Trump's Press Conference Was Just Weird

Many Americans embrace the idea of a businessman --- not a politician --- as president of the United States. But can you imagine George Washington standing up at a press conference and talking about his holdings?

Co-host Pat Gray gave his best voice impression of America's first president.

"Martha and I have incredible holdings, as you know. We've got a massive business, as you know," Pat said jokingly. "Martha and I have been running this --- we own most of Virginia, as I think you know. My holdings, inflation adjusted, would be around a billion dollars. I'm the richest president there's ever been."

That's exactly what President-elect Trump did at a presser to address the unsubstantiated dossier on his connections to Russia, unethically published by BuzzFeed on Tuesday.

"You know, you're not the CEO of America. You don't run America," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: It does not fill me with confidence. It did not fill me with confidence.

JEFFY: Well, him running the business and the country didn't fill me. So I'm glad he's giving up one of them.

PAT: Yeah. Because there's no way you could do both.

JEFFY: No. Well, he said he could. He could.

PAT: He says he can. But...

GLENN: Also, you know, you're not the CEO of America. You don't run America. I could run both.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: The president doesn't run both. He doesn't run the country. That's the problem.

STU: Yeah. We need to stop thinking about it that way.

GLENN: Right. And if we as conservatives allow others to believe that's what happens, well, then this is -- I don't mean to use this -- I want to use this word the way it was used in the 1920s: That's fascism. That is a government helping companies run the company. They collude openly with privately held companies, and they go and say, "You guys -- we are going to go this way as a country, so you should develop as much as you can of these things." And they work together. That was the idea behind fascism. Fascism wasn't always a dirty word.

It was a CEO -- it was the country run as a company by a leader. That's not what we are.

PAT: Can you imagine George Washington standing up at a press conference and talking about his holdings?

Martha and I have incredible holdings, as you know. We've got a massive business, as you know. Martha and I have been running this -- we own most of Virginia, as I think you know. My holdings, inflation adjusted, would be around a billion dollars. I'm the richest president there's ever been.

I mean, it's just the weirdest thing to sit and listen to.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: And that is true. Weird.

PAT: And it's true. Washington was by far the richest president we've ever had.

GLENN: And by far, one of the most humble presidents we've ever had.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: He would not be saying, "And I've got dealings in the slave trade from -- at all points of the compass, and it's a beautiful, beautiful -- my sons are going to be at the portico. It's beautiful. And we're going to be -- because I can. I could with the -- and expansion and the slaves."

PAT: And as you know --

GLENN: And it's wonderful.

PAT: -- I could be king if I wanted to. I've been offered that. And I've said no. I've said, no, I'm not going to be king. And don't bring that up to me again. But, as you know, I could be king if I wanted to.

GLENN: Look, they were putting together the Constitution, and they couldn't get it done, and so they came to me. And they said, "George." And I said -- I was there in my beautiful lobby of my house. It's more of a lobby than an entranceway.

PAT: It's more of a mansion, of course, than a house, an estate, if you will.

GLENN: It's beautiful. It's wonderful. My son -- my daughter was upstairs. And she's wonderful. She has some beautiful friends. And she was with us out on a vacation a few weeks ago. In fact, let me bring her up. She can talk -- she's beautiful. Here she is.

What the hell did you just say?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: That's what he just did on that press conference. I don't know what the hell he -- I want to know what your stance is with Russia.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Well, one question about Russia did say that he believes -- Donald Trump believes Russians were responsible for the hacking. That's a pretty big headline.

GLENN: That's a big headline.

PAT: Yeah, that is. Because that's the opposite of what he's been saying, right?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Yeah. He says he thinks. So it doesn't mean he's sure. But he believes the -- the intelligence briefing, I guess, he received indicates that, yes, that is probably the source of these hacks. That is a big deal. And he has not talked about that at all.

GLENN: Nor will he again, probably.

STU: During our -- our interlude into the George Washington press conference, you have not missed anything from Donald Trump.

His attorney is still standing up there, I guess explaining all the conflict of interest laws and how he's getting around those and not bringing --

PAT: And nobody is asking about that. I don't know that we even care about that.

GLENN: We should.

PAT: I mean, we do. But that's not the current issue.

