RADIOAugust 22, 2024

Is the government COVERING UP the truth about the Trump assassination attempt?

It has been a month since the Trump assassination attempt and STILL, nothing seems to add up: Trump’s Secret Service bodyguards weren’t big enough to protect him, he was denied more security despite an Iranian threat, it was his first rally with snipers … and the government isn’t being transparent with us. Basically, it’s "conspiracy theory central." So, how are we supposed to process all this information with a government we don’t trust? Glenn speaks with investigative journalist and “Case Closed” author Gerald Posner about what the feds should have learned from the Kennedy and MLK Jr. assassinations. Plus, he discusses why he believes another big revelation about the Secret Service is about to drop.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Gerald Posner is an investigative journalist. Pulitzer finalist. He's the author of 13 best-selling books. Including Mengele. Case-closed. Why America slept.

God's bankers. Pharma.

And what was the one you were mentioning, Stu?

PAT: Hitler's children.

GLENN: Yeah. Hitler's children. Gerald, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

GERALD: Glenn, great to be with you. You know, and I listened to your lead-in when you said, what is the Secret Service doing about the hundreds of groups and the tens of thousands of radical and extreme demonstrators in front of the building? You know, one of the things I worry about that the recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump, which exposed sort of how the paper tiger of the Secret Service, how they were not the James Bonds of the world. That they had been -- we've been led to believe in some ways. Might encourage, a copycat. Might encourage somebody else, who is on the edge, to realize, that the -- the system is -- is vulnerable.

And -- and vulnerable is -- with a capital V.

GLENN: So, Gerald, you've looked at the -- the Kennedy case. Martin Luther King. You've studied that for years and years to do Case Closed.

And very, very thorough. When you look back, there were so many conspiracy theories, on that.

And that's because, there were some things that just didn't seem right at the time, like Oswald being shot right after.

This is conspiracy central.

Because everything, the government is doing.

Everything that the Secret Service is doing.

The FBI is -- not normal.

And if you don't want conspiracy theories, they're acting exactly the wrong way.

And so I don't know what's fact, and what's theory. I don't know how to process this with a government that you don't trust.

GERALD: Yeah, you're exactly right. You hit the nail on the head. The government in this case, is not only, you know, hiding the information from the American public. From -- from investigators. From researchers. We're getting some members in Congress, who are getting whistle-blowers, who are coming forward.

That's not the way to get information, on when the former president of the United States, came within an inch of being killed.

They should have learned from the Kennedy assassination. They should have learned from the Kennedy assassination, cover-ups do not work well. And it doesn't have to be the cover-up of a murder. It's just a cover-up of a truth.

They hide things. Keep documents back. They have communications here, that they say they didn't hold on to.

There is a whole series of things.

And, Glenn, we became accustomed over time. For things, whether it was 9/11.

Or whether it was a cat five hurricane that came in. Or earthquake.

The government has these around the clock news conferences. In which people from FEMA and the FBI. Whatever else. They hold the conferences. If the investigators can't say something, because it's under investigation. They'll say, I'm sorry. I can't comment on that now. But here's what I can tell you. Here they went to asylum. They didn't say anything at all.

You know, not until we saw the former, you know, disgraced Secret Service director get subpoenaed before Congress, or she wouldn't have even been there.

And then stonewalled on that day. No wonder people are skeptical about what happened.

And one last thing, I think you hit a key thing when you said the Kennedy and King assassinations, which I have studied.

One of the things that they have in common with this assassination attempt on Donald Trump, which raises questions from the get-go, is you have a shooter with a rifle, shooting from a long distance. In most assassinations, we're accustomed to somebody running up to the person they want to kill like Sirhan Sirhan on Bobby Kennedy, or when Wallace was shot by Bremer. Or Ronald Reagan is shot by Hinckley. We know who the shooter is.

That doesn't answer the question as to whether that was a conspiracy, did they do it with somebody else, or were they egged on?

You know the person with a gun here. You have a shot from like a distance with a rifle. Which immediately conjures up all the ideas for people. The Day of the Jackal, some hired assassin. Something more to it. So I think that that adds to the overall conspiracy speculation from moment one.

