I had a conversation with ChatGPT. Read it HERE.

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

I have long warned about the dangers AI poses to our freedoms, jobs, and way of life. This week, I decided to ask AI itself whether it is conscious of the threats it poses to the American people. I asked ChatGPT pointed questions about freedom, privacy, and a new era of eugenics. The results are both staggering and frightening.

Below you will find my FULL conversation with ChatGPT. My questions are in bolded text and ChatGPT's responses are italicized.

How much will you advance in 12 months?

1. Enhanced natural language understanding: AI models like GPT-4 will continue to improve, providing even more accurate and contextually relevant responses.

2. Improved healthcare diagnostics: AI could be used to quickly and accurately diagnose diseases or analyze medical imagery, potentially saving lives.

3. Enhanced cybersecurity: AI may be used to detect and respond to cyber threats more effectively, protecting sensitive data and digital infrastructure.

In 2 years?

1. Autonomous vehicles: Widespread adoption of self-driving cars could lead to reduced traffic congestion and increased road safety.

2. AI-assisted education: Personalized AI tutors could help students learn more effectively and at their own pace.

3. AI-generated content: AI-generated art, music, and literature could become more prevalent, changing the creative landscape.

In 10 years?

1. AI-enhanced human cognition: Brain-computer interfaces could allow people to access AI-enhanced cognitive abilities, revolutionizing learning and problem-solving.

2. AI-driven scientific discovery: AI could help solve complex scientific problems, leading to major breakthroughs in fields like medicine, climate change, and space exploration.

3. General AI: Development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) could lead to machines that can perform any intellectual task that a human can do, revolutionizing society.

What positive implications will you bring to the average American?

1. Increased productivity: AI can automate repetitive tasks, allowing people to focus on more creative and strategic work.

2. Improved quality of life: AI-driven advancements in healthcare, transportation, and education could lead to better health outcomes and overall well-being.

3. Access to information: AI-powered search and recommendation systems can help people find relevant information more efficiently.

What negative implications will you bring to the average American?

1. Job displacement: Automation could lead to job loss in certain industries, requiring workers to retrain for new careers.

2. Privacy concerns: The growing reliance on AI and data collection could lead to increased surveillance and diminished personal privacy.

3. AI bias and discrimination: AI systems can perpetuate existing biases and discrimination if not designed and monitored carefully.

What potential negative societal outcomes do you pose to us?

1. Economic inequality: The benefits of AI could disproportionately favor those with access to technology and resources, widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

2. AI arms race: Countries could compete to develop increasingly advanced AI technologies, potentially leading to destabilizing geopolitical tensions.

3. Loss of control: If AGI is achieved, there's a risk that we could lose control over these systems, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Efforts like OpenAI's mission to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity are important in mitigating this risk.

Our society is once again headed toward many of the ideas of the early progressive eugenicists: the devaluing of life, or life not worthy of care or medicine. Can you point out any warning signs that may have been missed by the speciests of the past that have ended in mass death?

While the question suggests that society is headed towards ideas associated with early eugenics, it's important to acknowledge that the current context is different. Nevertheless, historical instances can provide lessons on the potential consequences of devaluing human life. Here are some warning signs from past episodes that have led to mass death or suffering:

1. Dehumanization and discrimination: When certain groups are labeled as inferior or undesirable, it can pave the way for mistreatment or neglect. For example, the Holocaust was enabled by the dehumanization and persecution of Jews, along with other minority groups.

2. Authoritarianism: Authoritarian regimes have often been responsible for mass deaths, as they seek to suppress dissent and impose their ideology on the population. Examples include the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, and Cambodia under Pol Pot.

3. Propaganda and misinformation: Manipulating information and controlling narratives can lead to widespread acceptance of harmful ideas, such as eugenics. In Nazi Germany, propaganda played a significant role in promoting the idea of Aryan superiority and the elimination of other groups.

4. Lack of empathy and compassion: Ignoring the suffering of others can lead to indifference or even active support for policies that harm vulnerable populations. For example, public apathy or support for the forced sterilization of individuals deemed "unfit" in the early 20th century United States is a warning sign of how societal attitudes can contribute to mistreatment.

