Donald Trump Will Fundamentally Transform the Presidency

Just as Barack Obama promised to --- and succeeded in --- transforming the United States of America, so too will Donald Trump fundamentally transform America and the presidency, possibly more than anyone else. Woodrow Wilson and FDR changed it a great deal, but will President-elect Trump take it even further than President Obama?

"He is going to fundamentally transform the media, the media that comes out of the White House, the way the president communicates, the way the president is viewed, the things the president can say and do, the way the president behaves, and I think the fundamental structure of the presidency itself," Glenn said Tuesday on radio.

Is that a good or a bad thing?

"Just let me make the same warning to the right that I gave to the left in 2008: Don't push the pendulum too far. If you allow the president to have all kinds of unlimited power, and you like it because it's your side, remember the pendulum will swing back just as far, if not further. And at some point, there will be an emergency, and some president is going to grab the pendulum," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Let me go back to what we were talking about. Because I made a statement that I believe that Donald Trump will change and fundamentally transform the United States of America and the presidency, possibly more than anyone else did, besides -- no, I think even more so. Woodrow Wilson and -- Woodrow Wilson and -- and FDR changed it a great deal. And I think Donald Trump is going to take it further than Barack Obama did. And you can look at that as a good thing or a bad thing. Just let me make the same warning to the right that I gave to the left in 2008.

Don't push the pendulum too far. If you -- if you allow the president to have all kinds of unlimited power and you like it because it's your side -- remember, the pendulum will swing back just as far, if not further. And at some point, there will be an emergency, and some president is going to grab the pendulum.

PAT: And if you don't believe that, it's happened both ways since you started talking about this during the Bush administration. It swung to the left.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And we had Obama. Now it swung way back to the right, and we got Trump.

GLENN: So here's what's really interesting -- let me just take you through this pendulum, and then I'll get to the reason why I say this with the prediction.

If you -- if you look in 2001, we were already really angry with the left and right. We were already really angry with each other because of 2000, right? The election. It was selected not elected. It was all of that.

Then it was George Bush knew. He was part of 9/11. They forgot that it was Sandy Berger that went in and stole all the documents. So we know the Clintons had something to hide as well. But I don't believe the Clintons nor George Bush knew the World Trade Centers were coming down, had any indication at all. It's just that we excuse a lot of things from the Saudis. Okay?

That's the only thing I think they were covering up. We excuse a lot from the Saudis. So we were already mad. And then what happened?

9/11 was such a crystallizing moment for, what?

What happened to us, as a people? And really, me and you, all of us, what happened to us at 9/11?

First of all, we all loved each other, right? We even looked at Nancy Pelosi, standing there, singing God bless America. And we were like, "You know what, she and Harry Reid, they love the country just as much as we do. And we're all in this together." Right? That was the first reaction.

And what were they singing? Governor God Bless America. Okay. Not a problem. But then we became jingoistic. Then everything was wrapped in the red, white, and blue. The Patriot Act. The phrase even, "You're either with us or you're against us." And if you were against us, you were un-American.

And what did Hillary Clinton say? "I am tired of being told that if I have a different opinion than my -- right?

So who did we elect? We elected a guy who people in the country actually believed wasn't an American. And he was probably the most unlike an American president, more than anyone else. Would you agree with that?

He was an American. I don't question any of that.

STU: I mean, as far -- you're not outing yourself as a birther years after the birther controversy?

GLENN: No. No.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Never been a birther. Here's the thing: Is there a president that was more -- that had a different view of America, a different upbringing of America than any other president? Any other president have more of a different view of America?

STU: To illustrate this point, the Clinton campaign specifically had internal memos that said, "We're not going to point out that he -- we're never going to say that he doesn't have an American background. But he's not going to relate to the center of the country."

This is back in 2007 and 2008. And this was one of the things they thought they could press on, all the time. Constantly talk about Hillary and her upbringing and the fact that she's been in America the whole time.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And she has those same values. They even saw that as a point of differentiation.

GLENN: Right. It's not good or bad. It just is. The guy grew up in a different -- more different than any other president that we've ever had. Okay?