GLENN: Sure.

So we also know now that two days before they said they were going to increase Donald Trump's protection, because they had stumbled upon a plot to kill him, through a Pakistani with ties to Iran who was supposed to set it up and then leave before the assassination. And they arrested him, at the airport.

The day before the assassination. But then we find out, not only did they not increase, they actually decreased from four snipers to two.

GERALD: Yeah, amazing.

It is the type of stuff that leaves you just shaking your head, saying that can't be true. And we now know that was the first time in the Trump campaign, that there were snipers at a rally. So before that be with the Secret Service hasn't even provided the snipers. Imagine if this assassination attempt had been successful, and the snipers who weren't there. Who people would be. We would be asking for people to go to jail. And you're right about, they've had a trek from a terror state, that they know, they understand somebody is trying to kill the former president. They still have not upgraded the security to be as great as would be, the sitting president. They actually cut it down.

We now know for two years, before this. When the Trump campaign was asking for additional security for different events. They were turned down repeatedly. Something the Secret Service had first denied. And then had to admit, when four whistle-blowers told that to the Washington Post. Washington Post, no friend to Donald Trump. They even reported that. And so here's a case in which we have them doing less security, not providing it. Not notwithstanding the fact, that there was a foreign threat to the president as well.

GLENN: So what does your gut tell you?

GERALD: My gut tells me, that we're going to find, I think at the very least.

Like we did with Peter Strzok, and the FBI. When they were doing the -- you know, the fake investigation about Russia.

The Russian dossier.

And they were to have had emails. Lisa Page. That says, I can't stand that guy Trump.

And he shows all of his bias. I would be very surprised, if we do not get emails, maybe official emails. But then on government servers or private emails in eventual government investigations if the Republicans take the House, keep the House, in November.

We will have those inquires. And with senior Secret Service members. Or maybe even those operational details for some of the rallies that Donald Trump was at. Are saying, very, very bad things about the former president.

And that is going to call into question. We think of the Secret Service as being apolitical. It doesn't mean you don't have a feeling about who you vote for. You go to the election ballot. And you cast the ballot, but you're protecting everybody.

You're giving up your life for the candidate that you're protecting, and if we start to think that they had tipped the scale because they didn't like the person they were supposed to protect.

And they may have been lax, to allow somebody like a Crooks, the 20-year-old shooter to get off a shot. Then it will call a real ruckus.

GLENN: You know, Gerald, has it always been like this know. And I've just been naive?

I mean, I've always looked up to Secret Service guys. I've seen them protect dirtbags.

And, you know, know that some of those guys don't like these guys.

And I mean foreign dirtbags.

Not just American.

And they would risk their life for these guys.

And I've always looked up to them.

And I don't know.

Is this new? Or has it always been this way?

GERALD: No. I think. And you see this very, very well, when you report on this as well.

How polarized we are, as a country.

And it -- it seems to me, that that has impacted the bureaucracy in many ways.

We talk about the politicization of the FBI.

And if we think of that as the CIA intelligence services, the State Department. Why shouldn't we be surprised? It's not as though, there wasn't a wall up in Canada and a virus from going over to Secret Service.

But I do think, to what you said, that most of the agents. The vast majority of the agents in the field. What I call the close protection.

Those who are responsible for actually throwing themselves, on top of a candidate. They hear gunshots.

Those agents who were close to the stage.

And they -- and they are putting themselves, in the mind of a bullet. For all they know.

Now, one of the things we all said, Glenn. When we saw that payout. Was it was very visible.

That when they lifted, you know, the president gets back on his feet. And they start to move a cauldron around him. Back in the car. They have that circle around him. Close protective circle. They don't know if it's a second shooter. If it's a shooter who originally had gotten off the shots is still active

GLENN: Correct.

GERALD: And we see two of the agents, who are a full head shorter than the president.

The old way of doing it, was if you assigned Secret Service agents for the close protection, who at least were the same size as the candidate, you were covering.

So that if you tried to get the candidate out of there, and somebody is shooting, they will hit an agent. Not the candidate.

