RADIOMarch 18, 2025

Unveiling the Truth: What the JFK Files Really Reveal

President Trump is releasing the JFK Files after decades of secrecy. But Glenn warns: it’s important that we don’t chase the “who.” The question that really matters is, WHAT were they protecting? Was the government hiding the illusion of competence? Do these documents reveal the Deep State of the 60s? Did Lee Harvey Oswald have help? Did elements of our government look the other way? Or were they trying to stop the domino effect? Glenn predicts that the Kennedy Files aren’t about Oswald. They’re about us. If we can stare down 1963, we can demand 2024’s truth too. The “what” they’ve protected has kept us blind. Trump is betting we can handle it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to talk to you about the JFK files. Which were three hours -- two hours away from being released now.

If you're listening to us live.

Two hours away. And I'm interested to see what's in it.

Tulsi Gabbard is the one who is overseeing it. Representative Anna Paulina Luna. She has been relentlessly pushing for this since February. Trump has seen all the files.

He calls them, quote, very interesting, but he's leaving the judgment up to us.

Now, very interesting is different than when he said, he was talked into making sure, they don't go out. By others.

He didn't name the others.

But here we are, 62 years after Kennedy was killed here in Dallas.

And we're finally getting the vault cracked open?

I think it's important, and I could be wrong on this. I think it's important for us to not look and chase the Who. But there was somebody else in the grassy knoll.

There might have been. I don't know. I don't think that's what we were looking at though. I think we're looking at the "what." Not who they have been protecting, but what have they been protecting?
Why has it taken so long?

And not for names, but for the principles, the systems. The intangibles, that have been buried with these papers.

The steaks are pretty high here. You know, what happens if we get 80,000 pages and there's, meh. I mean, that's a possibility.

That's going to be really bad for the conspiracy theorists.

Because they're going to say, see. They didn't release it all. 80,000 pages, and they didn't release it all.

The question that has to be answered is, why did it take this long?

Let's go back.

Look at the steaks. November 22nd. 1963. Kennedy is shot.

And America changes at that moment.

I mean, our innocence goes away.

We have a president that is killed. And our innocence takes a bullet as well.

And the Warren commission pins it on Oswald.

But the doubts fester. Witnesses. Ballistics. Missing pieces.

The note from Evelyn Lincoln, the secretary of Kennedy.

Who said, I -- my husband, was in a restaurant, two days before President Kennedy was going to Dallas.

And overheard two people in the booth saying, well, he will be dead. He won't come back from Dallas.

Her husband listened to it, called the White House. And said, Evelyn, you've got to tell him not to go. She went in. And told President Kennedy, my husband just overheard a plot.

He said, if -- Evelyn, they're going to kill me in Dallas. They're going to kill me, going to my churchgoing on Sunday.

They will kill me one way or thorough. So I'm not changing my life.

Two days later, he was dead. Now, the witnesses, the ballistics, the missing pieces, tomorrow I am going out. I will do some live thing out, with just -- on, I don't know, X. We have the exact copy of the gun. I don't know if there is another one like it. Because it -- it took -- a friend of ours, Paul Vienes (phonetic). He is from the World War II museum, the Museum of the American soldier down in College Station. And it's this great museum.

And he is -- I mean, you put him on something, and he is like a dog with a bone. He's not going to stop. And it took him like two years to re-create this rifle. And to get exactly the rifle, it's very -- kind of a rare rifle in itself.

It's impossible to find the scope that he used.

And it was augmented in different ways. And so Paul has put this whole rifle together.

He brought it up. Gave it to our museum. And I will take the rifle out. We've had to go order, because it takes special shells as well.

So we will -- we will go out to the range tomorrow or the next day. And we will try to do the shots.

And I am bringing a couple of sharpshooters as well. I know I won't be able to do it. I might be able to hit the shot, but I don't know if I'll be able to hit the time. Maybe a couple of sharpshooters can do it. I don't know!

But it's not an easy shot. It's not an easy shot. But it could be done.

Here's the problem: In 1992, Congress passed a law saying, release everything by 2017, that isn't a national security risk.

Well, that deadline passed over and over and over again. And we got it in dribs and drabs. Now Trump is saying, release all of it.

80,000 pages, unfiltered.

On what's the -- what?

They have been guarded. I don't think it's a who. It's a what.

What have they been guarding?

It's got to be something kind of big, right? So what could it be?

Let's go through some of the options. Maybe what they've been covering or hiding, is the illusion of competence.

What if they've been protecting the myth that the government knows what its doing. We're totally competent.

No, you're really not. Don't ever show any of this stuff.

Because it will show how bad you really were. You had Oswald in your sites, so to speak.

And you did nothing. You just dropped the ball.

That could very well be it.

Just the hiding the illusion of competence.

I suspect we'll find that. 1963 was absolutely chaotic.

Cold War paranoia. CIA plots against Castro. FBI fumbling domestic threats.

Maybe the files just show Keystone Cops. Missed signals. Botched surveillance.

Agencies tripping over. Like the Keystone cops. Or Charlie chaplain follies. You know, okay. George.

Releasing that in the '60s, maybe even in the '90s, could have tanked public faith when we needed it. But we don't have any faith left, does anybody think our government is competent?

