RADIODecember 16, 2024

Is This PROOF Jill Biden Voted Against Kamala Harris?

Glenn’s seen enough to be convinced that Jill Biden not only despises Kamala Harris, but voted against her. First, there was the red dress the First Lady wore to the voting booth. Then, there was the moment at the Kennedy Center, where the Bidens and Harrises appeared to not even look at each other. And finally, there was Jill Biden’s recent apparent jab while speaking to the press. Glenn reviews the clip, where the First Lady used the word “joy” in a similar way to the Harris campaign, and he points out the moment that he was convinced Jill did it on purpose.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So on the -- on the day of the election, what was Jill Biden wearing when she came out smiling after the vote?

STU: Red. Famously red.

GLENN: Okay. And I thought, okay. Maybe.

I mean, she has a blue vote dress, that she's worn before. I don't know if you ever saw that. She wore it like in a convention or something.
And it says "vote" on it.

STU: That sounds terrible.

GLENN: It was pretty terrible. But if you want to send a message of voting and voting blue. That's what you would wear.

STU: Also, but you wouldn't have to send a message with every outfit.

GLENN: Amen to that. So I'm like, okay. Maybe. I think you're read too much into it.

Then they don't talk to each other anymore.

This week, all of a sudden, they're at the Kennedy center, sitting next to each other. Okay?

The Bidens and the Harrises sitting next to each other, Bidens -- they don't -- she is sitting right next to Kamala.

They don't -- Kamala never turns -- I mean, sorry.

Biden never turns and even says, hello.

Doesn't look her way, the entire time. Now, how do you do that?

That takes effort. That takes control.

Okay. So there's no love lost there. Now, here's where I'm going to prove to you, they despise her. And she voted against Kamala.

This is what happened at the White House, yesterday.

She was on prompter. She was talking about Christmas.

And then she uses the word joy, in her speech.

And then she says this: Listen.

VOICE: So I hope that you all feel that sense of, you know, peace and light and that just for a moment, when you leave here today, that you feel, I don't know, a little -- a sense of joy. Because I think we all need like this -- you know, we all need to feel joy now.

During this -- this time of the season. During -- just during this time.

So, anyway, okay. Now, I'll start.

You're all reading into that.

GLENN: Okay. If you're watching Blaze TV, you may have spotted what I just spot. Spotted.

But play the last ten seconds of that back, if you can. And if you can't, just play the whole thing.

VOICE: You know, we all need to feel joy now during this -- this time of the season.

GLENN: Okay. A word. If you're aware. You don't use at this point, but okay. She's using it.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Go ahead. Keep playing it.

VOICE: Because I think we all need like this -- you know, we all need to feel joy now during this -- this time of the season. During -- just during this time.

GLENN: Stop! Just during this time.

Not just the time of the season, just during this time.

So now he's narrowing it down to there are problems, okay?

And we should feel joy.

Well, that was the campaign slogan, there are problems.

But we have joy, and we're going to solve them.

Now, here's -- here's where it cuts the throat.

Listen to the audience, and then if you're watching Blaze TV, watch her eyes.

Watch her movements.

You -- it's very easy to lie. But your body will always give -- unless you're a great actor or actress. Your body will give away the lie.

Your body will not act the same way as your mouth and even your eyes. Her eyes and her body betray her here.

Watch.

VOICE: During -- just during this time. So, anyway, okay. Now, I'll start.

You're all reading into that.

GLENN: She did not look at the crowd. If that's happening naturally, that would have easily been, if she didn't even think of that connection, you would have immediately looked at the crowd. Your eyes would have darted back and forth.

Like, what am I missing? And you might have even said, I'm sorry. What did I say?

Okay. Her eyes didn't dart.

She didn't -- she wasn't startled by it. She just leaned down to the microphone, and said, okay. You're reading too much into that.

I'm sorry. No. Nope. That was intentional.

That was she despises Kamala Harris. Despises her.

Disagree with that?

STU: I mean, I could see it. I don't know that I'm convinced as you are. I mean, joy say word associated with the holiday season. You can easily toss that out there.

GLENN: That's why it's fine, in this season.

STU: But she just seems to be stuttering looking around trying to get to the end there. I don't know. I think it's possible. But it's interesting.

And I'm not a fan of Kamala Harris. You may know that.

GLENN: Really? You didn't vote for her?

