The 'ALL NEW! BIGGER! NICER!' Glenn Beck?!?! You've been missing out mainstream media

The media has had a lot to say about Glenn's recent interview with Megyn Kelly. Piers Morgan and Joe Scarborough praised Glenn for being introspective and took it as a moment to do a little self-reflection of their own on the heated rhetoric that takes place on cable news. Others, like a CNN panel on Thursday, were left wondering where this "new" Glenn Beck was coming from and why he was suddenly standing up for gay rights (or to use a better term, human rights) and uniting principles.

Well, clearly the media hasn't really been paying attention as this "ALL NEW! BIGGER! NICER!" Glenn Beck has been around for a while now (although Glenn has managed to redefine the term bigger through the growth of TheBlaze...and his waistline). Glenn hasn't really changed, he's just been living by the principles and values he's been espousing for years, people are just now paying attention.

Glenn opened the TV show today catching the media up on what they may have missed over the past few years:

The below is based off the transcript to the opening monologue of 1.23.2013 episode of The Glenn Beck Program

Hello, America, and welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and to TheBlaze.  This is the network that you are building, and I want to start with something that is referred to as the seven national crimes.  And here they are:  I don’t think, I don’t know, I don’t care, I am too busy, I leave well enough alone, I have no time to read and think of these things, I’m not interested.

Okay, these are the seven national crimes.  This was written by a guy from Germany around the turn of the century, and if these are true, and I think they are, this is what’s gotten us here.  If these are true, then the opposite of these must be virtues – thinking, knowing, taking the time to read, become interested, right?  Speaking out, becoming interested, educating yourself, and then speaking out, those should be treasured.  Okay?

This really is not a new concept.  This is just one of those uniting principles.  We should be able to agree that all of those are national crimes because if the entire country says those things, bad.  Not new thinking, 2,500 years ago, you go to Euripides, and he said this: “This is slavery, not to speak one’s thought.”  That’s pretty good.  That’s slavery.  You’re a slave if you can’t say what you’re thinking.

Fast-forward, 1700s, Voltaire said, really important phrase, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”  That one I think I have quoted over and over again.  I don’t have to agree with you, but you have a right to say it.  This is really, because of this kind of language where you really meant I’ll fight till the end for your right to say something, this is where tenure came from.

You can’t have people who are talking about science or they’re talking about God or they’re talking about politics or anything, they cannot be afraid that you’re going to kill them or fire them, right?  And it goes against everything that is in our makeup, our DNA, as a country.  The founders made this really, really clear in their commitment to free speech.  That’s why it’s amendment number one.

You have a right to believe in God or not believe in God.  You have a right to speak and not fear that you’re going to be thrown in jail.  And the implications of a society without free speech, well, it’s clear, it’s North Korea.  Okay, so now let me do a health check on our freedom of speech and if we’re even thinking anymore.  Let me give you a few stories.

Actress Maria Conchita Alonso, she was fired just this last week because she openly supported a Tea Party candidate.  I know, crazy.  Now, first of all, she’s going to be on Dana’s show tomorrow night, but I find that astounding.  Is that not Hollywood blacklisting, except it’s not with Communists; it’s with small government people?

Andrew Cuomo said Conservatives are not welcome in New York.  I said earlier this week isn’t that what they said to Martin Luther King and the freedom riders, you’re not welcome in this state, go read a book?  That was the quote from the governor.  Well, Bob Beckel called me names, I guess yesterday, because I called Cuomo out on this and compared him to the governors of the South in the 60s.

Bob Beckel:  That may be the most foolish, ridiculous, disgraceful…no wonder the son of a bitch is off the TV. 

Q:  Why?

Bob Beckel:  Because he equates Andrew Cuomo with one of the most racist governors there were who allowed black people to be lynched in his state, who never put together a jury, never allowed any blacks on a jury, and he, Glenn Beck, is equating him with Cuomo, Governor Cuomo.  It’s ridiculous.  He ought to leave the state.

I don’t know why people even would think about putting him on television or want to be around him.  Bob, life does not have to be so angry all the time.  It’s not surprising that somebody like Bob Beckel would resort to name calling because, not anything to do with Bob Beckel, but because of Cuomo’s position.  It is absolutely indefensible to say if you’re pro-life you’re not welcome in this state.

