Trump's Impressive 100-day Action Plan to Make America Great Again

In October, Donald Trump released a plan for his first 100 days in office. Called "Donald Trump's Contract With The American Voter," the plan promises to restore "honesty, accountability and change to Washington."

"It's pretty impressive," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Trump's very first line item is proposing a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already gone on record as saying, "It will not be on the agenda in the Senate."

"It's not going to happen, and it has nothing to do with Donald Trump. If anyone can get it done, it might be Donald Trump," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these promising questions:

• What six measures does Trump promise on day one to clean up corruption and special interests?

• What seven actions does he promise to take on day one to protect American workers?

• What five actions will Trump take on day one to restore security and the constitutional rule of law?

• What 10 items does Trump pledge to fight for in the first 100 days of his presidency?

• What, if anything, does Glenn disagree with?

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

GLENN: Hello, America. I want to talk to you about the 100-day action plan to make America great again.

I will tell you that elections have consequences, and also obligations. And in this election, our obligation is to now stop fighting the battle of, should he be president, should he not be president?

Did he believe those things? Did he say those things? What's he going to do? And now he's president. Let's take him at his word, and let's follow what he's going to do and then hold him accountable if he deviates from that, with the understanding that every president has to make some sacrifices. They have to compromise from time to time. As long as we don't compromise our principles, we'll be fine. So it's a new day. Elections have consequences. Elections have responsibilities for its citizens.

And one of those is not to be marching in the streets, calling for people's, the death after an election. That is more like a -- oh, I don't know. Russia 1919.

What follows is the 100 day action plan to make America great again. Let's go through this. It's pretty impressive.

First, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

STU: First!

PAT: I like that.

STU: I love that.

PAT: Yeah, that's great.

GLENN: It's not going to happen. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump. If anyone can get it done, it might be Donald Trump.

JEFFY: He won't.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But -- because he can speak directly to the American people and try to push it through. But already, Mitch McConnell, you know, that great guy who was for Donald Trump, he has come out and said, "No, that's not even going to make it to our Senate agenda."

STU: And the thing about -- the issue why this never happens -- because this is something that's supported by 8 percent plus of the people.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Is that, it's always somebody who understands, quote, unquote, that, you know, you need to stay in office and everyone needs to hang around. You need to understand the system and all that.

This is one thing that I really have and had hope that Donald Trump would push for. It came along late in his agenda. It was not like one of the first things he passionately talked about.

But it strikes very much of that -- honestly, the Bannon philosophy. Hopefully, that actually happens. That one, I'm really -- I would love. Because that one is huge, and it has long-term implications.

GLENN: Yeah. That's number one on his list.

Number two, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition, exempting military, public safety, and public health.

STU: That's --

GLENN: Third, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.

PAT: What?

JEFFY: Okay.

STU: Wow. I mean, I like that. I don't know if that's --

GLENN: We'll see.

STU: We'll see. I like that.

GLENN: Fourth, a five-year ban on White House and congressional offices becoming -- or, officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.

PAT: Yeah, Obama --

GLENN: That should be easy.

PAT: But, whatever.

GLENN: I know. Fifth, a lifetime ban on White House officials, lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Six, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So he says that's day one.

STU: What's that last one?

GLENN: A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for elections.

STU: That's interesting. Because that was some of the stuff -- it was one of the issues that Manafort was criticized for, being a lobbyist, working with foreign governments. It's interesting he would take that on as a big part of his platform. Because, I mean, the most recent --

GLENN: This was after Manafort left.

STU: Exactly. And I know the new people didn't particularly like the old people. So it's an interesting part of that.

GLENN: Yes.

First, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.

Now, when it comes to trade deals, I believe Donald Trump 100 percent. I believe he will spend all of his political capital on trade deals. He's willing to, at least.

Because he -- that's the only -- that's the one thing that remained true and constant his entire campaign. And he said it for years.

Second, I will announce our withdrawal from the Transpacific Partnership.

