RADIOMarch 27, 2023

EXPLAINED: How the Fed’s FedNow program WILL end in a CBDC

The Federal Reserve’s new service for banks, called FedNow, promises increased flexibility, faster transactions, and instant payments with one, small cost: The potential END to your financial freedom. In this clip, Glenn is joined by Justin Haskins, co-author of their new book, ‘Dark Future.’ Haskins explains how — despite what the Federal Reserve may say — this new service is NOT an alternative to a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)…rather, it’s a giant stepping stone toward it. Watch Glenn tackle this topic further in his upcoming Glenn TV Wednesday Night Special, airing on YouTube and BlazeTV.com on March 29th.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is with us. Justin is the -- he's with the socialism research center, at the Heartland Institute, where he is the director. He has been working tirelessly on stopping socialism.

He is also -- he was one of our main contributors to our Arguing With Socialists book.

He is also my coauthor of the book, The Great Reset. And our fourth coming book. We're all going to die.

I'm not sure exactly -- what did we name it, Justin?

That was my working title for quite some time.

JUSTIN: Are we telling people? Is this the first time?

GLENN: I don't know. Can we?

Check Amazon, see if it's up for sale.
If it's up for sale, we'll announce it. It's supposed to be in the next few days.

JUSTIN: The name of the book.

GLENN: Don't say it. Don't say it.

So, Justin, you wrote to me something kind of disturbing.

Last hour, I played these happy little commercials from the Federal Reserve about the Fed Now.

It's a new service for all of the banks, which will -- which will make the transfer of funds, you know, whether you're out shopping or you're a business owner, or you're doing bank-to-bank transactions.

You just run everything through the Federal Reserve, and it will happen fast. And I thought --

JUSTIN: Yeah. Isn't that exciting?

GLENN: Very exciting. Now, they're claiming that this is the alternative to a CBDC, which is a Central Bank Digital Currency.

It doesn't really sound so much like an alternative, as much as, I don't know, a system to run that on.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Basically, this is -- this is like Jason Buttrill, your head researcher. Because he and I are now best friends. We exchange emails all the time.

He came up with this great analogy.

This is like the drug dealer, who is new on the block. And he will not just start injecting people with heroin. That's not how you sell lots of drugs. That's not how you do it.

First, you get them hooked.

You just give them a little taste. And then after they get a little taste, now they're hooked. Then you can start really pushing the hard stuff. That's what this is all about.

The Federal Reserve is basically a drug pusher. Okay?

And this is the start of it.

Normally, regular folks like you and me, and people in the audience, we don't interact with the fed. We're not used to that.

We don't like the fed.

We don't trust them very much. And so what they want to say is, just have a little taste. You'll see. It will be great.

Just have a little taste. This is a steppingstone to a CBDC.

This is our first interaction to using the fed directly.

So that we can become more comfortable with it. So it's normalized. And then after this, you'll get a central bank digital currency.

We already know this, because there's a billion government reports talking about how they'll design it, what it will look like.

Why people should use it.

What the principles should be, behind it. All of that kind of stuff.

So we know a CBDC is coming. This is just the first step in that process, to try to normalize people interacting directly with the fed in this sort of high-tech instant transfer payment portal.

GLENN: So we've been talking about the uniform commercial code, which is complicated. And it's -- it's usually nothing anyone should ever have to think about. However, they have included central bank digital currency as the new definition of money.

But money makes us think of money, that you can take from the bank. That you own it. You get paid. You get to do what you want with it.

But central bank digital currency, is not really money. Correct?

JUSTIN: Yeah. What's happening in more than 20 states across the country right now, and it's going to happen in all 50 states eventually. Is lawmakers are looking at updating the Uniform Commercial Code so that a foundation is being laid for a future central bank digital currency.

And not just any kind of central bank digital currency, but a central bank digital currency that is programmable, trackable. That you won't have any privacy with the things that you're doing with the CBDC, that it can be controlled and manipulated. This kind of thing is being manipulated into the code. They don't use the world central bank digital currency. But they outline it, in such a way so that that has to be what they're talking about. So it's not creating the CBDC. That's not what this is aiming to do. It's just laying the foundation to make it easier to use it in certain kinds of commercial transactions.

GLENN: So people know, and this is what you really have to understand. This is not like Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is such a danger, because you get to do with it, what you want to do with it.

And the Federal Reserve is not aware of anything, and can't do anything.

You have the ultimate power with your money. The opposite is true with the fed coin, that they will be introducing. And this is what makes it so dangerous. Not just the tracking.

