Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / Regulatory failure or violation of our rights?

Transcript

Regulatory failure or violation of our rights? · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News

• 0:11
  Helping to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
• 0:15
  This is the Constitution Study on the America Out Loud Network with your host, Paul Engel.
• 0:31
  In the information technology industry, we had a saying garbage in, garbage out.
• 0:36
  Meaning, if you put bad data in, you get bad data out.
• 0:41
  When governments use bad data to regulate our lives, the outcome is not just a regulatory failure, but frequently a violation of our rights.
• 0:50
  Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul England here, the Constitution Study, where we read and study the Constitution, teacher action generation be free.
• 0:57
  Glad you could join me today.
• 0:59
  This idea of is your data valid?
• 1:02
  It kind of goes back to the question I'm always asking.
• 1:04
  Where's your evidence?
• 1:05
  Where's your proof?
• 1:05
  Let me vet it.
• 1:06
  Let me verify it.
• 1:07
  Let me make sure that it's based on something real.
• 1:09
  It's become an extremely important part, not only of my study, but of the constitution as a study as a whole.
• 1:16
  So I wanted to bring some examples here today.
• 1:19
  We're going to start this segment with um a gun control.
• 1:23
  Actually, they call it gun control.
• 1:25
  It's really people control because they really want to control the people having guns.
• 1:28
  They have no problem with government actors having guns, you know, police, military.
• 1:32
  Oh, that's fine.
• 1:33
  Well, we'll, you know, we'll turn all sorts of uh agencies into law enforcement so we can give them guns.
• 1:39
  We just don't want the people to have the guns.
• 1:40
  And of course, one of the primary um uh uh promoters of information about this is every town for gun safety, which is kind of funny because they're not really about gun safety, they're about controlling people with guns.
• 1:55
  But in their latest report, there's their latest study.
• 1:59
  Um, it's interesting the way they they the some of the data that they focus on.
• 2:04
  And again, this is often used as justification by uh states and cities in some cases to pass these so-called gun control laws.
• 2:12
  For example, according to the study, the uh Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, firearms, and explosives has identified tens of thousands of guns trafficked across state lines too since 2017 using gun trace data and other intelligence.
• 2:26
  Oh, isn't that scary?
• 2:28
  It's identified three major routes that guns take from mostly southern states with less restrictive gun laws to city states and cities with more restrictions.
• 2:36
  Oh my god, this is terrible.
• 2:38
  See, that's why our gun control laws don't work.
• 2:41
  It's not the failure of the law, it's these these trafficking, this this uh, you know, instate gun trafficking.
• 2:48
  That's what's the problem until you look at the data.
• 2:52
  For example, um, according to the uh ATF data, uh, since 2017, less than 30% of traffic guns have been recovered in a state other than the one in which they were purchased.
• 3:09
  Oh, so the this gun trafficking, 70% of it stays intra state.
• 3:15
  It stays within the state.
• 3:16
  It is not interstate gun trafficking.
• 3:18
  You'd never get that idea from the the report by every down for for gun safety.
• 3:23
  Oh no, this is my God, you know, 70% of those guns stay in the state where we saw them.
• 3:30
  Oh, umbe the problem isn't the so-called gun trafficking.
• 3:34
  Now, you may think 30% is too high, but the facts are the facts, and this is again ATF data.
• 3:41
  Another example, of course, people say that that guns are often trafficked through four main ways, right?
• 3:47
  Straw purchases, uh guns that buy from licensed dealers and resell them, unlicensed dealers and those who don't do background checks.
• 3:55
  They say people steal guns.
• 3:57
  There's a lot of reasons.
• 3:58
  There's again, just more facts and data.
• 4:03
  You see, a 2019 study done by the Department of Justice found that just 11% of criminals got their firearms via straw purchases.
• 4:13
  Another 10% got them through a retail purchase, even though they were prohibited at the time of purchase.
• 4:20
  Um while the Everytown report focuses on straw purchase, by the way, a straw purchase is when you purchase a firearm for somebody else.
• 4:29
  So say, you know, say your brother-in-law has some, you know, they they they got caught with weed when they were in college, and it turned out to be a felony, and they're prohibited from buying a gun, but you think it's kind of ridiculous, so you buy a gun for them, which by the way, is a federal crime.
• 4:45
  That's a straw purchase.
