©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), joined Glenn on radio to discuss the future of the internet and net neutrality. If a government regulator exists that Glenn likes, it's Ajit Pai, who stood alone in a hostile world at the FCC during the Obama administration. Pai favors light regulation to ensure consumers have a competitive choice and companies have a greater incentive to invest in the internet.
Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.
GLENN: The head of the FCC. The FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, now joins us.
Ajit, I don't know if you are aware of this at all, but we've been watching you for a while. I have -- I have no idea how you got by Obama. But we're glad you did.
AJIT: Thanks so much, Glenn. I really appreciate the kind words. And grateful to you for making time for me today.
GLENN: Oh, you bet. We have a lot of questions for you. And I want to talk to you about net neutrality. I want to talk to you about the cable industry and this cry of fake news and where you think we're going.
Let's start with probably net neutrality.
Net neutrality is -- is in some ways, a -- a nightmare and will limit people. In other ways, people will look at this and say, "Wait. I don't want my cable operator being able to pick and choose winners and slow down, you know, the speeds of YouTube, if they're trying to promote their own YouTube." Can you make the argument?
AJIT: Absolutely. I think the key point here is nothing about the internet was broken. From the dawn of the internet age in the 1990s until 2015, the internet economy in the United States was the envy of the world precisely because President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that instead of regulating the heck out of this new technology, we would let it develop and take targeted action as necessary.
And that's, I think, part of the reason why we saw the tremendous explosion and activity online. But in 2015, on the party-line vote, the FCC imposed these heavy-handed rules that were developed for Mondale, the telephone monopoly back in the 1930s.
And as a result, we've seen less investment in networks. We're seeing less competition than ever. And I think that's one of the things we want to address going further, is, you know, light-touch regulation I think is the best calibrated to make sure the consumers have more competitive choice, and the companies have a greater incentive to invest. And that's where we're heading.
GLENN: So how would you address -- I said this to Ray Kurzweil who is part of the Singularity University. Works for Google. And I said, "So, Ray, why wouldn't Google develop an algorithm that would find people who are using the search engine to create a bigger and better Google? Why wouldn't they just -- I mean, that's human nature to protect yourself. If somebody is coming -- you can piece together in advance, "Wait a minute. These people are looking to build a better Google." Why wouldn't you just shut them down? He said, "Oh, that would never happen because we're all good people." I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory.
But, you know, we are now in the internet age, playing devil's advocate, of these gigantic corporations that you're just not going to -- the little guy is not going to compete against Google. They're not going to compete against Apple. They're not -- you can't compete around Comcast.
AJIT: And the point I consistently made is we don't put our faith in people or in companies. What's that saying? If men were angels, no laws would be necessary.
GLENN: Right.
AJIT: Well, we have a system of laws, and interest in competition laws on one hand and consumer protection laws on the other. And those are administered by a -- say the Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department here in Washington, by state agencies across the country. So there's a whole framework of laws to protect against that kind of conduct.
What we don't need is the FCC preemptively micromanaging every single business in the United States, not just the big ones that you mentioned, but even the smaller companies that have told us we're holding back on investment now because of these heavy-handed investments.
GLENN: So we're talking to Ajit Pai, he's the chairman of the FCC. You know, as I look at the most hated services in America -- or service providers, it's your electric company, it's your insurance companies, it's your cable companies. Those are all the ones that are the most heavily regulated.
However, as somebody who has tried, without $200 million behind me, to break in and have a -- a groundswell -- a verified groundswell of -- of support behind me, these -- to break into cable is absolutely impossible if you are a voice that the companies want to block. You just can't do it. How do we balance that and make sure that, you know, the app system -- because that's why we -- that's why we're online. Okay. Well, good. We'll do it online. But how do we make sure that the app system isn't blocked now by a Comcast or an Apple, where you're just not going to get in and break through?
