RADIOSeptember 03, 2024

Glenn DESTROYS The New York Times for calling The Constitution a THREAT

A new New York Times op-ed titled “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” may be the most delusional thing Glenn has read in a while. Glenn reviews the article, which suggests that the Constitution may be a threat to “America’s politics” (hint: IT IS, and it’s supposed to be), that the Constitution may be to blame for Trump, and that our founding document “could hasten the end of American democracy.” Glenn also spots an argument that’s right out of the far-left’s contingency plan for if Trump won in 2020: The Transition Integrity Project. In the end, Glenn points out that the Times isn't the first to suggest that the Constitution is dangerous ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The New York Times just released an op-ed, the America's Constitution is sacred. But is it also the biggest threat to our politics?

Bum, bum, bum. Yes! It actually is a threat to our politics! Yes! As it should be a threat to our politics. The United States Constitution is in trouble. After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Really? Is that when it became in trouble, Stu? I mean, I'm just. I'm thinking back. I'm thinking back. You know, a little bit before Donald Trump. Like, I don't know.

Woodrow Wilson. And I've been thinking, the Constitution has been in trouble since about then. Maybe it's just me?

STU: Yeah. That doesn't seem like it was a little bit earlier, considering the words of Woodrow Wilson, who tried to basically do to the founding documents, what happened to that neighbor's mountain.

Like, it just -- light it on fire, and watch it burn.

GLENN: Yeah. That was it. By announcing his desire to throw a Donald Trump.

To throw off Constitutional constraints, in order to satisfy his personal ambitions, Trump was making his authoritarian inclinations abundantly clear. Now, let me ask you.

Who is the one that is currently talking about the redesign of the Supreme Court?

I mean, by the way, I just want you to know, that's what dictators always do.

That is the last step to a banana republic. That is the point of no return.

When you -- when you have the president, or the Prime Minister, or whoever.

Change the makeup of the Supreme Court.

That's the last straw. Now, which one of those is doing that?

STU: Glenn, we're just talking about a return to normalcy.

That's all that is.

That whole renovating the Supreme Court into something that has never existed is a return to normalcy.

GLENN: Yeah. May I ask you, Stu. Isn't this exactly the same thing they did with Joe Biden?

They ran him, and he didn't talk to the press. He never was in front of people.

He was in his basement.

When he was out. He was always on prompter.

And then they just made the case, that he was normal.

He was just like you. He was for all the things you are for. Just a return to normalcy.

That's exactly what they're doing. Again, America!

Come on.

Really.

STU: Yeah. And again, it's important to understand the return to normalcy. Just purveys this throughout the entire campaign.

For example, the return to enormous, of having debates that go through the presidential commission on -- on debates. Remember that whole thing?

That's now basically defunct, because the president of the United States, decided he was going to be cocky. And cancel one of the debates.

Leave the normal format, and then taunt his opponent about it, and lose so badly that he had to end his political career.

And then the person who took over for them, not only didn't go back to the commission and say, hey. Let's start this up again. Let's do three things.

No, no, no. She just had the one that was already there. And tried to change the rules of that.

Then also taunted the opponent in the debate. Let's see if she shows up. Because that would be I think the most normal thing possible.

GLENN: Well, you forgot the most normal part of that story. That is getting the nomination without a single vote cast for her.

STU: Yeah. Normal. Normal, guys.

GLENN: Totally normal. Constitutional.

And totally normal. And, really, what people are demanding.

Anyway, it's no surprise, then that liberals charged Trump with being a menace to the Constitution, but his presidency and the prospect of his re-election have also generated another very different argument. That Trump owes his political assent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially anti-democratic. Wait. Wait. Wait.

You say we're a democracy, okay? You said, we've always been a democracy. What would make us a democracy, would be the Constitution.

But we're not a democracy. The Constitution says we have democratic attributes. But we are a republic. And now you're calling this an antidemocratic document?

I mean, after all, Trump became president in 2016, after losing the popular vote. But winning the electoral college.

Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. You're not going to believe. You're not going to believe this, Stu.

He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court for him article three. Two of whom were just confirmed by senators representing 44 percent of the population. Article one. Whose three justices helped overturn Roe vs. Wade. A reversal that most Americans disagreed with. Imminent legal scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky. Yes. I love Erwin Chemerinsky. They put him in place, long time ago.

