RADIOJanuary 16, 2024

IOWA RECAP: Does ANY candidate have a chance at beating Trump?

The results are in for the 2024 Republican Iowa caucus and former President Donald Trump has secured his position as the frontrunner with over 50% of the vote. But has Trump all but secured the nomination, or do Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley still have a chance? Glenn and Stu discuss what the next primary elections in New Hampshire and South Carolina - where Haley is polling well - may look like. Will Haley kick DeSantis out of second place? Will the rest of the country follow suit? And will anyone get close to Trump's numbers?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Trump obviously won last night. A commanding victory for Donald Trump.

Not really a surprise. But he was -- what was the final?

Was it 51?

STU: Yeah. Donald Trump 51 percent, against 20 delegates. Ron DeSantis 21.2 percent against eight delegates.

Nikki Haley, 19.1 percent.

Seven delegates. Vivek Ramiswami, finished at 7.7 percent, against three delegates. Those are his, even though he dropped out at the race. He'll still have them at the convention. And then Ryan Binkley, pastor from Dallas, 0.7. And Asa Hutchinson, 191 votes statewide after a year of campaigning. He gets 0.2 percent.

GLENN: He did worse than Binkley. Binkman.

STU: Binkley. And it was not even close. Was not even close.

GLENN: Right. That is crazy. That is crazy.

STU: Catastrophic for poor Asa.

GLENN: Yeah.

Asa is on suicide watch today, I think. Don't let him have his shoestrings or a belt.

Let me talk now about what is coming.

There is a new poll out from New Hampshire. But this is without any of the news that happened last night.

So this is a poll that was taken just after Nikki Haley started to show some growth.

So we don't know what it means today.

Whether it will affect it one way oratory.

We don't know. But here is the latest poll from New Hampshire.

STU: Yeah, this is New Hampshire.

I think it's the American Research Group, we did the poll. This is the 12th through the 15th of this month.

So it includes yesterday.

Obviously would not include anything after the results. It has Donald Trump and Nikki Haley tied at 40. At the top in New Hampshire.

Polled way, way, way back with Vivek Ramaswamy. And Ron DeSantis still both on the ballot.

At 4 percent.

GLENN: Why do you think she's doing so well in New Hampshire?

STU: Largely it's because of the way the -- the primary works.

You're going to have a lot of independents and Democrats.

And she will crush in that group. As she did in Iowa, by the way. The numbers in Iowa, are not nearly as high as they are in New Hampshire.

Among those groups. She does very, very well in those groups.

Wins by wide, wide margins.

And that will help her there.

But it won't help her in these other states.

This is the problem with the candidacy.

GLENN: Yeah. Have you ever seen any research done on whether people switch and say, you know, I'm going to vote for the Republican.

And I'm usually voting for Democrat, and vice-versa.

Because they mean it. Or is it just to crew with the election.

STU: There are definitely some.

The percentages are relatively small, when you're talking about people doing what the -- what Rush Limbaugh used to call operation chaos. Back in, what was it? 2008. There's definitely some that do it. The majority of people who vote in those primaries, typically, at least according to the polls, are people who are either legitimately considering or undecided voters. Who are looking. Or they are people who are, have -- are deciding to vote that way for sure.

There are always some. But, I mean, for example, one of these states. I can't remember. It might have been -- I can't remember which state it was. I've looked at so many polls over the last few days.

But it was like 2 percent of the electorate consider themselves liberal.

So it's not a massive part of this. In a tight primary, like the one in New Hampshire. Can make a big, big difference.

Of course, in New Hampshire, you have a lot of people, who are mores. Maybe Libertarians.

Maybe people who are even leaning a little bit left. That may consider Republican candidates. Where you might not see that. In, you know, other states like New York or Massachusetts. Or Vermont.

There's a -- maybe a more independent electorate there in New Hampshire, which we kind of all recognize.

But, you know, look Haley has a chance to actually win New Hampshire. I don't know if this -- my guess is, it doesn't really hurt her for finishing third by two points, behind DeSantis.

Doesn't hurt her in New Hampshire.

You know, we were talking about the way these polls came out.

And I heard the votes came out in Iowa. There were a couple of different dynamics, right?

There was a question of whether Donald Trump could clear 50 percent. He did do that. There was a question who would finish second. We saw, with DeSantis squeaking out.

I think he had to beat her.

And he did.

GLENN: He had to, or he would have been done.

STU: Yeah. Nikki Haley, look.

Nikki Haley, if you go back six months, this is a dream result for Nikki Haley. Right?

But she wound up being a little bit below expectations, the last couple of weeks. Still, a decent showing. She's still in the game in New Hampshire.

Then Vivek Ramaswamy, who was promising all sorts of things, with a big turnout. And he drops out, almost immediately, after promising to stay in.

Of course, that happens every year.

So you look at Ron DeSantis.

Because people will say.

Hey, Ron DeSantis. He didn't make any inroads. People don't feel the way they thought about Ron DeSantis.

That's not true.

He is -- if you're voting for Trump. He's either number one or number two for you.

As far as, you're either going to vote for Trump. If he's the candidate. But you would rather vote for Ron DeSantis. Or you're voting for Trump.

And if he was out. You would vote for Ron DeSantis.

So it's almost. In many ways. The same voter as Trump.

So why vote for Ron DeSantis, when you've got Donald Trump to run?

STU: Yeah. No.

GLENN: So I don't think his position in the party or anything.

