RADIOSeptember 10, 2025

Gen Z's surprising support for Trump and socialist policies revealed in new poll

A shocking number of young Americans support BOTH President Trump and democratic socialism, a new poll has found, and they're willing to make major changes to the American system to get what they feel they deserve. Justin Haskins, who conducted the poll with Rasmussen, joins Glenn Beck to break down the unexpected findings…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins. He's the president of our republic. StoppingSocialism.com. He's editor-in-chief. And also the coauthor of several books, with me. Welcome to the program, Justin.

How are you?

JUSTIN: I'm doing well, Glenn. How are you?

STU: Well, I was well, until you contacted me on vacation, and sent me this disturbing poll.

I am in bed at night.

And I'm reading this. I'm like, oh, dear.

What? My wife is like, I told you to not check this email. I'm like, I didn't know Justin was going to write to me.

Justin, tell me, first of all, before we get into it, how secure is the sample size on this poll?

JUSTIN: It's a very good sample size. 1200 people nationally.

Only 18 to 39-year-olds. And we did that deliberately, so that we could get a sample size large enough so we could pull out valid responses, just from younger people.

So the whole purpose of this poll was to find out what younger people, 18 to 39 think, voters only. And people who say that they're likely to vote. So we're not talking about just people out in the public. We're not talking about registered voters.

We're talking about people who are registered to vote. And say they're likely to vote.

GLENN: So let's go over some of the things that you have already released to the press.

And that is, in the survey, 18 to 39-year-olds, likely voters.

The Trump approval rating is a lot higher than you thought it would be. Right?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. Forty-eight percent positive approval rating of Donald Trump, which for young people, is very high.

So that's -- that's the good news.

That's the only good news we're going to talk about.

GLENN: We might have to come back to that first question several times.

Do you believe the United States is a fundamentally good, evil, or morally mixed country?

JUSTIN: Yep. This one is not too bad.

It's not great. But fundamentally good was 28 percent.

Which is low. But mixed was 50 percent.

And fundamentally evil was 17 percent.

And I think mixed at 50 percent is not an unreasonable, crazy response.

I -- I can see why all sorts of people might choose that.

So I don't think there's anything terrible here. It depends on what you mean by mixed. Fundamentally good at 28 percent. It's a little low. Fundamentally evil at 17 percent, it's a little disturbing. But it's not -- it's not insane. The insane stuff comes a little bit later.

GLENN: Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Major industries talk about the crazy stuff coming later, here it is.

Major industries like health care, energy, and big tech should be nationalized and give more control and equity to the people.

JUSTIN: Yeah. This was -- this was -- this one floored me. If I look at strongly agree. Somewhat agree for that statement you just read. It's over 70 percent of young people, including -- including the vast majority of Republicans. Young Republicans. And people who identify as conservatives.

It was pretty similar, in fact, how young people responded compared to liberals and independents.

And Democrats.

They all pretty much agreed that, yes. The government. The federal government should be nationalizing whole industries to make things more equitable for people.

GLENN: As the guy who is the chief -- editor-in-chief of stopping socialism. What's the problem with nationalizing energy, and health care?

JUSTIN: Well --

GLENN: What happens, typically.

JUSTIN: Well, usually, there's blood in the streets, when you do too much of that.

You know, socialism, communism have been spectacularly horrible, throughout the course of human history. Across every society, culture, religion.

It doesn't matter when or what kind of technological advancements you have. The more you collect vies a society. The more authoritarian that society gets. The less you have individual freedom. And the worst the economy usually is for regular people. So it's been a catastrophe across-the-board. Everyone listening to this audience, probably knows that.

And so the idea that you would have three-quarters of young voters. So remember, these people will be the primary voters in ten to 20 years.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: Saying, yeah. We should be nationalizing whole industries. Whole industries, is so disturbing.

And I don't think that conservatives are -- understand how deeply rooted some of these ideas are with younger people.

GLENN: No. No.

And I will tell you, I think some conservatives are walking a very dangerous line. And, you know, coming up with a little mix of everything.

And -- and I think we have to be very careful on -- on what is being said. And who are WHO our friends and allies are.

By the way, that number again is 39 percent strongly agree.

