©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) joined Glenn on radio today with a refreshing and much-needed approach: telling the truth, even if it's bad news. Sanford explained the reason behind the Freedom Caucus endorsing the latest version of Obamacare.
Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.
GLENN: So there was a disturbing news out of the White House yesterday. Yesterday, the Senate came and was briefed at the White House on North Korea. Some of the senators walked out and rolled their eyes. And they were quoted as saying, well, that was interesting. And not in a positive way.
No real word on -- on what happened, what the plan is. And couple that with another story that's coming out from the White House on how the president is briefed. And this is coming from an ally of Donald Trump inside the White House. And I have to tell you, Pat, your blood runs cold when you hear how he's briefed?
PAT: Yeah. Oh, yeah.
GLENN: I mean, this is one of the most disturbing things I've read. We'll get into that.
Also, a guy who is turning out to be somebody that we can really seemingly count on to tell the truth and to stand up to the weasels in Washington is congressman Mark Sanford of South Carolina. I don't believe he's ever been on the show before. We welcome him, beginning right now.
(music)
GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. How are you, sir?
MARK: I'm good. Good to hear your voice.
GLENN: It's good to have you on. Let me just get this uncomfortable moment out from me. Out into the open.
I saw you quickly in the hallway a few years back. And at the time, I was still kind of mad at you for the stuff that, you know, we all went through and you went through. But I have to tell you, you have -- you have taken a situation that could have just destroyed anybody, and you have -- you have a real success and redemption story. And it's really nice to have you on.
MARK: Well, you're very, very kind.
Without going into it, I have been on a journey that involves both the grace of man and the grace of God.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: And it's a pretty good journey.
GLENN: Well, we're glad to have you on.
I want to talk about a couple of things. Because you're a free market Libertarian-minded congressman, which are getting harder and harder to find, at least it seems out here in the wild as we're looking in. You saw the tax plan. And you've heard more now, I'm sure, you know, on the Trumpcare plan. How are you feeling about things?
MARK: You know, I think from a conservative or Libertarian standpoint, a lot of us are concerned about where things go next.
A number of us have sort of stuck our finger in the dike trying to hold back the health care bill based on a belief from a process standpoint. Not being ready for prime time. There's a value to the back and forth that -- that may not be comfortable or fun. But there's a real value to that.
And, frankly, some of the consequent results that would have come with that bill in its original form. And on the tax bill, I think a number of us are concerned about its ramifications with regard to the deficit. I think we need to -- I mean, this is a huge opportunity, the idea of reforming taxes, but we need to do it within the context of not simultaneously blowing up the debt and the deficit, which is no longer talked about in Washington, DC.
GLENN: I think this is so frightening. We don't even have a budget. And in the period we haven't had a budget, we've increased the debt by $10 trillion.
You're right. Nobody is talking about it. And I'm sorry to say that the -- the whole economic principle of cutting taxes only really works when you put it in the context of Calvin Coolidge. You must cut spending first. That's the only thing that's going to give all of us confidence that we can relax and spend a little bit and create jobs.
MARK: You're absolutely right. Because what's really interesting, as we both know, a deficit is simply a delayed tax. You're just stacking the bill. But the idea of saying, we'll cut taxes on one hand. But we'll run bigger deficits on the other. The two wash each other out from an economic standpoint. And so the only-fashioned notion of saying, "Wait a minute. Let's begin with the beginning." It was actually Milton Friedman who once said, "The ultimate measure of government is what it spends." Now, it's not the only measure, but it's a pretty important measure because it's from there that we raise taxes to pay for -- deficits may come as a result between the two.
But what it spends is something that's not looked at in Washington, but I think it's still looked at very closely by folks across this country.
GLENN: Well, I will tell you this, as a small business man, we were talking about this yesterday. And everybody on the team said, "Well, you know, that will increase job creation, et cetera, et cetera." And as the guy who actually pays the bills and runs the business, I said, "Not as much, quite honestly, as you might think because I'm still going to hold an awful lot back from for a rainy day because I know the center won't hold. This is a game." The only ones that are really going to spend it are the ones that I think will take those taxes and pour it into the stock market or whatever they can pour it into, that will have short-term paper guns to make more money, but not to necessarily create more jobs, because they know at some point the music will stop.
MARK: Uh-huh.