JEFFY: Yeah, he wants that.

PAT: Wow. Good.

STU: I mean, that's no surprise.

GLENN: And I think he'll do both of us.

STU: Yeah, those -- yeah, the NAFTA one will be interesting to see of what he does with it. Again, he's not saying he's going to get rid of it.

And there's been a lot of positives from it, to be perfectly honest. But I think --

PAT: A lot of negatives though, too. It's not a great treaty.

STU: But if you can go through and find the bad and get rid of that obviously --

GLENN: Well, yeah, the problem is, it's an outside -- it's an unconstitutional government framework being built above the Constitution. That's the problem with TPP.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Third, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

Warning.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Warning. I would love to do that, but that is kicking the people who are feeding you right now.

PAT: Hmm.

STU: And, well, I mean, A, he promised it. Right? He's promised this -- all this stuff are campaign promises. So you're not as surprised to see them. I mean, I don't agree on a lot of this --

PAT: However, all his promises were suggestions. Let's not forget that. They were all --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. I will tell you this -- I will tell you this, this is one of the main concerns I have had with Donald Trump's policies, is he is not a conservative when it comes to trade deals, not at all.

STU: He's Bernie Sanders on it.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And that's -- look, that's not something he lied about. He was straight-up and honest about it.

GLENN: No, no. No, I know that. But I have been very clear that if he wants or if he -- if he gets into trade wars -- and that's how these things are solved -- if you start to stick a hot iron into one of your partner's eyes, they're going to stick two hot irons in your eyes. And this is what the Great Depression became the Great Depression, instead of an 18-month depression, because of Smoot-Hawley tariffs. So this is very dangerous territory.

I will direct Secretary of Commerce and US trade representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.

STU: Okay. Again, that's --

PAT: Still waiting for Obamacare repeal.

GLENN: It's coming. It's coming.

STU: We're on 11. Just number 11.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on. Fifth, I will lift the restrictions on the production of 50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal.

PAT: Oh, good. Good.

GLENN: That could save the economy there alone.

PAT: That's really good.

GLENN: Except -- except prices of energy is so low right now.

STU: Yeah, but, I mean -- certainly, A, this is a positive.

GLENN: I know. It's a positive. I know.

Six, lift the Obama/Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects like the Keystone Oil Pipeline.

PAT: Yes. Good.

GLENN: That's gigantic.

PAT: Those two are really good.

GLENN: Yes.

Seventh, cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change program.

PAT: Oh, good golly.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure. I'm okay with that.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: I want to know the details on that, but I think I'm okay.

PAT: All right. Yeah.

JEFFY: He's already tapped the climate skeptic Myron Ebell for his --

STU: Yeah, and that's a good hire.

PAT: Good.

STU: Smart guy. And definitely a skeptical climate guy. Again, good for us.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That's a good name.

GLENN: Additionally, on the first day -- so everything he's saying so far is day one.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Additionally, on the first day, I will --

JEFFY: It's a good day.

GLENN: You get this done, you could take a vacation.

I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law.

First, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum, and order issued by President Obama.

PAT: I mean, this is -- a lot of these things, Ted Cruz talked about.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: This is great.

GLENN: This came very late. And he took some of the last stuff -- this is his Gettysburg address.

PAT: This is great. This is great.

STU: Is this post-election or pre-election?

GLENN: This is post-election, but this is what he said at Gettysburg.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Okay.

Second, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

PAT: So he's actually verifying --

GLENN: He's sticking to the 20 judges on his list.

PAT: -- confirming that he's going to pick from that list.

GLENN: Yes. Third, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.

JEFFY: Ooh.

PAT: Nice.

JEFFY: Ooh.

STU: So he can do that on day one without --

GLENN: That's billions of dollars.

STU: Can he do that?

GLENN: I don't know.

JEFFY: I don't know.

STU: I'm sure he has some plan to do it, I just don't know what that is.

PAT: Executive order?

GLENN: Fourth, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back.

