RADIOJanuary 30, 2024

Did Biden RETALIATE against Texas with liquid natural gas ban?

After Texas refused to back down and hand over control of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, to federal authorities, President Biden banned all new liquid natural gas (LNG) export approvals. While Biden claimed this was a climate-related decision, many criticized the timing, since it will likely hurt Texas' economy. So, was this Biden's revenge on Texas for trying to secure the border? Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton tells Glenn that he has "no doubt." Paxton joins Glenn to explain the state's latest border moves and address critics who say his razor wire lawsuit doesn't mention Texas' right to defend against invasion. Plus, he gives his take on the “Take Our Border Back” trucker convoy.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Attorney General Ken Paxton joins us now. Hello, Ken, how are you?

KEN: I'm well, good morning.

GLENN: Good morning.

So I just have to say, I read your -- I read your letter, to the general council of the US Department of Homeland Security. And I thoroughly enjoyed it.

This particular paragraph, I would like to quote.

You are talking to a man, who the Department of Homeland Security and the federal government has said, we have government land. And you're not letting us use and access our government land. So we can get down to the river.

You said, second, you say, the United States acquired a perpetual easement from the city of Eagle Pass in 2018.

What I said last week about the 2015 MOA, I'll say again now, about your latest claim. Quote, Texas never approved that transaction, as required by article four, section ten of the Texas Constitution.

Your federal agency cannot have something, that it was not the city's right to give.

You are invited to read that document, here.

And you'll hyper link to the Constitution.

But even if the 2015 MOA were somehow valid, you're not seeking access consistent with its terms. The nonexclusive easement from 2018, is attached for your convenience.

Its press purpose is to allow maintenance of a road, along the river, including the right to trim trees or other obstacles within the roadway.

Elsewhere, the 2018 easement prohibits the United States from making any permanent improvements, other than roadway without written city approval. If your federal agency wishes to help the municipal officials with tree trimming and road maintenance chores, I suspect they would appreciate the help.

The 2018 easement, however, nowhere contemplates allowing the federal government to deploy infrastructure that President Biden will use to waive thousands of illegal aliens into a park that will continue to be and used and enjoyed for recreational events.

I -- I -- I found your clarity enjoyable.
(laughter)

KEN: Me too.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

KEN: I mean, it's not complicated. And they keep misstating what actually is true.

And you know that. About the border. And then about this particular case.

Because the law and the facts do not back them up. And so they make claims about how it's their property.

And how they have claims with the city. Obviously, not based in any fact.

So, anyway, it's -- it's the way they operate. It's how they've operated for three and a half years.

And he we will hope that the electorate gets it, and realizes how bad this is.

GLENN: So there's been people saying that, none of this constitutional stuff, was argued with the last case that was in front of the Supreme Court.

And if I'm not mistaken, that's true. You're arguing an invasion backed up by eight different letters. Given to the president.

He ignored all eight of them.

This is -- this is an attempt, I think, to get them, into the Supreme Court, is it not?

KEN: Yes. So it was what? Ten, 12 years ago, that Obama sued Arizona over their law, which tried to protect Arizona.

And Robert v. Kennedy, and the three little judges came in and said, it's preempted by federal law.

But it is true also, that we've seen a very different border than we've ever seen, and the consequences of that decision is that it dramatically negatively impacted the country.

I don't even know if you can measure it.

Both socially and economically. But it's also true, that it was argued that there was an invasion. So this is a different argument, in front of a very different court.

And we're hopeful that we can get at least the five justices that are not Roberts. And maybe that Roberts, if he starts realizing how bad that decision was.

GLENN: So, I mean, you have a -- the only case that I think that they could make, that the American people would understand is, well, this is not an invasion.

That's not what the Constitution meant by invasion. And we could argue that point all day long. And win a thousand times.

However, you're not the only one saying it. Now you have 25 governors saying it. And the state of Mexico is now saying, that they fear there's an invasion of their company, or country.

Coming in from the Southern border. Their Southern border.

KEN: Well, you're right. There's more people saying -- more recognizing it. It's become common knowledge. Common understanding.

It's also true. I don't think any of these states would have joined the confederation, or they were signed on to the Constitution. And I don't think Texas, be surely, at that time, would have signed on. If they believed. That the federal government would have passed laws.

About people coming across the border. And somehow not enforce those laws. And then the state would be prohibited from defending their orders, and they would have to allow all kinds of crime and who knows who coming across the border, including terrorists. I cannot believe that was the understanding at the time.

So it's difficult for me to believe, that that's what the Founders meant. And that's what really matters here.

What did the Founders envision?

GLENN: So I want to go back to this. Because Ken Cuccinelli and others have said, Paxton and Abbott are not asserting the invasion clause in the border fence case.

