BLOGMay 11, 2017

Glenn Tells Head of Libertarian Party What Floored Him About Gary Johnson

Nicholas Sarwark, chairman of the Libertarian Party joined Glenn in studio Thursday to discuss the contentious 2016 election and the future of his party. Does Sarwark see 2016 as a missed opportunity for the Libertarian Party?

"Absolutely not," Sarwark said.

"You don't?" Glenn responded in surprise.

Glenn and Sarwark continued a lively discussion about the 2016 candidates, Gary Johnson's distrust of religion more than government, and how Libertarians can shape their message of individual freedom to appeal to a larger swath of voters.

"He made a point every time he came on this program to mention that he distrusted religion more than he distrusted the United States government, and we were floored by that," Glenn said. "Now, I have a healthy distrust of religion as well. Religion gets us into problems just like government does. It depends on who is running those things."

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: We've invited the chairman of the Libertarian Party on, Nicholas Sarwark. He's 37 years old. He took over the head of the Libertarian Party when he was 34. He's a former public defender and -- and wants to grow the Libertarian Party. Welcome to the program. How are you?

NICHOLAS: I'm fabulous. Thank you so much for having me on, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. When you look back at 2016, do you see that as a missed opportunity for the Libertarian Party?

NICHOLAS: Absolutely not.

GLENN: You don't?

NICHOLAS: We -- we took advantage of the opportunities that were given.

We had been doing work -- as you probably know, the Libertarian Party has been around for 45 years now, and it's been small, and it's been growing slowly and steadily over time. 2016 was a huge opportunity. The old parties decided they wanted to nominate the worst people they could find, and they did.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ROBERT: We nominated two very experienced former governors who were very popular Republican governors in Democratic states. So we had kind of the perfect storm.

GLENN: But were they? And I hate this test because no one ever passes the Libertarian test. You can talk to any Libertarian, and they will convince you that you're not Libertarian enough. So it doesn't -- so I hate this test. But these guys were for a lot of big government policies, when they were government -- when they were in government. And they also, you know, didn't meet basic fundamental principles of freedom of religion, et cetera, et cetera.

And we felt at least -- and, you know, I don't know who the Libertarian Party is trying to appeal to. But we felt at least -- and still do -- we belong in the Libertarian Party because we're strict constitutionalists.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: But we don't feel welcome there. And we certainly didn't feel welcome with Gary Johnson.

NICHOLAS: Really? And who made you feel unwelcome, Glenn?

STU: You. It was you.

GLENN: Gary Johnson.

NICHOLAS: It's usually me.

GLENN: No, it was Gary Johnson.

NICHOLAS: Really?

GLENN: Yeah, he was on our show a couple of times.

STU: And we liked him.

GLENN: And we liked him.

STU: We had good conversation with him.

NICHOLAS: Okay.

STU: But, for example -- quick example to back this up, he mentioned a lot to a lot of different media sources the percentage of issues he agreed with Bernie Sanders on. That was a big talking point for him, and I think to a lot of people in this audience, even though I can't imagine the percentage he was quoting, which was like 80 percent or something like that, was actually true, because he was using that as such a kind of an outward talking point, to many media sources and mentioned it even here on the show, I think that that scared a lot of the audience away.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: Also, he made a point every time he came on this program to mention that he distrusted religion more than he distrusted the United States -- the government. And we.

NICHOLAS: That's --

GLENN: And we were floored by that. Now, I have a healthy distrust of religion as well. Religion gets us into problems just like government does.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: It depends on who is running those things.

So we just -- we just felt like -- and this is why I wanted to have you on.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Like Austin Petersen, we loved. We loved.

NICHOLAS: Okay.

GLENN: Where are you guys headed -- because I know America, especially the youth, is headed towards this -- you know, this idea of a new kind of Marxism. And big government. Are you guys constitutionalists, or a hybrid of things? What is it?

STU: Wow. That was a long question.

NICHOLAS: Yeah, that's a huge question. It's double-teaming, which is perfectly fair.

I'm used to it.

So starting with the Sanders thing, yeah, Gary Johnson agreed with Bernie Sanders 80 percent of the things.

GLENN: May I just say, you're not in a hostile room.

NICHOLAS: I don't feel like I'm in a hostile room. I feel like I'm in a friendly room. I'm smiling.

GLENN: All right.

NICHOLAS: He agreed with Bernie Sanders on a lot of stuff. I agree with Bernie Sanders on a lot of stuff.

GLENN: I agree with Bernie Sanders on the problems, not necessarily the solutions.

NICHOLAS: I agree with a lot of conservatives on a lot of stuff. Libertarianism is something fundamentally different, and there are a lot of conservatives who feel not welcome, as you feel. That's a -- that's a normal feeling. There are a lot of liberals who feel not welcome.

GLENN: Right.

