RADIOJanuary 22, 2024

How the Left REDEFINED 'extreme' to make Joe Rogan 'far right'

The Left is doing all it can to redefine terms like "extreme," "misinformation," and "far right" to include anyone who disagrees with them — including Bernie Sanders supporter, Joe Rogan. “The War on the West” author Douglas Murray is another one of their targets, who leftists would love to suppress and censor. But Douglas joins Glenn to denounce this insanity and explain the real danger: If you call everything "far right misinformation," you're only making real extremism worse. Meanwhile, the Biden administration and mainstream media are pushing actual extreme misinformation on the public ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Douglas Murray joins us now.

Douglas, how are you?

DOUGLAS: Very good, thank you. Good to be with you.

GLENN: Yeah. I have to tell you, I can't thank you enough for your voice, for your logic, and your reason.

You are one of the more powerful people out there. And I think that's why you're being targeted.

Did you happen to see the article, that I was talking about with Anna Stanley?

DOUGLAS: Yes, I did. I read it with considerable alarm. This was a young woman who worked the foreign office. She was an open intelligence analyst.

Spent on her government training program, to learn about counterterrorism. Counterextremism.

Of course, she revealed in the piece, that, first of all, many of the -- several of the participants, the lecturers, completely downplayed Islamic extremism. Terrorism, which government does regard. And they do regard, as the primary threat to security in the UK.

GLENN: Right. And no mention of immigration playing a role in that. None!

ERIC: Of course not. Of course not.

Why would they talk about anything truthful?

GLENN: Yeah.

DOUGLAS: And -- but, yes, more alarming to me, even than that, was the fact that one of the lecturers, a man called Peter Newman.

A very sinister figure, in my view.

Was -- said that the main threat. Or one of the main threats was the far right people.

And he named me, and Joe Rogan.

GLENN: Joe Rogan.

DOUGLAS: As a friend.

GLENN: Let me quote the two paragraphs. That says this.

The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. To what extent, I'm quoting, should Joe Rogan and Murray be suppressed, he asked.

They have millions of followers. To deplatform them would cause issues. Whoops. Did we lose him?

Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, so society needs to find other ways to suppress them.

Is Douglas with us? Getting him back on the phone.

STU: Easiest way to suppress him, is to hang up on him in the middle of the interview.

GLENN: Exactly right. That's the private sector suppressing him, I'll tell you that right now.

STU: There you go. You see what side you were on, Glenn.

GLENN: Well, no. It was just -- it was a coincidence. And I've deleted all my files about hanging up on Douglas Murray.

This accident. Yeah, that's crazy.

STU: Oh. Oh. That's sad. That's sad.

It's amazing to me, the people who are actually targeted in the middle of this too.

It's one thing to talk about it as an issue.

It's one thing to say, okay. Well, these things are happening. Or they are happening.

When it's happening to you.

Obviously, Glenn, you were named in that article. I was not.

Just keep the record clear.

But it's got to be hard to go through it. Yeah. He's back on.

GLENN: I think, Douglas, you're back. Thank you. I'm sorry. Suppressing your voice there for a minute. But what's really frightening here is I've been talking about this stuff coming for a long time.

And we've been hearing reports, that they're doing this or that.

They are so outspoken on this.

And so bold. And they are so far down the line.

What do you think is coming for you?

DOUGLAS: Yes.

I don't know. Other than, anyone on earth is going to suppress or silence me.

But I certainly was think it's extraordinary.

The confidence that people have.

That they can suppress the -- who say things, which I think, not only are popular, but true. But I thought it's fascinating.

This man who has almost no following or recognition himself.

Experts in a non-expertise.

You know, that he should think that he could or other people should suppress me, and it's more than just about suppressing my voice.

I've got my lawyers, writing to his employers. Find out what he has in mind for me.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, they were in that very thing. They were talking using banks and everything. And we know they're doing this.

DOUGLAS: Yes.

GLENN: And, you know, I said about four or five years ago, that there's going to come a time, where they are going to build a digital get zero.

And I know all the implications of using those words. And I was called an anti-Semite, and everything else.

But that is what they're building. You know, the Jews can talk all they want, do whatever they want.

Just behind this wall, so nobody hears them or sees them. And that's exactly the direction we're going.

DOUGLAS: Yes.

And there's very particular moves that they're doing, to make that.

One is using the term far right, which alarms me enormously.

Because, of course, there are some people, particularly in Europe, who are what we would call far right. They are nowhere near the centers of power, but in bits of Germany and elsewhere. You know, there are very nasty things in the woodshed.

