GLENNFebruary 22, 2017

Weird Groupthink: Tribal Instinct Explains Milo Yiannopoulos

According to Psychology Today, the phenomenon known as groupthink "occurs when a group values harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the consensus."

The decision to rescind Yiannopulos' invitation to speak at CPAC was prompted by videos in which he praised pederasty, the act of grown men having sex with post-pubescent boys. However, those videos had long been available on the internet. Why did they make a difference now?

Jonah Goldberg, conservative thought leader and senior editor at National Review, recently published an opinion editorial in The LA Times, diving deep into how the invitation was extended in the first place:

From the outset, many on the right who do not consider themselves part of the Cult of Milo opposed his invitation. The disturbing thing is that, absent these videos, we would have lost the fight.
Even now, Schlapp defends the initial decision to invite Yiannopoulos. On Monday’s ”Morning Joe,” he insisted: “The fact is, he’s got a voice that a lot of young people listen to.” A lot of young conservative people, he should have added, precisely because he enrages so many young liberals.
And that’s part of the problem. We are in a particularly tribal moment in American politics in which “the enemy of my enemy is my ally” is the most powerful argument around.

"This is fascinating," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

Glenn made the case that what happened to moderate Democrats under Barack Obama is now happening with Republicans under Donald Trump.

"Now that Barack Obama is gone, it's left a vacuum of just who was around him. Hillary Clinton and the Blue Dog Democrat are gone. The Blue Dog Democrat no longer exists. The Hillary Clintons no longer exist. So who are you left with? You're left with Marxists and radicals. And now the Democratic Party is saying, "Oh, man, this is . . . wait. Hold it." And they're seeing --- not all of them --- but enough are seeing what we saw," Glenn said. "The same thing is going to happen with the Republican Party."

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

GLENN: I want to -- I want to tell you the story about this New Yorker who is becoming a conservative now. And I think these people existed under Obama, but they were -- they were willing to accept more -- let me see if I can find this. From -- yeah --

PAT: You think there were Democrats that were shocked by the radicalism of Obama?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

PAT: I mean, his radical ideology where he virtually has Marxist policies. Because we never heard from them.

GLENN: Because I think the same way we're not hearing from conservatives who are shocked by Donald Trump and some of the things that he does and the radicals he has around him. Nobody is saying anything about that.

And it's because you're going to get shouted down, and a lot of people are like, "Well, but I like kind of the stuff -- I like the direction he's headed. So just don't say anything." Okay?

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: And they don't see that -- like they're seeing right now in the Democrats, once you lose, who really is in charge? And so the Democrats -- when I read this thing from the Democrats, it will blow your mind.

But here's what is happening. Here's what happened to the Democrats. And we're at the beginning of it. This comes from Jonah Goldberg. Now, this is just about what happened with Milo and CPAC. The decision to rescind the invitation was prompted by a surfacing of videos, available long on the internet, which Milo praised -- how do you say it? Pederasty? Pederasty. Sex between an older man and prepubescent boys as young as 13. From the outside, many on the right who do not consider themselves part of --

PAT: Had you even heard of such thing?

GLENN: No.

PAT: The reason we don't know how to pronounce a word is because I've never heard of it.

GLENN: I've never heard of it.

PAT: It's the distinction. It's supposed to be post-pubescent. Right? So pedophilia is prepubescent. And after is post.

GLENN: And this is post.

Those who consider themselves part of the cult of -- opposed his invitation. The disturbing thing is, absent these videos, we would have lost the fight, said Jonah Goldberg.

Even now, Schlapp defends the initial decision to invite Yiannopoulos. On Monday's Morning Joe, he insisted, the fact is, he's got a voice that a lot of young people listen to, a lot of young conservative people.

And Jonah says, we should be asking the question: Why are so many young conservatives?

Precisely because he enrages so many young liberals, and that's part of the problem. We're in a particularly tribal moment in American politics, which the enemy of my enemy is my ally. It's the most powerful argument around.

John Tubey, the evolutionary psychologist recently wrote that if he could explain one scientific concept to the public, it would be the coalitional instinct. In our natural habitat, to be alone was to be vulnerable. If you had no coalition, you were nakedly and at the mercy of everyone else, so the instinct to belong to a coalition has urgency preexisting and superseding any policy-driven basis for membership.

This is why group belief is free to be so weird. We overlook the hypocrisies and the shortcomings within our own coalition out of a desire to protect ourselves from our enemies.

This is fascinating. We'll come back to it in a second.

[break]

GLENN: So going over Jonah Goldberg's editorial yesterday in the LA Times. And he's talking about how we are overlooking hypocrisies on our own side. And I contend -- I want to share this with you because I believe this is what happened to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is in worse shape than the Republicans are, by far. They are now fighting for the soul of the party. Are they going to be this Marxist radical party, or are they going to come back to the center?

And I think that Barack Obama gave them -- was such a distraction that nobody cared about who was -- except for us, who was advising him. You know, who were the guys that were really -- that influenced his life and shaped him? And who were the people -- the Bill Ayers and the Bernardine Dohrn and all those people that were in and around this White House? And it gave us, I believe, a false belief on who the average Democrat is.

And that's because I think the average Democrat looked at Barack Obama the way many Republicans are looking at Donald Trump. They may not like him. They may not like all of those -- but they're not -- they're not concerned about Steve Bannon. They're not concerned. They think he's going to be held in place. This is America. We're not going to go against Europe and NATO. That's just not going to happen. And we're going to be fine.

And he's moving the ball in our direction. I think that's the way most Republicans look at him. And they're like, "You know, tell me the things -- yes, he's done some things I don't like, but he's moving the ball in our direction, and we're winning, generally, on the things that we want." Right? Would you agree with that?

I think that's the way many Democrats felt under Barack Obama, except Barack Obama did not have the harsh edges that Donald Trump does. Barack Obama didn't make the average Democrat feel uncomfortable. He was -- he was super slick.

If you would have seen the people -- it's why they brought Michelle Obama at the very beginning back into the White House. You can't talk because she was making average Democrat feel uncomfortable. Her last speech on the campaign trail, the first time around, was the speech where she said, "You know, we're going to have to change our tradition, we're going to have to change our thinking, our history. We're going to have to change everything." And they're like, "No, no, no, that's making Democrats worried."

So they didn't see the Marxist radical rot until now. And now they're being shouted down if they disagree with things like Keith Ellison. And they're saying, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I was really kind of more of a Hillary mainstream supporter, if you will." I think those Reagan Democrats who still voted for Democrat are really in search of a place to go.

Let me explain what happened to the Democrats by using Jonah Goldberg's words on what's happening to us right now. Today, the right sees the left as enemies. And I should say vice-versa.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a hero for many because he fights political correctness and is transgressive.

STU: This is a note, I have no idea really who this person is, and certainly no idea how to pronounce his name. But we should probably settle on one.

GLENN: I like Yiannopoulos.

STU: I don't know if that's it. But I'm fine --

GLENN: It's Yiannopoulos, right?