• 4:47
  Um, but every time saying these are our problems, right?
• 4:51
  We've got these these, you know, gun trafficking is interstate gun trafficking, not the problem.
• 4:57
  Uh it's straw purchases, not the problem.
• 5:00
  It's what's called a forced perspective.
• 5:02
  You focus on one thing out of context and it makes it look bigger than it is.
• 5:07
  The classic version in photography is if you've ever seen a picture where somebody seems to be holding something very large in their hand, a car, a building, an airplane, it's forced perspective.
• 5:19
  It's when the photographer looks at it just the right way to appear that something that is far away, is actually close to the subject and blows the scale, the the scale all out of whack.
• 5:31
  That's kind of what uh every town and a lot of these um of these quote-unquote gun control groups, that's a lot of what they do.
• 5:40
  They focus on things that are relatively small.
• 5:43
  Now they're still a problem, right?
• 5:44
  Straw purchases are criminal for a good reason.
• 5:47
  If someone is banned from having a gun, someone else should not be buying it for them.
• 5:51
  Uh the this gun trafficking to me is a really free country.
• 5:58
  We drive across state lines all the time.
• 6:01
  So the question is, is this gun trafficking the natural movement of guns?
• 6:07
  Or is someone actually trying to traffic guns across state lines to get around the law?
• 6:12
  I haven't seen good data on that yet.
• 6:14
  So there we go.
• 6:16
  But again, the everytown data, that's what so many of these blue states look at when they're looking at, well, we got to regulate guns because you know, we got this gun traffic and straw, and all these things that really aren't the problem.
• 6:29
  Uh, for example, Colorado is trying to pass a measure that would identify gun barrels as restricted, meaning to purchase a barrel, you'd have to go through a dealer and go through a background check.
• 6:44
  Um I I don't know if most people realize this.
• 6:48
  A barrel, a gun barrel, it's actually a wear item on a gun, meaning it wears out.
• 6:54
  Now, they generally last very long.
• 6:56
  Most people don't use guns frequently enough for them to actually wear out the the barrel, but it's designed to be to be it wears out.
• 7:06
  You've got gun, there's a bullet going through there at high speed, you've got all the gases and all the the material that's that's in there.
• 7:13
  It wears the lands and grooves, making it less effective, less accurate, and needs to be replaced.
• 7:20
  Just imagine if you had to go through a background check to say replace your brakes.
• 7:27
  All right, you go into you know, your brakes are starting to wear out, you're having a hard time stopping, you go to a car repair shop and say, uh, yeah, I need you to uh replace my brakes, and they go, that's fine, fill out this form so we can do a background check on you before you replace the brakes.
• 7:44
  And let's face it, a barrel without a gun is useful for only nothing but a club.
• 7:50
  I mean, that that's you take a barrel, it's it's it's useless.
• 7:54
  But again, you have this hoplophomic uh uh general assembly in Colorado that says we have to do everything we can to make sure our civilians don't have guns because, well, then they could stand up to us.
• 8:08
  They could tell us we're wrong.
• 8:10
  They could tell us we're not gonna follow that law because it violates the constitution, the supreme law of the land.
• 8:14
  They might actually think they're in charge, not the government.
• 8:21
  Hmm.
• 8:23
  Or how about in in Minnesota?
• 8:25
  Now, Minnesota's been trying to ban what's called binary triggers because everyone is terrified of automatic weapons.
• 8:32
  Why?
• 8:33
  Well, because in the news, and I should say in the media, in the movies, we see automatic weapons everywhere.
• 8:40
  By the way, there is not a ban on automatic weapons.
• 8:43
  You can legally purchase an automatic weapon.
• 8:46
  You just have to go through an additional background check.
• 8:49
  You make an additional filing with the ATF, you go through another background check, and you pay a tax.
• 8:54
  And then you can own, possess, even fire an automatic weapon.
• 9:01
  In fact, there are places I saw one in last time I was in Las Vegas where they advertise come to us and you know, pay some money and have fun with an automatic weapon.
• 9:12
  People are terrified because they think that automatic weapons make guns more dangerous.
• 9:17
  Well, there's kind of an iffy to that, because on the one hand, uh, yes, you can shoot more rounds with an automatic weapon than most people can with a semi-automatic weapon.
• 9:28
  I say most people, because if you're really good at it, you can shoot them really fast.
