BLOGJune 15, 2017

Epiphany: Could This Be the Winning Strategy to Bridge the Divide?

For the past year, Glenn has been trying to figure out two things:

1. How do we talk to the American people?

2. How do we talk in a different way when there is so much fear and anger is happening?

He may have found the way in a book written by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt titled, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

The book covers what's called the Moral Foundations Theory. Not surprisingly, conservatives and liberals approach big issues from completely different moral perspectives or pillars.

"He said at the beginning of his book, 'I thought, before doing all of this research, that I was a deep progressive. As it turns out, I'm not, but I didn't understand the right because they never spoke my language. I didn't think they cared about people,'" Glenn explained.

Haidt actually studied Glenn to research hate-filled speech, but realized he'd been under a misconception --- and it was an eye-opening awakening.

"He realized . . . I think I've misunderstood this entire thing. Now, he's come up [with a way ] to explain what's happening to us," Glenn said.

That way could be the key to bridging the divide.

In the coming months, Glenn will take a deep dive into the moral pillars to teach how learning this second language, if you will, can engage people with opposite ideologies. In the meantime, he introduced the moral pillars on radio today.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: There's -- there's really three or four books that I would like you to read. And we'll talk about those in the coming days. But one of them is called The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. And he is a -- a -- a New York liberal NYU professor, who is not liberal anymore. He said at the beginning of his book: I thought, before doing all of this research, that I was a deep progressive. As it turns out, I'm not. But I didn't understand the right because they never spoke my language. I didn't think they cared about people.

Now, here's an educated man and an honest guy, who says, "As I started doing research, I realized, 'Wait. That's not who they are.'"

And the reason why he came to that is because a couple of people started speaking his language. In talking to him, you know, off air and talking about his theories, I found out that I'm one of the guys that was speaking his language. And he was shocked because I was one of the guys he was studying because I'm so hate-filled.

And what he realized is, wait. I think I've misunderstood this entire thing. Now, he's come up to explain what's happening to us.

And -- and he was looking for a way for people to be able to reach out to each other. But he doesn't think he found it. I do. And it's a fantastic read that -- that describes what's happening to the human brain. And how he describes this -- this is an older theory, but he's really kind of made this -- he's brought it to life.

What happens is, we -- our brain -- our choices -- so much of our choices are guttural. We're presented -- for instance, I don't know if you know this, this is crazy. Five thousand advertisements a day. We see 5,000 advertisements a day. Now, that doesn't even seem possible. But that's the average that the Americans see every single day. So we're weeding those things out. Because how many of them make it to us recognizing that's an ad?

We make 15,000 yes or no choices every single day. I don't think that's even possible.

But at least 15,000 on average. So much of what we do is what he calls the elephant part of the brain. And the elephant is this big, huge immovable object, that reason is sitting on top of. And reason is sitting on top of this elephant. And it's really rarely consulted by the elephant. Because the elephant is just moving.

And it's moving, based on what it has experienced. What its upbringing was. What its first reaction is. What first impressions are.

You know, you meet somebody, and your first impression is, I don't know if I really trust them. I don't know if I like them. Sometimes, if you have to, you will say, wait a minute. Let me reason this out. But most times, you just kind of let that go, and it builds one way or the other.

Well, that's the elephant. And then before you know it, you just don't trust that guy. And you're not really sure why. I just don't trust him. That's the elephant.

When it comes to critical decisions -- especially when fear is introduced -- we know that fear shuts reason down. And that's because the elephant just says, through experience, we're going that way.

And the writer -- because this -- this part of the brain -- this intuition and this X factor in the brain is so big and so lumbering, the writer -- the reason can rarely turn it.

Now, it can be turned. But it usually is turned, not by a great argument. We always say, how are we losing? We have the great argument. Well, it's not turned by the great argument. It's actually more likely to have the writer stop and wake up and tell the elephant, "Stop for a minute," from peer pressure.

It's more likely to be stopped when a bunch of people that the elephant trusts says, "You got this wrong. You got to listen. You have this wrong."

That's really the only time you have a chance that the elephant stops. The other time is when the elephant meets somebody new and likes them and has a general feeling of, this is a good guy. And that person gently challenges the elephant's belief, in a kind and friendly way. And then the elephant kind of looks up to the writer and says, "Does that make sense?" But that rarely happens.

