RADIOFebruary 11, 2025

Why Did Qualcomm FREAK OUT Over This Glenn Beck Interview?

Why is the big tech giant Qualcomm so nervous about ParkerVision CEO Jeffrey Parker appearing on The Glenn Beck Program? After Parker’s last appearance on Glenn’s show, Qualcomm filed a motion to shut him up and named Glenn over a dozen times. Parker joins Glenn again to give updates on the case and refute some of Qualcomm’s accusations against him.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So a couple of weeks ago, we had a guy on named Jeff Parker. He's the CEO and chairman of ParkerVision. He was making allegations that Qualcomm was in bed with the government, and -- and had screwed ParkerVision. Because what ParkerVision had done is come up with a chip that allows all of our phones and everything else to connect. To Bluetooth. They went into negotiation with Qualcomm.

Had all kinds of NDAs with them. And had to show them the technology. And suddenly, the deal fell apart. And then just a couple years later, Qualcomm comes out with this new amazing technology that can connect everybody's phones and other things to Bluetooth. Huh.

The story only gets more twisted and turned when you run into Eric Holder, and the DOJ. And a jury that says, Qualcomm took this technology and a judge who says, I'm going to sentence Qualcomm and talk about the -- the penalties. And a month later, the judge overturns the jury, and -- and says, no. Qualcomm didn't do anything wrong.

There's some weird stuff going on. Now, here's the update. Qualcomm freaked out about his appearance on this program.

And they filed a cease and desist against Jeff Parker and told him, not to speak out again!

And we called him.

And he said, I'll tell you what, why don't you book me for the show. I'll show you how much ceasing and desisting I'll be doing.

All right. Jeff Parker is with us.

Jeff, how are you, sir?

JEFF: Good morning, Glenn. I'm fine.

GLENN: So let's go over the part just quickly about you sign a cease and desist. All of a sudden, two years later, your technology is introduced by Qualcomm. They pretend, no. What are you talking about? That's not your technology. That's our technology. You take them to court. The jury rules in your favor, unanimous. The judge says, I'm going to apply penalties. Then a couple of weeks after that, Qualcomm has a fundraiser for Barack Obama. The head of Qualcomm has it at his house. Obama shows up. Then a couple of days after that, the DOJ under Eric Holder starts to probe your website. Finish that story.

JEFF: Sure. So thanks for having me back again.

GLENN: You bet.

JEFF: Yeah. So we win a unanimous jury verdict. We come back to the courthouse, after that jury verdict, and the judge hears the parties argue about what should happen next. And after listening to the arguments, the judge says, you know what, there is certainly going to be an ongoing royalty here, which is what Qualcomm would have to pay us for the continued use of our patents and technology.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: And we are all excited. We leave the courthouse. A few days after that, we have a visit to our website by the White House.
The executive office of the president of the White House.

GLENN: Hmm.

JEFF: Just a few days before that visit, there's a fundraiser at the head of Qualcomm's home. One of the cofounder's homes. Raising money for the DNC.

And after that fundraiser, a few days later, there's this visit from the executive office of the president.

And about a month after that, is when the judge issued his final order, after having indicating before that his final order was going to include royalties. He not only didn't include royalties.

He reversed the jury verdict. And threw the case out.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So Eric Holder was at the DOJ at the time.

You start getting visits at your website, and you can track all of this. You have all of this. Eric Holder and the DOJ start to visit your website, that's only about this litigation. That's the only part they do.

And lo and behold, we find out that Eric Holder before he went to the DOJ, he worked for Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. When he left the DOJ, guess where he went?

Back to Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. So you're on the program, you lay all this out.

And now what has happened?

JEFF: Correct. So we're on your program about two weeks ago.

And literally, Glenn, the next day, Qualcomm contacts our attorneys, and they say, if your client doesn't remove his social media, and furthermore agree not to do anymore social media, we will file a motion with the court to gag him, to have this court take down the social media and prevent further conversation.

And, of course, I -- my attorneys are handling a patent case. So they say to me, we're not really experts in First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech rights. Could you please find an attorney who could help you with this?

So I ended up reaching out. And we engaged Marc Kasowitz of his firm. And the Kasowitz firm is a very fine law firm that handles these types of areas and many other areas of law. But Mark --

GLENN: Yeah. He's done a lot of work for Trump, has he not?

JEFF: He has. He has. Mark has handled a lot of president Trump's legal issues over the years. And I approach Mark.

And he heard this request from Qualcomm. And he said, outrageous. He said, this is -- this is ridiculous.