STU: No. No.

At veepthoughts.com, you can watch all of her greatest hits. But like, is she the one to get mad at for the Bidens? What did she do here?

GLENN: I think she feels. I think the Bidens feel that she was knifing them.

Remember --

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: I know. I think it's the Obamas.

STU: And Pelosi.

GLENN: And Pelosi. Which I don't think they've talked to Pelosi since, have they?

STU: No. I think that one is real.

I think this one is real too.

I just don't know it makes all that much sense. Kamala Harris.

GLENN: Since when have the Bidens made sense?

STU: That's true. That's true.

He's famously just stutters his way through nonsensical jabbering.

But I just feel like, you know, I will say this, for Kamala Harris.

From the Joe Biden perspective.

She -- she -- her opportunity to become president of the United States, was to say, he did a bad job.

If she would have said that, she would have had a chance, at winning that election. If she would have said, look, I talked to Joe behind the scenes.

I tried to get him to move on the border. He had a different vision.

And what happened it didn't work. So I fought, fought, and fought. And finally we got those rules changed.

I know it's nonsense and BS. She could have taken an attack to make him.

GLENN: I know. And she never did.

STU: She never did. In fact, she went on The View, and said she couldn't think of anything that she would have changed in the entire administration.

GLENN: Because that's also true. She couldn't think of anything.

STU: It is true! But that's -- what does that have to do with anything?

GLENN: You're forgetting, on that particular one, you're forgetting how stupid she is.

STU: Okay. That could be. Again, whatever the reason is, she didn't go after the 25th Amendment. She didn't leak to the media, that he was having these moments behind the scenes, throughout three and a half years of the presidency.

I don't think there's a good case, that the problem with Kamala Harris from the left's perspective is that she wasn't too disloyal to Joe Biden.

GLENN: All right. All right.

Let me share one of -- I want to share something that I've been thinking about lately, on somebody I have to call. And make amends to.

Let me share a story, I don't think you even know. Okay? A bad story about me.

STU: Oh, gosh.

Open up the book. Do we have to add another chapter?

GLENN: You will never guess where this is happening, hiding my alcoholism in Baltimore.

Yeah, strange.

All right. So this company, that I was working for, was playing around with our contracts and stuff.

And they -- they wanted to hire me. But I was partnered with Pat. And we were best friends.

And we were killing it.

But they just didn't want to pay Pat.

And I said, I'll renew my contract. If you renew Pat's contract. So we can continue on.

They said, fine.

So they did. As soon as we signed the contract, they just invoked the clause to pay him off.

And got rid of him. And replaced him with someone else.

Without me knowing anything about it. Okay?

STU: I remember the outline of the story. Which is typical radio, by the way.

GLENN: Typical radio. Just knife you in the back. Lock me in for five years.

And the guy who I've wanted to partner with forever, gone.

STU: Yeah. Gone.

GLENN: Okay? For no reason whatsoever.

And so I'm working with my attorneys. And they're like, Glenn. There's not much you can do.

And I'm like, oh, yeah, there is.

Oh, there's lots I can do.

And so this guy named Larry Wax. Came in.

And it was his big shot. To be on, you know, Baltimore radio.

And he was very excited.

And he would --

STU: You were not excited.

GLENN: No. No.

And I did not participate in, you know, helping plan the show.

He would plan the whole show. Okay. Because he knew.

Hmm, I'll just follow you.

STU: So you were so angry.

You were protesting essentially.

GLENN: Yeah. I'll follow you. Which you know me, I've never done that.

My name was first on the show.

Larry, you go ahead and tell me what we're going to do.

And he would say, okay.

Right before the break. We'll end here. But I'll say this. And you'll say this.

And then we'll get into this conversation about this, see where it goes. But we're ending here.

Okay. He would open up the mic.

And he would say, so what did you do last night.

And I was supposed to say, oh, I watched Netflix.

And I said, I didn't do anything. I went to bed early. And he would just look at me, like what the hell --

STU: What a jerk.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I destroyed everything. And I eventually, I apologized to him. I said, Larry, this is not. I'm sorry.

Because he looked at me with these big sad eyes. And he's like, Glenn, you're killing me, man.

And I'm like, I know. But they signed me to a five-year contract, and I'm not going to be here for five years.

I'm not doing it.

STU: So you're trying to get yourself fired.

