Trump's Impressive 100-day Action Plan to Make America Great Again

In October, Donald Trump released a plan for his first 100 days in office. Called "Donald Trump's Contract With The American Voter," the plan promises to restore "honesty, accountability and change to Washington."

"It's pretty impressive," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Trump's very first line item is proposing a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already gone on record as saying, "It will not be on the agenda in the Senate."

"It's not going to happen, and it has nothing to do with Donald Trump. If anyone can get it done, it might be Donald Trump," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these promising questions:

• What six measures does Trump promise on day one to clean up corruption and special interests?

• What seven actions does he promise to take on day one to protect American workers?

• What five actions will Trump take on day one to restore security and the constitutional rule of law?

• What 10 items does Trump pledge to fight for in the first 100 days of his presidency?

• What, if anything, does Glenn disagree with?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Hello, America. I want to talk to you about the 100-day action plan to make America great again.

I will tell you that elections have consequences, and also obligations. And in this election, our obligation is to now stop fighting the battle of, should he be president, should he not be president?

Did he believe those things? Did he say those things? What's he going to do? And now he's president. Let's take him at his word, and let's follow what he's going to do and then hold him accountable if he deviates from that, with the understanding that every president has to make some sacrifices. They have to compromise from time to time. As long as we don't compromise our principles, we'll be fine. So it's a new day. Elections have consequences. Elections have responsibilities for its citizens.

And one of those is not to be marching in the streets, calling for people's, the death after an election. That is more like a -- oh, I don't know. Russia 1919.

What follows is the 100 day action plan to make America great again. Let's go through this. It's pretty impressive.

First, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

STU: First!

PAT: I like that.

STU: I love that.

PAT: Yeah, that's great.

GLENN: It's not going to happen. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump. If anyone can get it done, it might be Donald Trump.

JEFFY: He won't.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But -- because he can speak directly to the American people and try to push it through. But already, Mitch McConnell, you know, that great guy who was for Donald Trump, he has come out and said, "No, that's not even going to make it to our Senate agenda."

STU: And the thing about -- the issue why this never happens -- because this is something that's supported by 8 percent plus of the people.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Is that, it's always somebody who understands, quote, unquote, that, you know, you need to stay in office and everyone needs to hang around. You need to understand the system and all that.

This is one thing that I really have and had hope that Donald Trump would push for. It came along late in his agenda. It was not like one of the first things he passionately talked about.

But it strikes very much of that -- honestly, the Bannon philosophy. Hopefully, that actually happens. That one, I'm really -- I would love. Because that one is huge, and it has long-term implications.

GLENN: Yeah. That's number one on his list.

Number two, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition, exempting military, public safety, and public health.

STU: That's --

GLENN: Third, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.

PAT: What?

JEFFY: Okay.

STU: Wow. I mean, I like that. I don't know if that's --

GLENN: We'll see.

STU: We'll see. I like that.

GLENN: Fourth, a five-year ban on White House and congressional offices becoming -- or, officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.

PAT: Yeah, Obama --

GLENN: That should be easy.

PAT: But, whatever.

GLENN: I know. Fifth, a lifetime ban on White House officials, lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Six, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So he says that's day one.

STU: What's that last one?

GLENN: A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for elections.

STU: That's interesting. Because that was some of the stuff -- it was one of the issues that Manafort was criticized for, being a lobbyist, working with foreign governments. It's interesting he would take that on as a big part of his platform. Because, I mean, the most recent --

GLENN: This was after Manafort left.

STU: Exactly. And I know the new people didn't particularly like the old people. So it's an interesting part of that.

GLENN: Yes.

First, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.

Now, when it comes to trade deals, I believe Donald Trump 100 percent. I believe he will spend all of his political capital on trade deals. He's willing to, at least.

Because he -- that's the only -- that's the one thing that remained true and constant his entire campaign. And he said it for years.

Second, I will announce our withdrawal from the Transpacific Partnership.

