RADIODecember 06, 2023

BETTER options for TIME's 'Person of the Year' than Taylor Swift

TIME Magazine has named Taylor Swift its 'Person of the Year' for 2023 and Glenn and Stu have some ... thoughts. Yes, Swift has cemented herself as one of the most popular people in the world. But she also ruined football for Stu. So, are there any better options for person of the year? Glenn and Stu go through a few, including who the leftists should really choose: The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn who shockingly made excuses for anti-Semitic chants and threats. How, in the world of freakouts over "microagressions," can you make excuses for calling for the genocide?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Stu, who would you choose? Who would you choose?

Think of the entire year, all of the things that have happened. Who?

Who would be the person of the year?

STU: Wow. Well, they usually name some horrible dictator.

You know what, the Hamas freedom fighter.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: Person of the year. Yes. There you go. No?

GLENN: Not the Israeli story.

Soldier. I think Hamas would have had a better chance of winning it.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: That's not who it was.

Come on. Come on.

Person of the year. Hmm.

STU: I mean, Zelinsky?

GLENN: Let me give you -- no. He's already --

STU: Putin?

GLENN: No.

STU: How about Zelinsky and Putin, arm and arm on the cover?

No.

GLENN: Let me give you a hint.

With yet another dramatic reading.

Our secret moments in your crowded room. They have no idea about me and you. There's an indentation in the shape of you. Made your mark on me, golden tattoo.

You know yet?

STU: No.

GLENN: All this silence of patience, hiding in anticipation. My hands are shaking from holding back from you. Oh. Oh. Oh.

All of this silence and patience, pining and desperately waiting. My hands are shaking from all of this. Oh. Oh. Oh.

STU: Sounds like a person with an issue.

GLENN: Say my name, and everything just stops. I don't like you like a best friend. Only bought this dress so you could take it off.

Take it off.

STU: -- I appreciate at you not reading anymore of this. Whatever it is.

GLENN: Really? Come on. Who is it? Who is it?

STU: It sounds very interesting. And I would really like to know.

GLENN: It's the bicycle woman that just won.

STU: The bicycle woman?

GLENN: Yeah. The won that just won the bicycle race. You know, the guy who -- the --

STU: Wait. The transgendered guy who won the bicycle --

GLENN: Yeah. The women's bicycle race.

STU: I don't know who that person's name is.

GLENN: I only bought this dress so you could take it off.

You don't think that TIME Magazine would do the transgender movement?

STU: Maybe the male athletes. Trans women in sports is the person of the year?

GLENN: Yes. No.

STU: Did they write a very mediocre song?

GLENN: No. It is, of course, Taylor Swift.

STU: Oh. Tay Tay, congratulations.

GLENN: Person of the year. Now, I don't think that's shallow.

STU: I mean, she's a big entertainer.

GLENN: She is a big entertainer. She is a big entertainer.

STU: You know, lots of impact on my football watching. I got to see.

GLENN: I just want to bring it up because I know how much she means to you.

STU: She does.

I get to hear the pitch of, hey, did you know a player on your favorite team is related to the person who is dating this woman that you don't care about?

Let me talk about it for 48 straight minutes.

That's -- I love that, in every NFL broadcast.

GLENN: I know you do.

STU: But no. Taylor Swift. I mean, look, you can -- she had a heck of a year.

GLENN: Oh, she did.

STU: It really was an amazing year.

GLENN: She did. She's the entertainer to do.

STU: If you're going to give it to an entertainer, she's the obvious choice.

GLENN: Her or Jimmy Fallon. What a year he had.

STU: Trevor Noah. Would you put -- there's another one. But if you will give it to an entertainer -- it feels like there's a lot going on this year.

GLENN: She's the one. No. What was happening?

STU: There were multiple wars that broke out.

GLENN: Huh. Really?

STU: Yeah. Kind of had that. You had a lot of stuff going on, that was of large impact.

But maybe --

GLENN: The whistle-blowers? They would have been --

STU: Which ones?

The Hunter Biden ones? Any of the anti -- the ones that pointed out that we were just targeting Catholics for no reason, and calling them terrorists. Which ones -- none of them, by the way, that you would mention, would go to this. Unless it's a whistle-blower like Donald Trump. Then you have a chance.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

Sure. But how about the Ivy League presidents of Harvard MIT?

I mean, they're women. And they were -- they were fantastic, yesterday.

Fantastic on anti-Semitism.

STU: They've been very strong on that.

GLENN: They have been.

STU: Very strong.

GLENN: They're very anti-Semitic.

I mean, they're very good on that.

STU: You can put Rashida Tlaib. She's been the queen of the anti-Semites.

GLENN: Well, I think it's pretty hard to -- let me play a little of the testimony on Capitol Hill.

From the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn. They were asked about, you know, the calls for genocide, of all the Jews on their campus.

Listen to this.

VOICE: At MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment. Yes or no?

VOICE: Targeting individuals, not making public statements.

VOICE: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?

VOICE: I have not heard of calling for the genocide of Jews on our campus.

VOICE: But you've heard of chants for Antifa?

VOICE: I have heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic, depending on the context, calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. I just have to say. I have heard chants on campus. That could in the right context, be anti-Semitic.

Calling for the genocide of the Jewish people.

STU: Well, sometimes, when you call for the genocide of Jews. You're not being anti-Semitic at all.

You're looking for more living space.

Living space. That was a big -- that was another catchphrase, you might remember from Mystery. A living space.

GLENN: Not for them. But for us.

STU: For us. We need to spread out. Spread our wings out a little bit. Not enough room for the German people. They love our living space.