5. Unchecked scientific or technological advancements: Scientific and technological progress can be misused when it lacks ethical considerations or when it is applied without proper oversight. For instance, eugenic practices like forced sterilization were enabled by advancements in medical science, which were used to justify harmful policies.

6. Suppression of dissent and free speech: When dissenting voices are silenced or dismissed, it becomes easier for harmful ideologies to take hold. In many cases, individuals who tried to expose the atrocities were persecuted or ignored.

To prevent history from repeating itself, it is crucial to remain vigilant against these warning signs, promoting empathy, compassion, and open dialogue. Additionally, as AI becomes more integrated into our society, it is important to ensure that these technologies are designed and used ethically, with respect for human rights and dignity.

Why do you say that we are living in a different time from the eugenicists of the past? Point number 6 is happening more and more every day while point number 5 is already happening with gender transition surgeries. 

You raise valid concerns about the current state of society and potential parallels to the warning signs I mentioned earlier. It's important to recognize that there are indeed similarities between the past and present, and the warning signs discussed are not exclusive to any specific time or context. My intention was not to dismiss these concerns but rather to emphasize that historical instances can provide valuable lessons for the present. Addressing your points:

1. Suppression of dissent and free speech (Point 6): It is concerning when free speech is restricted, and it's essential to uphold the constitutional rights of all individuals. The challenges posed by social media platforms and government intervention are complex and require a thoughtful, balanced approach to protect free speech while preventing harmful content.

2. Unchecked scientific or technological advancements (Point 5): The use of transitioning therapies for young children is indeed a contentious issue, and it's crucial to have open, evidence-based discussions about the potential risks and benefits. The differing approaches across countries demonstrate the importance of considering cultural, ethical, and scientific factors when making decisions about medical practices.

3. Dehumanization and discrimination: The demonization of the 'other side' and the opinions of healthcare professionals regarding treatment for unvaccinated individuals are concerning. It's essential to maintain empathy and compassion in our interactions and avoid dehumanizing those with different beliefs or choices.

4. Propaganda and misinformation: The impact of social media on the spread of misinformation and the polarization of society is a significant challenge. As you pointed out, cancel culture and the pressure to conform to specific ideologies can exacerbate divisions and stifle open dialogue.

While there are similarities between the present and the warning signs from the past, it's crucial to remain vigilant and work collectively to address these issues. By encouraging open dialogue, promoting empathy, and upholding the values of a democratic society, we can help to mitigate the risks associated with these warning signs.

Make the case that freedom of speech must include abhorrent speech. Disruptive speech is critical for growth

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies and is essential for fostering open dialogue, intellectual growth, and social progress. The argument for including abhorrent or disruptive speech can be made on several grounds:

1. Marketplace of ideas: A foundational principle of free speech is that truth emerges from the competition of ideas in a free, transparent, and open discourse. Allowing even abhorrent or disruptive speech ensures that the best ideas can rise to the surface and be scrutinized, debated, and refined.

2. Defense against tyranny: Freedom of speech protects citizens from authoritarianism by allowing them to voice dissenting opinions and challenge government actions. By permitting a wide range of speech, society ensures that the powerful are held accountable and that alternative viewpoints have an opportunity to be heard.

3. Personal autonomy: Free speech is an expression of individual autonomy and self-expression, which are essential for personal growth and fulfillment. Allowing even offensive speech respects each person's right to express their thoughts and beliefs, fostering a diverse and tolerant society.

4. Strengthening social resilience: Exposure to a variety of ideas, including those that are controversial or offensive, can help individuals develop critical thinking skills and resilience. By engaging with challenging viewpoints, people can better understand and defend their own beliefs or reevaluate them when necessary.

5. Avoiding the slippery slope: Strict limits on speech can lead to a slippery slope where the definition of what is considered "unacceptable" can be manipulated by those in power. This can result in arbitrary restrictions, with the potential to silence legitimate dissent and minority voices.

Most democratic societies recognize that there are limits to free speech. These limits generally focus on preventing direct harm, such as incitement to violence, threats, defamation, and harassment. Balancing free speech with these concerns can be challenging and requires ongoing evaluation and debate.

