RADIOFebruary 26, 2025

Why the FREAK OUT About Trump's Reciprocal Tariff Plan Makes NO SENSE

“I am very supportive of the President’s tariffs,” former West Virginia State Treasurer and current U.S. Representative Riley Moore tells Glenn. In fact, he has introduced a bill to codify Trump’s agenda through Congress. Rep. Moore explains his “US Reciprocal Trade Act” and how it will help American businesses and workers: “The American people and the American worker have been taken for a ride for a very long time…at the end of the day, nobody wants high tariffs. What this president has proven is when you go out here and you reciprocate, you’re going to lower tariffs and get more free trade.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Congressman Riley Moore.

Welcome!

How are you, Riley?

RILEY: I'm doing great. Thanks for having me back on.

GLENN: Great. It's good to have you. Do you like being a congressman over a State Treasurer? What do you think so far?

RILEY: Well, so far so good. I wish being around West Virginia. The sane people. In the state of West Virginia. You know, it's something I certainly prayed on a lot, and certainly I need a lot of prayers for God's protection when you're down here. No doubt about it.

GLENN: I know. So you are a guy who understands things as a Treasurer, you understand the economy, et cetera, et cetera.

So tell me what you think about Trump's tariffs, and what he's actually doing.

RILEY: Yeah. So I'm very supportive of the president's tariffs. I've actually introduced -- called it the US reciprocal trade act. And specifically, what the president is trying to do here and what I'm trying to address in my bill. In short, we're being taken for a ride. The American people, and the American worker, have been taken for a ride for a very long time.

Now, what my bill does is it addresses non-tariff trade barriers that are there, so that could be a vat. That could be a regulation. It could be government subsidies. That act like a tariff for our manufacturers to be able to enter into that marketplace.

Right?

A lot of hidden costs in there. Now, the president, what he wants to do is be able to reciprocate with all these countries that have high tariffs. What I want to do is allow to give them more latitude, to be able to reciprocate on these non-tariff areas because at the end of the day, nobody wants high tariffs.

What the president has proven is when you go out here, and you reciprocate. You will lower being tariffs. And you will get more free trade. Everyone who is freaking out about this. Oh, no. This is going to be terrible for the consumer.

This is going to be great for the consumer in the long run. And guess what, it's going to be great for the American worker. And the blue-collar worker. And the same point here --

GLENN: Riley, he is playing, I think five dimensional chess.

I mean, I've not been a fan of tariffs. They generally are not good for the economy. And the free market.

But the reciprocal tariff is just saying, I just want free, fair trade. I don't want any tariff. But if you will raise a tariff. Then I will balance the field by giving you exactly the same tariff.

Now, how do you do that, with that? How does your bill actually make, you know, all the subsidies. For instance, Airbus.

How are you balancing that?

RILEY: Right. So it will allow the USTR, to be able to calculate that, and they will come up with a value, in terms of what that looks like. In a nontariff sense.

Right?

What is that value? What is that -- inhibitor into our entrance into that marketplace. So it gives them latitude over US VR to be able to determine that. We have to be able to have the ability to negotiate on those aspects of that. A tariff. A US automobile in Europe right now. Might be right around 10 percent, but really, it's more like 25 percent. Right?

Because all of these nontariff areas that aren't quite --

GLENN: Is it going to pass? Are you going to be able to get it? There are eight sponsors to this bill.

RILEY: Eight sponsors. I mainly sponsored Marjorie Taylor Greene, her and I worked on this. We will continue to pick up more sponsors, particularly the president has started to lean in on this. And people have to -- everybody knows, Glenn. You are a huge US history expert.

You know this. Just flashback to prerevolutionary war. And one of the aspects, and issues that we have, with the British at that time. They were taking our raw goods and materials, shifting them over, to Britain, to then become finished goods. That they would export back over to us.

Does that sound familiar to anybody? That's what's happening to us, right now with the Chinese.

It's literally what's happening right now. But instead of that, it's our intellectual property. It's our technology know-how. And they're building it over there. And shipping it back to us.

GLENN: So he says that the tariffs are going to make us rich, because we will collect so much tax dollars.

But actually if -- I mean, if this works, and everybody just kind of plays fair with each other. Your tariff is not collecting that much money.

We still have to have a serious look at cutting our budget. And also, our taxes. Correct?

RILEY: Correct. Because I would say -- you're going to have some -- some revenue on that. But in the long-term, we're trying to correct a behavior here. Now, this is a -- an example that I've used before. Not that I'm in favor of this. Because I didn't support the same legislature.

But if you think about something like --

GLENN: You keep breaking up. Are you there?

RILEY: Oh, yeah, I'm there. Can you hear me, Glenn?

