A breakthrough in understanding how and why some cancer tumors are particularly aggressive and non-responsive to treatments has placed blame on breakaway strands of roguish DNA. The discovery implicates several documented forms of cancer, including of the breasts, lungs, and brain, and also offered hope for identifying and treating these tumors in future patients. The […] The post Study Raises Hopes of Treating Aggressive Cancers by Identifying Fragments of Rogue DNA appeared first on Good News Network.

Social media posts after the presidential election were abuzz about the disparity in the vote tally from 2020 to 2024.  Preliminary counts show President-elect Donald Trump with almost as many votes as he got in 2020, when he came up short in his reelection effort against Joe Biden. Trump appears to have 73.3 million votes now; in 2020, he won 74.2 million.  But Vice President Kamala Harris appears to have won about 12 million fewer votes than Biden did against Trump in 2020. Biden won 81.2 million votes in 2020; Harris so far has 69 million votes.  This prompted many on the left to claim that “Trump cheated,” while some on the right insisted the results prove that the 2020 election really was rigged. Harris’ vote total this time, they note, was in line with the totals for Democratic presidential nominees Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.  There is no reason to think a decline in Democrats’ voter turnout should raise a red flag, said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation.  “Turnout of voters can vary greatly from election to election, from race to race, and from state to state,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “In a typical national election, turnout in different states can also vary greatly. It depends entirely on the candidates, the issues, and the interest voters have in the candidates or the extent of their concern over issues like the economy. When they don’t like their choices, they don’t turn out.” It’s easier to register today and then vote than at any other time in recent history, he noted.   “There have been absolutely zero reports of anyone being kept from voting and certainly if 20 million people were somehow being kept from voting, that is not something you could keep secret,” von Spakovsky said.   With votes still being counted in several states, turnout for 2024 is on track to be about 62.25% of registered voters, with a total of 152.9 million voters, according to the Election Lab at the University of Florida. That would be down from a 66.38% turnout in 2020, when 159.7 million voters cast ballots. Who’s the election deniers now? Idiots talking about 20million missing votes. Thats because they never existed in the first place. People are literally brain dead. https://t.co/JraVo3YmfZ— Yates (@Jyates5) November 8, 2024 Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington are among states that tend to be slower at reaching a final count, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the UVA Center for Politics, a think tank at the University of Virginia.   “There could be 10 million votes that haven’t been counted,” Kondik told The Daily Signal.  However, he stressed this doesn’t “prove” anything.  “The 2020 election was the highest voter turnout in modern times. When you have a record-breaking election, the turnout in following years won’t always follow that record,” Kondik said.  “A lot of voters who voted for Biden in 2020 changed their vote to Trump in 2024. Or some didn’t vote. This doesn’t mean there was any voter suppression or voter fraud or anything nefarious. One candidate wins. That’s how it works.” Once all votes are tallied, Trump could have more votes than he received in 2020, or about the same. This is the first of three presidential elections where Trump won the popular vote as well as the Electoral College.  The 69 million votes tallied for Harris is more than Clinton’s 65.8 million votes in 2016 when she lost to Trump. It’s on par with Obama’s 69.4 million votes in 2008, and higher than Obama’s 65.9 million when he won a second term in 2012.  The COVID-19 pandemic was likely a key factor in driving up voter participation in 2020, since mail-in voting skyrocketed during the lockdowns, said Jacob Neiheisel, a professor of political science at the State University of New York at Buffalo who specializes in voter turnout.  He cautioned that the final vote tally isn’t yet known, and that more information will be clear after the release of the Cooperative Election Study, a Harvard analysis based on pre-election and post election surveys. “It seems like COVID may have just been an unusual year. Another likely culprit might include voter ambivalence or alienation,” Neiheisel told The Daily Signal in an email. “It is often the case that voters who don’t find much to like about either candidate will simply stay home on Election Day.” “Similarly,” he said, “those who feel like their party has ‘left them’ will often do the same, with the hopes of ‘punishing’ their party for not representing their preferred policy positions.” The post Why Kamala Harris Got So Many Fewer Votes Than Biden appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A federal court upheld four female high school track athletes’ challenge to a Connecticut policy allowing male participation in female sports. U.S. District Court Judge Robert N. Chatigny, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, ruled