Parents or babysitters: I know which one I am

Obra Shalom Campo Grande/Flickr

The joy one feels when your child is born is unparalleled in human experience. Holding that small being in your arms. A new person, a part of you brought into the world. A tiny, fragile little human, one who is wholly dependent on you for its life. Nothing in our experience as people really compares to that moment and that experience. Forget money, forget career, forget a sub-two-hour marathon or Everest or becoming a "Million Miler" on your favorite airline.

When you hold your baby in your arms, you're terrified. You're proud and humbled at the same time. You did that! But also, holy crap, what did you do? In that moment, you realize there is nothing you would not do for that child. Nothing you would not give them, nothing you wouldn't sacrifice to protect him or her. For those of you who've not been through it, I can tell you it is life changing. It's life changing every time you go through it, too. First child or fourteenth.

It's an unspoken bond that we share as parents. If you aren't one yet, just believe me. Parents know.

But today, I think we have to be honest and ask ourselves: Are we still parents? Is that still a thing? Are we still parents, or are we babysitters?

As a parent, you get to direct the affairs and decisions for your kids. While still respecting their basic rights as human beings, you help determine the course of their life. What they wear or don't. What they eat. When they sleep. What books they read. What games they play. When they get a bike, when they get their first BB-gun. It's an awesome, terrifying responsibility, every minute of it. What if you screw something up? What if you let them eat too much candy? What if they sit too close to the TV? What if letting them play with your Apple watch results in accidentally sending dozens of pictures of your nose-hairs to your PTA president? (Try explaining that one at your next parent/teacher conference.)

As far as your kid is concerned, you're a bit of a benevolent dictator, at least until they get into their teens and figure out you're mostly full of crap and start to rebel.

As far as your kid is concerned, you're a bit of a benevolent dictator, at least until they get into their teens and figure out you're mostly full of crap and start to rebel. Those are fun days....

So as a parent, you and your spouse run the show. But when you hire a babysitter, they have only a select set of discretionary powers that you delegate to them. They run the set of plays you select for them. Feed them this, put them to bed at 9, and video games only after homework is done. Babysitters, the good ones at least, simply do the list of things you gave them to do, but don't have real authority to engage in life-altering actions for your kids. They are there to tend for a short period, but not to decide who your kids will be, how they will be raised.

Given that paradigm, and where were are today, I think we have to ask ourselves: Are we parents anymore? Can we still call ourselves that? Or are we just babysitters?

Do we get to decide the how and when of our child's development? Should they take Flintstones vitamins or not? Get all their vaccinations or not? Are they ready to learn about the birds and the bees or not? Are they mature enough to have a sleep over, to carry a cell phone, to ride bikes across Main Street to buy a soda at the Dairy Queen?

If those choices aren't yours anymore, if someone else is deciding, are you a parent....or are you a babysitter?

Today, across many modern countries with progressive Democratic policies, we don't necessarily get to decide the course of our child's life and development.

Consider Charlie Guard, the child whom British socialized medicine decided was too expensive to try to treat for a severe disorder, and was left on feeding tubes to die, despite the parents pleas to remove them from the hospital and taken to another country for attempts at treatment. Despite court battles and global press coverage, the Death Panel decided it would set a bad precedent and the parents didn't get to have the choice to attempt other ways to treat their child, even outside the country at zero cost to the Government.

What about in Canada, where it's considered legal child abuse to not address your child with their own preferred gender pronoun, at any age. Child abuse that could result in your child being removed from your home and placed in Government-ordered foster care, with you in jail the same as if you'd beaten your child with a tire iron. The same goes for teaching your children that homosexuality might be a sin in the eyes of God, also a Federal offense that is punishable by potential jail time, even if your religion beliefs indicate it is a sin.

Or in the EU, where parents can be fined if it's determined they are not giving Islam fair and equal coverage to Christianity or Judaism in their own Homeschooling program. No matter your religious traditions or scriptures, if you teach your kids that Moses was a prophet but Mohammed was not, the PC police can show up, take your kids away, because you're engaging in the hate speech of teaching Christian theology as being superior to Muslim theology. In your own home.

Or consider this.

