Glenn Talks With Libertarian VP Candidate Bill Weld About Amendments and Aleppo

Libertarian vice presidential candidate and former governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld stopped by The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to discuss the issues and the state of the Libertarian Party in the 2016 election.

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

• How you get to a balanced budget in 100 days?

• Which president since 1900 would Bill Weld like to be like?

• What does Bill Weld recommend Donald Trump read instead of The Art of the Deal?

• Would Bill Weld and Gary Johnson audit the Federal Reserve?

• What must great nations and great men do?

Listen to these segments from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We've had Gary Johnson on several times, and it has never gone as planned, never gone as well as we would hope. And I think that's because he has always seemed to be playing more towards a -- a leftist approach than the right. The thing I like about Libertarianism, when it's true, is you can have -- you can have whatever opinion you want.

BILL: Right. Right.

GLENN: It's about freedom.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: And so I want to talk to you a little bit about the state and the role that the state plays in all of our lives.

I was thinking last night how much time we've wasted over the last eight or ten years arguing over who's in Washington. If we only applied that energy to something else, what we could have done.

Let's start with, what are the first things that you and Gary would do walked into office? Day one.

BILL: Oh, I think priority number one would have to be the budget and spending levels. It's the first things we did in our states when we were elected. And both Gary and I were rated the most conservative -- fiscally conservative governor in the United States at various times during the 1990s. We actually served together. My second term overlapped with his first term in the mid/late '90s.

So, you know, we've said we would file a balanced budget within 100 days, I think.

GLENN: What does that mean?

BILL: Well, it means you send a budget to Congress.

GLENN: No, no, hang on.

What does that mean? To the average person, a balanced budget at this point, what is their life going to look like?

BILL: Well, it's going to look a lot better if we can balance that budget. Right now, the federal government doesn't do what every homeowner does and balance their checkbook at the end of the month. They borrow money to fill in the gap. So they spend more money than they have. Because the people in Washington, the senators, the representatives, think that if they just turn that government printing press around and green stuff comes out the other end, they think that's free money, you know.

And my favorite maxim when I was in office is, there's no such thing as government money. There's only taxpayers' money. So it would take some cuts to the budget to make it come out balanced. Because it's not balanced right now, the way they do it in DC.

GLENN: Right. And so what does that mean? I know if Washington ever got serious about it and we looked stable, it would mean a lot to the world, and business would start to come back. Et cetera, et cetera.

BILL: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: But what does it look -- because most people don't realize how much they get from the government already.

BILL: Yeah, well, this would create tens of millions of dollars if we're able to make it stick. And I've been, you know, campaigning for a balanced federal budget, constitutional amendment to the last 20 years.

You know, I've almost given up hope on the guys in Washington. They're so hyper-partisan. So hyper-gerrymandered. Those two parties in DC really seem to exist for the purpose of killing each other.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: And I think the only silver bullet to get them to take a common sense approach to the budget really would be term limits. You know, there were two things I was national chair of when I was in office, one was US term limits with my friend Howie Rich from Philadelphia, who ran the show, and the other was privatization council, because I think there's a lot of activities that could be better done, either in the private sector or in a partnership between public and private sectors.

Those are -- those are seminal ideas, whose time has come and gone and come again.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah. Couldn't everything be done better, really in the private sector? I mean, even the military is doing stuff in the private sector.

BILL: Yeah, no, I'm a big privatization buff. I've never met a layer of spending in government at any level, federal, state, local, that I didn't think honestly could do with a ten to 20 percent cut. Really, it's no such thing.

GLENN: Sure. So tell me about the cuts that you would have to make. Where would you start cutting?

BILL: Well, I think the goal would be 20 percent total. I don't believe in across-the-board cuts. I think what you do is zero-based budget. Which means you take every account and say, "How was it last year?" Now in DC, they say, "How was it last year? Let's add 5 percent. Anything less than that, we're going to scream bloody murder, that's a cut." Well, that's crazy.

And what you should do is examine each spending head. Let's say there's a preventive health spending item in the health care sector that produces just scores of millions of wonderful outcomes and avoids spending costs and makes people better without a great expense. You might take that appropriation and multiply that by 12 because it's doing a great job.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And then you get a bigger one, the next one creates some bureaucracy that lives somewhere between the Justice Department and the Treasury Department and the Homeland Security Department and the Commerce Department. And nobody can tell you quite what it does, except it allows a lot of people to talk to each other, and it's just very murky. That one might go to zero, frankly.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And I don't agree with people who say, "I'm going to cut, you know, ten or 20 percent of the budget just by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse." That's just a tag line. Slogan.

