What made Glenn say he doesn't want his citizenship anymore?

September 02, 2015

WRITER

Congressman Duncan Hunter (Rep) joined Glenn on radio Wednesday to discuss Charles Martland, an American Green Beret who was recently relieved of duty after serving his nation proudly for ten years. When he learned the reason for his discharge, Glenn’s blood began to boil, and not against Martland.

Here's what Glenn had to say.

In his own words, "I fully understand that during a previous deployment in Afghanistan, my detachment commander and I were absolutely wrong in striking one of our Afghan local police commanders."

So he struck him. Now, why would one of our soldiers strike an Afghani police commander?

In his own words, "This action was in response to the police commander kidnapping and brutally raping a young local boy and then beating the boy's mother after she came to our camp to plea for help. We've already had two other Afghani police commanders receive no punishment from the Afghan government for the rape of a 15-year-old girl and the honor killing of a commander's 12-year-old daughter for kissing a boy. My detachment commander and I felt morally we could no longer stand by and allow our allies to commit such atrocities."

In reaction to the letter, Glenn told Hunter he doesn't want his citizenship anymore, saying, "I think my citizenship is going to be used as an indictment against me in the eternal courts."

Later, he clarified, saying he really does want his citizenship, but wished there was a place like the United States used to be when Germany started to go down its road, where people could to stand on moral principles and not be punished for it.

Listen.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Charles Martland. He has been relieved of duty. He has served his nation proudly for ten years. In ten years of service, he has only had one negative action against him. And in a letter that I have, he is apologizing to the military and said, I have learned and matured greatly since that incident. What was the incident?

In his own words, I fully understand that during a previous deployment in Afghanistan, my detachment commander and I were absolutely wrong in striking one of our Afghan local police commanders. So he struck him. Now, why would -- why would one of our soldiers strike an Afghani police commander?

In his own words: This action was in response to the police commander kidnapping and brutally raping a young local boy and then beating the boy's mother after she came to our camp to plea for help. We've already had two other Afghani police commanders receive no punishment from the Afghan government for the rape of a 15-year-old girl and the honor killing of a commander's 12-year-old daughter for kissing a boy. My detachment commander and I felt morally we could no longer stand by and allow our allies to commit such atrocities.

Nothing has happened to the -- to the police officers. Our, quote, allies. But he has been relieved of duty. Duncan Hunter is on the phone with us now. How are you, sir?

DUNCAN: I'm doing great. Pretty crazy story, isn't it?

GLENN: This is -- this is -- this is an atrocity in and of itself.

DUNCAN: Yeah. You know, what you see, Glenn, and this is what's happening in the military. This is why getting a commander-in-chief is of the utmost importance.

You see a military class that's now a political class, and they're in uniform instead of in suits. And that's what you get here. This is what you get when lawyers run US military, and it's not used to kill people and influence things. It's used to make sure that everybody in it is regulated and does not step across the line, which in this case doing nothing, in my opinion, would have been grounds for immediate removal from the Army. Doing nothing would have been grounds for kicking out Sergeant First Class Martland. Not doing something. He was reprimanded by a general. General Hoss. I mean, there's -- we have the letter of reprimand. Can you imagine setting up these village stability operations? By the way, this is not in Kabul. It's not in a big city. It's where six or seven Green Berets go to the towns out in the middle of nowhere, these little villages, and try to set up some form of stand-up government that is not the Taliban. That's what these Special Forces guys were doing.

So they're out there. They're alone and unafraid. And you find out that the police chief that we're paying for with taxpayer dollars that we're training with US soldiers has just raped repeatedly over six or seven days, this little boy, chained to a bed. And then as you said, beat up the mother, and the soldiers didn't even rough him up that badly, Glenn. They even say he exaggerated his bruises, meaning they didn't do enough to him, in my opinion. He would have been lucky to walk out of there with his life. But we know, you know, if you watch the movies now and you see like Lone Survivor, you know that there's no right answer for our guys on the front lines because they don't want to go to jail. That's the end decision.

GLENN: Let me tell you something. Congressman Duncan Hunter, let me tell you something, this is why we're hated around the world. We're hated around the world because we don't stand for anything. If we allow our ally to brutally chain and rape a 15-year-old boy after he's kidnapped him and then beat up the mother and then two other commanders also got away with an honor killing and another rape of a girl, who the hell are we? We expect the rest of the world to respect our uniform when we will stand idly by and see that atrocity going on?