They're not -- they will not just know absolutely everything that you spend. But Justin said a key word that most people don't really understand. It's programmable. Meaning, it is programmable for the individual. So, in other words, if the government decides that they're going to -- you know, we need to get -- we need to cut down on fat, fat, fatties. Then my digital coin, will not allow me to buy fatty foods. I wouldn't be able to go to McDonald's. I'm using this as an example. There's not anything in the works to do this.

Except, this is what programmable means. They can program it, so if they say, you know what, nobody is going to work. You're not an essential employee.

Your coin will not buy gas.

So you can go to -- try to fill up. But when you put your digital card in the fed, it will say denied. And you won't have any way, other than that card, to be able to buy what you need. It's absolute control of your life.

JUSTIN: Yes. That is exactly right.

And there actually have been things. Statements that have been made by the Biden administration itself. Where it is said, as part of its reports, studying CBDCs and the benefits of it. And how it would be designed.

If they were to make a CBDC, even though they've haven't committed to doing that exactly. They have done all of the groundwork for it.

They've said flatout, that a CBDC needs to account for climate change. It needs to have financial inclusion built into it.

It needs to have equity built into it.

It needs to have concerns about pollution, built into it. They have worked with hundreds of stakeholders. And we all know what that means. Nonprofit groups. And labor organizations and others.

GLENN: Community activists.

JUSTIN: To help design the CBDC. So why are they doing all of that? Because it is going to be programmed, so that you can use it in certain ways, so that it can be prohibited in other ways.

And it can change on a dime. See, that's the other important thing.

It's not -- when it's programmable, they can change the rules whenever they want. It's not as though, they set the rules at the beginning, and that's the rules forever.

They can change the rules as they go. That's the threat of a programmable currency. So it's a huge threat to liberty.

GLENN: And all they will concentrate on is the one fact, and mark my words, this is the way it's going to happen.

We'll have a banking collapse.

Because there's a banking collapse, that will cause the dollar to skyrocket in inflation, possibly hyperinflation. Because you won't be able to have a supply chain anymore.

So many people will be unemployed. There's so much money awash, that if you want to buy something, well, you have 100 bucks?

Yeah. I'll buy that for $100. And it might be something that was worth $4 before the collapse.

And people will pay it. Hyperinflation will go crazy.

The fed will say, look, we have to stop it. Inflation is too much.

We will give you digital currency. It's already in a bank with your name.

All you have to do is sign in, and it will give you the money. And that is what will change inflation.

How do we know about that? Because we wrote about it, in a arguing -- I believe it was in Arguing with Socialists. A chapter we almost didn't put in about Modern Monetary theory. And Modern Monetary theory, is what we're operating on.

We can spend as much money as we want, don't worry about inflation. If they have digital control of everyone's spending.

JUSTIN: Right. Exactly right. We talked about it both in Arguing with Socialists and The Great Reset.

It's a huge part of both socialist plans and Great Reset's elites plans. And those are not necessarily the same group. But there's no doubt about it, that that's the goal.

So why are there 20-some-odd states in the United States right now? Many of them are red states. Texas, Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, Arkansas, et cetera.

Why are they all doing whatever they possibly can, on the UCC code, updating it to make it at least a little bit easier for a CBDC to be utilized in the future. When a CBDC doesn't even exist yet.

Why would they be doing that? That is a really, really important question. But it's much worse than everything we've said so far.

And that's -- having worked with these lawmakers across the country. We have started to discover things in the UCC.

In the commercial code, that are incredibly, incredibly disturbing. Things that most of us just didn't realize were true. And if CBDC's happen, we're in for a world of hurt, that we didn't see coming.

And the reason for that, is under commercial code. When you take money, like if you have cash right now, under the current code. And you go to the bank, and you put money into the bank.

That money is no longer your money. That money is actually now owned by the bank.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

This is why you -- and this changed. Part of this changed in 2008. You are the lender of last resort, right?

You are the last person in line, to get money, if you have deposited into the bank. Because the bank, when you give them that money, and deposit it. They are then taking that money.

They don't have to ask for permission to loan it out.

They take that money as theirs. And they loan it out.

So what happens to your money?

Well, you don't have money. You -- what you have is a number in the bank, that the bank can now give back to you, or if they go belly-up? Well, then, you lose your money because it wasn't yours anyway. Correct?

JUSTIN: Yes. It's not your money. It's owned by the bank now.

Now, you can go to the bank and say, I want my money back. And then they hand you the money in cash, and you can walk out the door. And that money is yours.

You own that money. But here's the thing about a central bank digital currency: And this is what we're beginning to learn.

