©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Marc Giller with The Resurgent recently published an article titled, "Glenn Beck Rebooted," in which he laments the Glenn Beck of early radio days and worries about Glenn's new efforts to heal the divide in America. Marc talked with Glenn on radio Tuesday, having a frank conversation about the nobility of Glenn's goal and how he'll need to find honest brokers on the left --- or be doomed to failure.
Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.
GLENN: Let's go to Marc Giller, who is joining us now. He's from theresurgent.com. And he wrote a -- he wrote an article called Glenn Beck: Rebooted. And, Marc, good to have you on.
MARC: Hey, Glenn, thanks. I appreciate being on. Thanks.
GLENN: You bet. I appreciate the spirit of the article, and it's nice to actually talk to a fan who has been a fan literally from the beginning.
MARC: Yeah. Actually it's kind of interesting. Because when I read the Washington Post profile that inspired the article in the first place, I hadn't really intended to go down that direction. But when I sat down to actually start writing it, a lot of memories of the show back in the old days on WFLA just came rushing back to me, and it just sort of started pouring out to me, and it kind of turned into this very, very long introduction. And, you know, once I started rolling with it, I was having so much fun with it, you know, just talking about the Frisbeetarian Church.
GLENN: I loved those.
Those were -- yeah -- for anybody who doesn't know what the Schlub Club was. I used to pit the 4 o'clock audience against the 5 o'clock audience. And I would tell the 4 o'clock audience that they were the real audience. The 5 o'clock audience, they were the schlubs. They were the people that just stroll in. Oh, I'm working. I can't listen. And so let's screw with them.
And so we would plan something all hour, and then I would set up the calls. So when the next people -- when the people got off of work, they would just turn on the radio, and they would start hearing these crazy people calling in.
And by the end of the hour, they would be like, I live in an asylum, and all these people that didn't -- that weren't in on it would call in and go, are all of these people crazy?
MARC: That was the funny part too. Because I was actually one of those schlubs at first. I didn't get off work until 5 o'clock. So I'm driving across the Howard Franklin Bridge going home, listening. What the heck are these people?
(laughter)
You know, it just got so off the chart -- all right. And so I eventually figured it out. So I was in on the joke at that point. And I couldn't wait to hear those every single day. They were absolutely hilarious.
GLENN: Yeah, no, they were great. We've never been able to do them because we didn't know how to divide the show up. Because some stations because of time zones shuffle the hours.
JEFFY: Yeah.
GLENN: And I remember -- Stu, do you remember -- were you with me when I did, I'm in love with my sister? Yeah, you were with me.
Do you remember that, Marc?
STU: Yeah.
MARC: I don't remember that one.
PAT: I remember advising you not to do that.
GLENN: Okay. Yeah. I did this whole hour where I built it up, and I said, "Listen, I want you to know, I'm going to talk about something that I've never shared before." And I did this really heartfelt monologue of the first time I fell in love. And I'm not going to be ashamed of it anymore. And it was up on the Ferris wheel when I was a kid and I kissed my sister.
STU: So disturbing.
GLENN: Yeah. And it was a whole -- it was a whole thing to see if I could sway the audience to be -- to defend brother/sister love. And got them there, until the end, I was supposed to then come in and say --
STU: And reveal it.
GLENN: -- okay. So here's the thing. I'm just making a point here that I can get you to believe anything if I put enough --
STU: If you don't have principle. I mean, it's the same points that we're making today.
GLENN: Correct. If I give you enough love stuff and heart stuff, you're going to fall for anything.
Well, unfortunately, it was when I was first starting syndication. And President Bush had to give a speech about 9/11. And the affiliates all dropped off, literally at the explanation. So for 24 hours, I had affiliates calling saying, we are not running this show ever again.
(laughter)
So, anyway, so your point here -- the reason I wanted to get you on is, your point saying, you can admire Glenn to be the first to say, enough, and take a stand against him. But until he finds honest partners on the left who are willing to share the risk and stand by him, I'm afraid his efforts are doomed to fail.
Tell me about that.
