Everybody is talking about Dr. Fauci — from his released emails to his recent media deflection tour — but most are missing the REAL story. So, Glenn breaks it down with what COULD be the needed evidence, showing that not only was the COVID virus being studied in Wuhan, China for SEVEN YEARS but that Fauci might have lied under oath, too. This SHOULD be the front-page story on the New York Times — and everywhere else. The CDC, NIH, and Biden administration SHOULD be setting the record straight. But they're not, and until then, their credibility is gone.
©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
RADIO
November 12, 2024
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
November 12, 2024
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
November 11, 2024
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.
RADIO
November 11, 2024
5 GAME CHANGING moves Trump could make in his second presidential term
Glenn and Stu discuss what they’re most excited to see in a second Trump term. Will Trump have BOTH the House and Senate so he doesn’t have to rely on executive orders? Will Elon Musk be able to clean out the bureaucracy? Can Trump lower the income tax or abolish the 16th Amendment altogether? Will his tariff plan work? Will he be able to reduce the government’s spending? Will we finally see term limits for members of Congress?
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So, Stu, are you -- are you almost giddy at what is possibly coming?
STU: Yeah!
I think I'm really -- I'm excited. I was trying to think of what I'm most excited about. Because there's a good chance the Republicans get the House.
And, by the way, this is going to be close.
GLENN: Don't toy with my feelings here, Stu.
STU: Yeah. I was interested. Because there's so -- I think this is the right thing to feel.
But there's very little panic over the house. I think the Republicans will get it. But if you think about like, the shenanigans that have better than been worried about over the years.
GLENN: I don't know if it was shenanigans.
STU: Yeah. I was going to go a different direction.
The shenanigans that we have been worried about over the years. It would be a heck of a lot easier to steal this election. Than anything else that you could possibly imagine.
We will be completely dependent on California districts that take two weeks to count. That is legitimately what the House comes down to.
The fact that we're not freaked out about that. Is good.
Maybe that means, at the end of the day, whatever problems we have had before, have been solved.
At the end of the day, we are looking at a very close, 220, maybe 221, if we're lucky, in the House.
It will be in that general vicinity. Markets say, it's a 93 percent chance that Republicans will get the House. Not 100.
So that's still out there.
But if you are able to get that. I was thinking, what does that mean?
You will have 53 senators, at least. McCormick, by the way, even though some places haven't called that race. McCormick will get that race in Pennsylvania.
You still have two possibilities. Kari Lake in Arizona and Sam Brown in Nevada, that are possible.
I would say probably less than 50 percent on those. But 53 isn't 50 or 51. So you've got a little bit of a cushion there.
The more cushion you have --
GLENN: You just have enough for Murkowski and Collins.
STU: Right. And Collins. You at least you have that going for you, which is nice.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: And the more cushion you have, the better bill you can get out of let's say reconciliation, to keep it nerdy as possible.
You will get one bill, basically, that is going to give you, that will pass with 50 votes.
This is how Donald Trump passed the tax break package. He passed back in his first term. And we may very well get a good tax break package.
It may be really good, you know, maybe he gets even more aggressive. Because, remember, that was sort of an off-the-shelf government proposal, largely, that they passed in 2017. So maybe we'll get something even better.
But honestly, I was thinking about. That's not what I'm most excited about. I think what I might be most excited about is the prospect of Elon Musk coming in and identifying places to come.
GLENN: Oh. Me too.
STU: Like, there's something about that. Because that is really his -- all of his brilliance.
We all know the guy is a genius.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: But of all his brilliance, that is what you take most away from what he was able to bring to all of the companies.
Sometimes, it's even presented as soulless and heartless. Right?
He just comes in, and he has no care. We don't need --
GLENN: Hang on just a second. It's a company.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: I mean, it's not a charity. It's a company.
STU: Agreed.
GLENN: And look at how many people this heartless bastard cut from Twitter.
Well, it's doing better than it ever has. You know, you might have your complaints here or there. But I believe X saved the republic.
I wonder if it wasn't for Elon Musk, buying Twitter. If we would have won.
STU: I think that's very true.
I think remember, when you say it's doing better than it ever has done. You can definitely look at financial measures that do not agree with that comment. However, that's not what his goal was.
What was his goal? His goal was to allow people to speak freely?
And it was an expensive genre, into that world.
I mean, you know, but it was worth it, I think. And it was something -- he was protecting the First Amendment. And I didn't mean to say it in a negative way. When I said heartless and soulless, that was how it was portrayed by many.
GLENN: That's how it was spun many times.
STU: Yeah. And there are plenty stories of him being tough on employees. Maybe too tough on certain employees.
But that attitude, 100 percent is necessary in the federal government.
Whatever he thought was waste, at Tesla, or SpaceX, or Twitter, is nothing compared to the burden we all carry with incompetent employees and complete waste. And nonsensical programs, that accomplish nothing.
We all carry that burden.
And if Donald Trump empowers him, and he wants to take this on, as they talked about in the campaign. I feel like, it's one of those things we could actually see a real difference made.
Not just a little, hey, we should get 4 percent off of this rate, which I will cheer on.
I will be happy with tax rates going down.
But like, that's something I think that could really change the country in a positive direction.
GLENN: So I want you to bring your best hat, your best thinking cap on Monday.
Because I scheduled a -- an economist, who said, the way that Donald Trump is thinking about -- thinking about tariffs, would mean an 18 thousand dollar raise for everybody.
And could actually work to pay our -- to pay our -- you know, our bills every month. And now, I don't know.
