RADIOFebruary 23, 2023

Vivek Ramaswamy SLAMS 3 lies about his 2024 presidential run

Most know Vivek Ramaswamy for his involvement in the business, tech, and anti-ESG world. So does he have the political skills needed to successfully lead the country? Ramaswamy, who recently announced his 2024 presidential run, joins Glenn to detail both why he’d make an excellent president and what he would hope to accomplish while in office. Plus, Ramaswamy debunks 3 falsehoods being spread about his career — one of which he calls an outright ‘LIE.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Vivek Ramaswamy is on with us.

You know, you could have told me, given me a better clue. We just talked, I think it was on Friday. Said, are you thinking about running for president?

Like, I'm thinking about it.

Come on, you knew.

You knew.

VIVEK: Glenn, I think I said I was very seriously considering it. I think I did on the show.

GLENN: No. We hung up. But I said on the show, he's running. He's absolutely running.

VIVEK: Yeah. Come on. I gave it to you. Absolutely.

GLENN: Vivek, first of all, you were not known as a politician, or somebody who has ever done this.

You're known as a CEO. We'll get into that. What is it that your platform -- look, like on -- with Russia. What would you do as president, with what we're going through right now with Ukraine?

VIVEK: I think foreign policy is all about prioritization, Glenn. I would not spend another dollar on Ukraine. I would re-prioritize that to take on the number one foreign policy challenge. Which is Declaration of Independence from communist China.

I think we can declare economic independence, and defeat them economically, so we don't have to militarily. That's number one.

And at number two, if there's a youth case for the U.S. military and weapons, it is actually to protect our border and to take on, and I would go so far as to say, decimate the cartels, 100,000 fentanyl deaths in the United States today.

Eighty percent of which comes from Southern border crossings. Deal with that. Protect our soil here. We could do that for a refraction, Glenn, of the cost that it takes to, you know, fight a foreign war, on the ear side of the world. That has far fewer American interests to it.

I was in New Hampshire yesterday, and actually one of the things that surprised me, Glenn, was how broad the support for that idea for policy profits is.

And it's amazing, because the defense establishment doesn't -- says, you can't say that in polite company. But that gives you a sense for where I am on foreign policy.

GLENN: So let me ask you, Vivek, the -- Donald Trump was an outsider, he came in. And he's told me, several times, personally, he had no -- he knew it was bad.

But he had no idea, that he wouldn't be able to trust a soul, in Washington. He had no idea, how deep the Deep State was.

And how powerful it was.

What makes you think, you could go in, and rock everyone's world.

VIVEK: Well, he's told me the same thing, and he's a friend. And honestly, I take inspiration of what he did in 2015. I just think we have to take this to the next level. Part of this will just have to be shutting agencies down, full stop. Now, are there costs and benefits to that?

Yes. But I think we live in moments, where the benefits outlive those costs.

GLENN: So when you say shut the agencies down, what agencies are you talking about?

VIVEK: Department of Education. Let's start there. I was speaking to the Iowa legislature this morning, congratulating them for what they did in school choice in Ohio.

I said, they need to eliminate the Department of Education.

Many other three-letter acronyms. Even much of the national security apparatus, Glenn, has to be shut down and replaced in those cases with something new.

Because when a managerial rot runs so deep, you can't reform it by putting a different figurehead at the top.

You have to shut it down, and build something new to take its place.

And here's the other thing: I can say that Donald Trump knows this just as well as I do, from being a CEO.

If you can't fire somebody who works for you, that means they don't work for you.

It means, you work for them. You are their slave.

We need to replace these civil service protections, with sunset clauses. Saying that, you know what, if I can't be the next president of the United States and work for the federal government, for more than eight years, than neither should anybody who works for me, either.

Those federal bureaucrats have to be subject to eight-year sunset clauses.

GLENN: How are you going to get that done?

I mean, you have to have -- you have to have a Congress, that has the balls to do these things. And I'm not sure you have the Congress on either side of the aisle.

You've got a few.

VIVEK: Glenn, you're asking all the right questions, right? So I take a strong view of the Constitution here.

Article II of the Constitution says that the president of the United States, runs the federal government, period.

So if Congress isn't willing to act. As president, I am. And I have studied the Supreme Court. And the composition of the Supreme Court right now.

