be -- sure, you have a right to speak. You know, you have the enjoyment of rights and freedoms of citizens. But, I'm just quoting the Constitution, not to the detriment of the interests of society. Or the state.

So if you saw something, you know, like Ketanji -- whatever her name is. Jackson brown. Jackson -- whatever her name is.

I love her. And she is right.

When the state has an interesting, because the state knows best, then we have to, you know, restrain people from saying things. So let me just -- let me just quote article 39. Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society, or the state.

Amen! That's what she's saying. I mean, they've been saying this since 1936 in the Soviet Union. Article 59 obliged citizens to obey all the laws and comply with the standards of the socialist society as determined by the party. So if the party said, you know, let's just say, we can mutilate your children.

You can speak out about that. I mean, you're going to have to go to jail for it.

Because it will be a hate crime.

In fact, hate crimes were even mentioned specifically, in that 19 -- they were so far ahead.

They were just -- they were just way, way, way, way, way ahead. Because they were already on those hate crimes. You know, you don't have a -- you don't have a right to say, you know.

For instance, here it is. Quote, the Constitution prohibits incitement of hatred or hostility on any religious ground.

So you couldn't just, you know, say to the Bible. Bible says this.

If it incited hatred. So -- and the Constitution, you know, gave -- you have a freedom of conscience. You can do that.

You can profess or not profess any religion.

And you can conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. As long -- and I'm quoting. As long as it's in the interest of the state. You see.

Because they know better. They know better.

So Ketanji, I just -- I'm trying to help you. Because you asked for help yesterday. Which I find just so refreshing. That a talk show host, that is a recovering alcoholic and former DJ, who is just completely self-educated, you know, knows this stuff, better than a Supreme Court justice. But I think that's great, that, you know, you're humble enough to say, I don't know my ass from my elbow. I think that's great. I really do. I really do.

So let's just remember, the government, you know -- we have inalienable rights. What does that mean?

I don't know. Something about aliens from space, Ketanji. No.

Means no man can change those rights. Alter those rights. Or take away. That's what inalienable means.

And in the Soviet Union, they didn't that have, okay?

They didn't have inalienable rights. You as a citizen can, and I'm quoting. Enjoy rights. When the exercise of these rights, do not interfere with the interests of the state, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, they alone have the power and authority to determine policies for the government and society.

What a utopia that is. Man, if we could just model our Constitution on something as open-minded as this, we would certainly be fixed. Kind of in the way, my dog was fixed. But we would be fixed all right.

WARNING: This British FAILURE could spread across the Western world

The United Kingdom is now arresting over 12,000 people a year for "speech crimes" and is debating doing away with trial by jury for many crimes. Glenn Beck warns that if this can be done in the birthplace of these principles (under the Magna Carta), it can happen to the entire West if we don't END this insanity now!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me just start here. Because there is -- there is another story that is out in our newsletter today, that talks about how people of college age are freaking out, after Charlie Kirk's death. They don't want anything controversial on campus.

I mean, that's the reason why colleges and universities had protection of free speech, in the first place.

Was to be controversial. To be able to say the things that nobody wants you to say.

And it's really important.

But let me -- let me first remind people of what the Magna Carta is.

It's 1215? The Magna Carta is Latin for the great chart.

Had it not some magnanimous gift from the king.

The king. King John from England. He was -- he was losing a battle. France was just cleaning England's clock.

The baryons and all the lords and the ladies. Said, you know, this king sucks a lot. This king sucks a lot.

And we've got to stop him. Because he's destroying everything.

And he -- he had lost most of the land, to France. And then he started just imposing huge taxes on everybody. And -- and because nobody in the lower class had any -- this all happened with the lords and the ladies. And they were like, enough. Enough. Enough.

You're abusing your royal power.

Well, nobody had ever said that before. That just didn't happen. He had a divine right. He's the king. But in England, they said, no.

You still have to be moral. You have certain laws, and you can't just do these things.