STU: Okay. So you're going to punish -- if they won't take them back -- because that is an issue that we don't talk about all that often. They might not -- we might say, "Hey, we found this criminal. Take him back, Mexico." And they're going to be like, "Screw you. We don't want him." So they're going to be -- then he would cancel visas to that country as punishment.

That will be interesting -- I mean, obviously both --

PAT: It will be retaliation.

STU: That would probably escalating --

PAT: You got to do something, right? We've been begging for something to be done.

GLENN: Think about just canceling federal funding for all sanctuary cities.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: That puts cities like New York --

PAT: Houston, Dallas.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: San Francisco.

GLENN: Into massive disrepair fast.

STU: They have to stop --

PAT: They have to stop it immediately. They have to stop it immediately.

STU: I mean, there will be a million things that happen off of that.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: But, again, these are --

GLENN: All of these things have massive consequences.

STU: To go to what you were talking about earlier, I mean, if you take this stuff literally, there might be issues here. But the general direction of it is positive.

GLENN: Yes, it is.

PAT: If I'm the city council of one of these cities, I'm already planning for that.

JEFFY: You're darn right you are. And you've got to be talking about the fact that if he does that, we've got to stop being a sanctuary city.

JEFFY: Or they're going to -- they're already starting to talk about filing lawsuit, even here in Dallas, against that.

GLENN: Good luck in the courts in Dallas.

JEFFY: Okay.

GLENN: Good luck in the --

STU: It may or may not work. But, again, he can't control that. Right?

So if he tries to do something --

PAT: Yeah, these are good steps. These are good steps.

GLENN: Fifth, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur.

STU: So this is what the Muslim ban turned into, which is a much more rational policy.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

STU: And, again, there could be some issues with other countries --

PAT: There will be.

STU: And that's a fair -- that's a fair limitation.

GLENN: Okay. So those are the things that he says he's going to do on day one.

PAT: Wow.

STU: No Obamacare in there. But I think that's coming, right?

GLENN: It's coming. That's gigantic. If he did all of those things on day one, I can't guarantee you what the ramifications will be. It makes me happy.

JEFFY: Me too.

GLENN: But it might set the world on fire. I don't know.

STU: Right. So going through -- categorizing real quick, term limits, one, I'm 100 percent behind that. Then he goes to regulation cuts and spending cuts, I love that. With the hiring freeze. Then he has the lobbying stuff, which is fine, but, I mean, I'm not all that passionate about it.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Then trade stuff, which I think, in my opinion, would be bad most of it.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Then energy, I like that a lot. Climate change, certainly love that he would not be paying for climate change crap like that. Supreme Court, one of the 20 judges is a big step. And this is -- we were told and heard that was one of the things he locked in to get some conservative support. Because the first time he gave that list, he gave it and then backed off of it.

JEFFY: Backed off.

GLENN: Drew said he locked in Mike Lee for that.

STU: So that's -- and Lee was on that list. Then sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, I mean, funding. That's good too.

So, I mean, most of that is pretty good, I think.

PAT: Really good. A lot of it is really good.

STU: Yeah, it's more -- in the only iffy part is the trade policy. And, you know, we've talked about that the whole time.

STU: And you knew that getting into this. That's not a surprise.

PAT: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: So he says, then in my first 100 days, I'm going to work on something more broad with Congress. And I'll tell you what that is, coming up in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: First half-hour of this hour, we talked about the things that Donald Trump said he was going to do on day one. Pretty overwhelming. And pretty ambitious. And --

PAT: Most of it pretty great.

GLENN: Yeah. I think -- I don't think there was anything in there that I didn't think was great. There were things in there that I worry sincerely about the consequences.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And what he means. The devil will be in the details on the trade stuff.

But, you know, some things that are really great, but some things that, you know, might start a trade war. But who am I to say?

He then says, within the first 100 days of my administration, I will introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage.

One, Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4 percent a year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restriction on American energy.