You want to take this one and test it in the Supreme Court with me? Great. We can then use judicial president to make sure we lock that in.

I believe that Clarence Thomas, and others on the court today, will be right there with me, on my view of Article II and how that reads in the Constitution, to say that a lot of these other -- constitutional statutes. From the impoundment prevention act of 1974. That says that the president has to spend money on specific agencies that greatest has actually authorized to spend it on. That's authorization, not a mandate.

Firing civil service protections, as I said, if you're running the federal government, under articles of the Constitution, the president runs the executive branch.

I take the Constitution seriously. And, you know what, I think the friendly way to do it is to leave Congress.

I personally think that 2024 can actually be landslide election, Glenn.

A topic for another day. I'm optimistic about that.

But if we don't get it done that way, we will get it done through executive authority, per what the Constitution empowers a president to do.

This is once again, America first. I'm all in as an America first conservative.

We just have to take this to the next level, with what I'm repeatedly now calling America first, 2.0.

And that's a big part of the reason, I'm doing this.

GLENN: So why did you -- you said you were Libertarian.

Why -- why did you decide you were a Republican?

A conservative? Over a Libertarian?

VIVEK: I used to be a Libertarian in college. I had this discussion with the folks in New Hampshire too.

There were a couple of Libertarians that came to one of my rallies last night. But here's the thing: Libertarians, I got two issues.

One is, they're too meek, actually. So they'll talk about the free market.

And they say, they don't want to make political expression a civil right, as I believe we need to in this country. Yet, they don't actually touch the other protected classes, like race or sex or religion or national origin.

To my view, to Libertarians today, with all due respect, have their heads in the sand.

Because you can't have it both ways. That's problem number one. The problem number two is deeper. Which is, you know, what are we doing, in that free world?

Even when the state is out of our hair. There's still the deeper question of purpose, as citizens. How we live our lives. How we live virtuous lives.

And I care about virtue, in civic life and in family life, and in faith-based life too. Not to say that the governments should necessarily be involved or mandating those things.

But those things matter for human flourishing, for American flourishing, and Libertarianism has nothing to say about that.

That is why I call myself a conservative today, in contrast to 15 years ago, when I thought I was a cool kid in college, calling myself a libertarian.

GLENN: So we're talking to Vivek Ramaswamy.

He's running for president of the United States. As a Republican.

We've gotten to know each other, over the World Economic Forum. And ESG.

And you are not only one of the biggest voices against it. You are actually -- you've put into action, strive management.

Where you are saying, invest with us.

We'll do better with your money than BlackRock.

And we're going to use the voting rights, that we get, to try to tell these companies, don't do these woke things.

But there's some charges out about you. That I just like to hear you answer.

You were nominated and selected, as a World Economic Forum young global leader in '21.

Did --

VIVEK: Glenn, this is hilarious. This is hilarious. Thank you for this opportunity. This is actually a lot of fun for me. Look, there are a lot of people on the right and the left that are threatened by my entry into this race.

So I welcome the opportunity to have this debate in the open. All right?

I think you know this.

I don't like to boast about myself. But I would go so far to say, no one. And I mean, no one in this country has been a bigger both doer and crusader against the World Economic Forum agenda, than probably the two of us on this call.

I really mean it. I would challenge anybody to name one for me. If you really pressed me.

I would name maybe Elon Musk. And guess what, he's named on that sanely website, of the World Economic Forum. Somebody else, financially.

Friend, Peter Thiel. He's been named on that same website. You want to know why? Here's the dirty little secret. Though -- and I have seen it firsthand. I experienced it firsthand. The World Economic Forum names you on their website without your permission.

So the funny part is, I have a book coming out later this year. Where I actually detailed this experience.

I have phone calls, emails. And I was respectful about it.

I believe in being civil. But I said, do not name me on your website, because I do not accept your award. I don't want to speak at your conference.

They tell me, no, no, no. You don't understand. We have all the global billionaires here. Mark Zuckerbuck was a young global fellow.

No, no, no, Vivek, you don't understand. This is an honor. I respectfully disagree. I don't want to be named. And I don't want to accept your award.

And then they go on to put my name on their website anyway. They've asked me to speak here, and that kind of thing.