And it's usually people who don't know much about the budget who say that. And the problem is not that there's an even ten percent of waste, fraud, and abuse in everything. The problem is that there are government problems that are ill-advised and shouldn't be there in the first place. That's how you get to a balanced budget in 100 days.

GLENN: So how are two men who are Libertarian, lean liberal on many issues, that the conservatives would be afraid of on other issues, the liberals would be afraid of on some issues, how are you going to get everybody to say, "Hey, let's cut these programs?"

BILL: Well, we have the power to file the budget that then goes to the Hill. And I'm sure they would scream bloody murder and say, no, we can't do this. And we would say, well, yeah, actually we can do this.

The Pentagon, for example, they say they have 20 percent more bases than they need. So, you know, they go to the Hill. And the Hill says, "Oh, no, we're not going along with that. Even though you're the military and this is what you say you need, we are obsessed with getting reelected. And so we don't want one penny to be cut from anywhere in the budget."

And it would be ugly. I mean, it would be an ugly conversation for a while. But, you know, if it came back with, you know, ten times more than we had sent them, then the veto pen comes out, and at least we'd be pressing it from the side of the angels, from the right side.

GLENN: Since 1900, who is the president you and Gary would say I want to be more like?

BILL: Oh, I don't know. I kind of like Teddy Roosevelt. A lot of energy there. You know, Eisenhower got a lot of good stuff done. Reagan -- I worked for Reagan for seven years, he got a lot of good stuff done.

GLENN: Okay. Tell me -- tell me your stance on the fed.

First of all, what's -- what's coming our way? What do you think is coming our way if we stay on this course economically?

BILL: I don't think the news is good. I mean, I think the most important thing we have to do is cinch in our belt on the budget and stop spending money that we don't have. And, as you know, unless we do that, the huge national debt will go up. And Mr. Obama is going to leave office now with 20 trillion, with a T, national debt. Half of that came in on his watch.

GLENN: It can't be. Because that was un-American. That's what he said about George Bush. It was un-American, so he couldn't have spent more than George Bush.

BILL: No, I think that if you got the Democrats in, given the promises that they've made in this campaign season, if they followed through on all of those, then after two terms of Democrats, the national debt would probably be $50 trillion.

And then on the other side, you got a guy, Mr. Trump, who says, "Well, I'll talk to the Chinese, and I'll just strike a better deal."

You know, the United States Constitution says -- and I quote from Section 4 of the Fourteenth Article of the amendment, the validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned.

That's kind of sunk in there in the Constitution. And I keep -- I keep saying that the Donald -- you know, tomorrow, instead of taking out The Art of the Deal and re-reading it for the 400th time, maybe you should take out a copy of the Constitution. It's not that long. It's very well written.

GLENN: And read it once.

BILL: Read it for the first time.

GLENN: Right. Yeah.

PAT: It would be nice.

BILL: No, Gary and I do take it out and read it. And it's a good read. It's a very good read. It's very well drafted. Spare language.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: We haven't been following it for how long?

BILL: The Constitution?

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Oh, I think we kind of cut loose from that when the necessary and proper clause in Article I, Section 8, was interpreted by the courts and Congress to mean anything is necessary and proper. And Congress' power to legislate, which extends to items necessary and proper to carry into execution, its laws. It's been stretched beyond.

GLENN: So the fed. Where do you stand on the fed?

BILL: I guess the current question there is, do we like that it has the employment objective as well as just the currency objective? And the purists say, "No, we don't want the employment objective, so just go back to being in charge of the currency." I'm not deeply into that. That's good enough for me. Leaving the employment is good enough for me.

GLENN: So you wouldn't change the fed at all?

BILL: I think Gary would. I think Gary would. We had a conversation.

GLENN: You guys haven't had that conversation?

BILL: Yeah, I think he's skeptical about the employment objective for the fed.

GLENN: Okay. So would you audit the fed?

