RADIOSeptember 18, 2023

Megyn Kelly REACTS to Trump's controversial abortion answer

Former president Donald Trump's interviews with Megyn Kelly and NBC News turned a lot of heads over the weekend. On NBC News, Trump condemned fellow presidential candidate Gov. Ron DeSantis' Florida heartbeat bill as a "terrible mistake," while also supporting some limits on abortion. And on The Megyn Kelly Show, he addressed the growing transgender trend and whether or not men can become women. @MegynKelly joins Glenn to discuss how Trump's answers may affect his 2024 campaign, whether he's already looking ahead to the general election and trying to appeal to independents, and whether this strategy will work. Plus, they discuss whether President Biden will be the Democratic 2024 candidate, or if the Left is already trying to oust him: "You can feel the ground shifting."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hello, Megyn, how are you?

MEGYN: Hi, I'm well.

How are you doing?

GLENN: I'm very good.

So your interview, and the interview that the president did on MSNBC are getting a lot of play over the weekend. Because in some -- in some places, he seemed to be hedging his bet. And on MSNBC,he talked about a 15-week limit on abortions.

MEGYN: Yeah. Well, he -- this is one of the reasons why President Trump needs to put himself out there more.

Because just like president HEP it's not okay for either one of these leading candidates on the Dem or the GOP side stay underground. So to his credit, Trump is putting himself out there. Much more than Joe Biden.

But we absolutely need to be probing their positions, as the American public tries to make a decision.

And Trump on the social issue, with all due credit for the Supreme Court justices he got has always been a little wishy-washy.

He lived pretty much 75 easier. Seventy-three. Whatever it is, before he became president.

As a Democrat. You know, one of my debate questions for him back in 2017, was when do you become a Republican?

If you look back, he's been much, much of a Democrat. And more liberal on social issues. Like virtually everyone in New York is.

And I think there's a fair amount of that in him.

GLENN: So is this -- for instance, let me play a clip you with. Where he was talking about, can a man become pregnant?

Play it.

VOICE: Can a man become a woman?

DONALD: In my opinion, can a man become a woman. I think -- I think part of it is birth. Can the man give birth? No. No. Although, they'll come up with some answer to that also.

I heard just the other day, they have a way that now the man can give birth. No. I would say that I'm continuing my stance on that.

GLENN: So what did -- what was your takeaway? Because he never really answered it. But he did shake his head no. Towards the beginning.

What's your takeaway from that?

MEGYN: Well, I thought it was weak sauce. I really wish he -- he did better on that. I like Ron DeSantis' answer, I'll be honest.

Which is no. No. No.

Obviously no.

GLENN: Right.

TOM: And it's not determined based on who can give birth. It's determined by God.

And it's pretty obvious, just as soon as you come out of the womb. That's the way -- that's the way he seems to not being painting this weird agenda by some activist in this crazy trans agenda-pushing cult.

So Trump clearly knows that. I don't know if he has -- maybe trying to appease some group of trans voters. That he thinks will make the difference with him.

Even when I had Don Jr on my show, he was kind of dancing around this issue.

I -- I think that they think, they somehow will do better with Democrats. If they don't hit this straight-on.

Even though, I mean, 98 percent of the Republican Party is united on this issue.

This is not a winner for any Republican to hedge on this.

Just ask Asa Hutchinson. So I'm not sure what he's thinking. I feel like this, and the abortion thing. He must be thinking more general elections, where there are Democrats, who don't feel as Republicans do.

But I really think, there's a small voting group on this particular issue, he needs a better answer. And I hope he gets it.

GLENN: So do you think this will shape the tree at all?

I mean, I think he looks at the poll numbers. And thinks theres -- I mean, I'm going to win. So why not start a moderate campaign now?

Because I'm going to win the -- the primary.

So let's just get past that. And start being, you know, more moderate to appeal to a wider audience. Than just the Republicans. You think that will work?

MEGYN: I don't. I mean, I'm in much more of the Ann Coulter thinking, it comes to who the party should nominate.