He's great. He's an eminent scholar, and he's worried about opinion polls showing a dramatic loss of faith in democracy.

It's never been any faith in democracy!

He writes in his new book, no democracy lasts forever. No.

In fact, that's why we're not a democracy. And that's why our Constitution has lasted. When the average Constitution of the world lasts 17 years, ours has survived since 1781.

I don't know. A little longer than 17 years! Anyway, no democracy lasts from her. It's important for Americans to see that the failure stems from the Constitution itself.

Oh, really? Yes, Mr. Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law School.

STU: Of course. That's Kamala Harris' hometown, by the way. I just wanted to point that out. It's not Oakland.

GLENN: No. It's Oakland.

STU: I know she's a daughter of Oakland. But actually, she grew up in Berkeley and Montreal, and then went to Howard University.

And then went to San Francisco.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So you want to talk about a path to normal middle?

GLENN: She's red, white, and blue person.

She, like, screams Constitution and small-town America from Berkeley, California.

STU: Just a heavy emphasis on the red.

GLENN: So...

(laughter)

What are you saying? Red, red, blue. That's who she is? Red, blue. Yes. She's all American. Anyway, he says, he -- Americans have a problem with the Constitution.

And Chemerinsky deemed Berkeley political law school seems to place considerable faith in Constitution, pleading with federal progressives in the book, we, the people. Not to turn backs on Constitution or the courts, but by contrast, no democracy lasts forever.

Markedly pessimistic, asserting that the Constitution, which is famously difficult to amend. It's difficult to amend?

Those should be walk in park! We should be able to -- like mama makes apple pie, when she makes that apple pie, she puts it on shelf. And some neighbor can come and just get it.

I see it in American cartoons. And it should be that easy to amend Constitution.

But it's not. It's very difficult. And he says, what would need to happen is a new constitutional convention.

And in the books, more somber moments. Which I wrote, I entertain possibility of secession.

Vladimir Putin not for secession at all. No. He -- he loves the Constitution of the United States.

And west coast states might form nation called Pacifica.

Red states might form their own country.

But he -- he hopes that any divorce, if it comes, will be peaceful.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait. So hang on just a second.

So this guy is from Berkeley.

And he's talking about Pacifica. Where did I hear this before?

I remember. Before the 2020 election, Stu. The Democrats had some group together, that was going to save America. Remember? In case Donald Trump won. And one of the things they said was, we will have California break up west coast into Pacifica.

California, parts of -- of Oregon. Maybe parts of Washington state. Would become Pacifica.

And that we would break away. And if they didn't want to us breakaway. Then we demand that Trump add two states.

One would be Washington, DC. And the other one would be make a state out of Puerto Rico.

Oh, I remember that now.

Gee!

And what was their problem.

Oh, their problem was, the electoral college.

Which is weird. Because he just didn't mention the electoral college. The prospect of secession sounds extreme, he says. But in suggesting that the Constitution could hasten the end of American democracy.

Chemerinsky is far from alone. Lots of people have got Boris and Natasha, say same thing.

The argument, that what ails the country's politics isn't simply the president or Congress or the Supreme Court, but the founding document itself.

Right?

That's been our problem for the last 250 years?

Thing longest running Constitution, in the longest running republic, in human history.

And that's our problem. All along. That's our problem. Uh-huh.

STU: It's not like we haven't had a good run of success here.

It would be one thing, if we were -- there's an area of outer Mongolia that the United States looked like. And we were a little disappointed in the progress that we had made.

It's kind of the most advanced country ever -- you know, developed. It's -- it's -- it's overseen. This incredible -- you know. All these incredible innovations.

GLENN: Have you looked at it lately. Have you looked at Aurora, Colorado? That's the Constitution's fault.

STU: Oh, when the Venezuelans are taking over the apartment complexes?

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Constitution's fault. How is that Constitution?

Donald Trump.

STU: Yeah.

That's a good point. But you didn't quite -- maybe you need to go a little bit more into depth. Why the words Donald Trump --

GLENN: I won't listen to you, conspiracy theory, anymore. Really honestly.

I'm just looking at this. He says, that the Constitution has incentivized the tyranny of the minority.

