RADIOMarch 20, 2025

Shocking Truth: Department of Education ABOLISHED ITSELF

President Trump is signing an executive order to start dismantling the Department of Education and the Left is freaking out. But Glenn’s staff discovered something shocking: the DoE, in its current form, is exactly the OPPOSITE of the mission statement Congress gave it. Glenn reads from the Department’s founding documents, which state that it was tasked with protecting “the rights of state and local governments and public and private institutions.” It was also meant to “strengthen and improve” local and state control of education. And if that wasn’t enough, it also explicitly bars the Department from increasing “the authority of the federal government over education.” So, by stripping the Department of Education of its bloated power, Trump is actually UPHOLDING the will of Congress, not defying it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the president is going to abolish parts of the DOE. But the Department of Education was -- was first put in by Jimmy Carter. And then a few years later, it was -- it was, you know, set in stone by Congress. So he can't shut it down.

Because Congress established it. Okay?

So only Congress can abolish it. However, he can trim the fat.

And he's going to cut it by 50 percent today. Which is a great thing.

But as Mikayla was doing her homework on this, she said --

STU: One of your producers.

GLENN: Yeah. One of our producers. She said, have you read the Department of Education organization act?

And I'm like.

STU: Oh, obviously.

GLENN: Of course, I have. But tell me what you have found!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Listen to this.

It is the intention. This is the founding document passed by Congress. It is the intention of Congress in the establishment of the Department of Education to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Just that! Are they operating within the law, that was set by Congress?

STU: Because I think you could convince me, that that was a good idea. Right? That sounds great.

GLENN: Right. So let me read that again.

The intention of Congress, in the establishment of the Department of Education, to protect the rights of state and local governments, and public and private educational institutions, in the area, of educational policies, and administration of programs. And to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions, over their own educational programs and policies.

Did you hear the second half of that?

To strengthen and improve the local and state administration, and -- and the control of their own educational programs and policies.

That is not what the DOD is doing. Not even. Listen to the next line!

The establishment of the Department of Education, shall not, increase the authority of the federal government over education. Or finish the responsibility for education, which is reserved to the states. And the local school systems, and other instrumentalities of the states!

Wait.

This is not what the Department of Education is. At all.

So when they say, well, he can't accomplish the department of he had. No. They abolished the Department of Ed.

The Department of Ed isn't that! Because like you just said, I wouldn't have necessarily a problem with that!

STU: I would have some questions.

GLENN: Yeah, I wouldn't want it.

STU: As a direction, protecting local rights over education, is exactly kind of what I want.

GLENN: Yeah. Exactly right.

B, no provision of a program, administered by the Secretary or any other officer of the Department, shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control, over the local curriculum.

Any program of instruction or administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection and content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials. By any educational institution or school system.

Except to the extent authorized by this law.

STU: Hmm. I mean, it seems there's all sorts of limitations on it.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, if you just go back to this: If he just reset it to this, do you know how many problems would go away?

STU: I know. This is really common too. But we mentioned the same thing with the Patriot Act.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The guy who wrote the Patriot Act. There's a bunch of these things about to go.

I can't believe the Patriot Act would do this. I wrote it. It's not supposed to do that.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: That's not what it's supposed to do at all.

It always grows. It always evades. And the initial -- the limiting principles put on it, by the law itself.

GLENN: Which is amazing. When you know that to be true. And our Founders knew that.

It's amazing how long our Constitution and Bill of Rights has lasted.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, the average Constitution's age in the history of the world, the average age of death of a Constitution is 17 years!

We're coming up to 250, of our -- of our Declaration of Independence.

Seventeen years! That's the average.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: We are so far out! For it to have lasted this long, knowing that this is what it always happens. They always morph and distort, and erase the original Founding ideas. Wow!

That's impressive. That we're still standing.

STU: Yeah. And, again, giant chunks of it are still standing. As we pointed out many times, a lot of it isn't standing. Other than just it's on paper.

But that's the problem, right? We should be back to it. And should be trying to focus our country on following it again. A little bit more closely. But I am glad that it still stands.

GLENN: Me too. Me too.

STU: Is it San Moreno? There's one other weird country that has a very old Constitution.

