GLENNFebruary 01, 2017

The Gorsuch Pick: We're Thrilled to be Wrong

Throughout the primary, Glenn and his co-hosts remained skeptical about the likelihood of Donald Trump choosing a conservative candidate for the Supreme Court. However, following President Trump's announcement Tuesday evening, it was time for a promised mea culpa.

"Let me start with this because we always say we lead with our mistakes," Glenn said Wednesday on radio. "I was completely wrong on that. I stand corrected. I apologize to Donald Trump. He said last night, I promised you that I would do that. I'm a man of my word. He was. So kudos to Donald Trump on that, and I stand corrected."

In light of Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, Glenn and his co-hosts not only stand corrected, they're thrilled to do so.

Enjoy the complimentary video above or read the transcript below.

GLENN: Well, boys, what do you think of Gorsuch? What do you think of what happened last night with Trump's nominee?

STU: Well, I mean, you know, we said on the air, leading up to this, that Gorsuch was the one that we would pick of the finalists.

GLENN: Yeah, out of the three.

STU: Yeah, he was my favorite of those three. So obviously there's nothing else to say, other than, I'm very pleased by it.

You know, I did -- you know, we talked about this throughout the primary. One of the main reasons why I did not like Donald Trump throughout the primary -- one of them -- was I did not have any confidence of him making this pick and making it well. And I am thrilled to be wrong on that.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: Because this is a great pick. He stuck to the list. He picked one of the ones I would say in the upper echelon in that list.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

STU: And there's a lot of really positive things to talk about with Gorsuch. And you're right, you never know. He might not get confirmed. He might be a Roberts. And the one point I would disagree with you on is it's part of his legacy. It's part of Bush's legacy. It is Bush's fault.

GLENN: Oh, no, no. Correct. Hang on just a second. But wait a minute. Bush had this idea. And Ted Cruz told us because he tried to talk Bush out of this. Bush had the idea of, "Let's get somebody who doesn't have a record that we can push through who tells us they're conservative, but they don't really have a record on anything."

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so I think that's why it belongs to Bush. I mean, everybody who vetted this guy, with an exception of a couple of areas, which we mentioned, but last week, this guy looks really, really good. So if he gets into office and he is not what his record holds, I think that's on Gorsuch and not on Trump.

STU: Well, it's mainly on Gorsuch, clearly. You know, individual responsibility.

GLENN: Yeah. Correct.

STU: However, with the amount of information that Donald Trump has about this guy that we don't, you know, you -- it is part of it. That doesn't mean. I can't -- you know, can't blame the guy. I don't even think you can blame Bush for the Obamacare ruling fully.

GLENN: I don't either.

STU: It's Roberts' choice, and he's the one who got into the Douche Hall of Fame because of it.

GLENN: Hang on a second. Let me start with this because we always say we lead with our mistakes.

One of the things that I said all the way through the primary was, "You think Donald Trump is going to put somebody, who is anti-abortion -- he's going to listen to his daughter. He's not going to listen to us. He's not going to fulfill that promise." I was completely wrong on that. I stand corrected. I apologized to Donald Trump. He said last night, "I promised you that I would do that. I'm a man of my word." He was. So kudos to Donald Trump on that. And I stand corrected.

STU: Yeah, and what a great way to be corrected.

GLENN: Yes. And we said we would do this -- nobody believes it. We said we would do this if we were wrong. We would apologize. I just did. And I'm celebrating that I'm wrong. I will stand -- I learned this from Abraham Lincoln. He said, "I will stand with any man when he is right, and I will walk away when he is wrong." That is my philosophy on Donald Trump. When he's right, I will stand with him and support him. When he is wrong, I will not stand with him, and I will fight him.

But that's the way -- you know, somebody wrote on Twitter last night, "All knees will bend." They were referring to Donald Trump. And they were mocking me for not supporting him. And said, "See, all knees will bend." No. All knees will not bend to the president of the United States. What is wrong with you?

PAT: Let's hope not. Let's hope not. Wow.

GLENN: What is wrong with you?

STU: You can keep that standard. No, thank you. Not going to participate in that one.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Isn't this the guy that Ted Cruz said he tried to talk Bush into, instead of Roberts in the beginning?

STU: I don't remember that. I do remember that story, but I don't remember --

GLENN: Yeah, we should call Ted Cruz. See if we can get him on today.

