GLENNJanuary 30, 2017

'Nothing More American': Muslim Zudhi Jasser Clarifies Trump's Immigration Order

Glenn invited Dr. Zudhi Jasser to join his radio program Monday to share his perspective on President Trump's recent executive order on refugees. Jasser, a "proud Muslim," has been an outspoken critic of Islamist groups that support the mixing of Islam and politics.

After introducing his guest as a "hero" for speaking out against radical Islam, Glenn asked Jasser for his opinion on the so-called "Muslim ban" the mainstream media has been freaking out about.

"It's not a Muslim ban. I mean, it's absurd," Jasser said. "They're pausing from seven countries that Obama had already listed as hot spots."

When asked how he would respond to liberals calling the "Muslim ban" un-American, Jasser said:

"You just don't get it. Our Founding Fathers were Christians who loved their faith, but yet pushed back against theocracy. There's nothing more American," he said.

Read the full transcript below.

GLENN: Zuhdi, welcome to the program. Glad you're here, sir.

ZUHDI: Glenn. It's great to be with you. Thank you for having me. And, you know, thank you for letting me work on Reforming This.

GLENN: I will tell you, Zuhdi, you are -- you're a hero to me because we all know what happens to those who speak out against radical Islam, especially if you're in Islam. And you are a proud Muslim.

And you have been warning that the United States is in with the wrong guys for a very long time. First, let me ask you this question: Has anyone from the Trump administration reached out to you yet to bring your -- your organization into the fold?

ZUHDI: Not yet. Not yet. I think, you know, they've obviously been very busy the last week, so maybe we'll give them a pass on that. I certainly have worked with a number of the folks he's appointed. So I look forward to helping them navigate these waters. And as we saw in the last few days, they got to get ahead of the messaging game because the left will use identity politics and exploit us Muslims whenever possible for their own benefit.

GLENN: Okay. So Zuhdi, tell me what your thoughts are about this so-called -- what the media is calling a Muslim ban.

ZUHDI: It's not a Muslim ban. I mean, it's absurd. They're pausing from seven countries that Obama had already listed as hot spots.

I would have added -- if you're going to start, I would have added Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan, at least, since those are probably the primary cauldrons of radical Islamism.

But, you know, having said that, the bottom line is that it's important to realize it's a pause. It's not a ban. That America was founded in a battle against theocracy. And to say that currently folks coming in had been vetted is absurd. The vetting that the Obama administration used was an anti-terrorism, anti-violent extremism vetting, which included no ideology.

And I actually debated last night on Fox the head of the International Rescue Commission, and he couldn't come up with one evidence that they're vetting against jihadism or Islamism. So the pause is necessary. But the implementation has certainly been haphazard the last few days.

And if you get this wrong and we lose the messaging -- you know, America should never lose its beacon on a hill as being that place where people come for refuge, for freedom and liberty. We don't want theocrats here, and it's very pro-Muslim, pro-modern Islam to say that we don't want theocrats here.

And, you know, for people like Senator Schumer to say that -- to shed false tears and to say that somehow this is going to feed into the anti-American narrative is absurd when Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia have accepted zero -- zero refugees in. So to say that it's anti-Muslim to just put a pause on a very anemic program anyway from the Obama administration is absurd.

GLENN: Zuhdi, why doesn't Saudi Arabia take any Muslim refugees?

ZUHDI: Two things that should be clear to Americans, which is number one, they are anti-Islamists, as far as the grassroots viral movement. They claim to be against the brotherhood. And they realize the ideology that they're spreading and how it will bite them in the rear end.

So while they're with us, they're the firefighters, they're also the arsonists. So they get it.

Secondly, the refugees get it also. They don't want to go to places as bad or worse than what they're fighting for freedom in Syria for. So there's two things there that make it pretty much a mutual hate between -- the majority of refugees who really want to be free and away from the dual genocide happening from ISIS and from the Assad and Iranian regime.

GLENN: Okay. So I know this would be a pure guess, but, you know, we let 15,000 or 100 -- let's just say a round number. We let 100,000 people in, and they're Muslim refugees.

From that part of the world, any idea how many -- what percentage have been radicalized?

ZUHDI: Well, this is -- this is the key question. And this is what we've been screaming from the rooftops for the last eight years -- actually, you know, five years, obviously, since the revolution. But studies have shown in Europe, 20 to 25 percent of refugees have sympathies for ISIS. Sympathies.

Now, they're not radical as far as -- how do you define radical? Are they militants who are trying to commit acts of violence? No, they'll pass the muster for, do they believe to ISIS? No.

