RADIOJanuary 29, 2025

Is THIS the Answer to Trump's Cartel Problem?

How should President Trump handle the Mexican cartels? Glenn is “in love with” an idea that Sen. Mike Lee proposed: Hidden deep within the Constitution is a clause that allows the government to let private citizens basically act like pirates against hostile forces … MAGA pirates?! Sen. Lee joins Glenn to explain what “letters of marque and reprisal” are, why the government hasn’t used them in centuries, and whether Trump can issue them to stop the cartels.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Boy, there are no crazy ideas, right now. It is an interesting time to be alive, in America.

Senator Mike Lee is joining me now.

Yesterday, he proposed using letters of marque and reprisal to weaken the drug cartels.

And I -- I mean, I'm in love with this old timey constitutional idea. But it basically would make private citizens or companies. It would give them permission to kind of be like pirates.

Where they could just go and bust them up.

And take all their booty.

As long as they share it with the United States.

It would be great. It would be cheaper.

And we wouldn't have to put our military in harm's way. Mike Lee joins me now.

Mike, explain the letters of marque and reprisal.

MIKE: A letter of marque and reprisal amounts to a government-issued commission of sorts, authorizing private citizens, known as privateers, to perform acts that would otherwise be considered piracy, like attacking enemy ships during wartime.

And privateers are typically rewarded with a cut of whatever loot they will bring home.

But they're able to make it back to the United States, and bring home assets that can be sold, liquidated, reduced to an economic value, then the government sets up what's called a prize court, which decides who gets what.

And typically, the government keeps half of it. And then has -- has a system for giving the privateers involved in it. Each -- each -- their fair share, of the 50 percent.

GLENN: So -- so these guys.

Let's say Eric Prince -- Eric Prince loves this idea. He was like, I'm all in.

He would go down to the border, and he would, what?

Break up the cartels, by -- as they're shipping stuff across the border. Grab their cash. Their guns. Their cash. They're using boats, whatever.

And the drugs. And then give those to the government. And the government would say, okay. Eric, this part is yours.

MIKE: Yeah. Now to be clear, when you say the border, we're talking outside the United States.

I don't think this works for things found in the United States. But if outside the United States, they recover assets, typically, what we would be looking at are assets that could be liquidated by the government.

Gold, silver, cash, equipment.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

MIKE: If they can bring those things back into the United States, then they can be sold.

It also raises the question of the drugs. You notice, they won't allow those to be sold.

So you either will have exclude those, or the government would just have to go out of pocket to reward them for bringing that back in.

And that's one of the things that have to be discussed.

This is a tool that hasn't been used by the United States for a long time.

But it's a tool that harnesses, you know, self-interest. It harnesses what people could gain by this, in a way that could be really advantageous for the United States.

GLENN: Boy, I have to tell you, I love this idea.

Donald Trump Jr loves this idea.

But it does seem like something that Mexico would hate.
(laughter)

MIKE: Sure. Sure. It depends on who you are talking about with Mexico. Hard-working, independent, Mexican citizens who have lived under the tyranny of these cartels who have been affected by the violence, that is rampant throughout the country.

And sponsored by the cartels.

A lot of them would perhaps not have much an objection. If any objection at all.

Because they want to be free of this stuff.

But, yeah. I can imagine that the Mexican government might have feelings about it.

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: But this is different. This is different in the sense, that it's not the United States, undertaking any kind of effort to have a military presence in Mexico. Which would, of course, be unacceptable to Mexico.

This is about private citizens, going out and trying to seize assets, of these chair organizations.

Of this international criminal enterprise, bring it back to the United States. With the understanding, that they will be entitled to a cut of about half of it, once they get back.

GLENN: So one thing that I was thinking before this idea was, we're going to send in SEAL teams.

And they'll just be gone before the sun comes up, and you will never know who did it. And there will just be a lot of dead cartel members laying there in the sun, as it starts to rise.

And, you know, Mexico will hate that. But as long as we're gone in the morning, I mean, we've -- we've deemed them a terrorist organization. Don't we have the right to do that?

Well, once that happens, you can imagine, there might be circumstances in which that would occur.

But again, a letter of marque and reprisal allows to avoid doing that, that creates an additional set of difficulties for us, that we wouldn't face if we were sending -- if we were authoring privateers to do that. It matters to the degree, of course.

But it would be foolish for us to assume, that our only option involves sending in the Marines, so to speak.

US boots on the ground has a very different feel than privateers going in and doing something on their own.

And it's one of the reasons why I felt important enough, I put out a thread for my at base Mike Lee account, in which I explained a brief history of letters of marque and reprisal. How they function, and that they ought to be considered here.

GLENN: So, I mean, I really like it.

And I like the fact. I mean, I'm for anything constitutional.

Anything extra constitutional, I'm against. But this is literally in the Constitution, that you can do this.

But it seems old timey. You know, it does -- does anybody do this anymore?