I declined. But the funny thing about me. And I've learned a little bit about how this partisan politics game works. You know, Trump spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, in 2018 and 2019.

Do I hold that against him?

No. You want to know why, because everyone who is as financially successful as me or Donald Trump or Elon Musk or whatever, gets invited to speak. In my case, I've said no. This has been my focus area.

It would not have made sense for me to do it. In Trump's case, he said, yes, I don't hold that against him.

But I think it just reveals, you know, one of the things that has been eye-opening to me, about the online version of the conservative movement. The rise of these click bait conservatives. That it is sort of sad. Want to mislead their followers to advance what agenda, I don't know.

But at the end of the day, I also don't want to complain about it.

One of the big leagues of presidential politics. It's well-known, it is a dirty game. But it's good to keep your eye on the facts. And there's no -- this agenda than me.

GLENN: Well, I can verify one thing. The world economical forum has me on a list too. And they won't take me off that list either.

So it's just not the same kind of list.

BRAD: They can do it.

GLENN: I know. So the next thing is, that you have a long time association with Soros.

And I'm probably the number one anti-Soros guy in the world.

VIVEK: Can I give you a one-word answer to that question, Glenn?

I know you're the number one anti-Soros guy. So I'm not saying false to you. I'm saying false to the long-time association with George Soros.

Lie. 100 percent lie.

Now, let me actually give you guys the facts. And again, this -- these click bait conservatives online.

I don't know if they feel threatened or whatever. And they need to make up stuff.

I was 25 years old. When I went to law school. I got a scholarship funded by Paul Soros, not George Soros. But Paul Soros.

That allowed me at the age of 25, to pay for law school, and I took it.

You want to know why? Because I'm smart.

Now, it's hilarious to me, that the same people who bring that back up from when I was 25 years old, taking a scholarship, funded partially by somebody who is related to George Soros, don't say a word about the fact, that, again, Donald Trump, who I love. Who I respect. I'm not criticizing him. Took 160-million-dollar loan from not Paul Soros, but George Soros himself.

I have no problem with this. You want to know why?

Because it's business.

Donald Trump knows what he's doing. I don't think he's corrupted by that.

I'm not criticizing him for it. He's a friend. But I think it's funny. And I think it's revealing, that these same people will talk about a 25-year-old dude taking a scholarship to help him pay for law school from a relative of George Soros. Make a big deal out of that, without saying a peep about Donald Trump taking 165 million-dollar loan for George Soros, and I say that as a friend and somebody who respects Donald Trump.

Because I don't think that that disqualifies him or taints him in any way, because he's a man of integrity. And he's doing business the way he knows how.

But I think when you're in positions like I've been or Donald Trump has been, you get that. I think, you know, if you're sitting online on Twitter, it can be a very different story.

GLENN: All right. I have one more question in this line here. And that is: You're -- you're a biotechnical guy. And in bed with big pharmaceuticals.

And big proponent of mRNA shots.

And, you know, you -- you have -- you've never critiqued Pfizer.

VIVEK: So let me -- let me say a couple things. First of those things is true.

I'm a biotech guy. I am proud of my success in biotech. Glenn, five of the medicines I worked on, personally oversaw in the company I founded. Are FDA products today.

That is now a multi-billion-dollar company. A seven-billion-dollar company that I led as CEO.

One of those drugs is a drug for prostate cancer. Another for women's health conditions, for endometriosis, to Uterine fibroids, to psoriasis. To one that is particularly touching for me.

I say an approved therapy for kids, who are born with a genetic disease that caused them to die by the age of two, at a 100 percent fatality rate by the age of 2 or 3. Now a majority of them have an opportunity to live lives of potentially a normal duration.

I'm proud of those things, Glenn. I will not apologize. That is part of what makes America great, and it's part of what makes innovation great, is it empowers human beings to live better lives.

That is not an association with anything other than human innovation and a commitment to actually making people prosper by addressing diseases and treating them.

Now, the idea that I am a proponent of some sort of vaccination agenda. No, I'm on the record right now.

I oppose vaccine mandates. I think there has been a lot of rampant government lying and mistrust. Appropriately shown to the American public. Because of how badly they handled this issue.