GLENN: Isn't that an old Chevy?

STU: Yeah. The Chevy San Moreno. Beautiful car. V8. Yeah. It's great.

GLENN: Yeah. Here's the other thing that we need to talk about, and that is these judges. I need to get to Tesla, in just a second. That's equally important. And let me talk about the justices and the judges on what is happening.

The judge has ordered to restore USAID. Worker access, and forbids the shutdown. Because it's likely against the Constitution. Well, that's not your job.

The Obama-appointed judge trying to stop USAID shutdown. Donated thousands of dollars to the Democrats. The judge who blocked the key executive order, has a long progressive activist history.

I mean, we're -- we're having these judges get involved in everything.

So what are judges supposed to do?

What does the Constitution actually say?

I want to take you to a -- a football field. Hmm. Glenn, don't do anything dicey. Don't go into sports analogy. Let's just take you out to a football field for your first segment.

STU: Uh-oh, here we go. Prepare yourself. Gird your loins.

GLENN: If -- is that like the grid loins? So let's say the ref is out on the -- and he decides that that touchdown is worth ten points! The clock should be kept running, because I think so. It's most likely, that it should be running, right now.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: That is what's happening in our court system. That's judicial or referee activism. All right? They're just making stuff up.

Judges that are stepping beyond their lane. And making up the rules. Instead of just calling the game as written.

That's what judges are supposed to do.

They're supposed to look at things, as written. And then say, no. Sorry, guys. That's the law!

Not, you know what, you know who we should do? I should also be able to eat any kind of candy that I want.

And you're all -- you're a defendant. You need to bring me candy.

Because that's what I want, right now. Okay.

I'm fat. I've been sitting behind a bench for a long time. You can't even notice my fatness. I am the size of the bench. Just my upper torso is not.

Okay. You can't do that. You don't do that. Now, it's important to realize, judges aren't necessarily bad guys. They have a really, really tough job. And I don't like -- you know, I really feel bad when you're like, well, that's just a bad ruling!

Well, maybe. But I wasn't in the courtroom. How many times have we done a story, where we really want to bash the judge?

But you weren't in the courtroom. You don't know what was said, or what they know. You know what I mean?

STU: You talked about it when you did jury duty. Because from an outsider perspective. You can always come to something.

When you're there and watching it every single day. You know the ins and outs. Sometimes it's different.

GLENN: It's just different. So when they start acting like lawmakers, instead of interpreters of that law, then we have a problem. Like a judge should step in now on the Department of Education.

And say, sorry, gang, I read this section last night. That's not what's going on here.

So the president, yeah. I recommend, I shouldn't. But if it comes to my courtroom, I'm going to show, yeah. Well, that's the law.

Not my opinion. I might love the department. I might be a full-fledged communist. But I'm here to uphold the law.

And that's what Congress said it is. And that's not what it is!

Now, sometimes, there are problems that Congress needs to step in and say, you're out of here.

Sometimes, the judges -- and it has happened in our history. And it's a very high bar. But I'm not sure. I mean, it should be a high bar, like it is with impeachment of the president. But it shouldn't be off the table.

Okay? And here's why: If you go back to the Founding Fathers, they thought this through. It's kind of crazy.

It's not like, hey. We will do a new Constitution in Iceland. Tweet us your ideas.

In Federalist 78. Alexander Hamilton says, judges should not have life tenure.

And if they do, only if they're on good behavior. Well, what does that mean?

Well, he saw judges, as the least dangerous branch. Because it doesn't have -- it doesn't control the purse strings. And it doesn't have an army.

Okay? So he's like, you know, I mean, if they're on good behavior, just let them go. Just let them go. But he also knew that judges weren't perfect. They do go rogue. So he knew, that they would twist the Constitution, and what they were doing into something that it's not.

And that good behavior clause is not just for decoration.

It's the lifeline of the people.

To stop the judges that have gone bad.

Then in Federalist 81. Hamilton troubles down on this one.

Judges can be impeached. If they abuse their power.

How do they abuse their power?

They step out of line of interpreting the law. And start writing laws. And he's very clear.

Congress has the muscle to check them.