37 percent somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree, 12 percent. Strongly disagree, 5 percent.

That is disastrous. Now, try this one on. These are the ones that have been -- we have new ones.

These are just a few of the ones that were released late last week. The next presidential election is in 2028. Would you like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election?

JUSTIN: Yep, 53 percent said yes.

Fifty-three percent of all voters said yes. And the most shocking thing, was that 35 percent of those who we poll, who said they voted for Donald Trump, in 2024, said that that they want to see a socialist win in 2028. And so about a third of Republicans, 35 percent of Trump voters, 43 percent of people who call themselves conservatives, so even on the right, among younger people. There is a large group that want a socialist president, in 2028.

GLENN: And the reason -- the reason is, it -- it tied into the next few questions. Okay.

So here's question five. Among the following options, which best describes your biggest reason, you would like to see a democratic socialist candidate. Thirty-one percent said housing costs are too high. Twelve percent, taxes are too low for corporations. Eleven percent, taxes are too low for wealthy have I seen.

Eight percent want single payer health care systems. Seventeen say the economy unfairly benefits older, wealthier Americans.

Fifteen percent say the economy unfairly benefits larger corporations. 5 percent, some other reason.

And 2 percent, unsure. Now, let's get into the new polls that were breaking today.

Question six.

How would you describe your current financial situation?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Only 24 percent said that they're doing well. Thirty-four -- 38 percent said getting by. Struggling 29 percent. Seven percent said in crisis. So if you add up just getting by, struggling, and in crisis, that's 74 percent said that they're just barely getting by, at best.

And I think that explains a lot of the other negative responses we've seen so far.

GLENN: That's not good.

JUSTIN: In this poll. And the ones that are going to come pretty soon here.

GLENN: Seven. Which best describes your personal life situation?

You are thriving, you're doing well with a few ups and downs. You feel stuck and uncertain. You feel lonely, disconnected, or emotionally drained. You're in a crisis and feel most negative about your personal life.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. About a third said that they feel stuck or uncertain. Lonely. Or that they're in a crisis.

That's a third of young people. Say that.

I mean, that's -- that's not great. Only 19 percent said thriving.

46 percent said, they have ups and downs. Which I think is not. Too shocking.

But the idea that there's a third of American voters out there, who feel like, they can't buy a home. And they feel like they are lonely. And that they're in crisis. And that life is not just going well at all for them.

Again, I think that's -- that's driving a lot of the support for socialism. When you have 53 percent of these people saying, yeah. I want a socialist president in 2028.

GLENN: So socialism is not the answer. It is the symptom. It is the symptom of what people are feeling right now.

And they -- they don't know any other -- they don't -- nobody is presenting them with anything other than, you know, Republican/Democrat bullcrap. And socialists are coming at it from a completely nigh angle. Or so the youth think it's the oldest and most failed system of all time.

But they're seeing this as a solution that is different than what the party -- the Republican/Democrats are offering. Even though the Democrats are offering the socialism thing.

Number eight, do you think the American economy is unfair to young people?

Sixty-two percent say yes.

JUSTIN: Yeah, and 27 percent said no.
And I think that this really gets at the heart of what the issue is here.

When you look at the reasons. When you look at the detailed things of the poll.

What -- to try to find out if there's an association between some kind of demographic or response question about people's lives and their support for socialism, to see if there's a correlation there between something that is happening. And whether someone is a socialist or not.

One of the top correlations, connections, is, if people think the economy is unfair.

And if they're having trouble buying a home. Or they don't think they can buy a home. Or that's one of their reasons for supporting socialism.

So, in other words, there's this fairness issue. And it's not even about inequality.

It's not about, well, they have too much -- well, if they feel like the -- to use a Trump term. Rigged.

And throughout the data. That's what we see over and over and over again. Is lots of people say, the economy is rigged. For older people. For wealthier people, for corporations. It's rigged. And if they say, yeah. I think it's rigged, you know, then they're more likely to say, yeah. I want a socialist.

And I also think the same group has a relatively high approval rating of Donald Trump.

It's because the reason that a lot of young people like Trump in the poll, is that he's not part of the establishment.

And I think -- I don't think they -- I think a lot of young people who voted for Trump and who liked Trump, they didn't do it, because they liked free market, pro-liberty policies. And that's not a good thing.