MARC: Yeah. Well, it was kind of -- mostly inspired by what had happened with Sam Bee. Because I -- I heard the -- segment that you had her on your radio show when I was driving out to Orlando. And I thought, well, you know -- I had never been a fan of Samantha Bee. Obviously, I'm a preacher on the right myself. And, you know, kind of think a lot of her opinions are kind of full of it. But listening to that, I thought to myself, well, you know, this is worth a try. Because it's kind of akin to some of the things that I'm going to do in mostly my online dealings with people, especially since I've gotten more into political blogging and whatnot. You can get into arguments with people.
But my philosophy was always going to be, all right. I'm not going to be able to persuade people by putting them down, making them feel stupid, calling them names. And I always tried to deal with them in a respectful kind of way.
So when I heard you and Samantha going back and forth, talking to each other about how we need to change the tone and how we converse with one another, I did respond to that. But a couple weeks later, she's on her show, and she's comparing this poor cancer survivor at CPAC to a Nazi because of his haircut. And it just kind of really struck me because I thought, well, you know, if she really took it to heart, the conversations that you've had, if she really wanted to go ahead and change the tone, she wouldn't be doing that kind of thing. And it just kind of concerned me because, you know, I'm very -- a big leader in the effort that you're trying to do here. And I think you're taking obviously a tremendous career risk, potentially alienating people in your audience. A lot of names being called particularly on the right about being a sellout. You know, I do believe that we have to start someplace. But I'm just really concerned about partnering up with the wrong people who aren't really taking it to heart and who are maybe just using this as an opportunity to promote themselves, instead of actually really starting a dialogue and trying to make a conversation more civil between the left and the right.
GLENN: So I'm thinking -- and, Marc, I can't tell you how I appreciate your attitude and your approach on this.
We've talked about this for a long time. And we believe we're going to have to kiss 1,000 frogs before we find one prince. Because it is difficult to -- I was just on with Tavis Smiley. It airs on PBS I think today or tonight or something. And he said, so why aren't you having more success with people -- and I said, that's my question for you, Tavis. Now, he was very, very open. And, you know, but he has kind of a softer attitude anyway.
But he said, so why do you think it is? And I said, because I don't -- I'm not sure that -- he said actually -- he phrased it this way: Is it because people aren't self-reflecting because perhaps there was nobody -- this is a quote, quite as bad as you. And I said, well, okay. That's one way to look at it.
MARC: I take it he never listened to Michael Savage.
GLENN: Right. Or is it that people don't want to look at themselves? It's easier to look elsewhere? And I could tell you that there are people that, you know -- let's look at Bill Maher. Even Samantha Bee, that have said some really difficult things about people on the right.
Are they looking --
MARC: Oh, sure.
GLENN: Are they looking inside of themselves? I don't think so. It's easier to look outside. So it requires somebody to be humble enough to say, what part did I play in this?
MARC: Yeah. Well, and that was another aspect of the WaPo article that kind of set me back a little bit as well too. Because the tone of it was all, you know, here's Glenn Beck, he's trying to hug his way back into bringing America back together.
GLENN: Yeah, I thought that was an unfair article, by the way. I thought it took some things -- some liberty with some things that that was not the right tone. But, anyway, go ahead.
MARC: Yeah. Well, the thing about that was that it made -- it proceeded from this assumption that it was all you're doing. You know, you can extrapolate that to, it's all on the right side of the political spectrum, where all the hatred is coming from, and where all the acrimony is coming from. And that is not the case at all.
GLENN: I agree. I agree.
MARC: Yeah. If the author, Mark Fisher, had balanced it out a little bit in maybe seeking out some people on the left in talking about how they contributed to the overall corruption of how we talk to each other and how we think of each other in this country, I think it would have been a heck of a lot better.
GLENN: I will tell you, Marc, you're right on the money. And I'm waiting for somebody to do that. And so far, nobody is willing to do that. Everybody is willing to dog pile. And I keep waiting for somebody to say, well, hey, wait a minute, it's us too.
MARC: Well, again, look at what's happening to you. Look at what's happening in your attempts to do this. I can't even imagine the amount of hate mail you get over just this particular subject.
STU: That's just from the staff.