GLENN: All right. So she's heard chants that could --

STU: In theory. Now, we're not going to say that they were.

GLENN: No, they could be anti-Semitic in the right context.

You know, I don't know what context it would be anti-Semitic to say, we should have a genocide of all the Jews.

STU: There's probably one, though. Somewhere out there.

If we really searched.

GLENN: Okay. Let's continue.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: So those would not be according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules?

VOICE: That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. If pervasive and severe.

Now, I think anybody standing at a rally, chanting death or genocide to all the Jews, I don't know. I think that's pretty severe.

STU: I would say, it is pretty severe.

And it seems, if it doesn't violate your code of conduct. Perhaps your code of conduct needs to be adjusted.

GLENN: Right. Did you go to Harvard, though?

STU: I did not.

I don't know what his policy is.

GLENN: I don't either. I don't either.

And I don't understand, you know, the intellect of Harvard. Let's go to MIT where they're even smarter.

VOICE: Ms. McGill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or a code of conduct? Yes or no?

VOICE: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Okay. Stop.

So --

STU: Interesting. Interesting.

GLENN: So if they're changing "death to all the Jews," and then -- but they round them all up.

STU: That's not -- and then they actually kill all Jews.

GLENN: Then it's harassment.

STU: At that point. Once they've wiped out all the Jews, we're going to act. Okay?

GLENN: Hey, they can build showers. They can build gas chambers. But the minute they start to use them.

STU: Well, and technically the speech is calling for genocide. So they probably have to wipe them all out before we act. That's when our code of conduct will kick in.

When there's no Jews left. We will be like, you know what, hey, guys, stop. And I bet they will at that point.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Here we go.

Well, there won't be any left.

STU: Right.

VOICE: Specifically calling for the genocide of Jews. Does that constitute bullying or harassment?

VOICE: If it is directed and severe and pervasive, it is harassment?

VOICE: So the answer is yes?

VOICE: It is a context-dependent decision. That's your testimony today, calling for the genocide of Jews?

GLENN: Context.

VOICE: It's based upon the context. That is not bullying or harassment?

PAT: This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. McGill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes?

VOICE: If it -- if it --

VOICE: Yes or no?

VOICE: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment, yes.

VOICE: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment?

This is unacceptable, Ms. McGill. I'm going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews, violate Penn's code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

VOICE: It can be harassment.

VOICE: The answer is yes for him.

And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews, violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?

Yes or no?

VOICE: It can be, depending on the context.

VOICE: What's the context?

VOICE: Targeted as an individual. Targeted at an individual.

VOICE: It's targeted at Jewish students. Jewish individuals.

Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them?

Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism?

I will ask you one more time, does calling for the genocide of enjoys, violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?

Yes or no?

VOICE: Anti-Semitic rhetoric -- anti-Semitic rhetoric when it crosses into conduct. It amounts to bullying and harassment --

GLENN: I can't believe this. I can't believe this.

If you have a microaggression, which is not saying --

STU: Right.

GLENN: -- we should kill all of you.

Okay? A microaggression, they need a safe space.

Everybody needs to go cry. And be protected.

STU: If you use the wrong pronouns. They put these things in these categories.

And calling for the genocide of Jews.

You know what, if it's targeted toward an individual. Well, technically, if you're calling for the genocide of the whole race, it's not targeted at an individual. It's all individuals.

Every single one of them.

So I guess, maybe that's their out.

Also, I will say, you know, that's one of the best grilling -- I mean, that is -- she did a really good job of that.

GLENN: Oh, really good job.

STU: Now, I will say, it should have been easy for them to say.

You can look at. What you don't maybe get on radio.

The faces of these women, as they are trying to answer these questions.

They are so smug, and so like, oh, this -- she -- I see what you're trying to do here.

And I'm not going to fall for it.

Well, it depends on the content.

GLENN: Hang on. What are you trying to do there?

STU: Yeah. You're trying to trap her.

To make them say the Palestinian protestor kids are bad.

It's like, yeah. When they're calling for the genocide of the Jews, yeah, they are. You should be able to say that. With real confidence.

GLENN: Yes. Should be really easy. By the way.

STU: Even more confident than the pronoun mistake. That you will throw ten kids out of your school for next week.

GLENN: Here is a Jewish student. That is suing UPenn, describing anti-Semitism.

VOICE: On October 7th, Israel was attacked.

Since October 7th, American Jews have been under attack. My name is Aioli Cody (phonetic), and I'm a proud American, studying at the University of Pennsylvania.

I love Penn. I have wanted to attend this university since before I could remember.

I am here because the Penn I attend today is unrecognizable from the Penn I once used to know.

Penn, once renowned for groundbreaking discoveries, like the mRNA vaccine, is now a chilling landscape of hatred and hostility.

Our university revered for its pursuit of knowledge, has devolved into an arena where Jewish students tiptoe through their days, on certain and unsafe.

Not only are tensions palpable, but there have also been materialized actions to intimidate and harm students, a bomb threat against Halal, a swastika spray-painted, the Hilal and Shabbat houses vandalized. A professor in the armed wing of Hamas' logo on Facebook. A Jewish student accosted. Jews are Nazis, etched adjacent to Penn's Jewish fraternity house.

Why doesn't the University hold the perpetrators of such acts accountable?

Is the university fearful that they may offend those who wish to intimidate and harass their fellow students.

Penn's ambivalence fuels a crisis that is shattered by academic sanctuary.

Policies meant to safeguard us, have become hollow promises. And let us be clear, if they fail Jewish students today, tomorrow they will fail the rest of us.

GLENN: It was powerful. Yesterday was a very powerful day.

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.