We're in the fourth longest economic recovery in the history of our nation right now. And if you believe in, I guess what the statisticians call regression to the mean or what everyday folks call the law of averages, to your point, it won't go on forever. I think, again, it could be very helpful in terms of competitiveness of this country.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: I think it's an incredible opportunity. These opportunities don't roll around often.
And this is the fourth time in the history of our republic that Republicans have held the House, Senate, and White House. But I think we need to do it within the context of making sure we're watching on the spending front. And our budgets become more and more unrealistic as each year goes by. And they get harder and harder to -- to, in essence, bring to ballot over a 10-year time frame.
And it's important that, again, we do talk at some level about this old-fashioned notion of accumulating debt and deficit.
It is amazing right now -- it's almost like the three monkeys about hear no evil, I speak no evil, I think no evil, with regard to debt and deficit. It is something that is just not focused on in DC right now, but I think has real implications in terms of value of the dollar, in terms of future inflation, and ultimately our way of life.
GLENN: So let me ask you a couple of things on, the Freedom Caucus stood against -- and you stood against Obamacare. I'm sorry. Obamacare and Trumpcare.
MARK: Yeah.
GLENN: When Trumpcare was being pushed, you were actually threatened by Team Trump. They said that, if you didn't sign up, they would challenge you in the primary of 2018. And from what I understand, you said, "Go ahead." Now they're saying that the Freedom Caucus is starting to come on board. Is there something that we can actually look at, that is possibly decent?
MARK: Yeah. It's represented in this MacArthur Amendment whether or not that will ultimately get us up and over the top, I'm not sure. But I think that the Freedom Caucus -- well, I know the Freedom Caucus has come on board based on the belief of, one, let's tell the truth to the American public. The truth is we're not repealing the Affordable Care Act. Even though there had been a lot of fanfare when we had a Democratic president and it couldn't go into effect, you know, 60 votes to that effect in the House of Representatives, the bill that made its way all the way to the president, a lot of chest-beating saying, "We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal." When push comes to shove, now that we have the chance, they were not willing -- the conference was not willing to bring that bill forward.
And I think that the allies that I deal with in the Freedom Caucus pushed awfully hard on that, saying, wait. This is something that is clear consensus in the House, the Senate. We've done it multiple times. But for whatever reason, that isn't where we were. This other bill moved forward. It wasn't, as I say, ready for prime time. It had a number of different deficiencies that I think would have hurt people who rely on the individual marketplace for their insurance.
And in essence, this MacArthur Amendment was an experiment in federalism. Getting it was called title one. And title one is really the central nervous system of what drives up cost in the individual marketplace and what, frankly, drives the Affordable Care Act. And our fight in --
GLENN: What is title one?
MARK: Title one basically deals with insurance being insurance. So if I said to you, we're going to -- you know, I'm going to give you great insurance. You know, great insurance. You have a 200,000-dollar house. But you've got to buy a million and a half dollar policy. You would say, that ain't great insurance for me. It might be great insurance, but it's not great insurance for me. Great insurance is the insurance that fits for me and for my family and those that I love.
And so what title one gets at is, all the different provisions that prevented insurance from being insurance. Insurance is not being able to buy your homeowner's policy when the house is on fire. You have to buy your homeowner's policy ahead of time to be covered.
And what the Affordable Care Act did is it said, you could wait until your house was on fire to buy a homeowner's policy. So title one was, again, letting -- preventing insurance from being insurance. And it was our belief that if you were ever going to, again, affect the cost of insurance for that small business person out there struggling to make it and struggling with fewer choices and rising premiums, you had to let insurance be insurance.
And so that's what the fight has been about. And what this MacArthur Amendment did was it said, okay. We'll split the baby. And we'll do a federalism experiment. States that want to let insurance be insurance, they can do that. States that don't, won't. If Vermont wants to go to a single-payer system, they may. If South Carolina wants to go to a more market-based system, they may. And that I think is the most you'll be able to get out of the conference. And at that point, the Freedom Caucus folded the cards and said, I guess, as of yesterday to be exact, we'll sign off on that particular measure. And that's where things are right now.
GLENN: Mark -- we're talking to Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina who is showing some real spine and some backbone and standing up for some real true conservative principles. I'd love to talk to you about the future of the party and where you think this is going and the -- and where Trump is going. But one of the pressing issues that I think we need to talk about is North Korea.