• 9:32
  But anything that aids in the number of rounds fired just terrifies these people.
• 9:38
  One is called a binary trigger.
• 9:40
  Now, a semi-automatic weapon is when you activate the trigger, one round flies out, right?
• 9:48
  It's really simple.
• 9:49
  You know, automatic, you pull the trigger, as long as you hold the trigger, bullets keep coming out until you let go of the trigger or the gun runs out of ammunition.
• 9:57
  Semi automatic, you put you know, you act.
• 10:00
  The trigger, and I'm using word activate for a reason.
• 10:02
  You activate the trigger, one round comes out, and the gun waits until you activate the trigger again.
• 10:08
  Now, a binary trigger means the trigger activates when you pull it and when you release it.
• 10:15
  So instead of going bang, bang, bang, you can go bang bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
• 10:21
  Oh, you're shooting faster.
• 10:23
  Oh my god.
• 10:24
  What's wrong with that?
• 10:26
  Tell me, why is that a bad thing?
• 10:29
  Unless it's in the hands of an evil person.
• 10:33
  I take a binary trigger.
• 10:34
  I go down to the range.
• 10:35
  I go bang bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
• 10:38
  No, not a problem.
• 10:40
  Someone's trying to uh I have uh coyotes in my yard, and they're attacking the cows.
• 10:46
  So I go out there with my binary trigger.
• 10:49
  Bang, bang, bang bang, bang bang, bing bang, and I kill or hurt or scare off the coyotes.
• 10:54
  Not a problem.
• 10:55
  The only time a binary trigger is an issue is when a gun is an issue, and that is when someone uses it for an evil purpose.
• 11:04
  Now, the the gun owners caucus in Minnesota says they think they've killed the uh the binary trigger man.
• 11:14
  Now, this is because of a case in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, uh, caucus versus waltz, and they challenge the track the binary trigger ban.
• 11:25
  It's interesting, they they they challenged it based on what's called a single subject clause, which it's often a state law or state constitution that a bill can only have one subject.
• 11:37
  It prevents the omnibus bulls bills that you know Congress is famous for.
• 11:42
  You know, where just throw all the stuff in a package and say it's sausage, go eat it.
• 11:47
  So apparently um this uh this case went the way of the uh the the what they call the gun Minnesota gun owners caucus.
• 11:59
  You know, the the again, the judge agreed that it violated the single subject.
• 12:02
  In other words, they didn't say that the the binary trigger rule violated the second amendment, which it does, or that it violated a clause in the Minnesota Constitution.
• 12:14
  Uh regarding firearms.
• 12:16
  Minnesota, I don't believe their constitution has language equivalent to the second amendment, but I'm not an expert.
• 12:21
  Maybe I'm wrong.
• 12:22
  But they said, listen, you violated it's not that the bill was vet was it's not that the the ban was unconstitutional.
• 12:30
  It's that the way they got the ban was unconstitutional, which I I guess is better than nothing.
• 12:37
  And uh you know, this uh again, if you're putting garbage information in, you get garbage laws out, and those laws will often infringe on our rights.
• 12:47
  Now, maybe you get saved by a a court that looks at this and says, well, I I don't they I don't think they were asked to look at the constitutionality of the ban.
• 12:57
  They were asked to look at the question of the the um single subject requirement that was violated, and they they got their way.
• 13:06
  But again, I look at um, you know, the how many states are are looking at these.
• 13:11
  Oh, where you we gotta interstate gun trafficking.
• 13:15
  Yeah, most of your guns, they can't the the quote gun trafficking guns you're looking at.
• 13:21
  Um, they remained in your state.
• 13:23
  They did not come 70% remained uh um in your state or from your state.
• 13:29
  They didn't go across state lines.
• 13:31
  So uh that's kind of I mean, is 30% too high?
• 13:34
  Maybe, but is that really the source of your problem?
• 13:38
  No, but that is a focus of a lot of of state legislators.
• 13:42
  Well, it's straw purges.
• 13:44
  Oh my god, we got to first of all, they're already illegal.
• 13:48
  And if only 11% of these guns are bought through straw purchases of guns purchased by criminals.
• 13:54
  That's really what they're talking about.
• 13:55
  Gun, you know, straw percentage, you're letting criminals get guns.
