BLOGFebruary 26, 2018

Jake Tapper Doesn’t Back Down From Asking FL Sheriff the Tough Questions

What’s going on?

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel seemed certain when he debated NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch in a CNN town hall last week and advocated for police officers to get more control and power to take away guns from people. But in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday, Israel revealed how little he knew about the school shooting in Parkland, Florida before he appeared in the town hall.

Remind me:

Seventeen people died when a shooter opened fire in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14. As teenage survivors advocate for gun control, investigators and journalists are pointing out more and more red flags that show the shooting suspect should not have been able to keep his gun.

'Just Do Something'? Chris Cuomo, Charles Cooke Debate Gun Control

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office is being investigated for not acting on a tip that the teenage gunman could be a “school shooter in the making.” Israel’s office reportedly received 18 calls about the shooter before the tragic incident.

Glenn’s take:

The office heard about the “school shooter in the making” in advance and did nothing. As we learn about the sheriff’s department’s incompetence, we should be even more leery of handing over more control.

“He wanted more law enforcement power. That should always scare people,” Glenn said. “What are you doing with the power that you do have?”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: All right. So I want to talk to you about the school shooting and where we go from here, but I want to do it with this in mind: If it meant -- if it meant that we could stop all shootings, would you consider an infringement on your Second Amendment right? If it meant?

To me, the answer is yes. But I know the evidence shows that it doesn't work. So no.

If you could show me real evidence that this was an outdated mode of thinking and that, you know, we had somehow or another solved the reason why you should have guns in the first place, and that is against tyranny, and you need it for self-protection, well, then you could talk me into it.

But I've never seen that evidence. I've looked for that evidence. But I'm open to hearing new evidence. Share away.

If you are on the other side and I could show you evidence that we could do a few things beside not taking away guns and it was effective, would you change your mind? Would you say, well, let's start there.

And for both sides. If we could get to a place to where I could just say, look, you know, we want to have this gun debate, that's fine. But this is one of the oldest debates in American history. What is a militia? So we're not going to solve this in the next couple of weeks.

Do we all believe that more -- that more shooting is coming?

I think it's safe to say that, yes, we all know that. Okay. So what are we going to do to solve it? Well, the first thing is, what can we learn from this shooting? What can we learn from the last shooting?

We learned in the last shooting, in the church, that, A, somebody who is just a civilian with a firearm can stop the shooting. But we also learned that the Air Force was not reporting people with mental health issues or issues with guns and domestic abuse, to put them in the system.

That had to be changed. Now, what have we learned on this one? Well, I think one thing that we've learned is there's something wrong with this sheriff. There's something wrong -- deeply wrong in Broward County. It's one thing to have one guy that stays out of the building and waits while the shooting was going on. But there were four sheriff deputies.

STU: He denies that. Although, his denial has lots of -- you know, qualifications to it. Which maybe we'll hear some of that here in this interview.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: But I think, you know, there's also the thing of, what do you learn from this mass shooting. And one of the things, I think, when you're leading up to the mass shooting, is if every citizen in America has told you that one specific person is going to do a school shooting, that might be a time to understand that perhaps, that person is in danger of doing a school shooting.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Maybe you should do something about that.

GLENN: When you have the number of reports and the number of altercations with this student that they did, and the sheriff's department did nothing, that's a problem. That's a real problem. And that's easy to fix. Let's make sure that's not happening anyplace else. Let's discuss this. And get to the bottom of it.

Jake Tapper started unraveling this hero sheriff's story over the weekend. And let's start with, why was there no report when they called and said, he's going to be a school shooter. He's a school shooter in the making. And he has access to guns.

Why was there no report? Listen.

JAKE: Fewer than three months ago, your office received a call from a tipster explicitly saying that crews could be a, quote, school shooter in the making. According to notes released on that call, no report was even initiated.

At this point, sir, do you understand how the public, seeing red flag after red flag after red flag, warning after warning after warning, they hear that your office didn't even initiate a report when they got a call saying that this guy could be a school shooter in the making? How could there not even be a report on this one?

