BLOGJune 12, 2017

Breaking News: Al Gore Relinquishes Legacy to Global Warming and Swimming Fish

How Al Gore sleeps at night shall remain a discussion for another day. For now, the topic is on the former vice president's legacy.

In a recent interview on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace challenged Gore's claims --- made over a decade ago --- while promoting his film An Inconvenient Truth:

Wallace: In 2006, you made the following comments as part of your publicity for the movie. You said unless we took, quote, drastic measures, the world would reach a point of no return within ten years, and you called it a true planetary emergency. We're 11 years later, weren't you wrong?
Gore: Well, we have seen a decline in emissions on a global basis. For the first time, they've stabilized and started to decline.

How convenient for Gore to change the parameters of his catastrophic prophecy that didn't come true.

Incredulously, Gore continued and somehow made this claim with a straight face:

Gore: I went down to Miami and saw a fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing is true in Honolulu.

Gore --- and President Obama --- made the same claim in 2015, as reported and debunked by the Miami Herald.

"Do people not care about how [they're] remembered?" Glenn asked Monday on radio. "I just think everything is going to come undone with all of this stuff. Lies only stand for so long. The truth eventually comes out."

It may not happen within the next five, 10 or 20 years --- even 100 years --- but eventually, everybody will make fun of Al Gore.

"At some point, Al Gore's children to great-grandchildren are sitting in class going, oh, jeez. I'm not brining up my stupid great-grandfather," Glenn said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: I don't think so.

Hello, America. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We're glad you're here.

There's a book out called Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me. We've talked about it a couple of times. I went and I earmarked some things in this that are -- the book is trying to understand cognitive dissonance and why we -- why we have such an aversion to making an apology or -- or saying, yeah, that was my fault. When we claim we are hungry for people to do that. We are in our own lives don't do that. Some amazing stories out of this book I want to share with you, and how they apply to our life.

Also, we want to get to the big news. There is big breaking news out of Miami that is stunning and I'm -- I'm not sure why the media is not -- don't laugh.

PAT: No, I'm -- it's only so I wouldn't cry. That's why.

GLENN: It is -- you know, Al Gore was on television yesterday telling a story. And it's more than a story.

PAT: It's heart-wrenching.

GLENN: It's heart-wrenching. And it's news. It's hard news. And why the media won't cover this is beyond me.

PAT: It's a cover-up. It's a cover-up.

GLENN: Call Alex Jones. Wait until you hear the latest from Al Gore. We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Welcome to Monday. So glad that you are with us. Let's start with Al Gore breaking some pretty amazing news yesterday on Fox. Listen to this.

MEGYN: In 2006, you made the following comments as part of your publicity for the movie. You said unless we took, quote, drastic measures, the world would reach a point of no return within ten years, and you called it a true planetary emergency. We're 11 years later, weren't you wrong?

AL: Well, we have seen a decline in emissions, on a global basis. For the first time they've stabilized and started to decline.

GLENN: Stop for a second.

PAT: He always changes the parameters there. Because he was -- the question was, you said we had to take drastic measures. Now, everybody knows drastic measures have not been taken. They've not been taken. And we're still not in a crisis.

GLENN: Well, here's the deal. Here's the deal: He is using the 2008 financial crisis and the global recession that we have been in as a good thing.

PAT: Uh-huh. That's true. That is true.

STU: That is the best proven way to reduce emissions is economic catastrophe. It happened in the Soviet Union.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

PAT: Still, those were not drastic measures. You know, the economic downturn did not cause drastic changes.

GLENN: But it's also not the way carbon emissions work. You don't stop driving your car and then tomorrow, the earth is like, oh, I can breathe for a --

PAT: Exactly. And he would admit that, right?

STU: Of course. It's up to 200 years, between 80 and 200 years usually for CO2 to dissipate out of the atmosphere.

PAT: It's crazy.

GLENN: So if we stopped it all, it would still take a minimum of 80 years.

