RADIOAugust 18, 2022

How progressive 'puritans' are DESTROYING FUN for us all

Noah Rothman, author of ‘The Rise Of The New Puritans,’ details just how ‘miserable’ the lives are of today’s progressives. And the worst part? They don’t even REALIZE IT! But these progressive ‘puritans’ are ‘pursuing a moral framework and have imposed it on EVERY ASPECT of life,’ Rothman explains, just like the totalitarian philosophy on which their ideology is based. Glenn and Rothman discuss how this kind of moral absolutism — that takes no prisoners — could cause our society to cease to function normally…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Noah Rothman. A guy who I think really gets it. He's the -- just written the book, The Rise of the New Puritans. The war on fun. Really. Noah, welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

NOAH: Very well. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.

GLENN: You bet. You bet. So Stu and I are in the midst of reading your book. We haven't gotten all the way to the end yet. But I have to ask you: Do -- do progressives know that they're almost embarrassingly unfun right now? Do they know this?

NOAH: No. They absolutely don't. They would reject the premise. And they sort of recoil at the assertion that they're pursuing some sort of a moral framework. That they have imposed this moral framework on every aspect of life. Especially the apolitical aspects of life. They don't see themselves as less fun, less chill. Less accommodating than their parents or grandparents. But they most certainly are. They're having less fun. They're having less sex. They're enjoying life less than their elders.

GLENN: They're having less sex?

NOAH: Oh, yeah. You haven't gotten to that chapter? That's a good one.

GLENN: No.

NOAH: So that is my very salacious chapter on sex and booze. It's called -- it's titled Temperance. All of these chapters are organized around unimpeachable moral values. Because they are pursuing a moral ideal, about how society should organize itself. So when you think of progressives, you don't think they have sexual prescriptions, right?

But if you dig into the literature around the many proliferating sexual identities. It's not about self-gratification or self-fulfillment. It's about the political program associated with these things. This has to pursue and advance a political agenda. And couple that with the labyrinth theme of consent requirements now, in statute, in places like California, but mostly in dorms and college campuses.

And you have this unnavigable labyrinth that has been erected around consent. Which absent consent is obviously a crime. But we created now, real legal and moral, and social consequences, if a Q is misread or a signal is overlooked, or it's just human behavior that's intervened in the process. The complicated process. The result is less sex, people are reporting, especially young people are reporting have much less casual intercourse than their parents did.

GLENN: Okay. I have to tell you, first of all, it is a religion. It is a religion. So you have Puritans absolutely right. And they are imposing it on all of us. But I look at people who are like this. And I think to myself, how could you not be just miserable, if you believe all the things that they believe, it's just a life of misery.

NOAH: Yeah. They don't see themselves as miserable, but they are making their compatriots miserable. I think nine out of the ten people I spoke with are -- who -- most of them wouldn't go on the record, for fear of consequences, saying the things that they actually think.

GLENN: Which is weird.

NOAH: Yeah. Well, there are real social and professional consequences for going against this movement. It's not a big movement, but it punches way above its weight. And so these guys are Democrat. They vote Democrat. They wouldn't vote Republican with a gun to their head. But they didn't get into the business of making delicious food and writing screenplays and broadcasting sports because they wanted to do politics. They don't. They've just been drafted into this movement. And it's sapping them of enthusiasm for their life's work. And they really, really resent it.

STU: Can you go over some of these? You have so many examples of this type of thing. The hummus place is one.

GLENN: I would like to hear about the burrito truck. Tell us about the burrito truck.

NOAH: A truck that was in the Pacific Northwest, these two women went down to Mexico. Fell in love with the food, interviewed chefs, picked up some recipes, brought them back to the Pacific Northwest, and it was a profound success. They were very commercially successful. In fact, a lot of people targeted by this movement are successful. And their success engenders quite the resentment. But they brought it to the Pacific northwest. And the media environment down there, which is beholden to this progressive set of ideas, just went about destroying the thing, because they had stolen this heritage from -- from the hard-working people of Mexico. They hadn't given them any credit. They weren't giving them the proper remunerations that were due.

It was a very nebulous idea of what they violated. What prescriptions they ignored.

But this thing was destroyed. These two women were driven out of business. And the burrito truck, which was feted, which was loved, which was driven under -- out of business. In part, also because I think it was so good. But they had violated some unspoken, unwritten ideals about whatever culture appropriation is, it's very difficult to define. But it's believed to be some form of theft, as though culture is a 0-sum game. And it's commodified in some way.