in favor of allowing the athletes’ case against the Connecticut Association of Schools to proceed, rejecting the request of state officials to dismiss it. The athletes—Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, Chelsea Mitchell, and Ashley Nicoletti—all say they lost races to male athletes identifying as female. The women argue allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports is unfair and violates federal Title IX, which protects female school sports by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. “Women’s rights matter,” Mitchell said in a statement to The Daily Signal. “I’m proud to fight for not just my rights, but also those of women athletes across the country who deserve to compete on a level playing field. I hope the court protects the integrity of women’s sports now and for the foreseeable future.” Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the women in Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools. “Selina, Chelsea, Alanna, and Ashley—like all female athletes—deserve access to fair competition,” Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Rachel Rouleau said in a statement. “The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s policy degraded each of their accomplishments and scarred their athletic records, irreparably harming each female athlete’s interest in accurate recognition of her athletic achievements.” The 2nd Circuit Court rightly rejected the state’s request to dismiss the case, according to Rouleau. “This ruling creates one fewer obstacle for high school girls to face as they pursue their athletic dreams,” she said. Track athlete Soule said she is encouraged by the court’s order allowing the case to continue. “Female athletes like myself deserve fairness and safety in our sports,” Soule said. “I hope the court will uphold common sense and Title IX’s guarantee that women’s sports stay just for women.” Almost three-quarters of voters say they believe medals awarded to biological men who beat females in sports should be given instead to the women who lost. Female athletes worldwide have lost nearly 900 medals to transgender-identifying rivals competing against them in women’s sporting categories, according to a United Nations report. President-elect Donald Trump has promised to “ban” transgender-identifying biological males from competing in women’s sports. “I’ve never met a person that came up to me and they say, ‘We want men to play in women’s sports,’” Trump said during his successful campaign. “Somehow, they’re pushing it. I’ve been doing this a long time, and I’ve been talking about this for a while, because I’m ending it. On Day One, I’m ending it.” The post Female Athletes Who Challenged Connecticut Trans Policy Score Win for Women’s Sports appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Misinformation and Disinformation (MAD) Bill was adopted by Australia’s House of Representatives earlier in the week and is now headed to the Senate for approval. While noted “censorship warrior” in the current Australian government, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland, as well as others behind the push to get this and similar legislation through parliament, praises it as a way to at once preserve democratic processes, and hold tech companies to task – opponents are slamming it as “Orwellian.” This criticism is tied to MAD and other moves of this kind undermining online users’ privacy and free speech in new, more dangerous ways, and a debate around this has been raging between rights advocates and opposition politicians, and representatives of the authorities. An MP, Keith Pitt, was the one who slammed the draft bill as moving the country in the direction of “an Orwellian surveillance state.” Under the proposed law, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will oversee “monitoring” how online platforms are dealing with what is decided to be treated as “misinformation.” One of the envisaged requirements of compliance is for the tech companies to retain records of this alleged activity happening on their platforms. The concern expressed by Pitt and other opponents is that while declaratively pushing back against online misinformation, the bill gives this, or any future government, room for abuse, “1984”-style, where political dissent rather than false content, will suffer. But interestingly, this MP at the same time doesn’t see as another “Orwellian” step the unmasking (and therefore exposure to the will and whim of the government) of all internet users. Namely, Pitt has endorsed the idea of social media identity verification as a “better” way to deal with misinformation and other true or perceived online harms and wouldn’t mind forcing internet users to reveal their real identities (via a new brand of “verified accounts”) before being allowed to post online. This is just another episode showing confusion and controversy accompanying Australia’s ongoing shift toward censorship and mass surveillance. That includes age verification proposals, but also what many see as impending moves to usher a digital ID system in the country. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Critics Slam Australia’s “MAD” Censorship Bill as a Major Threat to Free Speech appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Among the investigations currently carried out by the US House Committee on the Judiciary and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is the one into a case involving UK-based “censorship group” – the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). In a letter dated November 7, Committee chairman Jim Jordan is asking CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed to, by November 21, comply with a subpoena issued on August 30, 2023. We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. According to Jordan, it covers the group’s activities as well, including documents showing the Biden-Harris administration’s alleged collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans’ lawful online speech. Another point the letter makes is the plan to “kill Musk’s Twitter” – which communications recently revealed suggest was being hatched by CCDH. And Jordan reminds Ahmed that this, too, is with the subpoena’s scope. On August 3, 2023, the Committee asked CCDH to present it with communications it had had with the US government as well as third parties regarding “moderation of online content” – and what role the government played in this (by exerting pressure on social platforms). The letter then cites internal CCDH documents that recently came to light – particularly emails that show “killing Musk’s Twitter” was made a priority for the group this year. Prior to that, the letter notes, CCDH in 2020 communicated with Twitter – then under its previous ownership – to identify content and accounts that should be censored, while earlier this year, CCDH “held a private event tat included (US) Executive Branch personnel.” Last month, UK media reported about CCDH’s effort against X, as well as a formal request from then presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign suggesting the ruling Labour party was essentially interfering in US elections. Not only were Labour advisers dispatched to the US to help Kamala Harris’ effort to remain in the White House – it was also revealed that CCDH has ties to UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer’s party. Namely, Paul Thacker and Matt Taibbi’s Disinformation Chronicle named Stramer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney as the (co) founder of CCDH. And it just so happened that “strengthening ties with senior Democrats” features as one of the controversial group’s priorities, right along with, “killing Musk’s Twitter.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post US Lawmakers Investigate Biden White House-Affiliated UK Censorship Group’s Plot To “Kill” Elon Musk’s X appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Trump Serious About Relying on Elon And the Dream Team

On her Thursday show, MSNBC’s Alex Wagner decried the fact that when women get married, their support for Republicans goes up. Not only that, Wagner claimed that such voting patterns show a disregard for “their black and brown sisters,” whose lives are supposedly threatened by the GOP. Wagner lamented to CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Maya Wiley, “I want for a moment to, like, just, for a moment, talk about this loss of allyship in a very desperate time, that not only were white non-college educated women voting for Trump and against Harris, they were voting against the interest of their black and brown sisters in parts of the country where their lives are in danger, but, whether because of healthcare deserts, abortion deserts, or any other factors, and it’s a phenomenon that happens increasingly as women get married, and I wonder, you know, the plight of black and brown women in this country extends well past the fortunes of Kamala Harris.”     She then turned to a recent piece in the New York Times and quoted Wiley, “Not only have black women always been on the menu, but they have been eating us, and it has been happening for generations, and what this represents for black women right now is it has deepened and been given significantly more permission.” Before anyone could ask what on earth “Eating us” means, Wagner continued, “How should people of color, women of color, women, how should we think about this moment and what lessons should be drawn from it, given how, I think, demoralizing it is in the cause of equity and equality and just justice?” An exasperated Wiley replied, “You know, the thing about black women,” before pausing for an equally exasperated Wagner to plead, “Yes, please tell me, Maya.” Wiley then got around to answering, “Black women show up all the time for what is right for people, for families, for communities, black women showed up for women's suffrage when we knew we would still have to fight for our own, if white women won that suffrage, we still showed up. This is, it is a pattern of history and we’re going to keep showing up, but I think this is the point, we keep trying to model that we're all in this together.” She continued, “That, you know, if we going to bleed out in a parking lot, you're going to bleed out in a parking lot, if we can't take care of our children, you can't take care of your children. If we have to leave our—accept we’re more often in the category of worrying about whether our children are actually going to survive, worrying if we are going to survive pregnancy, but no matter what our differences, at the end of the day, we are constantly working on coalition.” What greatly annoys MSNBC is that marriage and having a family could change a woman's political priorities or perspective on certain things and lead her to conclude she doesn't need