JEFFY: Ted Cruz and Mike Lee both --

STU: We're not hearing you, Jeffy. He would have been awfully young.

GLENN: Oh, it's a dream come true. Hang on. Take a moment and just thank the Lord. That is something we've all been praying for: We can't hear you, Jeffy. Thank you, Lord. Amen.

STU: This pick is better than we thought.

GLENN: Yes. This is a day of miracles!

STU: Jeffy.

JEFFY: Knees will bend.

STU: His mic is not -- can someone turn his mic on, please?

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Or, I'm sorry, keep it off.

GLENN: Yes, thank you. Whoever is doing that, thank you.

STU: By the way, Gorsuch, I would say -- one of the reasons I liked him over some of the other justices is that he has kind of a Libertarian streak. There are elements of -- you know, there's a particular stance we can go over later where he's actually better than Scalia on it. And, I mean, he might not be better than Scalia overall. That's to be seen, of course.

GLENN: We'll see.

STU: However, when you can find anything where you're better than Scalia on an issue, it's pretty freaking impressive. And this is a good pick. A smart guy. And, you know, look, I'm thrilled to have been wrong about this one.

GLENN: Right. Right.

So I will tell you this: For anybody who said all they were voting for, for Donald Trump, was SCOTUS, thank you. You were right. You got that done.

And -- and I am stunned by it. Just stunned by it. Let's see now what the left does.

I will tell you, you know, I'm trying to have quick 144-character conversations with people. Let me go through a couple of -- a couple of things.

There was a couple of things that came out on this yesterday that independent to go -- let's see. Obviously, listener. You're corrupt. Media is uncorrupt. Hard stance against Trump.

Here. Glenn, we're enemies. I think I used to watch you -- I think I used to watch you every night on Fox. I was a fool.

Why are we -- why are we enemies? And one of them was from a liberal who said, you know, you are -- you know, I was -- I was just starting to consider you a friend. This is why you're not my friend.

Well, wait a minute. You were a fool if you think that I changed my principles -- anybody on the left who thinks that I'm suddenly a progressive, you're out of your mind. I've never said that. I've made that very clear. I've said that to everybody I've met with.

I have changed my tone, and I want to listen to you. And I want to reach out because we have to be able to model friendship. And here's what I responded: Scalia was a good friend of Ginsburg. They respected one another. Why can't we respect one another as well? We disagree, but we're not enemies.

And that was one of the biggest disappointments that I had. You know, I wasn't running the Scalia funeral, obviously. But the selfish part of me wanted Ginsburg to stand up and speak. And she has spoken out about him, but I wanted it at the funeral when everybody -- when all eyes were there. I would have loved Justice Ginsburg to stand up and talk about their friendship. That was one of the things that we've all missed.

Here's Scalia and Ginsburg, and the supporters of Ginsburg hate Scalia. And the people who support Ginsburg -- I mean, Scalia, hate Ginsburg. Why? They don't hate each other.

There's a difference -- let me say this. Let me correct something that is a long-standing problem of mine.

I use the word "evil" too easily. There is evil. I believe there is evil. But I will use the word "evil" sometimes with people, and I can't judge if people are evil. That's wrong. And I can't -- there's -- I'm going to try to stop using that word, unless, you know, we're pretty clear.

(chuckling)

GLENN: And stop using that word. I want to replace that word with wrong. They're just wrong. That doesn't make them evil. They're just wrong.

And we have to stop literally demonizing people. And I've done that for a long time. You got to stop.

Ginsburg is just wrong. Now, I don't know her. But Justice Scalia sure seems like a really nice guy to me. Not to the people on the left because all they do is look at his record of how he votes, and they just assume all kinds of things about him.

We look at Ginsburg, and we just assume all kinds of things about her.

But wait a minute, Scalia -- if we're right about Scalia, how were they really, truly good, deep friends. How is that possible? If he's really a good guy, he wouldn't be hanging out with evil. He would be hanging out with somebody who he profoundly disagrees with, but he likes.

Why is it that this pick has to be either saintly or evil, depending on which -- he's just either right in your opinion or wrong in your opinion.

And one more thing on this: I would fully expect if the court -- the only real conservative left on the court was Ginsburg and there was a progressive president, I would expect the president to bring in a progressive. If half the country was a liberal, progressive -- were liberal, progressive citizens, I would not expect the Supreme Court not to represent their point of view.

