RADIOOctober 14, 2024

EXPLAINED: Could Democrats DISQUALIFY Trump if he wins the election?

Democrats like Rep. Jamie Raskin have threatened to use the powers of Congress to keep Donald Trump out of the White House if he wins the 2024 Election. But is it even possible to disqualify him? “MoneyGPT” author James Rickards joins Glenn to explain how this could be done if Trump is declared an insurrectionist and why January 6th, 2025 might be a historic day. Plus, he explains why he believes Americans should prepare for the possibility of an “Acting President JD Vance” …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jim Rickards, he is the Money GPT author, Strategic Intelligence editor.

He is a guy who historically has been calling all the big ones. All the big disruptions in our society in our economy.

And, Jim, I don't think -- I mean, I've heard you be pessimistic.

I don't think I've heard a more stern warning than the one you're giving right now.

JIM: Well, thanks, Glenn. It's great to be with you. Yeah. I don't think of myself as a pessimist. I'm an analyst.

And I just tried to be realistic. That's kind of bad news. So be it. I try -- and I have a lot of readers and followers. And so forth.

And listeners on our show today.

And I just try to get it right. And I'm looking at the election. Of course, everyone is.

You know, come November 5th, I remind people, the election is pretty much over already, with the early voting and all that. So we know that.

The drop boxes and the mail-ins. So people understand that. But we'll get to November 5th.

I don't think we'll know on November 5th, or even that night or early the next day. You have the usual trouble spots. Philadelphia, Maricopa County. I don't know what's going on there.

But they seemed to ship the ballots off to the warehouse. But beyond that, most Americans are not familiar with the actual electoral calendar, so to speak. And it was devised in the late 18th century. People were like, well, why does it take from November 5th to January 6th, 2025, to figure things out?

Well, you know, back in the 18th century, they got around by horses and carriages and all that. It just took time. But anyway, when you get past that, let's say Trump wins. That's not a short thing. It will be a close election.

But my -- my models show Trump winning. So he gets more than 270 electoral votes. So we come up to December 17th, when they actually count those votes in the state capitols. And there will be disputes and litigation. Let's say we make it. I'm just kind of looking ahead, as far as we can. To January 26, 2025. Everyone is spun up about January 6th, 2021. We know what happened.

But this is January 6th, 2025. Those electoral votes go to the House and the Senate. Now, here's the key. And this is why Trump's campaign in places like New York and California. He's not going to win New York and California. But they're fighting over House seats. Is if the Democrats take the majority of the House of Representatives, which is possible. There are only a four or five-vote difference right now.

Led by Jamie Raskin. They're going to pass a resolution, saying Trump is an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

Now, a lot of people say, now, a lot of people say, wait a second. Didn't the Supreme Court throw that out?

Not exactly. Colorado and Maine tried to kick Trump off the ballot on that grounds. It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, states cannot do it.

They couldn't do it. Nor could any other state. They explicitly said, there's a federal issue, exactly.

So now you passed this resolution. What happens?

Trump's votes would be disqualified. Let's say he has 300 electoral votes.

And pick a number over 270. Those are disqualified on the grounds of he's an insurrectionist. So then what happens next? Well, now, nobody has 270.

Because in this scenario, Kamala Harris doesn't get 270. Trump does. But he's disqualified.

So now the election goes to the House of Representatives.

This, by the way, is happening before 1800s. 1824, and then 1876. We still can't figure out what happened.

But it has happened before, so but now you flip over for the 14th Amendment, to the 12th Amendment.

I happen to be a lawyer. So enough of a geek to able to read all this stuff. Now you're at the 12th Amendment of 1804. And what does that say?

Well, the House votes could choose the president. There's a couple of caveats. One is they could only vote, someone who got in the top three electoral votes. This is, you know, back in the day.

So maybe three or four people get electoral votes in 1968.

George Wallace got electoral votes in 1968. Top three. But there's only going to be one. If you disqualify Trump, no one else is going to win a state. And Kamala Harris is the only one you could vote for. Because top three. But she would be the top one. Because that's it.

GLENN: Why wouldn't it go to J.D. Vance? Why doesn't he take those?

JIM: Well, I think that's what's going to happen. But you have to sort of follow. The 12th Amendment is a playbook. That's where it will end up. I agree with that. But you have to kind of look at the sequence.

Now, in the House. Here's the interesting part: There are four to five members. But you don't vote by member, you vote by state delegation. So Texas would get one vote. I live in New Hampshire. We would get one vote, the same as Texas. The Republicans control a majority of the state delegations by a bigger margin. They barely control a majority of the House. But when you go by state delegations, it's more like 20, 22.