VOICE: Well, if that's accurate, Jake, there needed to be a report. And that's what we're looking into, that a report needed to be completed. It needed to be reported to either our Homeland Security or violent crimes unit. And they would have followed up on it.

JAKE: That's from your notes. That's from notes released by your office. I'm not making this up. This is from Broward.

VOICE: No, and that's -- and that's what -- the officer who handled that is on restrictive duty. And we are -- that's an active internal investigation. And we're looking into it.

GLENN: Okay. So there's another person under his command that has failed to do the job.

Yet, he wanted more law enforcement power. That should always scare people.

What are you doing with the power that you do have? But he's been asking for more power.

Listen.

VOICE: The whole crux of this is giving law enforcement, giving deputies, giving police officers, not only in Broward County, but in Florida and around the nation, expanded power, to be able to do something more than just write a report. That's the whole reason I went on CNN and town hall --

VOICE: Sir, isn't making a threat against the school a crime?

VOICE: Not if the person doesn't have the ability to carry it out. You could say a nonspecific threat, I'm going to go to a school. It's not a crime. If the person doesn't have the apparent ability to carry it out, it's not a crime.

JAKE: Well, in September 2016, the shooter indicated that he wanted to buy a gun. Deputy Peterson knew about that. He initiated the report. The school launched a threat assessment.

At this point, you have somebody saying that they're going to shoot up a school and somebody with a gun. That's not enough?

VOICE: That's not enough.

GLENN: That's not enough. Huh.

STU: And that's just one of the incidents. Of course, there's dozens.

GLENN: Is that true?

STU: His first answer is, do they have the ability to carry it out?

GLENN: Yes. Wait. You're using reason.

STU: Okay. Should I calm down?

GLENN: You should calm down. Stop using reason. Let's just jump on his side or against him, depending on what our religion tells us to do.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: This is the problem. This is the problem.

So reason would tell you, well, let's stop here. Let's stop here. Is that true?

Now, we know that's not true. We know that's not true. There was a paper trail, very long against this kid.

So you obviously have enough power to make sure that he is not around guns, to make sure that he gets some sort of medical treatment, et cetera, et cetera. Whatever it is.

You may not be able to throw him in prison, but you certainly can restrict him, with all of the stuff that we had. So we know that's not true.

If it was true, that should be the first thing the sheriff is asking for. Right there. Here's specifics. I had 31, you know, complaints against this guy. Nineteen of them, we did exactly right.

Okay. We'll get back to the others that you didn't get right. But on those 19, I couldn't do anything. And we knew he had a gun. We knew that he was holding it to people's heads who he knew. That he was threatening to shoot up the school. And, "We couldn't do anything." We know that's not true.

But if it is true or if it were true, that should be the first thing we work on. Don't you think? Because there has to be other schools and other sheriffs that are facing the same thing.

I know this kid is going to go and do something, because of the 19 reports that we have. But I can't do anything.

We should hear from those sheriffs. We should know. Let us help you protect the children.

All right. Next cut.

When did he know about Peterson? I love this one.

JAKE: When did you find out that Deputy Peterson had not gone into the building? How soon after the shooting did you know that?

VOICE: Not for days. We --

JAKE: How many days?

VOICE: Our investigators looked -- I'm not sure.

JAKE: Because you spent much of the Wednesday night town hall on CNN with the entire Stoneman Douglas community, students and teachers and parents attacking the NRA, saying the police needed more powers, more money, to prevent future tragedies.

You didn't disclose any of this to the crowd then, the stone man Douglas High School community. Did you know it then? Did you know it Wednesday night?

VOICE: It was spoken about during that -- earlier, during that day. I'm not a time line for TV or any news show. We need to get it right. We need to get it accurate. We're talking about people's lives. We're talking about a community. We need to corroborate. We need to verify. And once we did, the next day -- and I looked at the tape, and I was 100 percent certain that it happened the way I was told about the investigators initially told about. I didn't even release it that second.