JEFFY: Yeah, he wants that.

PAT: Wow. Good.

STU: I mean, that's no surprise.

GLENN: And I think he'll do both of us.

STU: Yeah, those -- yeah, the NAFTA one will be interesting to see of what he does with it. Again, he's not saying he's going to get rid of it.

And there's been a lot of positives from it, to be perfectly honest. But I think --

PAT: A lot of negatives though, too. It's not a great treaty.

STU: But if you can go through and find the bad and get rid of that obviously --

GLENN: Well, yeah, the problem is, it's an outside -- it's an unconstitutional government framework being built above the Constitution. That's the problem with TPP.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Third, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

Warning.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Warning. I would love to do that, but that is kicking the people who are feeding you right now.

PAT: Hmm.

STU: And, well, I mean, A, he promised it. Right? He's promised this -- all this stuff are campaign promises. So you're not as surprised to see them. I mean, I don't agree on a lot of this --

PAT: However, all his promises were suggestions. Let's not forget that. They were all --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. I will tell you this -- I will tell you this, this is one of the main concerns I have had with Donald Trump's policies, is he is not a conservative when it comes to trade deals, not at all.

STU: He's Bernie Sanders on it.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And that's -- look, that's not something he lied about. He was straight-up and honest about it.

GLENN: No, no. No, I know that. But I have been very clear that if he wants or if he -- if he gets into trade wars -- and that's how these things are solved -- if you start to stick a hot iron into one of your partner's eyes, they're going to stick two hot irons in your eyes. And this is what the Great Depression became the Great Depression, instead of an 18-month depression, because of Smoot-Hawley tariffs. So this is very dangerous territory.

I will direct Secretary of Commerce and US trade representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.

STU: Okay. Again, that's --

PAT: Still waiting for Obamacare repeal.

GLENN: It's coming. It's coming.

STU: We're on 11. Just number 11.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on. Fifth, I will lift the restrictions on the production of 50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal.

PAT: Oh, good. Good.

GLENN: That could save the economy there alone.

PAT: That's really good.

GLENN: Except -- except prices of energy is so low right now.

STU: Yeah, but, I mean -- certainly, A, this is a positive.

GLENN: I know. It's a positive. I know.

Six, lift the Obama/Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects like the Keystone Oil Pipeline.

PAT: Yes. Good.

GLENN: That's gigantic.

PAT: Those two are really good.

GLENN: Yes.

Seventh, cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change program.

PAT: Oh, good golly.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure. I'm okay with that.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: I want to know the details on that, but I think I'm okay.

PAT: All right. Yeah.

JEFFY: He's already tapped the climate skeptic Myron Ebell for his --

STU: Yeah, and that's a good hire.

PAT: Good.

STU: Smart guy. And definitely a skeptical climate guy. Again, good for us.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That's a good name.

GLENN: Additionally, on the first day -- so everything he's saying so far is day one.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Additionally, on the first day, I will --

JEFFY: It's a good day.

GLENN: You get this done, you could take a vacation.

I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law.

First, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum, and order issued by President Obama.

PAT: I mean, this is -- a lot of these things, Ted Cruz talked about.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: This is great.

GLENN: This came very late. And he took some of the last stuff -- this is his Gettysburg address.

PAT: This is great. This is great.

STU: Is this post-election or pre-election?

GLENN: This is post-election, but this is what he said at Gettysburg.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Okay.

Second, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

PAT: So he's actually verifying --

GLENN: He's sticking to the 20 judges on his list.

PAT: -- confirming that he's going to pick from that list.

GLENN: Yes. Third, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.

JEFFY: Ooh.

PAT: Nice.

JEFFY: Ooh.

STU: So he can do that on day one without --

GLENN: That's billions of dollars.

STU: Can he do that?

GLENN: I don't know.

JEFFY: I don't know.

STU: I'm sure he has some plan to do it, I just don't know what that is.

PAT: Executive order?

GLENN: Fourth, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back.