But I think we can't go to a place where we say that now we don't want people working on innovative medicines to treat diseases from prostate cancer, to psoriasis, to genetic conditions in children.

No. I think we have to stand up for the innovation that makes us who we are. And I'm proud of what I accomplished.

GLENN: All right. Talking to Vivek Ramaswamy. Back with him in just a second.

Jim wrote in about his experience with Relief Factor.

He said, I used to have extreme lower-back pain.

Nothing I tried ever touched it.

Then I heard about Relief Factor. Decided to give it a try. Relief Factor worked so well, and so quickly. It eliminated the pain. Allowing me to function better than I have even before. Thank you so much, Relief Factor.

Jim, thanks for writing in. If you or somebody you love are dealing with pain. Please, give Relief Factor a try.

It's natural. It works with your body. It's not a drug. So you won't be whacked out. And it has four key ingredients, that work with your body to fight inflammation. Which is the cause of most of our pain. The three-week Quick Start. Now 19.95.

It's a trial pack. And hundreds of thousands of people have ordered Relief Factor. And 70 percent of them go on to order more. It's ReliefFactor.com. Or call 1-800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. ReliefFactor.com. Feel the difference. Ten-second station ID
(music)

GLENN: Let me go back to your platform. A good friend of ours, David Harsanyi, has pushed back a bit on one of your platform policies. I would like to hear your response.

STU: Yeah. I think some respectful questioning, about one of your policy proposals, Vivek, about making political ideas a protected right.

I think there's a lot of appeal to conservatives, who continually get fired from their jobs, over what they believe.

He says, though. You're -- we could have some negative side effects. He says, your idea would potentially make it illegal for not only for Disney to fire a social conservative, but for a Jewish restaurant to sever its restaurant with a neo-Nazi, or a hedge fund would be compelled to keep a Trotskyite, who believe profits are evil on the payroll. Or Walmart having to wait for the worker who spends his days trying to put big box chains out of business, to leave on his own volition. How do you walk this line?

Because, obviously, there's a lot of really negative consequences coming from this. But does -- if we make this a civil right, does it go too far?

VIVEK: Great question. These are the things that we should actually be talking about. Great question. Thank you.

Here's what I would say: I would give Congress a choice. Either you repeal the protected classes as they exist. Okay?

Race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and you actually leave it to the free market. Or you have to apply those standards evenhandedly. But you cannot have it both ways.

And since this is -- I know who I'm talking to. A pretty sophisticated counterpart here, and Glenn in particular understands this. I know.

Let me explain how those civil rights laws and protected classes created the conditions for viewpoint discrimination. Okay?

GLENN: We have two minutes.

VIVEK: Yeah. So Lyndon Johnson thought it was just prohibiting discrimination on the base of race.

But they've now been interpreted to say, that includes hostile work environments against religious minorities. What's one of the ways you can create a hostile work environment?

It's by wearing a Trump hat to work. It's by saying the wrong thing on social media. So ironically, the law created the conditions for a viewpoint-based discrimination, while leaving political viewpoints unprotected.

So you can't have it both ways. If you can't fire somebody for being black or gay or Muslim or white or Jewish or whatever, you should not be able to fire somebody for being an outspoken conservative either.

We have to apply these standards, evenhandedly. And if you want to get rid of protected classes altogether, great. I'll have that conversation. But no Republican or anybody else is willing to.

So in the meantime, I think we need to bring civil rights into the 21st century, to protect political expression as a civil right.

GLENN: All right. Vivek, I love the fact that you're running. I -- I support anybody who is standing up for the Constitution. Standing up for the right of people. Standing up against the endless wars and the lies. And you just are just able to run for president, are you not?

Didn't you just have a birthday? What are you, 36? Thirty-seven?

VIVEK: Two years ago. Thirty-seven. Thirty-seven.

GLENN: Thirty-seven.

Yeah. That would be a shocking change from what we had traditionally. Since really Clinton. And I think he was in his 40s.

STU: I only want people above 100 years old to run for president. Yes, I think we should go the other direction. I'm sorry, Vivek.

GLENN: All right. Vivek Ramaswamy.

We'll talk to you again. Thank you so much.

You can find out more, at Vivek V-I-V-E-K2024.com. Vivek2024.com. V-I-V-E-K2024.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.