Really? Honestly?

Any? Bueller. Vietnam was heating up at the time.

The Soviets were watching.

If the files prove Kennedy died, just because of screwups, not masterminds. They're not hiding the villain.

They're hiding fragility. I think that's the most likely what, that we're going to find. That we are just the Keystone cops!

Okay. Option two. And feel free, Stu, to though an option here.

Option two. I am so sick and tired of carrying this whole show on my back. I carry you every day.

Option two. The architecture of power. This one is structural. What if those 80,000 pages map how decisions got made? How intelligence, military, and politics intertwined in ways that we're not supposed to see? Not a who shot him, but how did we operate? Think about this.

Kennedy was pushing back on the CIA. After the Bay of Pigs.

He was telling the pentagon follow-up, no.

On Cuba.

He was telling the pentagon. I'm going to get rid of all our nuclear programs.

I will negotiate with Russia. I will stop these never-ending wars.

Maybe it's the files revealing a machine that doesn't bend. And a network of influence, that outlasts any president.

Maybe it is go that reveals the Deep State that was happening back then. And they haven't held it back, because they're protecting a guilty party. But to shield the blueprint, you expose that, and you don't just rewrite 1963. You question every power play ever since.

The what, is the skeleton of authority, itself.

That's a pretty good option. Right?

Okay.

As I see it, option number three. The ghost of democracy!

What if they've been protecting the story that we tell ourselves about who we are. Kennedy's death wasn't just a tragedy, it was a mirror.

If those files say Oswald had help. Foreign or domestic. And I think this is the least likely.

If Oswald had help, foreign or domestic, or that elements of our own government looked the other way. That's possible.

It's not just history. It's an indictment. I don't know in 1963, if we could have handled that. Riots were coming. MLK. RFK would fall next. You know, maybe they locked it away, to preserve the what, of American exceptionalism. The belief that we're the good guys.

I shouldn't say that. Because I think we're the good guys. That our government and the&its many, many agencies are the good guy. So the delays about keeping that narrative alive, even if it's a lie! Fourth option.

And this one is pragmatic, but a little profound. What if the what, is the precedent of exposure?

The JFK files, and you can't stop there. We release the JFK files, we're going to say, now release Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump's brush with a bullet. Secret Service whistleblowers are already saying, the shooter wasn't a lone wolf. He was modeled. A product of a tactic that we've used abroad. And the product of a tactic that they say, we're not only using currently. But I say we were using at the time of JFK as well.

And I'm not saying that we did it. But that's what whistle-blowers in the service, is they're now saying, that that's what Butler, Pennsylvania, was all about. So if those 80,000 pages spill secrets, methods, failures, cover-ups.

It's a road map for the next demand.

Butler's files. The 9/11 loose ends.

Every classified corner.

They held it to not hide the Kennedy truth, but to protect the dam from breaking!

The what is the containment of accountability itself!

Keep everything secret.

And, you know, that's -- that's what our government does.

Thee keep, they're overclassifying everything.

Why?

Why?

Why is the left freaking out so much about DOGE?

Because there's a lot to hide there. And that's just in comparison to this kind of stuff.

That's just corruption, or waste, or incompetence.

One of the options. Maybe we're just not competent. We weren't in 1963. We know we're not now. Maybe that's what they're hiding.

Or was it -- was there more going on? Kennedy's era because of the Cold War, it was just nothing, but proxies and shadows.

And what we were doing then, became doctrine. It's why we were still at NATO. Why the hell are we still at NATO?

What is it that we're keeping at bay from NATO?

Why at least are we not demanding that the other countries start defending themselves a little bit more?

Because it's just -- it's the way it's done now.

I -- I have to tell you, the worst thing that will happen, is there's nothing in this. That the average person goes, I don't know what they were hiding.

Because if that happens, conspiracy theories go through the roof.

I mean, remember, this is from the guy who told you in what, 2005.

Or '6. You will see the time. If the government doesn't correct what they're doing right now. This was under George Bush. If they don't correct this kind of secrecy and everything right now. You will see a time where many Americans. 20 percent of Americans. It was at 6 or 7 percent at the time. Will say, we never went to the moon! We never went to the moon! Look at where we are! Look how many people are saying, we never went to the moon. We never went to the moon.

STU: And this is the thing, with like most conspiracy theories, there's no way to disprove them.

GLENN: No, I know. I know.

STU: If what comes out of this, eh, actually, we know most of the story. And it was a major failure.

But there's no -- no big conspiracy behind it. The people who have believed this, this whole time, will do exactly what you said. They'll say, well, they must be hiding all of the real stuff. Somewhere I know. I know.

There's no win.

STU: There's no live forever.

GLENN: That's why you should just release stuff going forward.

Just release it. You hold it back like this. You're not helping. You're just making things much, much worse.

Here's why it matters. Secrets have to be outed. Not for gospel. Not for revenge.

But when you bury the what, competence, power, identity, whatever.

You bury the ability to fix it. The Kennedy files, I'm guessing, not about him. They're not about Oswald.

They're about us. If we can stare down 1963, we can then demand 2024's truth as well. The what they've protected has kept us blind! Tomorrow, maybe we see!

And when we do, we don't just read it. We rebuild!

That's what's at stake today.

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.