December 18, 2025 • 40 mins
Republicans had the votes. They had the authority. And they still walked away. In today’s show, Todd Huff breaks down Indiana Republicans’ refusal to redistrict—and why that decision could prove catastrophic for conservatives nationwide. While Democrats openly prepare to redraw maps in states they control, GOP leadership once again chooses restraint, optics, and moral posturing over victory. Todd reacts to statements from Indiana lawmakers, examines the flawed arguments against mid-cycle redistricting, and explains why “playing fair” in a political cold civil war guarantees defeat. This episode is a blunt warning: when conservatives refuse to use lawful power, the left never hesitates—and the consequences are real.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Attention. You're listening to the Todd Huff Show, America's home
for conservative not bitter talk and education. Be advised. The
content of this program has been talkumented to prevents and
even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lean
to the right. And now, coming to you from the
(00:29):
full suite Wealth Studios, here is your conservative but not
bitter host, Todd Huff.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
All right, my friends, if you've listened to this program
every day, as of course you should, you would have
heard my interview with Lieutenant Governor of Indiana, Michael beck
With on Monday, and you would have heard Mica somewhere
during that interview make a comment that he predicted within
the next six months or so that Marylandmocrat run blue
(01:01):
Maryland would be redistricting in spite of reports that Indiana
State Senate pro Tim rod Bray, my senator by the way,
who has not gotten back with me still, and that's
just those are the facts. I don't expect it at
this point. I've made my decision on on Rod, and.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
We won't listen.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
We need we need leadership, and we need representatives senators
that don't that that respect their constituents respond to them.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
I did. I did see.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
In fairness to Rod, he did sit down for an
interview with the local publication. Kudos for seeing that happen,
well for making time for that. Now that, of course,
the vote is over and there's no I mean, the
issues over and done, with not much to do as
far as address people concerns, have a dialogue during the
(02:02):
actual during the actual vote. Again another poor sign of
I don't mean to pile on. I mean, he's a
public official. This is just the way that it is.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
It reminds me of Todd Young.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
In fact, I actually dug up the email. I dug
up the email that I had had email exchange I
had with Todd Young's office. I'll read that to you.
It's five years old now anyway. But apparently there was
a deal struck between Rod Bray or at least discussions
and agreements that Maryland would not be redistricting, although there
(02:40):
was not a formal agreement. We don't really know what
was happening, but that that appears to not be the case. Mike,
I said it might take you six months down the line.
Here we are not even six days down the line,
and it appears that that is going to happen. At
least Maryland's going to continue to push for that, and
it's remarkable. I'll want well listen for those of you
(03:01):
in this state who were in favor of Indiana or
I should say, opposed to Indiana redistricting. I hope your
voices are allowed, as allowed to try to persuade Maryland
not to I hope yours morally outraged at whatever you
think is some fundamental, basic truth that state legislators can't
adjust these maps. Again, I'm remarkably consistent on this. Maryland
(03:24):
can do this. I hope they don't.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
I'm not in Maryland.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
There's little to nothing that I can do about that.
It's just it's crazy to me. The catastrophic leadership and
the inability to carry out a victory for the Republican
Party is my numbing to me. It is it's my
numbing to me, and it's it's like it's like having this.
I coached my last I coached my last, maybe my
(03:52):
last little league basketball game last night. My daughter, our
youngest daughter, is sixth grade. She played her last game,
and you know, we we won the game, we won
the championship. In fact, we've we've done pretty well we've
gone undefeated in that league for two years or in
three seasons that we lost our our first game of
(04:14):
the season three seasons ago, and we've won every game
since since then. We've you know, they've all gotten better.
It's it's it's a lot of fun. And of course
there's a time, you know, we we we've we've gotten
to we were we were pretty decent, and you know,
I wanted to jump out get ahead. You have to
(04:35):
sit each player acorder and all that, and of course
I wasn't trying to run the score up ever on anybody.
But until you get ahead, you have to you have
to play to win. You got to put the pedal
to the medal. You got to go out there with
some intensity. Can't be happy with a two point lead.
If you could have a fifteen point lead, and then
of course we would adjust and not try to run
(04:58):
the score up.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
But there's there's no and just focusing.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
On on all of that. You want to win first.
And it's like Republicans, they just don't want to win.
I don't understand it. They allow themselves to be framed
by the rules, the framework that the left uses to
hold the conservatives and Republicans accountable while the left can
(05:21):
do whatever they want.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
And nobody said the left can murder babies. I just
I it is beyond me.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
To think that, to think that this is where our
leadership has gotten us, it's pathetic. I mean, you literally
can't make the case in many case, in many instances,
you can't make the case that we shouldn't be killing
unborn human life, or take your pick, that we don't
have the political prerogative to redistrict in Indiana. You can't
(05:49):
win those fights. I don't you don't want to win
at some point, or you only want to win by
a couple points instead of winning by twenty, let's win
by one point. That that's fair based on what I
don't understand these people.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
I don't I and it is. It's catastrophic.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
It is potentially catastrophic anyway for the Republican Party, for
the conservative movement. And I want to talk about that today,
my friends. Maybe you've reached that stage where manning your money,
managing your money I can talk here feels more like
juggling than it does with just dealing with pure numbers.
(06:30):
There's tax planning, a state work investment choices, a whole
lot more. That's where Family Office Services can really make
a difference. Full Sweet Wealth brings all those pieces together
into one cohesive strategy. Their Family Office Services gives you
access to a coordinated team with advanced option strategies, private equity,
private credit, legal expertise, all those things under one roof.
(06:51):
It's about simplifying your financial life, planning for the future,
making sure your legacy stays strong for generations. Are you
ready for that next level of support. If so, visit
full sweet wealth dot com. That's full sweet wealth dot com.
Build your legacy, secure your future. All right, So let's
get to this article here, this article here in CNN.
(07:16):
To let you know that I'm not making this. I'm
not making this up. Here we go, Micah, actually Micah,
Lieutenant Governor Beck was sent this to me late last night.
Democrats headline, Democrat listen.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
This, this is.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
This thing about the different ways that this is presented
by the media when it was happening in Indiana. This
was an assault on the democracy. This was evil. This
got me when I spoke at the State House. I
still get humored by this. Besides being hissed at, which
was a first for me, being hissed at by someone
(07:57):
who presented herself as an adult woman minus the hissing.
The hissing made her look like something other than an
adult woman. But she was hissing, and that was part
of what was going on there in the state House.
That was the height of the argument against it. I
guess there was also a lot of chanting. Nazi fascist
(08:19):
cheater was the biggest one. I still have not had
a single person. The invitation is open. If I had money,
I guess I would give you a financial reward. It's
not let me disclaim that clearly there is no financial reward.
But if I did have money, I suppose I could
say there's a financial reward if you can do it.
I don't know how else to motivate people to tell
me how it's cheating. Tell me how it's cheating. And
(08:42):
you would do that like this, Todd, it is cheating
because and then you would say why it's cheating. You
would follow that with an explanation, And if you really
are forward thinking, you would think, Okay, I anticipate this
objection or response, so then I'll address that even right,
So I'll say it's cheating because of this, and then
I'll dig deeper to explain whatever to respond to the
(09:06):
the likely standard response to say, and this is why
your standard response doesn't apply to the situation.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And it's cheating.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I've got nothing, I haven't had anything close to that.
But they chanted cheater. They chanted it loud and proud
up there in the balcony in the nosebleed section of
the Capitol building that day. Which whatever I think, what
you will. This is from a few days ago. Democrats
celebrated Indiana Republicans refusing to redistrict. They're still moving ahead
(09:37):
with their own push written by a couple. I never
understood why you need a couple of authors or a
journalist to write these things.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
I guess they've got a callude.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
This is collusion now, I guess Sarah Ferris and Ethan
Cohen here.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
One day after Indiana.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Republicans decided to forego political gains by rejecting a new
US House map, Key Democrats made clear Friday they would
still aim to read district in states their party controls.