JEFFY: But we're settling with Yiannopoulos?

GLENN: Yiannopoulos. Yeah.

A flamboyant provocateur, who wears his homosexuality on his sleeve and acts very much like a left-wing performance artist. He gives the right an edgy cultural avatar to pit against the left. At a time when entertainment and celebrity matter more than facts and arguments, he is an entertaining celebrity.

Until recently, he was also a self-described fellow traveler of the racist and anti-Semitic alt-right. He advanced their worldview primarily from his perch as a senior editor of Breitbart News, the website formerly run by Steve Bannon, a senior adviser to President Trump, who also sought to make Breitbart the platform for the alt-right.

STU: Formerly.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Formerly. Yeah. Formerly. Sure. Formerly.

GLENN: Last year, alt-righters got attention for hurling bigotry at Trump's skeptical journalist on social media. For instance, my National Review colleague David French was subjected to almost daily pictures of his adopted black daughter Photoshopped in a gas chamber with a Nazi uniform-clad Donald Trump poised to push the button.

It was horrible stuff that happened to David French's family.

Yiannopoulos's defense of all of this was that it was funny and rebellious. Quote: Just as the kids of the '60s shocked their parents with promiscuity, long hair, and rock 'n' roll, so too do the alt-right youngs' meme brigades shock older generations with Holocaust jokes and Klan humor.

It was a way for he and his colleague -- it was, he and a colleague wrote for Breitbart, undeniably hysterical.

Well, writes Jonah Goldberg, I can deny that. Countless conservatives defend Milo who admits he's not a conservative, in much the same way Democrats defended the anti-Semitic radio priest Charles Coughlin, as long as he supported the New Deal as Christ's deal.

Conservatives cling to rationalizations to defend their champion. They say he distanced himself from the alt-right. He did cynically, only after "Daddy" -- his term for Donald Trump -- was elected. They credit his claim that he can say anti-Semitic things because his grandmother was allegedly Jewish, and he can say racist things because he sleeps with black men.

These are the kinds of arguments a coalition accepts when it has lost its moral moorings and cares only about winning. Free expression was never the issue. If it were, he would -- he'd be at CPAC and Breitbart expressing the case for ephebophilia. I don't even know what that is. Apparently, conservatives still draw the line there, but not at anti-Semitism or racism. The tent, sad to say, is still big enough for that.

That's Jonah Goldberg yesterday.

My thesis here is that there are a lot of conservatives right now, at least, who are looking at Donald Trump and saying, "I -- I'm -- I'm pretty okay with the direction of where he's going." Nothing bad has happened. Would you agree? We disagree with some of his appointments, but so far, okay. Right?

STU: There's been some good. Been some bad.

GLENN: Yeah, there's been some good. There's been some bad. And I think the average person feels that way on the left. Because we are falling to deaf ears on the thing -- the only thing that the left is hearing. And the left is hearing racist anti-Semitic -- they're looking at the people surrounding Donald Trump.

Basically, the same thing that we did when we were at Fox. We were looking at Van Jones. We weren't looking at President Obama. We were looking at Van Jones. We were looking at George Soros. We were looking at the people behind the man. Now, that was important for us back then because it's who you put in the office around you. And there were some mainstream people around Donald Trump -- I mean, around Barack Obama, that would -- that, of course, the left would say, "They're not all radicals." And they did a good job of washing those radicals clean like Van Jones.

No, he was a former communist. He's not really a communist. He never went to prison. He went to jail. Okay?

They did everything they could to whitewash him, to make their own constituency feel good because Barack Obama was doing the things that were making them happy. But we were saying at the time, guys, you can't give him this much power. You can't do this. Don't turn a blind eye.

Now that Barack Obama is gone, it's left a vacuum of just who was around him. Hillary Clinton and the Blue Dog Democrat is gone. The Blue Dog Democrat no longer exists. The Hillary Clintons no longer exist. So who are you left with?

You're left with Marxists and radicals. And now the Democratic Party is seeing, "Oh, man, this is -- wait. Hold it." And they're seeing -- not all of them -- but enough are seeing what we saw.

The same thing is going to happen with the Republican Party. And I think there's going to be a -- a pull from both of those parties. And what happened in 1854 is going to happen again. And it's going to be a party of common sense and common values, traditional values.

Let me say it that way. But I want you to understand, traditional values, not in the way conservatives view them.

I believe traditional values meaning the American values, which is the Bill of Rights. The people who actually on both sides say, "No, we don't want to spy on our neighbors." No, you don't have a right to spy on me. No, stay out of my bedroom. Stay out of my -- stay out of my pants and my bathroom stall. Stay out of my life. You don't have a right to tell me who I can marry, and you don't have a right to tell me what my priest or my pastor can say from the pulpit. You don't have a right to do that. Leave us alone.

Those traditional values that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I think -- and I could be wrong -- I may be being too optimistic. But I think that there is a coming movement of the Bill of Rights. And it's not going to be taken by the Libertarians. Because the Libertarians -- the Libertarians don't do enough for this moral foundation theory that we talked about. I'd like to take you guys -- you guys have to take this test. This moral foundations theory that we talked about, was it last week or this week?

STU: Last week.

GLENN: Last week. Last week, we had Jonathan Haidt on. He's a professor at NYU. Thought he was liberal. Started doing research and realized, "Holy cow, I'm conservative." And I think that is exactly the point.

When you start actually looking beyond the labels -- and he has devised the way to look beyond the labels. And it's called the moral foundation theory. And when you see that, the average conservative actually has five moral foundations.

But we only concentrate on three. Well, the left only has two. And they only concentrate on those two. And unfortunately, the three we concentrate on don't include those two.

And if we would concentrate on those two, we could bring them along. And because Libertarians don't have that moral foundation theory. They don't have any really of those five -- and I'm talking about as a party -- that's why they fell on deaf ears. That's why they couldn't get anybody from the right, and they couldn't get anybody from the left. Because they're speaking to an empty space, an empty auditorium where there's just not enough people.

What they have is the Bill of Rights. They don't have the moral foundations. And believe it or not, a different -- I can't even say that. Not what we claim as a -- as a morality party today. If I said that, you would think, "Well, that's a church-going, God-fearing, red, white, and blue, you know, served in the military -- not that. Not that. Think bigger foundational morals. Think of the Bill of Rights. Think of compassion. Those underscored by common sense are going to become fashionable again. I'm convinced of it.

RADIO

Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?

During his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Donald Trump floated the idea of abolishing the income tax. This would go hand-in-hand with his plan to raise tariffs, especially on China. Glenn, who has historically been against heavy tariffs, may have been won over by Trump’s explanation. But he wanted to speak with an economics expert to see if the math really added up. Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Peter St. Onge joins the program to break down how tariffs work, whether Trump’s plan would boost the economy, and what he must do if he wants to raise enough support to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah. Hmm. Now, we've got a guy, I think he's -- I think -- I think his last name says everything.

Peter St. Onge, which I believe is French!
(music)
STU: What is happening?