The Republicans have a substantial majority. But the problem is, you can only rote for Kamala Harris, no matter what. Because nobody else has any electoral votes.

The answer then, 12th Amendment says this, it's for the Republicans that they have the big cajones to go out and stand out on the mall, in the snow.

And then the House will ask it for them, and the 12th Amendment says, you can't do anything what we're talking about, if you don't have a quorum.
If you lack a quorum, then what happens? The 12th Amendment says, the vice president becomes the acting president.

Now, J.D. Vance would not suffer this disqualification, going back to the insurrection.

So J.D. Vance would go become the acting president of the United States. If the House acted for him. And I described this, Glenn. It's all in the 12th Amendment. It's in the 14th Amendment, it's been litigated years past.

It sounds crazy. But just think what we've been through the last months.

You know, two, maybe three assassination attempts.

A coup d'etat on Joe Biden. A nominee who didn't get one vote in two tribes.

Not one vote, in the primary. So there's enough craziness to go around. So, again, I'm just reading the Constitution and applying it. It's happened before. And as in the 1800s, we ended up with Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, who were bitter enemies and opposing parties. But that's what happened.

And here you could have Kamala, J.D. Vance, worst case. Or J.D. Vance is acting as president. If the Republicans walk off the floor, and they lack a quorum.

GLENN: Jeez. This is craziness! You know, one of the reasons we were successful. We had cheap energy. Don't have that anymore. Well-educated populace, we don't really have that anymore. Cheap labor, we don't have that anymore.

And a stable country. If this happens, what happens to the economy?

JIM: Well, the stock market, you know, it can -- there are bull markets and bear markets.

It goes up and down.

The one thing the stock market hates is uncertainty.

What we just described is maximum uncertainty. I give gave you a scenario. Just laid out in the 12th Amendment, 1804. But you can bet that every step that I described, will be litigated in some manner.

So -- and -- and the courts want nothing to do with this. And when you go back to 2020, you know, the New York Times and all these people say, well, there were 15 cases.

And all of them were decided that there was no voter interference. That's not what the court said. The courts dismissed all those cases.

Either on standing, jurisdiction, timeliness. They went to all these procedural things, to get rid of the cases. But the actual fraud was never litigated. They're doing a lot of the forensic analysis since then. And that's just the question that, hey. You, Congress. State -- state legislatures.

You have to figure it out. You don't want to be involved in this. They still feel burned by Bush versus Gore in 2000. Having said that, they have a job to do. And I think these things will end up in their laps.

If you put the courts to one side, and just go by the playbook on the 12th Amendment. Now, this is all what happened in the 1800s, you would have ended up J.D. Vance as acting president.

GLENN: And because the Congress can say, that he's an insurrectionist. You don't need a trial?

I mean, he's never been charged with insurrection.

JIM: Of course. You're right. And I agree completely. But the 13th amendment -- sorry, Section three of the 14th amendment. Hasn't been litigated since -- well, we had the case last summer.

Colorado and Maine.

Before that, you have to go back to the 1930s.

And even -- of course, that was designed.

That came after the Civil War of 1968. It was designed to disqualify confederates and federal officers, et cetera. Over the years.

Section five, section three is the insurrectionist clause. But section five, powers to Congress to make laws, to interpret section three.

They sometimes -- I don't know the exact date, sometime in the 1920s.

Congress granted full amnesty to Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. They said, they were not insurrectionists. So there has been legislation. It's been litigated in recent decades.

If you're willing to cut Robert E. Lee a break. I don't know why they wouldn't do it for Trump.

GLENN: Well, they did that. They did that to heal. That's why we have these statues of Robert E. Lee. The north said, build a statue. These are heroes for you as well.

They didn't prosecute these guys, because they said, we have to come back together, as a nation.

Nobody is going to do that, this time.

JIM: That's exactly right.

The bitterness is where -- sorry to say that. It's there.

By the way, the leader of this. He's open about it. And kind of the Constitution. The legal homework.

The guys said, this is what we're going to do, is Jamie Raskin. Another congressman in Maryland. Most people, they're worried about election fraud on November 5th.

They should be. I think Lara Trump has done a good job. I think they mobilized 500 lawyers. They're on that. Republicans are finally waking up to the fact, that you may not like it, but you have to do it.

But this is much further down the road. This is the endgame. This is the final lawfare attack.

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.