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)

Glenn Beck: Here's what's WRONG with conservatism today

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

What does it mean to be a conservative in 2025? Glenn offers guidance on what conservatives need to do to ensure the conservative movement doesn't fade into oblivion. We have to get back to PRINCIPLES, not policies.

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

  • for Stewardship, protecting the wisdom of our Founders;
  • for Truth, defending objective reality in an age of illusion;
  • for Accountability, living within our means as individuals and as a nation;
  • for Neighborhood, rebuilding family, faith, and local community;
  • and for Duty, carrying freedom forward to the next generation.

A conservative doesn’t cling to the past — he stands guard over the principles that make the future possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm so tired of being against everything. Saying what we're not.

It's time that we start saying what we are. And it's hard, because we're changing. It's different to be a conservative, today, than it was, you know, years ago.

And part of that is just coming from hard knocks. School of hard knocks. We've learned a lot of lessons on things we thought we were for. No, no, no.

But conservatives. To be a conservative, it shouldn't be about policies. It's really about principles. And that's why we've lost our way. Because we've lost our principles. And it's easy. Because the world got easy. And now the world is changing so rapidly. The boundaries between truth and illusion are blurred second by second. Machines now think. Currencies falter. Families fractured. And nations, all over the world, have forgotten who they are.

So what does it mean to be a conservative now, in 2025, '26. For a lot of people, it means opposing the left. That's -- that's a reaction. That's not renewal.

That's a reaction. It can't mean also worshiping the past, as if the past were perfect. The founders never asked for that.

They asked that we would preserve the principles and perfect their practice. They knew it was imperfect. To make a more perfect nation.

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

2025, '26 being a conservative has to mean stewardship.

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

Of a moral inheritance. That is too precious to abandon.

What does it mean to conserve? To conserve something doesn't mean to stand still.

It means to stand guard. It means to defend what the Founders designed. The separation of powers. The rule of law.

The belief that our rights come not from kings or from Congress, but from the creator himself.
This is a system that was not built for ease. It was built for endurance, and it will endure if we only teach it again!

The problem is, we only teach it like it's a museum piece. You know, it's not a museum piece. It's not an old dusty document. It's a living covenant between the dead, the living and the unborn.

So this chapter of -- of conservatism. Must confront reality. Economic reality.

Global reality.

And moral reality.

It's not enough just to be against something. Or chant tax cuts or free markets.

We have to ask -- we have to start with simple questions like freedom, yes. But freedom for what?

Freedom for economic sovereignty. Your right to produce and to innovate. To build without asking Beijing's permission. That's a moral issue now.

Another moral issue: Debt! It's -- it's generational theft. We're spending money from generations we won't even meet.

And dependence. Another moral issue. It's a national weakness.

People cannot stand up for themselves. They can't make it themselves. And we're encouraging them to sit down, shut up, and don't think.

And the conservative who can't connect with fiscal prudence, and connect fiscal prudence to moral duty, you're not a conservative at all.

Being a conservative today, means you have to rebuild an economy that serves liberty, not one that serves -- survives by debt, and then there's the soul of the nation.

We are living through a time period. An age of dislocation. Where our families are fractured.

Our faith is almost gone.

Meaning is evaporating so fast. Nobody knows what meaning of life is. That's why everybody is killing themselves. They have no meaning in life. And why they don't have any meaning, is truth itself is mocked and blurred and replaced by nothing, but lies and noise.

If you want to be a conservative, then you have to be to become the moral compass that reminds a lost people, liberty cannot survive without virtue.

That freedom untethered from moral order is nothing, but chaos!

And that no app, no algorithm, no ideology is ever going to fill the void, where meaning used to live!

To be a conservative, moving forward, we cannot just be about policies.

We have to defend the sacred, the unseen, the moral architecture, that gives people an identity. So how do you do that? Well, we have to rebuild competence. We have to restore institutions that actually work. Just in the last hour, this monologue on what we're facing now, because we can't open the government.

Why can't we open the government?