GLENN: Sexy, sexy tax and tariff talk from the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow. We have Peter St. Onge.

How are you, Peter?

PETER: I'm great. I appreciate that. It is sexy.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Everybody says it. Everybody says it. So without getting it too steamy in here.

Let's go over the tariffs.

Because I've always been against tariffs. However, I might be wrong.

PETER: Right.

GLENN: Donald Trump is making a good case, when he's talking about getting rid of the income tax. Because tariff -- tariffs will raise the prices of things. Especially, if he does it the way he's talking about doing it.

But if he is getting rid of, or lowering the income tax to, you know, 10 percent, it's such a boon for the economy. That we could make up that deficit, and become a very powerful nation again.

Tell many I'm wrong.

PETER: I think that's absolutely correct.

Yeah. I feel like you're absolutely right.

You know, the vast majority of economists, Glenn, they go after tariffs. And I think they're looking at the trees for the forest here, because if you replace a tariff, which is basically a sales tax. But it's one that focus on his imported goods.

If you replace that with either reducing or in our dream scenario, abolishing the entire income tax. It's absolute rocket fuel for the economy. The reason is because --

GLENN: He just said abolish the income tax. Pay attention, Sara. He just said abolish income tax. Oh, yeah.
(music)
All right. Go ahead.

PETER: Right.

The background music. So, yeah. And he actually started floated abolishing it with Joe Rogan a couple weeks ago. No tax on tips. Then no tax on overtime. No tax on first responders. No tax on Social Security. And it was kind of like he was really flirting with just breaking up with the income tax altogether.

And when he was on there with Rogan, that's exactly what he did. He said, you know, maybe we should go back to the 1800s, when, you know, it was before we had an income tax. Before we had a Fed.

And back then, the federal government had to live off tariffs. And that was the greatest period, not only of economic growth, but of cultural achievement.

It's astounding, what we -- everything Elon Musk does, was invented in the 1880s. Computers.
Rockets.

What's his -- Hyperloop. Every single thing. And it was really the golden age of humanity.

And the key there, we did not have an income tax. We did not have a regulatory state.

We did not have a Fed. So if Trump can take us back there. And all we have to do is an 8 percent sales tax on Chinese socks.

That is the deal of the century.

GLENN: Okay. Let's go over this.

Who pays the tariffs?

American companies or the foreign company?

PETER: Interestingly, during you Trump's first term. He put tariffs on China. And China actually paid up 80 percent of those. So it would issue subsidies to Chinese exporters so they could maintain market share and keep their prices low. So the Chinese government paid the tariffs.

GLENN: Hmm.

I like that.

PETER: So if he does that again, he's talking about hitting China with something like 60 percent tariffs.

And between a ten and 20 percent tariff for everyone else. Now, given Trump's style, he is not going to come and use it across the board. He is going to come and use that as a club.

Right?

So the Europeans, specifically. They act like a fortress. They are brutal to outsiders.

If you want to export something to Europe, they will put you over a barrel. You remember, a couple years ago, the first thing the European Union did was sat them down. And said, nice economy you've got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it. We're going to need a payment from you every single year.

It is literally the Mafia. They do that to Norway. It's all these countries have to fork over billions of dollars to get access to the European market. Now, imagine if we did that. Imagine if we called up Mexico or Canada. And said, hey, listen. We've got this beautiful economy. You guys are settling into it. Hey, why don't you write me a check for 50 billion to keep access? That's exactly what the Europeans do.

So the first thing Trump is probably going to do, given what he did last time. Is he'll call up Europe, and he will do the exact same thing.

You know, I have a 20 percent tariff burning a hole in my pocket. I need you to do some things for me.

But, anyway, even if he does end up applying those to all foreigners, the Europeans are not going to cover the exporters because they're in a deep fiscal hole.

They don't have the money. They're already bankrupt. They're not going to do what China did.

But a lot of those tariffs, especially the ones from China, are probably going to keep getting paid by China. Because exports to America are what they live on. If they lose that, it's game over.

GLENN: And we should not be empowering them, quite honestly.

Now, here's why. Here's why I have possibly turned around.

I'm willing to listen to tariff talk, because in my -- in my cute little head, I keep thinking that all of the -- when you have an extra 20 or $30,000, that you're pulling in, every year. Whatever it is, you are paying in income tax. And everything -- everything goes down that's made here in America.

If you're not paying that income tax. You have a lot of extra buying power, which means, most of Americans, will spend that.

And will grow our economy, which will put more taxes. Well, we don't have taxes. So that wouldn't work.

How does it work, when you don't have taxes? Go ahead.

PETER: Yeah. So just kind of running into the numbers. The first thing that happens, if you get rid of income tax altogether. So I estimate you get about a 20 percent jump in incomes in the US.

So it would be something like $15,000 for typical families. That's what you get off the bat. The typical family currently has about 18,000 in income tax, and then you knock off about 3,000 for the tariffs.

There's a variety of estimates on that. But that seems to be the cluster. So you get a 15,000 raise, because the economy is growing faster. You get an 18,000 raise because you don't have to send your income tax to the government. People don't realize how much they're paying to the government.

Right? A lot of it is tips. But, anyway, you've got -- what do they call it?

Withholding. So, anyway, that's 33. I call three for the tariffs. 30,000 dollar raise per year, 2500 a month. Now, currently, the median American take home is about 58,000.

Okay. Which is about 76, minus the income tax. So you go from taking home 58, to taking home 88. Right? That is a massive difference.

And that sort of sets the stage.
(music)

GLENN: Hold. Hold on. You go from 58 to 88. Oh, yeah.
(music)
Ding-dong. Pizza deliveryman. Anyway.

STU: Why is that the part you like so much in his movies? It's interesting what he is excited about.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

All right.

PETER: No. I love it. And it's true. You know, if you're making 88. You can go to Vegas. And things happen in Vegas.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right. Creating jobs.

PETER: Right. Yeah, well, and so that's the fun part, right? Is you mentioned earlier, that if you're not paying income tax, then production in the US is cheaper.

So instead of the Chinese socks coming in -- you know, they used to come in at $6, now they're at $9. Fine. But China is paying for that, so they're probably still coming in at six.

But, meanwhile, American factories can make socks for less, because they are not paying the income tax.

There's a very good chance that we will see a lot of that manufacturing, even if the Chinese government pays for the tariffs.

GLENN: And that means, also because the economy -- we're building factories. We're doing things ourselves, because we can.

Everybody's pay goes up. Because we need more workers. Right?

PETER: Exactly. Exactly. And then there's actually mass deportations, then the socks will actually go American.

So you've got two possibilities, right?

One of them is that China covers the tariffs. In which case, it's a free lunch for us.

China is, what?

Putting us about 500 billion -- well, their share would be -- let's say 300 billion. So that would be fantastic. Thank you very much.