It's the Constitution's fault!

You see?

You see? Now, if I remember right, one of the things they put in there, to make sure that there wasn't the tyranny of the minority, was the -- was the electoral college.

That way, California, New York, couldn't dominate everybody in the red states.

You know, kind of what they're doing. And when you talk about tyranny of the minority.

Stu, if it wasn't for -- I mean, it's still a minority. But it's a growing minority.

You know, if it wasn't for 30 percent of all future adults, in America, now claiming to be transgender and gay, and, you know, My Little Pony.

You would say, maybe this is all happening, you know, with the tyranny of the minority.

But no.

No.

STU: Well, that is okay. And as we have talked about, many, many times.

You know, 40. Thirty to 40 percent of the population, being in the LGBTQ population. Is the return to normalcy. We were promised with Joe Biden.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And Kamala Harris. This is -- everything about this is normal.

Everything.

GLENN: Everything is normal. Now, they always say, that they love the Constitution.

But now they fear the Constitution. And they should.

You know, somebody else feared the Constitution.

It was -- I think it was -- oh. King George.

He thought it was a very dangerous document too.

In fact, every dictator, all around the world has thought for the last 250 years. Wow, that's a dangerous document.

But, hey. The New York Times and the left, they love it. That's it why they've just run, is the Constitution -- is the Constitution sacred?

But is it also dangerous? Or this story, the Constitution is broken, and should not be reclaimed. Or MAGA turns against the Constitution.

Or we had to force the Constitution, to accommodate democracy.

The Constitution won't save us from Trump.

Or the story in the New York Times, is the Constitution obstructing the American democracy?

Let's give up on the Constitution. Or the headline, the US lacks what every democracy needs. Or this is the story how Lincoln broke the US Constitution.

They love it!

Why Jim Acosta’s AI Parkland victim “interview” is GROTESQUE

Former CNN host Jim Acosta recently “interviewed” an AI-generated depiction of Parkland shooting victim Joaquin Oliver. Glenn Beck calls the stunt dystopian and sick, asking: “What does it truly mean to be alive if, in death, you’re more useful?”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So here's a story that I think, if we don't stop and pay attention to right now, just one small story, it may seem like something small. But if we don't pay attention to it right now. I don't think we recognize what it means to be human in a generation, from now, if that long. Journalist. I shouldn't say journalist.

Publicity hound Jim Acosta just did an interview -- I can't even say that. Just did -- I don't even know what you would call it.

Did a publicity stunt, not with a witness.
Not a grieving parent. He sat down with an AI ghost.

It's an AI recreation of a 17-year-old kid, named Joaquin Oliver. He was murdered in the Parkland Massacre.

And then he called it journalism. He called it a conversation, but it wasn't.

It was neither!

It was -- it wasn't even human. Let me play this grotesque pantomime for you. Listen.

VOICE: Joaquin, I would like to know, what your solution would be for gun violence.

VOICE: Great question. I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support, and community engagement. We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections, making sure everyone feels seen and heard.

It's about building a culture of kindness and understanding; what do you think about that?

VOICE: I think that's a great idea, Joaquin.
(laughter)

STU: That is the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. I had -- I had seen all the headlines. I hadn't actually seen the...
(laughter)

GLENN: Now, it is so --

STU: Sorry.

GLENN: It's so bad, it's funny, at this point. Right? It's just horrible.

I want to put this into perspective: This is a digital ventriloquist act. He's a puppet. It's the image of a dead kid, long buried, animated. Like a puppet, for the politics of those who are still living.

Now, let me ask you something, that, you know, we haven't dared to ask out loud yet.

And that is, what does it mean?

What his it truly mean to be alive?

In death, you're more useful.

What are the Republicans saying. Or sorry, the Democrats saying right now to some of the people in Congress.

They're saying, you need to take a bullet. Why?

Because you're more useful, if you're dead.

If somebody assassinates you. So what does it mean to be alive, if in death, you're more useful?

What does it mean when your image. Your voice. Your soul as captured by a memory or photograph, can be summoned back again.

Not by God. But by algorithms and agenda.

I hate to go all religious on you. But I have to tell you, if this isn't the making of a graven image, I don't know what is.

Thou shall not making a graven image.