AJIT: That's a terrific question. And two different answers: Number one, the way you do it is by promoting more competition. You make sure that the barriers to entry, so to speak, are low. That people like you can express yourselves over a variety of different platforms. And number two, to the extent that that's a concern, remember that the people who are promoting this Title II regulation through the US government are not the friends of free speech and free expression. These groups are consistently saying that they want government control of the internet, not just for its own sake, but in order to regulate how speech and expression happens online.
GLENN: Right.
AJIT: And they've been very open about this throughout the years.
GLENN: But you can't -- as a person, I can't start my own cable company. It's all regulated. I can't start one.
AJIT: And that's why we've had a very aggressive agenda in the three months that I've been in the chairman's office to make sure that we enable more companies to make that decision, to enter the marketplace, removing some of the barriers that they found, in terms of the rules, and making it easier for them to raise capital and to enter these marketplaces. And we want the smaller companies that are getting squeezed by these regulations to finally enter the market and provide a competitive option.
GLENN: Good for you.
So help me out on this. Ted Koppel, who I have a lot of respect for, has done a lot of great journalism over his lifetime -- I was talking to him, and he was concerned about all this fake news. And I said, at the end of the day, go back to the revolutionary war, there was tons of fake news back then. We're just in a new situation. And we haven't found our way to balance it yet. But you got to trust the people.
And he immediately said, "I think that we need to start, you know, having a license for people to be on the internet and to present news. We have to verify those people who are online."
That's insane.
AJIT: I couldn't agree more. And I have a lot of respect for Ted Koppel's career. But, frankly, his comments are repugnant to the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment. In fact, that's the very reason why John Milton in 1644 wrote his great treaties on free expression, Areopagitica, where he said that, you know, look, the king has no business licensing people to allow them to speak. We -- the entire premise of western civilization is that you don't have a gatekeeper allowing you to speak only at the whim of the king. And that's the same here in the United States. The last thing I think we want is government -- sort of regulators like me deciding who speaks and who doesn't. That's the fantastic thing about the internet age, I think.
STU: Don't you think though, Glenn -- and Ajit Pai -- we're talking to the FCC chairman. You have this situation where it's not about what happened in 1644 or anything. It's about what's coming up on May 30th, which is season five of House of Cards.
JEFFY: Thank you. Thank you.
STU: People want their Netflix. They want it streamed. They don't want their evil cable company slowing it down. Is that something that needs to be regulated, or does the market actually work that stuff out?
AJIT: To me, the market works it out. The best evidence of that is the digital economy that we had, prior to 2015 when we imposed these rules.
Companies were not engaging in the blocking of lawful content. And to the extent that we have concerns about competition, the best way to get there is not by imposing these heavy-handed regulations that slow down infrastructure investment, especially by some of the smaller companies that would give you a competitive option. It's by making sure we have clear-cut rules of the road, that are market-friendly, that incentivize more companies to enter this space.
And so, you know, look, I'm all in favor of the government looking at any competitive problems as they pop up. Preemptively regulating, from the Fortune 500 companies, down to the tiny companies in Little Rock, Arkansas, is not the way to get there.
GLENN: I will tell you, Ajit, I look at this time period -- and I'd love to hear your point of view of this. I look at this time period of American history as a combination of the industrial revolution and heavy emphasis on Tesla and Edison, all in about a 20-year period. I mean, what's coming in -- in technology and communication has already been profound. But it's going to become even more profound.
And, you know, as a student of history -- and you obviously are one as well. When you look back at those days of Tesla and Edison, in many ways, Tesla was right. Edison was just good at playing the game with the government.
And he was a -- excuse my language, but a son of a bitch. And that's not French. That's English.
STU: Can we say that on the air, Mr. FCC Chairman?
GLENN: Oh, yes, I shouldn't have said that with the FCC chairman.
AJIT: I'll give you a pass, don't worry.
GLENN: Okay. Thank you.
PAT: You didn't think that one through. Did you?
GLENN: Yeah, I didn't think that one through. I forgot who we were talking to. Anyway, we never say things like that, by the way. Golly, gee, darn it. I'm sorry.