This literally, the the ink hadn't dried on the bill
that Indiana Republicans shot down in the in the Indiana
State House, and yet they the the deal and again
(10:17):
there are reports and I'm going to go, where's that report.
I've got it in my stack. My stack is stuff.
There were reports where it was reported that the Senate
pro tim in Indiana, the leader of the Senate, Rod
brag and my senator, who still hasn't responded to me.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
I don't expect him to.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
I've I said off the top, I've made my decision
on Rod Bray. We are going to be firmly in
opposition to him. I had a good friend, some people
that I respect, telling me, you know how great of
a guy Rod was or is yesterday, and that's that's great.
I'm not here to attack Rod Bray's character or anything like.
That's not what I do. It might be what Trump
(11:04):
does on occasion, but it's not what I'm doing here.
But I'm saying we am tired. I'm tired of this
type of leadership. It reminds me of Senator Todd Young,
which is a senator here in the great state of Indiana,
US senator. And I told you I invited him on
the program.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
I was wrong.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I thought it was I thought I invited him on
to talk about one of the Supreme Court justice nominations.
I was wrong on that, and I've said that a
couple of times on here. I was wrong both times
I've said that it was actually on Trump's impeachment hearings.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Impeachment hearings.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
I sent them an invitation January twenty first, twenty twenty,
and this is the response I got. Well, I sent
the information to his team, invited him on the program.
The response I got was this high Todd, thanks for
reaching out on background. Senator Young isn't going to be
(12:05):
commenting beyond this statement. And I'll go I'll go ahead
and read this. We'll take us back. Yet, Well, do
I have it pulled up here? That's a screenshot, so
I don't have the link. But there's a statement basically
I mean as a very short statement really not giving
any any substance.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
And that's whatever. Fine, I don't and here it is.
Here it is, I got it.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Young statement on impeachment process. This goes way back to
January fifteenth, twenty twenty. US Senator Todd Young today issued
the following statement regarding articles of impeachment being transmitted to
the Senate. The far left has been desperate to get
rid of President Trump's in state one and that has
been made abundantly clear throughout this process. Now that the
(12:47):
articles are being delivered at a trial will be held
in the Senate. I will uphold my duty as an
impeachment juror and carefully evaluate the legal arguments. I hope
this process can be completed quickly so he can get
back to the business of Hoosiers and all Americans again,
standard template stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
It reminds me if you watch The Office.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
This is.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
A little bit, of course hyperbolic, but.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Do you remember the episode where Dwight, if you watch
the Office, started the fire to teach people in the
office that they need to learn proper safety protocols to
make sure that they're not paying attention during these safety meetings.
They don't know how to deal with the fire in
the office, and he basically sabotaged the office. He trapped
(13:33):
him in the office. He didn't set up well. He
set a fire in the trash can, smoke was going off,
panic ensued, Stanley had a heart attack and all the commotion,
a lot.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Of things happening there.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
But Michael and Dwight had to go to the corporate
office and they got in trouble. They got lectured because
obviously this was chaotic, and so as part of the
consequence punishment Dwight had, Twight had to make a statement
to the office, a statement of regret, and so Michael said.
They came back in and Michael being Michael, said Dwight,
(14:10):
will you now share your apology statement or whatever with
the office, And Dwight opens a sheet of paper and
he says, simply, I state my.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Regret, and that was it. That's what I feel like.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
This announcement was from Rod Bray, but the response to
my email, so that was the statement. So they gave
me the link to the statement. I guess that was
supposed to be enough for someone like me that cares
about substance, people like you that want to hear substance.
So they said, this is the this is always going
(14:45):
to tell us say during while the trial is ongoing.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
We would love to get him on I get him on.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
The show once impeachment ends, though, so they're happy again. Politicians.
There's a lot of things here that are upset setting
too constituents like me and I'm guessing like you. Number one,
you have Republicans that don't play to win. They play
with one hand tied behind their back while the Democrats
(15:13):
get to play with both this and maybe a shive
in the process.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
If it's a metaphor.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Of course, my friends and Republicans think, wow, I am really,
you know, special person for letting this happen.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
I'm not even fighting fairly.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
It does remind me of Rush Limbaugh saying fighting with
both hands tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Of course Rush could win metaphorically with both hands tied
behind his back. I'm not sure some of these folks
could win if they didn't have any encumbrance whatsoever. But
they're happy to come on after the issue has passed.
(15:48):
That is That's to me, that's not an acceptable way
to lead.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
We're in the midst.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
I've been through this, the midst of a cold civil
war in this nation. No matter where you live Maryland, Indiana, Virginia, Utah, Texas, California, Florida,
wherever the case may be, we're in the midst of
a cold civil war.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
We have reached a point. Listen.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
I'm not saying that there's not political compromise, but I'm
saying for the godless radical left who plays for keeps,
who will do whatever it takes as long as it
takes them. So long as it takes Trump away from
sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue, or at least prevents his agenda
from being implemented, they will do whatever it takes, literally,
(16:34):
whatever it takes. That is what they've shown us they
will do. We won't even use the legal and constitutional
authority given to us because the other side might call
us cheaters or whatever, and they can't even tell us
what that is. Remember, the other side can't even tell
us what a woman is. How in the world can
they tell us what the cheating is on a perfectly legal, legitimate,
(16:56):
constitutional process. See, it's certainly not normal in the sense
that these are done every ten years. But there's nothing
that prevents this truly, other than weak leadership or some
sort of argument and standard that doesn't exist. I've got,
actually I'm going to go through. I had a friend
who I respect send me a link to a speech
(17:20):
on the Senate, the Senate floor prior to the vote
here in Indiana, arguing for redistricting. This is Listen, besides
the hissers, this is the best I've got. So I
commend and think thank my friend for sending me that,
because I've not gotten any other argument besides this, this speech,
and I'm gonna play it, and again I just think
(17:40):
you can't be serious. You don't we we must not
really respect or appreciate what we're up against. We must
we must not understand the lack of time that's left
on the clock. It's just remarkable to me how we've
gotten ourselves into this situation. And of course, if these
reports are true that Rod Bray calling the republic assume me,
(18:02):
the Democrat leader in the Maryland Senate, to kind of
work out, you know, potentially an agreement that says, hey,
you don't redistrict if we don't, that deal has already
fallen through. If that's of course, what's happened is reports
there were reports to Politico that there were four conversations
I believe on these are anonymous sources. No one wants
(18:22):
to be named because of course, who knows, don't want
to lose I don't know access to Rod or whatever,
which again says says so much to me.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
This is just a mess.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
This is absolutely a mess, and it's it should be
embarrassing to these people. It doesn't embarrass me because I
don't have anything to do with this. I've been trying
to prevent this. I've been trying to say, hey, this
is this leadership is unacceptable. This leadership is weak. Republicans
(18:57):
don't play by the same that of rules. There's nothing
wrong with this, Like I don't I don't know, I
truly don't know the argument. I'll play the best version
of it here that I've had, and I'll address it
in a moment. But again, there's it's just we've gotten
ourselves into this mess we have. Yes, the left has
(19:20):
led us here, but the right, the Conservatives, the Republican
Party haven't really done anything to fight back. They had
an opportunity here in Indiana.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Some do.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
I don't mean that, you know, formally across the board,
but in my state, it's incredibly disappointing and disheartening. And
I'm going to tell you we're in a fight here.
We've got primary season coming up in May, and the
people who voted against this be ready for be ready
(19:52):
to face some opposition, and they should political opposition.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
By the way.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Just I hate to even have to say this, but
for the idiots out there that make threats that that
is unacceptable, we completely condemn that. You're You're not It's
not the answer, it's it's stupid, it's evil, it's wicked.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
You need to go to jail.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Basically, I'm talking to the people to who want to
politically hold these these week leaders accountable. These it's cowardly.
I I don't know how else to say it.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
I don't like.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
I don't like to say it. I really don't, but
I did. Okay, so we know that this deal is
apparently fallen, fallen through. It didn't even sound like it was.