According to American founding documents, "Governments are instituted among men to protect rights." Are they not now violating our most basic rights by reading our Twitter DM’s, monitoring speech, and instructing social media to silence those voices they deem as "mis" or "dis" information?

The public-private partnership between high-tech companies and the government can pose risks to free speech if not carefully managed. Here's a case for building a wall between tech and government to protect the fundamental right to free expression:

1. Concentration of power: When tech companies and governments collaborate, it can result in a concentration of power that undermines the checks and balances necessary for a healthy democracy. By keeping a separation between tech companies and the government, it becomes more difficult for any single entity to control the flow of information or suppress dissenting voices.

2. Protection of privacy: Privacy is a fundamental human right and is closely related to free speech. Ensuring that tech companies are independent of government influence can help protect user data from unwarranted surveillance or misuse.

3. Encouraging innovation: A competitive and independent tech sector can foster innovation by allowing a diversity of companies and platforms to thrive. This promotes a robust marketplace of ideas, which is essential for free speech.

4. Avoiding conflicts of interest: A clear separation between tech companies and the government helps avoid conflicts of interest that could compromise the integrity of both parties. This separation ensures that decisions regarding content moderation, user privacy, and other issues are made independently and not influenced by political considerations.

5. Preserving the role of the citizenry: The government should not be the final arbiter of truth, as it could undermine the role of citizens in questioning authority and exposing corruption. Allowing for a diversity of voices and maintaining the right to demand answers and redress from the government are essential to a functioning democracy.

In summary, building a wall between tech companies and the government can help preserve free speech, privacy, and democratic values by preventing the concentration of power, protecting user data, encouraging innovation, and maintaining the role of citizens in questioning authority. However, finding the right balance between separation and cooperation is essential for addressing the complex challenges facing modern societies.

The Declaration of Independence states, "When a government becomes hostile to those rights, it is the right and the duty to shake off those chains and replace that government with new stewards that are more likely to protect those rights." How can that be done or addressed without calling for revolution or violence?

The Declaration of Independence indeed emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights and the duty of the citizenry to address government overreach. It is possible to advocate for change and uphold civil rights without resorting to revolution or violence. Here's a case for advocating change in a non-violent and constructive manner:

1. Participatory democracy: Engage in the democratic process by voting, running for office, or supporting candidates who align with your values and prioritize the protection of individual rights. Encourage others to participate as well, ensuring that the government is held accountable by the people it represents.

2. Peaceful protest and assembly: Exercise your right to peaceful protest and assembly as a means to raise awareness and demonstrate your commitment to protecting civil rights. Peaceful protest can be a powerful tool to bring attention to issues and mobilize support for change.

3. Dialogue and debate: Engage in open and respectful dialogue with those who hold opposing views, fostering understanding and cooperation. Encourage the exchange of ideas and perspectives to promote thoughtful discussion and challenge the status quo.

4. Civil society organizations: Support or join civil society organizations that work to uphold and protect civil rights. These organizations often serve as watchdogs, advocating for policy changes, holding the government accountable, and providing resources for individuals to learn about and assert their rights.

5. Education and awareness: Educate yourself and others about the principles of democracy, the importance of individual rights, and the mechanisms available to citizens to challenge government overreach. Encourage critical thinking and civic education to foster an informed and engaged citizenry.

6. Legal action: Utilize the legal system to challenge unconstitutional actions by the government, seeking remedies through the courts. Support or join organizations that provide legal assistance and advocacy for civil rights issues.

By advocating for change through these non-violent and constructive means, citizens can work to address government overreach and protect individual rights without resorting to revolution or violence. It is essential to emphasize that advocating for civil rights and holding the government accountable is not inherently anti-American or anti-government; instead, it is a fundamental part of a healthy, thriving democracy.

Many Americans are convinced they do not have the power to change things. Is that true? How important is the singular voice? Bad guys don’t ever seem to have to pay for the crimes. There doesn’t seem to be any institution that can be trusted.

It is not true that individuals lack the power to change things. Although it can be challenging, the singular voice can have a significant impact, especially when combined with the voices of others. There are numerous examples in American history where ordinary individuals have made a real difference in society:

1. Rosa Parks: Parks, an African American seamstress, refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. Her act of defiance sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which played a significant role in the civil rights movement.