GLENN: I'm trying to get myself fired. Because I didn't have an option out.

And I just looked at him -- towards the end, I really felt bad.

And I was like, I'm sorry, Larry.

I know I'm destroying your one shot.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: I mean, it was horrible.

And I feel -- he's been coming to mind so much. I don't even know where he is. I don't know what happened afterwards.

And I feel really bad -- feel like I should call him and say, hey, Larry, please tell me you're not like in the sanitation industry now. Please tell me that you had some success afterwards.

STU: In the industry.

GLENN: That I didn't --

STU: So wait. You never -- lost are contact with the guy. Never kind of talked this out?

GLENN: You would be surprised. We didn't have a good relationship.
(laughter)

STU: Oh. So you were bringing that up on the Kamala Harris context.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: We think that she was maybe --

GLENN: It doesn't matter if it was her.

She was the tool used to take her -- no matter how nice she was to have.

Larry was very kind to me, and gracious on the air. Okay? I was not having any of it. I was never mean to him, but I would never play along.

STU: You were not helpful.

GLENN: Not helpful at all.

All right. That's what I think is happening with Kamala.

First of all, she has a record of knifing her boss in the back.

STU: Totally. In fact, that is her specialty.

One talent she has. Although some former mayors of Los Angeles have ideas about her talents, but generally speaking, the one talent she has is behind the scenes -- for power.

GLENN: Right. Right. But I have absolutely no evidence of that, other than her history.

I don't know. She seemed to be very kind and everything else. And very gracious about it. But she was at least the tool -- she was his -- Larry Wax. Sorry, Larry, if you're listening.

I really mean that. It's been bothering me. I'm going to try to find you.

I'm sorry.

But that's what it is. That's what it is.

STU: Because I think you could make the argument that Biden was doing that to her, the entire term.

Like, she was always positive about her.

But then would -- the entire administration was leaking negative things about Kamala for three and a half years.

GLENN: I don't know though, that was necessarily him.

I think it -- I mean, all the stories were everyone hates her.

Everyone around her. Everyone in her office, hates her!

Okay?

So I don't know if that was necessarily Joe Biden going, let's come up with some bad things.

I just think everybody hated her, like she's a nightmare.

Now, he did set her up on things like, you're the border czar.

STU: Yeah. I mean, he sunk her.

Again, she's terrible.

And never really had a chance at success.

In her political career.

But I will say, you know, he didn't help.

GLENN: Now, you might be asking yourself. Why are you guys debating this?

Because in about six months, no one will remember her name.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So if we're going to talk about it, we have to talk about it right now.

STU: And we already are there with Tim Walz, which I love. We've already forgotten him, unless you happen to live in Minnesota.

GLENN: Yeah. And you're remembering it going, what the hell did I do?

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

America is entering a year of historic upheaval from Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the spiritual shock that followed, to Trump’s tariff revolution, China’s rare-earth war, collapsing energy grids, AI displacement, and the looming fights over Taiwan and Venezuela. Glenn sits down with BlazeTV hosts ‪@deaceshow‬ and ‪@lizwheeler‬ along with his head researcher Jason Buttrill, to break down the biggest stories of 2025. Plus, they each give their most explosive prediction for 2026 that could shape our politics, economy, national security, and civil rights in ways Americans have never experienced before.

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

For nearly a century, Washington DC has been ruled by an unelected “expert class” operating as an unconstitutional fourth branch of government — accountable to no one, removable by no president, and shielded from all consequences. Glenn breaks down why Trump’s firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner could finally dismantle the 1935 precedent that empowered technocrats, how Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed the Supreme Court’s embrace of expert rule, and why America cannot survive a government run by people who never face the voters and never pay for their failures.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So President Donald Trump fired the federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Federal Trade Commission is an administrative position. I mean, this is under -- the head of the federal trade commission is a cabinet member.

And if the justices uphold Trump's firing of Slaughter, that will overturn a precedent that was horrible, that was set in 1935. Remember, 1935, we're flirting with fascism. You know, everybody thinks. Because they haven't seen the horrors of fascism yet.

Everybody thinks fascism is neat, blah, blah. So what they do is they say that this is an independent person. And the president can't fire them. Because they're, you know, an independent agency.

Well, wait. That would make a fourth branch of government. Our Constitution is really clear.

There is no such thing as a fourth branch of government. Right?