PAT: If you stopped all cars --

GLENN: It would still take a minimum of 80 years to impact the earth.

STU: So it's got nothing to do with -- by the way, leveling off because of, largely, a financial crisis. And some other factors. But, still, this is not like some incredible downturn.

PAT: No. Nothing drastic has happened.

GLENN: So he's saying that we're not seeing the results that he predicted in the movie. Because we've had a leveling off. Which he said, the only drastic measures happening today would be able to stop them.

AL: Well, the responses over the last ten years have helped.

PAT: Have helped.

AL: But unfortunately, regrettably -- a lot of serious damage has been done. Greenland, for example, is losing 1 cubic kilometer of ice every single day.

I went down to Miami and saw a fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing is true in Honolulu.

GLENN: Wait. Wait.

PAT: Wait. In Honolulu. I missed that the first time. It's Miami and Honolulu, where fish are swimming in the streets on sunny days.

GLENN: Fish.

PAT: That is heart-wrenching. Heart-wrenching.

GLENN: Now, how did the news media miss this?

PAT: I don't know.

GLENN: As you were driving your car in Miami, I want to hear from you now. Are you seeing the fish swimming in the street next to you on a sunny day?

PAT: And why are Americans in America hiding that? Why won't they tell America?

GLENN: They're hiding it. Are they all working for Halliburton?

PAT: Of course, they are. Of course, they are. They must all be on the payroll. Fish are swimming in the streets, on sunny days!

GLENN: How many global warming supporters -- people who say, I support Al Gore. How many of them had to die to cover up the video footage of the --

PAT: Too many.

GLENN: -- fish swimming in the streets of Honolulu and Miami?

JEFFY: Got to be video footage. Right? Got to be.

GLENN: Got to be.

PAT: When you take out your cell phone if that was happening in Dallas, I would get my camera out and shoot that.

STU: Now, of course, fish, as you may know, live in water. Occasionally when it floods in various areas, there are fish that could be theoretically on a street.

PAT: Not on a sunny day, for the love of heaven, Stu.

STU: But the Miami is an interesting addition. This was actually something Barack Obama has talked about as well.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: This is in 2015. He says, I think -- this is in 2015. I think as the signs around climate change is more accepted, as people start realizing that even today you can put a price on the damage that climate change is doing, you know, you go down to Miami. And when it's flooding at high tide on a sunny day and fish are swimming through the middle of the streets, you know, there's a cost to that.

PAT: How much does it cost?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: How much does that cost for the fish?

STU: Well, there's a fish toll to cross the street.

JEFFY: Thirty-five cents.

PAT: Fish on land. I think that is -- yes, there is a toll.

GLENN: And here's the problem, fish don't have pockets. They have no place -- if you don't have a toll tag -- they don't have a toll tag --

(laughter)

-- to where they get the sun pass. Where they can just --

PAT: This is unbelievable. Do we have Miami residents who are willing to fess up to this cover-up?

GLENN: Now, there's a difference between -- there's a difference between when there's a storm, when there's a tornado, when there's a flood, and just the other day, I saw fish swimming in the streets on a sunny day.

JEFFY: Not to him.

GLENN: I know. Not to him.

STU: By the way, the title of the story that I read that story from: Do fish really swim in Miami streets? Well, not exactly.

(laughter)

And it's the Miami Herald, by the way.

PAT: So great.

GLENN: When did that come out?

STU: 2015. And Gore was also talking about it in --

GLENN: And he's still talking about it --

STU: So this is still one of his lead arguments. The other one being that he called the flood in New York City.

PAT: Yeah, that's a big one. Because that is a prediction come true. That's a straight-out lie. It's a straight-out lie.

STU: I mean, it's a straight-out lie. But the levels this man has to go to, to accomplish this lie is fascinating. Because he said -- well, in the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, he shows the World Trade Center memorial site being flooded. And he's like, this is what would happen.

PAT: And if Greenland were to melt, it would --

STU: Well, this is the point because he starts with that. And his new pitch is, see, I told you, the World Trade Center could flood, and it happened way before I said. That's his new pitch for the sequel of the Inconvenient Truth.