BILL: That's the first thing. Big audit of the fed. And Gary is very strong on that one.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: One of the things we're always seeing from the fed and various spending programs in general is the idea that we can spend our way into prosperity. That you can find a government stimulus, for example, we have one candidate saying they want a $275 billion stimulus -- that's Hillary Clinton. Another one, Trump, who is saying $550 billion-plus. He's saying -- he's promised to more than double it.

Is there anything to that? Should we be thinking about spending?

BILL: No, no. You can spend your way into bankruptcy a heck of a lot easier than you can into prosperity.

When I took office in the '90s, the head of Administration and Finance for Governor Dukakis, who I directly succeeded, said the state is bankrupt. And it was. The state could not pay its bills as they do.

So if I hadn't come in, in February, or the year where I came into office, in January, with the balanced budget, we would have just not been paying our bills.

States can't do that. Great nations like great men must keep their word, as Justice Robert Jackson said.

GLENN: And so you did that in a very liberal state.

BILL: Yeah. I mean, we were flat on our back. Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in 1991, were the two states hardest hit by the recession. '90, '91. So everybody was scared. And I think I was able to get stuff through, as a fiscal conservative. Narrowly, they would have laughed me out of town, but people were literally scared. So they said, "Let's give the red-headed kid enough rope to --

GLENN: What's it going to take to scare America?

BILL: You know, I think America should be -- should be scared right now, in terms of --

GLENN: You look at this election, it's pretty scary.

BILL: The election is scary, but the projection of the economy is scary.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: And I think it's tens of millions of dollars. I strongly agree with what you said. This is not -- this stuff about the debt and the budget, it's not just a ledger entry. It's our economy, which means tens of millions of jobs. Even more than that.

GLENN: Yeah. I think we're headed for a -- a Depression unlike we have seen. And possibly throughout the entire western world.

What are we doing with Deutsche Bank, with seemingly trying to punish Deutsche Bank when they are flat on their back? And what happens?

BILL: Yeah. Yeah. There's a lot of difficult scary stuff out there. The Brexit vote. People are just unsettled. I remember what it was like after 9/11. I was then in the investment business. Nobody would talk to you. All -- you know, all flights were cancelled for six months. All meetings were cancelled. Everyone just went frigid. And we could be reaching another one of those moments.

GLENN: And was Brexit a good thing or a bad thing?

BILL: I tend to think it's a bad thing. That might be the right answer in this context here, in this beautiful living room.

GLENN: No. We don't want the right answer. We want the real answer.

BILL: No, I think the real answer is that it's going to upset a lot of stuff that was kind of baked into the international economy.

GLENN: So is -- but is -- do people have a point of, I don't want this, you know, international body ruling me? I want my own -- I want my own country.

BILL: No, they do. There's something in that.

A lot of the Brexit vote, I think, was kind of a protest vote, like a lot of the vote on the FARC treaty that President Santos in Columbia did with the rebels. That was supposed to pass with 65 percent of the vote. You know, stay was supposed to pass with 60-plus percent of the vote in Britain. And people voted with their votes, not with their feet.

GLENN: I want to tell you -- when we come back, I want to talk to you a little bit about the protectionist stance that the right seems to be taking now. Also want to talk to you -- we went into Mosul this weekend. ISIS, Russia, and cyber warfare.

Gary Johnson's running mate, Governor Weld is with us. And more in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: Governor Weld is with us from Johnson and Weld.

Governor, one thing conservatives are concerned about with Libertarians is a -- is leaving a vacuum in the world. It's taken us 100 years -- 120 years to get to this position, to where we're in everyone's business. You can't just pull out and leave a vacuum. We have to reverse-engineer this to some degree. Faster or slower, I don't know. But we can't just one day there, one day gone.

We're seeing Mosul being taken. This is going to cause a lot of displacement and a lot of new refugees. And it's ugly.

ISIS is horrible. Russia is saber-rattling. Where do you stand on world affairs?

BILL: Well, I think it's no secret Gary and I -- and he has influenced me in this area over the course of the last six months or so. We're somewhat less inclined to rush in with American military to effectuate a regime change than probably either of the other establishment.

GLENN: Will you go as far as saying -- because I think I'm there. We're not in the regime change business.

BILL: No, no. We're not in the regime-changing business. We think Iraq was a mistake. We think Libya and Syria, which was squarely within the Obama and Clinton regime are mistakes.

