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)

Tapping the brakes on transgenderism in 2023

Hunter Martin / Contributor | Getty Images

2022 was the year of the emperor’s new clothes—where we were supposed to pretend that someone like Lia Thomas is a woman, legitimately beating actual women in swimming competitions. This carpet-bombing of common sense won’t be letting up anytime soon. Just before the New Year, the World Boxing Council announced that it’s going to create a separate category for transgender boxers. The WBC president said:

we are doing this because of safety and inclusion. We have been the leaders in rules for women’s boxing—so the dangers of a man fighting a woman will never happen because of what we are going to put in place.

After all the insanity you’ve been told to accept about transgender athletes in recent years, his statement is remarkable. He’s admitting what common sense people have been saying all along—that trans athletes identifying as women still carry natural physical advantages (from the fact that they’re actually male), and that those natural advantages could endanger biological women.

Trans athletes identifying as women still carry natural physical advantages.

The WBC president went on to say:

In boxing, a man fighting a woman must never be accepted regardless of gender change. There should be no gray area around this, and we want to go into it with transparency and the correct decisions. Woman to man or man to woman transgender change will never be allowed to fight a different gender by birth.

Maybe the WBC is on to something here. Maybe the only way to solve the stupidity of letting biological males play female sports is to create a separate transgender category in every sport. That would make competition fair again. However, the trans agenda will never accept this because it doesn’t validate their transition—in fact, it admits that these are not authentically female athletes.

There is some rare, good news on this front. In late December, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold a Florida school-board policy that requires transgender students to use the bathroom of their biological sex. Of course, the Left won’t accept this, so this case will probably go to the Supreme Court sooner than later. You’re supposed to always believe the science, except when it comes to your own body parts.

You’re supposed to always believe the science, except when it comes to your own body parts.

And by the way, if the Left truly cared about unbiased science as it pertains to transgenderism, they’d listen to their favorite European country, Sweden. Sweden’s national board of health recently updated its guidelines on treating children with gender dysphoria. Unlike the Biden administration and the U.S. medical establishment right now, Sweden’s new emphasis is caution:

the scientific data is INSUFFICIENT to assess the effects of puberty-inhibiting and gender-sensitive hormone therapy of children and young people.

The Swedish guidelines also mention the prevalence of de-transition cases as another reason for tapping the brakes on sex-change surgeries for children.

Common sense apparently does still exist, even in places like Sweden. If only America would listen.

Glenn wants to dive deep into different philosophical topics this year. As CRT and woke curricula are demonizing the "western tradition," it is vitally important that we preserve the tradition that gave birth our nation and gives context to the culture we live in today. Here are the top 11 books to give you a crash course in the western philosophic tradition. If you don't have the time to read them, you can find an overview to each of the books below!

1. Plato's Republic

The first titan of Greek philosophy, Plato articulated the set of questions that would drive the future western philosophical tradition. The pre-eminent question among Greek philosophers was "what is the thing that explains everything." In philosophical lingo, this question is framed as "what is the logos or the good." Plato argued that reality could be explained in terms of the "forms." For example, when you see multiple examples of a "courageous" act, then, Plato would argue, there is such a thing as "courage." The form of "the good" is the form that gives meaning to all of reality. Humans use their rational minds to contemplate what is good and then align their desires to "the good" in order to pursue it.

2. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

The second titan of Greek philosophy was none other than Aristotle, who was a student of Plato. Aristotle deviated from his teacher's claims about "forms" and instead argued that every single thing has a purpose, a telos. For example, the telos of a chair is to provide a place for someone to sit. In the same way that a chair's purpose is to provide a place for someone to sit, Aristotle argues that the telos of human beings is to pursue happiness.

In the first page of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that every action is done for the sake of pursuing happiness, although, all too often, our actions are misplaced. We often pursue things we believe will make us happy when, in reality, they are fleeting, momentary pleasures that result in despair, heartbreak, or pain. Rather than conforming the world around us to fit our momentary desires, Aristotle argues that we achieve happiness by understanding the nature of the world around us and how we fit into it by actively cultivating virtues in order to make our soul "fit to be happy." Work and action, therefore, are not mere moral "to-do lists," but rather bring us fulfillment.

3. Augustine's City of God

If Plato is the first titan of ancient philosophy, then Augustine is the first titan of medieval philosophy. Medieval philosophy begins with the re-discovery of ancient philosophical texts that had been lost throughout the Roman Empire. As Christianity had taken root and spread across the western world, medieval philosophy integrated these newly-discovered texts into Christian theology. Augustine is the pre-eminent medieval Neo-platonic philosopher, incorporating Plato's philosophy into Christian theology.

