Glenn Beck (23:51)
He's a genius. I mean, that just seems like Stephen Miller because that thing was so well executed. He set them up. He just set them up and they walked right into the trap. And. And then he didn't have to say anything when he asked that question, you know, stand up. Stand up if you agree with this. He didn't. He didn't say, you know, you have to agree. He gave them the opportunity. Stand up on the easiest question in the world. Stand up if you believe that the government of the US Serves US Citizens over illegal aliens. Didn't stand. And what did he do? Do you remember? He just stood back, smiled and gestured like, look, America, look. He did that twice, smiling. Look. It was brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Just brilliant. And J.D. vance had to be sitting there going, don't, don't, don't. Look, don't, don't, don't do anything. Don't do anything. Let that moment sit by itself. And it did. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for. Listen, let me explain the standing filibuster. Let me start at the beginning. If you want to know how America and the filibuster is supposed to work, all you need to do really is watch Mr. Smith goes to Washington, okay? Remember Jimmy Stewart? He was standing at the table, just a glass of water, stack of papers and the weight of his convictions. He, in that movie, he was a man all alone, and he was willing to lose it all. That's key. This is the original filibuster. Not a trick, not a procedural ghost, not a backroom email that says, hey, we're blocking this. A man standing, speaking, burning daylight and paying a price. So what does filibuster mean? What does the word filibuster buster mean? It actually comes, it's from the Dutch, and it's like virgin pewter or something like that. And it basically means pirate. It's a free booter, okay? Somebody who seizes control. That's what filibuster means. Someone who can seize control. Early in our history in the United States Senate, that's what it meant. There was no formal filibuster rule at all. 1806, at the urging of Vice President Aaron Burr, the Senate removed its previous question motion. That was the rule that allowed a simple majority just to cut off debate. And it was considered redundant. Why? Because the guy old timey. This is because the Senate was so small, they just knew gentlemen would restrain themselves. They just assumed honor. Well, history has a way of challenging assumptions, doesn't it? So for decades, they put the filibuster in. And it was very, very rare. It was dramatic when it happened. It was the last stand. It was a warning Fl. It was somebody who said, no, this is wrong and the people need to know it. What is the reason we have the checks and balances? Why do we have our Congress and our Senate and everything set up the way it is? One of the reasons is to slow things down because people get passionate and they make stupid Patriot act come to mind. You make stupid moves when you are heated and in the moment. So everything is built to slow things down. Filibuster was one of those things. If there was something passing a group of people or one guy could stand up, but he had to stand and he had to speak the whole time 1917 comes along, guess who was president at the time? Woodrow Wilson. I telling you, everything crappy about this company, this country, came from the Woodrow Wilson period or his acolytes. So they were. There were. There was a small group of two people, both progressives. One was defoliate. What was his name? Robert, I think from Wisconsin. He is like a godfather of progressivism. Okay. And two progressives stood up because Wilson wanted to now arm merchant marine ships because war was coming. And so we were sending stuff over in the over, and he's like, we have to have. We have to have cannons on these ships so they can defend themselves. Two progressives actually stood up and went, no. That that's a prelude to war. We'll be at what you do that. We will be at war. And they said no. And so they started a filibuster. Well, that just pissed Woodrow Wilson off. How dare you stand against me? And so he told the Senate, you need a new rule. And so this is when that stupid word that nobody knows what it means, cloture, came to play. Okay? It was Rule 22 and it ruled that cloture meant that a super majority could end debate. Okay? It require a super majority to end debate. At first it was 2/3. In 1975, that was lowered to 3/5, 60 votes. So if you still wanted to stop something, you still had to stand there, you had to speak and the whole country could see you again. Think of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Jimmy Stewart standing there, horse trembling, you know, collapsing under the weight of corruption and exhaustion, reading from the Constitution, from the phone book, from the soul of the Republic. But he had to stand there and speak. That scene is part of our bloodstream because it captures something really essential. If you believe enough, if you believe something is really wrong, then you must be willing to stand up, up and pay a price. And that may just be enduring, you know, enduring days and days of standing up and speaking. Okay? The filibuster was not meant to be easy. It was meant to be costly because separates the serious from just the political. It's costly in time, it's costly in stamina, and it is costly in political capital. If you don't believe it, you're not going to do it. And it forces whoever wants to stop things to prove that they're serious. But in 1970, things changed. Why? Well, the Senate adopted something called a two track system. And instead of grinding everything to a halt while a senator spoke, the chamber could set aside the bill and move on with other businesses. It's efficient, okay? And it was. The two track system solved the problem they were trying to solve, which was paralysis of the entire chamber. Okay? What was happening was because of fdr, another progressive, they had grown the administration's administrative state