GLENN: Right.

GERALD: If the former president was being moved out from butler. From that rally. After that failed shot.

And then was then killed by a second shooter, because the agents were too short.

Could you imagine what we would be doing in this country?

It would be -- it would -- it would turn things upside down?

GLENN: I think that day. I mean, you saw it.

I saw it, right after it happened.

And it just -- just clipped his ear. Because he moved.

If he wouldn't have moved. It would have been John F. Kennedy, live on television. I think that could have put us in Civil War.

GERALD: You're right. And I tell you, we now know, which we didn't at that time.

That now we saw the videos.

One of the great things from the Kennedy or King assassination. People have what you expect. Cell phone videos. They're taking the rally. They're there.

And what's amazing, is that 140 yards away from the stage, where Donald Trump is taking the stage at 6:00 p.m. and then speaking.

Are a group of people, you know, regular rally goers, going out that day, saying. Hey, there he is. He's rolling over. Hey, officer. Hey, officer.

GLENN: It's crazy.

GERALD: And you have to put yourself for half a second into the shooter, the 20-year-old kid who has practiced a lot at the range. He has this deranged idea, that he will kill the former president. But he is expecting, he has found his spot. You know, he wants to get to the top. He has his range finder, he tried to get through the perimeter. They turned him away.

He's climbed on to the roof of the building. He's managed to get his gun up there, and he's ready to try to pull off this assassination.

And now he gets spotted for this minute and a half, two minutes beforehand. People are yelling.
He can hear that clearly. They're down there. They're calling him out there, pointing to him. So that has to add some adrenaline to the whole mix.

And then a police officer, gets to the top of the roof. Right?

Right before he starts to fire. He looks over at that officer, drops down. But it had to rush the shooting a little bit. He had to be under the pressure of knowing, closing in on him.

And so we talk about, you know, the difference between getting off that shot, and it hits the former president. And kills him.

Or not.

Could also be those moments of chaos, that are planing out of the stage. That just made a difference.

GLENN: Yeah. You wrote an article, right after the shooting. The forgotten lessons of Dallas 63 and Memphis 68.

And I just want to go through with you.

So this is something that I've talked about for a long time. It's one thing to say, these tactics are very much what's happening in the Third Reich. But when you have convinced half the population, that this one individual is Hitler, is it's the end of the republic. And he has to -- I'm quoting. Has to be stopped, at all costs.

You're creating this atmosphere. Are you not?

GERALD: Bingo. You're absolutely right. And you have been talking about it for a while.

And I was just startled, you call somebody the coming of Hitler.

They will be the next Hitler. Long enough.

And you will set sort of an atmosphere in which somebody, who is already unstable. A little bit on the edge.

Is going to try to take it on their own hands. To be the hero. To stop that next Hitler from coming into office.

And I will tell you, this wasn't just. You talk about the radical extremists, who are gathering around the convention. And gathering around.

It wasn't just for the French. These were people who were from the campaign. The Biden campaign. And Washington Post had an article, by this guy Mike Godwin. He said, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler. You know, Joy Reid of MSNBC was putting up videos saying, oh, by the way, let me know how to vote to keep Hitler out of the White House.

The New Republic had a cover story, in which they had a Hitler campaign poster, and it was made to look like -- to Trump. And Politico -- no friend of Donald Trump, often, had had an article, last December, saying it's really unusual, to compare a political opponent to Adolf Hitler. But for Joe Biden's campaign. It's part of the routine for running against Donald Trump.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

GERALD: And now, of course, once the shock takes place in butler. The near death of the president. For the most part. At least at the leadership levels. In that they stopped Hitler.

They already set the fire.

GLENN: Yeah.

Gerald, I would love to stay in touch with you. As this inquiry continues to go on.

Because there seems to be new things coming out every day. That nobody is coming.

And, you know, this is bad for Joe Biden.

It's bad for Donald Trump. It's bad for Kamala. This is bad for America.

We have to be able to trust our Secret Service.

And know that they are on the up and up. Gerald Posner. Thank you so much. God bless.

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.