DUNCAN: It's moral decay at the highest levels. And, see, that's the problem too, Glenn. It's not the guys joining. The guys from 18 years old to 25. I mean, these are great Americans. Right? But as you get up that ladder and you get promoted over and over again and you want to make general, what you don't want is for anything bad to come out on your record whatsoever. And that means not standing up for your men.

And that's what's happening now at the highest levels, especially in the Army, that the men at the lower levels that are out there doing the grunt work each and every day are not being stood up for by their commander-in-chief or their higher officers. And you have total moral decay in that -- what we think as right as Americans and what we would do in any situation, is not just frowned upon now in the US military, it's discouraged and even punished.

GLENN: I have to tell you, Congressman, I don't want my citizenship anymore. I really don't. I think my citizenship is going to be used as an indictment against me in the eternal courts. I mean, this is -- we're so far off the rails. We are supporting Iran today, the 34th vote came in for the Democrats. So we're supporting Iran over Israel. And the rest of our allies around the world who say this is insanity. We're -- we're telling this guy that he can't serve in -- he's been a Green Beret for 11 years. A Green Beret and we're kicking him out because he stood up for a 15-year-old boy and his mother. Good God Almighty, I don't want my citizenship. It's an indictment.

DUNCAN: Yeah. I've done a couple of tours, so I paid for this citizenship with my time. So I'll keep mind for a while, Glenn.

GLENN: No, I understand. And I know that's an outrageous thing to say, Duncan. But I think you can at least understand how people -- I mean, really, what does our citizenship mean? We are becoming a very dark, evil country if we can't stand clear on this one.

DUNCAN: No, we can't stand clear on this. We can forget about being pro-choice or pro-life. We're now selling baby bodies.

GLENN: Yeah.

DUNCAN: We're supporting Iran. This is a real -- it's all coming down.

GLENN: And what did Mitch McConnell say today? Mitch McConnell said that it's not a good time. It's just not a good time to defund Planned Parenthood. Good God, when they're selling baby parts, when is a good time?

DUNCAN: Right.

Now.

GLENN: So how can we help you on this? How can we help Charles Martland?

DUNCAN: What you can do is just let people know about it. I mean, that's all I can do even. There's no legislation I can pass. The president doesn't care. The SecDef hasn't answered me back yet. Just people need to know about this. It has to put pressure on the Army. The last thing the Army should want -- because it's an all volunteer force is for parents sitting at home going, hey, you know what, Johnny, I'd prefer if you don't join the Army. Join a different service that will at least look out for you when you do the right thing as an American when you're overseas.

GLENN: That we can do. That we can do.

DUNCAN: That's the only pressure, it comes from you and the public seeing this, and the Army realizing, hey, we better shape up, or we're not going to be able to even get people to join.

GLENN: So who should they call? Should they call the Pentagon?

DUNCAN: Yeah, call the Pentagon. Call the Secretary of Defense.

GLENN: Okay.

DUNCAN: And if you call my office in D.C. -- it's (202)225-5672 -- we can put you guys in touch with who to call. There's a great article out on this in Newsweek that just came online this morning that is a different case. Jason Amerine, who exposed the hostage -- the lack of hostage rescue ability the United States has. He's being kicked out of the Army. You have Major Golsteyn, who killed a terrorist. The CIA found out about it. He's being kicked out of the Army. You have all these Special Forces guys doing the right thing for us.

GLENN: That's easy. That's easy.

DUNCAN: And we're trying to publicize this stuff.

GLENN: This is the easiest thing I've ever asked anybody today because this is exactly -- because I have people coming up all the time and asking me, Glenn, would you put your son or daughter in the military today? And the answer is for the first time in my life, absolutely not. Absolutely not. You call the Army and say, I will put my son in the Air Force. I will put my son or daughter in the Navy. But I will not do it. I will not put you in the Army. I will not allow my children to go into the Army. If this is the way you treat people, if this is the standard that we have, I don't want anything to do with anybody in a military uniform with a US Army, if this is what you stand for. This is obscene! This is obscene! Duncan, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Anything we can do to help, you let me know. Please stay in touch with my office and tell us how we can help.