I think -- and I don't know -- but I think I would actually be saying on the air, "Look, guys, it's Ginsburg. There's no one else on the court that represents 50 percent of the country." It's ridiculous to think that we shouldn't have one voice on the court that is actually making this case for a true constitutional conservative. If you don't -- if you can't see that as split as we are, would I love to have everybody a constitutional conservative on the Supreme Court? Yes. Do I think that's what the Founders would want? Yes.

But half of the country will feel completely alienated from the Supreme Court. We have to have faith in our system. You can't replace Ginsburg with Scalia. And you can't replace Scalia with a Ginsburg.

You have to have a real conservative replace Scalia. I think it's only right and fair.

We -- we -- we need to fight for our principles, but we also need to stand up for other people's points of view and let the best man win and the best idea win.

I have no problem fighting for my ideas. And I think -- I really think -- yesterday -- I want to tell you a story later. Yesterday, I went to a place, to a studio, and we all were driving over. And we were like, "This should be interesting." Because this individual used to be a progressive. And I mean a progressive that would make your eyes bleed, on a network that you would -- would, again, you would -- you would have no blood left on your body.

He invited me over to his studio and said, "I want to do a sitdown with you." And I said, "Fine." And before we started, he said, "You know, I saw the interview with you, with Tucker Carlson." And he said, "Tucker Carlson was going after you, and he didn't make any ground." And I said, "Yeah, because I really don't care anymore, so."

(laughter)

GLENN: And I said, "That's the secret. You know, everybody always told me, Glenn, stop caring anymore. And when you're trying to not care, it doesn't work. But when you really don't care, it's fantastic." So he said that, and I thought, "This is going to be an interesting hour. He may start to go after me."

He started the interview with, "Look, I used to be a progressive. I used to be a hard-core progressive. And then I noticed that during this last election that all of my friends who I thought believed in something were all switching tables and they were all starting to fight for things because the conservatives were picking things up that we believed in and the -- and the Democrats were excusing things from Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party that I'm like, wait, we're against all that stuff." He said, "So I'm finding myself now in a situation where people who are being intellectually honest on the conservative side, I'm there."

We had an amazing conversation. An amazing conversation. Are we going to agree on everything? No.

But the end of the conversation was, "So how many people in the country are actually tired of this back and forth bickering of the press that has no intellectual curiosity and no intellectual credibility or integrity?" How many people are sick of that?

He believes that we're in the silent majority. I think that may not be the case now, but I do think that may be the case down the road.

If you are intellectually honest and have integrity and you don't want to fight because it's nothing but a stupid game and you actually want to stand for things -- like Scalia and Ginsburg -- they disagreed, but they were good to each other. They liked each other. They respected each other. And they were friends.

Man, that's the world I want to live in. Because this one isn't working. This one is getting much, much worse.

RADIO

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

America is entering a year of historic upheaval from Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the spiritual shock that followed, to Trump’s tariff revolution, China’s rare-earth war, collapsing energy grids, AI displacement, and the looming fights over Taiwan and Venezuela. Glenn sits down with BlazeTV hosts ‪@deaceshow‬ and ‪@lizwheeler‬ along with his head researcher Jason Buttrill, to break down the biggest stories of 2025. Plus, they each give their most explosive prediction for 2026 that could shape our politics, economy, national security, and civil rights in ways Americans have never experienced before.

RADIO

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

For nearly a century, Washington DC has been ruled by an unelected “expert class” operating as an unconstitutional fourth branch of government — accountable to no one, removable by no president, and shielded from all consequences. Glenn breaks down why Trump’s firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner could finally dismantle the 1935 precedent that empowered technocrats, how Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed the Supreme Court’s embrace of expert rule, and why America cannot survive a government run by people who never face the voters and never pay for their failures.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So President Donald Trump fired the federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Federal Trade Commission is an administrative position. I mean, this is under -- the head of the federal trade commission is a cabinet member.

And if the justices uphold Trump's firing of Slaughter, that will overturn a precedent that was horrible, that was set in 1935. Remember, 1935, we're flirting with fascism. You know, everybody thinks. Because they haven't seen the horrors of fascism yet.

Everybody thinks fascism is neat, blah, blah. So what they do is they say that this is an independent person. And the president can't fire them. Because they're, you know, an independent agency.

Well, wait. That would make a fourth branch of government. Our Constitution is really clear.

There is no such thing as a fourth branch of government. Right?

So that's what they're deciding. Now, here is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is talking about how we really need to listen to the experts. Cut four.