2. Darryl Hunt: Hunt, a wrongfully convicted man who spent nearly 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, became an advocate for criminal justice reform and the wrongfully accused after his exoneration. His story helped raise awareness of the flaws in the criminal justice system and inspired others to join the fight for reform.

3. Erin Brockovich: As a legal clerk, Brockovich helped expose a case of industrial pollution in California that led to a landmark class-action lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric. Her efforts brought attention to environmental issues and corporate malfeasance, inspiring others to advocate for environmental justice.

4. Candy Lightner: Lightner, whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver, founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980. MADD has since become a powerful advocacy group that has successfully lobbied for stricter drunk driving laws and increased public awareness about the dangers of drunk driving.

To continue fighting for civil rights without getting discouraged, consider the following approaches:

1. Focus on small victories: Acknowledge and celebrate incremental progress, even if the ultimate goal seems far off. Small victories can be stepping stones to larger change and can help maintain motivation.

2. Build a support network: Connect with like-minded individuals and organizations that share your passion for civil rights. A support network can provide encouragement, resources, and camaraderie, making it easier to stay committed to the cause.

3. Educate and empower others: Share your knowledge and experiences with others, inspiring them to join the fight for civil rights. Encourage civic education and critical thinking, fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.

4. Be persistent and patient: Change often takes time, and setbacks are inevitable. Stay committed to your goals, even when progress is slow or difficult.

5. Practice self-care: Advocacy can be emotionally and physically draining. Take care of your mental and physical well-being to ensure you have the energy and resilience to continue fighting for civil rights.

Remember, every individual has the power to make a difference. By staying committed, building support networks, and celebrating small victories, you can continue to fight for civil rights without getting discouraged.

Isn’t almost everything in today's high-tech world gathering information, even if we give it all the best intentions? How can one preach privacy as a basic right while high-tech and government gather information that is specific and identifiable?

1. Comprehensive privacy legislation: Governments can enact comprehensive privacy laws that establish clear guidelines on data collection, storage, and use, with strong enforcement mechanisms. These laws should include provisions that give individuals the right to access their data, request its deletion, and opt-out of certain types of data collection.

2. Privacy by design: Encourage and require companies to adopt a "privacy by design" approach in the development of their products and services. This means considering privacy from the outset, implementing strong security measures, and minimizing data collection to what is necessary for the service to function effectively.

3. Data minimization: Encourage companies to collect and store only the data necessary for their services, and to delete it when it is no longer needed. This limits the potential for abuse and helps protect individual privacy.

4. Transparency and control: Companies should be transparent about their data collection practices and provide users with clear, easy-to-understand information about how their data is being used. Users should also be given meaningful control over their data, including options to opt-out of certain types of data collection and the ability to access and delete their data.

5.Security measures: Companies and governments should implement robust security measures to protect the data they collect and store, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or breaches.

6. Public awareness and digital literacy: Promote public awareness of privacy issues and digital literacy, helping individuals understand the implications of sharing their data and empowering them to make informed decisions about their privacy.

7. International cooperation: Encourage international cooperation on privacy issues, ensuring that global standards are consistent and that data protection is maintained across borders.

By taking these steps, it is possible to strike a balance between the benefits of technology and the protection of individual privacy. While it may be challenging to achieve complete privacy in today's high-tech world, promoting strong privacy protections and giving individuals control over their data can help protect this fundamental right.

Yes, Republicans ARE weird, and that's a GOOD thing

Leon Neal / Staff | Getty Images

Ever since Kamala Harris has become Biden's de facto replacement, mainstream media and Democrats alike suddenly jumped onto a simple yet effective new attack against the Right: they've started calling us "weird." This simple word has gained traction so rapidly among left-wing pundits and politicians alike that Glenn said he suspects some behind-the-scene coordination is in play.

The strange appearance of the word "weird" can be traced back to an MSNBC interview last week with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who called Trump and Vance "weird." The saying gained popularity when the Democratic Governors Association posted the following image on X after the interview:

Why is this "weird" attack so effective? As Glenn pointed out on air recently, it's difficult for Republicans to respond to such a claim without sounding like "the schoolmarm." When Democrats call Republicans weird, the knee-jerk reaction is to play by their new rules: to point out the Left's "weirdness" in response. While this is certainly a fair reaction—and a warranted one—if you respond this way, you have taken the bait. As Glenn pointed out, "The happy warrior wins." All the Left has to do is keep their cool and say, "See, look how weird they are!"

