RADIOMarch 27, 2025

WATCH: NPR CEO’s Radical Tweets Come Back to Haunt Her

NPR CEO Katherine Maher faced a brutal showdown before the House DOGE Subcommittee, as lawmakers demanded answers on why NPR deserves taxpayer funding. Grilled alongside PBS CEO Paula Kerger, Maher took heat for her radical past tweets on white privilege, oppression, and reparations—alleged proof of NPR’s leftist bias. As Republicans gear up to defund NPR, Glenn breaks down why Maher is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and argues that NPR’s taxpayer funding should end now. Plus, Glenn reveals the one question Congress missed that could’ve sealed her fate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jim Jordan is laying out the sweeping agenda for judicial reform. Which I don't think could happen to a better group of people. We'll talk about that here in a second. But I also want to talk about the NPR CEO that was -- that was called up to the House, to -- to testify, on a few things yesterday. Stu, you want to take us through this?

STU: Yeah. I would like to talk about this as well.

It was an interesting hearing. First of all, good fundamental hearing of what was happening.

Was, hey. Maybe we shouldn't be paying a bunch of money for left-wing propaganda at NPR and PBS. Does and I think there's absolutely no reason for that to be occurring. I don't know what country we are. I understand the UK as the BBC. They have Pravda going on. I don't know why we need one of those. I'm totally with this, and I don't think this should happen. However, even if it was actually doing a good job, I would think it's a bad idea. They are not however, doing a good job, and they are led by -- NPR is led by Katherine Maher. She is -- well, she is, is a leftist.

She has some really extreme views. We've covered some of them before. Never really had their answer for them. Part of what happened is that process. And one of the big complaints about NPR in particular, was they were probably -- you tell me if I'm wrong on this, Glenn. The worst offender when it came to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. They said, on day one: We will not cover conspiracy theories. That's not worth the time for us to cover for the American people.

STU: Really bad. They just -- absolutely dismissed it. With no evidence. Because obviously the story was true.

They absolutely dismissed the story, right before the election, assuming it was some sort of right-wing conspiracy.

GLENN: Yeah. Almost on day one.

STU: It did not turn out to be a right-wing Soros. It did turn out to be a conspiracy between Hunter Biden and then a bunch of hookers. But that's a different situation.

This is Katherine Maher, trying to answer about -- for some of the poor showings of journalism that they -- they have produced over the past couple years. Listen.

VOICE: Can we expect that you will bring the same lack of reverence for truth to your management at NPR?

VOICE: Thank you, Congressman. First of all, I do want to say that NPR acknowledges that we were mistaken in failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively, and sooner. Our current editorial leadership.

VOICE: Wuhan.

VOICE: We recognize that we were reporting at the time. But we acknowledge that the new CIA evidence is worthy of coverage, and have covered it.

VOICE: What have you done to clean up the bias before you? You mentioned, I wasn't there for that. What are you doing to clean up and make sure that we have --

VOICE: Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman.

As I mentioned, I came in, in May. Mr. Berliner published his story two weeks into my tenure, regarding stories that had happened prior. I wish that I had had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Berliner. I would have loved to have him engaged, and come back to us in suggestions as to what we could do editorially in order to address what he perceived as bias.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So may I just -- I want to point out who she is here, for just a second.

Chris Rufo has pointed out, hmm.

What's -- well, her -- let's shall we say, interesting work history.

Before NPR she was employed by the US State Department. And the national democratic alliance. Or Democratic Institute.

The NDI is one of the main branches of the National Endowment for Democracy, and when was she there?

During the Arab Spring. What were they doing?

Promoting the Arab Spring. Remember, it was the NED and US government strategy during the Arab Spring, they were training youth movements on how influence public opinion through mass media, and ultimately, organize in the streets.

And then topple the regime. Okay.

Chris Rufo has said that -- I should rephrase it. He all, but called her a CIA agent. Okay?

Also, she was with Wikimedia, which is Wikipedia. And when she got there, you know, they changed -- they changed a little bit.

And started controlling information. And then she is now the head of -- of NPR? And we're supposed to be comfortable with this? She's part of this whole Deep State revolutionary thing, that is exactly what we told you is, I think what the JFK files are showing us. They're showing us the pattern.

This is what happened in the '60s. This is what's happening right now.

It's the same story.

And she's right at the head of it.

STU: Yeah. And if you -- sometimes it's difficult, Glenn. When you look at someone's resume. To be able to determine who the person is.

Right? You might work at an organization that could disagree with you.

There's a lot of people who worked at X.

With it&Twitter. That we now know were really upset what Twitter was doing at that time.

We consider them kind of a left-wing social media network. And at the time, there were people inside, who were really upset about that.

We learned about those things later. This particular case, though. Not a good example of that, though. At all.

GLENN: Yeah. Let me just point out too, currently she is currently on the board of signal.

STU: Okay. Yeah. That's an often newsworthy edition to the story.

GLENN: Interesting thing to point out.

STU: And, again, you could even say. Someone who is a left-leaning person.

Who is controlled of NPR.

They've been controlled forever. You could be a left-leaning person. And okay. That could be something that could work. Obviously, everyone has an opinion. Everyone has some opinion on news stories.

This particular person, however, Katherine Maher has a fascinating history, and what she has done is not just work in these places. And not just have influence in these stories that keep coming up over and over again.

But explicitly state her crazy positions over and over and over and over again on Twitter, on X.

So she -- she had to know this stuff was coming. But she was asked by Brandon Gill. He's a Congressman from Texas about some of her previous tweets. And it is just absolute gold.