It lasted five seconds, and Maryland appears to be poised
to redistrict.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
So there you have it.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
It's just it's catastrophic you talk about it's just crazy
to me. A lot of Republicans are embarrassed by I
don't know Trump's comments on of course, I condemned those
the comments, and wasn't trying to personally condemn Trump. In fact,
I had someone on social media make some comments say
(21:15):
that I was sinning by publicly disagreeing and calling those comments.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Out that he made about Rob Reiner. More people that
that's bad.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
More people are embarrassed about Trump's tweets and all that
sort of stuff than they are about leaders who just
don't have the courage and the resolve and the toughness
to see these things through. It doesn't personally embarrass me,
but to me, that's much more embarrassing when you have
the votes and you have the power, and you have
(21:48):
the legal authority, the constitutional authority, and you don't do it.
That to me, when you look back at history and
you see that this could literally have been the moment
that turn things in the right direction or on their head.
This could be that that pinnacle seminal moment. Anyway, friends,
there's a lot of confusion out there about Kreatim. You've
(22:09):
probably heard the headlines. Read the headlines. Most of them
are based on the synthetic junk that isn't real kreatim
at all. Real Kreatim is tested, it's handled with care.
That's exactly what you get from Christopher's Organic Botanicals, family
run company. They partner directly with farmers in Indonesia. They
test every match in the lab for purity, safety, no chemicals,
(22:29):
no fillers, no shortcuts, trusted. It's a trusted herbal option
that's been used for generations and it's a real alternative
for people looking for something that doesn't come with the
warning label that is a mile long You can start
with their creative Starter pack. Use coupon code tod Huff
get ten percent off your first order. All you have
to do is head on over to Christopher's Organic Botanicals
(22:51):
dot com. Christopher's Organic Botanicals dot com. Truth, Tradition, transparency,
and Yes. Time out for me, my friends back in
just a minute.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Welcome back, my friends.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
I'm going to shift gears here, will shift to playing
a little bit of State Senator Spencer Deari's floor speech. Again,
I had a good friend, a dear friend who I
think is on the other side of this issue than
me share this with me in a very respectful way.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
I'm going to share it with you, my friends. I'm
going to share this with you and you can hear.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
This is the closest thing I've had to an argument
for the vote against redistricting in Indiana, which again, this
happened here, but this battle has it's nationwide.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
This is important. I'm going to get through as much
of this as I can. It's in the stack of stuff.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
If you want to watch the whole thing, it's about
eight or nine minutes long. I don't think I can
get through the whole thing because I am going to respond,
my friends, I want to remind you really quickly too,
before I get started, that we have a directory of
conservative businesses that you can support, conservative businesses that are
pushing in the same direction that you are. They love America,
(24:03):
they have vowed not to support leftist candidates and leftist causes.
It's called Freedom Marketplace dot net. It's free for you
to use. It's searchable. These businesses are pushing in the
same direction you are, so you can check it out today.
Freedom Marketplace dot net. That's Freedom Marketplace dot net, liberty
and business for all. So I'm going to play this.
(24:24):
I'm going to respond along the way. We'll get through
as much of this as we can. State Senator Spencer
diaries floor speech last week when they were voting here
in Indiana about redistricting. He was one who voted against
the new maps, and this is his speech.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
And his argument.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
I'm gonna interject, we're not going to get to all
of it. You can get the rest of it. You
can google it or go to the website ttypshow dot com.
Just go to the stack of stuff and you'll find
it there. That being said, I'm gonna play it here.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
It is thank you, mister President, Members of the Senate.
Four years ago, as a candidate for the first political
office of my life, I promise voters that I would
always tell them the truth, even have made a mad
I believe in a republic, every elected officials duty is
to cut through the self interested talking points.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
Okay, our job is to seek the truth. Okay, we
speak the truth. Fineach.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
I approach every bill and I approach this one no differently.
I respect and love every one of you in this body.
I mean that bought my heart. And if you have
followed that process and reached different conclusions, I will still
respect you and I look forward to partnering with you
on many more legislative fights to come.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Hey, kudos to him for this, Spencer, deary, kudos to you.
And let me tell you that I've said similar things here.
I can be a little blunt with my disappointment, and
I do not apologize for that. But I can also
tell you that I've said, this is a this is
a political fight, This is truly politics. This is about politics.
(26:03):
This isn't you know so much of what we call
politics today is about It has become an issue that's
about good versus evil. This is not that I do
think by not passing this map, that this this new
congressional map, that we've opened up a door for evil
to be pursued politically in our nation through representatives that
(26:26):
we elect here in our state. But the issue itself here,
I agree, it's a political issue, and we can have
disagreements and still.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Be friends along the way.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
I guess I'm happy to do that. So I applaud
him for saying that he's much better than the hissers
and the people calling me and people who favored this Nazis, cheaters, fascists,
whatever else they could come up with.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
He continues here.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
But this issue is too important for me to not
get up here today and share the truth as I
see it after many hours of objectively pursuing it. Fair enough,
My bottom line is that after considering all the arguments
offered in supported mid cycle jerry mandering, I see no justification.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Phraze I first of all reject that this is jerrymandering.
Jerrymandering again, I've gone through the historical context of this.
Jerrymandering is a specific phenomenon. It was first coined, I
think in eighteen twelve by Governor well By the media,
I think in regards at the time in Massachusetts, the
governor's last name was Jerry G. E. R r Y.
(27:32):
There was a district drawn that resembled a salamander, and
so they called it jerrymandering. Jerrymandering typically, traditionally, historically meant
drawing districts that were incredibly oddly shaped so as to.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Get the results.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
You know that someone could win that seat, it's going
out of their way to draw these districts. Now, these
districts are mostly mostly contiguous counties. The district that I
would be in is a It has a sliver and
then it gets wider as you go further south. But
there's not extreme jerrymandering that that's done here.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
I'm looking at the map now.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
I just I want to say that I don't accept
that this is some extreme gerrymandering. Yes, they drew districts
to politically give an advantage to Republicans as best as
they as they could. Yes that there are there are
skinny places and fatter places, and one district that's in
the southwestern corner of the state kind of has a
(28:36):
V shape, but it's nothing like overlay dramatic where we've
got completely odd shapes that resemble something, you know, like
a salamander.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
But you can make the argument. You can certainly make
the argument, and I.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Can see that these are more in that direction than
our current maps, but not I wouldn't say super dramatically.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
So some people could disagree with that, but they continue.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
The harms it would inflict upon the people's faith in
the integrity of our elections and our system of government.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Okay, so he says that the drawing of the district
these new districts undermines the faith that people have in
our republic. Why is he going to tell me why?
I mean, I will listen, Senator Dearie, I will Why
is that the case.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
Some say we should jerry mander now because Democrats have
been doing it for years.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
But why you didn't tell me why it undermined their trust?
Now you've gone on to the arguments why we should
do it. Why did it undermine their trust?
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Why? What is written?
Speaker 2 (29:35):
What is written that says we can't do this? There's
nothing that says we can't do this. What is preventing
us from doing this? It's a constitutional responsibility of the
of the state legislature. If the state legislature decides it
wants to do it, it absolutely can do it. There are
certain rules, you know. These have to be contiguous counties,
(29:55):
which they are. There has to be roughly the same
number of people in each district. Well doesn't have to
be contiguous counties. It has to be contiguous area of
a state. It can't like have part of it here
and then part of it over there without it being connected.
And there has to be roughly the same number of
people in these districts. Supreme Court is considering arguments about
(30:16):
the Voting Rights Act and other factors.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
But those two things we know. It does that.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Why does it undermine again, the people's confidence in this process?
I don't think he shared that. Maybe he thinks he does.