Because government is broken. Why does nobody care? Because education is broken.

We have to reclaim education, not as propaganda, but as the formation of the mind and the soul. Conservatives have to champion innovation.

Not to imitate Silicon Valley's chaos, but to harness technology in defense of human dignity. Don't be afraid of AI.

Know what it is. Know it's a tool. It's a tool to strengthen people. As long as you always remember it's a tool. Otherwise, you will lose your humanity to it!

That's a conservative principle. To be a conservative, we have to restore local strength. Our families are the basic building blocks, our schools, our churches, and our charities. Not some big, distant NGO that was started by the Tides Foundation, but actual local charities, where you see people working. A web of voluntary institutions that held us together at one point. Because when Washington fails, and it will, it already has, the neighborhood has to stand.

Charlie Kirk was doing one thing that people on our side were not doing. Speaking to the young.

But not in nostalgia.

Not in -- you know, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.

In purpose. They don't remember. They don't remember who Dick Cheney was.

I was listening to Fox news this morning, talking about Dick Cheney. And there was somebody there that I know was not even born when Dick Cheney. When the World Trade Center came down.

They weren't even born. They were telling me about Dick Cheney.

And I was like, come on. Come on. Come on.

If you don't remember who Dick Cheney was, how are you going to remember 9/11. How will you remember who Reagan was.

That just says, that's an old man's creed. No, it's not.

It's the ultimate timeless rebellion against tyranny in all of its forms. Yes, and even the tyranny of despair, which is eating people alive!

We need to redefine ourselves. Because we have changed, and that's a good thing. The creed for a generation, that will decide the fate of the republic, is what we need to find.

A conservative in 2025, '26.

Is somebody who protects the enduring principles of American liberty and self-government.

While actively stewarding the institutions. The culture. The economy of this nation!

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

We have to be a group of people that we're not anchored in the past. Or in rage! But in reason. And morality. Realism. And hope for the future.

We're the stewards! We're the ones that have to relight the torch, not just hold it. We didn't -- we didn't build this Torch. We didn't make this Torch. We're the keepers of the flame, but we are honor-bound to pass that forward, and conservatives are viewed as people who just live in the past. We're not here to merely conserve the past, but to renew it. To sort it. What worked, what didn't work. We're the ones to say to the world, there's still such a thing as truth. There's still such a thing as virtue. You can deny it all you want.

But the pain will only get worse. There's still such a thing as America!

And if now is not the time to renew America. When is that time?

If you're not the person. If we're not the generation to actively stand and redefine and defend, then who is that person?

We are -- we are supposed to preserve what works.

That -- you know, I was writing something this morning.

I was making notes on this. A constitutionalist is for restraint. A progressive, if you will, for lack of a better term, is for more power.

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

But the -- for the American eagle to fly, we must have both wings.

And one can't be stronger than the other.

We as a conservative, are supposed to look and say, no. Don't look at that. The past teaches us this, this, and this. So don't do that.

We can't do that. But there are these things that we were doing in the past, that we have to jettison. And maybe the other side has a good idea on what should replace that. But we're the ones who are supposed to say, no, but remember the framework.

They're -- they can dream all they want.
They can come up with all these utopias and everything else, and we can go, "That's a great idea."

But how do we make it work with this framework? Because that's our job. The point of this is, it takes both. It takes both.

We have to have the customs and the moral order. And the practices that have stood the test of time, in trial.

We -- we're in an amazing, amazing time. Amazing time.

We live at a time now, where anything -- literally anything is possible!

I don't want to be against stuff. I want to be for the future. I want to be for a rich, dynamic future. One where we are part of changing the world for the better!

Where more people are lifted out of poverty, more people are given the freedom to choose, whatever it is that they want to choose, as their own government and everything.

I don't want to force it down anybody's throat.

We -- I am so excited to be a shining city on the hill again.

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

But not in we get bogged down in hatred, in division.

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

How America’s elites fell for the same lie that fueled Auschwitz

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.