Spent a lot of his time, not even overseas in Europe, which is similar, but Asia, which is completely different than what we know as the American experience.

So he comes in. His name is Barack Obama. The pendulum had swung so far to the baseball, apple pie, and mom, and red, white, and blue, that when it swung back, it swung to a guy named Barack Obama.

Then I said at that time, "If he is elected -- because he was so click. Remember, pendulum also (sound effect) shoe. Remember all of that from George W. Bush?

STU: Right.

GLENN: Where he was at times seemed incapable of coming up with easy words.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Barack Obama, never lost for words. Barack Obama, on prompter, slick, slick, slick. No George Bush moments, at least to be seen of Barack Obama trying to get the doors opened in China. No, you know, turkey sticking his, you know, face into the president's pants. All of those faux pas, completely eradicated. The halo. So it swings all the way back.

At the time, we're going to have a gravy stain guy that said, "Yeah, I farted. Everybody farts, right?" Well, that pretty much is Donald Trump.

STU: Completely right. That prediction -- the pendulum theory on that worked exactly the way you said it was going to work.

GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. So what does the pendulum going go back to? I'm not sure yet. But no place good. No place good.

STU: I'll tell you where it goes back to. He's in the Trump Tower right now, meeting with Donald Trump. His name's Kanye West. Kanye 2020. That's what it ends up as.

GLENN: I think if we're lucky, it swings back to Tom Hanks. We look for an adult in the room. And it swings back to somebody like Tom Hanks. But it could swing to a Kanye West.

STU: We're at the point now we're not even considering people who aren't celebrities. It's either Kanye or Tom Hanks. Which one is it going to be?

GLENN: So here is the reason why I say that Donald Trump is going to change the presidency more than any other president ever.

We have said for a long time, "This job is too big. This job is just -- how come you be somebody who has run a company, is perfectly clean in everything, is -- can -- can use the media and understand how to communicate ideas -- how can you be all of those things?"

We've said forever, "You can't. You can't."

And so we've gone -- we have gone for people who just know the Constitution. But that's not very popular.

Look at, Ted Cruz was the worst when it comes to communication skills. The worst.

But he is -- in my opinion, he was the most competent on the -- on the dais. The most competent.

Now, a lot of people thought, "Oh, I like Ted Cruz, but he's just the worst when it comes to presentation. So I'll go for Marco Rubio. I'll go for Donald Trump." A lot of people went for Donald Trump because, quote, he could win. He will beat Hillary. He will beat the press.

Well, that's only one part of the presidency.

Donald Trump is meeting today with Kanye West. What could he possibly have to say to Kanye West? Nothing. The guy is a showman. The guy is -- he is putting together a show for America.

Now, I think that's important. And it may be -- to get things done, it may one of the most important things. But how he puts everything together, I don't know.

But look at how he's already changed.

The president, under George W. Bush, was -- was an honored space. You didn't go in -- you didn't go into the Oval Office -- think of this. During the George Bush administration, a lot of people were up in arms because one of the girls volleyball teams or something -- a couple of the girls showed up in the Oval Office wearing flip-flops. Do you remember that controversy?

STU: Yes. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. Somebody was in the picture, in the Oval Office wearing flip-flops.

The president, until Barack Obama, didn't carry a phone. The controversy of him carrying a phone -- who do you need to call? You're the president. They'll get them on the phone for you. Why do you need a phone?

Now it has swung back so far from that, that we can tell you when the president-elect gets up at night to go pee. It's usually about 3 o'clock in the morning because that's when he tweets again. So he's getting up in the morning to take a pee, sitting down on the crapper and deciding to tweet something, then go back to bed.

He is going to fundamentally transform the media, the media that comes out of the White House, the way the president communicates, the way the president is viewed, the things the president can say and do, the way the president behaves, and I think the fundamental structure of the presidency itself.

Featured Image: President-elect Donald Trump and Kanye West stand together in the lobby at Trump Tower, December 13, 2016 in New York City. President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet and other high level positions for the new administration. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.