RADIOSeptember 25, 2024

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.

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.

Is Europe’s Future ALREADY Decided... Or is a Civil War Coming?

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.