The Go-Giver: A new way to do business

Glenn interviewed a fascinating author this week who has come up with a way of doing business that turns conventional wisdom squarely on its head. This decidedly unconventional approach will seem completely ludicrous, but it’s so effective Glenn bought every member on staff a copy to read.

Glenn: Okay, we were just talking in the break as I’m watching some of the staff. I just told Bob that I can’t tell you the number of people that wrote to me after I gave it to everybody on the staff and just said thank you. And it wasn’t about giving them the book. It was about, “Thank you. This is the direction we’re going.” I think people really want, in all walks of life, this is who they want to be, but society or whatever, cronyism, has convinced them you can’t be that way and be successful. So go through the five laws.

Bob: Okay, first, thank you for the great complement. I think a lot of times people see on TV, and they see in the movies, you know, the greedy, moneygrubbing capitalist. Nobody wants to be like that, so if that’s what capitalism is, I don’t want… right?

Glenn: Right.

Bob: And so we look at five laws. The basic premise is that shifting your focus, and this is the real key, shifting your focus from getting to giving, and when we say giving in this context, we simply mean constantly and consistently providing value to others. We look at five laws. The first one is the law of value. This one says your true worth is determined by how much more you give in value than you take in payment.

Now, this sounds a little counterproductive at first. How do you give more in value than you take in payment and survive, never mind thrive in business? You’ve got to make a profit, right? And that’s fine. We just need to understand the difference between price and value. Price is a dollar figure. It’s a dollar amount. It’s finite. It is what it is. Value, on the other hand, is the relative worth or desirability of something to the end-user or beholder. In other words, what is it about this thing, this product, service, concept, opportunity, idea, that brings with it so much worth that someone will willingly, again, free market, willingly exchange their money for this and feel great that they did while you make a healthy profit?

16341508181_ff4593d93a_k 16155904370_694111db6b_k

In the book, we talk about Ernesto, the restauranteur, who provides a great dining experience. You go in that restaurant, and not only is the food fantastic, but you feel like a million bucks. They treat you so well, and the atmosphere, and you come out of it, you feel you got more in value than what you paid, but of course his costs for the food and the staff, overhead, is less than what he’s charging, so everybody makes a profit, because the buyer also makes a profit because they come away ahead. But the key is the focus, you can’t be focused on the money. You must be focused on bringing value, because that’s what turns into money.

Glenn: You know, I read this, and I know you’re libertarian. Are you a big Ayn Rand fan?

Bob: I am a big fan of her works without necessarily agreeing with every—

Glenn: Got it. I had a feeling you and I are the same. She’s great, but where she goes wrong for me is she just doesn’t understand the connection to the heart. It’s all very internal. It’s all me, me, me, me, me, so it becomes very selfish. You’re saying the same thing that she is saying about…she’s unashamed of being a capitalist, because she’s saying there is value here. I am creating something that no one else can create. I’m creating it. They want it, so it’s a fair exchange.

Bob: It’s what her heroes did—

Glenn: Correct, but you’ve…I don’t know, I don’t want to use cloaked it, because that’s not the right word, but you’ve wrapped around this service, and to me, that is the big difference between this and Ayn Rand, and it’s very subtle, I think, if you take the bone structure down. It is your intent. Her intent is I want to be me. This intent is I want to be me, but I want to serve the people with what I have. I’m going to go find the people that need what I have, and we’re going to exchange, and it’s going to be great. It’s less of, “That’s who I am, and I’m Howard Roark, and I’m going to design this building. If you don’t like, it screw you.” It’s, “This is great, isn’t it?” And so it’s an exchange.

16157392767_cb42ae53a7_k

Bob: Thank you. I appreciate that. So, that’s really what the law of value is all about. It’s focusing on bringing value. This is why we say that money is an echo of value. It’s the thunder to value’s lightning, which simply means the value, the focus on the value must come first. The value, you’re providing. The money is simply a very direct and natural result of the value you’ve provided. That’s the foundational principle.

The second law is the law of compensation. This one is much simpler. This simply says your income is determined by how many people you serve as well as how well you serve them. So, where law number one says give more in value than you take in payment, law number two tells us the more people whose lives you add this kind of exceptional value to, the more money with which you’ll be rewarded.

Glenn: Here’s why I love this, because you can explain to everybody who says, “Oh, you know, it’s not right that, you know, so-and-so is making all that money.” Really? Look at your average football player. How many people is he affecting? You might be doing something that is more important, but you, you’re not affecting that many people. You know what I mean? That value of that game on Sunday, millions are watching, and so they are attaching just a little bit of value, just a few pennies, all of those people, where you might be doing something really important that yes, it is worth more than a stupid football game, but it’s not, because you’re not affecting millions of people. And so that whole class warfare of well, what you do, you’re making all this money, that all just disappears with this.

Bob: Well, thank you. That’s why we had Nicole Martin, the CEO, who was the schoolteacher who was very frustrated with the fact that, you know, she loved the students, they loved her, the parents loved her, but she could only reach so many people. Plus the government school bureaucracy kind of wasn’t really…so she went out on her own, and she was entrepreneurial, and she found a way to expand her value, to leverage that, and she was able to touch the lives of a whole lot more people and make a lot more money as a result.

Glenn: It’s scalability.

16341508181_ff4593d93a_k

Bob: Exactly. Now, law number three is the law of influence, and the law of influence says your influence is determined by how abundantly you place other people’s interests first. Again, counterintuitive at best, Pollyanna-ish at worst, right? And yet, the top leaders, the great influencers, the most successfully profitable sales people, this is how they conduct their businesses. This is how they run their lives. They’re always looking for ways, as Sam told the protégé, Joe, in the book, to make their win about the other person’s win, but it’s very important to qualify this by saying when we say place other people’s interests first, we don’t mean you should be anybody’s doormat, that you should be a martyr, that you should be self-sacrificial in any way. It should always be congruent with both sides coming out ahead.