When are you kids ready to learn about sex? Where babies come from...believe me, they start asking about it way before they're really ready to know much detail...whoever invented the Stork story was a genius, believe me.

But seriously, as parents, we have to decide that. When and how to have that discussion.

Or maybe not. Maybe not anymore. Maybe that ship has sailed. After all, maybe we're not parents anymore at all. Maybe we're just babysitters.

In 2015, advanced Sex Education became required curriculum in Canadian public schools, including primary and secondary schools, for Kindergarten through 12th grade students.

Announcing the controversial program, Education Minister Sebastian Proulx (pronounced "Proo") indicated the program would include what he termed "age-appropriate" instruction on LGBTQ and Gender-expression issues, sexual orientation, sexual assault as well as traditional sex education topics such as preventing STDs.

Although Mr Proulx acknowledged some parents and teachers may be opposed to the new compulsory content, he said the instruction was necessary. "I know it is not an easy subject. I know the questions are sensitive. But we have to respond as a society to a societal issue."

The new program was developed in a collaboration with sexologists as well as public and private organizations, including Planned Parenthood of Canada, according to CNS News Service.

When asked if parents who objected to the content would be allowed to opt-out of the new sex education program, Mr Proulx indicated such waivers would be allowed only in exceptional cases, such as if a student had been the prior victim of sexual abuse. No exemptions would be allowed for moral or religious beliefs.

During the 4 years this program was in place, the following examples of lessons, required by law in public schools, were shared by Canadian students or parents on Social Media:

  • In Quebec, children as young as 10 years old were taught that a person's gender does not necessarily correspond to their sex at birth.
  • In Montreal, kindergartners aged 6 were split into small groups and given dolls to enable them to play "house", including same-sex parent couples and gender-neutral couples where parents didn't identify as Mom or Dad, but rather "Parent 1 and Parent 2".
  • 12 & 13 year old students were given a writing exercise based on the following question "How would thinking about your personal limits and making a personal plan influence decisions you may choose to make about your sexual activity?" (from page 216 of Canada's Sex Education curriculum guide for teachers) Note the age of consent in Canada is 18, so sex at age 13 would be, by law, statutory rape.
  • In a guest-lecture provided by a nurse from Planned Parenthood, one lesson taught to 8th graders (13-14 year old kids) included a slide titled "Ways to Minimize Risk of Pregnancy". Suggestions included condoms, masturbation, same-sex partners and/or anal intercourse. Abstinence was not one of the suggestions.

Quoting again from the Canadian sex-education curriculum, "Children are expected to demonstrate an understanding of gender identity (e.g. male, female, two-spirited, transgender, transsexual, intersex, etc), gender expression, and sexual orientation (e.g., heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual), and identify factors that can help individuals of all identities & orientations develop positive self-concepts."

Of the 240 page Sex Ed curriculum, two words that appear ZERO times? "love" and "marriage".

A 2012 draft of the Canadian sex-education manual for teachers included the name Ben Levin, Deputy Minister of Education of Canada among the authors. In 2015, Ben Levin plead guilty to multiple counts of child exploitation, production and possession of child pornography and pedophilia. The 2015 Canadian Sex-Education manual for teachers omitted Mr Levin's name from the list of authors.

In the 2018 elections, voters in Ontario elected a Conservative majority to parliament, largely based on a campaign against the radical sex-education program and the sexual activation of their children. Conservatives promised to roll sex education programs back to the previous 1998 standards by this school year.

Canada, sadly, is not unique in this type of initiative:

  • A BBC article from 2017, citing the alleged "success" of the 2015 Canadian Sex Education program, indicated that similar compulsory programs were being rolled out across the UK, replacing the previous programs that had focused on preventing sexually-transmitted diseases.
  • The new UK program, called "Sexual Relationships Education," would focus on teaching children as young as 12 the importance of developing a proper, healthy sexual identity and relationships.
  • The mandatory program includes instruction for students about learning to understand their own bodies, including what feels good and what does not. Quoting from a guide provided to grade 7 teachers, for 12 year old students: "Thinking about your sexual health is complicated...It's also about your sexual orientation and gender-identity, your understanding of your own body, including what gives you pleasure, and the emotional implications of sexual intimacy and sexual relationships."