GLENN: Huge mistake. Yes.

BILL: And as Governor Johnson likes to say, wars have unintended consequences. Sometimes they're military -- like we back the rebels. They lose. So all the arms that we've given to the rebels -- this is in Syria -- end up in the hands of ISIS. That's an unintended military consequence. It could be moral. I spent a lot of time traveling abroad the last dozen years, and that would include after the 2003 Iraq invasion, the United States paid a moral price for that around the world. And, I mean, I mean all around the world. Asia, Africa, not just western Europe.

So, you know, we'd want to think twice. Having said all that, I do believe -- I think Gary believes in cultural diplomacy and constructive engagement, not just saying we're out of here.

But militarily, yeah. I mean, those 8400 troops in Afghanistan, should they come home now? Yeah.

Why? Because there's no reason for them to be there. No reason it won't be there in 20 years. You know, come back in 20 years, and if they're still there, people will say, you can't take those 8400 troops out of Afghanistan because the Taliban will come in and there will be a big slaughter.

All right. So maybe we need to bite that bullet squarely and bite it now. And if there has to be amnesty, a refugee, where the top 250 people who have been helping us against the Taliban, maybe they have to come to the United States. Maybe we have to protect them somehow. But that's going to be true whenever those troops come home.

GLENN: Yeah. Real quick, because I have to go to a break, do you know where Aleppo is?

BILL: I do.

GLENN: Okay. Good, we got that. All right. Back in just a second.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld is with us from Johnson and Weld. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Bill Weld is the vice presidential nominee.

Our audience is quite concerned about gun control. It's a very constitutional audience. And they're concerned about grabbing guns, mainly from Clinton's side. What are your thoughts on --

BILL: Well, you know, the Second Amendment says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, except in times of a standing militia. You know, there are no qualifiers there.

I like to say, if you look back through history, when governments have persuaded people to lay down their arms because that will make the government better able to protect them, it's generally resulted in them very quickly losing all of their liberties. So it's not a pretty sight.

So, you know, we think the right of the people to bear arms has to be sustained against allcomers, period. No qualifiers.

GLENN: Is there any common sense legislation that you're for?

BILL: You mean in the direction of more control of guns?

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: No, no, I don't think so. No.

GLENN: Okay.

The New York Times, at the time when you were governor -- let me just read this: Voters increasingly fearful of gunfire on the streets.

It's Massachusetts, we have to remember.

Governor William Weld, Massachusetts, reversed this -- proposed some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. A Republican who will run for reelection next year called for a statewide ban on assault weapons.

BILL: You know, I don't think I did. I know that Mike Usino (phonetic), who is head of Gun Owners Action League, who had endorsed me when I ran was very upset with some legislation that was kicking around. But I never --

GLENN: Yeah, it says here you opposed that during your campaign.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: As well as a waiting period for buying handguns and a prohibition on handgun ownership by anyone under 21.

You proposed legislation that would limit the number of handguns an individual could buy and impose tougher penalties for illegal gun sales and gun-related crimes.

BILL: It may be legislation was kicking around, but it was not with the full weight of the shoulder of William F. Weld behind it.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Tell me about cyber security. We keep hearing in the debates about -- Donald Trump is very aware of the cyber.

(chuckling)

BILL: Yeah. Yeah. He's in the room.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: You know what they say in corporate big deals, if you're not in the room, you're not in the deal. He's in the deal. That means he's in the room.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. He's in the room. And he knows all about the cyber. He says he doesn't think the cyber can be fixed. I don't even know what that means.

Cyber security -- we -- Russia says that they are at war with us, with digits, ones, and zeros. We have said last week or week before last that we were going to respond to their hacking into our systems. Where does this go, and how do we solve this?

BILL: Well, you know, I think the top US intelligence services unanimously have said the Russians are behind this. They're using -- they can identify the services that are hacking in. And it is the Russians. And we haven't really seen convincing denials out of the Russians. So I'm persuaded it is the Russians.

President Obama is talking about openly about what he's going to do to get back at the Russians. You know, restrained reaction or some other reaction. Sanctions. Yada, yada. But it seems to be clear that it is the Russians hacking into the electoral system of the United States. That's very scary.

GLENN: Wouldn't that have been --

BILL: What if they get into voter lists.

GLENN: Right. At any other time, wouldn't that have been an act of war in our country?