STU: Okay. So you're going to punish -- if they won't take them back -- because that is an issue that we don't talk about all that often. They might not -- we might say, "Hey, we found this criminal. Take him back, Mexico." And they're going to be like, "Screw you. We don't want him." So they're going to be -- then he would cancel visas to that country as punishment.

That will be interesting -- I mean, obviously both --

PAT: It will be retaliation.

STU: That would probably escalating --

PAT: You got to do something, right? We've been begging for something to be done.

GLENN: Think about just canceling federal funding for all sanctuary cities.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: That puts cities like New York --

PAT: Houston, Dallas.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: San Francisco.

GLENN: Into massive disrepair fast.

STU: They have to stop --

PAT: They have to stop it immediately. They have to stop it immediately.

STU: I mean, there will be a million things that happen off of that.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: But, again, these are --

GLENN: All of these things have massive consequences.

STU: To go to what you were talking about earlier, I mean, if you take this stuff literally, there might be issues here. But the general direction of it is positive.

GLENN: Yes, it is.

PAT: If I'm the city council of one of these cities, I'm already planning for that.

JEFFY: You're darn right you are. And you've got to be talking about the fact that if he does that, we've got to stop being a sanctuary city.

JEFFY: Or they're going to -- they're already starting to talk about filing lawsuit, even here in Dallas, against that.

GLENN: Good luck in the courts in Dallas.

JEFFY: Okay.

GLENN: Good luck in the --

STU: It may or may not work. But, again, he can't control that. Right?

So if he tries to do something --

PAT: Yeah, these are good steps. These are good steps.

GLENN: Fifth, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur.

STU: So this is what the Muslim ban turned into, which is a much more rational policy.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

STU: And, again, there could be some issues with other countries --

PAT: There will be.

STU: And that's a fair -- that's a fair limitation.

GLENN: Okay. So those are the things that he says he's going to do on day one.

PAT: Wow.

STU: No Obamacare in there. But I think that's coming, right?

GLENN: It's coming. That's gigantic. If he did all of those things on day one, I can't guarantee you what the ramifications will be. It makes me happy.

JEFFY: Me too.

GLENN: But it might set the world on fire. I don't know.

STU: Right. So going through -- categorizing real quick, term limits, one, I'm 100 percent behind that. Then he goes to regulation cuts and spending cuts, I love that. With the hiring freeze. Then he has the lobbying stuff, which is fine, but, I mean, I'm not all that passionate about it.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Then trade stuff, which I think, in my opinion, would be bad most of it.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Then energy, I like that a lot. Climate change, certainly love that he would not be paying for climate change crap like that. Supreme Court, one of the 20 judges is a big step. And this is -- we were told and heard that was one of the things he locked in to get some conservative support. Because the first time he gave that list, he gave it and then backed off of it.

JEFFY: Backed off.

GLENN: Drew said he locked in Mike Lee for that.

STU: So that's -- and Lee was on that list. Then sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, I mean, funding. That's good too.

So, I mean, most of that is pretty good, I think.

PAT: Really good. A lot of it is really good.

STU: Yeah, it's more -- in the only iffy part is the trade policy. And, you know, we've talked about that the whole time.

STU: And you knew that getting into this. That's not a surprise.

PAT: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: So he says, then in my first 100 days, I'm going to work on something more broad with Congress. And I'll tell you what that is, coming up in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: First half-hour of this hour, we talked about the things that Donald Trump said he was going to do on day one. Pretty overwhelming. And pretty ambitious. And --

PAT: Most of it pretty great.

GLENN: Yeah. I think -- I don't think there was anything in there that I didn't think was great. There were things in there that I worry sincerely about the consequences.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And what he means. The devil will be in the details on the trade stuff.

But, you know, some things that are really great, but some things that, you know, might start a trade war. But who am I to say?

He then says, within the first 100 days of my administration, I will introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage.

One, Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4 percent a year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restriction on American energy.