DUNCAN: Okay. We will do it. Remember, Marine Corps. Always got that option too.

GLENN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. God bless you. Thank you so much.

Okay. Next we're going to go to a police officer in Philadelphia who says he's afraid to do his job. We'll talk to him in a second.

Let me tell you, everything is coming undone. I told you everything that you could believe in. Everything that you you thought you could believe in will turn to sand. Everything that you thought was solid will be liquid. Do you remember me saying that six, seven, eight years ago? Here we are. When you can't -- when a guy wearing a US Army uniform is kicked out of the Army for standing up against someone who was raping a 15-year-old boy and then beating his mother as he comes to the US Army for help, there's nothing left to believe in, except God.

Glenn: Pay attention to what the State Department's RADICAL reset is signaling

John McDonnell / Stringer | Getty Images

For years, the U.S. State Department operated on inertia—an institution locked into a cycle of caution, consensus, and risk aversion.

Speeches were careful, strategies were diluted by committees, and action was often defined by what couldn’t be done. The language was always the same: "nuance," "complexity," "stakeholders." Rarely was it about results.

That has changed.

What’s come out of the State Department in the last hundred days is a complete departure—not just in tone, but in structure.

Under Secretary Rubio, the department isn’t just adjusting tactics. It’s undergoing a philosophical reset.

The most telling shift is this: the department is no longer preoccupied with managing decline or defending abstractions. It’s operating from the premise that U.S. foreign policy must serve actual national interests, not vague global norms or ideological missions.

Look at the key decisions. The Global Engagement Center—an office that claimed to combat disinformation but increasingly acted as an internal censorship tool—is gone. Not repurposed. Not renamed. Eliminated. Aid programs that masked themselves as diplomacy while undermining core U.S. positions have been cut. Contracts to NGOs with open hostility toward U.S. policy goals? Revoked.

This isn’t cosmetic. It’s structural.

The department’s reorganization is consolidating power downward—removing bureaucratic silos, emphasizing merit over ideology, and restoring clarity to diplomatic goals. This isn’t about optics. It’s about removing friction between strategy and implementation. On immigration and border enforcement, there’s now a foreign policy posture that treats visa privileges as exactly that—privileges, not entitlements. Visa holders who break laws or support terrorist groups lose their status. Period. No press conference required. Just enforcement.

Regional partnerships are now framed by expectations, not entanglements.

Countries that allow mass illegal migration into the U.S. are being held accountable. Agreements are being structured around reciprocity. When those agreements are ignored, consequences follow. China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, long treated as inevitable, has been directly challenged. Beijing’s role in Panama, particularly regarding the canal, has been dismantled through diplomacy backed by leverage, not lectures. That wasn’t done through press statements—it required statecraft, pressure, and the willingness to say no.

In Europe, there’s been a reframing of NATO obligations. Not as symbolic unity, but as measurable responsibility. The benchmark is no longer two percent. The conversation is now five. That changes the nature of the alliance. In Africa, the posture is shifting from dependency to commercial engagement. Trade, not aid. Access, not assistance. Diplomacy with terms, not with guilt.

The contrast is stark.

This isn’t a matter of tone or branding. This is a systemic shift away from a model that rewarded process over outcomes, toward one that is rediscovering the purpose of diplomacy: to secure advantage, resolve conflict, and protect national interests.

This recalibration will not be popular in foreign capitals used to ambiguity, or in institutions comfortable with drift. It’s also not universally admirable. It’s direct. It’s unambiguous. And it signals something rare in modern American foreign policy: conviction.

That alone is worth paying attention to.

Glenn: Why Memorial Day is not just another holiday

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

They wore the uniform so you could live free. This holiday, ask yourself if you're living in a way that honors that sacrifice — or cheapens it.

Your son has been a Marine for what feels like an eternity. Only those who have watched their children deploy into war zones can truly understand why time seems to freeze in worry. What begins as concern turns to panic, then helplessness. You live suspended in a silent winter, where days blur and dread becomes your constant companion.

Then, in an instant, it happens. What you don’t know yet is that your child — your most precious gift — fell in combat 60 seconds ago.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives.

