What Romney should say tonight

If you had asked Glenn six months ago what the GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's approach in tonight's debate should be, he would have had a difference answer than he did this morning.

"You know, six months ago you got to go after him.  You've got to go after him.  I don't think you do," Glenn told listeners this morning.

This morning Glenn gave the points that he believes Mitt Romney should make during tonight's debate. They aren't points that discuss his radical past or Marxist tendencies.

If Glenn were Mitt Romney, here's exactly what he would say tonight —and it may surprise you.

"Mr. President none of the things you've said about me are true.  You've even admitted to lies and mistakes in your approved ads in your 60 minute interview," Glenn started.

"Tonight, Mr. President that should not happen because it's not about politics. It's about our country, and it's about credible.  Whom can we trust anymore? 

The American people don't trust the news media.  They don't trust the Republicans.  And they don't trust the Democrats.  They don't trust you.  And they don't trust me.  But they're going to go in and make a decision."

"Whom do they trust Mr. President? Whom do they trust?"

"Let's look at some of the facts."

"You attacked my record at Bain, yet in every single case I wasn't even at the company when you accused of layoffs and outsourcing in every single case. 

You went so far to post a story from the poor man who lost his wife to cancer on your website, and Stephanie Cutter hosted him on one of your campaign conference calls.  So this isn't something from a super PAC that you had no control over it was on your website.  You tried to use the story that it was me who laid him off, so he lost his job and lost his insurance.  And then his wife got cancer, and died.  Instead, the truth is — because that's what this has to be about Mr. President, and the American people need to know the truth — the truth is, he lost his job after I left the company.  His wife went on her own company's insurance, then dropped it, then got sick. And then, seven years after I was involved with this man or his family, seven years after I left the company, she got cancer, and died. 

That's a tragic story not only for that family but, Mr. President, that is a tragic story of an American President without any credibility. 

You and your surrogates have accused me of not paying my taxes, even when an organization that has 8% of the population saying, "no I can trust the news from the "New York Times" — 8%.  Even the New York Times says, "the President is wrong." 

You continue to claim I haven't released my tax information.  I have.  I have released my tax information for the past two years, as much as Ronald Reagan did. And I released the summary tax information going back 20 years.  To illustrate the futility of releasing this tax information, last week, when I had discovered I paid more tax than I needed to I was attacked for that even though you harp on the fact that you want the wealthy to pay more. "Pay their "fair share."  I paid more and your people attacked. 

Then you went around and attacked me when I did pay $500,000 more than I was paying and that's just the beginning of it.  Because your constantly attacking me and anyone who has earned their money.  You've constantly attacked my wealth.  Yes, I have been successful. Since when — since when has that been a curse in America and not a blessing? 

With that wealth I have helped to bless the lives of others: through employment, investment opportunities and charity.  One of the revelations in my taxes, if you care to look, is that last year I donated 30% of my income — that's four million dollars — to charity.  I didn't wait for the government to act.  I knew people were hurting and needed help. We're in a tough time.  Charities are hurting for cash.  I upped my charity." 

"Let me break out of Mitt Romney for a second," Glenn interjected,  "Because the man in me would say, "now up yours."  But that would be inappropriate." 

"Why would I up my charity? Because I am my brother's keeper, not the government. 

And that's the difference between the two of us. 

You've taken a phrase I have used and you took it out of context.  This is a choice that America has to make.  Whom do you trust?

About 47% of Americans, I said, aren't paying taxes.  To claim I wouldn't care about half the country if elected is ridiculous.  That's what you said.  Mr. President, you know that's disingenuous at best.  I was referring to the fact that I can't worry about getting their votes.  Not that I don't care about them as human beings or their struggles. 

You know that Mr. President, we're adults.  You've alleged that I never struggled and I don't care about hardworking Americans.  Mr. President, I've worked long and hard to get where I am today, as has my wife.  As far as caring for people, I've never been comfortable extolling the work I've done for others.  Let's just suffice that I have personally given my time, my council, and my money to help people of all income levels in all stages of life.  I've been doing that my entire life.  I was raised that way. 

Service is in my D.N.A.. 

The fundamental difference between us is you have turned that responsibility over to government agencies.  You believe your job is to fight for bigger government who will in turn fight for the people.  I believe that it is my job to fight for the people.  It's more of a direct line but I learned that in business. 

I believe it's my responsibility to get involved.  I believe it is your responsibility to get -- you believe that it's your responsibility to get the involved with other people's time and money.  I believe people should make that decision themselves.  But it's not just about what you've said about me and the lies you've said.  That just has to be said because it is a contest between the two of us.  But that's not something we should dwell on.  We spend tonight's hour on is what you have done. 