She's a respectable guy.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
I don't. This isn't personal.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
I'm talking about the the substance of this. Now he
goes on to talk about just attack the rationale and
the reasons for this without telling us why it undermines
people's faith in the system.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
And it's a time for Republicans to catch up. That
would be a sensible question to ask four years ago
and to ask or four years in the future during
the regular redistricting process. But since Washington DC is pushing
that question on us.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Now, Hi, though I understand Spencer, and you know what,
why weren't they asked? Then why weren't these proposed? Then
that's a fair question, But that cuts both ways. Why
do we why do we assume that Democrats should automatic.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
I've been through all this. Where is it written that
they should have.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Uh the highest chances of winning in two districts or
four districts or three districts or eight districts?
Speaker 3 (31:23):
What where is this written at? What where do we
come up with these things?
Speaker 2 (31:27):
It's the State House's responsibility to figure this out. I
just again, they weren't addressed when we drew him four
years ago, but they could be addressed now. He has
a problem that we're being requested by President Trump to
do this, but there's nothing illegal about that. This doesn't
violate federalism. We could have told them no, and in
(31:50):
a sense, the final vote did tell Trump nos. So
I don't understand the problem here. I think that this
is a straw man to at least at least the
art arguments I've made, and he doesn't necessarily know my arguments.
He's listening to other arguments. Whatever I made mind very clear, though,
he continues.
Speaker 4 (32:08):
Now, let's answer it. Now is one side behind in
the Jerry Manning arms race. The best metric to measure
that is to simply add all the votes for Congress
across the nation and then to compare that percentage with
how power is actually distributed.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Who told you this?
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Who told you that that's the best way to measure this?
I this is nuts to me the way that we
look at how this is baked it. And again, this
is not an attack on him. I think that he's
probably a really good guy. I think that I don't
know him. I think he believes this, But what he's
his starting premises. I have questions about why we're starting there.
(32:45):
Why is he starting here? Why why is it the
best way to determine the makeup of Congress to look
at things nationally and then to extrapolate from that what
the Congress should be made up of.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
That is That's why stuff? I mean?
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Is he I know he's familiar with how we have,
you know, the the compromise that was made to have
the by cameral legislature where we have two senators from
every state and we have you know, proportional representation. The
bigger your state is, the more representatives you have. What
(33:21):
there's more blue voters in California. If you take California
out in these big blue states, then what happens?
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Why would you mix that up nationally? It just doesn't
make any sense.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
You talk about federalism, what about the state the rights
of the states. Why why does Iowa care about proportionally
how many Democrats are in California when you throw them
into one bucket and then that we should somehow have
that reflected nationwide. This just to me, I just I
don't I don't understand why that's the best way to
determine this. And it's baked into the process in the
(33:52):
minds of these folks that we have a two party system.
That's another thing that's baked in there that they don't
really I think, stop in question, but I gotta a break.
My friend's quick time out back in just a minute.
Welcome back to my friend's third final segment of today's program.
I want to get to as much of what is
left of Spencer Deary's speech. He's from West Lafayette, by
the way, District twenty three in the state of Indiana.
He's laying out what I consider to be the most
(34:14):
cogent argument against redistricting, which Indiana voted down. I still
don't think again, I've been through this, I'm going through
this with you. I still don't think it's very persuasive
to me. I have lots of questions about his starting
premises that I don't think he's asked or if he
(34:35):
has his He just has assumptions that I reject, again,
namely that we automatically or a.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Two party system. Where do they get this?
Speaker 2 (34:44):
I know in reality that's what we have today, but
that's not baked into the constitution. How do we factor
in third parties? Should they not matter? Is this not?
Do you not see how the people who say that
we have a UNI party would object to this as well?
I mean, there's a bazillion or questions that I have
about this. He just states it as though we all
(35:04):
should agree that that's how we should determine who has
won the quote unquote jerrymandering race. And I just reject
the entire premise of how this is being discussed and
how this is being argued and how to think about this.
But apparently I'm either in the minority or people haven't
heard my objections because none of this is what I've
(35:26):
certainly mentioned that Blue States did it, but that's not
the core of my argument anyway. I want to get
to as much of that as I can, and again,
if I can't get to it, it's on You can
listen to it and its totality on the website or
just google it is his name, Spencer Deary, Spencer Deary,
you can google it.
Speaker 3 (35:44):
It's on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
So friends, you know, one of the biggest challenges we
have as conservatives is finding ways to ensure that our
values align with how we live our lives, and that
includes how we invest our money. That's why I love
what the team at four to eight Financial is doing.
They specialize in biblically responsible investing. That means they screen
out companies that do not align with your faith your values,
so they're not funding things You're not funding things I
(36:07):
should say that go completely against what you believe in.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
They do all the heavy lifting.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
They help align your investments with your purpose, with your goals,
with your values. The best part is all you have
to do is head on over to four eight financial
dot com, slash Todd and you can complete an assessment
that will help you find out if, or to what degree,
your current investments reflect your values. That's four eight financial
dot com slash todd for eight financial, because your money
(36:36):
should work for your values.
Speaker 3 (36:38):
I want to get to this as much as I can,
my friends.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Again, Spencer Dari's speech in opposition to the new maps.
I'm not going to get through this whole thing, but again,
we'll do our best here.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
If one side was more successful at jerrymandering, there would
be a mismatch between those two numbers, but that isn't
the case. Nationwide, Republicans won fifty one percent of all
the votes for Congress, and they won fifty one percent
of the seats Undeniably. There are multiple states with corrupt
looking maps and Democrats strongholds, but this data shows Republicans
(37:10):
have fully offset those maps in subtler, classier ways. Another
justification from mid cycle jerry mandering is simply that we
don't want Republicans to lose power.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Pause now that now we're getting to part of what
I would argue, But his first argument makes makes no sense.
Speaker 3 (37:28):
I've been through this. I just want to hit it again.
You don't you.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Don't factor in let's say right now, I'm an NBA. Well,
I'm a Pacers fan. In fact, we're going to the
game tonight, I'm a Pacers fan. I wouldn't say I'm
an NBA fan. The Thunder are twenty four and two.
They got they just lost their second game to the
Spurs last two nights ago.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
I don't know recently.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
And to determine someone's record, you don't go out and
calculate the points of the total league and then and
then take an average of that and say, oh, well,
based upon this, the Thunder have you know, x percent
of the league's points, so they have x they should
have x percent of the league's wins. That doesn't make
any sense at all. And I would say in a
(38:13):
similar fashion, this is a way way over simplistic way
of looking at the American elector. But he continues here
by talking about Republicans trying to accumulate political power, which
is something that I've argued here.
Speaker 4 (38:28):
I like a supermajority of you do not want to
see another Democrat Speaker of the House. But that isn't
for me to decide, and it isn't for anyone in
this body to decide either. Living in a free constitutional
republic means we empower voters to make those decisions and
we accept their will no matter what.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
And how does this prevent that, Spencer? How does it
prevent it? It doesn't.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
We're talking number one, we're talking about two seats right,
talking about two seats in our state, by the way,
in maps that you are responsible for drawing if the
body says they want to draw them. So again I
ask you, what what changes are we suddenly not going
(39:13):
to have elections? Are we suddenly not going to have
people being represented? Are there areas of the map that
aren't going to have representation?
Speaker 3 (39:22):
No?
Speaker 2 (39:23):
You know what it actually, as I said before, when
you spread the Republican vote out over more districts so
that they're all competitive, you actually make more competitive districts.
How about this, respectfully, Senator Deary. Maybe the left, maybe
the Democrat Party, if they stopped putting radical candidates up
and abandon their radical, godless agenda that has caused real
(39:46):
harm to Hoosiers and their families. I mean, this is
a They've created a culture of confusion, a culture that
rejects truth, a culture of death with abortion, a culture
that spends itself into oblivion. That's put and hoosiers in
real financial pickles. There's the open border issue that absolutely
has impacted. There are states that have representatives that they
(40:11):
should not have because illegal aliens were counted towards the census,
which determined how many congressmen each state was allocated. Don't
tell me that this is that that we're somehow preventing
people from electing whoever they want. But how about we
play to win again. I'm not intentionally cutting him off here.
(40:35):
I'm not quite halfway through his speech. It's an eight
minute speech. We're about three minutes, and you can listen
to it on the website.
