RADIOMarch 14, 2023

Glenn: Be ‘healthily’ TERRIFIED of the coming banking CHAOS

‘I don’t think people understand the destruction that is coming our way,’ Glenn says. ‘This is going to happen. It’s just a matter of when.’ In this clip, Glenn is joined by financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business,’ Carol Roth. They discuss the recent Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) closure, why it occurred, and how small entrepreneurs have to ‘play by the [banking] rules,’ whereas big businesses do not. Plus, Glenn explains why he thinks Americans should be terrified of what’s to come…terrified in a ‘healthy way,' of course.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, welcome back.

CAROL: Hi, Glenn. What a crazy couple of days here, never -- never ceases to amaze. Doesn't it?

GLENN: No, it -- it really doesn't.

First of all, let me get your reaction. We spoke on Friday. On the Friday exclusive, that I do for the Blaze TV.

And this story was just breaking.

CAROL: Yes. Correct.

GLENN: So they bailed everything out, with the FDIC.

But this isn't just the depositors, that they bailed out.

I'm for FDIC, covering depositors. But they just changed the law, with a stroke of a pen. Did they not?

I mean, you had $400 million in that bank. It says clearly on the door, deposits up to 250,000.

CAROL: Yeah. You know, I have a different take on this, than a lot of people that I've been talking to. Some friends and colleagues.

You know, they did not do what I would consider to be a full bank bailout. They did not protect the shareholders. They showed management the door. So, you know, the people who should be taking on risk, took on the risk. In terms of the depositors. I mean, you could say, oh, why should these tech companies be saved?

But I challenge people to change the name. If it wasn't called Silicon Valley Bank. If it was called the small business bank of Iowa, would you want those small businesses to be at risk?

GLENN: Well, there is -- there is a difference.

In those small businesses. And I'll tell you what the difference is. There's no way in hell, this federal government would bail out a small business bank, in a red state. I just don't believe it.

PAT: That may be the case. But at the same time, if you think about the potential contagion.

And, in fact, we could use this now as a benchmark. To say they've done it before. That God forbid, the small business bank of red state were to fail in the future.

But if you think about just the ripple effects, the example I like to use is Etsy.

Etsy is a marketplace. Where artisans and small entrepreneurs do crafts. And they sell them. Etsy had all of their working -- or not all of their capital. A large portion of their capital with Silicon Valley Bank.

So if that money were to have gone away, they wouldn't have been able to pay all of the entrepreneurs.

The same thing with a payroll company. They had their money with Silicon Valley Bank. And so another company wouldn't have been able to pay their entrepreneurs.

So that kind of reverberation throughout the system. And then not quelling the fears, that this could happen again, and potentially taking down not just other regional banks, but having contagions up to big banks. It would have been really bad for everyone.

GLENN: So, but wait.

I agree with you. I agree with you, that it would have been horrendous. Okay?

However, I had under the FDIC limit in Silicon Valley Bank for one of my businesses.

We ran our payroll through Silicon Valley Bank.

CAROL: Okay.

GLENN: We never put more than 250 grand in that. We never do it. Unless we care to lose it.

So why do I have to play by the rules, and expect that I'm not going to get something, but all of the big guys, will always expect, oh, well, they're going to bail me out. I'm too big to lose. I'm too big to fail.

CAROL: Yeah. Listen. This is sort of an expectation sort of game. But the reality is, that we didn't want to have that failure happen. And this was a bank that was very different than some of the other failures that had happened before.

I mean, this was not about making to their I can do loans or derivative products. This was really a liquidity issue, that should have never gotten to the panic. And I think that's the bigger issue. The way this was communicated.

The hubris. The fact that the head of Silicon Valley Bank. Sat on the board of directors, on the San Francisco fed. And didn't anticipate, that it might not be a good idea to lock up money for ten years of treasury.

There are a lot of really weird questions here.

And I think we can certainly debate, you know, what -- what we should do on a go-forward basis. But we have to have faith in the banking system, and for companies to take their cash management and now have to go through paperwork. And chop it up into little blocks so that they can be covered. And have it in all kinds of different banks and different accounts. Isn't particularly efficient.

So I think the insurance program, probably needs to be relooked at. And I think that's --

GLENN: But you can't just write the rules as you go.
(laughter)

CAROL: They do all the time, Glenn.

GLENN: That's wrong. I know. And it's wrong to do that.