the Democratic Party to protect her. Here is a transcript for the November 7 show: MSNBC Alex Wagner Tonight 11/7/2024 9:46 PM ET ALEX WAGNER: I want for a moment to, like, just, for a moment, talk about this loss of allyship in a very desperate time, that not only were white non-college educated women voting for Trump and against Harris, they were voting against the interest of their black and brown sisters in parts of the country where their lives are in danger, but, whether because of healthcare deserts, abortion deserts, or any other factors, and it’s a phenomenon that happens increasingly as women get married, and I wonder, you know, the plight of black and brown women in this country extends well past the fortunes of Kamala Harris. And you’re quoted in a really important piece in the New York Times and I’ll read you your quote back, not that you need me to, “Not only have black women always been on the menu, but they have been eating us, and it has been happening for generations, and what this represents for black women right now is it has deepened and been given significantly more permission.” How should people of color, women of color, women, how should we think about this moment and what lessons should be drawn from it, given how, I think, demoralizing it is in the cause of equity and equality and just justice? MAYA WILEY: You know, the thing about black women. WAGNER: Yes, please tell me, Maya. WILEY: And Shannon knows this well too and is an incredible ally. Black women show up all the time for what is right for people, for families, for communities, black women showed up for women's suffrage when we knew we would still have to fight for our own, if white women won that suffrage, we still showed up. This is, it is a pattern of history and we’re going to keep showing up, but I think this is the point, we keep trying to model that we're all in this together.  WAGNER: Yeah. WILEY: That, you know, if we going to bleed out in a parking lot, you're going to bleed out in a parking lot, if we can't take care of our children, you can't take care of your children. If we have to leave our—accept we’re more often in the category of worrying about whether our children are actually going to survive, worrying if we are going to survive pregnancy, but no matter what our differences, at the end of the day, we are constantly working on coalition.

President-elect Donald Trump achieved a massive victory in Texas, beating Kamala Harris by over 1.56 million votes for a decisive 56.3% to 42.4% finish. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz (R) handily beat Colin Allred 50.4% to 42.2% while other Republicans secured 25 U.S. House seats and flipped two seats in the state House. Texas Democratic Party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa faced enormous backlash this week for suggesting that a contributing factor to his party's humiliating defeat was its obsession with gender ideology. Evidently unable to weather the storm, Hinojosa announced his resignation Friday. Hinojosa, who has led the Texas Democratic Party for 12 years, told the Texas Newsroom Wednesday that Trump's promise to institute mass deportations and limit legal immigration resonated with voters across the beleaguered state, highlighting Trump's successes in every single county in the Rio Grande Valley and elsewhere across South Texas. "Why do you think that Trump did so well with Hispanics? Because Hispanics live on the border," said Hinojosa. "We're talking about thousands of people crossing into the United States, and the government [under Joe Biden] is perceived not to be able to do anything to solve it." 'You have a choice as a party.' The network exit poll conducted by Edison Research found that 14% of respondents said immigration was the most important issue motivating their vote. 90% of those who signaled as much voted for Trump. Of the 26% of respondents who identified as Hispanic, 55% said they voted for Trump. While concerns over the border crisis certainly helped turn former blue areas on the map red, Hinojosa recognized that Democrats' desperation to pander to transvestites and gender ideologues likely alienated some voters. "You have a choice as a party," said the former chairman. "You could, for example, you can support transgender rights up and down all the categories where the issue comes up, or you can understand that there's certain things that we just go too far on, that a big bulk of our population does not support." The Texas Democratic Party's losing 2024 platform calls for: "LGBTQIA+ inclusive" sex education programs; sex-change "medical care" and other accommodations for transvestites in prison; the immediate passage and enactment of the Equality Act by Congress, which would add "gender identity" to federal nondiscrimination law and enable men to compete in women's sports; the affirmation that male transvestites are women, that female transvestites are men, and "that there are more than two genders"; protections for drag shows; keeping parents in the dark about signs of kids' gender dysphoria at school; and keeping sex-change drugs and mutilations available for confused Texans. It was no secret ahead of the election that Democrats' LGBT activism and views on transvestism were outside the mainstream of public opinion. According to a Manhattan Institute poll conducted in late June, 74% of all likely voters, 76% of independents, 95% of Republicans, and 37% of Democrats indicated that transvestic athletes should play on sports teams with other members of their sex. 