And so what they did, is they got him to agree to the great charter, the Magna Carta. And it placed the king under the law. Before that, the king was the law. So now the king is under the law: It created the principle of due process. Never before did we have that.

You can't be imprisoned, punishment or stripped of property, except by the lawful judgment of your peers or the law of the land. So this creates jury trials. It creates habeas corpus. Protection from arbitrary arrests. All of these things. The government now has to justify itself in a court of law.

That's revolutionary, okay? It also limited taxation without consent. Which we interpreted later as no taxation without representation. Rule of law. Jury trials. Rights of the accused.

Limits on government. Protection of property. Accountability of leaders. All of that comes from the Magna Carta. Okay?

That gave birth, 500 years later, to us and our ideas. Okay?

Now, England, the birthplace of the Magna Carta is now thinking about getting rid of jury trials and arresting more than 12,000 people every year for what they call speech crimes. 12,000!
Now, I want you to think about that.

In Russia, in the same year this stat came out. The latest year that we have, 2023. In 2023, Russia arrested 4,000 people for speech crimes against the Russian military for Ukraine.

4,000 in Russia, 12,000 in England.

The number I saw. We don't have all the numbers. But the number I saw that were arrested for speech crimes in China was 120.

Okay?

Not for violence. Not for theft.

Not for treason.

12,000 in England for words.

Okay. Now, well, that's going on, now the Prime Minister is floating the idea of eliminating, if not most, many jury trials.

It will only be for murder, manslaughter, oh, and something else like that.

Okay?

So, in other words, if you're like, I believe you should be able to read the Bible in your own language, in your own home, Tisdale.

You don't get any hope. You don't get a jury trial. You get the court. You get the king trying you, not a jury of your peers.

This goes against the Magna Carta, the lawful judgment of your peers. Okay?

That's the safeguard that stands between you and an out-of-control state. This is the first and ancient firewall against tyranny. It is what makes England, England.

And if England of all places, tosses that aside, what does the word "free" mean anymore?

Okay? What does it mean? You can't speak, and then you have no jury -- trial of your peers. Wait. What? First of all, understand this: A nation that polices speech is not free!

A nation that dissolves juries is not just unfree, it's prepping for something worse!

Because the entire architecture of the western world, the liberty that we have, rests on a single radical belief.

The truth does not need a king. The truth shall set you free. Who? Is it not what. Who is the truth? Okay.

No king, but Christ. Because Christ is the truth. That's the Western world!

A person's conscience does not need a permit. Speech does not need a bureaucrat's approval before it leaves your lips! That's the West.

That's what built the world. What took it from darkness, to today.

Freedom is not granted we the state. Freedom preexists government.

Government's only legitimate job is to protect it!

Now, here's the dark little secret, that every single tyrant, and every politician knows today. If you control speech, you control thought. If you control thought, you control people.

If you control people, you don't ever have to worry about controlling the government because no one will ever challenge you again!

This is why it is so essential for any side to go, you can't talk to them.

Don't talk to them. Don't listen. Don't question.

You can't hear that. No. They can say whatever they want. But I have a right to refute it. That's why free speech has to be absolute. Not mostly free.

Not free unless it makes Billy over there cry and uncomfortable.

No. I'm sorry, Billy. You don't like it. Refute it.

Freedom that depends on somebody else's freedoms is not freedom!

Freedom that requires government approval is not freedom! Freedom that can be revoked because a bureaucrat doesn't like your tone is not freedom. Once speech becomes conditional, everything become conditional. Your rights, your property, your conscience, your place in society. Because you only live by permission! Never by principle!

We live by principles. Not people!

Who is actually free?

Who is actually free?

The England that once declared the king himself to be subject of law, or the England that now arrests a man because he's posted the wrong meme?

12,000 people!

Can't find one in 2023 that was arrested for that in America. Not one. The England that gave us John Locke, the philosopher of natural rights. Is that person free?

Or the England that now warns citizens that context doesn't matter, if their words cause someone, anyone, emotional harm.

Britain is about loss. But this is not just a British problem. This is the canary in the coal mine for the entire west.