MARC: I posted this article. I'm getting hate tweets myself. I'm just a nobody who writes an article on the internet. So I can't even imagine what that would be like a million fold, like what you're dealing with here. And I think that people on the left, particularly those that make their living in the media and they have this image that they have to uphold are thinking the same thing and saying, holy crap. I don't want that happening to me. I want to give my audience what they want.
And that's kind of what I think Samantha Bee was doing when she was doing her Nazi shtick with CPAC attendees. Is that, oh, well, maybe she got a few hate tweets of her own off of appearing with Glenn Beck or having you on her show. And thinking, well, I got to go throw a bone out here to my listeners or my viewers and, you know, let them know I'm not going all soft on them, right? And that's problematic.
STU: We're talking to Marc Giller from The Resurgent. And, Marc, I was fascinated by that point. Because you're right. It was a cheap joke at the expense of some guy on CPAC. Now, it turns out that the guy has cancer, and there was a lot more to the story. But she didn't know that at the time.
GLENN: And it wasn't her joke.
STU: It was some correspondent.
GLENN: It was the correspondent.
STU: But I was interested at seeing your article. Because you talk about the days of 970 WFLA, the mother ship of this particular show.
GLENN: Yep.
STU: And, you know, those were great times, and they were really funny. But also really harsh.
GLENN: They were mean.
STU: And we a lot of times made fun of the appearance of somebody on the left. And we joked and made all sorts of things like that -- it was a harsh show for laughs. And I remember at the time Glenn saying, in comedy, there's always a victim. There's always a victim. We should just always make the first victim ourself. And so that's the way we ran the show.
STU: But her joke, is that just a funny line that we should all just be able to get over? Or is it really some attack that shows that she's not being an honest partner in whatever was trying to be done here?
MARC: Well, you know, I love to employ humor in the stuff that I write as well. And God knows, that Twitter being the medium that it is, it just lends itself to snark, and I've definitely been guilty of doing that myself from time to time, although I've never called anyone a commie or a pinko or anything like that. But I do -- I really -- one of the things about the mean culture that we have right now, that, yeah, it does make it increasingly difficult to make even good jokes and to laugh at each other because everybody is taking themselves so damn seriously. It's very, very difficult to do.
And I think that, you know, if -- maybe the way we react to things like the Nazi joke on Samantha Bee's show, is because we on the right have taken it to the shin so much from the popular culture, where we're always cast as the fuddy-duddies. We're always cast as the ones who want to get into everyone's bedroom, and we don't want you to have fun. When, really, a lot of that is what's going on in the left these days. I guess it just makes us really mad because we've been the butt of jokes so many times. And that, you know, leftists really typically have an extremely difficult time laughing at themselves. So, you know, maybe that's where we are.
GLENN: I tell you, Marc, when somebody actually hears -- really hears what you just said on the left, when they really hear you, things will change. But they don't so far. I've been trying. And they don't hear that message yet. But once they do, I think we can come together.
MARC: I do hope that that is the case. Because my fondest wish in our politics is that we stop yelling at each other and actually start talking to one another instead.
But, you know, the way things are right now, it's all emotion. It's all ID. It's very little debating the actual facts. How we came to that -- obviously we have the mainstream media that's out there stirring the pot as well too because get some clicks, get some views. People are screaming at one another. Washington is happy with that because they can get away with whatever they want to get away with, because people are distracted with minutiae, rather than taking a look at the big issues and the things that are affecting them on a day-to-day basis. So you do have this entrenched power structure that's in place that has a vested interest in keeping us at each other's throats. So it's going to be really tough.
GLENN: So I only have about ten seconds. What I really wanted to ask you was you said, I think it's doomed for failure. So do I continue or do I not continue?
MARC: No. It's only if you get the wrong partners that it's doomed for failure. The interesting thing about what you were mentioning about Riaz, your friend as well too, is that maybe he's going to be more of an honest partner, but he's less of a celebrity. So he's got less of a reputation to uphold I guess with his audience since he's a more behind the scenes type of guy. So I think maybe you might be more productive with that -- going back to the last segment, maybe you ought to watch How to Look Good Naked.
GLENN: All right. Thank you so much. God bless. Marc Giller from theresurgent.com.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