NICHOLAS: And the reason is the same: We kind of deny the validity of the paradigm of left and right. Left and right is not important. What is important is freedom and government control. So if you're pro-freedom on an issue, you're for empowering individuals over empowering government, we're with you, whether the issue with you on is from the left or from the right. And the thing that makes people feel uncomfortable is, if you've been in this left/right paradigm, hearing somebody say nice things about a freedom issue that's on the left makes your skin kind of crawl. And if you talk to liberals, it's the same thing. If I say something nice about what a conservative did because it was pro-freedom on that issue, but it's from the right, they're like, "Well, you guys are just bad Republicans."

STU: Right.

GLENN: I would agree with you in most cases. With this audience -- not all of this audience, but a large share of this audience, we are -- here's the problem with Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson came in and he said -- or was on, and he said twice -- and then the running mate Weld said the same thing that -- we said, "How can you have a law that a photographer has to take a picture or wedding cake -- it doesn't make any sense. You can't be for ultimate freedom and maximum personal responsibility and also say, "Oh, and the government should regulate that." As Penn Jillette and I talked about --

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: -- you know, you should be able to have your business do anything that you want, and I have a reason to go, "I'm never going to go there."

NICHOLAS: I love Penn Jillette. So this is going to be hard for him to watch or listen to.

That's right to a point. There's a -- I can get into a long discussion of Anglo-American contract law and stuff like that. But that's probably boring for your listeners. The point is that there's this tradition of something being open to the public. A movie theater is open to the public. A drugstore is open to the public. And open to the public means if you're a person who is not belligerent and you come in, I sell you the stuff off of my shelves.

I don't get to say, "Hey, you can't buy the candy bar because you're white. Sorry. Leave." That runs through our legal history. There's also a long tradition, in America, which is really different, of a strong and vibrant First Amendment, both the free exercise clause and the free speech clauses, that say, I get to say whatever I want. The government can't stop me. Other people can disagree. And I get to exercise my religion, as I choose, as long as I don't violate laws of general applicability. And there can be no compelled speech. That's big. You can't make me say something I don't want to say, as the government.

The tension comes when you get in the middle. Because what are we talking about when we talk about cakes? Because it's a cake issue. And it's a hypothetical. And it's weird. But up in the northwest, it's not hypothetical. Are we talking about, hey, it's a Costco sheet cake. I just want to buy a cake? In which case, yeah, you have to sell that cake to everybody.

GLENN: It's off a shelf.

NICHOLAS: If it's, I want you to write, I want you to express, I want you to put words on to the cake, then it's different. And then photography gets into a weird spot because it's --

GLENN: It's art.

NICHOLAS: Some of it is art. Some of it is documentary. You know, is the artist's message in there? These are hard issues. There isn't one right answer. It's not black and white. A lot of life isn't black and white. And what I've been trying to do is get Libertarians to focus on how many areas do we agree on?

GLENN: It's amazing. Yeah. A lot.

NICHOLAS: If this is a point of contention, where you are a little farther on the free speech side than the Costco sheet side, that's okay. Because we agree on so much else.

GLENN: I agree.

NICHOLAS: Let's have a beer and talk about this. But let's work together on all the other stuff.

GLENN: I agree with you. It just, to me, it seems like a very -- a very easy call, I have -- for instance, you don't have a right to come in -- to me, to come in and say, "Oh, well, I'm just not serving your kind. So you get out." I got to serve you everything. But if you're asking me to do something that is part of a religious ceremony or something that I feel is religious, then that's an easy call.

NICHOLAS: Right. It's coerced expression.

GLENN: Yeah. And it's just so easy, black and white.

STU: It did not seem to be Gary's position, what you're articulating here. I'm totally comfortable. In fact, I agree with you, on what you just articulated. It's just, that's not what he articulated.

NICHOLAS: I got that. And no candidate is perfect. No person is perfect. I love Gary Johnson. He's strong in some areas. He's weak in others.

STU: As we all are.

NICHOLAS: Austin Peterson is strong in some areas, weak in others. And the delegates make those choices.

GLENN: Right.

NICHOLAS: You know, we're -- you want to talk about big differences between the Libertarian Party and the old parties, we had a convention in Orlando, where 1,000 delegates from across the country selected by state Libertarian parties came into a room. Our bylaws explicitly prohibit bound delegates. Every one of those people was totally free to vote for any presidential nominee. They got to meet them. They got to shake their hands. They got to see them in debates. And those delegates in that room made a choice about who they thought would best represent the Libertarian Party. My job as chairman is to empower the choice of those delegates. So I would get these calls where people would say, "Well, what are you going to do about Weld, or what are you going to do about Johnson?" The delegates decide. I don't decide that.

GLENN: No, I agree with that. It's not you. It's not the party. Now, the question is, how does -- because to me, this looks like such an easy place to go and unite the country. Because I -- I really believe -- I can live next to Ben & Jerry for the rest of my life. And they can --

NICHOLAS: They live here? I thought they were up in Vermont.

GLENN: Yeah. But I could live next to them for the rest of my life and we'd never -- we'd be perfectly fine neighbors.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: It's only when I try to affect them or their business or what they believe, or they try to do it to me --

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: -- coercively through government. So -- and I think that's where a vast majority of America is. I could be wrong.