Okay, there’s some bad news.  Let me give you some good news.  Bill Nye the Science Guy, I think he’s really offensive on the way he treats people of religion because he doesn’t believe in creationism.  He believes in evolution.  And that’s fine, whatever, to each his own, but now, here’s the good news, he is willing to actually have a debate with Ken Ham and debate their positions, the merits of evolution versus creation.  That’s fantastic.  This is the way we’re supposed to be.

But as I’m reading the article today, here’s what caught my attention, Richard Dawkins and other atheists are begging Nye not to do the debate.  Why?  Because they say it gives the idea of creation credibility and, I want to quote, “creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society and Nye is about to treat it as an equal, debatable controversy.”  Now, this is Richard Dawkins.

Now, that’s quite a claim, because nobody can prove how the world began, right?  We know that.  So how does Richard Dawkins think the world began?  Because if you’re saying look, to treat, you know, there is a God, and he created people through intelligent design as equal, debatable, it’s ridiculous.  But what does he believe?  How does he say the world began?  Look at this clip from Ben Stein’s Expelled, an interview with Richard Dawkins.

It’s amazing because remember, uneducated and worthless opinion to say God did it.  It has no credibility, but what is the possibility that Dawkins is entertaining as the origin of life?

Stein:  So you have no idea how it started?

Dawkins:  No, nor has anybody.

Stein:  Nor has anyone else.  What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

Dawkins:  Well, it could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.

Now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Come here.  Okay, let me ask you a question, what did he just say?  He said God, it’s ridiculous, God created things.  There’s no evidence of God at all.  It’s ridiculous.  You have no place in even a debate in real conversation, you know?  If you want to have an intelligent conversation about who created life here on this planet, I mean, aliens, we could go to the aliens.  Really?  Do you have any evidence of aliens?  Do you have the evidence of anything?  No, we don’t know.

The point is here, I believe in God.  I believe he created the heavens and the earth.  I got it.  That’s where I am.  Now, I may die and wake up in a void of blackness or not wake up as the case may be, and I may go crap, the whole time there’s been no God.  Oh well, that belief in God made me a better person.  I don’t have any idea how God creates.  I’ve no idea.

This is the most ridiculous argument because we’re not going to figure it out, but to act like you do know that that’s ridiculous, and you’re saying well, the alien thing makes a lot of sense – come on, man.  Come on, really?  Can’t we just be comfortable enough to say I don’t know the answer?  You don’t know the answer either.  He said it there.  He was there.  Nobody knows.  Good, so why can’t we hear out each other’s opinions?

Why can’t we…why is it so surprising to say hey, gay people shouldn’t be put into the ovens like that fascist in Russia says?  Why is that surprising to say, hey, I think we should all get together and stand against that one?  Why is it wrong to say hey, if gay couples want to get married, cool, dude, whatever, but don’t tell me that I have to change my church?  If I want to marry you in my church, cool.  If I don’t, cool.  Can’t we just get along?

Apparently no.  Why?  Because we have a growing ruling class.  Let me give you the story from the IRS.  The IRS is harassing a low profile conservative group called the Friends of Abe.  Who are the Friends of Abe?  These are Hollywood actors and writers and producers.  I met with them, and I’m telling you, when I met with them, you go through all kinds…I had to go through the back of a restaurant, through the kitchen, in by the bathroom to this other holding room while other like six or seven of them started to slowly walk into one room.  And then I walked in at the end.  It’s crazy.  It’s crazy.  It’s an underground meeting.

Now, for two years they’ve been trying to get 501(c)(3) status for the Friends of Abe, but the IRS said nope, we need your list of members.  Listen to this, the government is saying we want the names.  Gee, have I heard that someplace before, we want the names, Hollywood?  Well, they’re not going to release the names because they’re afraid of blacklisting.  Now, I know that sounds crazy, but remember what happened to Maria?  Remember, Maria?

She was fired because she was for the Tea Party guy, and every time this stuff happens, it ends in exactly the same way.  And the parallels to the 1950s, we are seeing them right now.  You just heard me tell you a story, the Friends of Abe, the government is saying give us the names of people who are in the Tea Party or are against this government.  Watch this.