But don't worry Canada, don't worry United Kingdom, we're not far behind. As of 2018, the state of California has also made this type of sexual education mandatory, with no opt-out provisions. Massachusetts has a similar program on it's ballot this fall. So the good old US of A ain't far behind you.

But don't worry Canada, don't worry United Kingdom, we're not far behind.

When the government makes the sexual activation and grooming of 12 year old children State policy, using the threat of fines or jail time for parents who may choose to not have their children instructed on how to develop sexual relationships, your rights as a parent are simply gone. When the state is teaching 5 and 6 year olds how to identify and spell vagina, vulva, anus and penis instead of cat, dog, mom, dad, your rights as a parent are gone. When the State is requiring 1st grade teachers to read My Princess Boy, which teaches "Dyson loves pink, sparkly things. Sometimes he wears dresses. Sometimes he wears jeans. He likes to wear is princess tiara, even when climbing trees. He's a Princess Boy."...when that is required reading for 7 and 8 year olds, but Huck Finn, Catcher in the Rye and The Jungle Book are all banned, your rights as a Parent are gone.

Schools in Canada & the UK have become nothing more than sexual training centers, grooming children as young as 5 and 6 years old for sexually active lives, gender fluidity, and bisexuality. In the name of remaking the world into a politically correct safe space for every possible gender identity, every sexual behavior and proclivity, they've made it the government's business to hyper-sexualize children, normalizing ultra-rare behaviors such as gender-disphoria. They are teaching young children to develop a "plan" around sexual activity and figuring out what they find to be sexually pleasurable...these lessons happen when these kids are pre-teen!

Proponents of such radical ideas claim that "children are going to become sexual active anyway" and "kids are exposed to so much online these days", that the government must step in and provide instruction. "It's a Societal problem."

I can tell you that for sure, 100%, it is a societal problem. We have a problem in our society when we believe that, by LAW, 10 and 12 year old kids need to learn about same sex partners and anal intercourse as a means to not get pregnant.

The problem isn't that kids are more likely to be exposed to pornography than the last generation was, or that they are more likely to be bullied if they are gay. We have solutions for those kinds of problems. Parents doing their job is the solution, the same as it has always been. The problem is that we have somehow come to believe that the only way to solve any perceived ill in the world is for governments to act.

Could churches and religions help provide a framework for understanding relationships, self-worth, sexuality and love? No! Ghosts in the sky aren't real! They can't help us.

Could parents determine the right way and right time to discuss sexual feelings and urges with their kids? No, parents messages will vary and discussing these things with parents can make children feel uncomfortable, only in the scientific-based classroom setting can children freely discover express their sexuality!

If in your state, province, country or local school district, you don't have a choice about sending your kids into a classroom where teachers are required to teach this type of content to your kids, don't even pretend you still have rights as a parent. Are you that delusional? Have we fallen that far, that we believe it is somehow our duty as citizens to let our children be psychologically and philosophically molded by government stooges into sexually active, gender and sex-orientation fluid "agents of change?"

If you think you still have rights as a parent, you must think that the sum total of your rights orients around paying taxes and dropping your kids off on time. That's not parenting. That's babysitting! Babysitting they are asking you to pay them for.

As for me? I'm with Mr Shapiro on this one. Beto, don't show up at my door demanding my kids learn about developing a sexual plan at age 12. If you do, we're going to have a serious disagreement. And we're a 2nd Amendment household, OK? As Ben said, i"t is never radical or outrageous to defend our fundamental rights."

Don't be a babysitter. That can't be who we are. Be a parent. Do your job! We can't surrender this ground. This must be unassailable, sacrosanct territory. Beto, you stay out of my house, my home school and out of my kid's lives. You're not welcome here.

I'm a parent. This is my job, my wife's job. We may hire the occasional babysitter. But we're parents. No others need apply.

UPDATE: Here's how the conversation went on radio.

LGBTQ IN CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS: Beto VS Ben Shapiro & How Parents Are Losing Their Rightswww.youtube.com


CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.

Is Trump repealing the 14th Amendment? Here's the truth.