PAT: And according to some of the research from Dr. Maslowski in some summer months.

GLENN: I was actually reading something that quoted a Dr. Maslowski.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: And I'm like, shut up. It can't be the same guy. It's not. There's another Dr. Maslowski.

STU: That's another long-time Al Gore quote if you're a long-time listener. So he -- so he says this.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: First of all, what he predicted was not a temporary two-day flood from Sandy, which he's trying to take credit for now.

PAT: As of Greenland melted, come on.

STU: He predicted a permanent flood of these areas. A permanent flood caused by the entire melting of the Greenland ice shelf. So there's no ice in Greenland at all anymore. Okay?

It all melts. Falls into the sea. The sea level rises 20 feet, and then these areas are flooded like this. He's taking credit as if that prediction was right. Now, what's amazing about it, is he plays a clip from the movie to explain how right he is.

Legitimately, the sentence -- it's either the sentence before or the sentence after it, explains that what he is saying is not true. It talks about how Greenland would have to melt, or half of west Antarctica would have to melt, and half of Greenland, for this to happen. Which we know has not happened, as he just explained in that clip, where he says, what is it? 1 cubic kilometer or whatever he says.

PAT: Whatever it is. Yeah, which is also kind of picking and choosing his stats. Because it's growing in some areas. The ice is growing in some areas and melting in others. That's what happened -- it happened in the '30s. It happened in the '50s. When it warms up on the planet, Greenland melts a little bit. And then in some other places, it actually increases its ice mass. So he's always doing this. Picking and choosing his numbers and changing the parameters of things.

GLENN: I'm just so glad that we're not like that. That we'll admit that we're wrong when we're wrong.

PAT: Yeah. He will not. He's got too much invested in this.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. But you're going to end up -- do people not care about how you're remembered? I mean --

PAT: No, because the media helps him with how they're remembered. Look how celebrated this guy is. He's nothing, but a charlatan and a liar. But he's celebrated --

GLENN: But how is the media going to be remembered? I just think everything is going to come undone with all of this stuff. Lies only stand for so long. The truth eventually comes out. It may not be in the next five years or 20 years. But eventually, everybody is like -- everybody makes fun of Al Gore. At some point, Al Gore's children to great-grandchildren are sitting in class going, oh, jeez. I'm not brining up my stupid great grandfather.

STU: I don't know. I'm less and less confident of that fact every day.

PAT: Look at how Woodrow Wilson is remembered.

STU: It's starting to turn around. So that's positive.

PAT: It's starting to.

GLENN: It's taken 100 years, but he was the president of the United States.

STU: Yeah, but he's been dead for 100 years. He doesn't care what happens to him now. I mean, he may have cared at the time.

JEFFY: Al Gore should have been the president of the United States, I'll tell you that.

RADIO

Argentina's Javier Milei DESTROYS the U.N. in SCATHING speech

Argentina's president, Javier Milei, gave a must-hear speech to the United Nations that should put the United States to shame. Glenn reads the speech, which "sounds like a Founding Father" and a Declaration of Independence from the U.N. Glenn compares Milei's speech, which denounced the globalist "Pact for the Future" and promised that Argentina would fight for freedom, to the Biden/Harris administration, which is fully behind the U.N.'s plans for a One World Government.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Javier Milei got up yesterday to the United Nations, and this is worth reading almost verbatim.

Listen to this.

To the authorities of the United Nations. To the representatives of the various countries that make up the United Nations and to all the citizens of the world, who are watching us, good afternoon. For those who won't be not know, I'm not a politician.

I'm an economist. A Libertarian, liberal economist. Who has never had the ambition to be a politician. I'm an economist.

A liberal libertarian economist who has never had that.

But I was honored to be -- honored with the position of President of the Argentinian Republic, in the face of resounding failure of more than a century of collective policies.