CAROL: This is not the first time.
(laughter)
So it's definitely wrong to do that, but they're going to do it on an ongoing basis. This was not the time to put the flag down and go, no. This isn't the time to do it. It was a very sort of practical decision. Yes, in principle, we need to fix the underlying system.

But as I said, let's not pretend that capitalism in the United States. We've had the fed who is --

GLENN: Oh, no, it's not capitalism.

CAROL: On a historic basis. So I won't sit and complain, oh, this is some affront to capitalism, that didn't actually exist.

GLENN: No. The Fed is completely out of control. Overstepped. And all of the -- you know, the big banks. The really big banks.

They are rolling with our cash.

CAROL: Rolling in dough. Literally.

GLENN: Yeah. So let me go back to the bonds, a second.

They locked these treasuries up for ten years. And they -- when the interest rates go up, they lost about 25 percent on their bonds. If they tried to sell them in an emergency.

They were going to lose 25 cents on the dollar.

That's what caused the panic.

Because if you lose 25 cents on the dollar, you don't have enough to cover all of the things that you have covered.

CAROL: Let me add one more thing that added into the panic, because this was on paper.

Should they held them to maturity, there would have been no problem.

Like you said, only in an emergency. What happened, is that within Silicon Valley, because interest rates were rising and the bank was only paying a small amount on deposits, you could pull your money out. And park it into a Treasury bill now. And get, you know, 5 percent without very long duration.

So you had more depositors pulling their money out, than they had model and had expected, in this rising interest rate environment. As well as probably companies that needed more operating cash because of the economy.

So they didn't have that expectation.

And that sort of mismatch, in saying, oh, wait. We have a liquidity need. Because we didn't estimate for this.

That's what forced them to sell the bonds. At that loss.

And then created this panic.

GLENN: And that's where this boob, that is sitting on the Federal Reserve Board, in San Francisco.

These guys are -- I'm convinced, these guys are arrogant morons.

However, how many other banks have put their -- their money into longer term treasuries?

CAROL: Oh, I mean. It's throughout the system.

GLENN: So wait.

CAROL: Wait. Wait. Wait.

GLENN: Go ahead.

CAROL: If you take Bank of America. They also had a situation, where they had to take a big loss on selling treasuries.

The difference is they have a large and diversified business. They only had 69 percent of their liabilities being deposits. Where Silicon Valley bank it was 89 percent. They have a lot of retail deposits, that were under the threshold. They have investment trading. And wealth management. And all these other things.

So for them, it wasn't an issue. But on a smaller scale, for a bank, that really does rely on that deposit business. And because they had so much of that, as these smaller business deposits, that were uninsured, that made it different, than it was for let's say some of these bigger banks or banks that were --

GLENN: Right. But, you know, I'm looking at banks, like, you know, JP Morgan Chase.

All of that. They're fine.

They have plenty of money. And they're going to get all the depositors, as the little banks go out.

CAROL: Exactly. Let's underscore that point.

GLENN: What I'm asking you is: How -- what gives us any indication that this is -- that it's over?

That we're safe now? I mean, it might be because right now.

But this is going to happen again.

CAROL: So that's exactly why they put out the press release, that they did. You know, the fed and the Treasury.

And that very comforting statement from our president. I'm sure that gave you all the confidence in the world.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. I'm stuffed.

CAROL: But that was the point. Is the reason that those depositors pulled out their deposits, is because they were worried it wasn't going to be backstopped. And if there was this liquidity issue that was incurred. Oh, boy. What are we going to do?

Yes. There are other banks that are probably in the same situation. But if their customers don't panic and pull their deposits, and they have the time to pull the liquidity poll.

Then that's what that statement was meant to do.

Now, it really just depends on the temperament of individuals and businesses. If you believe that, if you believe they'll step in and back us up, then you're not pulling out the money, these companies -- the banks can deal with it.

And if you don't, then we will see more of this. Certainly, I think particularly Silicon Valley Bank was different than Silvergate and Signature that had more crypto exposure.

I would imagine those that have more exposure to crypto will probably see some additional issues.

But Silicon Valley Bank being that second largest bank to fail in history, one of the top 20 banks in the US. Systemically important.

As you said, plugged in and connected. It was just a different -- a bit of a different animal.

But, Glenn, I do want to go to that point you made.

This is really huge. Just like they closed down the small businesses during COVID. And all of that went over to the big guys.

You know, the big guys couldn't really step in. There's laws in place, about buying more deposits.