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Trump really promise to put an end to the 14th Amendment, or is this just another mainstream spin?

This past weekend, President-elect Donald Trump sat down on NBC's "Meet the Press" for his first interview since the election. As one might expect, it was a particularly hostile interview, but Trump handled it with grace. The biggest takeaway from the interview was when the interviewer, Kristen Welker, pressed Trump on his immigration plans, specifically his plans to end birthright citizenship.

Despite Walker's claim that the 14th Amendment protected birthright citizenship, Trump defended his stance with the backing of legal scholars, who argue that birthright citizenship has to be granted within the proper "jurisdictional scope." As Glenn reiterated on his show this week, the 14th Amendment was enacted in the context of slavery "not illegal immigration. The 14th Amendment doesn't say, "Come over here, get into a hospital, have a baby, and congratulations, everybody is a citizen."

The media still pushed the narrative that Trump is trying to overstep the 14th Amendment.

But what is the truth? What is birthright citizenship, and what does the 14th Amendment actually say about it? Here is everything you need to know about the "birthright citizenship debacle" below:

The media outrage

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

If you have glanced through any mainstream media articles, they would convince you that Trump will repeal the 14th Amendment altogether and catapult the country back 200 years before slavery was abolished when Congress passed the Constitutional Amendment. But how do these accusations stack up to reality?

What the 14th amendment actually says

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

To get to the bottom of this, we have to understand what the 14th Amendment actually says and the context in which it was created.

During Trump's NBC interview, Welker "quoted" the 14th Amendment as "all persons born in the United States are citizens," but anyone who took a government class in high school can tell you that is wrong. The actual14th Amendment says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Notice that Welker conveniently left out "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This was no simple oversight.

First, let's define what birthright citizenship actually is and how it relates to the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship is an interpretation of the previously quoted section of the 14th Amendment: that by simply being born on U.S. soil, you are automatically granted U.S. citizenship. This has been the historic interpretation of the amendment. However, the border crisis has been incentivized by an abuse of birthright citizenship, which is colloquially called "anchor babies." This refers to when a pregnant woman crosses the border, gives birth, and is granted residency since her child is automatically given U.S. citizenship.

However, Trump says the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could enable the federal government to crack down on this abuse of birthright citizenship. If a person is here illegally, then they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., and therefore, their child would not be given automatic citizenship. This would not apply to legal immigrants who have secured citizenship, despite any claims to the contrary.

What Trump actually said

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

When questioned about the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship and the possibility of using executive orders to get around the 14th Amendment, Trump's first suggestion was to pose a potential amendment to the 14th Amendment as a national vote. When Welker pushed back, Trump stressed the importance of ending birthright citizenship and conceded that, if necessary, he would use an executive order.

As usual, the mainstream media has spun a mountain out of a molehill and blown the entire issue out of proportion. They have spun Trump's reasonable and legal proposition into a dictatorial decree that would send the country back 200 years.

Glenn's ULTIMATE Trump cabinet tracker

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

The Trump transition team is working overtime preparing to hit the ground running in January.

The President-elect has been busy hand-picking the members that will make up his cabinet, as these are the people who will be his closest advisors and most powerful bureaucrats during the next four years. Glenn recently got a panel together to discuss Trump's picks, and one thing was clear: Trump has some serious star power on his side. But unfortunately, becoming a member of the presidential cabinet is not as simple as being picked by the POTUS. The Senate still needs to sign off on every pick.

To keep track of this chaotic confirmation process, we have created the ULTIMATE confirmation tracker for the 15 positions in Trump's cabinet. So make sure to check back regularly to keep updated on the latest developments in Trump's inner circle:

Secretary of Agriculture

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump's pick for Secretary of Agriculture is Brooke Rollins, a former White House aide and Texas A&M graduate. If confirmed, Rollins would lead the Department of Agriculture, which is tasked with serving the needs of America's farmers and ranchers, promoting agricultural trade, and protecting forests and other natural resources.

Rollins served as Trump's director of the Domestic Policy Council during his first term and has received much praise from the president-elect. Rollins says she can tackle the many issues plaguing the agricultural sector, touting her small-town, Texas agriculture roots.