What is the temperature in Washington for North Korea? We, for the life of us, cannot come up with a way that this ends without at least a million dead.
MARK: Yeah. You can draw some really bad doomsday scenarios. There was actually a closed door Intel briefing yesterday afternoon on the Hill for members of Congress on this particular topic. And without going into that, I would just say that -- I -- I think we want to be careful about rattling this particular saber --
GLENN: No, I know.
MARK: At this point, North Korea does not have the capacity to bring harm to domestic US. And I think we need to put things within that particular framework as we look at and access threat.
GLENN: Do you believe this administration is looking at it like that?
MARK: I -- I think that they are most worried about what might happen there. And I think that they're thinking about preemptive -- preemptive steps to prevent something from happening.
GLENN: That doesn't sound good.
What is -- with everything, Mark, that is going on, the economy -- I have a woman on who was inside the Dallas fed. She wrote a great book. I don't know if you've seen it, called Fed Up. She was in Wall Street. And then she was one of the chief researchers for the head of the Dallas fed here in -- and saw, you know, 2008 coming a mile away. And she was laughed at until it happened. And then she was promoted.
And what she sees coming now is an absolute disaster financially. With that -- with the world on the edge, with -- with Russia and with a press that is no longer trusted, a government that is no longer trusted, what -- what keeps you up at night? And what keeps you optimistic?
MARK: What keeps me up at night is exactly -- I will make it a point to find this book Fed Up. It's fascinating.
But, you know, I would just presuppose that her philosophical alignment is to the right.
GLENN: Yes.
MARK: But whether you're right or left on this issue -- I mean, it was interesting that Erskine Bowles, who was, you know, Clinton's former chief of staff at the time of the Bowles/Simpson commission, remarked that, you know, look, we're looking at the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man.
If you think about Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman and joint of chief, his observation was -- when asked, what's the biggest threat to the United States? Not the Chinese. Excuse me -- not the Chinese, not the Taliban. But his answer was the American debt.
And so whether it's somebody who is a firsthand participant in the way that the fed works, with the right position, somebody from a military position, somebody from the left, the thing that we're not talking about right now is indeed the build-up of the debt. There's an interesting book if you have insomnia called At This Time, It's Different.
GLENN: Oh, yeah.
MARK: And it was written by a professor from Harvard and a professor from Maryland, writer, and wrote often. Some of their methodologies have been questioned. But their largest premise is accurate. And they look at the last 800 years of financial history, as it relates to governments, and what they found is that in every instance, civilization has got to a tipping point where -- and they had to decide, do we go back to what made us competitive and perhaps a world power in the first place, or do we stay on this happy, but ultimately unsustainable cycle of upward government spending and consumption? And nine times out of ten, they chose the easy path. They said, well, this time it's different. Of course, it never was. Gravity always works. And it was the seeds of that civilization's undoing.
And so the thing that keeps me up at night is the way in which there's not a focus on the implications of the debt and the deficit for every working American.
GLENN: So I will tell you, I am working on a book based on history, on that very thing.
MARK: Hmm.
GLENN: And I will tell you that -- I found it very hard to stay optimistic once you know history. But I have found what keeps me -- helps me back to sleep at night, what have you found that puts you back to sleep at night?
MARK: Engagement. You know, I think that people aren't dumb. At times in politics, we can fuse -- and I think even the president -- I say this most respectfully confuses -- they think it's about us. It's not about us. We're simply receptacles for people's ideas and ideals and the advancement of those ideas. And I would say that this election back in November was less about Donald Trump than it was about people's absolute mind-numbing frustration with the way that Washington was working for them.
GLENN: Yes.
MARK: And so if we just simply separate ourselves just a touch -- it's not about me. It's about these ideas that people are ginned up on.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: What I will say is that we all ought -- right now, you walk into a restaurant, many times it used to be the sports channel that was up.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: Nowadays it's a news channel because people are focused on politics. And I think to that degree, engagement is exciting.
GLENN: Yeah. Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. Thank you very much. And, by the way, thank you for holding out for Nikki Haley. If we wouldn't have had you, we wouldn't have had her. She's doing a great job in the UN. But thank you for everything. We'll talk again soon.
MARK: Looking forward to it.
GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