Or China does not cover the tariffs, in which case China is priced out of the market. America pays no income tax, so they're cheaper. By the way, every headquarter on earth would try to move to the United States. If you're paying no income tax on the single biggest economy on earth, everybody will be trying to move here. Including the Chinese companies. The worst-case scenario, the Chinese don't cover it.

They get outcompeted. And it all comes back to America. And if it's only Americans living here, then Americans will be swimming in jobs.

GLENN: I mean, this is just -- this is big.

How -- how much --

PETER: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He has only floated this on the Rogan show. How real do you think this is? Because I know he loves tariffs. I know he loves tariffs.

PETER: He loves tariffs. And he hates the income tax. So it's beautiful. It's like a -- it's just like the perfect Newton president.

STU: Peter, isn't the complication here, that he can essentially do what he wants with tariffs. But he can't do what he wants with the income tax. And that becomes the heavy lift here?

PETER: Right. So he would need Congress to play ball on the income tax. And Congress is very tight, as we're all discussing at the moment. There's a ton of RINOs over there.

So that's going need to the pressure and the passion that people showed during the campaign, that millions of Americans showed. We have to put that on the RINOs.

GLENN: Yeah. I think that if he did, you know, a tour even. And was just all about income tax. You just have to say to people. You go from 58 to 88 in take home pay. I think a lot of people will be like, you know what, I love that.

STU: I agree. But you're not going to get -- obviously, in theory, you could put it into a reconciliation bill. Right?

At least a massive reduction.

You couldn't -- not a constitutional amendment, unfortunately.

That's what I would prefer.

Repealing the 16th.

GLENN: Yeah. Me too.

But you could capture American's imagination with this.

STU: Yeah. I think that's pretty -- that would be pretty great.

I do think you would have issues with some of these, as you point out. RINO-type republicans, who would complain about all sorts of things.

Including deficit stuff. Right?

They would say, we're going to lose all this income.

GLENN: All right. Let me take a break, and then let's talk about the deficit, Peter. All right? Peter st. Onge. He -- hmm. I'm not going to hold it against him for being French. I mean, somewhere in his past, somebody had sex with a French person. Okay. Let's -- let's move past that. He's with the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow.

STU: This is definitely the weirdest interview he's ever done. And he's regretting every minute of this.

GLENN: He's like, this is the end of my career and my credibility.

GLENN: Okay. I think I've got this number from you, Peter.

But a -- tariffs would bring in about 900 billion.

Almost a trillion dollars.

But our -- we're spending now, I don't even know how much.

$4 trillion a year? Some crazy number like that.

So how do you bridge the gap?

PETER: About six and a half.

GLENN: Six and a half. Okay. Good.

STU: There's a bit of a gap.

GLENN: There's a five and a half trillion dollar gap.

PETER: So income tax itself is taking about two and a half trillion.

And then you've got -- what? You've got payroll. You've got excise. Things like gasoline and cigarettes, things like that.

You've got capital gains. Corporate income tax. Those hopefully would be folded into an income tax repeal.

You put it together. You're looking at 2.4 trillion in lost revenue. And then you've got 900 in tariffs. About 1.5.

Now, the economy grows 20 percent, then you're going to get about 500 billion more from payroll tax and from excise. So you're looking at a net loss of 1 trillion. Now, I personally would prefer to get rid of the payroll tax as well.

STU: Yes!

GLENN: Pernicious.

PETER: It's not as bad as the income tax. Because the income tax is on top of it. It also varies on how much you produce. The payroll tax is a flat tax.

So, you know, in a perfect world, we're not taxing work at all. We're taxing bad things, not good things.

In the grand scheme, you know, in the terms of incentives, get rid of income tax first. Then we can have the next conversation, which would be getting rid of the payroll tax. If you're just going to the income tax, you're talking about 2.4 net of the tariffs. Net of the economic growth. You're talking 1 trillion. So you would be cutting 1 trillion out of a budget of about six and a half.

Now, Elon is -- he's talking about his department of government efficiency.

He's floating 2 trillion.

So I haven't seen the math on those.

I don't know where it's coming from.

I agree whole-heartedly.

I'm certain we could get a lot more than that.

It's cutting out the parts of the military, that is part of our country.

Bring them home. Put them on the border. Divert the Navy that patrol our waters. Stop invading other countries.

That would be a very easy 800 billion, if we look at countries like Japan or UK, which the UK has a functioning military. It has a Coast Guard.

Although, it doesn't use it.

About the whole kit. They spend less than hundred billion.

Of course, you can cut welfare for able-bodied people.

Which the government tries very, very hard to hide how much it spends on welfare. But it's easily over a trillion.

The cost of illegals themselves, which very conservatively is about 150 billion a year. Maybe closer to 350 billion by some estimates. Because, again, they're trying to hide the costs.

Pharmaceuticals. Right?

That's going to be coming into focus with RFK here. But there is a ton of waste and corruption in pharmaceutical payments. Those are something like 20 percent of our economy.

But really, you know, if you sort of zoom out, you're very familiar with the Tenth Amendment.

There are precisely four agencies that are authorized. Right? State, justice, defense, treasury with both offices.

So strictly speaking, if we had a Supreme Court, that actually read the common sense language in the Tenth Amendment, almost the entire thing is gone. You would slash everything. Personally, I would keep Social Security and Medicare because they've already been paid for. That's a complicated issue. I think you have to make sure people are protected, because they already got ripped off on the way in. But aside from that, almost everything they do, from DEI, to just -- to the Federal Reserve, all of that is unconstitutional.

You slash that down, and you are -- gosh, you're probably more than 3 trillion down.

GLENN: So do you think we have a shot at doing that?

Is he putting the team in, around him to do something like this?

PETER: So the closest we have, I follow Polymarket very closely. They've got odds on pretty much everything out there. The sort of tip of the spear on income tax repeal is starting with tax on tips.

Right? That was the one that he most clearly promised.

And so that's kind of a proxy for whether we're going to start hacking away at the income tax. So tax on tips, is currently running 38 percent on Polymarket.

That's the number I'm watching. That's encouraging. Because it means, it's not just talk.

That people with capital, believe it's the real.

But for sure, Congress will play ball.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much, Peter. We'll have you on again. Great explanation of this. Peter St. Onge. He's with the Heritage Foundation. You can follow him @PeterStOnge. Good luck spelling Onge. I mean, just saying.

RADIO

Trump’s plan to ABOLISH the Department of Education CONFIRMED

Donald Trump has announced that he WILL push to abolish the Department of Education and give the power over our school system back to the states. Glenn and Stu review his plan to overhaul the entire education system, including by clearing out all the “anti-American insanity” that has taken over our colleges. But will he actually be able to make these big moves? Glenn and Stu also discuss some rumored picks for Trump’s cabinet, including Sen. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, as well as the confirmed Trump pick, Rep. Elise Stefanik as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, let's say, hello to Stu Burguiere. Hello, Stu. How are you?

STU: Very well, Glenn. Exciting things happening.

GLENN: Exciting things, right?

STU: Yeah. Shutting down the Department of Education.