Speaker 3 (40:41):
Maybe I'll do more of this tomorrow. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (40:43):
We'll see what happens between then and now. But I
gotta go out of time. Thanks for listening, Stig
Attention. You're listening to the Todd Huff Show, America's home
for conservative not bitter talk and education. Be advised. The
content of this program has been talkumented to prevents and
even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lean
to the right. And now, coming to you from the
(00:29):
full suite Wealth Studios, here is your conservative but not
bitter host, Todd Huff.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
All right, my friends, if you've listened to this program
every day, as of course you should, you would have
heard my interview with Lieutenant Governor of Indiana, Michael beck
With on Monday, and you would have heard Mica somewhere
during that interview make a comment that he predicted within
the next six months or so that Marylandmocrat run blue
(01:01):
Maryland would be redistricting in spite of reports that Indiana
State Senate pro Tim rod Bray, my senator by the way,
who has not gotten back with me still, and that's
just those are the facts. I don't expect it at
this point. I've made my decision on on Rod, and.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
We won't listen.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
We need we need leadership, and we need representatives senators
that don't that that respect their constituents respond to them.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
I did. I did see.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
In fairness to Rod, he did sit down for an
interview with the local publication. Kudos for seeing that happen,
well for making time for that. Now that, of course,
the vote is over and there's no I mean, the
issues over and done, with not much to do as
far as address people concerns, have a dialogue during the
(02:02):
actual during the actual vote. Again another poor sign of
I don't mean to pile on. I mean, he's a
public official. This is just the way that it is.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
It reminds me of Todd Young.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
In fact, I actually dug up the email. I dug
up the email that I had had email exchange I
had with Todd Young's office. I'll read that to you.
It's five years old now anyway. But apparently there was
a deal struck between Rod Bray or at least discussions
and agreements that Maryland would not be redistricting, although there
(02:40):
was not a formal agreement. We don't really know what
was happening, but that that appears to not be the case. Mike,
I said it might take you six months down the line.
Here we are not even six days down the line,
and it appears that that is going to happen. At
least Maryland's going to continue to push for that, and
it's remarkable. I'll want well listen for those of you
(03:01):
in this state who were in favor of Indiana or
I should say, opposed to Indiana redistricting. I hope your
voices are allowed, as allowed to try to persuade Maryland
not to I hope yours morally outraged at whatever you
think is some fundamental, basic truth that state legislators can't
adjust these maps. Again, I'm remarkably consistent on this. Maryland
(03:24):
can do this. I hope they don't.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
I'm not in Maryland.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
There's little to nothing that I can do about that.
It's just it's crazy to me. The catastrophic leadership and
the inability to carry out a victory for the Republican
Party is my numbing to me. It is it's my
numbing to me, and it's it's like it's like having this.
I coached my last I coached my last, maybe my
(03:52):
last little league basketball game last night. My daughter, our
youngest daughter, is sixth grade. She played her last game,
and you know, we we won the game, we won
the championship. In fact, we've we've done pretty well we've
gone undefeated in that league for two years or in
three seasons that we lost our our first game of
(04:14):
the season three seasons ago, and we've won every game
since since then. We've you know, they've all gotten better.
It's it's it's a lot of fun. And of course
there's a time, you know, we we we've we've gotten
to we were we were pretty decent, and you know,
I wanted to jump out get ahead. You have to
(04:35):
sit each player acorder and all that, and of course
I wasn't trying to run the score up ever on anybody.
But until you get ahead, you have to you have
to play to win. You got to put the pedal
to the medal. You got to go out there with
some intensity. Can't be happy with a two point lead.
If you could have a fifteen point lead, and then
of course we would adjust and not try to run
(04:58):
the score up.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
But there's there's no and just focusing.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
On on all of that. You want to win first.
And it's like Republicans, they just don't want to win.
I don't understand it. They allow themselves to be framed
by the rules, the framework that the left uses to
hold the conservatives and Republicans accountable while the left can
(05:21):
do whatever they want.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
And nobody said the left can murder babies. I just
I it is beyond me.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
To think that, to think that this is where our
leadership has gotten us, it's pathetic. I mean, you literally
can't make the case in many case, in many instances,
you can't make the case that we shouldn't be killing
unborn human life, or take your pick, that we don't
have the political prerogative to redistrict in Indiana. You can't
(05:49):
win those fights. I don't you don't want to win
at some point, or you only want to win by
a couple points instead of winning by twenty, let's win
by one point. That that's fair based on what I
don't understand these people.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
I don't I and it is. It's catastrophic.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
It is potentially catastrophic anyway for the Republican Party, for
the conservative movement. And I want to talk about that today,
my friends. Maybe you've reached that stage where manning your money,
managing your money I can talk here feels more like
juggling than it does with just dealing with pure numbers.
(06:30):
There's tax planning, a state work investment choices, a whole
lot more. That's where Family Office Services can really make
a difference. Full Sweet Wealth brings all those pieces together
into one cohesive strategy. Their Family Office Services gives you
access to a coordinated team with advanced option strategies, private equity,
private credit, legal expertise, all those things under one roof.
(06:51):
It's about simplifying your financial life, planning for the future,
making sure your legacy stays strong for generations. Are you
ready for that next level of support. If so, visit
full sweet wealth dot com. That's full sweet wealth dot com.
Build your legacy, secure your future. All right, So let's
get to this article here, this article here in CNN.
(07:16):
To let you know that I'm not making this. I'm
not making this up. Here we go, Micah, actually Micah,
Lieutenant Governor Beck was sent this to me late last night.
Democrats headline, Democrat listen.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
This, this is.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
This thing about the different ways that this is presented
by the media when it was happening in Indiana. This
was an assault on the democracy. This was evil. This
got me when I spoke at the State House. I
still get humored by this. Besides being hissed at, which
was a first for me, being hissed at by someone
(07:57):
who presented herself as an adult woman minus the hissing.
The hissing made her look like something other than an
adult woman. But she was hissing, and that was part
of what was going on there in the state House.
That was the height of the argument against it. I
guess there was also a lot of chanting. Nazi fascist
(08:19):
cheater was the biggest one. I still have not had
a single person. The invitation is open. If I had money,
I guess I would give you a financial reward. It's
not let me disclaim that clearly there is no financial reward.
But if I did have money, I suppose I could
say there's a financial reward if you can do it.
I don't know how else to motivate people to tell
me how it's cheating. Tell me how it's cheating. And
(08:42):
you would do that like this, Todd, it is cheating
because and then you would say why it's cheating. You
would follow that with an explanation, And if you really
are forward thinking, you would think, Okay, I anticipate this
objection or response, so then I'll address that even right,
So I'll say it's cheating because of this, and then
I'll dig deeper to explain whatever to respond to the
(09:06):
the likely standard response to say, and this is why
your standard response doesn't apply to the situation.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
And it's cheating.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
I've got nothing, I haven't had anything close to that.
But they chanted cheater. They chanted it loud and proud
up there in the balcony in the nosebleed section of
the Capitol building that day. Which whatever I think, what
you will. This is from a few days ago. Democrats
celebrated Indiana Republicans refusing to redistrict. They're still moving ahead
(09:37):
with their own push written by a couple. I never
understood why you need a couple of authors or a
journalist to write these things.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
I guess they've got a callude.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
This is collusion now, I guess Sarah Ferris and Ethan
Cohen here.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
One day after Indiana.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Republicans decided to forego political gains by rejecting a new
US House map, Key Democrats made clear Friday they would
still aim to read district in states their party controls.
This literally, the the ink hadn't dried on the bill
that Indiana Republicans shot down in the in the Indiana
State House, and yet they the the deal and again
(10:17):
there are reports and I'm going to go, where's that report.
I've got it in my stack. My stack is stuff.