You know, it's like giving the principal, the power to fire a teacher, who is teaching kids the alphabet, you know, backwards and mixed up.

You know what, I appreciate it. We're not doing that. Okay. We hired you to teach the alphabet.

So has this ever been done. Has this ever been exercised?

Yeah. I talked to a federal judge, last night about this. And he's like, Glenn!

Luster versus Georgia. And I'm like, oh, man. That's one of my favorite rulings. But I want to ask you to see how much you know about Luster (phonetic) versus Georgia!

It's back in 1832. Supreme Court told Georgia, they have to stop messing with the Cherokee nation land, and they -- I think they also said, you can't go in and teach the Cherokee tribes Christianity. Okay. Georgia said, no. We're going to do that anyway. Okay?

Now, I'm not a fan of the way the Native Americans were treated in history. And I'm not a fan of Andrew Jackson. But he wasn't a fan of the court.

And he supposedly said, great!

The judge has made his decision.

Now, let him figure out how to enforce it.

Now, I don't like that. I don't like that. But that's what Federalist 81 was saying. They don't have purse strings. They don't have an Army. They have an opinion.

But if the other two branches are like, no! We're going to do it anyway.

Again, I don't like that. But that's only -- that can only apply to when the judges step out of their lane!

When you -- when you're an activist judge, go ahead.

You call your army. But when they're in their lane. And they're saying, no. This is the law. This is how it's written!

Then you don't say, no. You go ahead and try to enforce it. Because then it's a breakdown.

But it's just as much of a breakdown. It they legislate from the bench. And we do nothing about it!

The court doesn't have any tanks. It doesn't have any cops. It relies on the other two branches.

It's judge that one is the weakest!

It has no enforcement.

It was never given any enforcement.

The Founders didn't want it to have any enforcement.

Congress has the checkbook. The president has the tanks. The justices have their robes.

So they lose. Theater weakest of them.

Now, they're supposed to be able to check each other.

So you're -- out of respect, for what each arm is supposed to do, we do listen to the Supreme Court.

But wait until you hear what else is in the Constitution, that I just -- I bypassed. I didn't even know.

They -- that goes right to the judges and how important they are, according to the Constitution.

Not the Supreme Court.

These kinds of judges.

Okay. So Jackson, when he says, okay. Go ahead. Let them force it.

That shows the limits of their power.

But it also shows the flip side. When the judges overreach. They can stir up chaos.

You know, if no one is willing to listen. So here's where article three of the Constitution comes in. And remember, Constitution, the rule book!

The rule book for the courts.

It sets up the Supreme Court. But it also gives Congress the power to create or even shut down, the lower federal courts!

They have no power over the Supreme Court.

They cannot shut it down. They cannot affect it.

But Congress can pass a law that says, you guys are done!

So don't tell me, that you can't impeach them!

It's in the Constitution.

That that is -- and the Federalist papers. That is critical, in case they start overstepping the bounds. You can impeach them.

And we should. This is all a ploy, this is no different than the -- quite honestly. The terrorism that is happening on our streets with Tesla.

Okay? That's terrorism.

This isn't terrorism. This is just a whole buttload of lies. Told by a bunch of people, where supposedly, you know, able to trust.

Because they wear a robe.

Don't trust them. Why would you trust the justices when you don't trust the politicians, when you don't trust anybody in Washington?

Why are these guys exempt?

Okay? I'm not saying. I don't want to sow seeds of discord with our -- I believe in the Supreme Court.

It's the best system that we have. But let's not -- let's not throw our Constitution out for these guys, who are sitting in the -- the lower federal courts.

You know, Congress can say, hey. We don't need this court anymore.

You're banned. Or you're banned from ruling on that.

Sorry!

You're not talking about that anymore.

It's a leash. And it's there for a reason.

The Supreme Court is untouchable. And -- and it's -- you know, it's not above impeachment, if the justices start playing king instead of somewhere.

But their job is like a gardener. Their job is to keep trimming the hedges. Keep the law neat and tidy. If they start ripping out the whole garden.

And planting it, with whatever they want.

Someone has to fire them. That is where we are with these lower federal court justices.

You, according to the Constitution, Congress, and the president, are in charge!

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.