The largest tax reductions will be for the middle class. A middle class family with two children will get a 35 percent tax cut.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three. And tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified.

STU: I mean, this is almost identical to the House plan.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We talk to -- we had Evan McMullin on the air several weeks ago, and one of the first interviews we had with him on Pat & Stu. It was almost his exact tax plan as well. Their plans were very similar at the end. This was not the first Trump plan, but the one he landed on was almost identical to the House Republican plan.

Anyways...

GLENN: The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent. You know how many people we'll hire?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.

That's a little concerning, but I appreciate the effort.

STU: Right. There's good and bad with that.

GLENN: Yeah. That can cause massive inflation. You bring back trillions of dollars of cash.

STU: Many of these things too --

PAT: If it happens all at once, especially.

STU: Many of these things can be done through reconciliation as well because they're budget matters. That's how the Bush tax cuts got done. It also means that they would have an expiration date. But I think it's ten years. So you would have some time with a much more favorable business environment. But then you would have to pass something to keep it this way, which is where it gets really different. But, still, ten years is ten years.

PAT: The president and the House and the Senate, I just don't understand why they can't go after something more ambitious than this.

GLENN: I agree.

PAT: Why not? Why not go for it now? You've got the power. Go for it. They never do. Never do. Republicans never -- look what Democrats did when they have the shot.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: They overhauled 17 percent of the US economy.

GLENN: Among other things --

PAT: Among other things.

STU: Dodd-Frank. Not to mention the stimulus. They went for it. They did serious damage. Well, we could repair a lot of that with a really ambitious plan. It's a shame they're --

STU: But this one is better than what we have now.

PAT: I mean, I'll take it. I'll take it. But we always just have to take it. All right. Throw us a scrap. I'll eat it. Whatever.

GLENN: Well, and that's the problem. That's why you can accomplish things on the left that the right can't accomplish, because the left is always big and aspirational and new.

PAT: Always.

GLENN: And you're like, "Wow, that's -- I mean, wow. Who can't dream about that?"

PAT: Right.

GLENN: We're always about nickel and diming the tax brackets.

STU: But, again --

PAT: Like Ted Cruz proposed is doable right now. Because you've got the power to do it.

GLENN: I agree.

STU: Let me give you where this was. So Bush had the tax rates at 35 percent. This -- and they're now 39.6, plus some other junk that I assume this gets rid of as well. I don't know that for a fact.

This would move it to 12, 25, 33. So you would still have a 33 percent tax rate, and capital gains would be at 20 percent. So, again --

GLENN: That's still high for --

PAT: Are they keeping deductions, or are they trying to take those?

STU: Some -- I mean, it's a mixed bag on that. There's nothing flat about it. It's the House plan. It really is.

I don't think it's that simplified. There's not just charity and mortgage. There's still lots of deductions in there. They will get rid of some of them. They will get rid of the death tax, at least temporarily, which is always -- it's just a ridiculous tax. It's like the most insultingly ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my --

PAT: It's government theft.

STU: It's not the biggest part of the economy, but it's just morally ridiculous.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That you would --

GLENN: All this stuff -- all this stuff that progressives have done, I think, that revolve around death, is morally reprehensible. I really do. The death tax.

I'm sorry. But I think somebody buying land and putting it in a trust in perpetuity is wrong, is absolutely wrong.

To be able -- if it's owned by your family, you know what I mean? And your family -- you pass it to your son. That's fine. But telling your son and his son and his son, what he can and cannot do with that land, we have no idea what that might be on that land.

You might find that it has a special rock in that land in 100 years from now. And somebody ruling from 100 years ago is going to tell us, I can't get that rock. Who the hell are you?

STU: But whose land is it?

GLENN: It bothers me when it is locked up -- it's still his land. It's still his land. Because he's locked it up. No one living today can say, "Oh, well, we want to -- we want to go look for that rock. We want to go do this." No.

That land is only for this particular use. Period.