Augustine claimed that God himself is the ultimate "form" or "the good" from which all of reality derives its meaning and existence. A thing is "good" insofar as it coalesces with the way God intended it to be. When a thing stays away from God's intention, it is "not good." From this, we get the Augustinian definition of "evil" as a "privation" or "absence of goodness," which ultimately corresponds to God's nature and character.

4. Aquinas' Summa Theologica

Just as Augustine incorporated Plato's philosophy into Christian theology, the second medieval titan, Thomas Aquinas, incorporated Aristotelian philosophy into Christian theology. Building from Aristotle, Aquinas argues that Christ is our happiness, the longing of every human heart and the object of every human action. Though we may think we are pursuing happiness outside of Christ, our this pursuit is misplaced and will result in fleeting pleasure and pain. True happiness and fulfillment, Aquinas argues, is found in Christ himself and the pursuit of his nature.

**Note: Aquinas' Summa is one of the largest works ever written and contains arguments about many different subjects--there are concise versions that will save you a lot of time!

5. Francis Bacon's Novem Organum

If medieval philosophy is defined by the incorporation of ancient philosophy into orthodox Christian theology, then the Enlightenment is defined as the rejection of both. English philosopher Francis Bacon kicked off the Enlightenment with a total rejection of the Aristotelian view of reality. The title of his book, the Novum Organum, or "the new order," is a deliberate tease of Aristotle's Organon, or "the order of things." Bacon's "new order" purports that, contrary to Aristotle, there is no inherent "nature" or "purpose" in reality. Rather, reality is something that we can conquer by means of knowledge and force, dissecting nature to its fundamental parts and reconstructing it into what we want. Bacon is considered the father of the scientific method, creating a testable means through which we can understand, break down and re-construct nature.

6. Descartes' Discourse on Method

Descartes is best known for his famous assertion, cogito ergo sum, or "I think, therefore, I am." In Discourse on Method, Descartes embarks on a rigorous endeavor to doubt anything that can be doubted. He postulates that all of reality can be doubted; however, the one thing that cannot be doubted, he concludes, is that there must be someonewho is doubting. Though we may think that we are in the matrix, we are thinking, therefore, we must exist.

Descartes's rigorous skepticism introduced a brand-new burden of truth. In order for something to be true, it must be beyond all reasonable doubt. Many continue to use Descartes' skepticism as a way to challenge religious belief. According to these modern-day skeptics, unless you can prove that God exists beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no way to actually know whether he exists. The severing of knowledge and faith is often attributed to Descartes.

7. David Hume's Treatise on Human Nature

Scottish philosopher David Hume took aim at both Plato and Aristotle. One of his most famous and consequential claims about human nature is, "reason is and always ought to be slave of the passions." This took direct aim at Plato's view of human nature. Plato argued that our reason or "rationality" should always rule our passions so that we will desire what is good. Hume flips this on its head, claiming that our reason is helplessly enslaved to our passions and will inevitably justify what we will already want. From this, Hume introduced a new articulation of moral relativism, claiming that humans are not able to choose between what is good and what is evil, but rather will choose what they want over what they don't.

8. Kant's Contemplation on the Metaphysics of Morals

Hume's moral relativism sparked panic within German philosopher Immanuel Kant. If we will inevitably do what we desire, how can we ever choose to do something good and moral for its own sake? We must, according to Kant, separate morality completely from the passions if it's to be saved. Kant, therefore, argues that duty is the highest good that man can aspire to. We do the right thing, not because we want to--on the contrary, we do the "right thing" because it's our duty to do so, especially when we don't want to. This breaks away from the Aristotelian notion that our happiness is inextricably intertwined with the pursuit of "the good."

9. Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche wasn't convinced by either Hume or Kant's efforts to retain some semblance of civility or relativistic moral standard. According to Nietzsche, if there is no such thing as transcendent morality, then "moral maxims" are reduced to meaningless words purported by the people in power. Morality, therefore, becomes a game of persuasion at best, coercion and force at worst. People are reduced to winners and losers, opressors and victims, and whoever comes out on top gets to impose their desired view of the world on the losers. Therefore, the goal of the individual is to cultivate the "will to power," to become the powerful "ubermensch" or "superhuman," or else you will be reduced to a victim susceptible to other people's coercion and oppression.

10. C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man

After the Enlightenment ends in a grand, destructive finale with Nietzsche, Christian philosophers in the 20th century attempt to pick up the pieces and resurrect the ancient and medieval philosophies that had been cast to the side. In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis famously laments that mankind has become "men without chests." This is a direct reference to Plato's view of human nature--there is nothing linking our mind to our heart. Intellectually, we have dissected all of reality into its individual bits, stripping it of its holistic beauty, while also succumbing to our whims and passions with no notion of a transcendent moral law. Lewis calls for the re-marriage of our minds and our hearts, so that we will not only pursue what is good, but moreover, we will desire to do so.

11. Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue

The latter part of the 20th century saw the resurgence of Aristotelian ethics after being largely dismissed over the past 400 years during the Enlightenment. Scottish Catholic philosopher Alasdair McIntyre was and continues to be one of the foremost leaders of this movement. In his magnum opus, After Virtue, McIntyre takes aim at the entire Enlightenment project itself and shows how it ultimately fails by its own standards. If reality is a mere power dynamic, as Nietzsche argues, and if morality is an act of persuasion and passion, as Hume purports, then we have no reason to take their views seriously. If all of reality is relative, then the statement "reality is relative" is itself relative. It becomes victim of the self-refutation of its own standards. Transcendent morality, he argues, must exist, because there must be some standard by which we judge reality and can say with determination, "this is good" and "this is evil."

The Biden Admin EXPANDED abortion access because they DON'T believe in the Constitution

Joshua Lott / Stringer, JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

This month has already produced an extreme example of why we need a functional and more conservative Congress in order for America to have a chance at moving forward—because the Left does not believe in the Constitution.

Sure, if you confronted a Democrat in Congress, they would probably claim some sort of allegiance to the Constitution—but as a practical matter, they do not believe in it.

Instead, the Left has put all of their eggs in the basket of the executive branch. Why? Because it has the furthest reach through all the various departments, and it can move the fastest—in short, because it’s the most dictatorial. It only takes a department head to write a new memo, or even better, the President to sign a new executive order to carry the force of law.

The Left has put all of their eggs in the basket of the executive branch.

Do you recall any of the Left’s favorite Supreme Court decisions over the years—something like gay marriage for example—and how Republicans immediately tried to subvert it, using the executive branch to try to nullify the decision? Yeah, that never happened. But that is exactly what Democrats have done in recent weeks to expand abortion access.

Democrats only consider the Supreme Court legitimate when they approve of the decisions. When the miraculous overturning of Roe v. Wade happened last summer, President Biden called it “a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court.”

Democrats only consider the Supreme Court legitimate when they approve of the decisions.

Recently the FDA approved local pharmacies to issue abortion pills. For the first 20 years after these pills were developed, they were not treated like typical prescription drugs. They had to be dispensed in-person by a doctor. That in-person requirement is now gone.

Keep in mind that the Left’s go-to line is that abortion is always about the health and safety of women, yet a 2021 peer-reviewed study found that chemical abortions have a complication rate four times greater than surgical abortions. Between 2002 and 2015, the rate of abortion-related ER visits following use of the abortion pills increased by 507 percent.

Chemical abortions have a complication rate four times greater than surgical abortions.

And now the Biden administration is making these less-safe abortions much more accessible. Thanks to the FDA’s rule change, Walgreens and CVS have already agreed to dispense abortion pills in states where abortion is legal—effectively turning these stores into new abortion clinics.

As for states that have abortion bans, "Team Biden" announced a new way around those too. Three weeks ago, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to deliver abortion pills anywhere, even in places where abortion is illegal. What’s their rationale? That the sender cannot know for sure whether the recipient will use the pills illegally or not. So it’s totally okay.

The U.S. Postal Service is allowed to deliver abortion pills anywhere, even in places where abortion is illegal.

Georgetown Law professor Lawrence Gostin told the Washington Post that this Justice Department opinion is “a major expansion of abortion access in the United States.”

So, to recap—the Biden administration has used the FDA, the Justice Department, and the Post Office, which all fall under the executive branch, to provide an end-run around the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision.

Expanding abortion was easy—simple policy tweaks and declarations that carry the force of law without an ounce of input from actual lawmakers in Congress—all because it comes from the grotesque, bloated, apparently pro-death executive branch.

Glenn is one of the most outspoken critics of the World Economic Forum and their vision to use crises to reconstruct the world order known as The Great Reset. The recent WEF summit in Davos confirms what Glenn has long warned about: globalist elites seek to upend our democracy, freedoms, and way of life to achieve their utopian climate goals. Here are 15 quotes from the 2023 Davos Summit, revealing their true intentions in their own words:

1. Saving the planet

When you hear the word, "Davos," the first thought that should pop into your mind is an elite group getting together to save the world from imminent climate disaster... at least they think of themselves that way. According to John Kerry:

I mean, it's so almost extraterrestrial to think about saving the planet.

2. Private jets

What most people think when they hear the word "Davos" is a group of global elites flying in on private jets to talk about climate change... and yes, John Kerry does own a private jet, no matter how many times he denies it:

I fly commercial [...] Exclusively.