Mr. President you promised to cut the deficit in half by now.  I know it's evil George Bush's fault but you've had four years.  This year's deficit is the largest in the history of the planet earth.  It's $1,275,800,000,000. You've added more to the national debt in four years than President Bush did in eight.  You called his efforts unpatriotic.  What does that make yours, sir. 

You promised to close Gitmo.  You didn't.  You promised not to hire lobbyists.  You hired 17 within the first two weeks.  You promised to allow five days of public comment before signing any bills.  That hasn't happened.  You promised to televise healthcare care.  You didn't.  It was all behind closed doors.  It was with special interest groups.  You promised healthcare care costs would decrease.  What has happened.  They're up 25%.  You promised Americans if they liked their healthcare plan they'd be able to keep it.  Up to 30% of employers have dropped or plan to drop out of their healthcare when Obamacare is fully implemented because they can't afford it anymore.  You promised to reduce earmarks to 1994 levels.  Nope.  They continue.  You promised that if you make less less than $250,000 none of your taxes will increase.  Obamacare will raise taxes on million on Americas.  Plainly centered around those that are making $55,000 a year not to mention the smoking tax.  The tanning tax, and uninsured.  You said that Obamacare mandate was not a tax.  And then your people went in and argued to the Supreme Court it was a tax. 

You promised that the world would respect and love us again.  Instead our allies have no idea where we stand.  Instead our enemies are emboldened.  The middle is on fire.  And our embassies interest and people in the Middle East are under siege.  This White House, this White House has lied to the American people just on Libya enough. 

You promised over and over again jobs, those three little letters was job number one.  Say what you will about your efforts of creating and saving jobs but unemployment has been above 8% for 42 straight months.  There's 80 million unemployed or under employed in this country.  I don't care about the 47%.  Mr. President I'd like to give these people dignity by giving them a job not another government program.  You promised to take responsibility.  You haven't.  You blame Bush for absolutely everything.  And then when you can't blame Bush let's go back to the Libya.  You've blamed everybody from the Navy SEALs.  Or should we blame Gerald R. Ford for everything.  You promised a new tone Mr. President. 

The tone is not as bad it's much, much worse.  You'll have a book fair with Hugo Chavez but you have no time to meet with anyone who opposes you. 

Mr. President, millions of Americans hope for change.  The same change they hoped for last time and then didn't get it.  What they got was more of the same.  But they got deceit in record numbers.  They're footing the bill.  They're working hard.  Too many Americans think Washington is playing a game and we're spending their future. 

There is one thing Mr. President I do agree with you on.  You told Matt Lauer before you were elected if I don't have this done in three years this is going to be a one term proposition. 

And with that Mr. Moderator I'll end my one point of unity and agreement with my opponent. 

I think Mitt Romney needs to be -- needs to rinse all of the sarcasm out of my delivery and needs to be laser focused on the facts and absolutely laser focused on the impact on the American people. 

Mr. President we're here to talk about the domestic policy.  There is nothing more crucial to domestic policy that the mom who's taking her kids to soccer practice and ballet, and has to stop at the gas station.  Because of your policies in the Middle East, offshore drilling, the keystone pipeline, there's nothing more relevant to them than the cost of gasoline.  It's doubled since you've been in office.  The guy you appointed as secretary of energy said that he was hoping for 8 dollars a gallon gasoline.  He retracted that as soon as he got into office.  That doesn't make sense unless you're playing a media game and lying to the American people again because you said your policies would make electricity costs necessarily skyrocket.  So for fairness, you don't have a problem with that.  Mr. President, have you gone to the coal miners, and have you talked to the coal miners in Ohio, West Virginia, people who have been Democrats for their entire life.  They think quite honestly you are just a nightmare.  Why? 

Mr. President, why have you shut out of 500 coal fire plants, you've shut down 100.  Now I understand we all want to be clean, and but we have to have energy, and we can't -- you want to talk about 47% who cares about the 47%.  The one who's going to make their electricity prices necessarily skyrocket how is the 47% going to be able to afford that? Or are you developing another program for another handout and another ticket to slavery?  When we have technology that will replace 50% of our electricity I'm fine — I'm fine.  I'd like to get rid of them too.  I'm not sitting here fighting for the Stanley steamer. 

New technology let's embrace it.  But we don't have it yet Mr. President, and every time you invest you lose.  Every time you've taken the hard earned money from the pockets of people you say it's a bad thing it's a bad thing we should have Social Security be able to have the people invest their own money with a chance that maybe they get a higher return.  Why? Because you say that's not right because they might lose it all.  Stocks are risky thing.  Yet you take the money from their taxes and you invest it in the riskiest of things, and then you say we got a bet. 

This isn't Vegas.  This is the United States of America and it's Washington D.C.  We're supposed to have trust.  America doesn't trust any of us in Washington with their money.  Nor should they."

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.