RADIOJanuary 18, 2024

Does Biden's new SECRET COURT reveal a partnership to SPY ON YOU?!

Just when you thought the news couldn't get any crazier, Glenn reads a report from Politico on a new secret surveillance court that Biden's attorney general recently staffed. Included in the panel of judges ... former AG Eric Holder of all people. But the story gets more insane. At first, the "Data Protection Review Court" appears to be related to the "lucrative transatlantic data trade" between companies. But then, Politico starts mentioning intelligence agencies, surveillance practices, and visas being denied. Plus, apparently, the court's location is secret, its decisions are kept secret, and plaintiffs aren't even allowed to go to the court. Is this an admission of an international public-private partnership to spy on Americans via European agencies, and vice versa?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This comes from politico today. In a deal to let companies, and I would like you to stop me, when you don't understand something, or you think you can explain it, Stu. Okay?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: All right.

This one is a wild one. In a deal to let companies keep trading transatlantic data, the White House built an opaque new forum, that could affect national security, and privacy rights, without any paper trail.

STU: I mean, there's a lot of questions in that paragraph. But usually the opening one, setting you up for the explanation.

So perhaps I should wait a second.

GLENN: At an undetermined date, in an undisclosed location, the Biden administration began operating a secretive new court, to protect European's privacy rights under US law.

Known officially as the data protection review court, it was authorized in an October 2022 executive order, to fix a collision of European and American law. That had been blocking the lucrative flow of consumer data, between American and European companies, for three years.

Now, this is because Europe has just put in a very strong privacy law.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And they're enforcing those things.

Well, we have a problem exchanging data now, because of their private laws.

The court's eight judges. Eight judges were named last November, including, oh. Attorney general Eric Holder. He's trustworthy.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: Its existence has allowed companies to resume the lucrative does with the blessing of EU officials.

STU: What is the lucrative transatlantic data trade?

GLENN: I don't know.

They say that it's companies. But then, it -- then -- just listen to the whole story. I mean, they say that's companies trading data.

Or like, for instance, Facebook having servers here. With European at that time on their servers.

STU: Okay. So you could argue, maybe that this needs to be sorted out, because there's nothing nefarious going on here.

It's just -- it's just --

GLENN: Why the secrecy.

STU: Very strange.

Also, did we have -- we cover the news every day. Did we have a new bill, that created this?

Was there a new discussion?

Was there a debate?

GLENN: No. Executive order. A dictate.

STU: A dictate from -- create new courts?

GLENN: New courts. New courts.

STU: Wow. Okay.

GLENN: The next sentence -- because you understand clearly what we're talking about, right?

The next sentence of this article is the details get blurry after that.

STU: Okay. So what we just had, was the in-focus part. Okay.

GLENN: Yes. That's crystal clear. It will get a little blurry now.

The court's location is a secret.

The Department of Justice will not say if it's taken a case yet.

STU: Why -- why would you hide the location of a court that is overseeing data transfers?

GLENN: Hmm.

STU: What on earth?

Why would that need to be a secretive location?

GLENN: No idea.

Though, the court has a clear mandate ensuring European's their privacy rights under US law. Its decisions will also be kept a secret from both the EU resident's petitioning the court, and the federal agencies tasked with following the law.

STU: Wait. Wait.

So someone in the EU comes to the American court, that the --

GLENN: The secret court.

STU: That they don't know where the location is.

GLENN: Right. I don't know how to contact them. Don't know anything.

STU: So when that happens. Which I assume it would be very infrequently.

When they don't, they go through some sort of case. And then they don't get to know the result of the case?

GLENN: Well, it's not only that. Plaintiffs are also not allowed to appear in person. And are represented --

STU: How could they. They don't know where it is?

GLENN: Right. And they're represented by a special advocate appointed by the US attorney general.

STU: Okay. So --

GLENN: Okay. So --

STU: I have a problem with my data. And I go to this court, that I don't know where it is.

GLENN: Right. And you can't actually go to the court.

STU: I can't actually -- not physically going.

I contact them. They create a case. They assign an advocate for me, to argue the case.

But I can't know where it is, when it's going on, and what the outcome is?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Okay. Perfect.

GLENN: This is just to restore some trust. Critics worry, that it will tie the hands of intelligence agencies, with an unusual power.

It can make binding decisions on surveillance practices, with federal agencies, which won't be able to challenge those decisions.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Now, I thought this was about corporate data transfers.

STU: Yeah. What does this have to do with intelligence agencies?

GLENN: Until there's some clarity on how that will operate, I think you would expect the intelligence agency to be nervous about what it might mean, especially since it's not even clear what its caseload might even look like.

For the European citizens, it's supposed to help.

The picture is just as murky.

Private advocates argue that it will be nearly impossible for European residents to bring cases, given that they will have to know that they're being surveilled to file a complaint!

STU: Right.

GLENN: Quote, I don't think anyone sitting around in Spain, is unhappy about his visa being denied.

And is going to a -- is going to think that it could be based on data transfers to the US. And go through this process.

STU: Wait a minute. I thought --

GLENN: I know.

STU: I thought we were talking about corporations trading data.

What would that have to do with a Visa being denied from the government.

GLENN: It's weird, huh.

STU: It feels like, and you tell me if I'm wrong here.