Because these are the people that came up with it. When the mother country forgets its own legacy, jury trials and freedom of speech. When the random that once stared down monarchs now cowers before hashtags and activists and speech tribunals, than somewhere deep inside the Western soul, a light is flickering.

We must remember here, before that same darkness reaches our shores. Because it's already coming on to our beaches. It's already there. There is no such thing as partial liberty. Freedom of speech is the First Amendment for a reason!

It is the guardrail for every other right!

If you lose the First Amendment, you've lost freedom. And if you lose the Second Amendment, you've lost the ability to defend that first freedom.
It's number one for a reason!

You must be allowed to speak, to gather.

To have a free press!

To question your government. You must have those abilities. You must be able to say, especially about government, the worst things about your government! And question them.

And demand answers. To petition them.

That's all in the First Amendment.

It is the pressure valve that prevents so it's from blowing itself up.

The more we contain speech. The more we say, don't talk about. Don't talk about. Can't say that. Can't say that.

The more the pressure builds up. The more likely we blow ourselves up.

It's the mechanism where the powerless can speak to the powerful.

It's the shield that protects dissenters. Unpopular thinkers, prophets, reformers. And, yes, even the offensive.

Look, there are, quote, unquote, historians now who are getting all kinds of bullcrap about Hitler and everything else.

None of that is true. I don't want to silence them. They have a right to say it.

I have a right to say you're wrong! And show you the evidence of what makes them wrong.

That's the way it works. England is about to forget all of this!

They are truly the birthplace of these kinds of ideas, and those ideas led to our idea of real freedom!

No king!

If they forget this, we cannot -- we believe so -- because there won't be anywhere else in the world to go.

The lesson of history, the lesson that history whispers quietly at first. Then louder. And then finally. And we're about at this point, with a scream!

Is that when a state describes which words are allowed, it will eventually decide which thoughts are allowed. Which beliefs are allowed.

Which citizens are allowed.

In the end, in the end, the prisons don't need bars.

The cell will be in your own mind!

Do you understand that, America?
Do your kids understand that?

We don't even know what it means to be free. I thought this weekend, a lot about as opposed to truth shall set you free.

Thought about a lot. In fact, maybe I'll talk to you about it in a minute or so.

Because I don't think people understand what it means to be free.

We think everybody in the world is free. They're not!

And you're about to really find that out!

You want to be tree, or do you want to be safe? Because you cannot have both.

When safety is defined by those who fear your liberty. It's over!

We used to be people who would explore. We were people that crossed the oceans when everyone said we couldn't. We -- we went to space when everyone said, it's impossible. We crossed mountains that no one had ever crossed. We forged -- we forged a nation of really different people. And lived side by side for so long, yes. With bloodshed from time to time. But generally, in ways that nobody had ever done before. Freedom. Freedom is grand. But it's really dangerous. It's messy. Freedom offends you, a lot. Get over it.

Real freedom, real freedom is the only thing that has ever allowed the human spirit to rise above a king. Above a tyrant. Above the mob. Above the bureaucrats. Real freedom that belongs to you. Given to you by God. And that's what they're about to lose in England. The Magna Carta. The simple idea. No man. Not even a king. No man is above the law. Do we have that here?

Do you think no man is above the law? Or do you think there is a class up in the political range, somewhere, that if you're on the right side, don't worry about jail. That's what the Magna Carta tried to stop. That's what we have forgotten even, and they're about to get rid of it entirely.

The modern west is drifting into far more -- far more sinister creed. No man is above offense.

And that is how civilizations fall.

Puttin' the Christ Back in Christmas (Lyric Video)

This song was produced by Glenn Beck using his AI tools.

Lyrics:

Verse 1:

Well, the season's here, and the lights are bright, but they tell me, I can't say Merry Christmas tonight.

They want RamaHanuKwanzMas all in one breath.

Buddy, that phrase is gonna bore me to death.

So, grab some Coco. Let's reclaim this place.

It's the birthday of the baby.