so large, Congress and the Senate still had to pass the laws, the rules for the administrative state. This is before they gave that up. And so they had all of these things they had to do. And so filibusters would start popping up and people would stand up and they're like, we have so much we have to do. We can't stand here with this anymore. Okay? So here's what happened. They created another problem. It turned the filibuster from a rare act of physical resistance into just a routine procedural veto before there were two track filibusters. The filibuster was exhausting and therefore scarce. And it cost the people. You had to believe it. So think of this. Why is. Why are people like me saying, enforce the standing filibuster on these guys? Why? Because we know it will cost them just like the State of the Union cost them. They are going to be arguing against 80% of America, 71% of their own constituents believe in the Save America Act. It's wildly popular. One of the most popular unifying things I have seen come through Congress in 20 years. And it will require them to pay the price with Their own constituents. If you really believe that, go ahead, stand there. Tell the American people while you're. Why you're shutting down the business of this government, the business of the people, to do something the people are against. That's the price. But once you take that price away, it's effortless. You can obstruct anything you want. The real breaking point was not one speech, not one villain. It was the overload of the institution. 1806, the Senate could afford endless debate. 1970, Vietnam, civil rights, Cold War, sprawling administrative state. It could not afford any time. Efficiency became the priority. Deliberation became negotiable. Notice we don't even read the bills anymore. This is just slid into hell. In trying to prevent the paralysis the senator, the Senate made paralysis easier because when obstruction no longer requires stamina, it no longer requires effort, it no longer even requires conviction. It only requires strategy. And strategy is always cheaper than sacrifice. And that was the pivot point in America. History is full of institutions that were destroyed by bad intentions. But sometimes, you know, in the name of practicality, really bad things happen. And this is one of those things. So it creates the modern zombie filibuster. What is that? That's what Mike Lee and everybody else is saying we must end. Not the filibuster, the zombie filibuster, where a senator doesn't have to stand, they don't have to speak, they don't have to read the phone book, they don't even have to make a case. They just have to signal an intent to filibuster, and then that bill can't come back to the floor without 60 votes to proceed. That's unreasonable, absolutely unreasonable, because it doesn't require any sweat. There's no spectacle, there's no accountability, and the pirate is now a phantom. So here's the key question. If you require your elected senator to stand and talk and defend, why he wants to obstruct something, especially this popular, are you really weakening the filibuster? No. No, you are not senators. You are restoring it. You are restoring responsibility. You're restoring the demand that you actually believe in something, because the American people do. Returning to a talking filibuster does not change the cloture threshold. It does not abolish minority rights. It does not alter the law or the rule. It changes the burden. Under the zombie filibuster, the majority must muster 60 votes automatically. Under the standing filibuster, the minority just has to continuously hold the floor. That's not destroying the filibuster. That's demanding conviction. Period. The zombie filibuster flips the entire Constitution on its head. The framers designed a Senate to cool the passions. They were the saucer to the House's hot teapot. But they did not design paralysis by default. Congress requires super majorities in very specific cases. Treaties, impeachments, constitutional amendments. But ordinary legislation majorities rule. The filibuster evolved as a tool of extended debate, not as a permanent 60 vote requirement for everything. You can't get anything done. And when the minority can silently raise the threshold to 60 without lifting a few finger, without standing there and saying this is why it's important, you have not preserved deliberation. You have institutionalized gridlock. You know, accountability is everything. Everything. Why would you oppose a zombie filibuster? Accountability matters. If you're willing to halt the nation's business, you should be willing to stand in the well of the Senate and explain to the American people why hour after hour, day after day, look into the camera. Let the American people decide whether your stand is heroic or absurd. The talking filibuster forces sunlight. The zombie filibuster thrives in the darkness. When senators no longer have to fight physically for their objections, they object more often. Wouldn't you? The cost drops, the usage skyrockets. The Senate becomes a graveyard of legislation. Not because ideas were defeated, but because no one had to sweat. A talking filibuster disciplines both sides. The majority must listen. The majority must. The minority must endure. That tension is healthy. It's constitutional muscle. So it doesn't change laws. It changes behavior. Period. It means fewer automatic 60 vote hurdles. It would mean only the most serious objections turn into full fledged filibusters. It would mean that when a bill dies, it dies in public. And we all should know where you stood and who stood and what you stood for. The Senate calls itself the world's greatest deliberative body. Well, deliberation requires a voice. Not emails. Not procedural threats. Voices. Period. Stop playing the game, Senators. We know the truth. Stop playing the game. Do what America is demanding on both sides in overwhelming numbers. What you pass. Have the balls to stand up for something you actually believe in.