I think they should nominate someone who will drive turnout. And generally with Republicans, that means someone who is conservative. Who is genuinely conservative.

Look what happened with John McCain. Okay? They've tried to go more moderate.

It doesn't work. Now, Trump does tracking turnout. Because he's Trump. And there's something about that. His constituency finds more appealing. And, you know, that 30 percent, isn't going to abandon him. Even if it comes out with abortion in the 9th month, I mean, that's a really -- that's really the question. Not whether he can choose something on HEP Fifth Avenue. For Trump to say, he's preabortion, ninth month. And still hold on to that four, 30 percent. Glenn, I think the answer is yes.

And he's almost toying with that experiment right now. He's now pro abortion. He's really more banking on the fact, that he appointed the three justices, and made a difference on Roe v. Wade. And he won't lose any Republican voters to Joe Biden, on the issue of abortion. Right?

He's playing the long game. But he does need to generate enthusiasm.

And he's already tamped down. Not in the first set of Republicans. But in the other half, who are tepid on Trump.

GLENN: So let me ask you about Joe Biden here for a second.

Because I've started to see, for instance, there's an article in the Washington Post, from a big -- a big player. On the left. And in the editorial, he said, you know, I love Joe Biden. And he's done great things.

And nothing against anything he's ever done. But I think it's time for him to go.

And I think that you see the supporters, and the -- the key members, possibly starting to move in and saying, you know, Joe, I think maybe you should go.

Do you think that he is the candidate? By the time we get to the -- the election.

MEGYN: I don't know, Glenn. I'm seeing what you're seeing.

It seems like there's a movement underfoot to gently oust him and her. That's what was interesting about it. In wacko.

Which is, we don't want to be stuck with her.

But, you know, live by the sword, die by the sword.

They selected her for identity politics reasons, and good luck subbing her out. And subbing in some other person, like Gavin Newsom.

You know, who doesn't check the right boxes. And even who does check the right boxes, Sunny Hopkins, woke identity politics warrior on The View was saying.

If he subs out Kamala Harris, he will lose the black vote. We're not interchangeable, even if he puts back in a black woman.

Anyway, you can feel the ground shifting.

CNN is doing a long fact-check on Biden.

I, last Thursday, have never seen them unleash their Daniel Gale HEP guy on Biden. That was always a Trump thing.

Now more and more sort of getting interested in just how old President Biden is. And polling heavily on that.

The results are disastrous.

The nation's piece. There's been example after example of how they seem to be realize with whom, you know what, he can't do it. (?) we're going to lose, if we stick with him.

But I also think, you have to ask revelings, how do you get rid of it?

You know, I think there's some fantasy that Barack Obama can do it. You know, give the tap on the shoulder. Like you get at the dance. Time to sit down. Your dancing is over.

I'm not sure.

GLENN: Well, it's exact --

MEGYN: What man voluntarily walks away from power like that?

GLENN: Well, voluntarily, George Washington. But remember that Nixon did that.

and Nixon only did it,when he realized, the party (?) was no longer with him.

When all of the people he counted acon, to help support him, were turning on him.

And that's when he decided to resign. There's a good way to do this.

And there's the tough way. And we're offering you the chance to make this your idea.

And what -- I think part of the pressure, might be the Hunter Biden scandal.

When you saw the -- the charges, last week.

Are these real, or are these bogus too?

MEGYN: The gun charges? Oops, I mean, they are real. (?) and any of us would have been charged with it. So okay.

But, of course, they were brought very reluctantly, by a guy who is on his side.

David Weiss, the US attorney for tell wear. Is on hunter apps side. (?) for six years.

Who let the MS damning charges might do the statute of limitations.

(?) even though hunter's lawyers offered what's called a toggle agreement. They offered to extend the statute of limitations. And tasted Weiss said, no. That's okay.

This is his prosecutor, so we're supposed to believe he's going to be tough on Hunter. BS. It was a figure life charge on only (?) a lot of people think, won't even hold you up. This gun statute has been deemed unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. So it's possible they can go in. (?) to most Republicans.