Yeah, remember who that is.

Chorus:

So, I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

No microaggression here.

My friend, if words can break you, I'll bless your heart, because that's a battle we can't defend.

Yeah, I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

Let common sense unfold. Out with the new, in with the old.

Merry Christmas. Let the truth be told.

Verse 2:

And hey baby, it's cold outside, relax.

It's flirting, not a federal crime.

We used to laugh and dance in snow.

Now they fact-check mistletoe.

They say intent don't matter.

Well, sure it does, ask Santa.

He's judging hearts, not Twitter buzz.

Chorus:

So I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

You can keep your outrage warm.

If every jingle is problematic, buddy, that's the real snowstorm.

Yeah, I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

Not buying what they sold.

Out with the new, in with the old.

Merry Christmas. Let the truth be told.

Bridge:

They say that greeting is oppressive.

Well, bless my soul.

Who knew if Merry Christmas makes you tremble, the problem ain't the phrase, it's you.

I'll question with boldness. I'll reason with grace, but don't rewrite my holiday to make it a safe space.

So, here's to the manger.

The star in the sky.

The angels who sang up that holy night.

Here's to the story that still brings hope

Even when cultures lost the remote.

Raise your voice, let the bells all ring.

This season was always about one king.

Chorus:

Yeah, I'm putting the Christ back in Christmas.

Let the real good news unfold.

The world may chase the wrapping paper, but the manger holds the gold.

So, I put the Christ back in Christmas from the young to the gray and old.

Out with the new, in with the old.

Merry Christmas. Let the truth be told.

The math behind Europe's cultural shift

Europe’s future isn’t being shaped by politics or ideology... it’s being shaped by math. Glenn Beck and UK insider Peter McIlvenna break down the explosive demographic shift transforming Britain and Europe, where Muslim population growth has surged 111% in 15 years while native birthrates continue to collapse. The result is a predictable, unstoppable replacement of cultural and political power, created not by conquest but by birthrates and the West’s loss of confidence in its own heritage. And the same demographic pattern is now emerging in the United States.

Sharia Courts & Demographic Takeover - America's Growing Problem with Political Islam

Political Islam is expanding into the West through demographic pressure, parallel legal systems, exclusive community structures, and a belief that Western nations are too naïve to stop it — and Glenn Beck breaks down the evidence. From Marco Rubio’s warning that Islamic political movements openly seek dominance over the United States, to a Texas developer boasting about “manipulating kafirs,” to archived footage of imams defending Sharia punishments on American soil, the signs are no longer subtle. Many Muslims reject political Islam and flee from these systems — but by ignoring what is happening in our own backyard, America risks repeating Europe’s collapse. The question isn’t whether Political Islam exists; it’s whether we’re willing to confront what it demands.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me start first. Interview yesterday with Sean Hannity. Here's Rubio, talking about the dangers of radicalized Islam.

VOICE: Ultimately, armed radical Islamic movements in the world, identify the West at large, but the United States in particular, as the greatest evil on earth. And every chance they have -- the notion that somehow radical Islam would be comfortable with simple controls and progress in Iraq and Syria is not born out by history.

Radical Islam has shown that their desire is not simply to occupy one part of the world and be happy with their own little caliphate. They want to expand. It's revolutionary in its nature. It seeks to expand and control more territories and more people. And radical Islam has designs openly on the West, on the United States, on Europe. We've seen that for the rest there as well, and they are prepared to conduct acts of terrorism. In the case of Iran, nation state actions, assassinations, murders, you name it.

Whatever it takes for them to gain their influence, and ultimately, their domination in different cultures and societies.

That's a clear and eminent threat to the world and to the broader west, especially to the United States who they identify as the chief source of evil on the planet. Okay?

The reason why they hate the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the leadership of the UAE and Bahrain, is because they've allowed the United States to partner with them. That's why they hate them. They consider them infidels for it. They hate Israel.

But they also hate America. And they hate anyone in the world, that we have influence, they seek to attack, including here in the homeland.