BILL: Pretty close. Pretty close.

GLENN: So what is the answer there?

BILL: Well, I guess that's what they're talking about in the White House right now, is what to do about it.

GLENN: But if you're in the White House with Gary, what's your advice to the president on what the appropriate response would be?

BILL: Well, I would want to talk to the technical people about some maximum crypto system that could, you know, keep us from having the stuff hacked in by ordinary intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign power.

If that can't be done, then you've got to think of a whole different way of classifying your information or keeping your information. Make it so that there's nothing so precious there, that if they can get into the system, that we're up the creek without a paddle.

GLENN: We're not even -- they can get into our power grid. They can get into our banking system. I mean, we're in real trouble right now.

BILL: Well, it's probably the case that we're up to being able to do anything that they're able to do.

GLENN: Yes, I would agree with that.

BILL: You wouldn't want to see all the power grids in the world go down. That would not be good for the economy.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: Or my Netflix queue, which is vital.

GLENN: That's very important.

STU: The most important thing, yeah.

You guys actually spent some time -- and I really appreciate this. We did a show on my show, my stupid little show on this network asking questions from the conservative perspective that's considering a vote for you guys. And I am. I am in that boat. I cannot vote for any of these top two candidates. And you spent time this weekend. And I appreciate that. We're going to post the results online today.

I think it's interesting to note, a lot of people ask, "Well, look, this is an uphill battle for you guys. It's hard for third parties to win. And while you're doing better than, you know, really any third party since Ross Perot, it's going to be a difficult chance for you guys to actually win.

What -- a vote for Johnson/Weld, if you don't think you can win in your state, what does that do? Is there something that can benefit you guys outside of the actual obvious end goal?

BILL: Well, you know, I think we have the best ticket. I think we have winning arguments. If you look at the national polls, are you, you know, fiscally responsible? Yes, 60 percent. Are you socially inclusive, as opposed to wanting to impose your view of social issues on other people? Yes, 60 percent.

So 60 percent of the country kind of agrees with us on the bedrock issues. You know, when I talked to the Republican convention -- national convention once upon a time, I had just a minute to talk, I said I want the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom. That's pretty much where it is. And that's a 60 percent issue.

So, yeah, I know it looks like a very long put. Things happen in the last 20, 30 days of an election. And it may be that if the country focuses with huge clarity and intensity on the three choices, that we would do a lot better than people are expecting now. I think if we get into the 20s at any point in the month of October, we would be dangerous to the other parties because we would have momentum.

But, you know, we don't hesitate to keep pressing the argument because we think we've got the better of the argument.

STU: And there's ballot access issues, right? Is it 3 percent ballot access for the next time, if you were to get that?

BILL: Yeah. You don't have to worry about the ballot access. So the Libertarian should be there in all 50 states.

STU: That's big.

BILL: And probably you could attract big feet to the banner, given that.

STU: Sure. And then 5 percent is matching funds. Right? So, I mean, that's another big hurdle -- so there are reasons, you know, for that vote. That vote can mean something outside of even who wins.

BILL: That's right. That's exactly right.

GLENN: Do you believe in global warming, man-made global warming?

BILL: I think man-made activity contributes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure, that's hard to deny.

GLENN: Yeah. Is that directly related to a warming or --

BILL: It has some impact in the up direction for warming. But so does non-point source pollution, which is cows.

PAT: Yep.

BILL: Cows put a lot of gas into the atmosphere.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Real question is: Should we spend $10 trillion dealing with the problem?

GLENN: Right. Is there regulation that we should be doing for global warming?

BILL: You know, I think it's going to depend on technology going forward. If you could solve the carbon capture and sequestration issue so that CO2 could be stored in the ocean without risk of leaking -- and, believe me, everybody in the world is working on this -- you would take enormous amount of pressure off the regulations aimed straight at CO2 and methane.

GLENN: In 2008 and I think '12, you endorsed Barack Obama.

BILL: Oh, no. I didn't endorse him in '12. I was Romney all the way.

GLENN: In '12. Okay. In '8, you did?

BILL: I endorsed him in '8 because my guy Romney lost the primary and I thought -- and I liked Senator McCain a lot. But he was making no bones about the fact that he didn't really care about the economy. He cared about military and foreign policy. And I thought Obama had some interesting ideas. I think he had kind of a disappointing first --

GLENN: What were the interesting ideas?