You don't make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven, above, or on earth beneath.

You know, the Native Americans used to -- they would never let you take your picture.

Some of them. Some tribes.

They would never let you take your picture. Because they thought it would steal your soul.

This doesn't have a soul. This is taking your image, bringing you back to life, without a soul.

When man starts creating a likeness, to wield power or emotion, we stop serving God. And we start serving ourselves.

And I'm going to be generous here. And say, don't blame the parents.

I don't -- I don't question their grief, in any way, shape, or form.

But this -- this -- this is no longer theirs.

This is not their son. This is a political puppet.

The minute Joaquin's AI avatar spoke political opinions into a camera, it stopped being about grief, and became propaganda!

And this, my friend, is only the beginning.

What happens when governments use AI resurrected faces for propaganda?

What happens when terrorists Use Deepfake hostages?

Hostages who are already dead? Pleading for help?

You don't think that could happen with Hamas?

You don't think that Hamas couldn't have made an image, in fact, the video that we say last week, could have very well been AI.

And the kid could be dead.

Now, it's not. But that's what's coming.

What happens when we begin to trust synthetic testimony, over human -- actual human experience?

This isn't just immoral.

This is very, very dangerous. This is soul-erasing.

This is post-human.

You are entering a world now, that is -- it's post-human!

This is the dystopian world. And we're just beginning to step into it. We're entering an age, where the dead can be programmed, to speak the words of the living.

Where the brief is nothing more than a marketing tool.

Where death is not your end!

But just the data set now, to be parsed and projected. And used politically.

And here's the real sick part of this: The more meaningful your death, the more valuable your ghost.

If that doesn't shake to you your core, nothing is going to.

If this doesn't wake you up to the dangers of AI, nothing will.

If this doesn't wake you up to go, oh, dear God, I've got to get back to the basics, I have to start asking the questions, what does it mean to be human? Nothing will!

We -- we have to draw really strong, ethical hard lines in the sand, on the use of AI. The use of likeness of the dead. It should be codified into law, internationally. And I'm not saying, you know, you're not bringing characters back. You know, you're not bringing -- you're not bringing things back to, you know, show them in movies, or for entertainment or whatever.

But when you're bringing dead children back, I don't know. I think there's a problem here.

There's a problem. We -- and we also have to teach our kids discernment here. Critical thinking.

You know, and more than critical thinking. Moral reasoning has got to be taught.

We need a generation that knows the difference between the real and the artificial.

Between the sacred and the synthetic.

Because that's going to be blurred.

All of it is blurred. How long before a Jim Acosta clown isn't the one doing it, but somebody serious? Transparency, from media. From tech.

Not after the fact. But before the images even appear on the screen.

Now, to his credit, he did say, this was AI. Of course. But it's a ghost!

We have to reawaken the soul, the concept of the soul. This is why I've said for years, that Ray Kurzweil is one of the scariest guys I have ever met. Because he doesn't believe in the soul.

He believes that that -- what you just saw, is just as real, as the real kid.

Some -- the soul can't be copied. It can't be coded.

It can't be commodified.

Because we lose our soul, in our culture.

If we lose it in our -- in our culture, in our politics. In our mourning. In our journalism.

Then you've got nothing left.

And doesn't Joaquin Oliver deserve dignity in life? Everybody knows he deserves peace in death.
Right?

What he didn't deserve, is to be animated by code, to deliver a political message like a branded mascot.

I'm sorry, but if this is the parents' doing, the parents -- the parents, shame on you. Shame on you.

I -- I understand your grief as much as a person can, that hasn't lost a child. I understand your grief, but this is sick.

You know where this road leads? It lees to a future where grief can be licensed.

Where every dead child becomes a campaign.

And where being alive, no longer requires a pulse.

Just a well-trained AI model.

You never die!

That's not compassion. That is not progress. That is hell, wearing the mask of empathy.

Shame on you, Jim Acosta!

Because out of all the people that could have done this, you're only doing it for PR. You're only doing it because you need the attention.

It's sick. And Americans have to stand up and say, no more. You have to at least, in your personal life, make a decision, what is life?

And what is death worth?

How Violent Mobs Took Over the Democratic Party — Expert's Warning!