• 13:58
  Well, only 11% of criminals get their guns through straw purchases.
• 14:02
  I I that doesn't seem to be the major malfunction.
• 14:06
  In fact, was they say 10% um get them through uh um not through straw purchases, but actual retail purchases, um, which, even though they're prohibited, that that shows the system's not working.
• 14:20
  By the way, 43%, according to the DOJ said four per three 43% of criminals get their guns via the black market, meaning guns that were stolen or in otherwise purchased uh, you know, illegally.
• 14:35
  What are you gonna do?
• 14:37
  How would you if if I'm looking at this and I got a 10% problem, I got a 43% problem.
• 14:41
  Let me look at that 43% problem.
• 14:44
  Because that's where I'm going to get the most bang for the buck.
• 14:46
  No, no, no, we can't do that because again, these these groups that are providing this data, their goal isn't safety, there isn't gun safety.
• 14:56
  Their goal is banning guns from private citizens.
• 15:00
  Therefore, they skew the numbers to make them look good.
• 15:03
  And you get garbage data going into laws, you get garbage laws coming out again, frequently infringing on we, the people's rights.
• 15:12
  And remember, our our founding fathers fought hard for those rights.
• 15:17
  Our people on have fought hard for these rights.
• 15:20
  These rights didn't come out of thin air.
• 15:22
  You go back to the declaration of independence.
• 15:25
  We hold these truths to be self-evident that they're that we are endowed by air created by certain unalienable rights.
• 15:33
  Guess what?
• 15:34
  This is the time to celebrate.
• 15:36
  It's the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
• 15:40
  Not only that we declared the independence from Great Britain, but we declared listen, there are God-given rights that they don't come from the king, they don't come from government, they come from God.
• 15:50
  And you have no gangs and governments have no right to touch them.
• 15:54
  An important milestone and a document with such great words in it.
• 15:58
  You know, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
• 16:06
  That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.
• 16:13
  Those are great words.
• 16:15
  So this year, you know, uh, are you gonna join us?
• 16:20
  Join us now.
• 16:20
  Just join the reading studying.
• 16:22
  Absolutely.
• 16:23
  But join us at America Out Loud for the 250th celebration of the Declaration of Independence and the 10th celebrate year anniversary of America Out Loud.
• 16:32
  Join us in natural July 2nd through 4th.
• 16:35
  Go to America Outloud.shop.
• 16:37
  Join me.
• 16:38
  Show up, shake my hand.
• 16:40
  I'd love to talk to you, I'd love to meet you.
• 16:42
  It's a great time for us to get together.
• 16:44
  We're gonna have great keynotes.
• 16:45
  There's gonna be some great education.
• 16:47
  There's gonna be a beautiful fireworks display, a lot of time to meet and greet and learn.
• 16:52
  And I got a deal for you.
• 16:54
  Use the promo code ENGLE, my last name, E-N-G-E-L for special pricing.
• 16:59
  And you gotta hurry because I think we are just about out of time for the early bird pricing.
• 17:04
  So again, go to AmericaOut Loud dot news and look up the the uh 250 10 celebration, the America Out Loud 2510 celebration.
• 17:13
  Join us in Nashville, join me in Nashville.
• 17:17
  Let's have a great time celebrating this wonderful important document.
• 17:20
  Don't forget, use a promo code ANGLE at checkout to get special pricing.
• 17:25
  And I look forward to seeing you there in Music City this July.
• 17:36
  Hi, this is Colonel Mike from the National Security Hour calling all patriots to join me in Nashville on July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for America Out Loud News 250 10th anniversary in Nashville.
• 17:48
  Go get them, cowboys, along with CLEAR, the wellness company.
• 17:52
  We're celebrating two big milestones, 250 years of America and 10 years of America Out Loud.
• 17:58
  News.
• 17:59
  That's where you come to hear military and intel experts on the National Security Hour and where you get freedom of speech with liberty and justice for all.
• 18:07
  Not like anywhere else.
• 18:08
  This is a once-in-a-lifetime celebration.
• 18:11
  We will have inspiring entertainment, incredible fireworks, nationally recognized speakers who proudly stand for freedom, just like you and us.
• 18:19
  Let's unite to salute and celebrate the history of our great nation and collaborate to protect the future.
• 18:25
  Join us and register now at AmericaOut Loud.news Nashville.