'It is time to do the right thing.' When asked whether schools should be required to inform parents if their children use incorrect pronouns at school, 67% of likely voters said, "Yes." An overwhelming 69% of likely voters said that children who claim to be "transgender" should not be allowed to receive sex-change treatments before the age of 18. When asked about sterilizing puberty blockers, 76% of respondents said that minors under the age of 18 "are not old enough to consent to puberty blocking treatments." 82% of respondents said minors are not old enough to consent to sex-change mutilations. Hinojosa appears to have been right, which made him wrong for the Texas Democratic Party. The Texas-based political action committee Mothers Against Greg Abbott was among the radical groups that demanded his immediate resignation. Just prior to attacking white women, claiming they "always disappoint," the PAC tweeted, "Today we call on every single Texas County Democratic Chair, union and Grassroots organization to ask for the resignation of our Party Leadership. It is time to do the right thing." The Stonewall Democrats of Dallas said in a statement obtained by WFAA-TV, "Blaming members of the LGBTQ+ community — particularly trans Texans who already face disproportionate discrimination and hostility — is deeply irresponsible and counterproductive." "The Texas Democratic Party should be a safe haven for all marginalized groups and should champion inclusion," added the LGBT activist group. The Houston LGBTQ+ Political Caucus noted Thursday, "Hey @HinojosaTX, hate is not a Texas value, and it shouldn't be a value of @texasdemocrats. Throwing blame on Trans people is disgustingly demonstrative at worst, and a disingenuous excuse at best." Hinojosa soon found himself in a struggle session on social media, backpedaling in vain. "I extend my sincerest apologies to those I hurt with my comments today. I recognize the pain and frustration my words have caused," said Hinojosa. "In frustration over the GOP's lies to incite hate for trans communities, I failed to communicate my thoughts with care and clarity." On Friday, Hinojosa announced he was stepping down. "In the days and weeks to come, it is imperative that our Democratic leaders across the country reevaluate what is best for our party and embrace the next generation of leaders to take us through the next four years of Trump and win back seats up and down the ballot," wrote Hinojosa. "That is why today I'm announcing that I'll be stepping aside in the new year at the Spring SDEC meeting in March 2025, and passing the torch to the next generation. While this was a hard decision, it is the best decision for our party." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Comedian Andrew Schulz says he thinks Donald Trump's appearances on podcasts helped him build a connection with voters that drove them to the polling stations.Schulz was speaking with co-host Akaash Singh on his podcast "Flagrant" when he began discussing the now-limited reach of mainstream media."Was Kamala [Harris] so bad that even with the influence of legacy media they couldn't get [her] over the hump? For example, if Michelle [Obama] was running or if Barack was running with legacy media in its current state, I think they might be able to still get it over," Schulz speculated.Schulz then blamed legacy media for convincing Americans that "up until election night" the presidential election was a close race."[It's] legacy media that is constantly pushing narratives that not only is it close, 'she might be ahead! Iowa's going to her; she's going to flip all the [swing states]; it's going to be an absolute mauling,' right? That is legacy media pushing a narrative and people believing said narrative."'It wasn't exactly the free-form speech that we're kind of used to.'Schulz then went into detail on how Trump, much like popular comedians with podcasts, was able to create an emotional connection with audience members who were then inspired to go out and support him."If you look at the biggest touring stand-up comedians in the world, they all have podcasts where they've built this amazing community and connection, and we talk to people every single week," Schulz outlined. "They know intimate details about our life. To me what that's proven is that just because people are famous doesn't mean you go out; connection is actually what makes people go out."It was that connection with Americans that Schulz explained he felt Vice President Kamala Harris didn't have. She appeared on some podcasts that were more like "short, very contrived interviews.""It was very controlled. It was things edited out. It wasn't exactly the free-form speech that we're kind of used to," the comedian claimed.Trump appeared on the "Flagrant" podcast about a month before the election, along with other podcasts with Joe Rogan and Theo Von.Harris' biggest podcast appearance was on the "Call Her Daddy" podcast, which predominantly focuses on promiscuity and college life. She later appeared on "Club Shay Shay," a podcast with former NFL player Shannon Sharpe. That appearance did not even crack the show's top 50 most viewed episodes, however.Schulz went on to point out that podcasts are about connecting people, while legacy media is about selling "depression pills" from sponsors.The comedian added that voters came out to support Trump because of the "connection" and that people voted for President Biden in 2020 because they didn't have to leave the house.After Trump's appearance on his podcast, Schulz had a large arena cancel his gig, claiming he was not "the right fit" for the venue.At the same time, Trump's podcast circuit likely bolstered his status with young men, who voted for Trump in larger numbers than in 2020. Trump garnered 56% of the 2024 vote with men ages 18-29.