There were reports where it was reported that the Senate
pro tim in Indiana, the leader of the Senate, Rod
brag and my senator, who still hasn't responded to me.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
I don't expect him to.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
I've I said off the top, I've made my decision
on Rod Bray. We are going to be firmly in
opposition to him. I had a good friend, some people
that I respect, telling me, you know how great of
a guy Rod was or is yesterday, and that's that's great.
I'm not here to attack Rod Bray's character or anything like.
That's not what I do. It might be what Trump
(11:04):
does on occasion, but it's not what I'm doing here.
But I'm saying we am tired. I'm tired of this
type of leadership. It reminds me of Senator Todd Young,
which is a senator here in the great state of Indiana,
US senator. And I told you I invited him on
the program.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
I was wrong.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I thought it was I thought I invited him on
to talk about one of the Supreme Court justice nominations.
I was wrong on that, and I've said that a
couple of times on here. I was wrong both times
I've said that it was actually on Trump's impeachment hearings.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Impeachment hearings.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
I sent them an invitation January twenty first, twenty twenty,
and this is the response I got. Well, I sent
the information to his team, invited him on the program.
The response I got was this high Todd, thanks for
reaching out on background. Senator Young isn't going to be
(12:05):
commenting beyond this statement. And I'll go I'll go ahead
and read this. We'll take us back. Yet, Well, do
I have it pulled up here? That's a screenshot, so
I don't have the link. But there's a statement basically
I mean as a very short statement really not giving
any any substance.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
And that's whatever. Fine, I don't and here it is.
Here it is, I got it.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Young statement on impeachment process. This goes way back to
January fifteenth, twenty twenty. US Senator Todd Young today issued
the following statement regarding articles of impeachment being transmitted to
the Senate. The far left has been desperate to get
rid of President Trump's in state one and that has
been made abundantly clear throughout this process. Now that the
(12:47):
articles are being delivered at a trial will be held
in the Senate. I will uphold my duty as an
impeachment juror and carefully evaluate the legal arguments. I hope
this process can be completed quickly so he can get
back to the business of Hoosiers and all Americans again,
standard template stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
It reminds me if you watch The Office.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
This is.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
A little bit, of course hyperbolic, but.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Do you remember the episode where Dwight, if you watch
the Office, started the fire to teach people in the
office that they need to learn proper safety protocols to
make sure that they're not paying attention during these safety meetings.
They don't know how to deal with the fire in
the office, and he basically sabotaged the office. He trapped
(13:33):
him in the office. He didn't set up well. He
set a fire in the trash can, smoke was going off,
panic ensued, Stanley had a heart attack and all the commotion,
a lot.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Of things happening there.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
But Michael and Dwight had to go to the corporate
office and they got in trouble. They got lectured because
obviously this was chaotic, and so as part of the
consequence punishment Dwight had, Twight had to make a statement
to the office, a statement of regret, and so Michael said.
They came back in and Michael being Michael, said Dwight,
(14:10):
will you now share your apology statement or whatever with
the office, And Dwight opens a sheet of paper and
he says, simply, I state my.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Regret, and that was it. That's what I feel like.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
This announcement was from Rod Bray, but the response to
my email, so that was the statement. So they gave
me the link to the statement. I guess that was
supposed to be enough for someone like me that cares
about substance, people like you that want to hear substance.
So they said, this is the this is always going
(14:45):
to tell us say during while the trial is ongoing.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
We would love to get him on I get him on.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
The show once impeachment ends, though, so they're happy again. Politicians.
There's a lot of things here that are upset setting
too constituents like me and I'm guessing like you. Number one,
you have Republicans that don't play to win. They play
with one hand tied behind their back while the Democrats
(15:13):
get to play with both this and maybe a shive
in the process.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
If it's a metaphor.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Of course, my friends and Republicans think, wow, I am really,
you know, special person for letting this happen.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
I'm not even fighting fairly.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
It does remind me of Rush Limbaugh saying fighting with
both hands tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Of course Rush could win metaphorically with both hands tied
behind his back. I'm not sure some of these folks
could win if they didn't have any encumbrance whatsoever. But
they're happy to come on after the issue has passed.
(15:48):
That is That's to me, that's not an acceptable way
to lead.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
We're in the midst.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
I've been through this, the midst of a cold civil
war in this nation. No matter where you live Maryland, Indiana, Virginia, Utah, Texas, California, Florida,
wherever the case may be, we're in the midst of
a cold civil war.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
We have reached a point. Listen.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
I'm not saying that there's not political compromise, but I'm
saying for the godless radical left who plays for keeps,
who will do whatever it takes as long as it
takes them. So long as it takes Trump away from
sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue, or at least prevents his agenda
from being implemented, they will do whatever it takes, literally,
(16:34):
whatever it takes. That is what they've shown us they
will do. We won't even use the legal and constitutional
authority given to us because the other side might call
us cheaters or whatever, and they can't even tell us
what that is. Remember, the other side can't even tell
us what a woman is. How in the world can
they tell us what the cheating is on a perfectly legal, legitimate,
(16:56):
constitutional process. See, it's certainly not normal in the sense
that these are done every ten years. But there's nothing
that prevents this truly, other than weak leadership or some
sort of argument and standard that doesn't exist. I've got,
actually I'm going to go through. I had a friend
who I respect send me a link to a speech
(17:20):
on the Senate, the Senate floor prior to the vote
here in Indiana, arguing for redistricting. This is Listen, besides
the hissers, this is the best I've got. So I
commend and think thank my friend for sending me that,
because I've not gotten any other argument besides this, this speech,
and I'm gonna play it, and again I just think
(17:40):
you can't be serious. You don't we we must not
really respect or appreciate what we're up against. We must
we must not understand the lack of time that's left
on the clock. It's just remarkable to me how we've
gotten ourselves into this situation. And of course, if these
reports are true that Rod Bray calling the republic assume me,
(18:02):
the Democrat leader in the Maryland Senate, to kind of
work out, you know, potentially an agreement that says, hey,
you don't redistrict if we don't, that deal has already
fallen through. If that's of course, what's happened is reports
there were reports to Politico that there were four conversations
I believe on these are anonymous sources. No one wants
(18:22):
to be named because of course, who knows, don't want
to lose I don't know access to Rod or whatever,
which again says says so much to me.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
This is just a mess.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
This is absolutely a mess, and it's it should be
embarrassing to these people. It doesn't embarrass me because I
don't have anything to do with this. I've been trying
to prevent this. I've been trying to say, hey, this
is this leadership is unacceptable. This leadership is weak. Republicans
(18:57):
don't play by the same that of rules. There's nothing
wrong with this, Like I don't I don't know, I
truly don't know the argument. I'll play the best version
of it here that I've had, and I'll address it
in a moment. But again, there's it's just we've gotten
ourselves into this mess we have. Yes, the left has
(19:20):
led us here, but the right, the Conservatives, the Republican
Party haven't really done anything to fight back. They had
an opportunity here in Indiana.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Some do.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
I don't mean that, you know, formally across the board,
but in my state, it's incredibly disappointing and disheartening. And
I'm going to tell you we're in a fight here.
We've got primary season coming up in May, and the
people who voted against this be ready for be ready
(19:52):
to face some opposition, and they should political opposition.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
By the way.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Just I hate to even have to say this, but
for the idiots out there that make threats that that
is unacceptable, we completely condemn that. You're You're not It's
not the answer, it's it's stupid, it's evil, it's wicked.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
You need to go to jail.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Basically, I'm talking to the people to who want to
politically hold these these week leaders accountable. These it's cowardly.
I I don't know how else to say it.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
I don't like.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
I don't like to say it. I really don't, but
I did. Okay, so we know that this deal is
apparently fallen, fallen through. It didn't even sound like it was.