GLENN: Yes.

RILEY: An example to think about would be, say like a cigarette tax, which I'm not in favor of. But what they're trying to do is change the behavior on the other side. So you might get some revenue in the beginning. But eventually, people will come off of cigarettes. Right?

So it's the same way you can think to an extent to tariffs. We're trying to correct a way that the foreign countries are dealing with us with be and bringing it to a more level playing field. As the president said, he's for free trade. But for fair trade.

This is not a long-term play though, I don't think.

GLENN: I'm talking just a few minutes to one of the congressmen that are on the DOGE oversight committee.

And I can't figure out what's real and what's not on these numbers. You know, the Wall Street Journal said, I think it's only $6 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal that they've cut. I'm really not excited about anything, until we get over a trillion dollars in cuts. And I'm not sure that that -- that we're serious enough to do that. And certainly, in Congress, we're not serious about cutting. Are we?

AARON: Well, I can tell you, that I am.

And, you know, this budget resolution, that they're going to have on the floor today, has a floor itself within it. Provides some guard rails in there for one and a half trillion dollars in cuts.

GLENN: Yeah. But isn't that like an 85 trillion-dollar bill over ten years? You're only cutting. I mean, really?

RILEY: Yeah, so that's over the ten-year window. You're right. So that's over the ten-year window. So -- and the way I've talked about it. And I've talked to people. They're like, oh, it's one and a half trillion dollars. What if it gets to $2 trillion? Well, one, it's over the ten-year window. What you're saying, we will reduce let's say $200 billion a year to $2 trillion. If this place tomorrow, woke up and said, they wanted to spend 200 more billion dollars a year, they would do it in a nanosecond.

GLENN: Yeah, and you wouldn't feel it. In Washington, they wouldn't feel it.

They have to cut 10 percent! At least 10 percent from this, and to cut a billion dollars is nothing in an almost 90 -- or trillion. 1 trillion. Out of almost a 90 trillion dollar budget.

Is -- is frankly, pathetic. And a slap in the face, to people who are actually serious. And voted for serious reform.

RILEY: Yeah. And we do have to get more serious on this.

And I do think though, I mean, the things that we're seeing from DOGE, if people have the intestinal fortitude, which I'm one of these. To actually take what they're doing, and put it into law. They can pause this spending.

GLENN: Yes.

RILEY: But if we don't put it into law, it will be reappropriated in the next year.

GLENN: Yes. So the -- that's so incredible.

The -- I think the American people, I don't know if you saw what Christopher Rufo came out with as an exposé about what is happening.

RILEY: I did not.

GLENN: Oh, look it up. I won't waste your time now. Look it up. It's one of the most the bust things I've seen.

What our Intel community is doing, on our secure servers.

Where they're -- they're -- they're having the -- the most vile sex talk stuff. And NSA says it was important.

Because it was, you know, DEI crap. It's -- it's just vile.

I think when the American people start to see how our money was spent. And some of these things, when they come out and they are out in the open, and they are shown to be absolutely true. I have to tell you, I think Donald Trump is -- is running so fast. And the American people like that.

And if the Republicans don't start moving at his speed, to make massive changes, they're not going to -- they're not going to be in favor with the American people.

RILEY: No. And they won't show up. Right? And they won't show up in 2026, and rightfully so. If we don't get to the speed of Donald Trump and start cutting in the manner, in which particularly DOGE is -- Obviously, this is so frustrating for me, coming then from state government. We balance our budget every year. Every year!

GLENN: Right.

RILEY: Balanced budget. No problem. And guess what, when we come up short, what do we do?

We cut. When the Democrats are in charge, they tax. We cut, and we got our way there. Balance our budget every year.

GLENN: Yeah, well, and the other thing is, and I would love to hear your opinion on this. I don't know why we're just shifting money around in the Pentagon. I want the defense budget.

And I'm somebody who believes in defense. Strong defense.

But we have to cut everything. Including defense.

Why are we not cutting the 8 percent?

We're just moving that money around? According to Hegseth.

RILEY: I could not agree with you hoar.

Everything has got to take a cut. And I'm a big believer of national defense.

Huge believer. But everybody has got to do more with less.

Because everyone in America is doing more with less.

GLENN: Is doing that. Yes. Yes.

Riley, thank you. Thank you very much. We'll be watching what happens to your tariffs.

You are introducing that, when? To the floor.

RILEY: We just got it introduced, here last week.

And so we're actually working with the White House on the bills right now, as we speak.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Good.

Thank you so much for everything you're doing. And congratulations on -- or my condolences on being a member of Congress now.

RILEY: Well, thank you. I appreciate it.

GLENN: From West Virginia. Congressman Riley Moore.

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.