GLENN: You don't believe that?

STU: I don't -- I'm skeptical, whether it will actually occur.

I am excited about the prospect of a president who actually wants it to happen. I feel like it's been -- we haven't felt heard that since Reagan. But, of course, Reagan famously did not actually achieve --

GLENN: Of course. Of course. Reagan also said that he was going to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

STU: Right. Exactly.

GLENN: And he didn't do that.

STU: I will also say, one of the central parts of education policy for Republicans for as long as I've been aware of politics, have been the idea of, you know, school choice.

And nothing ever happened, until the past couple years. Right? Like now we've come further on school choice, than at any other point in my lifetime.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: I'm really excited about that. I think his appointments around this area will be really interesting.

GLENN: So here's what he has said. First, let's start with his plan to overhaul leftist colleges. Cut five.

DONALD: Tuition costs at colleges and universities have been exploding. And I mean absolutely exploding. While academics have been obsessed with indoctrinating America's youth. The time has come to reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical left. And we will do that.

Our secret weapon will be the college accreditation system. It's called accreditation for a reason. The accreditors are supposed to ensure schools are not ripping off students and taxpayers.

But they have failed totally. When I return to the White House, I will fire the radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominant by Marxists, maniacs, and lunatics.

We will then accept applications for new accreditors who will impose real standards on colleges once again and once and for all.

These standards will include defending the American tradition and Western civilization. Protecting free speech, eliminating wasteful administrative positions, that drive up costs incredibly.

Removing all Marxist, diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucrats. Offering options for accelerated and low cost degrees. Providing meaningful job placement in career services.

And implementing college entrance and exit exams. To prove that students are actually learning and getting their money's worth. Furthermore, I will direct the Department of Justice to pursue federal civil rights cases against schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination.

And schools that persist in explicit, unlawful discrimination, under the guise of equity, will not only have their endowment stacks, but through budget reconciliation, I will advance a measure to have them fined up to the entire amount of their endowment.

GLENN: Oh, my.

TOM: A portion of the cease funds will then be used as restitution for victims of these illegal and unjust policies. Policies that hurt our country, so badly.

Colleges have gotten hundreds of billions of dollars from hard-working taxpayers. And now, we are going to get this anti-American insanity out of our institutions, once and for all. We are going to have real education in America.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Again, we need some porn music for this stuff. This is just, oh, say it again, Donald.

That is very, very clear, I think.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: The clearest I have -- I have heard him, and the most passionate that I've heard him.

These are not campaign promises. He doesn't need to make these promises anymore.

These are, here's what we're doing, right now.

Included in that, that whole rant, is this. Cut four, please.

DONALD: And one other thing I will be doing very early in the administration, is closing up the Department of Education in Washington, DC, and sending all education and education working needs back to the states. We want them to run the education of our children.

Because they'll do a much better job of it.

You can't do worse. We spend more money per pupil by three times, than any other nation. And yet, we're absolutely at the bottom. We're one of the worst. So you can't do worse.

We're going to end education coming out of Washington, DC. We're going to close it up. All those buildings all over the place. And you have people in many cases, hate our children. We're going to send it all back to the states.

GLENN: Wow.

Again, oh, yeah.

STU: Love that. I think that's really exciting.

GLENN: Now, do you think he won't do it, or do you think he won't be able to do it?

STU: I mean, I hope that it would happen. But, I mean -- if you're focusing on the national levels of pessimism, that I have when it comes to anything going on in Washington.

GLENN: You are a little back rain cloud.

STU: I mean, look, I'm trying to be realistic here.

But I think that there is -- I think -- it's interesting. Because Trump, when he puts his mind to it, he can accomplish anything.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But there are certain things that he says, that are things I think he likes and wants. But aren't central focuses of his life.

For example, we know the border is. There's no question, he will do stuff on the border.

Another example I would use, would be term limits.

He talked often, in speeches about term limits in 2016, and 2017.

GLENN: I think -- wait. Wait. Wait.

Hang on just a second. I think to compare Donald Trump's 2016 version, you're looking at a new two-point -- maybe 2.9 version of Donald Trump. Almost a 3.0.

He's not the same guy.

STU: It's true. It's not even a criticism of him though. You can only focus on so many things.

You can only get so many things done.

Typically, maybe he's going to come up with a whole new way to do it. Maybe he's putting all these people in, that will be able to kind of shepherd these things, so he doesn't have to focus on them at all.

GLENN: Now, that is --

STU: Your bully pulpit, you can really only push for one or two things at a time.

GLENN: Hmm. I don't know. I find these videos, that he's putting out, to be almost like a fireside chat.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And he's putting them out for a reason.

Have you ever seen a president do this, as president-elect.

STU: No. I like it.

GLENN: I love you this. I love this.

And he's putting this out, one after another after another after another.

Because he is preparing the Washington swamp, and America. These are massive changes coming our way.

And we're going need to your support. And he has told me, I've got to do all of this in 100 days, Glenn. I've got 100 days to do it.

STU: He's right on that. That's way he should be thinking. And it's a lot to do.

GLENN: It is.

But do you remember that first bill that Barack Obama put in, that we looked at?

It was one of the first health care bills. It was TARP. And then there was -- there was something else.

STU: It was the stimulus plan, wasn't it? $780 billion or something.

GLENN: Yeah, and it was like 2,000 pages. And we went through it, paper, I printed it. And said somebody -- I didn't know how long it was at first. Would you print this up, let me read this? And it was sitting on our kitchen table in our studios, in New York City.

Remember?

And I looked at that, and I went, this is not about stimulus. This is about fundamental transformation.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Okay? And they just loaded that bill with everything.

The reason why I bring that up. Is because that showed to me, that they did something we never did.

And that is, plot the entire course. They knew exactly what they wanted to do.

Okay. And they never told us.

Donald Trump is the first that one I'm seeing, do this.

He didn't even do this in 2016. He made promises in 2016.

And he believes in keeping promises.

But he didn't believe in getting everything done.

He has the Congress and the Senate right now.

He can make the right appointments, right now.

If he fails to make the right appointments, that's going to be a problem.

Because if he has any internal fighting, they are going to unleash, on him.

STU: Yeah. I -- I think that's true.

GLENN: And if he has anybody on his own side, fighting against him, which he did have last time.

STU: Definitely did, yes.

GLENN: He's got to -- there is a mandate here.

And the Republicans should be reminded of that.

And he should not put anybody in any position that doesn't understand MAGA.

This is where we're going.

This truly is fundamental transformation.

This is a reset back to the Constitution, in as many ways that I have ever seen. This is as impactful as what FDR did, in the opposite direction in 12 years.

STU: Hmm. That's interesting. Because part -- and let me -- I'm playing devil's advocate here.

Because I have the same level of hope here, for what might happen.

GLENN: I want you to know though.

I don't hope. I believe I know. I believe I know.

In talking to him, he's not the same guy.