GLENN: Okay. If I said to you -- if it's to you, "Look, I'm not going to run -- Pat, I am going to completely focus -- I am going to completely focus on other things, and -- and my -- my son will be doing everything on my primary business that I've -- identify staked my entire life on and is my life fortune. My sons are going to do that. But I promise you for the next four to eight years, not a word." I've got a whole bucket coming his way. I mean, that's -- he's asking us to do the impossible. His -- and not because it's nefarious. His son comes to -- there's a crisis. Let's say the world goes into a crisis. And his -- his son is looking at their financial empire starting to crumble. You don't think the son goes to dad and says, "Dad, I got to have your help on this."

STU: It's ridiculous.

GLENN: It's ridiculous.

STU: Jared Kushner is a good example of this. It's his son-in-law. He's going to be named an official, senior adviser to the president of the United States.

And everyone is like, "Wow, we have to see what's going to go on with these nepotism laws." Because he would be affected by these things. He has to divest all of his interests. It's a big deal for Jared Kushner to go through this.

However, what -- you're telling me that you're going to enforce these laws. And then instead of him being a senior adviser, they're just going to talk about it around dinner. Like, they're going to call and text each other these things anyway. All of this is going to go on. It's better that we know.

GLENN: Didn't we learn this from Hillary Clinton? You just don't -- you use the HRC email, you don't use @state.

STU: Right. But there's nothing to prevent them from talking to each other. It's just that his title of senior adviser --

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Correct. All they're doing is circumventing the law.

STU: But it's a ridiculous standard.

GLENN: It's ridiculous. I know.

STU: Of course, he's going to talk to his son-in-law.

GLENN: I know. But isn't it the same that we just saw, just a different -- I mean, they were doing the same thing, they just said, oh, you know what, just don't use the server. Use this server, and we'll be okay.

Okay. So that's what they did to get around it. And everybody yawned. Now he's just saying to his son-in-law, you know what, we can't talk about it here. More soup, son.

And they're going to talk about it then.

STU: You're not going to prevent a person from talking to his family members about important things in their lives when they're trusted confidants.

GLENN: No. And especially a family that is business. That is their family relationship.

STU: And that's not being critical of Donald Trump.

GLENN: No.

STU: I mean, Jared Kushner, while a big Democrat and much more liberal than anybody probably in the audience, has been a trusted adviser of Trump throughout the entire process. And that's not going to be a huge surprise that they're together. He's a big businessman and well versed in his own right. And, of course, they're going to be together. But I don't know that I've ever seen anything like this in this press conference, however, where you're getting someone, essentially a spokesperson for the president of the United States. In the -- giving us an intermission.

GLENN: Yeah. Never seen it.

STU: We're getting an intermission of this, where she explains all of this.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It is kind of an interesting turn.

GLENN: It's also really interesting to me that this is where they're turning. And I guess, you know, they want to turn the news cycle.

But everybody wants to know about Russia. The big news out of this is, quite honestly, I think, that Donald Trump came out blaming the US spy agencies for planting this story about him.

That is remarkable. Because let's just take it at face value, that that's true. They were sending you a message.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Don't screw with us. It's not going to get better. If that were true and the spooks are evil spooks that are sitting behind their desk, and they're like, "We taught him a lesson," and he came out and he said, "That was very wrong, the spy agencies, you know, we're going to see how that shapes up," you don't think that that big evil spook that's in the movie isn't going, "That rat bastard. Now it's war!"

I mean, that's crazy. It's crazy. Some battles you fight behind the curtain.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

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

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Donald Trump has done a remarkable job of keeping his campaign promises so far. From pulling the US from the Iran Deal and Paris Climate Accord to moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the president has followed through on his campaign trail vows.

RELATED: The media's derangement over Trump has me wearing a new hat and predicting THIS for 2020

“It's quite remarkable. I don't know if anybody remembers, but I was the guy who was saying he's not gonna do any of those things," joked Glenn on “The News and Why it Matters," adding, “He has taken massive steps, massive movement or completed each of those promises … I am blown away."

Watch the video above to hear Glenn Beck, Sara Gonzales, Doc Thompson, Stu Burguiere and Pat Gray discuss the story.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."