How do you shape that message to cut through and -- and appeal to -- to more people? Because I think that's where people are.

NICHOLAS: I think you start by changing people's premises. The veterans of the culture wars, like many veterans, bear scars from that. Because these were fights that we had during the '90s and the 2000s, between the right and the left, over who gets to have government tell you how to live your life. That's what made them so bitter. That's what made them so angry. Because the stakes of losing were so high.

GLENN: Correct.

NICHOLAS: In a Libertarian society, what we change -- what the party is trying to do in changing America is take that option off the table. No matter how much we disagree --

GLENN: Amen.

NICHOLAS: -- about how you live your life or I live my life, which we may, probably have some disagreements, we agree as a premise that I won't try to use the government to try and control you and you won't use it to try and control me.

GLENN: This is so easy.

NICHOLAS: And it makes -- it makes for better debates and discussions and dialogues because we can get heated and we can get angry. And we can shout or yell or cry or whatever, but we know at the end of the day, it's safe. Because we're exchanging ideas, not fists or guns. That's what we're trying to -- to change about the culture of politics in this country. Libertarian politics is basically -- it's anti-politics. Politics, political economy generally is different groups of people arguing over which one of them gets to take your tax money and give it to their corporate cronies. Theirs. Because theirs are the good ones. Not the other guys. The other guys -- you don't want to give any money to him, but the developer that I know, oh, yeah. No, that's the guy that should get your tax dollars.

GLENN: We're seeing this with Donald Trump.

NICHOLAS: Right.

GLENN: The right was against the stimulus package.

NICHOLAS: Until he did it.

GLENN: Until he's got a bigger stimulus package, and they're for it.

NICHOLAS: Right. We're fundamentally different because we're the only political party in the country that's dedicated to the idea that you have a right to pursue happiness any way you choose, as long as you don't hurt other people and you don't take their stuff.

We're fighting to make it so that government stops taking stuff away from you and stops controlling your life.

GLENN: Okay. So let's get into that. When we come back --

NICHOLAS: Sure.

GLENN: And you're going to be with me on TheBlaze, so we'll maybe spend another ten minutes. And then tonight, at 5 o'clock, we'll spend a full hour. And I really want to concentrate on that. Because there's a new study out -- and this is of conservatives -- conservative millennials. Forty -- 51 percent say that the government -- that the First Amendment is sacrosanct, that you have a right to speech and a right to free press. 49 percent say that is sacrosanct. But the government has to decide what speech is okay. I mean, it's crazy. And it's conservatives that are saying that. How do we change that?

[break]

GLENN: Talking to Nicholas Sarwark. He is the chairman of the Libertarian Party. We have to get to this here in a couple of minutes, and we'll probably spend more time on it tonight. Can you just go over -- because I only have two minutes here. Can you just go over and then just tease for tonight to explain this, what you just said to me during the break?

NICHOLAS: Sure. Oh. Oh. You had asked earlier whether or not the Libertarian Party is constitutionalist. But it's not anti-constitutionalist. The Constitution, as written, has good things in it -- free speech, Fourth Amendment, stuff like that -- and it has bad things in it, three-fifths of a person, some anti-Democratic stuff.

We support freedom. Every issue. Every time. If the Constitution supports freedom, we're behind the Constitution. If the Constitution takes away freedom, we're against the Constitution. Our North Star is individual liberty, not a particular document written by a particular set of people in a particular place in time.

Legally, we're bound by the Constitution, but our goals --

GLENN: Is there a better document than the Constitution?

NICHOLAS: Oh, no. It's very much the Churchillian line. It's the worst system, except for all the other ones.

GLENN: Yeah. I'll give you that. I mean, we've had this argument -- I had a progressive on the other day, and we were talking about it.

And I said, "You know, let's just agree on the top ten. The first ten amendments." And I said, "Except for the 13th Amendment and Prohibition, the Constitution, all the other amendments are just like, hey, dummy, this is what we were saying in the first ten."

NICHOLAS: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: And that's really where we have to get to.

NICHOLAS: Bill of Rights is solid. Bill of Rights is solid. We're totally behind the Bill of Rights.

GLENN: Rock solid. Yeah.

NICHOLAS: Other parts of the Constitution get a little bit muddy.

GLENN: Yeah. But the Bill of Rights -- I think when people talk about the Constitution, I think, you know, they're not talking necessarily about all the inner workings of how the government works and the three-fifths clause, which was in there for a reason that nobody even knows about anymore. But looking at that Bill of Rights, there is a huge connection across all categories.

NICHOLAS: Absolutely.

GLENN: All categories.

I'm really looking forward to our conversation later today. 5 o'clock on TheBlaze.com. The Libertarian Party.

What is it? What do they believe? And where are they going in 2018 and 2020? You want to be a part of change? Join us tonight. 5 o'clock. Only on TheBlaze TV. TheBlaze.com/TV. Join us tonight at 5:00.

RADIO

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.

RADIO

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.

RADIO

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn Tells Head of Libertarian Party What Floored Him About Gary Johnson

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

Transcript

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

Transcript

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

Transcript