• 18:30
  Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?
• 18:34
  Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.
• 18:37
  Bear bars or a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients.
• 18:44
  Bear bars are plant-based, organic gluten-free, contain six grams of protein and are low temperature dried for unique crunch.
• 18:53
  Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups or sweeteners.
• 19:00
  To learn more, just visit barebar.com slash out loud.
• 19:05
  I'm Dr.
• 19:06
  Kelly Victory with the wellness company, and I know this personally.
• 19:24
  So I began asking a different question.
• 19:26
  What can we do daily to support the body before something goes wrong?
• 19:30
  That question led me to formulate SHIELD.
• 19:33
  SHIELD is a two part nutraceutical system designed to support immune balance, antioxidant defense, and cellular health, a chemical-free cocoa mix and soft gels containing medicinal mushrooms, turmeric, green tea extract, olive leaf, berberine, and black seed oil.
• 19:49
  Prevention is power.
• 19:50
  Visit TWC.health slash outloud and use code Outloud for an exclusive discount.
• 20:03
  Welcome back, everyday American to rejoin the Constitution.
• 20:06
  Today we're talking about regulatory failure and how often it happens based on bad information.
• 20:12
  Now, there's been a lot of talk lately about these prediction markets.
• 20:17
  These are areas it's it's good, it's a form of gambling, right?
• 20:22
  It's let's say I'm going to bet that uh, you know, something happens, and it could be anything in some cases.
• 20:28
  I mean, when uh I look at it says, you know, yeah, sports gambling, right?
• 20:32
  Which team is going to win, what's going to be the sport, the point spread.
• 20:36
  Of course, then they got down into you know how many hits will be made, or how many um uh field goals will be kicked, or they could bet on anything.
• 20:44
  And these prediction markets have generally been um very useful in predicting what might happen.
• 20:52
  We don't have a a crystal ball, but when it's it's interesting when you look at expert predictions of what's going to happen versus what these markets come up with, uh could be about you know state policy or foreign relations, or it seems that these prediction markets frequently they do better than you know the then many of the experts.
• 21:13
  But like anything else, it can be used for evil.
• 21:18
  And what you found is I left California Governor Newsom issued an executive order banning state officials from using insider knowledge to profit or assist another person in profiting on these predictive markets.
• 21:31
  Now, I don't have a problem with that, because if you're a government official, if you are working with you have access to inside information.
• 21:40
  So if you uh uh say um you go to the market and say, I know that uh there's gonna be a new law or new regulation published that would uh uh oh I'll say uh adversely impact the the oil markets, meaning that you expect gas prices in California to go up.
• 22:00
  So you make a bet on, you know, was it Calci or one of these, and you say, I bet that uh you know gasoline price are gonna go up by 10% in the next six months based on your insider information.
• 22:12
  Now, I find this somewhat laughable because well, I know at least in the federal government, this has been going on for decades, only not with the prediction markets, but with the stock market.
• 22:23
  Meaning, uh, let's say that you are you're a senator or uh representative, you're on a committee, and uh you're marking up a bill, and you say, hmm, you know what?
• 22:34
  This is probably gonna be bad news for the medical industry.
• 22:39
  So I'm going to uh uh I'm gonna bet on a sale.
• 22:43
  I'm gonna short sell uh you know, maybe uh uh uh I don't know, pick a medical industry.
• 22:49
  Um, because I think their their stock is going to go down because of this regulation.
• 22:55
  Now, if anyone else were to do that, that'd be considered insider trading.
• 22:59
  But of course, Congress loves to exempt themselves from their own laws, so Congress can do it to their heart's content.
• 23:05
  So if they say, you know what, uh I'm gonna predict that you know we're we're issuing a contract uh for this arms manufacturer over that arms.
• 23:16
  I'm gonna pick, we're gonna go with Beretta rather than Glock.
• 23:20
  So you buy stock and beretta before it's announced.
• 23:25
  They know the government says we're gonna be buying a million berettas, the stock price goes up, and these senators are they they enrich themselves.
• 23:34
  Um, at least in California, they said you can't do that, but notice it's only for these prediction markets.
• 23:41
  I have a question.
• 23:43
  Does that mean if I were, say, a an official in California, I could use my insider knowledge in the stock market, in the bond market?
• 23:54
  Possibly.