STU: I'm not. And that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying he's the same guy. I'm just saying it's hard. This is a difficult thing to do. Getting rid of the Department of Education, like Ronald Reagan really believed that. He really did. That was not a fake thing.

He talked about it for decades leading up to his presidency.

GLENN: I know that. I know. I know.

STU: It wasn't even one term off and he's magnum like maybe Donald Trump has done here. This is what this man was known for, for multiple decades, and still, it was hard to do.

GLENN: Well, not Department of Education.

STU: That was central to his talks in like the '60s.

GLENN: No, it wasn't. The Department of Education was started by Jimmy Carter.

STU: Yes. Consistent policies on education. You're right. Sorry, I'm not being clear.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: But regardless of that, I have hope and optimism for what he can do.

But like, when you're talking about, this is somebody who is going to do whatever MAGA thing he wants -- I mean, his appointment so far, has been pretty normal.

GLENN: I know. It makes me nervous.

STU: But Marco Rubio, secretary of state, is like --

GLENN: I know. I wanted Richard Grenell.

STU: Any Republican president, in that field, could have -- could have listed Marco Rubio as Secretary of State. It's like, I don't even think -- I'm not saying it's a bad pick.

But it's not particularly consistent with what I hear from the audience at times, about like how against Ukraine funding they are.

GLENN: How against Ukraine and the WEF and the United Nations.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, I want somebody in the UN, that wants to shut it down.

STU: I mean, and Elise Stefanik is a normie Republican pick.

GLENN: Yes. She's solid. She's solid.

STU: And I don't think that's bad. I thought she was really, really good on a lot of things.

I'm not even against any of these picks. But --

GLENN: Yeah, me too. Marco Rubio, I'm borderline on. That's a disappointment.

STU: We've had him on the show. We like Marco.

GLENN: I like Marco.

I don't want him as a Secretary of State under Donald Trump.

STU: It's interesting.

GLENN: I want Richard Grenell. I want the guy who will walk in and say, hey, by the way, just got off the phone with the president. We're going to make a deal here, or I'm going back to telling him, we don't have a deal. And instead of sending a signed deal to him, we're going to be sending aircraft your way.

You know what I mean? I want somebody who will walk into the EU saying, you are either paying your way.

What he says, he means. You're either paying your way. Or I'm done.

I want that guy. And I'm not sure that Marco Rubio is that guy. He could be. Maybe he could surprise us.

STU: Yeah. He's obviously -- he was under serious consideration for vice president, at least by all the reporting.

It's interesting.

And I think part of the things with Trump. This is, I think consistent with him.

And again, I'm not being critical here.

I'm just trying to state what I think is actually true. Which is, a lot of what Donald Trump says is a negotiation.

And we all know that, going back to the art of the deal, right?

You know that. And when he says, Kim Jong-un is my best friend. He doesn't mean it. Right? To have

He doesn't also mean, the next day, when he says we're sending -- we're going to nuke North Korea tomorrow.

He doesn't mean either of those things. They're both different pieces.

GLENN: I think this is fascinating. I want to go thew the things that he says. And I want to you point out, what you think is a negotiation.

STU: I don't always know.

I can guesstimate. We know that those two positions can't be true though. And this is the 2016, or 21st term reference here.

But like, saying you're going to, you know -- we're going to blast North Korea. Like you've never seen. And also, we're great friends. I love the guy.

Like those are two obviously --

GLENN: I know that.

But I think there's a difference. The way he deals with dictators.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: He knows. Because he's a private businessman.

Who has bullied his way in very good negotiating ways.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: He has -- he's used that as a businessman. He knows who these people are.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Okay?

So he knows, these are the things I would hate in business. And I've done them, to people who think they're all that. And I always win.

I think that's different, than what he's doing on -- for instance, the Department of Ed.

STU: But like, I think it's consistent with what you would do with Marco Rubio or Elise Stefanik. You're picking people that are maybe more hawkish than you, to send a message of being hawkish. While at the same time, maybe trying to implement a more J.D. Vance-ish type foreign policy. It could be.

GLENN: Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. I will give this man the benefit of the doubt, in '16, I didn't, and I was shocked by what he got done and what he meant. And now I really think he really means every word that he says on these policies.

These are scripted.

These are not campaign promises.

These are, here's what we're going to do.

So I take them literally.

Not just seriously. But literally.

But I could be wrong.

But the only -- my only thing on some of his appointments is: What does he know, that I don't know? About Marco Rubio.

RADIO

Why Is the Pentagon already WARGAMING Trump's presidency?!

CNN has reported that Pentagon officials are already wargaming their plans for Trump’s second presidency. If Trump issues “controversial” orders, the Department of Defense may have a plan in place to thwart him. This would include the possibilities that Trump would deploy U.S. troops domestically or “fire large swaths of apolitical staffers.” Glenn points out how misleading CNN’s reporting on this is and asks, why is the Pentagon “having secret meanings wargaming what they’ll do against Donald Trump … All of those people should be fired.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So listen to this from CNN. Pentagon officials are holding informal discussions about how the Department of Defense would respond if Donald Trump issues orders to deploy active duty troops domestically. He's not going to do that. He might call out the National Guard. With the permission of the state.

The governor.

I mean, that's what he did last time.

And fire large swaths of apolitical staffers. Well, I think -- I think he could do that. I could see that happening. Trump has suggested, he would be open to using active duty forces for domestic law enforcement. He's talking in case of mass riots all over the country.

And mass deportations. Wait a minute. Why is the Pentagon involved in mass deportations. What?

Why are they discussing this? He's indicated they want to stack the federal government with loyalists and clean out the corrupt actors in the national security establishment.
(applauding)

I don't know about you, I'm for non-corrupt actors. You know, to be in our government. Corrupt actors, to be nowhere in our government. Trump in his last term, had a fraught relationship with much of his senior military leadership, including now retired General Mark Milley, who took steps to limit Trump's ability to use nuclear weapons while he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. First of all, let me just say this, if you are worried at all about Donald Trump using nuclear weapons, you haven't heard a thing he said.

Second, you need to read Nuclear War by -- what's her name, Stu?

Annie Jacobson. You need to read Nuclear War by Annie Jacobson. It is terrifying. Donald Trump has read it. Donald Trump knows it inside and out. Donald Trump has said over and over and over again.

Why is nobody talking about the use of nuclear weapons? That can never happen. There's no way to win. And it will destroy all life on the planet.

He gets the use of nuclear weapons. So why is the Pentagon trying to limit his use of nuclear weapons?

If he ever asks for the football, it is your constitutional duty to give it to him.

Now, if you think he's impaired, that's when the 25th Amendment comes in.

But no one -- this is a civilian-run military. You don't have the right to subvert the president of the United States. That's not honoring the Constitution. You have -- there's no right for you to do that.

None. None.

The cabinet can. But you can't.

In fact, in Annie Jacobson's book, it's a little terrifying, because you realize, no man can make this decision in six minutes.

And you actually have only about two, once you have all the information.

There's nobody that could -- that could make this decision, wisely and completely.

Nobody!