Secretary of Commerce

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images


Trump tapped Howard Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald as his pick for Secretary of Commerce, which would head the Department of Commerce responsible for aiding the creation of economic growth and opportunity conditions. Lutnick narrowly beat Linda McMahon and Robert Lighthizer, the other likely candidates for the job. Lutnick, who has served as the co-chair of Trump’s presidential transition team since August, will be responsible for spearheading Trump's tariff agenda, which has drummed up much hype and speculation over the last several weeks.

Secretary of Defense

John Lamparski / Contributor | Getty Images

Pete Hegseth's nomination to head the Department of Defense Army has caused a flurry among Pentagon officials and Congressmembers alike. A former National Guard major and Fox News host, Hegseth has drawn praise from some on the right over his plans to "de-wokeify" the military. Others question if he has the command experience to take charge of the world's most powerful military. These concerns, along with allegations relating to his personal life, leave many questioning whether Hegsteh has enough support to be confirmed.

Secretary of Education

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump named Linda McMahon, the co-chair of his transition team and former World Wrestling Entertainment executive, as his Secretary of Education. McMahon served as Trump's Small Business Administration administrator during his first term and is currently the board chair of the America First Policy Institute, which has been described as a "White House in Waiting." McMahon would be tasked with overseeing Trump's campaign promise to significantly downsize the Department of Education and return many of its powers to the states.

Secretary of Energy

Andy Cross / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump picked Chris Wright, an oil and gas CEO, as his Secretary of Energy. Wright is an advocate for fossil fuels, having founded Liberty Energy, an oilfield service firm in Denver, Colorado. Wright is opposed to the global warming alarmists and views fossil fuels as a means of providing cheap, reliable energy that can raise people from poverty.

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

The Department of Health and Human Services is in charge of protecting the health of Americans, a task that spans from food safety to disease outbreaks. Organizations that fall under the HHS's umbrella include the NIH, FDA, and CDC.

Trump has tapped RKF Jr. to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy Jr. has infused Trump's entire campaign with a raised awareness of the failing health of many Americans and the systemic incompetency of the federal agencies tasked with protecting them. RFK Jr. has made it his mission to "Make America Healthy Again," a task that requires a fundamental shake-up of American food and medicine. This sort of approach has left many skeptics concerned that Kennedy Jr. will go too far too fast, leaving many to question if he has the support to be confirmed by the Senate.

Secretary of Homeland Security

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump tapped South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem to be his Secretary of Homeland Security. Noem has been a strong advocate for a secure border, which seems to be her primary area of concern. Along with Trump's new "Border Czar," Tom Homan, Noem is expected to come down hard on the southern border. The Department of Homeland Security has a broad assignment that includes protecting Americans and critical American infrastructure from foreign and domestic threats, protecting our borders, responding to natural disasters, and more.

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump picked former NFL player turned politician Scott Turner as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, an office responsible for policies and programs that address housing needs, promote community development, and enforce housing laws. Turner worked under Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter before being elected to the Texas House in 2013, and he also ran Trump's White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council during his first term.

Secretary of the Interior

Steven Ferdman / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump's pick for the Secretary of the Interior is North Dakota Governor, Doug Burgum. The Department of the Interior is America's primary conservation agency, protecting America's natural resources and managing the National Parks. Gov. Burgum has tremendous experience managing North Dakota's oil-rich reserves and Native American populations, both key aspects of The Department of the Interior. Burgam is also known for his harsh criticism of federal oversight and is expected to aid Trump in slashing regulations.

Attorney General

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images


Trump tapped Pam Bondi to lead his Department of Justice as the Attorney General of the United States. This comes after his first pick, Matt Gaetz, withdrew his name after facing an upstream confirmation battle due to a flurry of allegations. Bondi has a long track record as a prosecutor and a former attorney general in Florida and worked with Trump's team of defense lawyers fighting back against the impeachment charges levied against him. As Attorney General, if confirmed, Boni will play a key role in Trump's campaign promise to crack down on systemic corruption in the federal bureaucracy.