This is my first speech, in front of the United Nations general assembly. And I would like to take this opportunity with humility, to heart the various nations of the world, to the path that they have been treading for decades, and the danger of this organization's failure to fulfill its original mission. I do not come here to tell the world what to do.

I come here to tell the world, on the one hand, what will happen if the United Nations continues to promote collectivist policies, which they had been promoting under the mandate of the 2030 yenned. And on the other hand. What are the values of the new Argentina, that we defend?

I do want to begin giving credit where credit is due. The United Nations. And he goes into 70 years of blah, blah, blah, blah.

Then he says, the successful model of the United Nations whose origins can be traced back to the ideas of president Wilson. Oh, yeah. He goes on to Wilson.

I want to be clear. On the position of the Argentine agenda, the 2030 agenda, although well-intentioned in its goals is nothing more than a supernatural government program, socialist in nature.

Which seeks to solve the problems of modernity with solutions that violate the sovereignty of nation states. And violates people's right to life, liberty, and property.

It is a agenda that pretends to solve poverty, inequality, and discrimination, with legislation, that will only deepen those problems.

Because world history shows us, the only way to guarantee prosperity, is by limiting the power of the monarch, guaranteeing equality, before the law. And defending the right to life, liberty, and the property of individuals.

Does this sound like a Founding Father?

It has been precisely the adoption of this agenda, which obeys privileged interests, the abandonment of the principles outlined in the universal declaration of human rights and the United Nations, that has distorted this role of this institution, and put it on the wrong path.

Thus, we have seen how an organization born to defend the rights of man, has been one of the main proponents of the systematic violation of freedom.

As for example, with the global quarantines during the year 2020, which should be considered, a crime against humanity.

In this same house. That claims to defend human rights. They have allowed bloody dictatorships, such as Cuba and Venezuela to join the human rights council, without the slightest reproach.

In this same house, that claims to defend women's rights. They allow countries that punish their women for showing their skin, to join the committee of the elimination of discrimination against women.

In this same house, systematically they have voted against the state of Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East, that defends liberal democracy, while simultaneously demonstrating a total inability to respond to the scourge of terrorism. In the economic sphere, collectivist policies have been promoted that threaten economic growth.

Violate property rights.

Hinder the natural economic process, preventing the most underprivileged countries in the world, from freely enjoying their own resources, in order to move forward.

Regulations and prohibitions, promoted, precisely by the countries, that developed, thanks to doing the same thing they condemned today. Moreover, a toxic relationship has been promoted between global governance policies. And international lending agencies.

Requiring the most neglected countries, to commit resources, they do not have.

To programs, they do not need.

Turning them into perpetual debtors, to promote the agenda of the global elites.

Nor has the tutelage of the World Economic Forum helped. Where the ridiculous policies are promoted, with Malthusian blinders on.

Such as zero emission policies. Which harm poor countries, in particular. To policies linked to sexual and reproductive rights.

When the birthrate in Western countries is plummeting. Heralding a bleak future for all.

Nor has the organization satisfactorily fulfilled its mission of defending the territorial sovereignty of its members. As we Argentines know, firsthand, in relation with the Maldivian islands, we have now even reached the situation, in which the security council, which is the most important organ of this house has become distorted. Because of the veto of its permanent members, has begun to be used in defense of particular interests of some.

Thus, we are today, with an organization, that is powerless to provide solutions to the real global conflicts.

Such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Which has already cost the lives of more than 300,000 people.

Leaving a trail of more than 1 million wounded in the process.

An organization, that instead of confronting these conflicts, invests time and effort into imposing on poor countries. What and how they should produce.

With whom they should associate. And what they should eat. What they should believe in, as the present pact for the future intends to dictate.

This long list of errors and contradictions has not been gratuitous, but has resulted in the loss of credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of the citizens of the free world in the denaturalization of its functions. I therefore, would like to issue a warning, listen to this.

We are at the end of a cycle. Collectivism and moral posturing of the woke agenda. Have collided with reality. And no longer have credible solutions to offer to the world's real problems.