• 23:55
  I don't know if there's a law in there.
• 23:56
  I don't know if it's a ethics violation, but uh, I mean, this is a scenario where it's like okay, that's not bad.
• 24:01
  What I find interesting though is now Congress has come along and say, we're looking into how do we regulate these markets?
• 24:10
  Now, this is interesting for me too, because um, on the one hand, they say, well, there were some unusual trading uh uh patterns in these markets related to US and Israel and their war with Iran, suggesting that somebody with insider information may be profiteering.
• 24:30
  Oh my God, say it's not so.
• 24:33
  It is.
• 24:34
  So the question I have is is Congress going to actually, oh, I don't know, enforce logic and reason and say people in the federal government cannot use infrared insider information when dealing with any sort of market, whether it be these uh predictive markets or stock markets, bond markets, that insider trading means insider trading, and that people in government are just as culpable.
• 25:00
  Now, I don't know the law well enough about this.
• 25:04
  Uh, I'm not, you know, in the SEC, I don't play regular on TV.
• 25:08
  I don't know if this type of insider trading is already illegal.
• 25:12
  I know Congress has exempted themselves, but did this information come out of the executive branch?
• 25:17
  I don't know.
• 25:18
  Did it come out of uh, say, uh maybe some private sector entity that's been working with the executive?
• 25:24
  Insider trading should be insider trading.
• 25:26
  It's an considered an unfair advantage.
• 25:29
  And my question is, are we going to apply the same?
• 25:33
  Or is Congress going to look at places like Calchi and Polymarket and say, oh, we can't have an entity that we don't regulate.
• 25:42
  Therefore, we have to get in and regulate it.
• 25:45
  Um why?
• 25:49
  How about you just set a standard that said insider trading is illegal, and then, oh, I don't know, enforce it.
• 25:56
  I mean, that would to me would make a lot more sense than simply saying, you know, uh saying we're gonna go in and and and um you know micromanage these markets because unless you're dealing with interstate commerce, Congress has no authority over these marketplaces.
• 26:11
  Oh no.
• 26:13
  I know the Constitution keeps getting in the way.
• 26:16
  So that was one that caught my attention.
• 26:18
  You got California saying we're gonna ban insider trading in oh, but only in these markets.
• 26:23
  Now you have Congress saying, well, are we just gonna ban insider trading or are you gonna ban something?
• 26:28
  Are we gonna include ourselves?
• 26:31
  Are we gonna include our staff?
• 26:33
  Or are we just gonna play games around the middle so that it looks like we're doing something, but we keep exempting ourselves.
• 26:40
  Now, when you're talking about looking into the future, you know we we don't have a crystal ball, but there are certain times where there are hints.
• 26:48
  There are so in fact they become so popular, they call them red flags.
• 26:52
  Of course, you hear about a red flag law, I immediately think of uh, well, somebody did something I don't like, so let me take away his guns because that's a red flag that he may do something bad, whether it's really a red flag or not.
• 27:05
  But there are red flags out there, according to Dr.
• 27:07
  Mehmet Oz, uh head of the Center for Medicaid and Medicare, he found 72 fraudulent hospice companies in a single building in Los Angeles.
• 27:19
  So there's a uh uh you know, uh 700 hospitals that have triggered multiple quote-unquote red flags that according to Dr.
• 27:29
  Oz, he's estimated three and a half billion dollars in fraud.
• 27:34
  We're worrying about the Luring Center in Minneapolis.
• 27:37
  What about Los Angeles?
• 27:39
  But I find this interesting because again, red flags are often hindsight, not foresight.
• 27:46
  Meaning we normally recognize the red flag after the fact.
• 27:51
  I mean, we'd love to recognize them before there's certain things that, again, certain actions to get my attention.
• 27:57
  Let me give an example.
• 27:58
  The other day, actually, several couple months ago.
• 28:01
  Uh, it was nighttime, uh, the lights are out, and a car pulls into the driveway, drives past the front door with the light on, and over to the back door.
• 28:16
  Now, that's pretty odd.
• 28:17
  It was, you know, I was expecting an Amazon delivery, but this person didn't stop at the lighted front door, they went around the back door.
• 28:25
  So I immediately, family's on alert, man.
• 28:27
  I go out the back door, and I said, Can I help you?
• 28:31
  And he said, I'm looking for a place to turn around.