So that's what they're deciding. Now, here is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is talking about how we really need to listen to the experts. Cut four.

VOICE: Because presidents have accepted that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency. That it is in the best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues, handled by experts. Who, and I think you -- in your colloquy, Justice Kagan, have identified the fact that these boards are not only experts, but they're also nonpartisan. So the -- the seats are actually distributed in such a way, that we are presumably eliminating political influence because we're trying to get to science and data and actual facts, related to how these decisions are made.

And so the real risk, I think, of allowing non- -- of allowing these kinds of decisions to be made by the president, of saying, everybody can just be removed when I come in, is that we will get away from those very important policy considerations.

VOICE: We will get away from US policy considerations, and it will create opportunities for all kinds of problems that Congress and prior presidents wanted to avoid, risks that flow inevitably, just given human nature, the realities of the world that we live in.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, remember, what she's saying here is, we have to have experts.

We have to have experts. We have to have experts that don't really answer to anybody. Okay?

They're appointed. And then they're just there. This from a, quote, judicial expert, who cannot define a woman, because she's not a doctor.
She's not a scientist.

She needs an expert to define a woman.
That's how insane her thinking is. Okay?

Now, I would just like to ask the Supreme Court, when you want things run by experts, do you mean things like the State Department, or the counsel of foreign relations, that have gotten us into these endless war wars for 100 years?

Because these are the things that Woodrow Wilson wanted. He wanted the country run by experts.

Okay. So is it like the Council of Foreign Relations, that keep getting us into these endless wars.

Or is it more like the Fed, that directs our fiscal policy, that has driven us into $38 trillion of at the time. We have all powerful banks. That strangely all belong to the fed. And endless bailouts for those banks. Are those the experts that you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the experts that are doctors, that gave the country sterilizations, lobotomies, transgender surgeries. You know, or should we listen to the experts, like the ones that are now speaking in Illinois, to get us death on demand like Canada has, with their MAID assisted suicide, which is now the third largest killer in Canada. MAID, assisted suicide, third largest killer in Canada. Experts are saying, we now need it here, and they're pushing for it in Illinois. Or should we listen to the experts? And I think many of them are the same experts strangely, that brought us COVID. Yeah. That was an expert thing. They were trying to protect us. Because they need to do this for our protection. So direct from the labs in China with the help of the American experts like Fauci. We almost put the world out.

Should we listen to those guys?

Or the experts that brought us masking, and Home Depot is absolutely safe. But Ace Hardware wants to kill grandma. Which are the experts that we want? That we want to make sure that we have in our lives? That they don't answer, or can't be fired by anybody. Because I'm pretty full up on the experts, myself. I don't know.

But you're right. These experts would keep the president in check, and they would keep Congress in check. And you in check!

And the Supreme Court, which would be really great. You know, and you know who else they would keep in check? The people.

So, wow, it seems like we would just be a nation run by experts, and our Constitution would be out the window, because that's a fourth branch!

And if you don't believe me, that, you know, these experts never pay a price. Can you name a single expert?

Give me a name of an expert, that gave us any of the things that I just told you about.

Give me the name. I mean, give me the name of one of them. Give me the name of one of them that went to jail. Give me the name of one expert that has been discredited.

You know, where your name will be mud in this town. Do you know where that came from?

Your name is going to be mud. It's not M-U-D. It's M-U-D-D, that comes from Dr. Samuel Mudd. Okay? He was a docks man. He was an expert. He was that set John Wilkes Booth' broken leg. He made crutches. He let him stay there for a while. He claimed he didn't know him, but he did know him.

In fact, one of the reasons they proved it.

Is because when he pulled the boots off -- when he pulled both of his boots off, right there, in the back, you couldn't have missed it. It said "John Wilkes Booth."

He's like, I have no idea who he was.

Yeah. Well, you knew him in advance. This was a predetermined outpost where he could stay. It's clear you could know him.

The guy was still discredited, we still use his name today. Your name will be mud in this town.

And we think that it's like dirt, mixed with water kind of mud. No, it's M-U-D-D, Dr. Mudd. The expert that was so discredited, went to jail, paid for his part of the assassination of -- of Lincoln.

Give me the name of one of the experts in the last 100 years, that has brought us any of the trials and the tribulations. The things that have almost brought us to our knees. Give me the name of one of them. Can't!