In fact, they never had them. If the 2030 agenda failed, as its own promoters have acknowledged.

The answer should be to ask ourselves, if it was not an ill-conceived program to begin with.

Except, that reality can change course.

We cannot pretend to persist in the mistake, by redoubling on a bet. On an agenda, that's failed.

The same thing always happens with ideas coming from the left.

They design a model, according to what human beings should be, according to them. And when individuals freely act otherwise, they have no better solution, than to restrict, repress, and restrict their freedom.

We in Argentina have already seen with our own eyes, what lies at the end of this road of envy and sad passions. Poverty. Brutalization. Anarchy. And a fatal absence of freedom.

We still have time to turn away from this course.

I want to be clear about something, so there are no misinterpretations. Argentina, which is undergoing, a profound process of change, has decided to embrace the ideas of freedom.

Those ideas that say, all citizens are born free and equal before the law, that we have inalienable rights, granted by the creator. Among them, are the right to life, liberty, and property.

Those principles which guide the process of change that we are carrying out in Argentina.

Are the principles that will guide our international conduct from now on.

We believe in the defense of life for all. We believe in the defense of property for all.

We believe in freedom of speech for all. We believe in the freedom of worship for all.

We believe in the freedom of commerce, for all.

And we believe in limited governments. All of them.

And because in these times, what happens in one country, quickly impacts the others. We believe all people should live free from tyranny, and oppression. Whether it takes the form of political oppression. Economic slavery. Or religious fanaticism.

That fundamental idea, must not remain mere words. It must be supported in deeds. Diplomatically, material. Through the combined strength of all countries, which stand for freedom.

This doctrine of the new Argentina is no more and no less than the true essence of the United Nations organization. That is the cooperation of the United Nations in defense of freedom.

If the United Nations decides to retake the principles that gave it life, and adapted again, to the role for which it was conceived. You can count on the unwavering support of Argentina and the struggle for freedom.

You should also know, that Argentina will not support any policy, that implies the restriction of individual freedoms of trade, the violation of natural rights of individuals.

No matter who promotes it, or how much consensus that institution has.

For this reason, we wish to express officially, our descent on the pact of the future. Signed on Sunday, and we invite all of the nations of the free world to join us.

Not only in dissenting from this pact, but also in the creation of a new agenda for this noble institution.

The agenda of freedom. From this day on, know that the Argentine republic will abandon the position of historical neutrality, that characterized us. And will be at the forefront of the struggle in the defense of freedom.

Because as Thomas Paine said, those who wished to reap the blessings of freedom, must as men, endure the fatigue of defending it.

May God bless the Argentines. And the citizens of the world. And the forces of heaven.

May they be with us.

Long live freedom. Damn it!

How great is that?

I mean, this guy is quoting our Declaration of Independence. And throwing it in our face.

The Declaration of Independence. And Thomas Paine. All of our founding principles.

And he is saying. And look at Argentina. It is turning around.

And he's saying, this has to be done. Because this yenned 2030, this new pact for the future, which the United States passed, signed, excited about, he said, it is -- it is going to cripple the entire world.

And he's right. You want second citizenship? Maybe Argentina is the place to get second citizenship.

STU: So how -- the question is just how long he will be there. That would be my only concern. Because he seems to be promoting all of the right things. And abandoning historical precedent of --

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Historical neutrality. That's a big change.

GLENN: Does he have enough people, to support him?

And not only that, but also, can he grow that?

And teach that to so many others?

I mean, we had -- you know, we had all of our Founders, in a row.

And we started from Catholic Church.

And it took about 20 years to really screw it up.

STU: Part of the reason why I think it's possible, is because he's loud.

Right? Have I think part -- one of the problems we faced over the past, you know, 100 years or so. Is like, hey. We're obviously the most successful country.

Everything is working really well. We all know it's because of capitalism, and freedom.

Everyone else should know it too.

And over time. You know, with exceptions.