They can't gag you. So a couple days later, Qualcomm, in fact, filed a formal motion with the court that said, take down your social media and stop adding additional social media. And we were actually getting ready to file our opposition, but we first wanted to wait and see what the court was going to do.

And a few days later, the court finding this motion, frankly merit-less. And without any basis for what they're asking for, ruled at the end of last week, just this last Friday.

No. No Qualcomm. You don't get that request. So --

GLENN: Absolutely.

JEFF: So that was good to hear.

GLENN: That's fantastic. That's fantastic.

By the way, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of this.

But I -- I will bet you that our new director of the FBI and our new head of the DOJ saw that Blaze article, that lays all of this out. I'm just saying, that might have happened.

PAT: Well, Glenn, I hope so. Look, what Qualcomm has accused us of, is trying to taint a jury pool. We don't even have a trial date yet, set for this case.

So how are we going to taint a jury pool. But the thing that is really frustrating is the way they characterized our social media. And what we're saying. It's just completely false.

I'll give you an example. So an example of their -- of their characterization is they say, ParkerVision disparages the judicial process in the middle district of Florida and maligns the fairness of the forum.

Namely, ParkerVision impugns Judge Dalton's ruling, in the prior ParkerVision trial, falsely claiming that he improperly reversed the jury's verdict as a result of collusion between Qualcomm and the administration of then president Barack Obama.

Well, let me tell you, that's not true. What ParkerVision is doing is bringing public just facts. We're simply bringing facts. Here's the facts.

The facts are, the Department of Justice has been on our website 37 times.

We discovered shortly before our first trial, all the way until 2022 when I filed a freedom of information act request, asking, hey, Department of Justice. What are you doing on our website? Why are you on our website, so many days at the same time, looking at the same pages as Qualcomm.

Hey. What's this White House visit we had? Why were you only looking at litigation on Qualcomm on our patents? What's that about?

We've never had that fulfilled. So I'm not drawing any conclusions what this means. I'm simply stating the facts. The facts are that these visits happened. And we think we have a right to know, what they're about.

That's what they're asking for.

GLENN: Yeah. They're very suspicious. But that doesn't mean anything happened.

But, you know, there's enough there, not beyond a reasonable doubt. There's enough there, that, you know, we should probably ask some questions here.

JEFF: Yes. Exactly.

GLENN: There was a short seller. Can you tell me about the short seller? Whats his name? Farmwald. What's their name?

JEFF: Yeah, so when Qualcomm accuses us of trying to influence a jury. Again, a date hasn't even been set for a trial. It's pretty rich, Glenn.

Because back in our first trial. There was this persistent short seller. Who had been out posting on the financial message boards. Again and again and again. Trying to drive our stock price down. Our patents are no good. We don't have anything, blah, blah, blah. Well, let me tell you, from the time we filed this case against Qualcomm in 2011, until we won the jury verdict in 2013, over two years, he posted 200 times. Every business day he posted. And he posted predictions. The patents would fall.

They didn't.

The -- the patent case wouldn't go forward.

It did. Oh, even if we won. We would only win ten or $11 million.

He was only off by a factor of 20.

I mean, it went on and on and on.

Here's the real punch line. We got to depose this guy. And subpoena his emails, because after Qualcomm lost the case. He filed challenges to our patents. Which we found kind of suspicious.

And guess what we figured out in deposition of this guy?

Guess who he had been working against when we filed this lawsuit against Qualcomm.

GLENN: Qualcomm.

JEFF: Qualcomm.

GLENN: Do we have payments? And how do you mean working?

JEFF: Well, it turns out that Qualcomm was paying some of his lawyer's bills. Because he was worried apparently, about us suing him for something. I mean, if you're not doing something wrong, what are you worried about?

But he was worried about that. So he went to Qualcomm and he said, look, I'm not looking for you to pay me directly. But pay my legal bills. And our attorney said to him, you don't consider that to be some compensation?

No. I don't consider that to be any compensation. The point though --

GLENN: Why would --

JEFF: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would he meet his legal bills? If I'm not mistaken, this is years before -- three years before you knew that they were infringing, right?

JEFF: Yes. So we believe that he actually started communicating with them. Even before we filed our lawsuit.

So there's a lot of fishy things here.

But to keep it to the point of Qualcomm's motion to try to get us to be gagged, it's pretty interesting. That they would be so willing to work with a party, whose only mission was to put out mischaracterizations and falsehoods about ParkerVision. Its patents. Its technology. Et cetera.

But they be they turn around and accuse us of what they were supporting. Back during the time trial.