BILL: He said, we have to get away from organizing our settlement patterns over the internal combustion engine, going forward.

He was talking about mega-zoning and driverless cars, the wave of the future. He was kind of a futurist. Interesting, as I say.

GLENN: Right. Has there been anything that Barack Obama has done that you think, "That was really good, and that was really bad."

BILL: You know, I think he's behaved with dignity, which is important. And I think probably his low point was the red line in Syria in the first term. But, you know, he's --

PAT: What about Obamacare?

BILL: You know, I think a lot about what Gary and I would do if we get there. And it does lie in my mind that in the old days, which means when people were civil to each other in Washington -- in other words, more than ten or 15 years ago, you know, the Congress had passed a big bill, and they would come back two or four years later and say, "What can we do to fix this and make it work a little bit better?" And the, you know, Republican candidates for Congress, who, you know, don't really know a lot about what's in the bill say, "The first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to repeal Obamacare."

And so then the question is, "Well, what are you going to replace it with?" And the answer is, "I don't know because I don't really even know what Obamacare is." I mean, Obamacare did add 20 million people to their roles, which is good from a point of cost containment, because you want to have a big denominator of people, to spread cost around. It also created an enormous amount of government bureaucracy. Don't get me started on bureaucracy. That's a very bad thing.

More deeply, I think the issue with Obamacare is that the decisions now are being made by a combination of government and the insurance companies. And that's -- if all you're thinking about is controlling costs, yeah, okay, maybe you could get there. But it's not the only aim of health care organization. The quality of care in this country is equally important, if not more important. And the doctors and the patients, they're major stakeholders. They don't even seem to have a seat at the table, in terms of decision-making.

So I think for openers, you'd want to change the mandate, so it's applying only to catastrophic. That would cut the cost by a large amount. And then let people -- willing buyer, willing seller contract for other health care that they want to be on, the catastrophic. That would empower the consumer.

STU: You brought up Romney quickly. Romney came out and said straight out that if he were at the top of the ticket, he would endorse you.

BILL: Mitt and I are good friends.

STU: Yeah. I mean, that's a big deal obviously for a third party. He's the most recent Republican nominee. He has not come out, however, and endorsed the ticket you're on. Have you had conversations with him?

BILL: Many.

(laughter)

GLENN: Why won't he endorse? What is it about Gary that's stopping him?

BILL: I don't know. I mean, Mitt and I know each other well. It's a big thing for him to say he would vote -- or, he would endorse somebody for president. So I took that as a big thing. He doesn't know Gary as well. Gary and I sat with him. So it's not like they haven't met.

But he doesn't have the shared experience with Gary that he does with me. I was the first of four Republican governors in a row in Massachusetts -- we had been out for 20 years until I got in, and Mitt was the fourth. And we lived very near each other in Massachusetts. I see him in Salt Lake. I see him in New Hampshire. It's a close relationship.

GLENN: Is he going to endorse somebody?

BILL: I don't know. I don't know.

GLENN: What do you think happens to the Republican Party? Are they over?

BILL: I think -- and I've been saying this since the get-go, that the Republican Party is going to have some kind of schism, some kind of split. Either this year, around this election, or at the very latest the next cycle. And I think Donald Trump agrees with me. Because he says he sees a very different Republican Party in five years.

GLENN: Oh, he does.

BILL: And that would be the Trump faction, which would be exactly analogous to the old know-nothings of the 1850s. You know, we hate immigrants. We have violent rallies. We espouse conspiracy theories. It's the no-nothings. So that part of the party will be identifiable. And then the rest of the part of the party -- I don't know what you call it, the Romney/Bush, everybody else --

GLENN: What happens to the constitutionalists?

BILL: Well, I hope they would wind up in the other part of the party because they're not being well served by the Trump part of the party.

And then, you know, ideally, if history repeats itself, the other part of the party, no matter what it's called, could be called Republicans, could be called something else, they elect Abraham Lincoln three years later.

GLENN: Yeah. Governor Bill Weld and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian ticket.

How do people get involved in your campaign?

BILL: JohnsonWeld.com.

GLENN: JohnsonWeld.com. You can go there now if you want to volunteer, you want to support, you want to find out more, JohnsonWeld.com. Thank you very much, Governor. I appreciate it.