They did in the Buie case, but not this one. This is separate, correct?

KEN: Yes. There are separate cases. One, we were sued by the federal government. The other, we sued the federal government.

So we had different arguments for different cases. We made the invasion argument. The governor has declared an invasion. You can quibble over how we use it, when we use it. I guess if Ken wanted to write the brief, he can come in and try to help us.

But the reality is, you know, we've got a pretty good team, that is pretty successful in the Biden administration.

I guess you can say, they're not perfect. They don't get 100 percent of the wins. Guess what, we don't decide the cases either.

I don't necessarily think, that if Ken had the pen on every case, if he would get it all right either.

Or that we necessarily agree with him, on every particular point.

GLENN: But it's my -- and excuse me. I'm way, way out of my league on this one.

But it seems to me, that this is something entirely new.

What happened last week, after the decision, that this is entirely new. And you're trying to either get the government to try to sue you. Or you in a place, to where you have to sue the government.

So this is entirely separate, is it not?

KEN: That's correct. And we also have another law going into effect. We have the Buie case. We have the Concertina wire case, which is still going, despite the fact that the Supreme Court stopped the injunction.

We still have that case going in the fifth circuit. We also have -- we aren't even sued bit federal government and the ACLU, over a law that was passed and goes into effect. Passed by the legislature. State legislature. Goes into effect, I think March 5th.

And it says Texas can start deporting on its own. So all of these cases will be opportunities for us, to make the argument, hey, we're being invaded.

Hey, this decision that you made in the past cannot be right, given the consequences to our state. The federal government shouldn't be able to pass laws. And not not enforce them. They're actually aiding and abetting the cartels. They can't be allowed to help the cartels. Then we have to sit on the sideline. Suffer the terrible consequences of that decision.

GLENN: All right.

Back with Ken Paxton with more in just one minute, 60 seconds time. First.

VOICE: NMLS 182334. NMLSConsumerAccess.org. APR rates in the five, starts at 6.725 for well-qualified buyers. Call 800-906-2440 for details about credit costs and terms.
(music)

GLENN: American Financing has been helping your neighbor save money for 25 years. Last year alone, they saved customers of this audience an average of $854 a month.

Just by helping them tap into their home's equity to pay off high-interest debt.

This year, maybe it's your turn.

Mortgage rates are in the fives now.

That means it's a good time to call American Financing.

In ten minutes. You could be well on your way to a new year with financial freedom.

Let them help you catch your breath. You might be able to delay at least two mortgage payments. And because you're going, if your high interest credit cards, are in the 20 plus, even 30 plus now, bringing that down, and putting it into a 5 percent interest rate, that you can write off, gives you all kinds of breathing room. So breathe easy. Just call this number. 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440.

Or go to AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: Ken, what happens if the president says, I'm going to federalize the National Guard?

KEN: So he -- he has the right to do it. There's -- obviously, I think that's a bad decision. I think it's also a bad decision for his election changes. Because his numbers on the immigration issue are not good. And he -- if he takes over our National Guard, and makes it even harder for us to protect the border. Then I think that hurts him in the coming election.

So he has to make a choice here.

Does he want to continue to damage his reputation, and his standing on the immigration issue?

Or is he going to go forward with his policy for the last three and a half years. Which is dismantle every law that we have in place, to help the cartels, accomplish their goals of getting as many people here as possible. And building their network and our country.

GLENN: And he would probably have to nationalize the National Guard for 25 different states. Because they're sending their National Guard, right.

Yeah. Every state that sends the National Guard. I would assume, he would have to take him too.

So it will be very confrontational. It will be very directed at the states. And it will be very directed at helping the cartels continue their operation on the border.

GLENN: Do you think the L and G decision that came out. This weekend.

About natural gas, sales being curbed, for overseas.

For the next year.

Do you think that was directed to Texas.

KEN: Oh, I have no doubt.

That was at least a side part of it.

Obviously, they don't like any fossil fuels.

Even if they're clean burning fossil fuels.

They have -- they have enriched many people, dealing with this all this alternative stuff, that doesn't work yet.

It's not affordable for most Americans. There's no doubt in my mind. They were probably enjoying the fact, that it would hurt the Texas economy.

I think that's what the border is about.

The other part of what they're doing is they're bringing people into our state. So that we have higher costs.

We have law enforcement costs.

Health care costs.

We have education costs.

And they know that. And they know the Republican state has been successful, versus the Democrat states.

That's people voting with their feet.

And I think they're doing their best to damage and harm, in any way possible, even if it means higher crime, the Republican states.

GLENN: So, Ken, this is crazy conversation we're having.

KEN: It is. It's hard to believe I'm saying this. It sounds so conspiratorial. I can see what they're doing.