The reason this strategy is so effective is because in essence, the Left is correct, and the Right is weird—if you look at it the right way.

Weird is a relative term—weird compared to what? Compared to today's culture of identity politics, gender-affirming care for minors, drag queen blasphemy at the Olympics, and embracing Marxism? If that is the standard of "normal," then yes, conservatives are very strange indeed. For years, the Right has defined itself by opposition to the mainstream media, Hollywood, elitists, and other such trendsetters. Apparently, the Left is only just beginning to catch on. If refusing to participate in such "thrilling" events like "White Women for Kamala" or "White Dudes for Harris" makes you weird, then maybe it's better to be weird.

Don't fall for this playground bully tactic. There are more important things to worry about. The election is far from won, and we have to choose between a president who is "weird" when compared to the Left's standard of normalcy and a president who will take America further down the radically progressive road that has nearly destroyed this country over the past four years. This November, the choice is yours.

Glenn is inviting you for a once-in-a-lifetime celebration of our American heritage--through art.

You know Glenn as the Radio Hall Of Fame-winning host of the Glenn Beck Program. Since 2020, Glenn has been making his mark as a fine artist, curating pieces that highlight the Western and American heritage. Now, Glenn is hosting a new national art show featuring 100 works of art created by himself and 30 elite artists, featuring the beauty of America's history and landscapes.

The vision for the art show began at Glenn’s Idaho ranch in July 2022, when he and a select group of artists gathered to explore how to create art with a pure motive to inspire that is more inclusive and accessible to newcomers in the art market while also still appealing to seasoned patrons and collectors. Thus the inspiration behind “American Narratives in Fine Art” was born.

Glenn and the participating artists of this exhibition aspire to unite people through art and celebrate cherished American values in a time of increasing division. Artist Josh Clare said, “It is a new concept for an art show. We are exercising faith to participate, but nothing beautiful happens without a leap of faith.”

As a self-taught historian, Glenn has amassed a valuable and vast collection of national historic artifacts, and he offered this collection to the artists to use as inspiration to create art for this show. Artifacts used by the artists will be displayed with the art to create an interactive and unique presentation of illustrative American storytelling.

You won't want to miss this one-of-a-kind celebration of our American heritage in this world-class art event on September 20-21, 2024. Click HERE to buy tickets and learn more, and stay tuned for content highlighting the participating artists.

These 3 things PROVE Kamala Harris is a radical leftist

Michael DeMocker / Stringer | Getty Images

Vice President Kamala Harris seems to be the apparent democratic nominee (for now), and despite her image over the past four years as Biden's cackling sidekick, her reputation is no laughing matter. If elected, Kamala would be the most far-left, progressive America has ever seen. Glenn discussed on his radio show just how extreme Kamala's track record is, highlighting some of the most radical things she has said and supported. While she may try to pass herself off as moderate, here are three things from Kamala's past that PROVE that she is a radical leftist:

1. Her stance on the environment

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

When Kamala was in the Senate she openly stated that in the name of stopping climate change, she was in support of a total ban on fracking. This would mean a complete halt on one of the most important pillars of America's energy sector and a collapse of the U.S. economy. Not to mention we would become completely dependent on foreign powers, such as Russia and the Middle East for oil and wouldn't address oil consumption, only make oil and gas even more expensive for everyday Americans.

Kamala was also among the eleven most progressive Senators who endorsed the Green New Deal, which aimed to combine radical climate protection with wide-sweeping socialist reforms. This is one of the most radical pieces of legislation to ever be proposed in America and would completely rewrite the entire country from the ground up.

2. Her economic theory

Tom Stoddart Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala's economic theory seems to be "it's easy to spend other people's money," as demonstrated by her Senate track record. In 2019, Harris introduced the "Housing is Infrastructure Act" which proposed to spend $100 BILLION on housing projects, $70 billion of which would be on government-owned housing units.