VIDEO

Narrator:  Calling the House Un-American Activities Committee to order, Chairman J. Parnell Thomas of New Jersey opens an inquiry into possible Communist penetration of the Hollywood film industry.  The committee is seeking to determine if Red Party members have reached the screen with subversive propaganda.

A long list of prominent motion picture witnesses appear before the committee.  Speaking for the films, Eric Johnston, President of the Motion Picture Association, talks frankly concerning the attitude of the producers.

Johnston:  We are accused of having Communists and Communist sympathizers in our employ.  Undoubtedly there are such persons in Hollywood as you will find elsewhere in America, but we neither shield nor defend them.  We want them exposed.  We’re not responsible for the political or economic ideas of any individual.

Okay, stop.  This is one of the worst times in American history.  Everybody knows this, worst time.  I hate the idea of Communism, but if I target and blacklist people because of their Communism, am I any better than the brutal communist dictator?  The answer is no.  If you hate Fascism, but you’re willing to go after people and demand a list of names, I’m sorry, that makes you a, say it with me, Fascist.

When I went after Van Jones to expose who he was, if you remember right, if you watched the show back then, I said don’t fire him, don’t fire him, what are you doing firing him?  I was the only one standing up, the White House shouldn’t be firing this dude.  I just wanted people to know who he really was and who the president had working around him.

The same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applies to Communists.  Van Jones has a right to get a job.  That’s fine, but it also applies to me and you.  My position on this has been clear and consistent from the very beginning, and my position on things has not really changed.  In fact, it has gotten deeper; however, the methods might have changed a little bit because I think, I hope, I’m smarter.

I hope I’m a better person than I was, and I’m really quite baffled because the press today is, like, it’s crazy.  It’s crazy.  They are still talking about what I said to Megyn Kelly earlier this week, reminder.

VIDEO

Kelly:  How do you remember it now?

Beck:  I remember it as an awful lot of fun, and that I made an awful lot of mistakes.  And I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language because I think I played a role unfortunately in helping tear the country apart.

Stop.  Now, the media is all over this today because they really, truly cannot understand why the always angry, always crazy Glenn Beck is now suddenly introspective and calm.  What is happening to him?  How is he changing?  He’s changing his views now, you know?  Well, no, I’m not.  I haven’t changed any of my views.  You’re discovering some of my views.  CNN had a panel segment today talking about this, and the banner said Beck changes his tone on gays.  I looked at that, and I went, “I have?  When?”

Hey CNN researchers, show your audience the times when I was harsh on gays.  I’ll spare you the research which you’re never going to do, it doesn’t exist.  The funny thing is the media acts as if they’re always the enlightened one.  Glenn Beck has evolved, and evolution is a good thing.  I caught that one today.  I thought that was great.  I was divisive.  I didn’t mean to be.  I tried not to be, but it’s the system that just pits people apart.

And he’s divisive, and he’s finally admitting it.  No, I’m willing to take responsibility for my part and yet, their warped view of me proves that they have been perpetuating this problem all along.  They are shocked today because they think I’m some anti-gay, racist nut job, and they think the same thing about you.  Now, why do they think that?  Because the only time they ever reported on me or on you was when some leftist with an agenda at Media Matters sent them some ridiculous out-of-context Glenn Beck alert.

And that’s the only thing that’s ever been newsworthy to them.  That’s it.  They didn’t see the CNN or MSNBC report on the Restoring Love event in Dallas.  Oh, that’s right, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, nobody did a report on that.  Do you remember that?  And we had truckloads of relief.  In fact, it was one of the biggest armies of volunteers that America has seen – not a peep from the media.

I haven’t changed.  They’re just seeing it.  I didn’t see them report on Mercury One’s donations and the work in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy or any of the other numerous tornadoes and other tragedies that you have done.  Because of you, Mercury One has been able to give $14 million to victims of tragedy in under two years, $250,000 to the NYPD.  I think it was like their union or something because they didn’t have any money to be able to help on their emergency relief for their families.

The union guys were like what, I don’t know what to…because that’s who we are, dude.  You just didn’t think so.  Five hundred thousand dollars we gave to a struggling hospital in New York City.  Joe, was it 500?  Yeah, $500,000 to New York City so they could help continue to treat people in New York City that are not welcome in any place, and it’s great that we’re helping them because I got news for you, apparently I’m not welcome in New York either.