GLENN: All right. More in just a second. I have a new video, and I want to show you something from the judge in just a second.

First, let tell you about American Financing for just a moment.

What would it look like to be out of debt, especially all of our your high-interest debt? All of the stuff you have to put on your credit card. Even though, that interest rate is 20, 25, 30 percent?

It's not a fantasy to be out of debt. It could be your reality. If you're a homeowner, and you want to get out from under high-interest debt. Give American Financing a call today.

Last year, their salary-based mortgage consultants help customers save an average of $800 a month.

Now, imagine giving yourself a $10,000 raise. That's exactly what they can do for you today, if you start today. You might even be able to delay up to two mortgage payments, which could help you get out even further from that debt.

Don't take my word for it. I want you to do your own homework, as always. Go to American Financing at 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or go to AmericanFinancing.net. That's AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

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

GLENN: All right. Let me see this full screen here, if I can.

So tell me what this is, Jeff. This full screen, that we have up on the monitors.

This is from the judge, is it not?

VOICE: Oh, hold on. Yes. Yes.

GLENN: That's the ruling.

VOICE: Yes. This is the ruling from the judge, correct.

GLENN: My gosh, they are freaked out about you being on this program.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: Yes. Yes.

PAT: You seem to be all over that document.

Wow!

VOICE: I know.

JEFF: You know, Glenn, the sad thing about it is, he does dismiss their motion, which we're very happy about.

And we thought it was meritless when they filed it. But he does go on, and he talks a little about some of his unhappiness with the things that we say.

And I've already had people call me up and say, what do you think about that?

I said, look, he only has that side of the story. He rules so fast, which we appreciate.

That we didn't even have time to file a reply. So he is simply looking at Qualcomm's reply, and assuming they are telling him the truth, which they're not telling him the truth.

Look, they say, I have no basis for thinking that Qualcomm has taken our technology to China. I mean, you're kidding. Here's an article, Glenn, I found. 2017, New York Times. How this US tech giant is backing China's tech ambitions. Interesting article. People should go read it. 2019. Jenwa Net (phonetic) of Asia. Interview: Qualcomm president says China to lead the world in 5G scale.

Look, I understand why Qualcomm wants to be a big player in China.

It's a big market. But we have to do this smartly.

We can't just put engineering facilities there.

Teach the Chinese how to develop their own products.

And then expect for the long hall, that we're going to be anything other than from the outside looking in.

I mean, their Belt and Road Initiative is being helped by big tech companies right here in the United States.

It's insane.

GLENN: So when do you suppose -- are you going to file and go to court again?

I know you've been waiting for 11 years.

JEFF: Well, we have a case. It is -- it is -- by the way one of the things Qualcomm mischaracterized is in our first video, they say, oh, Jeff Parker says, we've been waiting ten years for our case, I show you indicating that there's something I feel is nefarious.

No, I didn't say anything was nefarious.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: What I said was it's been a long -- let me tell you why it's in ten years. Qualcomm filed challenges to the validity of our patents. That ate up four years.
Then they had a couple other ridiculous motions, which took the judge a year or two to sort through.

Now we're up to six years. Then we had the pandemic. That's another two years. The point is, it's been a long time. And all we're asking for is our day in court with the jury who can hear our case. And make a decision.

We think we have a compelling case to the jury.

And the judge right now is considering when to set the trial date. We're hoping it's going to be early, early to middle. Maybe this fall, of this year.

But soon. Very soon.

GLENN: Well, we will continue to follow the case. Are you releasing another video?

JEFF: We just released another video this morning.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFF: And that video talks about the benefit of the technology.

Our interaction with Qualcomm. How we took this technology to them.

I hope people will go to against giants. And watch the video.

I think you'll find it highly informative.

GLENN: You'll find it on Twitter. At against underscore giants.

At against underscore giants.

Make sure you check that out. And share it with a friend. Share it with the DOJ.

With the FBI. With anybody that you feel would have interest in this.

I think this is something that should be looked into. And if there was corruption, it needs to be routed out.

People need to go to jail, if they did wrong.

And the -- the patents need to be set right.

If we can't count on our patents as small-business people, which Jeff Parker is and ParkerVision is.

If we can't count that those patents can be held by small people, against these giants!

We've got nothing in America.

We have nothing.

JEFF: Totally.

GLENN: This is David versus Goliath.

And they deserve their fair shake in a courtroom.

Jeffrey, thank you so much.

JEFF: Glenn, thank you for having me back.

GLENN: You bet. ParkerVision.com.

ParkerVision.com.

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.