While you go about your day, unaware, military protocol kicks into motion. Notification must happen within eight hours. Officers are dispatched. A chaplain joins them. A medic may accompany them in case the grief is too much to bear.

Three figures arrive at your door. One asks your name. Then, by protocol, they ask to enter your home. You already know what’s coming. You sit down. He looks you in the eye and says:

The commandant of the Marine Corps has entrusted me to express his deep regret that your son John was killed in action on Friday, March 28. The commandant and the United States Marine Corps extend their deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss.

This moment has played out thousands of times across American soil. In 2003 alone — just two years after 9/11 — 312 families endured it. In 2007, 847 American service members died in combat. In 2008, 352. In 2009, 346. The list goes on. And with every name, a family became a Gold Star family.

Honor the fallen

For most Americans, Memorial Day means backyard barbecues, family gatherings, maybe a trip to the lake or a sweet Airbnb. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these things. But we must never forget why we can.

Ask any veteran who lived when others did not, and you’ll understand: Memorial Day is not just another holiday. It is a solemn day set apart for reverence.

So this weekend, reach out to a Gold Star family. Acknowledge their pain. Ask about their son or daughter. Let them know they’re not alone.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives — not for accolades but for love of country and the preservation of liberty. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

They died for the Constitution, for our shared American ideals, and the worst thing we could do now would be to betray those ideals in a spirit of rage or division.

We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by abandoning the very principles they died to protect — equal justice, the rule of law, the enduring promise of liberty.

This Memorial Day, let us remember the fallen. Let us honor their families. Let us recommit ourselves to the cause they gave everything for: the American way of life.

They are the best of us.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump exposes Left’s habeas corpus hijack in border crisis

Chicago Tribune / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats accused the president of declaring war on civil rights. In reality, he’s defending habeas corpus while they drown it in delays and legal loopholes.

Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.

Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.

Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.

The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.

But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.

And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.

Habeas corpus, rightly understood

Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.

America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.

If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.

The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?

This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.

Weaponizing due process

The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.

So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.

This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

Abandon the Constitution?

Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.

The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.

President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.

That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.

The path forward

Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.

It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Betrayal of trust: Medicare insurers face lawsuit over kickback scheme

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article is sponsored by Chapter.

The U.S. government has filed a major lawsuit under the False Claims Act, targeting some of the biggest names in health insurance—Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana—along with top insurance brokers eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The allegation? From 2016 to at least 2021, these companies funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to brokers to steer seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans.

If the allegations are true, it means many Americans may have been steered into Medicare Advantage plans that weren’t necessarily the best fit for their needs—not because the plans were better, but because brokers were incentivized by illegal kickbacks.

The Kickback Conspiracy

Navigating Medicare Advantage’s maze of plan options is daunting, so beneficiaries rely on brokers like eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote, who claim to be unbiased guides. But from 2016 to 2021, insurers Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health allegedly paid brokers millions in kickbacks to favor their plans, regardless of quality. Disguised as “co-op” or “marketing” deals, these payments were tied to enrollment targets. Internal emails revealed executives knew this violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, with one eHealth leader joking that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would miss a $15 million Humana deal for minimal enrollments. Brokers used call routing to prioritize high-paying insurers, betraying beneficiaries’ trust.

Discrimination Against the Vulnerable

The scheme wasn’t just about profits—it targeted vulnerable beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage must accept all eligible enrollees, including disabled people under 65. Yet Aetna and Humana allegedly pressured brokers to limit their enrollment, as these beneficiaries were deemed to be less profitable. Brokers complied, rejecting referrals and filtering calls to favor healthier enrollees, incentivized by bonuses. This violated federal anti-discrimination laws and CMS contracts, undermining the founding principles of Medicare by discriminating against the very people it was created to aid.

False Claims and the Pursuit of Justice

The schemes led to false claims to CMS, with insurers certifying enrollments as “valid” despite kickbacks and discrimination. The government paid billions, unaware of the fraud. Examples include Humana’s $12,477 for a 2016 enrollment and Aetna’s $79,047 for a 2020 case. On May 1, 2025, the U.S. filed suit, seeking treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. Aetna and others deny the allegations, per May 2025 reports, promising a fierce defense. The case, demanding a jury trial, seeks justice for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Glenn's Show Prep