But kind of a low stakes matter.

Let's say. Let's say he gets convicted. Which he probably will. Some are saying, this is a smart move by the Republicans.

Because at least now, Unterand Joe have real skin in the game.

He could potentially face real jail time.

And maybe it gives (?) power of just a moment ago gibel for Hunter. (?) you'll pardon him. While announcing you're just a one-termer.

You can give your son a apart. Keep him out of jail. Save the Democratic Party. You'll be on Mount Rushmore. (?), you know what, if that's the price it takes to get him out of this. Let's do it.
(laughter)

GLENN: So be as tough on this as you can be.

When you see the left saying, there's no evidence. There's no evidence.

They've got no evidence.

There's plenty of evidence. I don't know if that all adds up to, you know, proof.

But there's tons of evidence. If you are standing in a court of law.

Because that's what is what you used to do. And your client was Joe Biden. And Hunter Biden.

And you saw the evidence that the prosecution has shown already. And they say there's more. How would you assess your chance of winning?

MEGYN: It would just depend on the he have dentiary (?) 51 percent more likely. And 49 percent are not.

He's guilty. If it's I don't understand a reasonable doubt, I would acquit him. So far. So far.

That's only because we haven't gotten all the bank records. Which they're about to get. It's more than 51 percent likely he did this.

I would put him more up in the '60s. If you're talking about conviction of a crime. Not there yet.

GLENN: Yeah. And what do the bank records. What are you looking for, in the bank records. What do they have to show?

MEGYN: Well, I would want to see the actual deposits of men. In Joe Biden's numerically convict him of a cranium. (?), but we have Peter Schweizer on the show on Friday. He, of course, is a Hunter expert.

He makes interesting points about how -- in order to show bribery. In order to show corruption, you don't need it show any (?) showing the deposits into Hunter Biden's account is enough. Not to mention the other eight family members on the tape.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

MEGYN: The benefit the to the family member is sufficient.

This (?) kind of brings me back to the (?) I almost feel like, Republicans are overstating their own burden.

You know, it's -- it doesn't need -- I realize why they're doing the impeachment. I'm actually in favor of it. But it doesn't need to go that route.

And they don't need to allege crimes. The corruption is there, plane as the nose on your face. I want (?) one -- one honest journalist, just one. With access to President Biden.

To get him in an interview, and say, how dare you allow your son, to sit on the board of Burisma.

Ukraine and company, being investigated for corruption. When you were the point man on the Obama bludgeon cleanlyup in Ukraine.

How dare you.

Is that not disqualifying to your ongoing role as public official? Go ahead.

GLENN: I think it is.

We're not going to see that. But I think it is. I would love to see that.

I would go a step further. As a father, you knew who Kolomoisky was.

He's a brutal killer. Beheads his opponents.

And you took your son -- you knew had a drug problem. And drinking problem.

And could easily be roped into anything.

And you allowed him to sit on -- on that board, with that man?

Are you out of your mind?

MEGYN: Right. When he was drug addled. Looking back on the time line of hunter's addiction.

I actually (?) in preparation for my show today.

So he joined the board of Burisma in April 2014.

That same year, he was discharged from the Navy reserve, after testing positive for cocaine right? That same year, when he joined the boards. Which Joe knows all of this. This is while his father was overseeing US politics in Ukraine.

By May of 15th, he had a relapse of his alcohol attack. By 2016, he had a relapse of his crack cocaine addiction.

And this is all while he's doing business with -- with the Chinese in these while he's on the board of Burisma.

GLENN: Jeez.

MEGYN: Which his father knows, because he's religion calling into the hunter business meetings.

He knows, his crack addled son is sitting on the board, cashing checks. And he's just (?) facilitating it. I mean, at a minimum, this counteracts the narrative of, what a great dad he is.

GLENN: I agree. I agree.

Megyn, thank you very much. We look forward to your program.

You can catch Megyn Kelly, wherever you get your podcast.

She also follows this show on Sirius XM. Thank you so much.

MEGYN: Thank you, Glenn.

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.