I don’t think they even saw the beginning let alone the end of Man in the Moon.

VIDEO

And the Man in the Moon was woken from his deep slumber by a faint and gentle tapping, one that he had not felt ever before.  It was his beasts, and when he looked closer, he saw them.  He saw them dancing and jumping up on his face.  They were dancing together in the glow of the great lights.  They had done it.  They had found their way.  They had used their machines to reach toward him, and now they were one.

Hello?  How about the reaction from the crowd of 25,000 people who saw that?  How about just one reaction of somebody who sure doesn’t look like she should be a fan of Glenn Beck’s?

VIDEO

I would love to tell Glenn Beck thank you very much.  I heard something today that I didn’t know I needed to hear until I heard it, and so it hit very close to home with me.  And now I know that every day the sun will rise, and I can look up to see the moon to remind me that I know the sun will come up.

That’s our job.  That’s what we’ve been trying to do, but they never covered it.  They didn’t report on the 9/12 Project that brought people together on principles and values.  They mocked it.  They didn’t look at it.  They didn’t believe it.  They were cynical.  They didn’t report on any of this and what you’ve done.  They’ve just selectively decided to paint all of us in a certain way.

May I humbly suggest that the media stop gawking at my introspection and start maybe doing a little introspection of their own?  Piers Morgan, now this is a record, Piers Morgan had a response I have to commend.  Watch.

VIDEO

Morgan:  Let’s talk seriously about the polarization of political debate in America, because Glenn Beck was quite brave I thought to say what he said.  And if I’m being self-reflective, doesn’t happen very often, but I may as well throw it out there.  You know, we mentioned guns there.  When I’ve done the guns debate, I can tell that when I get over angry and get a little bit abusive to the gun people, that it actually doesn’t help the debate, that actually all it does is intensify the polarization.

How fantastic is that?  How fantastic is that?  Okay?  He took this as an opportunity to look inward and upward, not just at you.  Kudos, Piers.  Joe Scarborough, not a friend of this program, responded this way on MSNBC today:

VIDEO

Scarborough:  You know, he came out this past week and also said if you are anti-gay, if you don’t like a person because they’re gay, you have no place in this country, and don’t call yourself a fan of mine.  I think what’s so fascinating about this is that if Glenn Beck were saying all of this from a position of weakness, that would be one thing. 

Glenn Beck from what I saw made like $90 million last year.  He has done on the Internet what the largest corporations in America have tried to do on the Internet.  I mean, he has somehow brought together TV and Internet, and he’s had an extraordinary year financially.  So I think that’s what’s even more telling about this is that he’s making these admissions from a position of strength.

Okay, stop.  I just want to show you that because Joe Scarborough is not a friend of this not work.  In fact, let me show you what Joe Scarborough said when I left FOX.

VIDEO

Scarborough:  I’m just saying it outright that Roger Ailes was right that all of those people that showed up at Glenn Beck’s rally were FOX people, were Roger Ailes people, and not Glenn Beck’s people.  And Glenn Beck will find that out in the coming years.  Roger Ailes has built a remarkable platform for conservative speakers, and Glenn Beck got plugged in at five o’clock and did better than anybody else at five o’clock, but he also did better than he will for the rest of his career.

Here is a guy who had that opinion and now was able to realize that he was wrong.  And I would like to take this moment and ask the media aren’t we all a little wrong about something?  Haven’t we all done things that we are saying oh man, if I just would’ve known then?  Really?  Haven’t we all just made mistakes?  I mean, none of us are perfect.  What is that he without sin cast the first stone thing?

Unfortunately, that’s not how the media is set up.  I’ve asked Tiffany to run as a documentary maybe the Christmas meeting that we had as a company and show you who we are on the inside.  They won’t understand.  They won’t even get it.  I think you’ll even be shocked at a lot of the stuff, probably not, the way we run our company and what we think we are and we stand for and what we strive to be.

In the rest of the media, admitting a mistake, oh, that’s horrible.  I’ve always told you I lead with my mistakes, and I’ve always told you we can disagree, but I will defend you.  I will defend.  And I’m not going to defend a mistake because I’m afraid I’ll lose an argument.  Don’t be afraid, and don’t fall into the trap of the seven crimes.  Don’t be afraid to think, to know, to care.