Glenn Beck talks with Kyle Shideler, homeland security and counterterrorism expert at the Center for Security Policy, about the troubling rise in politically motivated physical attacks coming from the far-left. What truly unites all these groups which have seemingly interests, and what does the Trump administration do to eliminate this growing threat before the problem spirals out of control?

Watch This FULL Episode of Glenn TV HERE

Trump Just Uncovered a MUCH BIGGER Scandal than Russiagate | Glenn TV | Ep 450

For almost a decade, Glenn Beck has tried connecting the dots between Ukraine, Russiagate, the Open Society Foundations, and the weaponization of government under Obama and Biden. Recent revelations from the ODNI disclosure from Tulsi Gabbard and the Durham annex reveal a scandal that goes deeper than Russiagate to expose the full scope of the operation to take out President Trump. Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute and author of "Blood Money," reveals the depth of Hillary Clinton and George Soros' corruption and how it all ties into the Trump Ukraine impeachment. Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of the Federalist, discusses whether people like former CIA Director John Brennan or even Obama will face justice and what crimes the DOJ could charge them with.

Why Democrats SUDDENLY “care” about gerrymandering

What is gerrymandering? And why are Texas Democrats suddenly screaming about it while ironically fleeing to Illinois, the most gerrymandered state in the nation? Glenn Beck breaks down gerrymandering and why he believes the Texas Democrats don't really care about "justice."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to play a couple of sound bites that came out yesterday.

First of all, let me start here with cut seven. This is a state representative from Texas, Ron Reynolds. He went on CNN.

And said, he wasn't worried about anything that the State of Texas was -- was claiming to do to him, because they were fleeing the state. Because they're on the right side of history. Here's cut seven.

VOICE: I'm not worried about Governor Abbott's threats of going to jail, or a $500 fine, because we're standing on the right side of history, making our own trouble, to fight, to preserve, and protect our democracy. We're on the right side of history. We're not beholden to the MAGA extremists, that are trying to disenfranchise black and brown communities. We're doing everything we can, to protect Texans. And so we're not going to cower to Governor Abbott's attempts to put us into jail. This is worth our democracy. This is not just about Texas. As Dr. King said, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. This is about protecting our democracy.

Because if they can do it in Texas, they can do it anywhere else. So we're going to stand strong.

We're not going to back down. And we're going to keep pressing forward. To protect every single Texan. So they won't be disenfranchised.

We won't go back to the days of Jim Crow. We will stand up to racial gerrymandering.

GLENN: Okay. This is -- this is crazy.

There's so much there.

I mean, first of all, be really careful when you say you're on the right side of history.
I mean, I don't know about you, but I question all the time. And I think this is really healthy. Am I on the right side of history?

I don't know. I don't know what the answer. History will tell me the answer. Am I on the right side?

Am I -- am I fighting for the things that are right, correct, eternally true, and righteous?

I don't know. I mean, there is so many things that I go back and forth on, that I just don't know.

And I think that's really important to question yourself. So anybody, when they are firm on, you're on the right side of history. And we know. We don't question. We're on the right side of history.

Really? Because you were the ones with ESG. Forcing people to follow these rules like, you know, there's no difference between a man and a woman.

You know, men in women's sports.

Men can have a baby.

Really?

That's not working out well.

You know, that you're on the side that Dr. Martin Luther King was wrong.

That -- that the color of the skin does matter. That was your position. And you said, you were on the right side of history.

I don't think you're on the right side of history won that one. You know, it seems to be falling apart on you. Because now you're quoting Dr. Martin Luther King.

I thought we didn't -- we didn't agree with Dr. Martin Luther King.

I mean, that was your position, two years ago!

So when you're -- when you listen to anybody who says, they're on the right side of history. Be very, very careful.

You know, the one thing that I'm absolutely certain of. 100 percent certain of, is I'm not certain of anything.

The more I learn, the less certain I become, on certain things.

Right side of history, I don't know. I'm going to do my best. And let God sort it out, at the end.

I don't know. And then they say, if they can do this in Texas. If the Republicans can do this in Texas, they can do it anywhere.

They have been doing it everywhere, since 1812!