How the commercial code deals with that. When you -- you can't put Central Bank Digital Dollars, okay? Digital fed coin. You can't put that in your pocket, and walk out the door. Can you?

It has to be somewhere. It can't be in your actual possession. And because of that --

GLENN: Well, wait. Bitcoin, you can put on a thumb drive. And so you can walk away with it. But digital currency, central bank, no.

JUSTIN: Yes. Correct. They're not going to design it so you can put it into a hard drive or something like that.

But even if -- even if they did, the uniform -- that's why they're updating the uniform commercial code the way they are.

They're putting rules into place, so that you could use a CBDC, even if it is possible to download it on to a hard drive or something like that.

But the layers behind the uniform commercial code, acknowledge in their various meetings and comments and other things, that it's highly unlikely that a CBDC would ever be designed in that way.

It's not -- you will have to put it into some kind of account. So what does that mean?

What it means in effect is that all of the money. All of the CBDC money that exists in society. Will be owned by whoever owns the account.

Which means the fed, or the bank. Or whoever is designated by the Federal Reserve Bank to operate that system.

But you, the individual person, will not own the money.

The money will belong to someone else. It will not belong to you. You will not own it. Under the commercial code, as it is written right now.

Forget about what they're advising it to. Under right now, you would not own any money.

It would all belong to someone else. So forget about whether it's programmable from a design perspective. In practice, it will not be your money anyway.

And so how can you not think of that famous article for the World Economic Forum, we've talked about a thousand times.

In the future, you will own nothing.

And you will have no privacy. Well, it seems like that's what the purpose of this is. So it is not enough to simply kill the UCC bill updates that we're talking about all across the country. That is essential. But we need to do more than that. We need to rewrite that code so that CBDCs cannot be used in a variety of other contexts as well.

GLENN: All right. Stand by. Stand by.

I think that we have to -- we have to really, truly get down to a basic line here, that you have to do in your own state.

And I'm not sure. And I want to talk to Justin. That the UCC code is enough.

And we'll talk about it here, in just 60 seconds.

You know, some people have a hard time falling asleep. I have a hard time falling asleep.

And what? Three times in the last seven days probably. I took Relief Factor sleep. It works wonders for me.

When you -- when you don't get your sleep, you fall asleep in meetings.

Oh, that's really good. When you don't get your sleep, you're not performing at your best. Relief Factor sleep is 100 percent drug-free. It's a blend of natural ingredients.

And it promotes healthy sleep by reducing anxiety and distress and improving mood. Promoting relaxation. My wife and I, we were in Costco yesterday, and we were loading up on, you know, just different medicines and things like that.

And I said, honey, because Rafe used to take melatonin. I said, you want to get some extra melatonin? She said, no, it doesn't work.

Relief Sleep is much better. And it's true. If it doesn't work for you, this is the same kind of thing as melatonin, except it's better, and it's all 100 percent natural ingredients.

So unleash the power of great sleep by calling 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. Do it now. Or go to relieffactor.com.

Read all about it. Try it. It's really remarkable. And you are left refreshed. You don't feel it in your system at all. Dream big, sleep tight. Relief Factor sleep at ReliefFactor.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: All right. Justin, we have -- we have been talking about the UCC code. And we've been telling people not to allow it to pass. Now you've been working with legislatures, all over the country. And these legislators are telling you, no. There's much more to the code. We have to change it.

Would it be better just to go for states passing law, that CBDCs can't be used for commerce?

JUSTIN: So it's a really complicated question because there are all sorts of issues related to the Constitution and who has the authority to regulate money.

And whether or not a state can even pass a law, that outright rejects the use of -- of an established form of money, at the federal level.

Because it's a federal responsibility, to coin money.

Of course, there are people who say, well, yeah. But coining money means physical money, not digital money.

And so maybe they are allowed to do it. And so I think there are a lot of open questions about that, that we don't necessarily know.

I think that the most effective thing that legislators can do.

And legislators actually do not know a lot of the things I've told you today. I've gotten that from a lot of UCC lawyers, actually.

But what they need to do. They need to focus first, in my opinion.

I think Americans would be much better off, if lawmakers killed the UCC bills. Okay?

If they killed the UCC bills to update them right now, they would be much better off.

But then they also need to update the UCC and all other state laws that they can possibly find, in ways, that would make it so that a central bank digital currency, is undermined in the state, in financial transactions.

For example, can you use a CBDC? A programmable digital currency, when you're using -- for collateral and a loan, let's say.

Okay?

State laws dictate some of that, and they can undermine that.

They can do things like that, to undermine the use of a CBDC, and I think that's what they have to do.

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.

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.

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.