The largest tax reductions will be for the middle class. A middle class family with two children will get a 35 percent tax cut.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three. And tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified.

STU: I mean, this is almost identical to the House plan.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We talk to -- we had Evan McMullin on the air several weeks ago, and one of the first interviews we had with him on Pat & Stu. It was almost his exact tax plan as well. Their plans were very similar at the end. This was not the first Trump plan, but the one he landed on was almost identical to the House Republican plan.

Anyways...

GLENN: The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent. You know how many people we'll hire?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.

That's a little concerning, but I appreciate the effort.

STU: Right. There's good and bad with that.

GLENN: Yeah. That can cause massive inflation. You bring back trillions of dollars of cash.

STU: Many of these things too --

PAT: If it happens all at once, especially.

STU: Many of these things can be done through reconciliation as well because they're budget matters. That's how the Bush tax cuts got done. It also means that they would have an expiration date. But I think it's ten years. So you would have some time with a much more favorable business environment. But then you would have to pass something to keep it this way, which is where it gets really different. But, still, ten years is ten years.

PAT: The president and the House and the Senate, I just don't understand why they can't go after something more ambitious than this.

GLENN: I agree.

PAT: Why not? Why not go for it now? You've got the power. Go for it. They never do. Never do. Republicans never -- look what Democrats did when they have the shot.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: They overhauled 17 percent of the US economy.

GLENN: Among other things --

PAT: Among other things.

STU: Dodd-Frank. Not to mention the stimulus. They went for it. They did serious damage. Well, we could repair a lot of that with a really ambitious plan. It's a shame they're --

STU: But this one is better than what we have now.

PAT: I mean, I'll take it. I'll take it. But we always just have to take it. All right. Throw us a scrap. I'll eat it. Whatever.

GLENN: Well, and that's the problem. That's why you can accomplish things on the left that the right can't accomplish, because the left is always big and aspirational and new.

PAT: Always.

GLENN: And you're like, "Wow, that's -- I mean, wow. Who can't dream about that?"

PAT: Right.

GLENN: We're always about nickel and diming the tax brackets.

STU: But, again --

PAT: Like Ted Cruz proposed is doable right now. Because you've got the power to do it.

GLENN: I agree.

STU: Let me give you where this was. So Bush had the tax rates at 35 percent. This -- and they're now 39.6, plus some other junk that I assume this gets rid of as well. I don't know that for a fact.

This would move it to 12, 25, 33. So you would still have a 33 percent tax rate, and capital gains would be at 20 percent. So, again --

GLENN: That's still high for --

PAT: Are they keeping deductions, or are they trying to take those?

STU: Some -- I mean, it's a mixed bag on that. There's nothing flat about it. It's the House plan. It really is.

I don't think it's that simplified. There's not just charity and mortgage. There's still lots of deductions in there. They will get rid of some of them. They will get rid of the death tax, at least temporarily, which is always -- it's just a ridiculous tax. It's like the most insultingly ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my --

PAT: It's government theft.

STU: It's not the biggest part of the economy, but it's just morally ridiculous.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That you would --

GLENN: All this stuff -- all this stuff that progressives have done, I think, that revolve around death, is morally reprehensible. I really do. The death tax.

I'm sorry. But I think somebody buying land and putting it in a trust in perpetuity is wrong, is absolutely wrong.

To be able -- if it's owned by your family, you know what I mean? And your family -- you pass it to your son. That's fine. But telling your son and his son and his son, what he can and cannot do with that land, we have no idea what that might be on that land.

You might find that it has a special rock in that land in 100 years from now. And somebody ruling from 100 years ago is going to tell us, I can't get that rock. Who the hell are you?

STU: But whose land is it?

GLENN: It bothers me when it is locked up -- it's still his land. It's still his land. Because he's locked it up. No one living today can say, "Oh, well, we want to -- we want to go look for that rock. We want to go do this." No.

That land is only for this particular use. Period.