JAKE: You didn't look at the video -- one week after the shooting, you hadn't looked at the video yet?

VOICE: I looked at the video as soon as the investigators -- it wasn't my job to look at the video. It was investigators' job to look at the video. I'm still sheriffing this -- this -- this -- this county. There were many things to do. We have investigators -- homicide investigators, internal affairs investigators dissecting it. And when they felt there was a video ready for my view, that I might take action on one of our deputies, I looked at the video.

STU: I mean, if you believe this guy hadn't seen that video before that town hall in a week's time --

GLENN: Then he needs to be dismissed as incompetent just for that.

STU: I mean, there's tons of things that I would love to sell you.

But the other thing is, can you imagine -- forget even if he saw the video. He tells you there that he knew about it going on stage.

Can you imagine the balls to go on stage on national television, and yell at Dana Loesch and say that she's not standing up for these kids, when you know that your deputy was actually not standing up, he was crouching behind a wall, while people were being executed inside the school. Can you imagine the balls to go on television and not bring that up?

GLENN: Now, listen to this. Listen to this idea.

STU: That's incredible.

GLENN: Let's just fix reason firmly in her seat. And let's use his logic. He doesn't want to go on television. Because there's a crowd there. It's a community. It's a community that's grieving.

And he wants to make sure, you just don't go in front of that community, in front of that crowd, unless he can verify everything and he's 100 percent sure, that that's what happened.

So he was 100 percent sure that the NRA caused this shooting? He's 100 percent sure that it was the gun and not the kid?

He was 1 percent sure, even though, he had evidence presented to him, that things could have been different if -- not one. But four of his deputies would have moved in. He was 100 percent sure that it was the NRA's fault. But he wouldn't bring anything -- he wouldn't bring anything about his group, unless he was 100 percent sure. And he just wasn't -- he wasn't there. But he was so sure that the people who weren't there, were at fault.

I don't -- I don't understand that. That doesn't seem like you're really doing an investigation. That seems like a witch hunt.

STU: Well, and he did want to let that fact out in front of the families, in a public forum. He wanted to do it one-on-one. He wanted to make sure that was one-on-one.

GLENN: I know. I know. Well, he did the very next morning in a press conference. So he didn't do it one-on-one.

STU: Hmm. He just put it out on a press release, talked to reporters about it.

GLENN: Yeah. Talked to reporters. But in this interview with Jake Tapper, one of the reasons why he didn't do it was because -- you just didn't tell people like that in a crowd or just an impersonal forum, like the town hall. You needed to -- you know, there was one parent that wasn't there. And he wanted to make sure everybody was there so he could personally tell them.

STU: So all of the parents were there at a press release? That's interesting.

GLENN: Press conference. No. No. It's strange, isn't it?

STU: You let that crowd attack Dana Loesch, calling her a murderer and all these other terrible things. It was mob -- it was Christians and lions, as you've been talking about it. I mean, absolute mob.

And you knew, as you were sitting on that stage and -- and making it worse by putting more blame on her and the NRA, you knew your own deputy -- you were going to fire him the next day for dereliction of duty because he didn't go in there. You, your judgment of it, his actions are so bad, and you don't even bring that up. In fact, you make it worse. You make people go after her. You make her life be threatened. That is an incomprehensible -- this guy makes it through this thing with his job, that is -- I don't even -- there is absolutely no justice.

GLENN: I will tell you that during -- during the town hall, during the town hall, CNN people wondered if Dana and others had security to be able to get them out. They've started to worry about the guest security.

Wow. Wow. Huh. I know I felt that way. But it's strange to hear CNN might have felt that way. And yet, they continued to go.

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

Jake Tapper Doesn’t Back Down From Asking FL Sheriff the Tough Questions

'Just Do Something'? Chris Cuomo, Charles Cooke Debate Gun Control

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