And unfortunately, what people have done in recent years, as you well know. Is that in the name of -- really nothing other than political opportunism. There's people who have decided to extend the parameters of what is allegedly far right.

And what they've done is, they've extended it not just to people, to call me. Or go Rogan. Far right.

Demonstrably absurd.

But what they're really doing, is they're trying to make public opinion, be deemed far right. And not just some public opinion, but majority public opinion.

Most people, in the United States, and the United Kingdom, are deeply concerned about illegal migration.

But once you say, concerned about illegal migration. As far right.

Therefore, the majority of the public are called far right.

And that has a lot of implications these people don't think about.

First of all, is that, of course, it makes actual far right, become completely normal. Because they will say, oh, well, everything is far right now.

And the second thing it does. Is that it defames and Liberia! Majority public concerns. Which are legitimate concerns.

You know, Americans are right to be fearful about the implications of having an entirely porous southern border.

And the Europeans and British people and others, are completely right.

To be concerned about having a totally porous southern border.

And to call these concerns extreme, or to try to choke them out in the mainstream, is something so antidemocratic and antipopular. That, I'm just very alarmed the way in which it is.

GLENN: Well, I don't know if you've been following Davos. I'm sure you have this week.

DOUGLAS: Of course.

GLENN: But they are making mis and disinformation a priority. Here in America. We've already had the Wall Street Journal.

We have had two stories now from NBC News this week on disinformation.

Listen to this paragraph in the story from NBC News. An increasing number of voters, have proven susceptible to disinformation, from former president Donald Trump and his allies.

Artificial intelligence technology is ubiquitous. Social media companies have slashed effort to see rein in misinformation on their platforms. And attacks on the work and reputation of academics, tracking disinformation, have chilled the research.

So they're -- they're making the case, that, you know, anybody who is -- even considering voting for Donald Trump, you are -- you've been captured by disinformation, which lead you to where Jordan Peterson is today.

You've got to go to a reeducation camp.

DOUGLAS: Right. Well, that's the thing. You know, is that -- this whole concept, that there are experts. And then there's us plebs, who is part of this problem. And the problem is not just how rude it is about us, the people. We, the people, to coin a phrase. It's the fact that these self-appointed experts are not experts in many occasions.

I mean, the BBC.

The BBC has a disinformation expert now. And she keeps on pumping out disinformation.

She keeps on getting things wrong.

Well, normally, that's the ebb and flow of journalism.

You know, one paper publishes one story.

Another paper says they're wrong.

That's fine.

But this idea that we have this sort of new priesthood cloth of academics.

Academic experts and disinformation. Sorry, the person we mentioned earlier.

From kings college London.

Academics are perfectly capable of pumping out lies and disinformation.

If I were to cite the famous Bill Buckley quote, you know, I would rather to go to the first hundred people in the phone book to find out what's true. Then -- then say the -- the board of Harvard University.

GLENN: Yes. You know, there's a story in the Washington examiner that just came out. Listen to this. While the Department of Homeland Security has allowed as many as 10 million who didn't notice to flood our southern border. Domestic surveillance state has prioritized something more important. According to documents now unearthed by the Media Research Center. DHS paid $700,000 from a counterterrorism program. To a self-described propaganda network.

The source of the funding was targeted violence, and terrorism prevention grant program, which was created by Barack Obama to target al-Qaeda.

That was put on hold, and then clandestinely revived by the then acting DHS head Kevin MacLeanen and Miles Taylor.

The infamous and insufferable anonymous resistance within the Trump administration.

The funding circumvented the White House budgeting process.

The beneficiary of the grand under-President Joe Biden is the university of Rhode Island's media education lab.

In their application for the money, it said propaganda can also be used for socially beneficial purposes.

Indeed, because the public has long recognized as being suggestable, the United States has long made use of the beneficial propaganda, during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

So what they did is they were the source coming after MAGA supporters. And saying that they're far right, anti-Semites.

This is funded by our government, and they're the ones telling us about disinformation?

DOUGLAS: Yeah.

Well, that's -- that's the other thing.

If I were somebody in the situation of government, in the last 15 years, I would think I would want to try at least to talk a look at myself. And wonder where I've gone wrong. You know.

And you see that.

I would wonder.

You know, they think the public don't trust scientists anymore.

I would say, what has a scientist done in recent years?

And scientific experts, like Dr. Fauci.