 

3 BIGGEST lies about Trump's plans for deportations

Rebecca Noble / Stringer | Getty Images

To the right, Trump's deportation plans seem like a reasonable step to secure the border. For the left, mass deportation represents an existential threat to democracy.

However, the left's main arguments against Trump's deportation plans are not only based on racially problematic lies and fabrications they are outright hypocritical.

Here are the three BIGGEST lies about Trump's deportation plans:

1. Past Deportations

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The left acts like Donald Trump is the first president in history to oversee mass deportations, but nothing could be further from the truth. Deportations have been a crucial tool for enforcing immigration laws and securing the country from the beginning, and until recently, it was a fairly bipartisan issue.

Democrat superstar President Obama holds the record for most deportations during his tenure in office, clocking in at a whopping 3,066,457 people over his eight years in office. This compares to the 551,449 people removed during Trump's first term. Obama isn't an anomaly either, President Clinton deported 865,646 people during his eight years, still toping Trump's numbers by a considerable margin.

The left's sudden aversion to deportations is clearly reactionary propaganda aimed at villainizing Trump.

2. Exploitative Labor

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

Commentators on the left have insinuated that President Trump's deportation plan would endanger the agricultural industry due to the large portion of agricultural workers in the U.S. who are illegal aliens. If they are deported, food prices will skyrocket.

What the left is conveniently forgetting is the reason why many businesses choose to hire illegal immigrants (here's a hint: it's not because legal Americans aren't willing to do the work). It's because it is way easier to exploit people who are here illegally. Farmowners don't have to pay taxes on illegal aliens, pay minimum wage, offer benefits, sign contracts, or do any of the other typical requirements that protect the rights of the worker.

The left has shown their hand. This was never about some high-minded ideals of "diversity" and "inclusion." It's about cheap, expendable labor and a captive voter base to bolster their party in elections.

3."Undesirable" Jobs

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Another common talking point amid the left-wing anti-Trump hysteria is that illegal aliens take "undesirable" jobs that Americans will not do. The argument is that these people fill the "bottom tier" in the U.S. economy, jobs they consider "unfit" for American citizens.

By their logic, we should allow hordes of undocumented, unvetted immigrants into the country so they can work the jobs that the out-of-touch liberal talking heads consider beneath them. It's no wonder why they lost the election.

Did the Left lay the foundations for election denial?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Did Glenn predict the future?

Just a few days after the election and President Trump's historic victory, the New York Times published a noteworthy article titled "How Russia Openly Escalated Its Election Interference Efforts," in which they made some interesting suggestions. They brought up several examples of Russian election interference (stop me if you think you've heard this one before) that favored Trump. From there, they delicately approached the "election denial zone" with the following statement:

"What impact Russia’s information campaign had on the outcome of this year’s race, if any, remains uncertain"

Is anyone else getting 2016 flashbacks?

It doesn't end there. About two weeks before the election (October 23rd), Glenn and Justin Haskins, the co-author of Glenn's new book, Propaganda Wars, discuss a frightening pattern they were observing in the news cycle at the time, and it bears a striking similarity to this New York Times piece. To gain a full appreciation of this situation, let's go back to two weeks before the election when Glenn and Justin laid out this scene:

Bad Eggs in the Intelligence Community

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This story begins with a top-secret military intelligence leak. Over the October 19th weekend, someone within the U.S. Government's intelligence agencies leaked classified information regarding the Israeli military and their upcoming plans to Iran. The man responsible for this leak, Asif William Rahman, a CIA official with top security clearance, was arrested on Tuesday, November 12th.

Rahman is one of the known "bad eggs" within our intelligence community. Glenn and Justin highlighted another, a man named Robert Malley. Malley is an Iranian envoy who works at the State Department under the Biden/Harris administration and is under investigation by the FBI for mishandling classified information. While Malley was quietly placed on leave in June, he has yet to be fired and still holds security clearance.

Another suspicious figure is Ariane Tabatabai, a former aide of Mr. Malley and a confirmed Iranian agent. According to a leak by Semafor, Tabatabai was revealed to be a willing participant in an Iranian covert influence campaign run by Tehran's Foreign Ministry. Despite this shocking revelation that an Iranian agent was in the Pentagon with access to top-secret information, Tabatabai has not faced any charges or inquires, nor has she been stripped of her job or clearance.