But what has happened in letting this play out, the way it does, is people have just decided to organically move their deposits. So JPMorgan and Citigroup. Like, they're having a field day. So much so, that Jamie Dimon just bought something like 26 million dollars' worth of JPMorgan stock. Because she's doubling down, because he knows all those depositors are rolling in. And he did not have to pay a red cent for them. The great consolidation continues.

GLENN: All right. Hang on just a second. Can you spend the hour with me?

CAROL: Yeah, of course!

GLENN: Because I've got a ton of questions on this.

We'll come back in just a second. Certain kind of person out there, and you know them when you see them.

One that fits in the category of above and beyond. Somebody who is -- they usually just love their job, and they love serving people.

They love to see their customers really, really happy.

Those are the kinds of people that we look for, when we're looking for real estate agents, that can represent you, when you're buying or selling your home. You need somebody who really loves serving you, who has compassion for people. And cares about people. And wants to do the best for them.

That's also the best way to make money. Best way to be successful is just to serve and overserve your customer.

Because they're -- they always go away happy. And then you've got more customers coming your way. We look for the people like that, who also have the best track record.

And they meet our standards. And we have pretty high standards to recommend. These people don't work for us. So we don't have any skin in the game, on, you know, who we pick and who we don't. Other than, I want to super serve you, and give you the best person.

RealEstateAgentsITrust.com. Is a referral service. Just go there. Tell us where you're buying, selling. And we'll get you some of the best real estate agents in the country.

RealEstateAgentsITrust.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Okay.

So as the -- as the Fed rate goes up, these Treasuries are worth less and less. If you have to sell them. Correct?

Wait. We're missing you. Hang on just a second. I don't --

CAROL: Okay. Did you get it? Yeah. So, you know, obviously, the -- not to get too wonky. But the interest rates, or the yield on the bonds trades an inverse on it. And if you think about it, why would you buy a ten-year that was on the market from a long time ago, that's yielding 1.1 something percent interest, when you can buy something that's at two years right now, that gives you 5 percent interest. That doesn't make any sense.

So their current value on the market is lower. Again, if you hold them to maturity, if they hold them to 10 years, you still get the full amount of the face value, plus, the interest. It's just the tradable value today, in that interim time period. Because there's not a lot of demand for that.

GLENN: Right.

So for any small bank that is holding these, if there's trouble, they could be in trouble just like Silicon Valley Bank.

Now, the FDIC, we were told, you know, that's the insurance.

And he said, we're -- don't worry. You don't have to worry about it.

The banks that paid into it.

Well, they don't have enough just to cover what they covered yesterday. So they're already upside down.

So that means, if we do have runs in the bank, in the future, you know, near future.

They don't have any money. Which leads me to believe, we will just print the money.

Doesn't -- I mean, the inflation rate of what we're doing is crazy. Is this the beginning of the currency death cycle?

CAROL: Well, the currency death cycle began a long time ago.

I would say a couple of things. From an FDIC standpoint. They are saying, we are going to put a fee out to other banks.

So when Joe Biden comes out and says, the taxpayers aren't paying for this. You aren't paying for it directly.

But you certainly will be, whether it's a lower interest read on your money, or more fees or whatnot, if all the other banks have to go in.

What I do think can happen here, in the meantime, is, you know, with the bank, they're trying to sell off pieces of it.

And they're trying to find new homes for it. So the FDIC is covering it. Its insurance, if it needs to make it whole. But if somebody else were to buy it or buy other assets. There's a way that that structure sort of happens. And obviously, that's the best-case scenario.

And again, frankly we just should have never gotten to the point, where we had this panic. But, you know, the idiots didn't prevail there.

You know, should there be a God forbid, wide run?

Yes. And in terms of trying to dissolve this would-be money printing. Again, if I can respond.

Some people did not like what I had to say. That's sort of my point.

Someone is saying -- I'm not paid by anybody. I'm saying, we wanted to stem this, because what would happen to everybody.

People who are not involved at all, would have cost you a lot more than this, you know, kind of temporary pin here.

GLENN: I don't think people understand the destruction that is coming our way. It's coming.

This is going to happen. It's just a matter of when.

And people are like, you know, I'm fine. Bring it on.

No. You really don't understand.

You should be in a healthy way, terrified of what's coming. And I use the word terrified.

Do you remember, our grandparents went through something, that they were 50 years away from.
And they were still like, it could happen at any time.

That's the kind of pain that America is about to go through. And remember, those people grew up without indoor toilets. Okay?

They grew up without all the fancy stuff that we have now.

They didn't have that far to fall back.

We have an enormous way to go back.

You should be terrified of it.

In a healthy way.

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.