What might they have done, slightly, the country into doubting scientists.

If I was a -- a political pundit or political expert within government in Washington, I would wonder, you know, not what it is, that the public have got wrong. But what it is, we have done, in recent years. That has undermined trust in the democratic process and much more.

And it never -- I never see it, you know. As the right turn of the thinker.

I try to do -- I try to be self-critical. I try to think about whether I think about something wrong. And these people just don't -- they're never wrong.

It's always us, the public that are wrong. And need to be corrected.

GLENN: Douglas Murray. We'll be back in 60 seconds.

First, let me tell you about Ruff Greens. Sharon wrote in about her dog's experience with Ruff Greens. She says, our pit bull Molly is a rescue.

Very rough shape when we adopted her ten months ago. She responded well to high-quality dog chow. But her coat still has small smell that bathing didn't eliminate. She had been on Ruff Greens now for several weeks.

And she loves eating it on her food. And her coat. Sorry.

I'm -- I'm either having bad gas problems, or somebody is drilling on the other side of a wall. She's been on Ruff Greens for several weeks now.

She likes eating it on her food.

Her coat smells much better. More energetic. Thank you for Ruff Greens.

This was developed by naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black.

You sprinkle it on your dog's food.

They love the stuff, and you will see a difference in your dog.

If it's healthy for your dog, it's -- oh. Excuse me. Still going. Maybe I need some Ruff Greens. R-U-F-FGreens.com/Beck. Or call 833-Glenn-33. They will give you your first trial bag for free.

833-Glenn-33. Call them today. Ten-second station ID.

Okay. Douglas Murray. What should the average person do because this is -- with -- with more people voting for their officials. More than any time in -- in US or world history.

This year, more people will be voting in free and fair elections, hopefully. Than ever before.

What do we do?

How do we solve this?

Because they are going to start putting us, one by one, behind a wall that will not be easy to spot at first.

DOUGLAS: I think it's getting increasingly easy to spot, if I may so.

I think the public today are so much more informed. We are so much informed than we were 10 years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago.

And one of the things is, that a lot of things that could have been called us on us, 30 years ago. Are now very, very transparent.

We have media, that can address, the problems, when, you know, parts of the mainstream media get things wrong.

We are no longer able to be simply lectured to, or sermonized to, for the pulpit of the New York Times.

We no longer, you know, have that sort of innocence that we had in the public, in the past.

And I think that's a good thing.

And it means that we're all -- we're all -- we're all beholden to sort of know more. Admittedly. And to see through more.

And to recognize, just that it's true. That sometimes, we are told things that are completely true, and we should pass some authority some of the time.

We also shouldn't be completely trusting, and we can be skeptical.

And we can do our own research, to use a phrase that is now pooh-poohed by the so-called experts.

Who say that it's dangerous for the public to do in the search.

You know, we shouldn't be endlessly cynical. Nor should we be endlessly supine.

We shouldn't be endlessly trusting. And we don't need to be.

If someone simply told you -- gave you one opinion, on something incredibly important in your life. You probably wouldn't follow it. You probably would want to check. You know, when I get motor insured, I don't go from one place, to my -- my -- you know, insurance.

I look around. Well, if we can do that with our cars, we can do it with our life.

And we can do it with our political future.

And that's what we're all doing. And anyone who says, I'm the only font of news. I'm the only font of correct opinion. Don't trust anyone, other than me. It's somebody you should distrust.

And that, you know, frankly, as the Washington Post tag lined. Democracy ties in darkness. Well, yeah. Sure it had. And media can die in darkness as well. And sometimes the people who say, we're the only ones you can trust. Like the Washington Post, might just be the ones who end up flipping in some things along the way.

That's what they've done, and I think we the public, are in a much better position now, than we ever have been before, to see through it.

GLENN: Douglas, always great to talk to you. Thank you so much. Thank you for everything.
DOUGLAS: Much a pleasure.

GLENN: You bet.

So, by the way, talking about the Washington Post.

Here's the headline from the story that he was referring to.

Doing your own -- this is the Washington Post. Doing your own research, is a good way to end up being wrong.

Well, yeah. You could be wrong. But just listening to the Washington Post and the New York Times and CNN, and even Fox News, you got -- you've got an equal chance of being wrong there.

Do your own research.

Never close your mind. Never stop asking questions.

Humble yourself, so you're not arrogant. I know what the truth is!

Always be open to hearing a different opinion.

And you will find the truth. Prayerfully, you will find the truth.

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.