But we were pushed back because of the collusion with very powerful people like Edison and very powerful politicians. Do you see us -- how do you see what's coming our way?
AJIT: Boy, that's a great question.
I think the first thing is the empowerment of the citizen that the internet allows. It used to be that to do virtually anything, you had to work through some sort of gatekeeper. If you were buying a car, you had to go through a dealer. If you were wanting to stay in a place, you have to go book a room with a hotel.
And now, because of technology, you can do anything, basically by yourself. And that's an incredible amount of empowerment. But, on the other hand, we always have to guard against this instinct of essentially crony capitalism, the phenomenon that you talked about. And to that extent, I think what people need to understand is that heavy-handed regulation is actually the friend of bigger businesses and for those who believe in big government. Because -- the big companies are always going to have the armies of lawyers and accountants to comply with these regulations, to persuade government to do favors on this or that issue. It's the smaller companies that are disproportionately affected. And the second thing is that it's very seductive for a lot of people to think, "Well, the market just leaves consumers at the mercy of these wild and unpredictable forces." When in reality, the market has delivered more value for consumers than preemptive government regulation ever could.
I mean, the fact that we have billions of people who are emerging from poverty now is the result of free market policies. It's not because the governments of these various countries have suddenly decided to bestow largesse upon them. And so it's a case that we consistently have to make that crony capitalism and big government regulation, those are not the friends of the average consumer.
GLENN: So we have -- we have a situation now of fake news. And it's been around forever. But it's at epidemic proportions because the average person has access to everybody. And the average person, you know, unfortunately doesn't think things through and really read everything. They see a headline, they click on it, and they share it.
We have some really nefarious people, some of them in Russia, that are using our own technology against us, using our own freedoms against us. We have the press -- I told you about Ted Koppel. But we also have the president coming out and saying, you know, you're fake news. And maybe we should be able to sue you more.
Does the FCC have a role in the First Amendment in saying to all sides, "Knock it off. The freedom of the press is the freedom of the press, no matter if it's a printing press or the internet. Knock it off?"
AJIT: Well, I've consistently said -- and this goes back to my time as a commissioner up to five years ago, that one of the distinctive features of America is the fact that we have a First Amendment. It's unique in human history for the government to establish in its very founding papers the notion that anybody in this country has the ability to speak, anybody has the ability to write, anybody has the ability to worship as he or she sees fit.
And that's something that requires not just the cold parchment of the Constitution, but it requires a culture that admires that -- those freedoms. And so I've consistently spoken about -- about the need to preserve that culture of freedom for speech and free press. Because it's a slippery slope. Once you lose it, it's very hard to reclaim it.
GLENN: You have a 50 -- what is it? A 50 or 60 percent of so-called conservatives saying that there's a limit to freedom of the press. Is there?
AJIT: Well, the Constitution speaks for itself. And so long as I have the privilege of occupying this office, I'll keep defending that core constitutional freedom. It's one of the things that I think makes America a very unique place across time and across the world.
GLENN: So I think with that answer, I just have to end where I started: How the hell did you get past Barack Obama?
AJIT: That's a good question. I'm not sure how I slipped through the cracks.
GLENN: I don't know either.
AJIT: But maybe it's the -- sort of like the Forrest Gump of the Washington scene. Just kept gamboling on, and here I am.
(laughter)
GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Ajit Pai, thank you so much for talking to us.
PAT: Great.
GLENN: And keep up the good work.
AJIT: Thank you, sir. Thanks for having me on.
GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye.
PAT: And thanks for the shout-out to Areopagitica. That's -- I think that's a first.
JEFFY: Right.
GLENN: Oh, how many times have we talked about -- off the air --
PAT: All the time. All the time.
STU: Talked about all the time.
GLENN: Okay. You know what I love --
PAT: Talked about all the time. Milton's Areopagitica.
JEFFY: Right!
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.