Certainly, you would say Reagan was an exception to this. Someone who really loudly spoke for the benefits of --

GLENN: Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a loud defender of property and freedom. And individual --

STU: Yeah. He's just more.

He's still active. I'm thinking more of a historical context.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

STU: I think as with Milei. If he becomes -- if he's able to set this country on -- on this path and make it obvious, what is -- why it's succeeding throughout, and definitely another edition to this, and still up for debate. But if it succeeds, which so far, it really is.

But, you know, it's short-term. We don't really know for sure.

If it succeeds long-term, I think there could be really a major change in the world.

GLENN: Yeah, there could be.

All you need is one spark. You know, the one thing that stuck out to me, in his speech, was one of the last paragraphs.

As Thomas Paine said, those who wished to reap the blessings of freedom, must as men, endure the fatigue of defending it.

How many people do we know, say, I'm just tired. I'm just worn-out. I just don't want to look at it anymore.

Remember that line. Those who wish to reap the blessings of freedom, must as men, endure the fatigue of defending it.

RADIO

United Nations JUST APPROVED the framework for a One World Government

The United Nations kicked off its 2024 General Assembly by approving a group of game-changing proposals that are practically the framework for a One World Government. Glenn’s co-author for “The Great Reset,” “Dark Future,” and his upcoming book, “Propaganda Wars,” Justin Haskins, joins to break down what this “Pact for the Future” will mean for America, especially right before the 2024 election. While the final versions of the proposals were slightly less terrifying than the originals, plenty of draconian agreements were still approved that would give the UN a terrifying level of power over member nations — and the Biden/Harris administration is fully on board. Haskins explains the 3 main proposals, including one that aims to give the UN power over the development of artificial intelligence and the “fact checking” of “disinformation.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins. He is the coauthor of the Great Reset.

Dark Future. And the latest book that we've been working on the last year. Which releases October 22nd.

You can preorder it now.

Propaganda Wars. Kind of an important book for today. Especially with everything that we're talking about.

But I want to talk to him now about what has happened at the UN, this weekend. With the United Nations Summit of the Future.

Justin, welcome to the program.

JUSTIN: Thanks, Glenn. Good to be back with you. Wish I had better news.

I'm getting the reputation around Mercury Studios, being kind of like the angel of death.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. I know. I know.

Pretty much everyone who is coming on the show today, is kind of like, huh. More good news for you, huh.

Thank you for watching this so closely. First of all, explain what the Summit of the Future was.

JUSTIN: Yeah. So the Summit of the Future was the culmination of several years of work, really began in the COVID era of 2020, 2021, with the UN secretary general producing this report called our common agenda, which is something that you talked about in several shows and specials and things like that.

And so the culmination of all of that was this summit of the future, that they just held over the weekend. Prior to the start of their general assembly.

As you -- as you noted, there were three agreements, all of which came out of our common agenda.

Passing a future declaration, of future generations, global digital compact.

All of this is meant to dramatically extend the power and influence of the United Nations. That's the whole point of it.

And I don't think it's coincidence, that they designed it. In fact, I know it's not coincidence. But they designed for all of this.

They planned for it, to be proposed and approved immediately before the 2024 US presidential election.

There's a reason for that. Because this is about making sure, that there are plans in place. Infrastructure in place.

If Donald Trump does not win this election. That will further the agenda, of the Biden administration, and sort of the Great Reset crowd.

Moving forward, no matter who wins.

GLENN: So talk to me about the pact for the future. There are three separate parts. And you can look all of this up online.

But give me the summary on the pact for the future. What is that?

JUSTIN: Yeah. So the pact for the future is a very large document, that includes tons and tons of commitments by member nations.

It was approved by basically the entire United Nations over the weekend, including the United States.

In fact, Secretary Blinken, last -- or yesterday afternoon, gave a speech praising the Pact for the Future.

So it includes all kind of radical provisions. Probably the most important one, the one that we have pen looking at, most closely, is something called the emergency platform.

The idea behind this, is to give sweeping powers to the UN secretary general.

In the event of a future, what they call global shock.