VOICE: Because presidents have accepted that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency. That it is in the best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues, handled by experts. Who, and I think you -- in your colloquy, Justice Kagan, have identified the fact that these boards are not only experts, but they're also nonpartisan. So the -- the seats are actually distributed in such a way, that we are presumably eliminating political influence because we're trying to get to science and data and actual facts, related to how these decisions are made.

And so the real risk, I think, of allowing non- -- of allowing these kinds of decisions to be made by the president, of saying, everybody can just be removed when I come in, is that we will get away from those very important policy considerations.

VOICE: We will get away from US policy considerations, and it will create opportunities for all kinds of problems that Congress and prior presidents wanted to avoid, risks that flow inevitably, just given human nature, the realities of the world that we live in.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, remember, what she's saying here is, we have to have experts.

We have to have experts. We have to have experts that don't really answer to anybody. Okay?

They're appointed. And then they're just there. This from a, quote, judicial expert, who cannot define a woman, because she's not a doctor.
She's not a scientist.

She needs an expert to define a woman.
That's how insane her thinking is. Okay?

Now, I would just like to ask the Supreme Court, when you want things run by experts, do you mean things like the State Department, or the counsel of foreign relations, that have gotten us into these endless war wars for 100 years?

Because these are the things that Woodrow Wilson wanted. He wanted the country run by experts.

Okay. So is it like the Council of Foreign Relations, that keep getting us into these endless wars.

Or is it more like the Fed, that directs our fiscal policy, that has driven us into $38 trillion of at the time. We have all powerful banks. That strangely all belong to the fed. And endless bailouts for those banks. Are those the experts that you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the experts that are doctors, that gave the country sterilizations, lobotomies, transgender surgeries. You know, or should we listen to the experts, like the ones that are now speaking in Illinois, to get us death on demand like Canada has, with their MAID assisted suicide, which is now the third largest killer in Canada. MAID, assisted suicide, third largest killer in Canada. Experts are saying, we now need it here, and they're pushing for it in Illinois. Or should we listen to the experts? And I think many of them are the same experts strangely, that brought us COVID. Yeah. That was an expert thing. They were trying to protect us. Because they need to do this for our protection. So direct from the labs in China with the help of the American experts like Fauci. We almost put the world out.

Should we listen to those guys?

Or the experts that brought us masking, and Home Depot is absolutely safe. But Ace Hardware wants to kill grandma. Which are the experts that we want? That we want to make sure that we have in our lives? That they don't answer, or can't be fired by anybody. Because I'm pretty full up on the experts, myself. I don't know.

But you're right. These experts would keep the president in check, and they would keep Congress in check. And you in check!

And the Supreme Court, which would be really great. You know, and you know who else they would keep in check? The people.

So, wow, it seems like we would just be a nation run by experts, and our Constitution would be out the window, because that's a fourth branch!

And if you don't believe me, that, you know, these experts never pay a price. Can you name a single expert?

Give me a name of an expert, that gave us any of the things that I just told you about.

Give me the name. I mean, give me the name of one of them. Give me the name of one of them that went to jail. Give me the name of one expert that has been discredited.

You know, where your name will be mud in this town. Do you know where that came from?

Your name is going to be mud. It's not M-U-D. It's M-U-D-D, that comes from Dr. Samuel Mudd. Okay? He was a docks man. He was an expert. He was that set John Wilkes Booth' broken leg. He made crutches. He let him stay there for a while. He claimed he didn't know him, but he did know him.

In fact, one of the reasons they proved it.

Is because when he pulled the boots off -- when he pulled both of his boots off, right there, in the back, you couldn't have missed it. It said "John Wilkes Booth."

He's like, I have no idea who he was.

Yeah. Well, you knew him in advance. This was a predetermined outpost where he could stay. It's clear you could know him.

The guy was still discredited, we still use his name today. Your name will be mud in this town.

And we think that it's like dirt, mixed with water kind of mud. No, it's M-U-D-D, Dr. Mudd. The expert that was so discredited, went to jail, paid for his part of the assassination of -- of Lincoln.

Give me the name of one of the experts in the last 100 years, that has brought us any of the trials and the tribulations. The things that have almost brought us to our knees. Give me the name of one of them. Can't!

Because once an expert class, they don't answer to anyone. So they never go to jail.

Wow! Doesn't that sound familiar. People never going to jail!