Because once an expert class, they don't answer to anyone. So they never go to jail.

Wow! Doesn't that sound familiar. People never going to jail!

There's a rant that's going around right now, that I did in 2020. And everybody is like, see. He's talking about Pam Bondi.

No, no. I got to play this for you, a little later on in the program. But I want to get to the experts and what the Constitution actually says about that. Because you don't need my opinion. What you need are the actual facts. So you can stand up and say, yeah. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is an idiot. Okay?

And she's really not an expert on anything. Especially the Constitution. You need the facts, on what the Founders said. Because the Founders would be absolutely against what they did in 1935.

Because that just -- what does it do?

It just sets up a fourth branch of government.

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

The biggest media merger in modern history is unfolding, and Glenn Beck warns it’s the most dangerous consolidation of power America has faced in decades. With six corporations already controlling 90% of the nation’s news and entertainment, a Warner-Netflix or Warner-Paramount megacorporation would create an unstoppable information cartel. Glenn exposes how “too big to fail” thinking is repeating itself, how global elites and “experts” are tightening their grip, and why handing our entire cultural narrative to a handful of companies is a direct threat to freedom. The hour is late — and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, it's never good when you consolidate power. It's never good.

And what is going on now, with this Netflix Warner Brothers paramount stuff, I don't care if Larry Ellison is a conservative or not.

No one should have that much power.

I did a show, gosh, four years ago. I don't even remember when I did it.

We looked it up. In the 1980s. 19 percent of American media was owned by over 50 companies.

Forty years later, 90 percent of the media is watched and controlled by six companies.

National Amusements, the Red Stone Family controls CBS, CMT, MTV, Nickelodeon, gaming and internet. Simon & Schuster Books. That's all one.

Disney, ABC, ESPN, History Channel, Marvel, Star Wars, video games and print.

TimeWarner controls CNN, Warner Brothers, HBO, Turner, video games, internet, and print media like TIME. Comcast, MSNBC, NBC.

CNBC, Telemundo, the Internet.

New Corp. Fox. National Geographic. Ton of others. Sony, with a ton of movies, music and more. The big six. They're valued at nearly $500 billion.

Now, this is something I put together five years ago. So I don't even know. This is probably not even valid even today.

And now we're talking about Netflix, Warner Brothers. Paramount, into all of these one giant corporation. It's wrong! It's wrong!

We can't keep putting all -- everything into the hands of just a few! It's what's killing us!

We've got to spread this around. We can't -- the government cannot okay mergers like this.

They're big enough he has

What happened -- what happened when the banks went under, or almost went under in '08. What did they say the problem was?

They said the banks are too big to fail.

Too big to fail.

Because they were providing all of the services, everybody needs. All the time. And there's only a handful of them.

So if they fall, then everything falls.

Right?

That was the problem. So what did we do to fix it?

We made them bigger!

We let them merge with other banks, and gobble up other things!

And started taking on the local banks.

And so now, your banks that were too big to fail. Are now even bigger. And their failure would be even worse!

What is wrong with us?

Seriously, we're not this stupid.

We're not this stupid.

I think we're just this comfortable.

We just think the experts have a plan. No. The experts don't have a plan.

Their plan is stupid. Their plan is to make it bigger.

Every time it fails. Make it bigger. Push it up.

Make it more global.

No. Haven't you seen what the entire world is like?

The entire world is over-leveraged. The entire world is on the edge.

The entire world is being redesigned.
So what do we do? We don't allow them to make things bigger! We need to start taking more individual and local control of things. They're making it bigger. Which will make the problem bigger. And make the problem so big, you won't be able to do anything about it, because all the experts. All of the heads. They'll all -- there will be six of them. And they will all be sitting in one room.

And they will all be making the instigations. And with them, making those decisions will be all the heads of all the countries around the world, that you're not going to have a say in any of that. They're already trying to do it with the WEF.

But if -- if the Supreme Court says, no, experts matter. And the president can't fire them. You will not have any control over anything!

We're at this place, where we can back out. We can turn around.

We can do it.

It's not too late. But the hour is growing very late.

I don't know about you, I don't like being this.

Up to the edge, you know what I mean?

I would rather have lots of breathing room, between me and the edge of the cliff.

But we don't have that anymore.

Everything has to be done right.

And we have to pay attention.

And the worst thing we can do is make things bigger.

Dream big, think small.