STU: But, I mean, isn't that your right, as someone who is -- if you want to -- like, I remember there was a radio station, I don't remember where it was. You'll remember this story probably. And the people who owned it, it was a great signal, in the middle of the FM dial. And they made it a classical station.

GLENN: It was King.

STU: And then -- in Seattle?

GLENN: In Seattle.

STU: And they said, I don't care what you do with this. It's just got to be classical.

GLENN: But they were still alive. The family that owns King, I think they still are -- I can't remember their names anymore. But they were still alive. The sisters were still doing it. And, again, it's -- the land -- I'm sorry. I'm much more Native American on the land.

Men do not own land. We can possess the land while we're alive, and we can -- we can have our own borders on it. But we are really care takers of the land. The next generation comes in and they decide what they're going to do with --

JEFFY: What you're saying is you're giving it to the next generation, and the next generation is able to decide what they're going to do with it during their lifetime.

GLENN: Yes.

JEFFY: Not three generations from now, Glenn Beck's property is still Glenn Beck's property.

GLENN: Right. What I'm saying -- look, what I'm saying is -- okay. I have a ranch. Okay. I die. I want my ranch to go to my children. Now, they can keep it exactly the same. But if I said to my children, oh, boy, you are never to build another house on this land -- you know, Dad, you didn't see 50 years ago, before you died, what was happening in the world. I want to build a house here.

STU: If it's something -- for example, if you are -- you put a religious institution on a piece of land and you say, "I want it to be there because it's my principles, they last forever, it's mine. This is what I want it to be." If you don't want to take my free gift of land under these -- under this contract, then don't accept it. But I built my life -- my life's work resides here. It's important to me. I want it to last forever.

GLENN: You lock -- you lock --

PAT: Plus, how much of that is there?

STU: Not a lot.

PAT: That's a small portion of what we're talking about anyway.

GLENN: I just find it -- I find it reprehensible. I find it reprehensible. That -- that the federal government can just tell people who are close to the land what they have to do from an office in Washington where they have no idea what they're doing with the land. They have no idea what they're doing.

And beyond that -- for instance, we have now -- are you against -- are you going -- are you against going in and getting oil if the country needs it in the preserve lands of Alaska?

PAT: No.

STU: No.

GLENN: You're not against that?

PAT: Uh-uh.

GLENN: Well, why? It's deemed preserve land.

STU: Yeah, but deemed by who? The government? If you said -- if you bought land and you said, "You know what, this is my land, and no one shall ever drill on it," then I think you would have a right to do that.

GLENN: What right do you have to rule behind --

STU: It's yours.

GLENN: From beyond the grave.

STU: You don't have to accept the land under that contract.

You just die, and no one accepts -- because you're deeding this as a -- you're putting it in a certain condition.

PAT: And that's the government's theory on your money too: What right do you have to give your money to your children?

GLENN: No, no. That's not.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That's how they think about it. You're dead. We should get that money.

GLENN: No, wait. I'm saying that you could give that land to somebody and say, "Look, Pat, take this land. Here's our agreement. Our agreement is you don't build anything on there. You got it." Good. Then it's a contract between me and you.

And then, when you die, you could pass it and say, "Hey, look, I made him a promise." But it allows Pat -- if things change, it allows Pat to say, "Okay. Hang on just a second."

We have found a new rare mineral. It's only found on this land.

STU: But progressives always find a way that things have changed. That's why -- I mean, that's why you have a principle. It's essentially a part of your own Constitution. If you say you want to use land for a specific thing and it's yours --

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you -- remember the Barnes Museum in Philadelphia?

STU: I do not.

GLENN: Okay. The Barnes Museum in Philadelphia, a guy was -- was an eclectic and pretty damn near crazy collector of art. One of the greatest collections of art in America. Okay? But he wanted them all hung.

It makes no sense. The way you go and you listen to the lectures, and they take you through his art collection, you're like, "What the hell. What?" And he's like, "See, this -- this represents this." And they are put together because of -- well, none of it -- some of it is inaccurate. But he -- that's the way he viewed the art. And so he said, "I'll donate the collection, but it always has to be done like that. And these things have to be said."