Which is not clearly defined in the document.

The idea is essentially to expand the power of the secretary general, so that they can better manage at the UN. International crisis, okay?

So they have COVID in mind when they wrote this. So there is some good news on that, the language for the document, at the last minute. And I've been tracking the various revisions and versions and stuff. Changed. They took some of that emergency platform language out and replaced it with this vague promise, to have the Secretary General develop a plan in the future.

And so they essentially kicked the can down the road.

I think because that provision was becoming a little too controversial.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

This is so fascinating.

So they -- it was that the secretary general, could just say, this is an emergency, a global shock.

And it is a -- let's say, a financial shock.

And we've got to stop everybody who is disagreeing with the central banks.

We all have to stand by the central banks. And we have to do this and this. And he could dictate what happens in each country. Could he not?

That's wait it was originally written.

JUSTIN: It was really vaguely worded to give him sweeping powers.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: While also respecting natural -- to give him sweeping powers. In the event of an emergency.

Correct. Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Now, did they write this, in the way that Democrats write things.

Where it's past. And it says, pretty much, at the -- at the time of implementation, and at the discretion of the secretary.

Such-and-such will happen. Did they find it that way?

Or does he actually have to come back and propose things? Or is it at his discretion?

JUSTIN: He has to -- so up until the very end, the draft was very specifically asking him to give basically, lay out the -- the specific plans for an emergency platform. The -- the final path language says. This is the actual language.

Consider -- they want the secretary general, to consider approaches to strengthen the United Nations system response to complex global shocks.

Within existing authorities.

And dot, dot, dot.

But, in other words, provide -- we want to you repropose all this stuff in the future.

So it did not actually come into international law, under this agreement.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Hang on just a second.

One other thing.

When we say it passed. There was no actual vote, right?

It was, you could vote against it.

Which nobody did. Isn't that right?

JUSTIN: Yeah. They do this a lot at the United Nations. Where they pass things by consensus is what they call it.

And it's essentially to pass things without having to form things.

But it's in essence, passed. Yes.

GLENN: That's crazy.

So the declaration on future generations.

What was that?

And this one did not have anything removed from it, right?

JUSTIN: As far as I know, no. This was the idealistic one. This was the idea behind this was to get younger people more involved in -- think Greta Thunberg type.

More involved in their international agreements, creating a new position at the United Nations, specifically for that purpose.

All these state commitments. Socialist policies. About reducing inequalities within nations. And battling climate change and all of that.

That one to me, was the least objectionable, of all of them. Just because it was so idealistic and vaguely worded. That I don't know damaging it would be, to be totally honest.

GLENN: And the global digital compact is the third part. And that passed.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. This is the most damaging one, I think. I think this is the most serving one. This passed as well.

Essentially, what this is meant to do, is a few different things.

It's meant to traumatically increase global governance of artificial intelligence.

They want to create a couple of different new organizations. Independent international scientific panel on AI. And the global dialogue on AI. And governance programs.

They want to have more collaboration with big tech. Public/private partnerships. Additional funding into that. All of this is dying to embed artificial intelligence and other majority technologies, with left-wing social justice goals essentially. And they're very clear about that in the document.

So that's a huge thing. We've been warning about for a long time. You know, Dark Future was all about that. We talked about that a ton in Propaganda Wars, and how emerging technologies is going to manipulate every part of our society.

And then, of course, misinformation, disinformation. A safe and secure internet. These kinds of things are riddled throughout the global, digital compact.

This is probably the largest propaganda effort, the UN launched. The largest propaganda effort, I think this -- in modern history.

You probably have to go back to, like the Soviet Union or something.

Before you'll find something like this. They want to create all kinds of different collaborations with the media.

With big tech companies. To control the internet for misinformation. Disinformation. Hate speech. Et cetera.

So specifically, here's an example. This is from the agreement. This was what was actually approved.

Just one of many examples. Quote, provide, promote, and facilitate access to, and dissemination of independent, fact-based, timely targeted, clear, accessible, multi-lingual, and science-based information to counter mis and disinformation.