There's a rant that's going around right now, that I did in 2020. And everybody is like, see. He's talking about Pam Bondi.

No, no. I got to play this for you, a little later on in the program. But I want to get to the experts and what the Constitution actually says about that. Because you don't need my opinion. What you need are the actual facts. So you can stand up and say, yeah. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is an idiot. Okay?

And she's really not an expert on anything. Especially the Constitution. You need the facts, on what the Founders said. Because the Founders would be absolutely against what they did in 1935.

Because that just -- what does it do?

It just sets up a fourth branch of government.

RADIO

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

The biggest media merger in modern history is unfolding, and Glenn Beck warns it’s the most dangerous consolidation of power America has faced in decades. With six corporations already controlling 90% of the nation’s news and entertainment, a Warner-Netflix or Warner-Paramount megacorporation would create an unstoppable information cartel. Glenn exposes how “too big to fail” thinking is repeating itself, how global elites and “experts” are tightening their grip, and why handing our entire cultural narrative to a handful of companies is a direct threat to freedom. The hour is late — and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, it's never good when you consolidate power. It's never good.

And what is going on now, with this Netflix Warner Brothers paramount stuff, I don't care if Larry Ellison is a conservative or not.

No one should have that much power.

I did a show, gosh, four years ago. I don't even remember when I did it.

We looked it up. In the 1980s. 19 percent of American media was owned by over 50 companies.

Forty years later, 90 percent of the media is watched and controlled by six companies.

National Amusements, the Red Stone Family controls CBS, CMT, MTV, Nickelodeon, gaming and internet. Simon & Schuster Books. That's all one.

Disney, ABC, ESPN, History Channel, Marvel, Star Wars, video games and print.

TimeWarner controls CNN, Warner Brothers, HBO, Turner, video games, internet, and print media like TIME. Comcast, MSNBC, NBC.

CNBC, Telemundo, the Internet.

New Corp. Fox. National Geographic. Ton of others. Sony, with a ton of movies, music and more. The big six. They're valued at nearly $500 billion.

Now, this is something I put together five years ago. So I don't even know. This is probably not even valid even today.

And now we're talking about Netflix, Warner Brothers. Paramount, into all of these one giant corporation. It's wrong! It's wrong!

We can't keep putting all -- everything into the hands of just a few! It's what's killing us!

We've got to spread this around. We can't -- the government cannot okay mergers like this.

They're big enough he has

What happened -- what happened when the banks went under, or almost went under in '08. What did they say the problem was?

They said the banks are too big to fail.

Too big to fail.

Because they were providing all of the services, everybody needs. All the time. And there's only a handful of them.

So if they fall, then everything falls.

Right?

That was the problem. So what did we do to fix it?

We made them bigger!

We let them merge with other banks, and gobble up other things!

And started taking on the local banks.

And so now, your banks that were too big to fail. Are now even bigger. And their failure would be even worse!

What is wrong with us?

Seriously, we're not this stupid.

We're not this stupid.

I think we're just this comfortable.

We just think the experts have a plan. No. The experts don't have a plan.

Their plan is stupid. Their plan is to make it bigger.

Every time it fails. Make it bigger. Push it up.

Make it more global.

No. Haven't you seen what the entire world is like?

The entire world is over-leveraged. The entire world is on the edge.

The entire world is being redesigned.
So what do we do? We don't allow them to make things bigger! We need to start taking more individual and local control of things. They're making it bigger. Which will make the problem bigger. And make the problem so big, you won't be able to do anything about it, because all the experts. All of the heads. They'll all -- there will be six of them. And they will all be sitting in one room.

And they will all be making the instigations. And with them, making those decisions will be all the heads of all the countries around the world, that you're not going to have a say in any of that. They're already trying to do it with the WEF.

But if -- if the Supreme Court says, no, experts matter. And the president can't fire them. You will not have any control over anything!

We're at this place, where we can back out. We can turn around.

We can do it.

It's not too late. But the hour is growing very late.

I don't know about you, I don't like being this.

Up to the edge, you know what I mean?

I would rather have lots of breathing room, between me and the edge of the cliff.

But we don't have that anymore.

Everything has to be done right.

And we have to pay attention.

And the worst thing we can do is make things bigger.

Dream big, think small.

Glenn's Show Prep

The Gorsuch Pick: We're Thrilled to be Wrong

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

Transcript

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

Transcript

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

Transcript