MIKE: No. And the United States hasn't done it arguably.

GLENN: In over 100 years.

MIKE: In a couple hundred years.

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: But the focus of this, would be something that I think may well be perfectly suited for our time. And for this situation.

Focus on disrupting supply lines. Capturing high value targets.

Or seizing assets like boats, vehicles, cash, gold. Equipment used in criminal activities.

Because we all know, you know, private entities and individuals can operate with a degree of agility, that you can't replicate in government.

Allowing them to adapt quite quickly.

To the tactics of the cartels. And to max those.

GLENN: But what would other countries say?

Is anybody using this country anymore? It used to happen, when there were pirates. With the black flag. With the bones on it.

Does anybody use anything like this anymore? What would they say, if we started?

I don't really say, but what would they say?

GLENN: Not aware of any countries using them right now. And I'm sure there are countries where they say, this violates this or that principle of international law, either of some treaty, that we haven't ratified or of what they refer to as customary international law, which is a fancy way of saying, people don't do this anymore.
And so, therefore, it violates international law.

But all of that is beside the point. If it is within our authority to do this, and if we haven't forsworn the authority through some treaty that we have ratified, which I'm quite certain we have not.

So that's why this is a tool that we shouldn't take off the table. And it's -- they may have well come. We haven't used it in a long time.

But where has -- we have a different type of adversary, than we sometimes face in the past.

This is not the government of Mexico.

But these are criminal organizations, within Mexico, that have an international footprint. That affect the United States.

And that have taken actions that are hostile to the interests of the United States, and her citizens.

So with this circumstance, would it be irresponsible of us, not to consider it.

And I think we ought to explore this. And perhaps issue some letters of marque and reprisal.

The fact that it hasn't happened in a long time, likely since the 1800s, doesn't mean that the power does not exist. And certainly does not mean that we couldn't benefit from it.

GLENN: Right. Right. Mike, I love this idea.

I hope it gains some traction. Just because, it will make Mexico. You know, I was talking to my wife the other night about this.

She would say, what would Mexico say?

And I said, you know, just like you said, the people of Mexico will love this.

Because they're tired of this. You would know pretty quickly, who is under the thumb of the cartels. And who is not.

Just like we would with our government. If someone is coming in and saying, hey, you've got terrorist organizations. And we will take them out.

If we knew them to be terrorist organizations. I think, you know, we might say. Well, come on now. We can take care of that.

But if they could do it, for us. I'm all for that. I would be all for that.

The people who would be against are the ones really under the thumb of the cartels.

And the people of Mexico, should know who those people are. As if they don't already know.

Mike, one last went. How do you think RFK will fare in the Senate?

RON: Look, he faces a tough fight. Democrats are institutionally inclined to oppose anyone, who was at once part of their party. And has moved in the other direction.

Particularly with someone with as prominent a name as RFK Jr has. And particularly someone who has shown a degree of contempt for the Deep State. For the administrative state.

For things that have gone wrong.

And so we're going to have to -- rely on. My hope is that we can pick up some democratic votes.

GLENN: You're for him?

MIKE: We have to assume that we won't be able to do to. And we will need to produce enough Republicans to make sure he gets through. Just we did with Pete Hegseth.

It will be a tight vote there. I do think he can get through. But it's by no means certain, and that's why we have to line up behind him to support him.

GLENN: Wow. And you're for him?

MIKE: Oh, 100 percent. I had a great meeting with him the other day. And I think he brings to the table, an innovative approach with a fresh set of eyes that can see, that we've created a lot of problems through our own government.

The very department that he's been asked to head, as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Has been a big part of the problem.

He recognizes that. That's exactly why we need him in there.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

And our other nominees is -- is Kash Patel going to get through?

MIKE: Yeah. So similarly, to what we face with RFK, with Kash Patel and also with --

GLENN: Tulsi.

MIKE: Tulsi Gabbard.

We're going to have to confront both of those with the expectation, that we may not get a single democratic vote.

And so that's why Republicans are so important. Remember, it's unusual for an incoming president to not have his top level picks supported by pretty much every member of the president's own party in confirmation votes.

And we've -- we've got to remember that. So a lot of the same people, who are on the list of those who might oppose them. Are people who time and time again, voted to confirm democratic nominees.

Named by President Biden.

I hope they will give Republican nominees, nominated by President Trump, at least the same degree of deference, that they give to those nominated by President Biden.

Often, by the way, with the justification, that he is the elected president.

We -- we can't run the world as if our guy were president.

Well, if that's the case. It should be the case here.

GLENN: Well, that's a nice way of saying, what I believe, which is vote these weasels out, if they -- if they fail to support the president.

We have one shot at this.

And so far, Donald Trump and those who are supporting him, are doing amazing things in the first week.

Things that I never thought that I would see.

And I for one, am excited about it. Mike, appreciate it very much.

Senator Mike Lee.

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.