I don't think this says anything about him, for a run in -- what will it be?

28?

STU: Yeah. You know, look, I think the polling shows, he's still popular within the party.

He's usually the second choice with Trump voters.

Of course, there is a much different profile as a candidate, of what -- the way they run their operations. Right?

So you will see some differences there.

But what's -- I think -- what's interesting, it's like, right now, most people would argue, even though Ron DeSantis finishes in second place. That Nikki Haley is really in second place in this campaign right now. She is about even with DeSantis nationally. She has a much better chance of winning a state, that is coming up soon, which is New Hampshire.

The next state after that, you know, Nevada's caucuses are a little weird. So leading them aside, go with South Carolina as the next big state.

And South Carolina is Nikki Haley's home state. You can see there's an argument there. The difference is, while Ron DeSantis is probably not going to be as competitive as any given state after Iowa, as Nikki Haley will be in New Hampshire.

There's a path to win with Ron DeSantis' approach.

It's -- like, he is going for the voters, that like Donald Trump.

And he got about 20 percent of that 70 percent of voters.

And Donald Trump got 50 in Iowa.

That's not enough, obviously. That's not enough to win. However, Nikki Haley, you know, really is looking at the 70 percent of voters, who really like Donald Trump. And getting almost none of them.

And if you can't get any of those voters. You really have no path to the nomination.

And she can't seem to pick any of them off.

GLENN: No. What your path is, is that you are hoping that enough Republicans will hold their nose, and enough Democrats or independents. You know, the parties have never been weaker than they are right now. People are identifying as independents.

They are -- the average independent is not for, you know, socialism. And all of this crap that Joe Biden is doing.

But they also. I think the average independent. Many of them have been convinced by the media. That Republicans want and radical.

When really, no. We just would like a return to normalcy.
You know, a lot of Republicans were on that bandwagon. When Joe Biden said that.

We just didn't believe he would bring normalcy.

We knew what he would bring.

This!

And that's the only path. It would be truly, the independent vote, I think that she would be going for. And she would need a lot of Democrats, to make up. A lot.

STU: Yeah. And it's just -- you can't win Republican primaries.

You can win them in individual states with that approach. You can. You can't win Republican primary elections. As a whole. With that approach.

It just doesn't wind up working over the long-term. So she's put herself in a position.

And, you know, I -- she's not trying to say she's liberal. She's not trying to say, she's more moderate.

She's just cut out that group, you know, that part of the electorate. Ask for whatever reason.

Even though she hasn't been very critical of Donald Trump. In fact, over and over again. She said, he was the right president, at the right time.

They've all tried to walk this weird line. Where they don't say anything bad about Donald Trump, for months and months on end.

I don't know that there's an opposite approach that works there. No one has been able to find this if it exists.

But it's fascinating to watch this. As you were pointing out earlier on, maybe it was Steve Deace we were talking to.

She was a Tea Party candidate.

When she ran, she was a popular governor among Republicans. And just her brand of Republican politics, has largely just fallen out of favor.

And she doesn't really have a path to win over this new energy of populism. She's from an older school Republicanism.

That actually doesn't poll badly in general election audiences. You mentioned a poll earlier today.

That has her way out in front of Joe Biden, if she actually made it to the yen. And that's really her main argument here. Where both Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis in most of these polls can squeak it out over Biden. She usually has a seven or eight-point lead over Biden.

Which is impressive.

But there's no path for her to get to the position in which she can utilize that support.

GLENN: Yeah.

So what is -- what is the poll number look like in South Carolina?

STU: South Carolina has not honestly had a ton of new polling. I can pull up a summary here in a second.

But, you know, I think you -- South Carolina, being you know -- I don't remember the date of it here.

I have it in my calendar. South Carolina is still 39 days away.

So we have a while before South Carolina pops up. A lot can change.

Right now, Trump at 54, Haley at 25.

DeSantis at 12, and Asa Hutchinson at 0.5 percent. I don't know where Ryan Binkley is in this state. Check that apparently, where we're monitoring these polls.

GLENN: Right.

I'm for that Bakerman. I love Bakerman. I love him.

STU: Look, Haley at 25 percent.

If she has a good New Hampshire showing, you can see that closing, and her being relatively competitive in that state, especially, if something were to change.

The one thing that people keep talking about. The Wall Street Journal has written an op-ed. Saying, Ron DeSantis should drop out.

And I think what people are not calculating here.

The DeSantis vote is not an anti-Trump vote. If Ron DeSantis drops out. I think it's probable that the majority of his voters will go to Donald Trump, not to Nikki Haley.

And I think there's a strong possibility, that DeSantis might even endorse Trump in that scenario.

So, again, these people who are like, you know, live or die. I don't want anyone but Trump to win. I don't think DeSantis dropping out is what you want.

You probably want DeSantis to stay in. And keep fighting. To see if he can get one of these later states to turn around a little bit. Or maybe just the tone of the entire campaign, changes with some external event, like a crazy legal development or something like that.

That's probably what you have to look for.

But Trump.

Look, Trump has a massive lead here.

He is -- I don't know that he was ever beatable in this situation, Glenn.

GLENN: Let me give you a new poll from the Economist. You.gov. Asked citizens to predict, who would win regardless of who they preferred.

Of those surveyed, 44 percent said Trump. 35 percent said Biden. 21 percent said, I have no idea. Split down the middle, regarding support. 43 percent said they were supporting Biden. 43 percent say they were supporting Trump.

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.