But just as in the Cold War, these are ISIS sympathizers. They believe in the cause. They believe in the Islamic State, a caliphate, et cetera.

But when you ask, is the Trump administration engaging us? They haven't yet. And we want them to use our Muslim reform movement document, which is a two-page declaration that we stand against the core principles of an Islamic State. And if Muslims believe in that, which is true for 70 to 80 percent that are coming here, then we should welcome them.

And actually what that will do is Americans, when they see refugees coming that embrace those principles and they aren't doing acts of wanton crime on the streets as they are in Germany and Sweden and elsewhere, it will make them more endeared to the cause. So then everyone wins if we start vetting against theocratic fascism.

GLENN: Zuhdi, what should the president be doing now? What should he -- who should he be standing with? Who should he be talking with? Who -- what should he be doing to control this message?

Well, you know, this is the issue, is that he wrote an executive order. Gave himself 120 days. And, you know, we're trying to make up for eight years of -- of dysfunction and blindness. Woeful blindness in Washington. So to make up for that -- he talked about a commission on radical Islam. I hope it's called a commission on radical Islamism.

But he needs to convene that. I think it ideally should be chaired by a Muslim. We've got reformers that sign our declaration, that include Sherine Kadosi (phonetic), Asra Nomani, you know, Raheel Raza, Maajid Nawaz in Britain. You know, a Danish parliamentarian. There are many of us out there that can become resources for saying, you know, this isn't a war against Islam. It's a battle within the house of Islam that we're going to take sides on.

And let's reinvigorate -- they called it in the last few decades, public diplomacy. But in the Cold War, it was the US information agency. Let's start radio-free, you know, liberty in the Middle East and start putting our so-called allies on notice, saying, "You know what, the gig is up. We realize that you might be with us on that last step to kill the terrorists, but you're certainly not with us in the previous hundred steps of radicalization," which is ideology that make them anti-western, anti-Semitic, and really are fueling our own demise.

GLENN: How do you give -- give somebody the argument. They're going into the office today, and they are going to sit with some of their liberal friends who are going to start regurgitating everything that the media has said this weekend. Help them win this argument. How do -- the argument of -- let's role play here. I'm going to be the liberal friend, and you play the Trump supporter or the conservative, okay?

And I say, "Hey, good job this weekend, huh? Your guy just made us look like the laughing stock of the world. Everybody is against this. This is un-American, this Muslim ban." How do you respond?

ZUHDI: I would say, "You just don't get it. The most American thing -- our Founding Fathers were Christians who loved their faith, but yet pushed back against theocracy."

There's nothing more American than having a president that -- this is not a Muslim ban. This is not preferential for Christians. The word Muslim or Christian is not in it. It talks about persecuted religious minorities, which would include Muslims within those countries that are dissidents, that are even within the majority cities, that might be fighting against the government.

So there is nothing more American -- yes, my guy may be getting the messaging wrong. I think he needs to be clearer about that. The implementation might have been wrong. But the bottom line is that we finally have somebody in the White House who is not only on the side of the Islamist, but actually taking them on and seeing that we need to be more discerning and not have this national fratricide, where we allow anybody in just because they claim to be Muslim.

And, by the way, your side is using this as a political football to basically play identity politics, when Islam is an idea. It's an ideology. It's not a race. So stop racializing a global faith community that has a deep problem of jihadists.

GLENN: Zuhdi, one last -- one last question.

Do the -- would the Sunnis -- I think it's the Sunnis -- no, the Shias in Syria, do you believe they would qualify as being a religious minority, that is -- that is being picked on or threatened?

ZUHDI: That's a great question. You know, those who say that Assad and his partnership with Iran, he's a secularist is just absurd. There are certainly Shia minorities that are persecuted by ISIS, and those would be persecuted minorities.

Alawite minorities that tried to take on the regime that is -- Alawite is a faction of Shia Islam. And so those are persecuted. But the bottom line is, I'm of the belief that the Assad regime, through its cooperation with Hezbollah and Iran, are jihadists. They're just Shia jihadists. And they're battling against Sunni jihadists. So there are persecuted minorities on both side of the equation in Syria, and there's actually a third side, which is really those who are just trying to be free and stop the oppression both from the Assad regime and from the ISIS militants.

GLENN: Zuhdi, thank you very much. I appreciate it. And you can hear reform this on TheBlaze Radio Network, Saturdays at noon. You can just also listen to the podcast at any time on demand. Thank you, Zuhdi, I appreciate it. God bless.

ZUHDI: You too. Thank you so much, Glenn. Appreciate it.

GLENN: You bet.

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

'Nothing More American': Muslim Zudhi Jasser Clarifies Trump's Immigration Order

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