It should -- I mean, this is what Gorbachev and Reagan came to. They both actually looked at it.

Both talked about it and said, we'll never fight this. Because we'll both lose.

Everybody will lose.

And that's where Donald Trump is!

So thank you, Mark Milley for limit Trump's ability to use nuclear weapons.

The president-elect, meanwhile, has repeatedly called U.S. military generals woke, weak, and ineffective leader. You disagree with any of that?

Pentagon leadership: Woke, weak, and ineffective leader.

STU: Now, Glenn, I want ineffective leaders.

GLENN: Especially woke ones.

STU: I want woke -- these are things that are not always easy to figure out. But if you know who they are, you get them out of there immediately.

GLENN: It's pretty easy to figure out, with the string of successes they've given us here in the last four years.

STU: Right. He's going to find the right people to replace them. Not always easy, but certainly the goal you should be aspiring to.

GLENN: Right. And, by the way, they're saying, you can't let him do this to the military.

Excuse me? What did Biden do the first few days he got into office? He told the military to stand down, worldwide. He shut them down, so they could do a witch hunt. So they could find out, who is naughty, who is nice? Who has voted for Trump? Who says popular things for Trump? And who is on our side?

And they fired those people.

STU: There are some questions on some of this stuff, as to how far executive power reaches.

The commander-in-chief of the military indicates he has the right to do these types of things pretty clearly.

GLENN: Yes. Exactly.

And I'm sorry. The mandate that he just got, also tells us, he has the right to do this.

Now, I'm not for him getting a bunch of zombies in there.

Going, yes. Donald Trump.
That's not what he's looking for.

That's not what I'm looking for.

Remember, this is a guy who doesn't want war.

My gosh, the left should be all for this guy. Anyway.

We're all preparing and planning for the worst-case scenario. But the reality is, we don't know how this is going to play out yet.

They are war gaming the next president of the United States.

Think about that!

The Pentagon is having secret meetings, war gaming what they will do against Donald Trump.

That just in and of itself, all of those people should be fired. Troops are compelled by law, to disobey unlawful orders.

Yes! I remind the troops all the time. Every time I'm with troops. I always say, thank you for your service. Blah, blah, blah. Remember, you serve the Constitution.

Not a man. The Constitution. And I stand by that today. Even with Donald Trump getting in.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: You honor the Constitution.

Troops are compelled by law to disobey. But the question is, what happens then?

Do we see resignations from senior military leaders, or will they view that as abandoning their people?

I don't think your people -- nobody -- nobody that I know, that's down -- the fighting men and women. Nobody thinks that the people at the very top, are their people.

They just don't. Those are career -- they're politicians in military outfits. That's all they are. That's all they are. And they know it.

RADIO

Why Trump's free speech plan is the "MOST AMAZING" Glenn has ever heard

Donald Trump has released a video explaining his plan to "shatter the left-wing censorship regime" and it's "the most amazing thing" Glenn has heard "any president ever say." Trump promised to stop government officials from colluding with private companies to censor legal speech, clear the bureaucracy of people who had done so, push for a "digital bill of rights," reform Section 230, and do much more. Glenn and Stu discuss this long, detailed list and also review a few concerns they have, which Trump must address very carefully.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Stu, this is like constitutional porn. I just want to warn you. I just want to warn you, you might hear some sexy music, in your own head. You might be like, oh, yeah. Ding-dong, pizza delivery

You might hear that.

This is the most amazing thing I have heard any president ever say. This is Donald Trump.

STU: Wow. That's quite a standard.

GLENN: Just, I want you to make a list. Okay.

When he says, oh. And I'm going to do this.

Just make a list. Okay?

This is his plan to end the censorship cartel.

DONALD: We don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country. It's as simple as that. If this most if you then right is allowed to perish. Then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple, just like dominoes, one by one.

They will go down. That's why, today, I'm announcing my plan to shatter the left-wing censorship regime. And to reclaim the right to free speech for all Americans.

And reclaim is a very important word in this case, because they've taken it away.

In recent weeks, bombshell reports have confirmed that a sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media have been conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people.

They have collaborated to suppress vital information on everything from elections to public health.

Censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed.

And it must happen immediately.

And here's my plan.

GLENN: Here we go.

DONALD: First, within hours of my inauguration, I will sign an executive order, banning any federal department or agency, from colluding with any organization, business, or person, to censor, limit, categorize, or impede the lawful speech of American citizens.

I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as mis or disinformation. And I will begin the process of identifying and firing every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship, directly or indirectly, with whether they are the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health, Human Services, the FBI, the DOJ. No matter who they are.

Second, I will order the Department of Justice to investigate all parties involved in the new unlined censorship regime, which is absolutely destructive and terrible. And to aggressively prosecute any and all crimes identified.

These include possible violations of federal civil rights law, campaign finance laws, federal election law, securities law, and anti-trust laws. The Hatch Act. And a host of other potential criminal, civil, regulatory, and constitutional offenses.

To assist in these efforts, I am urging House Republicans, to immediately send preservation letters. We have to do this, right now.

To the Biden administration, the Biden campaign, and every Silicon Valley tech giant. Ordering them not to destroy evidence of censorship.

Third, upon my inauguration as president, I will ask Congress to send a bill to my desk, rerising Section 230.

To get big online platforms out of censorship business. From now on, digital platform should only qualify for immunity protection under Section 230.

If they mean high standards of neutrality, transparency, fairness, and nondiscrimination.

We should require these platforms to increase their efforts to take down unlawful content, such as child exploitation and promoting terrorism, while dramatically curtailing their power to arbitrarily restrict lawful speech. Fourth, we should break up the entire toxic censorship industry that has arisen under the false guise of tackling so-called mis and disinformation.

The federal government should immediately stop funding all nonprofits and academic programs, that support this authoritarian project.

If any US university is discovered to have engaged in censorship activities, or election interferences in the past, such as flagging social media content for removal of blacklisting. Those universities should lose federal research dollars and federal student loan support for a period of five years, and maybe more.

We should also enact new laws, laying out clear criminal penalties for federal bureaucrats, who partner with private entities to do an end run with the Constitution.

And to deprive Americans of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. In other words, deprive them of their vote!

And once you lose those elections, and once you lose your voters like we have, you no longer have a country.

Furthermore, to confront the problems of major platforms being infiltrated. By legions of former Deep Staters.

And intelligence officials.

There should be a seven-year calling off period, before any employee of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, DHS, or DOD is allowed to take a job, at a company, possessing vast quantities of US data.

Fifth, the time has finally come for Congress to pass a digital Bill of Rights.

This should include a right to digital due process. In other words, government officials should need a court order to take town online content. Not send information requests such as the FBI was sending to Twitter.

Furthermore, when uses of big online platforms after the content or accounts removed. Throttled. Shadow banned or otherwise restricted.

No matter what name they used. They should have the right to be informed, that it's happening. The right to a specific explanation, of the reason why.

And the right to a timely appeal. In addition, all users over the age of 18 should have the right to opt out of content moderation and curation entirely.

