RADIOSeptember 09, 2024

Why Alan Dershowitz LEFT the Democrat Party after 70 years

Attorney Alan Dershowitz has been a Democrat for 70 years. He has only voted for Democratic presidents since JFK. But now, he no longer recognizes the Democratic Party. Dershowitz joins Glenn to explain why he left the Democrats behind to become an independent. After defending then-president Donald Trump in his impeachment trial, many Democrats distanced themselves from him. Since then, hatred of Israel and Jews has grown amongst their ranks, censorship has become the norm, and the Party has embraced the socialist leanings of Bernie Sanders and AOC. But Dershowitz tells Glenn that he’s not alone: liberals are fleeing the Democratic Party in droves! Dershowitz also comments on Republicans Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney’s endorsements of Kamala Harris and RFK Jr.’s endorsement of Donald Trump.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor. Emeritus.

Host of the Dershow.

And Get Trump author.

He came out this weekend, joining his voice to many others.

Saying, I am not a Democrat anymore.

He's an independent. He's not saying he is going to vote for Trump. But there is a problem in the democratic party, as we've been pointing out for a while now.

They're not your grandfather's Democratic Party. Your father's. Even maybe your Democratic Party anymore. They're not. Dershowitz is joining us now. Alan, how are you, sir?

ALAN: Well, I'm feeling really good as an independent. I've been a Democrat for 70 years. I started supporting the Democratic Party, in the early 1950s, as a kid, who went around in a sound truck, supporting Phillip Shuffler. The Democratic candidate, the assemblyman in Brooklyn.

And I haven't voted for single non-Democrats for president, since -- since John Kennedy in 1960.

But like Ronald Reagan said, the Democratic Party has left me, by having people like Keith Ellison, who was a supporter of the reverend -- and the Reverend Sharpton, who conducted an anti-Semitic pogrom, in the Bronx and in Brooklyn back in the day. And AOC, who says that Israel is a genocidal state. And -- and -- and people like Bernie Sanders. That's not my party. I can't support a party like that.

I'm going to be independent. And I'm hoping maybe some day, the Democrats will come back to their roots.

But until then, don't count on my support.

GLENN: This is really earth-shattering, I think to some people.

And the minute I read this, Alan. I thought of your children and your wife.

Because I know, I know decisions that you make. Like decisions I make. Affect the whole family.

How -- how is that going?

ALAN: Yeah. Terrible. Terrible. My nephew wrote to me yesterday, and said, you're now to the right of -- and then he mentioned, some of the people who -- you know, the old Republicans.

Cheney and others who are now supporting Harris.

And my family -- every -- my family is a Democrat.

And most of my friends.

I don't have that many friends left.

Because I have supported Donald Trump's civil liberties. Even before I left the democratic party.

I'm a civil libertarian first.

And I hate what the Democrats have done to Donald Trump.

You know, that New York case. And --

GLENN: But you --

ALAN: I've been on his side of the legal issues for years now.

GLENN: But what they're doing on censorship overall is terrifying.

ALAN: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Really terrifying.

ALAN: Well, it's happening around the world. It's what's happening in England. They're putting people in jail for protests.

GLENN: I know.

ALAN: It's horrible. And they're applying a double standard on universities. You know, you can't say a word negative about protected minorities on college campuses.

But, you know, if you use the wrong pronoun, you'll get expended. But you can call Israel a genocidal country. And you can say, you know, Jews are destroying America. That's okay. That's first America protected speech.

And I don't mind that, as long as you apply the same standard to everybody. They're not. They're not.

They're applying a double standard.

GLENN: So, Alan, do you sense that this is more than just you?

ALAN: Yeah. Oh, yeah.

I've gotten hundreds and hundreds of calls and emails, from people who say, you know, used to be Democrats. We still support a lot of the democratic platform.

On abortion rights and gay rights. But we can't be members of a party, for 50,000 -- or AOC. Or people like that. You know, the Republicans have their problem too, with Tucker Carlson.

He platformed recently a Holocaust denier. And he ought to be ashamed of himself for doing that. Neither party is perfect. But I think Republicans have done a better job of marginalizing their extremists than the Democrats have done.

GLENN: Well, I mean, you know, it's -- it's hard when Kamala came out, this weekend, saying, you know, I understand the Palestinians. Those who are standing up for the -- for Hamas.

Or the Palestinian cause.

I have sympathy for them.

And that's why Israel, they have to offer a two-state solution.

They don't want a two-state solution.

Israel has offered a two-state solution.

They don't want one.

ALAN: There isn't a single protester. I will give a thousand dollars to Hamas, if you can show me protesters, protesters who are calling for a two-state solution. What they're calling for is the end of Israel.