It's not like a secret, it's all out in the open. So for me to say that, I'm just commenting on nothing secret. I'm commenting on what I see.

And it's pretty obvious, this hurts our state.

It's pretty obvious. They're bringing these people in.

They want them to vote.

They want to use them in their congressional drawing.

It's pretty obvious, they will bring people to the Republican states. They will hurt the Republican states.

GLENN: So Friday, there was this moment, when the president said, yeah. You have twenty-four hours.

That it sounded like, wait. Twenty-four hours, for what?

And giving people the -- I mean, we're entering times.

If things go awry.

God help us.

I don't want this.

If things go awry. You will have the ambiguity of, wait.

Do I answer that law or this law?

And this is what a constitutional crisis looks like.

Do you -- do you see -- have you guys talked about that being a real possibility, that he does something really foolish? That causes real trouble?

KEN: Yeah. We've certainly talked about it. We've certainly thought about it. It's hard to imagine that he would somehow try to create some armed violent conflict. That certainly doesn't make a lot of sense. And if you think about it, people on the border -- Border Patrol agents, they're on our side. They don't like what Biden is doing. None of those people. They're all working together. They're all friends. They all know each other. Whether it's the National Guard. State police. Border Patrol.

They all have the same goal. They're just being forced by Mayorkas and Biden. To not only ignore the law. As I said, it's more than ignoring the raw. It's actually dismantling, and telling the cartels, we will help you. Don't worry about hiding people anymore.

They used to try sneak across. We'll -- we'll make it very efficient for you.

Seeing, they're making ten to $12,000 a person. So it's very helpful for the cartels to have the Biden administration doing this. And they know that. And that's why they're incentivized to get as many people here as possible.

GLENN: What do you think of the trucker convoy?

Is that helpful?

KEN: Oh, I would love to see the border shutdown. The reality is, anything that makes Biden blink and stop doing this, and economic consequences, when things aren't being shipped back and forth. Having economic consequences.

That's why we do economic sanctions. If this is the way we stop the terribleness. I don't have a problem with anything like that, that affects commerce and sends a message to the Biden administration. It's like a strike.

GLENN: Right.

KEN: And send a message.

GLENN: I worry, only because, you know, up in Canada.

Look what they tried to do with the truckers.

And did. But this is in Canada.

And as long as there are no infiltrators in there. They will be fine.

But again, this isn't Canada.

The law enforcement will not be looking to pick a fight with the truckers.

They will actually, I think, be more in line with. If there's somebody out of line. They will arrest them quickly.

But not necessarily blame it on the truckers. Unless the truckers were doing it. But I doubt that.

KEN: No. I agree with you. I don't think we have the same mentality as the Canadians. I say we.

I'm sure the Biden administration does.

They're in line with the Canadian government. There's no doubt about that. But I'm saying general law enforcement, is not sympathetic to federal law being violated.

And the cartels being enriched and helped.

GLENN: Right.

What do you -- what are you saying to the other 25 states, and is there a chance that any of the others -- like Denver just said, we're out. We have nothing. You have to get out of our homeless shelters. Because we can't afford to keep this. Or any of the other states possible on joining?

KEN: Yeah. Look, I think this is going past Republican/Democrat. You can see. These sanctuary cities were created during the Trump immigration. To complain about Trump enforcing the immigration law. Then when Biden came in, they started getting a trickle -- I say trickle, compared to what we have to deal with. And suddenly they're realizing, wow, this is really expensive, and it has high cost, both economically and socially. And they realize, this is not a good thing for our city. And I think you will see more and more cities. They literally -- just not enough money to pay for the entire cost, of millions and millions of people, moving into our country.

And we all be suffering for this, for a long time. And I think this hurts Biden in the upcoming election.

It hurts the country for obviously much longer than that.

GLENN: I know you don't have any of the details. Nobody does, and that's always a special surprise in these things.

But the bipartisan bill that Biden is trying to get through. Any thoughts on that?

KEN: I'm very suspicious. I don't want to give in and start allowing people in, in violation of our current laws. That doesn't solve the problem.

It just supposedly -- it's a deal for something that actually hurts the country.

So I'm not for -- I'm not against immigration. But let's make sure that it makes sense, and we're not hating, because Biden administration violated the laws for the last three and a half years.

And we will say, well, because he's letting in, you know, millions a year. We will say, he can only let in a million.

Well, that's not the way to answer this. They should follow federal law, and if they want to change the law, make it something that is good for America. Make it something that makes the system more efficient.

GLENN: Ken Paxton. The Texas attorney general, on Texas constitutional right to protect its border. Ken, Godspeed. Stay safe. Thank you.
(music)

KEN: Thank you, have a great day.

GLENN: All right.

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.