3. Global Collaboration Village

You always hear some weird, dystopian projects coming out of WEF, like "The Global Collaboration Village," a new metaverse community aimed at strengthening "global cooperation." It sounds like the next installment of Brave New World. According to Klaus Schwab, Founder and President of the WEF:

The Global Collaboration Village is the pioneering effort to use the metaverse for public good, to create global cooperation and to strengthen global cooperation in the metaverse or using metaverse technologies. For me, it's a dream coming true because the village allows the Forum to create a more larger and open platform where everybody can participate.

4. Climate revolution

However, the core theme throughout WEF summits is the immediate need for a climate revolution and how businesses are selfishly blocking the revolution because they want to make an extra buck. Here's how John Kerry summed up the sentiment:

How do we get there? The lesson I have learned in the last years [...] is money, money, money, money, money, money, money.

5. Do or die

This often turns into alarmist language, like having to choose between wealth and our planet's survival... Joyeeta Gupta, Professor of Environment and Development in the Global South at University of Amsterdam, said it eloquently:

If we do the minimum at this pivotable moment in our history, then we and our children – even if we are rich – will live in the danger zone. But if we – business people, governments, citizens, cities – take action today, then we and our children will have a future worth looking forward to.

6. Colossal risks

Potsdam Institute's director Johan Rockström, used similar language, claiming we are "taking colossal risks with the future of civilization":

We are taking colossal risks with the future of civilization on Earth, we are degrading the life support systems that we all depend on, we are actually pushing the entire Earth system to a point of destabilization, pushing Earth outside of the state that has supported civilization since we left the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

7. Rain bombs

"Colossal risks" like... rain bombs? We didn't make that up. Ask Al Gore:

That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs.

Courtesy of the World Economic Forum

8. Survival comes down to this

How do we secure our survival? According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, we have to "end our addiction to fossil fuels." This entails wiping out our entire energy industry, displacing millions of workers, and relying on global governments to usher in a new green industry. In his words:

So, we need to act together to close the emissions gap, and that means to phase out progressively coal and supercharge the renewable revolution, to end the addiction to fossil fuels, and to stop our self-defeating war on nature.

9. Complete transformation

It isn't hyperbolic to argue that the globalist climate goals will completely transform the world economy. Even EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen admitted:

The net-zero transformation is already causing huge industrial, economic and geopolitical shifts – by far the quickest and the most pronounced in our lifetime. It is changing the nature of work and the shape of our industry.

10. Scientific necessity

Of course, to bring about this "net-zero" transformation, we will have to override small, "political expediencies" like democracy to do what is "scientifically necessary." According to Zurich Insurance Group’s head of sustainability risk John Scott:

We’re living in a world right now where what’s scientifically necessary, and what is politically expedient don’t match.

11. Illegal hate speech

Doing away with "political expediencies" would also require the censorship of dissent, which would likely manifest in hate-speech laws. When asked by Brian Stelter how the discussion of disinformation relates to everything else happening today in Davos, European Commission VP Věra Jourová shared this prediction:

Illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the U.S. I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law.

12. Climate first

We will also have to forego national interests on the international stage. America won't be able to advocate for policies and interests that benefit Americans. Instead, we will sacrifice national interests for the sake of global climate interests. French economy minister Bruno Le Maire said:

The key question is not China First, US First, Europe First. The key question for all of us is Climate First.

13. The role of war

We can also expect globalist leaders to use crises, like the war in Ukraine, to expedite the "net-zero transformation." Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz said:

Ultimately, our goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 has been given an additional boost by Putin’s war. Now we have even more cause to move away from fossil fuels.

14. Blame game

Globalist leaders will continue to blame ALL of the crises in our society on climate change to justify the "net-zero transition," from the energy shortage to "mistrust, selfishness [and] xenophobia." Prime Minister of Spain Pedro Sanchez said:

Our present struggle is not only against Putin or the energy shortage. It is also against fear, mistrust, selfishness, xenophobia, and environmental disaster. And its outcome will define life in the West and beyond for decades to come.

15. Sacrifice for the greater good

While we sacrifice our national interests for the sake of the "greater global good," we can expect our foreign enemies, like China, to benefit. Suisse Chairman Axel Lehmann said:

The growth forecasts now for China is 4.5%. I would not personally be surprised when that would be topped.

Conclusion

Glenn has been clear about the distinction between wanting to transition to green practices on your own accord and being forced into that transition by globalist, unelected elites. Leaders at Davos will continue to use alarmist language to justify their crackdown on democracy and freedom to bring about their leftist utopia. We have to cut through the alarmist language and in order to protect our freedoms.