Strengthening independent and public media. And supporting journalists and media workers. Obviously, we're talking with people who share in their values.

So we're talking about creating fact-checking apparatuses at the United Nations.

Creating and disseminating these so-called fact-based, you know, science-based assessments. Which we've learned in COVID. And other areas. That that's just -- whatever the UN wants it to be.

It's not actually fact-based and science-based.

And collaborating with social media companies. And big tech companies. Which means the opposite side doesn't get to counter it.

They're very clear about calling for social media companies, to ramp up content moderation, and make their platforms more secure and all this other stuff.

So really, you could summarize the whole document like this. The whole point of the global digital exact, is to get everybody off the internet. That the United Nations doesn't like. To silence people, who are not going along with it.

And to create a vast propaganda network, that is going to constantly be pumping out, their own form of misinformation. And disinformation.

All in the name of allegedly getting to the truth. Which of course, is not what they're doing.

GLENN: We just talked to the FCC commissioner, Brendan Carr.

About the sale of the second largest broadcasting group in America and 200 radio stations.
It was paid for with foreign money. Is against the FCC regulations. No more than 25 percent can be from foreign. But Soros wrapped up a bunch of foreign money.

And for some reason, they bypassed the law, that says, that has to go through the Department of Homeland Security and has to have a security check, et cetera, et cetera. So he's going to -- as soon as they officially announce it. Which could be as early as next week, the sale will go through.

We're on some of those stations. You have this happening. The only one that is standing in the way of the global effort to shut voices down.

The only one with any real clout is Elon Musk.

That's one man against the world.

JUSTIN: Yeah. And they want to stop him too.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. This just has empowered all the countries around the world. And empowered them through the United Nations.

And gave them really kind of a blank check, to stop people like Elon Musk, with anything that it takes. Did it not?

JUSTIN: Oh, without a doubt.

I mean, that's the whole purpose of the global digital compact.

That they just passed.

We've talked in previous weeks about this new EU, ESG system that they're building in the European Union, which is also designed to do similar things.

You know, they're trying to close down all of the off-ramps. You've said that for a long time.

That's what they've been doing. And they're almost finished with the job. They don't want people to have any ability, to counter what they're saying in a meaningful way.

Yeah. If you want to sit around your kitchen table and talk to your family about things going on in the world, fine.

But don't do it in public. Don't do it in a meaningful, public way. That's essentially what's going on here.

And as information, and data, and communication has become increasingly more centralized, it's becoming easier and easier and to control it. And manipulate it.

And that is such a huge part of what's going on right now, at the United Nations.

And elsewhere. It's really hard to stop, you know, a thousand newspapers across the country.

It's not hard to stop like five social media companies.

Or five big tech companies. It's not that hard to do that. Or to force them to reform their ways. And that is exactly what's going on here.

And it's incredibly disturbing, but that's the plan.

And there's a reason why, that they're doing all of this, in the final days, final weeks, you know, before the -- the presidential election.

GLENN: Okay. So I know that we have -- I have scheduled an hour with you.

But I feel compelled to talk to the audience, one on one a little bit. Right after this.

So can I get you to come back tomorrow. Because you've talked about the governance of artificial intelligence.

But we haven't talked about the global wealth transfer. Or the embedding the GDP with ESG.

Or any of the other things, that are now locked in on the globe. Can I get you to come back, same time tomorrow?

GLENN: Of course, yeah. Let's do it.

Dustin, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

RADIO

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Breaking News: Al Gore Relinquishes Legacy to Global Warming and Swimming Fish

How Kamala’s Radical Climate Agenda Will CRIPPLE Your Finances | Glenn TV | Ep 381

Argentina's Javier Milei DESTROYS the U.N. in SCATHING speech

Transcript

United Nations JUST APPROVED the framework for a One World Government

Transcript

SHOCKING testimony DEBUNKS the "Jan. 6 insurrection” claim

Transcript