GLENN: So when I read that, and I thought about it, I had just seen the new Elvis movie. Have you seen the new Elvis movie?

NOAH: I haven't. I heard it's good.

GLENN: It's very, very good. But it taught me something about Elvis that I didn't know. I didn't know that he was so poor after his dad died, that he and his mom lived in a black community in Memphis. Which never happened. He was like the only white kid in this black community. So he grew up in that culture. He grew up with the music. That's why he moved the way he did. And the -- at the time, the programmers of radio, many of them would have loved to have played the black music. But they couldn't put a black man on the air. And when they heard his music, it was the black culture and black music sung by a white guy.

And, you know, it shows B.B. King and all of these legends who were friends of his, going, man, take it. Take it. I'm glad people are listening to it.

Now, you would look at that, and it would be cultural appropriation. And they would hate. I think they probably do, hate Elvis and anybody like him, because he was just stealing that. No, he wasn't.

He was popularizing it. He was breaking a barrier.

NOAH: Yeah. Popularizing it and creating synthesis. And there's this idea abroad that synthesis in music, in culture, in cuisine, is some sort of form of theft. Is there needs to be -- there's a racial essentialist element that's put to this.

That suggests that any creativity in creative works of art and amalgamating and synthesizing various influences into some finished product represents some form of attack on culture, even though what you just said is absolutely correct. In art, in food, and in music, you're exposing new audiences to this thing. You're creating a broader understanding and acceptance of these cultural traits, albeit, perhaps, amalgamated. Not necessarily adulterated. They confuse the two, probably deliberately. But the expansion of broadening the exposure to these ideas. These cultural traits. Used to be something that we would celebrate and accept as an unadulterated good. It's not anymore.

GLENN: Right. I know there was a guy who I grew up listening to on the radio.

He was very, very good. His name was Charlie Brown. He was originally at KJR in Seattle, and then CUBE. And I studied at his feet. I was lucky enough to work with him when I was very, very young. And I watched him, and I talked to him. When I started doing my own show, I called him up and I asked him. Hey, Charlie, can I -- can I steal this and this and this from you? And he just laughed, and he said. And I think this is true, with almost everything.

Because it's not -- you're not living in a vacuum. And he said, Glenn, you steal from me. You have stolen twice.

And that's what we don't understand, that it all is just kind of -- that's where you get your inspiration. And you take it. And you make it your own. And you move -- not stealing things word-for-word, et cetera, et cetera.

Let me ask you, because I'm watching -- I mean, I know you're -- your IQ is a lot higher than mine. And I don't know if you're -- if you're watching like The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, which I think is fantastic.

But it centers around this woman in the 1950s, early 1960s, who wants to be a comedian. And one of the running characters is Lenny Bruce. And Lenny Bruce would absolutely be in progressive jail right now, if he lived today. And you had all of these great comedians, that were there to push back, on the man. Whatever it was, they pushed back. These people like Ricky Gervais, make it, I think, because they don't apologize, and they don't stop.

Can you talk a little bit about the effect of apology, and what's happening in comedy.

NOAH: Yeah. The very same sentiments, policing of public morality, that took in Lenny Bruce. George Carlin and Richard Pryor are at work today. The executors of this campaign are not on the right. They used to be.

You know, the tendency that saw something that would corrupt you into great society and innocent cultural fare, used to be a tendency native to the right. In part, because we are all heirs to this puritanical tradition, has found a home in both political coalitions over the years.

On -- when it comes to comedy, one of the things you see now among this particularly puritanically inclined progressives is to emphasize the pain that someone had to endure, in order for you to enjoy something as trite as a punch line. You know, I see this in the fans of the comedian Hannah Gatsby. An anti-comic. And who is funny when she wants to be. She doesn't always want to be. Sometimes she will build the same tension that would otherwise lead to a punch line, give you that release, and doesn't break the tension. Just lets you sit and marinate in it, and absorb her pain. And maybe interrogate you about that joke that you told five minutes ago, and ask you, why you thought that was funny. Why was my suffering funny?

And that's what they love so much. They love the language. They love the ardor. Because it's a sign of your prudent understanding. That suffering exists in this world. And if you don't dutifully dwell on it every second of your life. You're sacrificing a moral mission, to advance a progressive project and make the human experience just a little bit more, you know, tolerable. This is a very puritanical ideal.