Does this make sense so far? Do you understand?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So my job has been for the last year, to figure out two things: How do we talk to the American people? How do we talk to them in a different way, when so much rhetoric and so much fear and anger is happening?

Remember, I've made a pledge to myself, and I've asked to you make this pledge years ago: I will not go over the cliff with the rest of humanity.

So now, here we are. Humanity is going over a cliff. How do we stop our friends? I've said to you for many years: You're going to have to be the one that says, "Stop. Don't go that way." Well, when they're panicked, when they're fearful and the elephant is in charge, how do you wake the writer up?

Well, first, you have to be a trusted friend. You have to be kind. The best book you can read right now -- this is according to Jonathan Haidt. One of the best ways to do it is start with How to Win Friends and Influence People. Norman Vincent Peale, because the whole thing was actually care about the other person. Listen to them. Listen to them.

I would have behaved much differently in the last 18 months had I not been so arrogant. And I would have listened to you more. But I didn't.

And what I was talking about was principles. And those principles are great. And we all agreed on those principles. And I thought I was talking to the writer. What I didn't -- what I didn't realize is that you are struggling so hard with insurance. You're struggling so hard -- I know the chaos -- what you're feeling. But, honestly, I thought it was at more at our level, that we're looking at the news and can't figure it out. And that -- I just didn't -- I didn't see you. I was too egotistical. I saw me.

And that ended in disaster. That's not good. Many of us aren't friends now. Many of the people who are with me for a long time, they're not friends anymore.

Well, that's not -- how did that happen? My fault. Okay. I got that.

So now, how do we repair that, and how do we now reach out to people who have never liked any of us?

I'm going to explain this quickly. It's called the moral foundations theory. And what he has done -- and I urge you to watch it on TheBlaze TV. If you have a subscription, just watch it right now. This is actually in my office. And this is something I'm actually taking the staff through every day. And we just started. But let me show you how it works.

There are five -- there are five moral foundations that our society generally runs on. And it's loyalty and betrayal. Sanctity and disgust. Authority and subversion. Care and harm. Liberty and oppression. So the flipside of five moral pillars.

What Jonathan Haidt found in his research is that conservatives have loyalty and betrayal, sanctity and disgust, authority and subversion. We have those strongly. Liberals have care and harm and liberty and oppression. And they really have care and oppression. They don't focus on liberty as much as they focus on oppression.

Libertarians happen to have all five. And you'll see, Libertarians always seem to get a bunch of liberals to join them. Why?

Because they're the only ones speaking from a place of -- of authenticity on care and harm, liberty and oppression.

Conservatives do have all five, but they -- but they -- they don't exercise all five very often. And on top of that, liberals only have two. And they never go up to the top three.

So let me just show you how this works. When it comes to health care, they argue health care, you don't care -- you want to harm the -- you want to kill people. You don't care about anybody. You don't care about children.

When it comes to school vouchers, you don't care about children. You don't care about them having education. You know, you want to cut welfare. You don't care about people. They're all there, care and harm.

When it comes to things like moms at home. What do we argue? We argue moms -- because that's a sacred job -- we're arguing sanctity. We look at motherhood as a sacred job, a sacred responsibility with your child. And that children -- that's a sacred duty to us as parents. That's not what they're arguing. They're arguing oppression.

You are oppressing the woman by making her stay at home. And they mean that as much as we mean it's sacred.

But they don't relate to sacred responsibilities. And I'm speaking generally. And we don't relate to oppression, speaking generally. We don't relate to that.

So we're using different languages. It's like going to Mexico and speaking French.

So what we have to do is we have to move -- for instance, under sanctity and disgust, have you ever noticed how disgusting the left can get in things? Like there's nothing too vile. Occupy Wall Street, there's a protest, we can't relate to them because they're crapping on cars and smearing feces on things. There's no -- there's no -- there's no disgust that is too low for them. Because they don't have the sanctity bar.

We talk about sex, marriage, and God. We're up at sanctity. But they bring the sex, marriage, and God down to oppression. That's why we're not able to understand each other.

We literally are speaking two different languages.

And somebody has to master the second language. And I am asking you to help us and let us help you master a second language.

And begin to speak a different language. Because if there's enough of us doing it, we can stop humanity from going over the cliff. And we're never going to win with just a great argument. Because we're not speaking the same language.

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

Epiphany: Could This Be the Winning Strategy to Bridge the Divide?

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