VOICE: Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy?

VOICE: I believe that I tweeted that. And as I've said earlier, I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade.

VOICE: It has evolved. Why did you tweet that?

VOICE: I don't recall the exact context, sir. So I wouldn't be able to say.

VOICE: Okay. Do you believe that America believes in black plunder and white democracy?

VOICE: I don't believe that, sir.

VOICE: You tweeted that in reference to a book you were reading at the time, apparently, the Case for Reparations.

VOICE: I don't think I've ever read that book, sir.

VOICE: You tweeted about it. You said, you took a day off to fully read the case for reparations, on January of 2020.

VOICE: Apologies, I don't recall that I did. No doubt, that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall that.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop. Stop.

STU: So good.

GLENN: So the question there is: Is she -- was she just lying about, you know, reading that?

And if she was lying about reading that then, was she just doing that, because she's part of a circle that you've got to read this book. And solve this. And blah, blah, blah.

And so she just didn't do her own homework. She made up she was taking the full day off, to really understand the case in the book. She was just being a shill to promote this point of view.

STU: That's the best case scenario, right?

The fact that she's just lying an opposer, right? Is the best-case scenario.

The worst-case scenario would be she actually believes the United States is nothing but black plunder. So -- and that's I think actually the truth.

But fascinating, number one, she should absolutely be prepared for that. She should know that tweet is coming. How do you go into a Congressional hearing, and not know that they are going to bring up that tweet?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

Let's be fair to her. Almost everything she said has been crazy, batcrap nuts.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So, I mean, can I narrow it down to which ones he's going to bring up.

STU: Yeah. And there is an element to this.

If I went back, Glenn.

Examine we did a fake congressional hearing. Where I was a Congressman. And we were giving testimony.

And I said, hey. Glenn. Do you remember tweeting this?

I'm sure I can find a tweet that you don't remember tweeting. I'm sure I can find even a topic. Maybe even a show.

Hey, Glenn. You said you were watching this show. Do you remember that?

I don't think so. Actually, you tweeted that in 2018. 100 percent, could happen. Right?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: However, what you wouldn't find in there, is, you know, something that completely disagreed with your entire philosophy of life.

Right?

STU: Right. If you went back and said, Stu, I'm looking back at your tweets, why did you tweet in 2019, that you loved the Dallas Cowboys? That wouldn't happen.

Right? I would certainly know that I tweeted something like that. Because it's actually more evil than claiming the entire country is a bunch of white supremacists.

GLENN: And I agree with you. And let me add one more thing, on the -- on the statement that my views have evolved.

The wrong question was asked by the senator.

Really?

How? Why?

What changed your mind.

Because you've been tweeting this forever.

And you're still against Trump and everything that he's doing. I haven't seen any change of anything.

What's changed your mind, that makes you now say, that America is not just based on white supremacy?

STU: It's the most interesting part of the story. The transition story is the story.

Right? To walk me through the moment that good God, why was I saying all those terrible things?

GLENN: Correct. That's the question these guys have to ask. Wow. You know what, we all change. Tell me about that moment, when I realized, you were on the wrong track.

STU: By the way, I think, Brandon Gill did a very good job in this hearing. But it is a fundamental problem of these hearings, that most of these guys. And I'm not saying him, but most of these guys are up there, to just say their thing. And not actually listen to the answers.

GLENN: No. He's not. He's not.

STU: He is listening. He does want to know.

But time is limited, and everything else.

I would have loved to know the answer to that Congress. Because whoever the next Congressman up should -- should have followed up with that.

But --

GLENN: Can we play the rest of it?

STU: There's more. Yeah, it's worth it.

VOICE: Yeah, no doubt that your tweet there is correct, but I don't recall.

VOICE: Okay. Do you believe that white people inherently feel superior to other races?

VOICE: I do not.

VOICE: You don't? You tweeted something to that effect. You said, I grew up feeling superior. Ha, how white of me. Why did you tweet that?

VOICE: I think I was probably reflecting on what it was -- to grow up in an environment where I had lots of advantages.

VOICE: It sounds like you're saying white people feel superior.

VOICE: I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir. I was just reflecting on my own experience.

VOICE: Do you think that white people should pay reparations?

VOICE: I've never that said, sir.

VOICE: Yes, you did. You said it January 2020. You tweeted, yes, the North. Yes, all of this. Yes, America. Yes, our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations. Yes on this day.

VOICE: I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal reparations, sir.

VOICE: What kind of reparations was it a reference to?

VOICE: I just think it was a reference to the idea that we all owe much to the people who came before us.

VOICE: That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted.
(laughter)
Okay.

STU: I mean, that's obviously just nonsensical thing to -- justification for what she actually said.

GLENN: So funny. So funny. Yeah. And that's why she should not be at NPR. And NPR should not be there.

If that company is being run by this woman. And people -- and NPR is not saying, okay. Come on. The whole thing needs to be abolished.

They're obviously not telling the truth.

I don't have a problem with you, if you're a lefty, and you're just telling the truth.

And you're like, no.

I do believe that. I have more respect foy, saying that. Than I do her.

And making up all kinds of stuff.

Because the temperature of the room has changed. Have the balls to stand up for what you actually believe and want to do. That's not -- that is a revolutionary. That is in -- that is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And we keep seeing the wolf. But it's because the sheepskin just keeps slipping a little bit. Wow. Sheep. Grandma, you have mighty big teeth.

Yeah. NPR should be abolished. Should start with just firing her.

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.