It lasted five seconds, and Maryland appears to be poised
to redistrict.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
So there you have it.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
It's just it's catastrophic you talk about it's just crazy
to me. A lot of Republicans are embarrassed by I
don't know Trump's comments on of course, I condemned those
the comments, and wasn't trying to personally condemn Trump. In fact,
I had someone on social media make some comments say
(21:15):
that I was sinning by publicly disagreeing and calling those comments.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Out that he made about Rob Reiner. More people that
that's bad.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
More people are embarrassed about Trump's tweets and all that
sort of stuff than they are about leaders who just
don't have the courage and the resolve and the toughness
to see these things through. It doesn't personally embarrass me,
but to me, that's much more embarrassing when you have
the votes and you have the power, and you have
(21:48):
the legal authority, the constitutional authority, and you don't do it.
That to me, when you look back at history and
you see that this could literally have been the moment
that turn things in the right direction or on their head.
This could be that that pinnacle seminal moment. Anyway, friends,
there's a lot of confusion out there about Kreatim. You've
(22:09):
probably heard the headlines. Read the headlines. Most of them
are based on the synthetic junk that isn't real kreatim
at all. Real Kreatim is tested, it's handled with care.
That's exactly what you get from Christopher's Organic Botanicals, family
run company. They partner directly with farmers in Indonesia. They
test every match in the lab for purity, safety, no chemicals,
(22:29):
no fillers, no shortcuts, trusted. It's a trusted herbal option
that's been used for generations and it's a real alternative
for people looking for something that doesn't come with the
warning label that is a mile long You can start
with their creative Starter pack. Use coupon code tod Huff
get ten percent off your first order. All you have
to do is head on over to Christopher's Organic Botanicals
(22:51):
dot com. Christopher's Organic Botanicals dot com. Truth, Tradition, transparency,
and Yes. Time out for me, my friends back in
just a minute.
Speaker 3 (23:03):
Welcome back, my friends.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
I'm going to shift gears here, will shift to playing
a little bit of State Senator Spencer Deari's floor speech. Again,
I had a good friend, a dear friend who I
think is on the other side of this issue than
me share this with me in a very respectful way.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
I'm going to share it with you, my friends. I'm
going to share this with you and you can hear.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
This is the closest thing I've had to an argument
for the vote against redistricting in Indiana, which again, this
happened here, but this battle has it's nationwide.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
This is important. I'm going to get through as much
of this as I can. It's in the stack of stuff.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
If you want to watch the whole thing, it's about
eight or nine minutes long. I don't think I can
get through the whole thing because I am going to respond,
my friends, I want to remind you really quickly too,
before I get started, that we have a directory of
conservative businesses that you can support, conservative businesses that are
pushing in the same direction that you are. They love America,
(24:03):
they have vowed not to support leftist candidates and leftist causes.
It's called Freedom Marketplace dot net. It's free for you
to use. It's searchable. These businesses are pushing in the
same direction you are, so you can check it out today.
Freedom Marketplace dot net. That's Freedom Marketplace dot net, liberty
and business for all. So I'm going to play this.
(24:24):
I'm going to respond along the way. We'll get through
as much of this as we can. State Senator Spencer
diaries floor speech last week when they were voting here
in Indiana about redistricting. He was one who voted against
the new maps, and this is his speech.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
And his argument.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
I'm gonna interject, we're not going to get to all
of it. You can get the rest of it. You
can google it or go to the website ttypshow dot com.
Just go to the stack of stuff and you'll find
it there. That being said, I'm gonna play it here.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
It is thank you, mister President, Members of the Senate.
Four years ago, as a candidate for the first political
office of my life, I promise voters that I would
always tell them the truth, even have made a mad
I believe in a republic, every elected officials duty is
to cut through the self interested talking points.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
Okay, our job is to seek the truth. Okay, we
speak the truth. Fineach.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
I approach every bill and I approach this one no differently.
I respect and love every one of you in this body.
I mean that bought my heart. And if you have
followed that process and reached different conclusions, I will still
respect you and I look forward to partnering with you
on many more legislative fights to come.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Hey, kudos to him for this, Spencer, deary, kudos to you.
And let me tell you that I've said similar things here.
I can be a little blunt with my disappointment, and
I do not apologize for that. But I can also
tell you that I've said, this is a this is
a political fight, This is truly politics. This is about politics.
(26:03):
This isn't you know so much of what we call
politics today is about It has become an issue that's
about good versus evil. This is not that I do
think by not passing this map, that this this new
congressional map, that we've opened up a door for evil
to be pursued politically in our nation through representatives that
(26:26):
we elect here in our state. But the issue itself here,
I agree, it's a political issue, and we can have
disagreements and still.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Be friends along the way.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
I guess I'm happy to do that. So I applaud
him for saying that he's much better than the hissers
and the people calling me and people who favored this Nazis, cheaters, fascists,
whatever else they could come up with.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
He continues here.
Speaker 4 (26:51):
But this issue is too important for me to not
get up here today and share the truth as I
see it after many hours of objectively pursuing it. Fair enough,
My bottom line is that after considering all the arguments
offered in supported mid cycle jerry mandering, I see no justification.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Phraze I first of all reject that this is jerrymandering.
Jerrymandering again, I've gone through the historical context of this.
Jerrymandering is a specific phenomenon. It was first coined, I
think in eighteen twelve by Governor well By the media,
I think in regards at the time in Massachusetts, the
governor's last name was Jerry G. E. R r Y.
(27:32):
There was a district drawn that resembled a salamander, and
so they called it jerrymandering. Jerrymandering typically, traditionally, historically meant
drawing districts that were incredibly oddly shaped so as to.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Get the results.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
You know that someone could win that seat, it's going
out of their way to draw these districts. Now, these
districts are mostly mostly contiguous counties. The district that I
would be in is a It has a sliver and
then it gets wider as you go further south. But
there's not extreme jerrymandering that that's done here.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
I'm looking at the map now.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
I just I want to say that I don't accept
that this is some extreme gerrymandering. Yes, they drew districts
to politically give an advantage to Republicans as best as
they as they could. Yes that there are there are
skinny places and fatter places, and one district that's in
the southwestern corner of the state kind of has a
(28:36):
V shape, but it's nothing like overlay dramatic where we've
got completely odd shapes that resemble something, you know, like
a salamander.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
But you can make the argument. You can certainly make
the argument, and I.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Can see that these are more in that direction than
our current maps, but not I wouldn't say super dramatically.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
So some people could disagree with that, but they continue.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
The harms it would inflict upon the people's faith in
the integrity of our elections and our system of government.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Okay, so he says that the drawing of the district
these new districts undermines the faith that people have in
our republic. Why is he going to tell me why?
I mean, I will listen, Senator Dearie, I will Why
is that the case.
Speaker 4 (29:22):
Some say we should jerry mander now because Democrats have
been doing it for years.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
But why you didn't tell me why it undermined their trust?
Now you've gone on to the arguments why we should
do it. Why did it undermine their trust?
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Why? What is written?
Speaker 2 (29:35):
What is written that says we can't do this? There's
nothing that says we can't do this. What is preventing
us from doing this? It's a constitutional responsibility of the
of the state legislature. If the state legislature decides it
wants to do it, it absolutely can do it. There are
certain rules, you know. These have to be contiguous counties,
(29:55):
which they are. There has to be roughly the same
number of people in each district. Well doesn't have to
be contiguous counties. It has to be contiguous area of
a state. It can't like have part of it here
and then part of it over there without it being connected.
And there has to be roughly the same number of
people in these districts. Supreme Court is considering arguments about
(30:16):
the Voting Rights Act and other factors.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
But those two things we know. It does that.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Why does it undermine again, the people's confidence in this process?
I don't think he shared that. Maybe he thinks he does.
She's a respectable guy.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
I don't. This isn't personal.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
I'm talking about the the substance of this. Now he
goes on to talk about just attack the rationale and
the reasons for this without telling us why it undermines
people's faith in the system.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
And it's a time for Republicans to catch up. That
would be a sensible question to ask four years ago
and to ask or four years in the future during
the regular redistricting process. But since Washington DC is pushing
that question on us.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Now, Hi, though I understand Spencer, and you know what,
why weren't they asked? Then why weren't these proposed? Then
that's a fair question, But that cuts both ways. Why
do we why do we assume that Democrats should automatic.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
I've been through all this. Where is it written that
they should have.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Uh the highest chances of winning in two districts or
four districts or three districts or eight districts?