BILL: Thank you, Glenn. Pleasure.

Featured Image: Libertarian vice-presidential candidate William Weld speaks at a rally Saturday, September 10, 2016 in New York. / AFP / Bryan R. Smith (Photo credit should read BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP/Getty Images)

Glenn has focused on exposing the dark side of the gender movements waging our culture war, and now, there's a new "trend" emerging as an offshoot to the transgender movement. A growing online community, particularly of men, who consider themselves "involuntarily celibate" or "incels" believe they can live a better life as a trans woman. Why? This community purports the world is rigged against men, particularly against traditionally "unattractive men." What's the solution? Stop being a man...

Incel or "involutarily celibate" communities have existed online in the dark corners of Reddit and Discord for years. The groups are marked by a hatred towards women, blaming them for rigging the world in their favor and denying them of sex. Several members of this growing community have been responsible for large acts of violence, most notably Alek Minassian, who killed 10 and injured 16 after driving a van into a busy area of Toronto in 2021.

However, the transgender movement has presented a new option for incel members: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em... or, in the Transmaxxers' case, "become them."

The online Transmaxxer's Manifesto says, “Since females have the upper hand on the dating market, transitioning from male to female will usually improve your options when it comes to getting sex.” According to the manifesto, transitioning to female not only opens up a different pool of sexual partners, but moreover, you gain access to female-only spaces and are “able to extract resources from males.”

“Since females have the upper hand on the dating market, transitioning from male to female will usually improve your options when it comes to getting sex.”

Another member wrote, "If you do not currently feel like living as a female you might have to work on fixing that ... Identifying as male or being emotionally attached to a male body is bad for you if being male results in you living a bad life.”

This new movement is significant because it is in stark contrast to the mainstream narrative that "transgenderism" is an innate quality. Now, it can be an "option" people choose for social advantage. A moderator going by the alias “Vintologi” on the Transmaxxing Discord server, which boasts over 1,200 members, told The Daily Caller:

Transmaxxing is about transitioning for personal gain rather than focusing on things like "gender identity." ... What matters when it comes to medical transition is whether or not said transition would actually be beneficial, thus the extent to which gender identity is innate does not inform us much regarding when medical transition is appropriate.

One incel member on Reddit lamented that he can't Transmaxx to "have sex with white trans women" and to have "all the benefits of [being] female."

Transmaxxing sheds light on a concerning issue as an increasing number of people, particularly the youth, identify as "transgender." What used to be considered as a "finge case" is now being seen as a social advantage. Glenn recently sat down with de-transitioner Chloe Cole, and the amount of pressure she experienced to become a transgender man AS A TEENAGER was ASTOUNDING. She discussed the new community, friendships, and affirmation she gained when she started her transition journey, and she lost ALL of those social perks when she began de-transitioning. She exchanged affirmation for death-threats, friendships for stone-cold silence.

Transmaxxing is a very specific example of a larger movement that is deeply concerning. Not only is the thansgender ideology problematic on its own merits, but now, we are seeing a rise of a distinction of "social advantage" based on gender affiliation. This is deviating away from the original notion that transgenderism is an innate quality. Now, many consider it more "socially advantageous" to identify as transgender than with your biological gender.

At the same time President Biden's misplaced classified documents were sitting in his house, garage, and office at the Penn Biden Center, a whole lot of Chinese money was flowing around him. Is this just a coincidence, or did the Chinese get anything in return? Investigative journalist John Solomon joins to break down what was going on here ...

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Here are 5 RIDICULOUS moments from the Davos summit

Dimitrios Kambouris / Staff, FABRICE COFFRINI / Contributor, JOSEPH EID / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn has been warning about the dangers of the World Economic Forum and The Great Reset, which is the WEF's goal to utilize the crises like the COVID pandemic to create a leftist Utopia. Now, these goals continue to take shape at the World Economic Forum summit in Davos. Here are five ridiculous moments from this year's summit that shed light on their ultimate vision Glenn has been warning about.

1. Ex-CNN host Brian Stelter hosts the WEF panel on "disinformation," calling for the criminalization of "hate speech" in the U.S.

