Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Trump's Year in Review: Here Are His Biggest Accomplishments in 2017

January 02, 2018
Staff

WRITER

How did President Donald Trump fare in the first year of his presidency? Doc recently guest-hosted for Glenn and covered some of Trump’s major accomplishments in 2017. What do you think of his list of Trump’s wins?

“It was a pretty good year,” Doc said. “I’ve got to give the guy credit.”

  • Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court

  • Republicans passed a major tax reform bill

  • Jerusalem recognized as the official capital of Israel

  • U.S. withdrew from the Paris climate accord

  • Obama administration’s deal with Cuba rescinded

  • EPA regulations rolled back

Listen to the audio clip or read the transcript below for more.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Let's talk about the truth now. Because I mentioned, yes, Glenn Beck did not support vote for or support President Trump. I didn't as well. But we've been pretty honest, calling the balls and strikes as we see them.

Is that good, or is that bad? And early on, the first big thing President Trump did was appoint Neil Gorsuch. And by some people's desire or reason they voted for him, that was enough.

Fill that seat that was vacated by Antonin Scalia, with a true conservative. Maybe that was enough. And I gave him high marks for that.

Then the following couple months, not a lot got done. There were some things that I didn't like. A little bombastic. Still gave him high marks. Okay. And that's kind of been the malaise I think during the summers. Little stories here and there. And the media just obsesses over his tweet and fake news claims and this stuff. And I didn't I say do the math and add up what the president had accomplished. Because, by the way, did they repeal Obamacare? Nope. Didn't get it done.

A lot of stuff we were hoping that they didn't get done, but that's they, the party, including the Republicans in Congress.

If you look at President Trump's track record, it was a pretty good year. Shockingly good year.

When I went down the list to prepare for today, I got to give the guy credit. So Neil Gorsuch, he did sign the tax reform bill.

Now, Congress did a lot of that work. So give them their due. The president did use the bully pulpit and suggest, you know, dropping the corporate tax rate down to 20 percent. It ended up being 21. Still good. But he did sign it and support it and got behind it.

He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Said they were going to remove the embassy. Okay. That's pretty big for people who supported him, supported Israel, said that's what should happen there. That's a huge step that everybody else has kicked the can down the road. Right? Clinton did it. Bush did it. Obama did it. All when they're campaigning. Absolutely.

Got to be in Jerusalem. That's American policy since the '90s or whatever.

You going to do it? Well -- so you support it? Oh, absolutely.

But you're going to move it? Well...

That's what they're doing, right? Because they're playing both sides. They're playing politics. He said we're going to do it. Okay.

He signed an executive order that demanded that two regulations be killed for every new one that it creates. When that happened, I said, fantastic, if they do it. So far, he has.

He's eliminated more than he's created. It's a -- by a huge margin. Can't remember the percent. It's like 8-1 or something. They've actually done it. He cut 16 rules and regulations for every one. But that's an old statistic from months ago. So I don't know what the actual updated number is. But it's at least that. And this is a little loose. It saves 8.1 billion. That metric is a little off. But the number of rules and regulations cut versus created is true. He signed 15 congressional regulatory cuts by themselves.

He withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. Okay. That's pretty significant.

KAL: People flipped out on that one.

DOC: They did. And when it was out -- I even talked about it. But looking back, now even more significant than I realized at the time, because there's a lot going on. You know what I mean?

Signed an exact order. Cutting the time for infrastructure permit approvals.

Okay. That's a little less, but still solid. He withdrew from the TPP. Huge.

And I remember why I didn't give him enough credit for that one. Because it was not -- we're pull out of the TPP. It was, well, we're going to do this. Think we're going to do that? Yeah, we pulled out.

It was, he almost didn't do himself a service as people. Because some of this stuff he campaigns on, then when it comes down to it, there's a moment of hesitation. Maybe they're just playing the media, whatever it is.