If you look at the domestic terrorists, the attacks that have happened here domestically, the overwhelming majority of them have been inspired by radical Islamic viewpoints. That includes the shooting in the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida. That includes the Saudi pilot in Pensacola, my home state. Two attacks.

GLENN: Okay.

So I -- I would like to propose we stop calling it radical Islam. Because it's not radical Islam. It's political Islam. There is religious Islam, and I know a lot of religious Muslims that are good people. Okay? I don't put them in the same category because I don't want Sharia law.

That's political Islam. It's not radical. It's what happens all over the world.

It's not radical, it's political.

You remember, if you're my age. When the wall came down. And we finally got to converse with Russians.

And we always thought -- me growing up. I always thought the Russians.

It's Vladimir. Vladimir. Look, he's spying.

Natasha. He's spying.

Okay. That's what we thought when we were kids.

That's not who the Russians were. The Russians were good people. They were decent people.

They wanted the same kind of things we wanted. We don't agree on everything.

They want to be left alone. Raise their kids. Have a chance at some success and retirement.

Just leave me alone.

Most of us are like that. What happens is, our politicians get in the way. The politicians. The political systems are the ones that are the problem. We don't call it radicalized communism.
It's communism. Okay? It's a political philosophy.
This is a political philosophy.

Political Islam -- it's not radical.

It's just a political philosophy, and that political philosophy, just like communism, wants to dominate the world. Unlike communism, political Islam is so incredibly arrogant. It's inevitable to them. Why? Birthrates.

That's why! Birthrates. And they think we're stupid. And, you know what, so do I! I think we're stupid too. Come on, man. Right? Are we not stupid? We look over at Europe. Are the grand Europeans, that colonized the whole world and are abusing everyone, because they're so sophisticated and so powerful, and everything else. Really are they?

Because look at how dumb they are being right now with their own countries in Europe. They're committing suicide. And so are we.

Now, there's this development that is happening in Texas. Let me -- let me give you an interview, a piece of an interview done by a Muslim developer, of Muslim communities, and -- and how -- and how it actually works.

Listen to these 35 seconds of this interview.

VOICE: The way -- like, you can't make it exclusive, like non-Muslims are not allowed. What we're doing, there's something called a secession fee. I don't know what it's called in Dubai. Like your maintenance fee -- the service fee, to cut the grass, to remove the snow, and whatnot. So that service fee will put that 75 percent of the service fee you're paying, close to (another language).

VOICE: Automatically, if you are a practicing Christian, I would advise you, why help the Muslims? You know. They do their own thing.

Right? So this is the way we're going to put the costs, and our attorney already put it in there.

GLENN: This is the way they manipulate the kafirs. The kafirs are you. The non-Muslim people. The infidels.

And they -- they are manipulating. Because, ha, ha, ha. And why would you do that? That's how they make it an exclusive Muslim community. Okay. And what do you get in those Muslim communities? I want to take you back to 2015.
I had been in Irving, Texas. My studios are in Irving, Texas. And I had been there for maybe three years. And it is the most diverse ZIP code in all of America. Which is a great thing. Except, it's also becoming very, very Islamic.

And that is totally fine, as long as we're not talking political Islam.

Unfortunately, we are. And the religion teaches that you can lie, to an infidel. You can lie if it helps Islam.

Okay.

So I had a couple of imams from the Dallas area, come in, from -- from, you know, where all of this is happening. And I just -- I sat them down. And we just had a great conversation.

I want you to listen to this, what finally came out of the mouth of one of the imams. Listen to this.

VOICE: I'm here. I'm sorry to say, back to the first point. I'm here to discuss an issue with the Islamic Tribunal.

So please, don't -- allow us to have a situation. Maybe, we are ready for any discussion.

VOICE: No. I know that.

VOICE: We are ready for any point to lead the discussion. But the main point here, we are -- the reason we are here to discuss this issue. What kind of cases, Islam tribunal have.

And we start with the Sharia.

And why the people are afraid from Sharia.