• 28:33
  I go, why are you here?
• 28:34
  Because I'm looking for a place to turn around.
• 28:36
  Like, no, why are you at my house?
• 28:39
  Oh, I have a delivery.
• 28:41
  Why didn't you go to the lit front door?
• 28:43
  Why'd you go to the darkened back door?
• 28:45
  Right?
• 28:46
  That was a red flag.
• 28:47
  When he drove past that drive, that door, that was a red flag that this could be bad.
• 28:53
  It wasn't.
• 28:54
  He was just a, well, I don't know if I'd say he's lost.
• 28:59
  He was just, he apparently couldn't read because my Amazon specifically says where people can turn around.
• 29:05
  But again, to go past a lit door at night to a darkened door.
• 29:10
  Red flags.
• 29:12
  So I wonder how many of these red flags, Mr.
• 29:14
  Ozis, Dr.
• 29:15
  Oz is talking about were recognized that were red flags before the fact, meaning in foresight, there's something wrong here, as opposed to hindsight.
• 29:26
  Um, oh, now that I see there's a problem, yeah, these things might have been clues and hints.
• 29:31
  You remember, hindsight is 2020.
• 29:34
  And we also have to remember red flags aren't always red flags.
• 29:39
  Right?
• 29:39
  So uh, for example, like I said, there's a shooting, and so oh, he was a quiet person.
• 29:44
  He was always loner.
• 29:46
  That's not a red flag that the person's dangerous.
• 29:49
  There are thousands, millions of people who are quiet, who are reserved, and they don't do harm anyone.
• 29:56
  But we look at, oh, see, you gotta watch out for the quiet ones.
• 30:00
  They're often not really red flags.
• 30:02
  But as I understand it, some of these red flags should have at least warranted further investigation.
• 30:10
  And Dr.
• 30:11
  Oz gave an example of one of these that might have been a red flag, but maybe not.
• 30:15
  Well, certainly to me, worth investigation.
• 30:18
  See, in California has a third more elderly than Florida, right?
• 30:25
  California, two centers for elderly.
• 30:27
  California's a third more.
• 30:29
  Now, California's a big state population-wise.
• 30:33
  However, California has 11 times more hospices.
• 30:38
  Let me say that again.
• 30:39
  They have a third, one-third more elderly than Florida, but 11 times more by 11.
• 30:46
  There are 2279 hospices in California versus 208 in Florida.
• 30:52
  Now, are there reasons for that?
• 30:56
  Possibly.
• 30:57
  But when you say one in three hospices in America are in Los Angeles County, either people are dying a lot in Los Angeles County and need hospice care as they die, or there's something to look into.
• 31:12
  So again, Oz is saying we gotta look into this.
• 31:18
  Should that have warranted some investigation?
• 31:20
  Maybe, but why did nobody notice it beforehand?
• 31:23
  Because it's not a slap in the face.
• 31:25
  It's not like people go around counting one hospice, two hospice, three hospices.
• 31:30
  These are numbers that only came to light once fraud was found, and then you look back and say, hmm.
• 31:37
  So I'm waiting to see what uh Mr.
• 31:40
  Oz has in Dr.
• 31:41
  Oz has in mind for uh better oversight based on these numbers.
• 31:47
  But these red flags, I don't know how much the how actually forethought they would have brought unless someone noticed this inconsistency.
• 31:58
  And apparently nobody did because nobody was looking for it.
• 32:02
  And in today's day and age to look for these uh, you know, kind of future forward, what's going on here?
• 32:09
  Of course, a lot of people are looking at AI, uh artificial intelligence, which of course to me they're important uh imitation intelligence, but that's the point.
• 32:18
  This comes up because the internal revenue service, or the infernal revenue service, as some people like to call it, they're piloting a program with uh Palantir's AI analytics platform to identify high value audit targets.
• 32:32
  In other words, they want this AI to go through all of this data and find some sort of correlation that would say this person is not only possibly I think they may be cheating.
• 32:44
  I mean, I may have found red flags for cheating, and they're worth a lot of money, which means we can get a lot of taxes out of them.
• 32:51
  Now, I I do have a couple of concerns, all right.
• 32:54
  So if the idea is we're gonna let AI crunch through terabytes of data to identify potential fraud cases that a human being is then going to investigate.