If you knew the history of gerrymandering, it comes from elder -- or Gerry Elbridge. Right? Gerry Elbridge, I think. Or Elbridge Gerry, that's it. Elbridge Gerry. He was a founding father. 1812, he is the governor, I think of Massachusetts. They start to draw these squiggly lines for the Congressional map. It's later, in the 1840s, called gerrymandering.

But that's how it started. They've been doing it forever. And the worst place, well, I'll get to that here in just a second.

So let me play the second clip here. And that is, on the Don Lemon show. Who knew he still had a show?

Another Texas state rep. Yolanda Jones said this, cut six.

VOICE: Then immigration happened, and everybody thought they accepted this. They don't accept this. They are showing us who they are.

We should believe them. And we better have the courage to stand up. Otherwise, we will follow for anything.

And in this country, we will be defeated, deported. I mean, we will lose all of our rights. And if you think it can't happen. It can. And I will liken this to the Holocaust.

People are like, well, how did the Holocaust happen?

How is anybody in the position to kill all these people?

Well, good people become silent.

Or good people didn't realize, that what happens to them, can very still happen to me and somebody I love.

And so even if you made it, you have an obligation to help people who can't. Because God forbid, they end up targeting you, and your family.

VOICE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Okay. I agree with everything she said, except what she's applying it to!

How is this the Jerry -- I mean, I think it's a little insulting to those who had relatives stuffed into ovens! To say, that gerrymandering is like the Holocaust!

But maybe that's just me!

But you know what this is all about?

This is all about when a group of people in the government, no longer believe in its own people!

When 57 elected Democrats from Texas, they didn't just walk out on their duties, they walked out on the people.

They fled the state to avoid voting on redistricting maps, they say, are unfair.

They say, they're standing up for democracy. But where did they run?

This tells you a lot in the story. Illinois. New York. Massachusetts.

The states, whose maps are textbook examples of political gerrymandering!

They ran to Massachusetts, where it was -- it was Elbridge Gerry, that gerrymandering is named after, he was the governor of Massachusetts!

They fled to the belly of the beast, while crying wolf back home. So the first thing you need to know, this is not about justice. This is about power. And they are betting that you are too distracted and your friends are too distracted or discouraged to notice.

So let me be clear on what is actually happening here.

GLENN: Okay. So the Department of Justice in Texas. This is what's really happening. They decided that the Texas congressional map violates the Voting Rights Act. Not because it eliminates minority representation. But because it doesn't create coalition districts where different racial groups are lumped together to form artificial minorities.

So what they're saying, in bureaucratic doublespeak is, Texas has to draw maps, that elect Democrats. That's the game.

This is not about race. It's about arithmetic. If a Republican map spreads voters to thin its race, but if a Democratic map does the same to Republicans, it's equity!

That's -- that's not -- that's not the law. That's manipulation. And our Founders talked about this. In Federalist Papers number ten, James Madison warned us of the dangers of factions. Organized groups that put their own interests above the public good, and that's what we're experiencing everywhere.

He said, let me quote: The instability, injustice, and confusion, introduced into the public councils, have been the mortal diseases which popular governments have everywhere perished, end quote.

That's what this is. This is a faction. A political machine. So drunk on power. That it can't even pretend to be consistent, anywhere.

They invoke democracy. And then they run away from their duty to vote. They wear shirts that say, let the people vote. While ignoring votes in New York, that ignore an independent redistricting commission.

This is the rot Madison warned us about. Faction over function. Power over principle.

So let's look at Illinois for a second.

In Illinois, they didn't try to just gerrymander there.

They eradicated the Republicans.

They drew a map, so surgical. So cynical.

That analysts have now said, this is the worst gerrymander in the country!

It's in Illinois.

Republicans, now. I want you to hear this.

Republicans now hold three out of 17 seats.

Okay.

Well, the voters spoke.

Well, did they?

They won over 40 percent of the vote.

40 percent of the vote!

But they only hold three out of 17 seats.

That's not representative.

That's gerrymandering!

And now, Texas Democrats, they're running for cover.

They're hiding behind the very injustice they claim to oppose.

They also don't recognize, that by millions, because of their policies. Millions of people have moved in to Texas.

Since the census.

There is no real representation of -- of the people. Because millions of people have moved in.

So what do we do?

Well, this is something I think you're going to hear me talk about a lot lately. Is look to the future. And rebuild.

First thing we have to do is expose the hypocrisy on this.