I'm sorry to say, at one point related to this.

It's not just in Sharia law. Not just in Islamic law. It's everywhere.

Who said that just in Islamic law?

That's even Sharia, in Jewish Sharia, in Christian Sharia. In America here, we cut -- we -- we -- we cut it for some reason. So I'm asking you an easy question.

If anyone kill another, he should have got killed by a law, by Islamic law, by -- by -- by governor. By -- he should have got killed.

What is wrong with that?

If a thief, jump to go back house. Scare your wife. Scare your children. Scare your neighbor.

And they did that with our stores, this is the law. The law to cut his head.

Because if he feels my hands were cut because of that. He will think about this 100 times. He will never do it.

And if you do that one time, they will never do it again.

Look at how many millions of dollars Americans here or other states or other -- outside has been for the -- to keep, the criminal in -- in jail. A lot of millions of -- we can see that just -- that's it. Because he did something good in the whole community. And they scare the whole community.

Why not. Back please to the point. Islamic tribunal.

Yes. We never deal with anything of that. We don't have authority for that. We don't have power for that.

GLENN: But you're okay. You seem to be okay with that. If you had the power for that happen.

No. You don't --

JASON: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. We -- as imam said, we have system. We are very organized people.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: Sorry, for this example. Somebody can -- might add. I should have killed him.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: I had to take this case to the judge, and the judge have to -- to the governor. There's a system, a procedure, that I have to follow.

So it's not like this -- this guy gets killed. No, no. We have -- I -- I give you just an easy example for leader. This is after prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. He sent one to Yemen. And he told him, before he leaves, he ask him, almost as a habit. What did you do if the people bring a thief for you?

He said, I will cut his hand. Okay. He said, you do that. Okay. He said, after -- after -- he said, okay. If one person came with me, without work, and I blew it. And I blew it. I will cut your head. Because he has no job. So he -- if you run from the sword or grab something from here, to eat. Nothing happened to you. So but if you have your job and enough income, and you took -- a bunch of children and you have house and you have car. And you -- or a thief from here or there. So this is the law. Not to please, the point with Sharia. I ask people. We are not here to do that at all.

It is not our authority. It's not our power. It's not our job. We have --

GLENN: You've got to stop. You've got to stop. Okay. This is amazing to me. Because you hear how passionate he is, about how logical that is. Okay? I mean, you just have to do it, it just makes sense to everybody, we just cut your hands off.

And the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him, and he he's preached this forever. I mean, it just works. It just works.

Of course, we wouldn't want to do that. But it just works. I mean, let me tell you about it again. Really?

Really? You don't want that to happen. Because you're in the United States, but you're cool with it everywhere else. Everywhere else.

But here it's different!

But my religion, which requires me to say, peace upon him, after I mention the prophet Muhammad, my religion, which is extraordinarily well-defined.

It has these raise. In political Islam.

That must be done. Because the Koran requires it, in political Islam.

But we're not going -- yeah. We've got our own little laws going on now.

We have our courts.

Who we're never going to go that far. Wait. Wait. You believe in political Islam? Of course I do. But you're not going to do it?

Of course not. But the Koran commands you to do it?

Of course it does.

You follow every dictate in the Koran? Of course I do.

But not that one? Come on. Come on. Does anybody really believe that?

Now, that does not mean Muslims believe that. Many do. Many do not. The ones who do not are the ones who have lived under it, and have escaped here. And want a different kind of Islam.

And by just turning a blind eye to this, because they know how it happens. They saw it in their company. They don't want it happening here.

You know, we just take care of things like marriages. Oh, so when a guy says, I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you. You're divorced, and she loses everything. Oh, you mean the kind, if she wants to testify against her husband on adultery, she has to have two witnesses, plus her, because her voice and one other person as a witness does not equal him, because she's not equal to a man. Oh. Okay. All right.

But you have that one. And that's okay. No. It's not okay. It's not okay.

It shouldn't be okay in any western country, period. Should not be okay.

Unfortunately, we're all turning a blind eye to it.