STU: But, I mean, isn't that your right, as someone who is -- if you want to -- like, I remember there was a radio station, I don't remember where it was. You'll remember this story probably. And the people who owned it, it was a great signal, in the middle of the FM dial. And they made it a classical station.

GLENN: It was King.

STU: And then -- in Seattle?

GLENN: In Seattle.

STU: And they said, I don't care what you do with this. It's just got to be classical.

GLENN: But they were still alive. The family that owns King, I think they still are -- I can't remember their names anymore. But they were still alive. The sisters were still doing it. And, again, it's -- the land -- I'm sorry. I'm much more Native American on the land.

Men do not own land. We can possess the land while we're alive, and we can -- we can have our own borders on it. But we are really care takers of the land. The next generation comes in and they decide what they're going to do with --

JEFFY: What you're saying is you're giving it to the next generation, and the next generation is able to decide what they're going to do with it during their lifetime.

GLENN: Yes.

JEFFY: Not three generations from now, Glenn Beck's property is still Glenn Beck's property.

GLENN: Right. What I'm saying -- look, what I'm saying is -- okay. I have a ranch. Okay. I die. I want my ranch to go to my children. Now, they can keep it exactly the same. But if I said to my children, oh, boy, you are never to build another house on this land -- you know, Dad, you didn't see 50 years ago, before you died, what was happening in the world. I want to build a house here.

STU: If it's something -- for example, if you are -- you put a religious institution on a piece of land and you say, "I want it to be there because it's my principles, they last forever, it's mine. This is what I want it to be." If you don't want to take my free gift of land under these -- under this contract, then don't accept it. But I built my life -- my life's work resides here. It's important to me. I want it to last forever.

GLENN: You lock -- you lock --

PAT: Plus, how much of that is there?

STU: Not a lot.

PAT: That's a small portion of what we're talking about anyway.

GLENN: I just find it -- I find it reprehensible. I find it reprehensible. That -- that the federal government can just tell people who are close to the land what they have to do from an office in Washington where they have no idea what they're doing with the land. They have no idea what they're doing.

And beyond that -- for instance, we have now -- are you against -- are you going -- are you against going in and getting oil if the country needs it in the preserve lands of Alaska?

PAT: No.

STU: No.

GLENN: You're not against that?

PAT: Uh-uh.

GLENN: Well, why? It's deemed preserve land.

STU: Yeah, but deemed by who? The government? If you said -- if you bought land and you said, "You know what, this is my land, and no one shall ever drill on it," then I think you would have a right to do that.

GLENN: What right do you have to rule behind --

STU: It's yours.

GLENN: From beyond the grave.

STU: You don't have to accept the land under that contract.

You just die, and no one accepts -- because you're deeding this as a -- you're putting it in a certain condition.

PAT: And that's the government's theory on your money too: What right do you have to give your money to your children?

GLENN: No, no. That's not.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That's how they think about it. You're dead. We should get that money.

GLENN: No, wait. I'm saying that you could give that land to somebody and say, "Look, Pat, take this land. Here's our agreement. Our agreement is you don't build anything on there. You got it." Good. Then it's a contract between me and you.

And then, when you die, you could pass it and say, "Hey, look, I made him a promise." But it allows Pat -- if things change, it allows Pat to say, "Okay. Hang on just a second."

We have found a new rare mineral. It's only found on this land.

STU: But progressives always find a way that things have changed. That's why -- I mean, that's why you have a principle. It's essentially a part of your own Constitution. If you say you want to use land for a specific thing and it's yours --

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you -- remember the Barnes Museum in Philadelphia?

STU: I do not.

GLENN: Okay. The Barnes Museum in Philadelphia, a guy was -- was an eclectic and pretty damn near crazy collector of art. One of the greatest collections of art in America. Okay? But he wanted them all hung.

It makes no sense. The way you go and you listen to the lectures, and they take you through his art collection, you're like, "What the hell. What?" And he's like, "See, this -- this represents this." And they are put together because of -- well, none of it -- some of it is inaccurate. But he -- that's the way he viewed the art. And so he said, "I'll donate the collection, but it always has to be done like that. And these things have to be said."