If these are the bad actors we know about, imagine how many are unknown to the public or are flying under the radar. In short, our intelligence agencies are full of people whose goals do not align with American security.

Conspicuous Russian Misinformation

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The story continues with a video of a man accusing former VP candidate and Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz of sexual assault. The man alleged to be Matthew Metro, a former student of Walz claimed that he was assaulted by the Governor while in High School. The man in the video gave corroborating details that made the claim seem credible on the surface, and it quickly spread across the internet. But after some deeper investigation, it was revealed this man wasnot Matthew Metro and that the entire video was fake. This caught the attention of the Security Director of National Intelligence who claimed the video was a Russian hoax designed to wound the Harris/Walz campaign, and the rest of the intelligence community quickly agreed.

In the same vein, the State Department put out a $10 million bountyto find the identity of the head of the Russian-owned media company Rybar. According to the State Department, Rybar manages several social media channels that promote Russian governmental political interests targeted at Trump supporters. The content Rybar posts is directed into pro-Trump, and pro-Republican channels, and the content apparently has a pro-Trump spin, alongside its pro-Russia objectives.

Why Does the Intelligence Community Care?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

So what's the deal? Yes, Russia was trying to interfere with the election, but this is a well-known issue that has unfortunately become commonplace in our recent elections.

The real concern is the intelligence community's uncharacteristically enthusiastic and fast response. Where was this response in 2016, when Hillary Clinton and the Democrats spent months lying about Donald Trump's "collusion" with Russia? It has since been proven that the FIB knew the entire story was a Clinton campaign fabrication, and they not only kept quiet about it, but they even played along. Or what about in 2020 when the Left tried to shut down the Hunter Biden laptop story for months by calling it a Russian hoax, only for it to turn out to be true?

Between all the bad actors in the intelligence community and their demonstrated repeated trustworthiness, this sudden concern with "Russian disinformation" that happened to support Trump was just too convenient.

Laying the Foundations for Election Denial

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

This is when Glenn and Justin make a startling prediction: the Left was preparing for a potential Trump victory (remember, this was two weeks before the election) so they would have something to delegitimize him with. They were painting Trump as Putin's lapdog who was receiving election assistance in the form of misinformation from the Kremlin by sounding the alarm on these cherry-picked (and in the grand scheme of things, tame) examples of Russian propaganda. They were laying the foundation of the Left's effort to resist and delegitimize a President-elect Trump.

Glenn and Justin had no idea how right they were.

Trump's POWERFUL 10-point plan to TEAR DOWN the Deep State

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Since 2016 President Trump has promised to drain the swamp, but with Trump's new ten-point plan, do we finally have a solid roadmap to dismantle the deep state?

In March 2023, President Trump released a video detailing his plan to shatter the deep state. Now that he is the President-Elect, this plan is slated to launch in January 2025. Recently, Glenn reviewed Trump's plan and was optimistic about what he saw. In fact, he couldn't see how anyone could be against it (not that anything will stop the mainstream media from spinning it in a negative light).

But don't let Glenn tell you what to think! Check out Trump's FULL plan below:

1. Remove rouge bureaucrats

U.S. Air Force / Handout | Getty Images

Trump's first order of business will be to restore an executive order he issued in 2020 that allowed him to remove rouge bureaucrats. Trump promises to use this power aggressively eliminate corruption.

2. Clean and overhaul the intelligence apparatus

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Next, Trump promises to oust corrupt individuals from the national intelligence apparatus. This includes federal bureaucracies like the CIA, NSA, and other agencies that have been weaponized against the left's political opponents.

3. Reform FISA courts 

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump's next promise is to reform the FISA courts, which are courts tasked with reviewing and approving requests to gather foreign intelligence, typically through surveillance. These courts have been unaccountable to protections like the 4th Amendment that prohibits the government from unwarranted surveillance, resulting in severe government overreach on American citizens, both on US soil and abroad.

4. Expose the deep state. 

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Trump want to establish a "Truth and Reconciliation" commission that will be tasked with unmasking the deep state. This will be accomplished by publishing and declassifying all documents on deep state spying, corruption, and censorship.