I haven't heard the full argument. But I just want to hear it. Because if we can cut back our spending, so it's fairly reasonable.
And we're still, you know, providing a safety net and everything else.
I am very interested in rebuilding our industries. Rebuilding our factories. And -- and actually motivating people, to go to work.
And -- and learn a real skill, and start making things here in America. And having pride in that.
STU: Yeah, for sure.
GLENN: And I think, for the first time, I think if I can -- if I can get somebody to tell me all of the metrics and the numbers. Because I -- you know, the numbers have to. They have to work out.
But that to me, is thrilling.
Even if you went to a 5 percent income tax. I would rather abolish it.
But if you did something track. You imagine the money that would open up. That could be invested in job creation.
New businesses. Can you imagine what would happen in a country, where we didn't have income tax?
STU: I -- look, the -- there is a three-pronged approach, right?
That he's talked about. One is raising tariffs. One is -- as you mentioned, getting rid of the income tax.
And a third would be cutting the government down level to levels. You know, roughly, you of course adjust for inflation, and you adjust for population growth and all these things.
But roughly to the 1800s. As he talked about 1880s.
GLENN: Or 1920s. Calvin Coolidge did this.
STU: Calvin Coolidge did this as well. He was more friendly to tariffs.
Even though, it's not my favorite policy. But he's one of my favorite presidents.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: But, you know, those three things are, if you could do all three of those together. It adjusts the country in a way that is so dramatic.
It would probably be do a lot of really positive things.
GLENN: Yeah. Like 5 percent growth.
Like 5 percent growth a year.
That's -- that puts us into the -- when China was doing well kind of growth.
STU: And I think we can get locked into the sort of fantasy league here.
GLENN: I like to.
I've been doomsday for a long time.
STU: Hey. This is the right time to do it. He just won. What can we do here?
The issue with these policies together is one of them is really easy to do, which is raise tariffs. Donald Trump can do that just on his own.
The other two are nearly impossible.
I mean, get over -- and I'm not -- I have literally sold mugs at StuDoesMerch.com. That's a repeal the 16th Amendment. So 100 percent, this should be our goal.
But you're right. Like there might be a modified version of this that makes sense. If you can control spending, if you can cut some, and you can lower the income tax, a great deal, and replace some of that income with tariffs.
I don't think that that would be the type of situation, that would be horrible.
I don't -- I mean, we do forget at times, we are the second largest manufacturing country in the world.
We do make a lot of things here.
GLENN: I know. I do.
STU: And a lot of times, those measures I think are a little bit out of whack. That being said, I'm happy to trade.
I'll trade getting rid of the income tax for a lot.
There's a lot of stuff I'm willing to deal with on the policy front, if we could get a win like that. And why not go for it?
Why not?
GLENN: I know.
I mean, he's the guy who could do it.
Donald Trump is the guy who could do it.
He could get that constitutional amendment passed on the -- the term limits, on Congress. I think he could get that passed.
If he backed it, he could get it passed.
If he wanted to repeal the 16th amendment, with another constitutional amendment, and he really laid it out.
Here's what this would mean for you. I -- think the numbers are so staggering, that who wouldn't be for that?
STU: Well, certainly. Constitutional amendments are difficult.
Because you need the other side involved in them.
That makes them -- I mean, there are other approaches.
But you know how hard it is. It's hard. We've done it 27 times, in a couple hundred years. And most of them are at the beginning.
It's really hard to do. And it should be hard to do, by the way. That's a change that I would absolutely love.
Term limits are one. Term limits, I would say, are arguably more interesting, from a pragmatic doable circumstance.
This is a really popular policy.
People can't stand the fact that Nancy Pelosi just won her 20th term in Congress.
20 terms in Congress. People don't like that. They don't like it on Republicans or Democrats. You're talking about 80 percent approval numbers for a proposal like that. And I think Trump also looks at it and says, you know what, good chance, you know what, if I ran again, I would win.
I'm limited. Why aren't you? I think he looks at that as a general idea of fairness, why is the president limited for -- to two terms, when they are -- when senators get to go for two -- multiple six-year terms. Congressmen can go forever, with two-year terms.
Why not make it so there are limits across-the-board?
GLENN: Wouldn't it be amazing if the last time they put term limits on was through Congress. Because they saw how out of control FDR was.
And it was the Democrats that led that, and thought, we can't. We can't have that. We can't that have.
And now, to come back after Congress has done nothing. And our government is -- is out of control. Like it was at the beginning of FDR, and through Woodrow Wilson.
To have now the president come back and say, all right. Let's finish that job.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: The progressives always take people's breath away. They always go too far. And they hit a point to where you're like, oh, my gosh.
That is like, oh, what are we doing here? And they've done it again.
STU: You notice that, when you see people with bulging in their swimming suits winning gold medals.
GLENN: Yeah. For the women's.
STU: For the women's swimming events. Yeah, no. I mean, I think that's true.
You can get something like term limits.
I think there's very, very limited opposition to Donald Trump, for what he makes a priority from the Republicans. So when you're talking about laws, you're not going to get much pushback from Republicans on this stuff. I think, you know, when you get into constitutional amendments, it becomes much more difficult.
But it's all a matter of what Donald Trump prioritizes. If you remember 2016 and 2017, he also ran on a proposal to -- to do term limits.
He just never made it a huge priority.
He would mention it in speeches. This time, I think he's serious about it. In his first -- that speech we played earlier. The first ten things he wants to do.
GLENN: If you haven't heard it. Oh, it's so great.