The former host of Reliable Sources was fired from CNN in 2022 for raking in the network's worst ratings since 2019. CNN's CEO at the time, Chris Licht, accused Stelter of "drawing ire from conservatives" for misrepresenting the facts and propagating false narratives to demonize conservatives. Licht fired Stelter because he was a liability to CNN's attempt to "re-brand" itself as a "reliable" news source.

You would think the World Economic Forum could have found a more credible host for its "disinformation," than Brian Stelter, and it comes with little surprise Stelter's panel called for the continued censorship of conservatives.

Stelter asked his panel, "How does this discussion of disinformation relate to everything else happening today in Davos?"

Vice-President of the European Commission Vera Jourová answered "illegal hate speech" from right-wing extremists, and then called for the criminalization of hate speech in the U.S., asserting, "I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law" within the EU.

As former Trump advisor Stephen Miller pointed out, Stelter's refusal to further challenge Jourová's call for censorship is indicative of his failed career as a journalist.

2. Al Gore warns of "rain bombs," "boiling oceans," and "xenophobia" as a result of climate change.

Gore's speech "speaks" for itself...

After asserting that we're creating an "open sewer" in the troposphere, Gore exclaimed:

That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs, and sucking the moisture out of the land, and creating the droughts, and melting the ice and raising the sea level, and causing these waves of climate refugees!
Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a>

Speaking of refugees, Gore blamed the mass migrations of people on... you guessed it... climate change! Of course this leads to "xenophobia" and "fascism," so if we hate "xenophobia" and "fascism," we need to stop climate change IMMEDIATELY. Plus the rain bombs...

Does this sound reminiscent of the "Man-Bear-Pig?"

Courtesy of South Park

3. Siemens AG Chairman Jim Hagemann urges for 1 million people to NOT eat meat—predicting a "meatless future."

It wouldn't be a World Economic Forum summit if bugs didn't take center stage. Siemens AG Chairman Jim Hagemann said he was inspired by his 24-year-old daughter to stop eating meat to fight climate change and urged one million people to stop eating meat to balance out jet emissions—like the jets his fellow attendees used to travel to the conference?

Here's what he said:

If a billion people stop eating meat, I tell you, it has a big impact. Not only does it have a big impact on the current food system, but it will also inspire innovation of food systems."
Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a>

Of course, finding "alternative sources of protein" means... you guessed it... BUGS. The EU is already cutting down on cattle farms and promoting the building of insect farms to initiate this "protein transition."

4. John Kerry calls Davos attendees a "select group" with an "almost extraterrestrial" plan to save the planet.

Kerry's opening speech at Davos shows the type of elitism the attendees believe about themselves. They are the "special ones" who can gather at a Swiss resort town to discuss how to "save the planet" and the "little people" who are too ignorant to have a say in the matter. His words speak for themselves:

When you start to think about it, it's pretty extraordinary that we — select group of human beings because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives — are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet [...] I mean, it's so almost extraterrestrial to think about saving the planet [...] f you say that to most people, most people think you're just a crazy, tree-hugging, lefty liberal, you know, do-gooder, or whatever, and there's no relationship. But really, that's where we are.
Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a>

Well, not everyone was amused...

Businessman and conservative Tim Acheson called Kerry’s words, "Liberal delusions of grandeur." Jordan Peterson also tweeted, "Who are you going to sacrifice to save the planet, @JohnKerry -- and do you think and how will you ensure that they have any say in the matter?"

5. Davos attendees traveled on more than 1,000 private jets to the conference.

Greenspace, an environmentalist research group, estimates the total emissions used by Davos attendees on their private jets while traveling to the conference is equivalent to "about 350,000 average cars."

Greenspace also found that 53 percent of all private jet trips were short-haul flights of less than 470 nautical miles that "could have easily been train trips." This comes amid the EU's push to ban short-distance flights and opt for train travel instead, which many continue to point out.

Closing thoughts

What once sounded like conspiracy theories are now taking shape amongst the global elites at Davos. As Glenn continues to shed light on the dangers of the World Economic Forum, here's how YOU can fight back against their goals that threaten our freedoms and democracy.

In honor of the World Economic Forum summit in Davos, we would like to resurrect this gem from Glenn's Instagram archive. If "the Great Reset" doesn't work out, Schwab should consider reaching out to the Bond franchise for a Plan-B career.

Be sure to follow Glenn on Instagram for more!

This is part of our ongoing series on "The Great Reset." To read similar content, click here.