GLENN: River to the sea.

ALAN: What they're calling for is a victory of Hamas. What they're calling for is the end of Israel.

They're not calling for a two-state solution.

That's ridiculous.

And they're not even calling for a cease-fire.

Because Israel is agreeing to the cease-fire. Even the State Department says, it's all up to Hamas now.

Has a single protestor ever said, hey, Hamas, agree to a ceasefire, maybe then you can save some lives?

Nobody is calling for that. These are just calls for the end of Israel.

And they're calls for the end of America.

Recently, some of the protesters were burning American flags. And saying, our real goal is the destruction of America.

Because Israel is a surrogate for America. Why is there so much focus on Israel?

Is there any focus on Darfur and the Sudan, where people are literally dying of hunger and thirst? No! Because that has nothing to do with being anti-American. So it's all about anti-Americans.

GLENN: So when you left the democratic party, it's more than just their stance on Israel.

ALAN: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. It's the whole movement to the hard left.

And look I'm a centrist Democrat. I'm a liberal. I'm an antiradical. I believe in civil liberties, and free speech. All the basic aspects of the Bill of Rights. And the Democrats aren't supporting that these days. To them, it's free speech for me, but not for thee.

GLENN: So Dick Cheney came out. Speaking of your nephew.

ALAN: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Dick Cheney came out this weekend and said, there's never been a bigger threat to the republic. Or I think he probably said the democracy. Than Donald Trump.

What do you make of that?

ALAN: I don't know.

You know, he was a pretty tough vice president.

And pretty aggressive in his support, of American policies.

I don't know that it has to do with -- I don't know what it has to do with his feeling that the Republicans haven't give up him enough deference.

He hasn't quit the Republican Party.

As far as I know, he's still a Republican. But he will still vote for Harris and against Trump.

I know people like that as well. And I know people on the other side.

This is an election that is very much about personalities. You know, I don't know very many people who will vote for anybody in this election.

I think there are a lot of people voting against a candidate. And they haven't decided against the candidate they are voting against yet. The American people really were entitled to a better choice.

GLENN: Yeah. So if you were -- if you were talking in front of a jury. Let's make America 12 men and women.

ALAN: Yeah.

GLENN: And you had to make a case, that the Democrats are actually a bigger threat, at least the way they're currently put together. How would you change -- how would you approach the jury?

ALAN: Well, I would approach the jury, by be looking at the facts. By seeing what the Democrats have done. How they've abused the rule of law.

How they're violating the First Amendment. The Fifth Amendment.

The -- the Sixth Amendment.

They're using lawfare. And politics.

They're distorting democracy.

And look, I don't like the fact that President Trump claims he won the last election. He didn't win the last election.

Although, I think a lot of people think he did. But I don't like the way the world. And the country. And the Democrats have reacted to that.

He has a free speech where I can make that position. He shouldn't have been indicted for any of the charges that he was indicted for.

And I think if you would have singled out one case, it's the New York case, against him.

Where they made up a crime.

Has done more damage to the rule of law. And to democracy. Than anything Donald Trump has done.

GLENN: Alan, thank you so much.

I --

ALAN: My pleasure.

GLENN: I feel for your family.

Because I know what it's like. I know.

ALAN: It's tough for them. It's tough for them.

But look, they have to buy the whole package. They know who I am.

I stand up for principle. And, you know, I put family first. But I put principle first too.

GLENN: Yeah.

ALAN: And mostly my family has been supportive. Not everybody in the family. But mostly my family has been supportive.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, you're probably feeling a lot like Robert F. Kennedy.

Jr.

Right now.

ALAN: Well, Bobby is an old friend of mine.

I've known him since he was a young man.

Of course, I've supported the Kennedys, right from the beginning.

I tell you a funny story about that. I was at a dinner party. And they see this Caroline Kennedy next to me, and she said, I know you were -- I wouldn't have come because you defended Donald Trump.

And I said, yeah, but I also defended Ted Kennedy.

That's how I first came to Martha's Vineyard. Defending Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick. Would you have walked on me, for that? Well, she had no answer.

GLENN: Huh. What do you think of Robert F. Kennedy joining the Trump thing?

ALAN: I'm not advised. I mean, they have a lot in common.

And, you know, he has very strong views. Some of which I agree with. Some of which I disagree with.

And he's a serious guy.

And I have to tell you, he's a great volleyball player. I've played against him a couple of times. My nose still hurts.

Into my face. But I like Bobby.

GLENN: Yeah.

ALAN: And, you know, I like his spiciness. I don't agree with all of his politics.

But he shouldn't be attacked by his family. He's an individual. He should be entitled to his own opinions.

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz. Appreciate it. Good to talk to you.

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.

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.

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.