[break]

Glenn: Okay, so let’s go back to where we were. Give me an example.

Bob: Okay, this example of placing the other person’s interests first happens every single day just in the sales process. A professional salesperson understands, and Glenn, I often will start out when I speak at sales conventions with this. I’ll say nobody is going to buy from you because you have a quota to meet. They’re not going to buy from you because you need the sale. They’re not going to buy from you because you think it’s a great product. They’re going to buy from you because they see value in doing it.

They see it’s of much greater advantage to them to have your product or service than to not have it, so as a professional salesperson, what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to focus on them. You’ve got to ask them the questions that help identify their need, their want, their desire, and to the degree you do that, you’re going to be successful.

Glenn: Can I tell you, one of the things that we have always done, and at first it drove the salespeople, the professional salespeople, crazy. They were like…the first time I did it before I owned everything, and I was kind of working for another company, I’d come in with the salespeople for a sales call, and I’d be right there. It was a big, you know, a big sale, and I’d say, “I don’t think this is right for you. I don’t think I can do the job for you, because I don’t think my audience will connect with what you’re selling.” And you’d see the salespeople just went white. They were like, “He’s drunk. You should sign.”

And we turned down a lot of business, and what we found is it’s really amazing. (A) You keep your clients because it works, but (B) and I wish I was doing it for unscrupulous reasons, kind of, because we would’ve made more money, because those people always come back, and they want it more. And you’re like, “No, I’m not negotiating with you. I’m just telling you it won’t work.” “No, it’s gotta work. It’s gotta work.” They’re selling you all of a sudden. It’s crazy.

Bob: Glenn, here’s what it comes down to, and in the story, Sam told this to Joe. He called it the golden rule of business, of sales, if you will, but it’s of anything. It’s leadership, influence, and that is all things being equal, people will do business with and refer business to those people they know, like, and trust. There’s no faster, more powerful, more genuinely effective way of eliciting those feelings toward you than by placing their interest first, just like you did.

Glenn: The secret, I think, is not to just hire a bunch of people that people like, because there are people who, you know, you walk in, they might be really smart, but you just don’t like them. They have to actually connect with you. I mean, they have to be doing the right thing for you. That’s where the trust comes in.

Bob: Yeah, absolutely. Stephen M.R. Covey, the son of Dr. Stephen Covey of 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen M.R. Covey wrote a book called The Speed of Trust, where he quantified…he also wrote a book called Smart Trust. They’re both wonderful books, and he really quantified trust. He showed that when there’s high trust, things happen quicker. Things happen faster. People understand what you mean. They trust you. But when there’s no trust, low trust, lack of trust, that’s when bureaucracy, that’s where things…right?

Glenn: Right.

Bob: And so that trust is just so important.

Glenn: Okay, so the next habit.

Bob: The next one is law of authenticity, and this one simply says the most valuable gift you have to offer is yourself. In the story, Deborah Davenport shared a lesson she learned early in her career that all the skills in the world, the sales skills, technical skills, people skills, as important as they are, and they are important, they’re also all for not if you don’t come at it from your true, authentic core.

Now, when you do, when you show up as yourself, day after day, week after week, month after month, people feel good about you. They feel comfortable. They know you. They like you. They trust you. But when someone shows up as they do as a…I think the Latin term is Phonus Bolognus or something…right? You know, people don’t feel comfortable with them.

And you say well, why don’t they show up as themselves? Are they, you know, crooked or trying to…? No, I think usually it’s because they don’t have the confidence in themselves to know that they have something of value to offer, and it’s hard to show up authentically when you don’t feel you have anything worthwhile to offer.

Glenn: This one is going to be really important in the future, because you’re going to be stripped down to your authentic self because everything is going to be taken from you. There’s no privacy. There’s no privacy, so the only way you can get…the only way I got to my authentic self was being down on the ground as an alcoholic and realizing I’ve got nothing left. There’s nowhere to go, and so that’s when you find out who you really, truly are.

That’s going to happen to all of us. In some way or another, you’re going to be stripped down naked to the essence of who you are. The faster you strip it down, the faster you gladly say, “Yep, I’ve got it all out, it doesn’t matter, I want to go there because I want to find who I really, truly am,” the more you’ll be a leader in what’s to come. Okay, next.

16343266025_18312a5ff4_k

Bob: The law of receptivity, and this one kind of ties it together. The law of receptivity says the key to effective giving is to stay open to receiving. Late in the story, Pindar, the main mentor, tells Joe, the protégé, to breathe out and hold that breath to the count of 30. Joe tries, but in about ten seconds or so, he’s gasping for air, and Pindar says, “What’s the matter, Joe, can’t do it?” Joe says, “No, I can’t just breathe out. I’ve got to breathe in as well.” And Pindar says, “But, Joe,” and he says this jokingly, “what if I was to tell you it’s actually healthier to breathe, it’s been medically proven that it’s healthier to breathe out than it is to breathe in?” And Joe said, “That’s silly. You can’t do one or the other. You’ve got to do both.”

Absolutely, we breathe out, we breathe in. We breathe out carbon dioxide. We breathe in oxygen. We breathe out, which is giving. We breathe in, which is receiving. Society, with its very lack messages, and we see this everywhere, we see it on TV, we see it in movies. They pit the rich against the…so we tend to believe it’s one or the other, you know? You’re either a giver or a receiver. No, you’re both.

Glenn : Okay, the name of the book is The Go-Giver, can’t recommend it highly enough, available everywhere. It’s been on the number one New York Times list for years now. Get it, The Go-Giver, and be a part of the change to come.

16343249765_3f578fc8c8_k

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.