But I don't think that's why they did it. I think a lot of them voted for Trump and supported him, because he's not the establishment. And that's what they don't like. They want to blow the establishment up.

JUSTIN: So my -- Justin, my sample size is my two young adults. My two children.

And they're like, talking to me, and saying, Dad. I will never be able to own a home, looking at the prices, looking at interest rates. They're like, I can't even afford to pay rent at an apartment. And they don't know what to do.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JASON: And so they're looking at -- on, like, TikTok. And they're like, who is this Mamdani guy? This sounds interesting. They bring this to me. They grew up listening to me indoctrinating them their entire lives. They're looking at other voices like on TikTok. Are we just not being loud enough?

GLENN: No. We're not -- we're not connecting with them. We're not -- I feel like they don't feel they're being heard.

And we are speaking to them in red, white and be blue.

And that means nothing. The Statue of Liberty means nothing to them. Ellis Island means nothing to them. The flag means nothing to them.

It's all partisan politics.

They're all symbols of really, the two parties.

You know, and an America, they don't relate to at all.

I think that's -- that's our biggest problem, and not being able to break through. To your point, question nine. How confident are you that you will own a home at some point, in the next ten years?

29 percent say, they already own a home. Which I found interesting. That's -- I think a pretty high number for somebody who is 18 to 34 years old.

JUSTIN: Thirty-nine.

GLENN: Thirty-nine.

JUSTIN: Yeah.

GLENN: There's a lot of 18 to 30. That I didn't own home when I was, you know, 30. Just got a home when I was 30. But go ahead. Go ahead with the rest of that poll.

JUSTIN: Yeah. So then 21 percent said discouraged, but somewhat hopeful. 12 percent said, not confident. 10 percent said, you are convinced you will never own a home. 3 percent not sure.

So if you add up the negative responses, it's around 43 percent that gave that response.

GLENN: Right. But, again, 29 percent, you already own a home. And 25 percent you are confident you will own a home, is still good. It just -- these -- these other numbers, have, you know, discouraged, but hopefully you will own a home. Who is discouraging that? And how is that being discouraged?

You know, only 12 -- let's see 12. Twenty-two. 25 percent are not sure they will ever own a home. That's too high of a number.

But I -- I don't think that's completely dismal. Now, a completely dismal answer, to the question, would you support a law that would confiscate America's excess wealth?

Including things like second homes. Luxury cars, and private boats, in order to help young people buy a home for the first time?

Are you for or against that? We'll give you that number here in just a second.

GLENN: There are some disturbing results, that get very disturbing, going from here on.

We've got two of these today, and then more tomorrow.

We'll spend more time with you tomorrow, Justin.

But would you support a law that would confiscate American's excess wealth, including things like second home, luxury cars, and private boats in order to help young people buy a home for the first time? Get the results.

JUSTIN: Yeah, 25 percent strongly support that, 30 percent somewhat support it, 55 percent in total for support. Only 38 percent strongly or somewhat oppose, with just 20 percent saying strongly oppose. So the vast majority now is -- is supporting this Communistic policy to confiscate people's wealth in order to help people. Younger people buy homes, which is in line with that question, we talked about earlier. Where it said, you know, three-quarters of these respondents wanted to nationalize whole industries to make things fairer. So it's all about -- it's all about this sense of unfairness that exists.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: And they feel like. Young people feel like the system is rigged. They feel like neither party is on their side, and they want to blow the whole thing up, by just taking wealth away from people, nationalizing whole industries, and redistributing it all.

And guess what, that's basically the democratic socialist platform. So it's not a surprise that that's -- that's becoming increasingly more popular with these young people.

And I don't think that free market, pro-liberty people are dealing with -- with this.

GLENN: No.

JUSTIN: In a real way.

In fact, I think a lot of us have believed recently that the wind is at our backs, and we're actually winning more and more young people over.
And that isn't what's happening according to the poll results.

GLENN: It explains why the Democrats have not moved their position off of the socialism stuff.

Doesn't it?

We keep saying, why? It's not working with anybody.

It is working. It is working with people under 39.

18 to 39-year-olds are hearing this message, and are embracing this message.

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.