5. Crackdown on government-media collusion

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Next, Trump will crack down on government "leakers" who collaborate with the mainstream media to spread misinformation. These collaborators purposefully interject false narratives that derail the democratic process within the country. The plan will also prohibit government actors from pressuring social media to censor content that goes against a particular political narrative, as was done, for example, in the case of the Biden administration pressuring Facebook to crack down on Hunter Biden laptop-related content.

6. Isolate inspector generals

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump promises to physically separate every inspector general from the department they are tasked with overseeing. This way, they don't become entangled with the department and end up protecting them instead of scrutinizing them.

7. Create a system to monitor the intelligence agencies

SAUL LOEB / Stringer | Getty Images

To ensure that the intelligence agencies are no longer spying on American citizens, Trump proposed to create an independent auditing system. This auditing system, created by Congress, would keep the intelligence agencies in check from spying on American citizens or political campaigns as they did on Trump's campaign.

8. Relocate the federal bureaucracy

SAUL LOEB / Staff | Getty Images

Relocating the federal bureaucracy, Trump argues, will keep the internal politics of the individual bureaucracies out of the influence of DC. He says he will begin by relocating the Bureau of Land Management to Colorado.

9. Ban federal bureaucrats from taking corporate jobs

J. David Ake / Contributor | Getty Images

To keep money ties out of politics, Trump proposes that federal bureaucrats should be banned from working at the companies that they are regulating. American taxpayer dollars should not go to agencies run by bureaucrats who cut special deals for corporations, who will later offer them a cushy role and a huge paycheck.

10. Push for congressional term limits

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Finally, Trump wants to make a constitutional amendment placing term limits on members of Congress. This proposal has been popular on both sides of the political aisle for a while, preventing members of Congress from becoming swamp creatures like Nancy Pelosi who was just re-elected for her 19th term.

The Democrats are turning on Biden

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

The election is over, Kamala Harris has officially conceded, and now the Democrats are doing some serious soul-searching.

After reflecting long and hard (approximately 24 hours), the Democrats have discovered the real reason Harris lost the election. Was it Trump's excellent campaign that resonated with voters? Was it Harris's off-putting personality? Or was it her failure to distinguish herself from the Biden administration's failed policies?

No, it was Joe Biden. All the blame lies on President Biden's shoulders. The Left sees no need to take any real responsibility for the landslide defeat the Democrats suffered earlier this week; just pass the blame on to 'ole Joe.

Here are the leading excuses the Left is spinning up to explain Harris's crushing defeat:

"Biden should have dropped out sooner."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is the crux of the left-wing media's argument against Biden. They claim that if Joe Biden had dropped out earlier, Harris would have had more time to campaign and would not have had to carry around the baggage of Biden's abysmal debate performance. This could make sense, but what these commentators are conveniently forgetting are the years of propaganda these very same people promoted arguing that Biden's declining mental acuity was nothing more than a right-wing conspiracy theory. If Biden had been as sharp as they had told us, why would he have dropped out?

Also, if a lack of time was Harris's biggest issue this election, she sure didn't act like it. She was practically in hiding for the first several weeks of her campaign and she took plenty of days off, including during the last few crucial weeks. More time wouldn't have helped her case.

"Harris failed to distance herself from Biden."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is media gaslighting at its finest. Yes, Harris failed to distance herself from Biden. However, that's because she, along with the rest of the Left, publically went on record defending Biden's policies and his mental acuity. By the time Harris became the nominee, she had already said too much in favor of Biden. Don't forget Harris's infamous “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” quote after being asked on The View if she would do anything differently than Biden. In a way, Harris couldn't separate herself from Biden without drawing attention to the greatest flaw in her campaign: if she knew how to fix the country, why hasn't she?

"Harris did the best anyone could have done in that situation."

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

But did she really? As mentioned earlier, she was noticeably absent for much of the campaign. While Trump was busy jumping into interviews, events, and rallies non-stop, Harris was MIA. Whenever Harris did manage to make an appearance, it almost always did more harm than good by highlighting her lack of a robust policy platform and her inability to string together a coherent sentence. Notable examples include her aforementioned appearance on The View and her disastrous interview on Fox News with Bret Baier. The point is, even considering the limited time to campaign she had, Kamala Harris wasnot the best person for the job and there are undoubtedly many other Democrats who would have run a much more successful campaign.