GLENN: I've never heard -- go ahead. Well, hang on. Hang on. I have to take a quick break. I want you to get to the apology. And I want you to explain a little bit deeper this anti-comedian. I've never heard that term before. Anti-comedian. And, you know, it's different than like Andy Kaufman. Who just, for his own entertainment, would make people wildly uncomfortable. But that's a completely different look. As I understand it. We're talking to Noah Rothman. He's the author of the rise of the new Puritans. A great book. You want to understand what's going on with the left and this new religion, and how it affects everything? The rise of the new Puritans, by Noah Rothman. Back with him in 60 seconds.

You can't talk your way out of pain. If you happen to be living with it, you can't reason your way out. And you have to play that delightful game, where you keep trying things, until either something works. Or you're just like, okay. I have to live like this. I got to that point. And my wife maybe took Relief Factor. They were a sponsor of many of my shows. But I never endorsed them. Because I didn't think it would work. And I had never tried it. And my wife said, why aren't you taking that thing that advertises. And I said, Relief Factor?

And she said, yeah. I said, because it's not going to work. It's an anti-inflammatory. Hey, I'm on Ibuprofen 800. Look out. I'm a little loopy. Don't let me drive.

And I said, those things never work for me. She said, just try it. So I tried the three-week Quick Start. And I was shocked. Shocked that it worked for me. This is where most of our pain comes from, is inflation -- sorry, not inflation. Inflammation. Can you see what I have my mind almost all the time? Inflammation is the source of most of our disease. And it's also the source of much of our pain. That's what they target with Relief Factor. In four different directions. Please just try it. In three weeks. Do the three-week Quick Start. You can find out more about it at ReliefFactor.com. ReliefFactor. You can get the three-week Quick Start, 19.95. ReliefFactor.com. Or call 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. ReliefFactor.com. Feel the difference. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Noah, I would love to do a podcast with you and spend, you know, at least an hour with you on this -- this topic. You've really nailed it. The book is the rise of the new Puritans. Tell me about the apology.

NOAH: So we are often bombarded with demands that you will apologize for your conduct. The apology provides you no absolution. And that's where I differ from a lot of the very brilliant scholars. Who have called this a purely secular faith. I don't see it entirely as a faith. Because in a faith in the western condition, there is deism, that expiates sin. There can be no absolution for sin in this particular faith because there is no deism. And because it is such an all-encompassing social code, I liken it more towards Puritanism. Because Puritanism wasn't just a phase. It wasn't just congregationalism. It was a way of life. It was a totalitarian philosophy by definition, because it was total.

When it comes to the apology, the apology as we've all observed, makes you just a more delicious target, and trains more fire on you. This isn't just true in comedy. There's several examples of that in the comedy chapter. But there's a particularly interesting anecdote that I lead off the book with, about a grocery -- about a grocer in Minnesota, that was, again, very popular. Very successful.

It was vetted by Keith Ellison on the floor of the House of Representatives. Diners, drive-ins, and dives. Guy Fieri featured it.

So it turned out, the owner of this grocer had a daughter, who in her youth, 14 and 18, respectively, made racially insensitive remarks online. This was picked up by the online community, that they attempted to him, to -- to apologize. And -- and to make absolution for his sins. He had to fire his daughter. That was not good enough. He pledged that she would devote herself to good works for the community. That was not good enough. Eventually, the holder of his lease terminated the lease.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

NOAH: Because that was the penitence that was deserving of the sin he had committed. The careless parentage of a willful daughter. And this is as moral a code as you can find. It goes back to the founding of the country. When you are apologizing in any other tradition, you would find some absolution. This particularly uncompromising tradition offers no -- no absolution for offenses against it.

GLENN: It is. I will tell you, you're right about this. As a completely different kind -- you don't call it a religion. I do. I just think it's an Antichrist-style religion. There is no forgiveness. And without forgiveness, we cease to function normally as a society. You just can't live in a society, where there is no forgiveness. Where you're held accountable, not only for everything you've ever done, but also anything your ancestors have done. That's a pretty shallow pool of good people that can be swimming around.

Noah, thank you so much for being on the program today. I would love to have you back. Love to do a podcast with you. The book is the rise of the new Puritans. Fighting against progressive's war on fun. Noah Rothman is the author

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.