Not with shouting. But with actual facts.

You have to use your voice.

You have to first teach what gerrymandering is.

It's legal. Okay. I don't like it.

I wish -- I will do a beach blackboard today.

You know, I don't have a blackboard anywhere near my house. But I do have a beach near my house. And I was out explaining this to somebody the other day. And I just took a stick, and I wrote it out on the beach. And I'm going to do this today. Because there is a way to fix this.

But you have to share the map. You have to show the math. Because the truth still matters. We have to defend the Constitution. The tenth amendment. State sovereignty. It's not a throwaway line. Texas has the right to draw the maps without DC micromanagement. Okay? They can draw the maps the way they want to draw the maps. The same thing with Illinois. They can draw the maps the way they want.

It's not fair. I don't like it. But it is the law!

Then we have to call for local reforms. We have to have independent redistricting commissions, that actually mean something.

Not performative democracy.

But actual checks and balances. I don't know if you can get there.

But the more local we make this, the better!

See, you know, gerrymandering makes us more extreme.

Because they'll run a line of constituents through a neighborhood. One side of the street, because this group on this side of the street, votes for Democrats. And on the other side of the street, it's Republicans. They literally will run that line, through to gather up all of the Democrats on the street, and forget the Republicans.

So that means that that Congress person no longer has to moderate at all.

They don't -- they don't -- the more extreme they become, the better off!

Because they're only talking to their side.

When you gerrymander, which we have forever. Our Founders warned against it.

Because you're creating these factions. You're creating distance between each other, and you have to equip your neighbors on this.

If they don't understand this, walk them through it. Print the maps. Compare the numbers. Build an informed electorate.

That's what -- that's our job. That's our job. Nobody will do this for us. Don't look to the Republicans to do it. They will spin it their own way.

And the other way, is refuse to retreat.

If 57 lawmakers can run away from their posts, make sure everybody knows, you're not going to run away from yours. We stay. We vote.

We hold the line.

You know, this -- this whole thing. Everything we do today, everything. Everything in the news you see, this isn't about Epstein.

This isn't about redistricting. This isn't about immigrants. This is about the restoration of trust! Trust! All of it. Can you trust the people who are redesigning the maps?

No.

Why?

Because it's in their best interest to gerrymander.

Well, I'm only doing it because they're doing it.

Okay. Then maybe you do that, bit let's work towards stopping this. Let's -- let's work towards a system where we don't gerrymander. Okay? But that's only going to be solved at the state level, where it belongs. You know, America can't survive a political class that lies with one face, and governs with another. But it can survive if her people, the remnant of those who really understand America and understand our history. If we rise with open eyes, with strong backs. And hearts grounded in principle, when we realize, we're not powerless. We're not pawns.

We're the ones with power.

That's when everything will change.

And I will tell you, I think I said this earlier today.

I'm not sure where the storm is.

I know the storm is on the beach.

I know it's on shore.

I just don't know what part of the storm is on shore. I don't know if we're hitting the worst part of it yet.

I don't think so.

But I know it's onshore now.

We have to batten down the hatches, and then start, you know, piling supplies up. And I'm not talking about boards to board up the windows.

I'm talking about building up our supplies to rebuild. Because this storm is going to pass us.

And I don't know what the devastation is going to be like on the other side.

But, you know, just like Mercury One does.

We -- we put supplies, just outside of the storm's pattern.

Because we know, we've got to get them as close as we can, to where the storm is supposed to hit.

Without it being hit itself, so once the storm passes, we can push in, and we can rebuild fast.

When this storm is over, we're going to have trouble, if we're standing here with no supplies, nothing prepared.

To rebuild quickly.

Because that's when people will realize, there's nobody coming.

There is nobody going to rebuild.

There's no help.

If we're not there to help, that's when things get really nuts!

So I -- I just -- I'm very excited for next year.

And you'll understand a little more, you know, in the coming days and weeks of -- of why I'm not talking about it yet.

But I can't wait to get started. Because I just know what we have to do.

And that is something that I don't feel like I understood for a very long time. You know. I knew I was supposed to warn. But I always felt there was something more to do.

I think my mission has changed. I've been given a new calling.

And it's to rebuild!

Rebuild and rebuild right now.