It feels like, what's actually happening. That companies, let's say, in the United States, are capturing data and then EU governments are buying the data from the companies in the United States.

Or, the opposite. Right.

Where --

GLENN: It's illegal for us to spy on Europeans.

I mean, on Americans.

And it's illegal for them to spy on Europeans.

So we spy on the Europeans, they spy on the Americans.

STU: And it goes through companies, that are just in an international data trade?

Which is, quote, unquote, lucrative.

GLENN: Correct.

For the business community, however, the court has already done its first job.

Its very existence allowed EU regulators to finally bless the resumption of the cross border data transfers.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: Now. I'm not kidding.

Here's the next sentence. What happens next, or perhaps is already happening, is far less clear.

STU: So -- the part before this was the clear part.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: I thought two parts before --

GLENN: Two parts before, was the clear part. Then it got murky.

STU: Murky or blurry.

GLENN: Blurry. And now it gets even less clear.

STU: Got it. So now you can't even see light at this point.

GLENN: No. Uh-uh. Uh-uh.

The data protection review court is a solution to a transatlantic problem, that had deviled, much of corporate America, and big tech companies in particular.

The global trade in personal data, is large and growing up to $7.1 trillion, between the US and the EU alone.

But governed by legal regimes that differ sharply above borders.

The private data of Europeans. Now, again, we're back to the corporations.

Right.

Next paragraph, the private data of European citizens, can legally be surveilled by US intelligence agencies.

But unlike Americans. Europeans have no recourse, under American law.

If agencies overreach.

Again, I thought -- is this an example of a public private partnership.

STU: Yeah. That's what I'm wondering.

It seems like they're going around these rules. By creating, a -- an entity.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: Within some new industry. Where they can make these data transfers occur, without them going legally from government to government.

GLENN: As Europe began to implemented stringent 2018 data privacy law, that the imbalance set badly with EU authorities.

And in both a 2015 and 2020 ruling, a European court barred companies outright from transferring or processing EU citizen's data in the US, or at least until the citizens had a way to pursue their rights.

So they can now take the data out. They couldn't before.

But now that they've done this secret court, they can take the data out.

Because apparently, people in Europe. Will know when they're being surveilled.

When their at that time has been used against them.

And they'll have a secret court to go. And they -- they -- you know, that's their recourse.

They won't know if anything has been done.

STU: It seems like, in five years. When they find out, they've been doing it for a long time. Well, nobody asked in court. We got that court set up.

Nobody ever showed up. It's weird. We had like no cases for five years. It seems like no one had a problem with what's going on, I guess.

GLENN: So I don't know who appointed the judges. But the one who announced the judges is Merrick Garland.

STU: I think it said earlier in the article, at the age, he was the one who did it.

GLENN: Oh, good.

So it was Garland. Four of them have deep rooted experience with classified information.

From their previous careers, in the NSA, and national security council.

STU: Oh, good.

GLENN: Or the Department of Justice.

Oh!

STU: Perfect.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: I see no problems in those arenas at all, lately.

GLENN: No. When intelligence agencies are, you know, the watchdogs of themselves.

What could possibly go wrong?

STU: Yeah. What could go wrong? They're the experts in themselves.

GLENN: Experts believe the intelligence community is cautiously waiting for the court's decisions, with the hopes that there won't be new restrictions imposed on its operations.

The judge's final authority, however, creates a degree of concern.

That finality, could create an unanticipated problem for the administration, according to some intelligence experts.

They believe the court could not just constrain the government's spying activity. In specific cases.

But set precedence that cut against the administration's policy.

Of what?

Of spying on you!

We're talking about a secret court. A secret agency.

Whose location, we don't know.

We know nothing about it.

We know -- we have no idea what court cases are going through.

And it could -- they're worried that it could set a precedent, to cut against the administration policy.

Of what?

I thought we were talking about corporate data transfers.

STU: And protecting Europeans.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Why would this --

GLENN: The executive order's language, however, specified the court's ruling should apply only to the individual case, that they are hearing.

Which we won't know.

Nor will the people who brought the case.

STU: How could it apply to other cases, if no one knows what the result is?

GLENN: Though experts believe decisions could still create an unofficial precedence for other surveillance operations. Again, surveillance operations.

STU: I thought it was like, you know, corporations. Some handbag company. Is trading data. With some department stores from overseas. I thought that's -- we're not talking about it. Sounds lucrative.

GLENN: No, we're not.

A citizen compliant, first has to shuttle between an EU data protection official, and the US office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Which will decide whether there was a civil rights violation from the data collection.

So the national intelligence agency, is going to decide, whether or not that's even worth bringing up to the court.

Regardless of the results, the response to the initial complaint, will neither confirm nor did know that the EU resident was under US surveillance.

This is insanity. If you don't think our government is building -- a secret court on surveillance?

That you don't have access to?

If you don't think that we are living in a time where this administration, and past administrations, have been building a -- a cage for you, where they know absolutely everything about you.

You're -- you're fooling yourself.

And you don't have a way to stop it.

I mean, well, you could, of course, apply. You'll find that in the blue pages, I'm sure, in your -- in your phone book.

STU: But it sounds worrisome.

But at the end of the day, remember, Eric Holder is there to watch the process.

GLENN: Amen, brother.

Thank you for that ray of sunshine.

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.