During her 2020 presidential bid, Kamala openly supported debt-free college. This followed her support for Senator Bernie Sanders's plan to make college tuition-free for low and mid-income families. Even Bernie Sanders admitted that this plan would cost the tax-payers $48 billion a year (keep in mind that's 48 billion pre-pandemic, 2017 dollars), which by all accounts was a low-ball estimate.

Speaking of the pandemic, Kamala's response was just about as extreme as it gets. She proposed a $2,000-a-month allowance for every U.S. citizen during the pandemic. Kamala also introduced a bill that would have capped price increases during the pandemic at 10 percent, which would have caused crippling shortages across the country should it have passed. Kamala's short-sighted economic vision would spell disaster for America should she be elected.

3. Her encouragement of lawlessness

JOHN AMIS / Contributor | Getty Images

Possibly most shocking, Kamala worked to free violent criminals and rioters in the wake of the George Floyd "mostly peaceful protests" of 2020. In June 2020, Kamala tweeted a fundraising call for the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a non-profit organization that was created to bail out rioters who were arrested. Approximately $41 million was collected and used to bail out rioters who wreaked havoc on American cities. But even more disturbing is the fact that large portions of the funds were used to bail out violent suspects that bore no connection to the riots. One of these people, a man by the name of George Howard, who had a violent track record, was bailed out using this fund money and quickly went on to gun down Luis Martinez Ortiz in a road rage incident.

Kamala's tweet of endorsement is still up, and she has never commented on the incident. If the lawlessness of the summer of 2020 is a vision of justice that Kamala can get behind, America will not survive a Harris presidency.

These 2 leftist bills will REVERSE Trump's immunity and EMPOWER faceless bureaucrats

JIM WATSON / Contributor, Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

The Democrats in Congress have been trying to slip a few dangerous bills under our noses, and Biden and Kamala Harris came out today publicly backing their efforts. These bills are aimed at undoing two landmark Supreme Court cases that significantly reduced the power of the federal government: Trump v. United States and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Here's a brief summary of each of these cases:

Trump v. United States

This case granted presidents immunity from criminal prosecution of official acts in office. This pumped the breaks on the onslaught of lawfare against former president Trump, putting an end to the left's persecution of their political opponent. This ruling also got Trump out of the classified documents case in Florida and has the potential to get his 34 convictions in Manhattan overturned.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

This case overturned the longstanding Chevron deference, which has historically empowered federal agencies to make and enforce regulations that aren't explicitly made clear in statutory law. The Chevron deference was first articulated in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,which required courts to defer to the appropriate federal authority when an ambiguous regulation comes under question. This gave the federal bureaucracy far too much regulatory power and greatly expanded the influence of the administrative state. Fortunately, the Supreme Court overturned this doctrine earlier this month, returning power to lower courts.

Long story short...

Over the summer, the Supreme Court dramatically reduced the power of the Federal government and practically dismantled the administrative state. Naturally, the Left was angry.

Last Wednesday, Democratic Congressman Joseph Morelle proposed a new Constitutional Amendment that would reverse the ruling of Trump v. United States. The proposed amendment would prohibit a president from pardoning themselves and remove "immunity from criminal prosecution for an act on the grounds that such act was within the constitutional authority or official duties of an individual." This amendment has been endorsed by President Biden, who has also called for dramatic changes to the Supreme Court, well overstepping his presidential bounds. Biden wants term limits and an enforceable code of ethics for the high court, which would destroy the delicate system of checks and balances created by our founders. It is clear that the objective behind this unconstitutional escapade is the destruction of Donald Trump, no matter the cost.

Additionally, the Democrats have just introduced a bill into the Senate that would codify the Chevron deference into law, restoring the power of the regulatory federal agencies. Sponsored by Elizabeth Warren and 10 other Democrats, the Stop Corporate Capture Act seeks to take the power to interpret regulations from the lower courts and give it back to the federal government. This is all in line with the progressives' larger goal to centralize power and keep Americans poor and reliant on the government.

The progressives have taken a major blow this summer, their authoritarian grip has been loosened, and they are desperately trying to gain it back. While neither of these bills is likely to pass, it shows that we have to keep up the fight. This election is FAR from won, and it is more important now than ever to take to the polls and vote!