And receive an unmanipulated stream of information. If they so choose.

The fight for free speech is a matter of victory or death for America and for the survival of Western civilization itself.

When I'm president, this whole rotten system of censorship and information control, will be ripped out of the system at large. There won't be anything left. By restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy and save our nation.

Thank you, and God bless America.

GLENN: Wow!

STU: I mean, that is -- first thing that strikes me on that, is just how different it was than 2016. That is not a guy who is just walking in. I don't know. Who should we pick?

Like, that is somebody who has a plan.

GLENN: No. That's one of the exciting things is.

This is so detailed. Even what he just said -- you know there's much more than this behind each one of these. And so much thought behind all of this.

This is a guy who has sat there for at least the last two years. Probably the last four years. Going, all right.

I'll get a second chance.

What do we do? What do we do?

This is the most comprehensive thing I've ever heard a Republican president, ever lay out.

Now, the Democrats do it. But usually they do it in about a bill of 3,000 pages. And you just don't find out, until after the happy meal bill.

You know, and you're like, wait. Is this for Happy Meals?

STU: The Inflation Reduction Act?

GLENN: Yeah. Kind of like that.

I mean, look at the list.

STU: Yeah. There is a lot in there.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Going after the federal employees colluding to censor speech.

GLENN: And put them jail.

STU: Taking the federal money. And away from people who are kind of walking that line, and drawing our guardrails on mis and disinformation.

GLENN: That's that -- that's that -- what was the name of that organization over in England, that we helped start? Over all the people -- all the people that were involved in that, buh-bye.

STU: And I think a lot of the people on the left and the media take it as, oh, he just wants to be able to say conspiracy theories and not fact-checked. And that's just not -- the truth is, the federal government should have no role in that.

You want to have a media organization -- that's not going to stop ABC News from doing misinformation reporting, as dumb as it might be. It will just stop federal money going to that process, which is totally appropriate for a country which has a 14th amendment. Prosecuting crimes that happened. I'm sure, this is punishing enemies.

But in a reality, if you commit a crime, it's supposed to be --

GLENN: Yes, and this is a constitutional crime. Government getting involved in freedom of speech. That's a constitutional crime.

STU: And sending preservation letters, so that these suites can go forward. So they're not clearing out and deleting all these files now, before he gets into office.

That's tough, and by the way, not something he can do personally. That's going to be something Sanders --

GLENN: No. That's why he said, they have to send that right away.

STU: Look, all of this is I think good.

Is there any part in there, that makes you at all nervous?

There's a couple of points in there that I could see going the wrong way, if we're not careful. Which is rewriting Section 230.

GLENN: Yes. That could be dicey.

STU: That could be -- there's nothing wrong with rewriting Section 230. But you just have to -- you have to be careful with it.

GLENN: What he said is --

STU: I think what he said --

GLENN: -- as long as you have quality --

STU: High standards of neutrality.

GLENN: Yeah. High standards of neutrality. You have to qualify for that. And you should -- you should ban things that are illegal. You know, child porn, terrorism. Things like that.

STU: Of course. And that is theoretically already there. But we have really loose standards on these companies for enforcing it.

It's basically like, if you get multiple requests to take some material down, and you don't, you could be in trouble.

Generally speaking, they are -- they don't have to take action to go get the stuff. They have to just wait for it to be reported to them, and then they have to do it after that process. But the process of course is really weak.

You have millions and millions and millions of posts going up. They would argue, that it's impossible to get to all of it. Oh, well.

Oh, well. Oh, no. Maybe you don't get to be as large a company. Maybe -- you know, look, my fantasy, of course, here is, maybe this doesn't work within the law.

And the social media companies just go away. That would be tragic. That would be terrible.

GLENN: It would be.

STU: Now, of course, Zoren. Max Zoren. Zoren Industries, if you go back to A View to A Kill, the documentary from 1985 --

GLENN: Right. I believe that was a James Bond movie.

STU: Actually, he advocated for explosives under the earth that would cause an earthquake that would flood all of Silicon Valley.

He must get to that. Unfortunately. I was waiting for it, one of the action steps.

Didn't quite get there.

Maybe that's step seven.

We'll get there eventually.

GLENN: The digital Bill of Rights is so important.

STU: Yeah. That's interesting.

GLENN: What's interesting about that, you have a right to go without an algorithm. Love that.

STU: And it's interesting because the -- Europe has a digital Bill of Rights.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: I would assume it won't look much like the Trump one.

GLENN: No. I don't think so.

STU: First of all, there's some similarities there. You own your own data.

That's the concept between the European one. Some of those concepts, you could say are good. And I'm sure will be brought over.

Also, just the idea, that you don't have to be manipulated by this.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Now. It's tough.

Because you should be able to run a website, that you own. Right?

TheBlaze should not need to go neutral. And give all sorts of information from the left. Right?

We should be able to do what we want to do with our own website.

Now, there's that distinction between publisher, and sort of cure rater.

Social network, that I think will probably be the line there. Again, the details matter on this stuff.

As we've seen over and over and over again.

If you don't get that exactly right. It could be a problem. But, you know, that's what the process will be for.

GLENN: First of all, you're in public square now.

STU: I --

GLENN: I know.

STU: I hate the public square argument.

GLENN: I know, but it's digital now.

STU: I know.

GLENN: Nobody gets on their soapbox and we're walking in our town square. And you see somebody stand and up say, I want to give a speech.

STU: Well, if you want a town square, then it's like, then make a town square. These are companies that have spent their own money on this stuff. I just feel like they should be -- look, there's a lot here, that I understand. And I think is a good thing. Making essentially, just turning giant private companies into utilities -- I mean, should Elon Musk have to deal with all that?

If he -- he bought the company. When is the next -- the next government -- the next time the Democrats get in control, and they take this public square and make their own rules with it. It makes me really nervous. I get what he's saying.

I think the -- I think we'll be able to walk this line. But let's be honest that we have to walk a line here and just be careful here.

GLENN: I agree with that. But you have things like an algorithm. You have a right to unmask. I don't have a right to necessarily know their algorithm.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But I do have a right to say, you know what, I don't want you filtering stuff.

Why don't you have a right to do that.

STU: This is the sort of thing that they should have just done.

It wouldn't have been an issue, if they just did it.

It would have been easy. They should have just had an off button. But they couldn't bring themselves to do that. Because they wanted, A, money and, B, to control the public opinion.

GLENN: Correct. How many people will have their eyes be opened if you have that, and say, just unmask it. Just unmask it for a week. See what you see. It would be pretty amazing.

Glenn's Show Prep

Weird Groupthink: Tribal Instinct Explains Milo Yiannopoulos

Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?

Transcript

Trump’s plan to ABOLISH the Department of Education CONFIRMED

Transcript

Why Is the Pentagon already WARGAMING Trump's presidency?!

Transcript

Why Trump's free speech plan is the "MOST AMAZING" Glenn has ever heard

Transcript