Speaker 3 (31:23):
What where is this written at? What where do we
come up with these things?
Speaker 2 (31:27):
It's the State House's responsibility to figure this out. I
just again, they weren't addressed when we drew him four
years ago, but they could be addressed now. He has
a problem that we're being requested by President Trump to
do this, but there's nothing illegal about that. This doesn't
violate federalism. We could have told them no, and in
(31:50):
a sense, the final vote did tell Trump nos. So
I don't understand the problem here. I think that this
is a straw man to at least at least the
art arguments I've made, and he doesn't necessarily know my arguments.
He's listening to other arguments. Whatever I made mind very clear, though,
he continues.
Speaker 4 (32:08):
Now, let's answer it. Now is one side behind in
the Jerry Manning arms race. The best metric to measure
that is to simply add all the votes for Congress
across the nation and then to compare that percentage with
how power is actually distributed.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Who told you this?
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Who told you that that's the best way to measure this?
I this is nuts to me the way that we
look at how this is baked it. And again, this
is not an attack on him. I think that he's
probably a really good guy. I think that I don't
know him. I think he believes this, But what he's
his starting premises. I have questions about why we're starting there.
(32:45):
Why is he starting here? Why why is it the
best way to determine the makeup of Congress to look
at things nationally and then to extrapolate from that what
the Congress should be made up of.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
That is That's why stuff? I mean?
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Is he I know he's familiar with how we have,
you know, the the compromise that was made to have
the by cameral legislature where we have two senators from
every state and we have you know, proportional representation. The
bigger your state is, the more representatives you have. What
(33:21):
there's more blue voters in California. If you take California
out in these big blue states, then what happens?
Speaker 3 (33:28):
Why would you mix that up nationally? It just doesn't
make any sense.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
You talk about federalism, what about the state the rights
of the states. Why why does Iowa care about proportionally
how many Democrats are in California when you throw them
into one bucket and then that we should somehow have
that reflected nationwide. This just to me, I just I
don't I don't understand why that's the best way to
determine this. And it's baked into the process in the
(33:52):
minds of these folks that we have a two party system.
That's another thing that's baked in there that they don't
really I think, stop in question, but I gotta a break.
My friend's quick time out back in just a minute.
Welcome back to my friend's third final segment of today's program.
I want to get to as much of what is
left of Spencer Deary's speech. He's from West Lafayette, by
the way, District twenty three in the state of Indiana.
He's laying out what I consider to be the most
(34:14):
cogent argument against redistricting, which Indiana voted down. I still
don't think again, I've been through this, I'm going through
this with you. I still don't think it's very persuasive
to me. I have lots of questions about his starting
premises that I don't think he's asked or if he
(34:35):
has his He just has assumptions that I reject, again,
namely that we automatically or a.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
Two party system. Where do they get this?
Speaker 2 (34:44):
I know in reality that's what we have today, but
that's not baked into the constitution. How do we factor
in third parties? Should they not matter? Is this not?
Do you not see how the people who say that
we have a UNI party would object to this as well?
I mean, there's a bazillion or questions that I have
about this. He just states it as though we all
(35:04):
should agree that that's how we should determine who has
won the quote unquote jerrymandering race. And I just reject
the entire premise of how this is being discussed and
how this is being argued and how to think about this.
But apparently I'm either in the minority or people haven't
heard my objections because none of this is what I've
(35:26):
certainly mentioned that Blue States did it, but that's not
the core of my argument anyway. I want to get
to as much of that as I can, and again,
if I can't get to it, it's on You can
listen to it and its totality on the website or
just google it is his name, Spencer Deary, Spencer Deary,
you can google it.
Speaker 3 (35:44):
It's on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
So friends, you know, one of the biggest challenges we
have as conservatives is finding ways to ensure that our
values align with how we live our lives, and that
includes how we invest our money. That's why I love
what the team at four to eight Financial is doing.
They specialize in biblically responsible investing. That means they screen
out companies that do not align with your faith your values,
so they're not funding things You're not funding things I
(36:07):
should say that go completely against what you believe in.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
They do all the heavy lifting.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
They help align your investments with your purpose, with your goals,
with your values. The best part is all you have
to do is head on over to four eight financial
dot com, slash Todd and you can complete an assessment
that will help you find out if, or to what degree,
your current investments reflect your values. That's four eight financial
dot com slash todd for eight financial, because your money
(36:36):
should work for your values.
Speaker 3 (36:38):
I want to get to this as much as I can,
my friends.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Again, Spencer Dari's speech in opposition to the new maps.
I'm not going to get through this whole thing, but again,
we'll do our best here.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
If one side was more successful at jerrymandering, there would
be a mismatch between those two numbers, but that isn't
the case. Nationwide, Republicans won fifty one percent of all
the votes for Congress, and they won fifty one percent
of the seats Undeniably. There are multiple states with corrupt
looking maps and Democrats strongholds, but this data shows Republicans
(37:10):
have fully offset those maps in subtler, classier ways. Another
justification from mid cycle jerry mandering is simply that we
don't want Republicans to lose power.
Speaker 2 (37:20):
Pause now that now we're getting to part of what
I would argue, But his first argument makes makes no sense.
Speaker 3 (37:28):
I've been through this. I just want to hit it again.
You don't you.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Don't factor in let's say right now, I'm an NBA. Well,
I'm a Pacers fan. In fact, we're going to the
game tonight, I'm a Pacers fan. I wouldn't say I'm
an NBA fan. The Thunder are twenty four and two.
They got they just lost their second game to the
Spurs last two nights ago.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
I don't know recently.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
And to determine someone's record, you don't go out and
calculate the points of the total league and then and
then take an average of that and say, oh, well,
based upon this, the Thunder have you know, x percent
of the league's points, so they have x they should
have x percent of the league's wins. That doesn't make
any sense at all. And I would say in a
(38:13):
similar fashion, this is a way way over simplistic way
of looking at the American elector. But he continues here
by talking about Republicans trying to accumulate political power, which
is something that I've argued here.
Speaker 4 (38:28):
I like a supermajority of you do not want to
see another Democrat Speaker of the House. But that isn't
for me to decide, and it isn't for anyone in
this body to decide either. Living in a free constitutional
republic means we empower voters to make those decisions and
we accept their will no matter what.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
And how does this prevent that, Spencer? How does it
prevent it? It doesn't.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
We're talking number one, we're talking about two seats right,
talking about two seats in our state, by the way,
in maps that you are responsible for drawing if the
body says they want to draw them. So again I
ask you, what what changes are we suddenly not going
(39:13):
to have elections? Are we suddenly not going to have
people being represented? Are there areas of the map that
aren't going to have representation?
Speaker 3 (39:22):
No?
Speaker 2 (39:23):
You know what it actually, as I said before, when
you spread the Republican vote out over more districts so
that they're all competitive, you actually make more competitive districts.
How about this, respectfully, Senator Deary. Maybe the left, maybe
the Democrat Party, if they stopped putting radical candidates up
and abandon their radical, godless agenda that has caused real
(39:46):
harm to Hoosiers and their families. I mean, this is
a They've created a culture of confusion, a culture that
rejects truth, a culture of death with abortion, a culture
that spends itself into oblivion. That's put and hoosiers in
real financial pickles. There's the open border issue that absolutely
has impacted. There are states that have representatives that they
(40:11):
should not have because illegal aliens were counted towards the census,
which determined how many congressmen each state was allocated. Don't
tell me that this is that that we're somehow preventing
people from electing whoever they want. But how about we
play to win again. I'm not intentionally cutting him off here.
(40:35):
I'm not quite halfway through his speech. It's an eight
minute speech. We're about three minutes, and you can listen
to it on the website.
Speaker 3 (40:41):
Maybe I'll do more of this tomorrow. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (40:43):
We'll see what happens between then and now. But I
gotta go out of time. Thanks for listening, Stig
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.