But then they do it. But during that hesitation, I'm like, ah, he's not doing it, or whatever. Then, okay. Great. He did it.

So it doesn't get -- it's not like he rode into town and said, here's all the stuff I'm going to do. We're pulling out of this stuff. Boom, boom, boom. And you go, hurray. But that's the reason I want to bring up the facts and go down the list.

He started renegotiating NAFTA. Now, that was not as big an issue for some people. But it's worth looking at. He ended Obama's deal with Cuba. Awesome.

Why all of a sudden did we suddenly say, yeah, Cuba is not a problem.

He opened up 77 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas drilling. Solid thing. Expanded some of the different infrastructure projects when it comes to energy, like the Keystone Pipeline. Awesome.

He ordered the EPA to kill Obama's clean power plan. Awesome. And as part of that, he rolled back Obama's attempt to regulate all US waterways. Remember, he was using the Clean Water Act, that even literally the mud puddle behind your house could have been covered. The federal government would have jurisdiction over. Which is ridiculous. It was never designed for that. He rolled that back.

Laid out and challenged now new plans to challenge and stop migration. Ended Obama's catch and release program of illegals.

Has arrested more illegals inside the US now. Started the end of DACA. That's another one that he kind of waffled on when it came down to it, or it seemed like he was going to waffle, but ended up doing the right thing.

Attempted to and in some ways have cracked down on US sanctuary cities. Of course, that was challenged at the Supreme Court. And they said they can't do it. But he did the right thing. Did everything within his power as far as that goes. Has added 100 additional immigration judges to start processing those cases. Awesome. Reinstated and expanded the Mexico City policy, which is misleading. It has nothing really to do with Mexico City or immigration or anything like that.

That's the money -- the foreign aid that is used for abortions, where people get money in foreign aid form, and they can use it for abortion. And he rolled that back

He withdrew from the UN global compact on migration, which is wonderful. They have just said that they are going to -- this is the last couple of days. Nikki Haley announced that they are cutting UN funding. He signed the VA Whistle-blower Act, to crack down. And as part of that, the Veterans Appeal Improvement and Modernization Act and signed the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act.

Now, those are all good steps. More has to be done. Much, much more with the VA. But that's far more than Obama did with that. Just the Whistle Protection Act and their ability to now hold people accountable, where they can be fired.

Now, as soon as he took office, he fired a bunch of people at the VA, at the top. Some of them got their jobs back. That's no fault of his.

That ended up being unions and courts and everything else. But the president did what was right.

Net neutrality wasn't him directly. But on his watch, with his support, one of his guys --

KAL: Didn't he appoint the guy?

DOC: One of them, yeah. Yeah, he didn't get to appoint all of them. Because you still got Mignon Clyburn. Filet Mignon Cly- -- did you know that's Jim Clyburn's daughter? James Clyburn, the forever congressman from South Carolina.

KAL: No, I didn't know that.

DOC: She has no history of telecommunications or anything like that, but she works for the FCC. Hmm. Yeah, she got her job fair and square, I'm sure.

So these are just some of the things that President Trump has done. From a conservative/Libertarian standpoint, that's pretty solid.

Any of the other failures of things like Obamacare, could he have led more on it? Could he have said we need specifically just a repeal, use the bully pulpit more? Maybe. But if you had asked me a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, my opinion on all of these, how do you want a president to rule on this, this, and this? And vote and rescind on executive order and whatever. I would have supported these.

KAL: At least with the Obamacare, didn't he get the fine removed? Like you don't get fined anymore --

DOC: Right. Exactly. The teeth are out of it. You still have to have it by law. But you're not going to have it anymore. So a little bit. I mean, I'm wanting a grander statement of change. But as far as President Trump has gone. When I look back over all the stuff over the last year, he has used his office with most of these actions the right way. And this is in many cases rolling back many of the problems, many of the things that Obama did, some of it unconstitutionally during his eight years. It's going to take a while.

That's the truth.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.