Secretary of Labor

Bill Clark / Contributor | Getty Images


Trump named Republican Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer as his Secretary of Labor. Despite being a Republican, Chaves-DeRemer's pro-union stance has many conservatives on high alert. If confirmed, Chavez-DeRemer will oversee federal programs aimed at protecting and bolstering the American workforce.

Secretary of State

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump picked Florida Senator Marco Rubio as his Secretary of State. Rubio, who famously ran against Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries, has been a longtime spokesperson about the threats posed by foreign adversaries, predominantly China.

Secretary of Transportation

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Trump named former Wisconsin representative Sean Duffy as his next Secretary of Transportation. Both Rep. Duffy and his wife Rachel Campos-Duffy are hosts on Fox. A staunch pro-Trump advocate, Duffy will take over the Department of Transportation in the aftermath of Pete Buttiegeg's biggest failures during his term, such as his response—or lack thereof—to the East Palestine train derailment, in-flight incidents on Boeing aircraft, and much more. Moreover, traffic deaths and accidents are high, and the introduction of new technologies like self-driving cars and the increase of electric vehicles poses never-before-seen challenges Duffy will have to tackle.

Secretary of the Treasury

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump tapped billionaire Scott Bessent to be his Secretary of the Treasury. Scott will face tremendous challenges coming into office, as he will oversee the massive tax cuts promised by Trump and his team. He will also advise the president on how to implement the tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China that Trump has promised in recent weeks.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

Former congressman Doug Collins was tapped to lead Trump's Department of Veterans Affairs, which is responsible for taking care of our veterans and their families. This includes offering benefits such as pensions, education, disability compensation, loans, and much more. Collins is a veteran himself who served in Iraq and is still an Air Force Reserve chaplain, which gives him valuable insight into the needs of veterans.

Trump's TOP FIVE accomplishments BEFORE taking office

Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump hasn't even begun his second term, and he is already making major moves that eclipse the Biden administration. Here are Trump's top FIVE most impressive feats that he has achieved before taking office:

Stock market surge

Roberto Machado Noa / Contributor | Getty Images

Immediately after the election, all major indexes skyrocketed. Trump's election bolstered confidence in the long-term stability of the U.S. economy. Just a few days after November 5th, Glenn had financial expert Carol Roth on his show to discuss what this actually means for America, and long story short, the forecast was very optimistic. America has another chance at a golden era, especially for small businesses.

Bitcoin boom

Bitcoin experienced its own surge in the immediate aftermath of Trump's re-election, breaching the $100,000 valuation for the first time in the digital currency's history and doubling in value from the beginning of the year. The rise is attributed to Trump's favorable stance towards cryptocurrencies and strong opposition to the idea of a "Fed Coin," a cryptocurrency made by the Federal Reserve. This ensures people can purchase Bitcoin and other cryptos without the government swooping in and shutting it down.

Media comes to heel

Paula Lobo / Contributor | Getty Images

In a shocking twist of events, even some of the mainstream media pivoted, agreeing to meet with President Trump and making future plans for cooperation with the President.

Just a few weeks after Trump's historic victory, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” made a trip to Mar-a-Lago to make peace with the president-elect. This comes after years of the duo bashing Trump as a dictator and a fascist.

Naturally, the dramatic shift was met with whiplash from "Morning Joe's" viewer base, and the couple lost half of their audience within a week. Either Scarborough and Brzezinski were lying about Trump, or they decided to bend the knee to "literally Hitler." Either way, their credibility pretty much went out the window.

Dealings with Trudeau

ANDREJ IVANOV / Contributor | Getty Images

Last week, Trump announced that he would impose a massive 25 percent tariff on all goods from Canada and Mexico unless they agree to crack down on their contribution to the migrant and fentanyl crisis plaguing the U.S. This grabbed the attention of Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, as 75 percent of Canadian exports go to the U.S. Trudeau made an unplanned visit to Mar-a-Lago to discuss this proposed tariff. Later Trudeau commented that he had "an excellent conversation" with Trump.

Defeated phony charges

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

After his re-election, all of the federal criminal charges remaining against Trump were dropped, concluding the years of assault from the Biden Department of Justice. This is due to the Department of Justice's longstanding precedent of not prosecuting a sitting president.