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on.

Well, the city of Philadelphia said, "It's in a neighborhood. It's poor lighting. It doesn't make sense to be done that way." And they took it from the Barnes Foundation, and they forced them to move it and to do it the way they wanted to.

The people from the inside who were responsible for the collection took it and said, "No, we're not going to do that way anymore. After all, he's dead." No, no, wait. That is private property. That's different than land.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Land --

STU: I think land is property.

PAT: Yeah, it is.

STU: It's actually property brothers. It's a land --

GLENN: I'm not -- no, I'm not saying that you don't own -- I'm not saying someone can come on to your land and tell you what to do with it. I'm not saying that at all.

STU: No, you're definitely against that. We know that.

GLENN: Right. I am for personal property being land. I'm saying, when you die, what right do you have to take a finite thing, which is earth -- art is not finite. But buildings -- anything you want to do, that's not finite.

STU: There's always other land. There's always other land.

GLENN: There may not be that land. There may not be --

STU: There is a theoretical point, right? Like, that you're making, that theoretically, there's this plot of land that there's -- this one resource that we can only get there. In that, you know, one in a zillion chance -- I mean, again, this is a real long shot. But if that were to happen, we do have eminent domain laws, which is what this is actually constitutionally to be used as, not for casinos or parking lots, but for that type of purpose. That's -- that is probably where that would apply, if it applies. But, I mean, that never -- that situation is almost impossible.

Like, I mean, to me -- if you don't want to take the donation of whatever it is, then don't -- then you don't accept it under those circumstances. If there's a foundation that has that and that is your legacy, I think that is completely within your right to do.

GLENN: All right. Here's our sponsor this half-hour, it's SimpliSafe.

PAT: Does Trump get to Obamacare in the first 100 days?

GLENN: Yes, he does. Yes, he does. And I'll get to those real quick.

[break]

GLENN: All right. So here's what he's going to do: He's going to reduce the taxes. Then end the Off-shoring Act, establish tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers, in order to relocate in other countries to ship their products back to the US, tax-free.

STU: That's something I disagree with.

GLENN: Yep. American energy and infrastructure. Leverages private public partnerships, private investments through tax incentives, spur one trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years.

STU: That's a stimulus.

GLENN: Yep.

School Choice and Education Opportunity Act. Redirects educational dollars to give parents the right to send their kids to public school, private charter, magnate, religious, or homeschool of their choice. Ends Common Core.

Love that.

Brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical educations and make two to four-year college more affordable.

PAT: Pretty good.

GLENN: Let's see.

Restoring the Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs, violence, by creating a task force on violent crime and increases funding for programs that train and assist local police.

I don't like this at all.

I don't like anything getting into the government, giving money to police.

Increases resources for federal -- yeah, the federal government. Federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

Restoring the national security act, rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester -- good -- and expanding military investment, provides veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment, or attend the private doctor of their choice, good. Protects our vital infrastructure from cyber attack, good. Establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.

Ten, clean Up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corruption influence of special interests in our politics. On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to make America great again.

STU: Yeah, the first half of those are pretty specific. The second, they're much more broad.

GLENN: Yeah, because they're legislative acts.

STU: They could be really good.

GLENN: They could be really bad.

STU: They could have lots of problems. There's definitely a lot of spending in that second half, which makes me concerned.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: But, again, we'll look at it as these things come.

PAT: I'm not sure I ever heard the words repeal Obamacare either. I didn't hear that.

STU: No.

GLENN: Yeah, it is there. I must have skipped it when we took a break.

PAT: If it's there, boy, they buried the lead.

GLENN: It is there.

Featured Image: President Barack Obama speaks while meeting with President-elect Donald Trump (L) following a meeting in the Oval Office November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC. Trump is scheduled to meet with members of the Republican leadership in Congress later today on Capitol Hill. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

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

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.