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In the wake of Donald Trump’s historic victory over Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, the New York Times released an op-ed titled “‘Trump’s America’: His Comeback Victory Signals a Different Kind of Country.” It’s one of many calumnious pieces the news outlet, and others like it, have published since Trump’s victory was solidified in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Despite its defamatory nature, the article captures what the left is genuinely feeling at this moment in time. Glenn Beck reads the closing statements from author Peter Baker. Two things are abundantly clear: Liberals are genuinely terrified of Donald Trump, and their anti-Trump narrative will not die easily. “The assumption that Mr. Trump represented an anomaly who would at last be consigned to the ash heap of history was washed away Tuesday night by a red current that swept through the battleground states and swept away the understanding of America long nurtured by its ruling elite of both parties. No longer can the political establishment write off Mr. Trump as a temporary break from the long march of progress,” Glenn reads from the op-ed. The piece went on to belabor the left’s anti-Trump narrative, lamenting America’s decision to elect "a convicted criminal as president” and hand "power back to a leader who tried to overturn a previous election, called for the termination of the Constitution and aspired to be a dictator on day one, and vowed to exact retribution against his adversaries.” Baker also demonized the millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump, claiming that they brushed aside Trump’s “lies” and “wild conspiracy theories” and embraced him as “a victim of persecution” instead of “[dismissing] him as a felon found by various courts to be a fraudster, cheater, sexual abuser, and defamer.” Baker called the election “a CAT scan on the American people.” “As difficult as it is to say, as hard as it is to name, what it revealed, at least in part, is a frightening affinity for a man of borderless corruption,” he wrote. Perhaps most disturbing, however, was Baker’s claim that Trump conditioned "Americans throughout this campaign to see American democracy as a failed experiment.” “A victory for Trump would mean that this vision of America, and the recourse to violence as a means of solving political problems, has triumphed,” Baker declared. Baker’s article captures the way liberal voters are feeling about Donald Trump’s victory. They genuinely believe that he is an evil tyrant who will destroy this country, and they are sickened that this was America’s choice. They feel the same way Trump voters would feel if Harris had won the election — disheartened and scared. But Glenn has a message for these people. “I do believe it comes from a misunderstanding of what our country is,” he says. “They're looking at our country the way Woodrow Wilson defined it, and that is an administrative state,” but “what is in the American soul is something entirely different.” “Who are we? What is it that we fight for?” Glenn asks. “We see America more in the tradition of the Founding Fathers,” and “we believe that the American spirit is a force that inspires dreams; it also has fueled revolutions; it's also driven some of the greatest innovations and achievements the world has ever seen. ... We believe in the American individual,” says Glenn. And to the liberals who would argue that they also believe in these things, Glenn says, “I don't think you do because you want somebody to tell all of the individuals exactly what they must believe, what they must live, what they must eat, what they must drive, what they must teach their children.” “We don’t believe that,” he says. Glenn then explains how the founding of our country was only possible because the American spirit that longed for true freedom was stronger than the will of tyrants. “They don't determine our destiny — we do!” he proclaims, defining the American spirit and calling it “something that transcends race and religion or class.” “We are exceptional because the rest of the world has been told ‘shut up and sit down.’ ... What makes us exceptional is that we say, ‘Who are you to tell me that? You don't control my life; you don't control my vision; you don't control my every movement,”’ Glenn exclaims. “Our founders knew that governments left unchecked would accumulate power at the expense of the individual. We have been on this road that you in the New York Times may say is traditional,” “accepted,” and just “the way we are,” but “that is a perversion,” he says, pointing to 1916 as the time when the train tracks switched and America adopted the idea that “man cannot rule himself.” But to believe that is to admit that “you don’t understand who Americans are.” To hear more of Glenn’s epic speech, check out the clip above. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.