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on.

Well, the city of Philadelphia said, "It's in a neighborhood. It's poor lighting. It doesn't make sense to be done that way." And they took it from the Barnes Foundation, and they forced them to move it and to do it the way they wanted to.

The people from the inside who were responsible for the collection took it and said, "No, we're not going to do that way anymore. After all, he's dead." No, no, wait. That is private property. That's different than land.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Land --

STU: I think land is property.

PAT: Yeah, it is.

STU: It's actually property brothers. It's a land --

GLENN: I'm not -- no, I'm not saying that you don't own -- I'm not saying someone can come on to your land and tell you what to do with it. I'm not saying that at all.

STU: No, you're definitely against that. We know that.

GLENN: Right. I am for personal property being land. I'm saying, when you die, what right do you have to take a finite thing, which is earth -- art is not finite. But buildings -- anything you want to do, that's not finite.

STU: There's always other land. There's always other land.

GLENN: There may not be that land. There may not be --

STU: There is a theoretical point, right? Like, that you're making, that theoretically, there's this plot of land that there's -- this one resource that we can only get there. In that, you know, one in a zillion chance -- I mean, again, this is a real long shot. But if that were to happen, we do have eminent domain laws, which is what this is actually constitutionally to be used as, not for casinos or parking lots, but for that type of purpose. That's -- that is probably where that would apply, if it applies. But, I mean, that never -- that situation is almost impossible.

Like, I mean, to me -- if you don't want to take the donation of whatever it is, then don't -- then you don't accept it under those circumstances. If there's a foundation that has that and that is your legacy, I think that is completely within your right to do.

GLENN: All right. Here's our sponsor this half-hour, it's SimpliSafe.

PAT: Does Trump get to Obamacare in the first 100 days?

GLENN: Yes, he does. Yes, he does. And I'll get to those real quick.

[break]

GLENN: All right. So here's what he's going to do: He's going to reduce the taxes. Then end the Off-shoring Act, establish tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers, in order to relocate in other countries to ship their products back to the US, tax-free.

STU: That's something I disagree with.

GLENN: Yep. American energy and infrastructure. Leverages private public partnerships, private investments through tax incentives, spur one trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years.

STU: That's a stimulus.

GLENN: Yep.

School Choice and Education Opportunity Act. Redirects educational dollars to give parents the right to send their kids to public school, private charter, magnate, religious, or homeschool of their choice. Ends Common Core.

Love that.

Brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical educations and make two to four-year college more affordable.

PAT: Pretty good.

GLENN: Let's see.

Restoring the Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs, violence, by creating a task force on violent crime and increases funding for programs that train and assist local police.

I don't like this at all.

I don't like anything getting into the government, giving money to police.

Increases resources for federal -- yeah, the federal government. Federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

Restoring the national security act, rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester -- good -- and expanding military investment, provides veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment, or attend the private doctor of their choice, good. Protects our vital infrastructure from cyber attack, good. Establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.

Ten, clean Up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corruption influence of special interests in our politics. On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to make America great again.

STU: Yeah, the first half of those are pretty specific. The second, they're much more broad.

GLENN: Yeah, because they're legislative acts.

STU: They could be really good.

GLENN: They could be really bad.

STU: They could have lots of problems. There's definitely a lot of spending in that second half, which makes me concerned.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: But, again, we'll look at it as these things come.

PAT: I'm not sure I ever heard the words repeal Obamacare either. I didn't hear that.

STU: No.

GLENN: Yeah, it is there. I must have skipped it when we took a break.

PAT: If it's there, boy, they buried the lead.

GLENN: It is there.

Featured Image: President Barack Obama speaks while meeting with President-elect Donald Trump (L) following a meeting in the Oval Office November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC. Trump is scheduled to meet with members of the Republican leadership in Congress later today on Capitol Hill. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.