• 33:06
  Well, um, I don't see that as inherently a problem.
• 33:11
  The question is, is it going to be worth the money?
• 33:14
  But the other concern I have is that means you've got AI chewing through all of your private data.
• 33:20
  Will there be security concerns about the data and where it's stored and where it's processed?
• 33:26
  When I when I worked with state agencies, there are a lot of rules and regulations about the storage of confidential data, uh, person identifiable information identifiable information, things like that.
• 33:37
  They had to be stored in data centers, usually within the U.S., sometimes even within the state.
• 33:43
  Um, you know, they had to be segregated, there's a lot of things to make sure that this data was not exposed to the wild.
• 33:51
  Will those be put in place for this palantier system?
• 33:55
  And the next question is is this eventually going to be used to identify other things?
• 34:01
  Um again, I don't have an inherent concern with the idea of AI chewing through terabytes of data looking for patterns.
• 34:10
  That's basically what it's doing.
• 34:12
  As long as that is a tool used to uh identify potential problems and doesn't turn into, well, Palantir said this is a you know, you you cheated on your taxes, so we're sending you a tax bill with penalties and interest because an AI system said so.
• 34:30
  That would be a problem.
• 34:31
  And also, the algorithm that will be used.
• 34:35
  Will it be biased towards tax enforcement or towards uh um, you know, simple human error?
• 34:43
  There are a lot of concerns about how that is done, but a lot of people get upset that gets concerned.
• 34:48
  AI is coming after your taxes.
• 34:50
  Well, not directly, but uh, you know, there are some things that we we need to be concerned with because again, there's a lot of your personal information that could be exposed uh rightly or wrongly based on these these platforms and these these processes.
• 35:08
  Now, I I gotta take a break.
• 35:10
  I've got one coming up, but before I go, you know, think about these companies that you're supporting and who they support.
• 35:17
  Right?
• 35:18
  There are a lot of businesses, companies I don't do business with anymore because of the entities they've supported, entities that are attacking our rights that are abusing our rights that are trying to infringe on our or get governments to infringe on our rights.
• 35:31
  See, we need to be aware of this.
• 35:34
  Are you helping these groups move by who you do business with?
• 35:38
  Let's buy from companies that believe what you and I believe, that believe the Constitution matters, that our rights matters.
• 35:44
  Like stick together and support those companies that are willing to stand with you.
• 35:50
  One of those companies is Patriot Mobile, America's only Christian Conservative Wireless Provider.
• 35:56
  They got great 4G and 5G coverage on all the same networks and towers as the major carriers.
• 36:00
  Their customer support is 100% U.S.
• 36:02
  based, and they've got great plans to meet your needs.
• 36:05
  Go to patriot mobile.com/slash constitution and find a plan that works for you.
• 36:10
  Check to see if you're eligible for a discount.
• 36:13
  Everyone from first responders to veterans, even families with multiple lines are eligible for discounts.
• 36:19
  And if you use the code constitution at checkout, you'll get your line activated absolutely free.
• 36:25
  Support Patriot Mobile as they support those organizations that are fighting for your rights, your freedom of religion, speech, press, your the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, your right to due process by going to patronmobile.comslash constitution, finding a plan that works for you.
• 36:41
  Don't forget free activation with the promo code constitution.
• 36:44
  Then every time you pay your bill, you're helping to support organizations that are helping to defend your rights, not those that are trying to destroy your rights.
• 36:52
  I also hope we'll head over to AmericaOut Loud.news.
• 36:55
  I go there each and every day for news and information.
• 36:58
  It's part of my nightly routine.
• 37:00
  Not because of the radio program of the website, but because I need sources of news, I need information.
• 37:06
  And corporate meat has been found lying to us for decades.
• 37:09
  So do me a favor, go to AmericaOut Loud.news, read the stories and articles, then share them.
• 37:14
  Listen to the podcast, watch the videos, share them.
• 37:17
  You'd be surprised how often people say, I never knew that was a story.
• 37:21
  Because corporate media doesn't want them to know.
• 37:24
  See, by sharing this information by letting people know things that uh they may otherwise not have heard, you're not just sharing America Outloud.
• 37:33
  You're helping to secure the blessings of liberty to all of us.
• 37:40
  Struggling with your health, energy, and constantly feeling hungry, want to save money on the rising cost of groceries and dramatically improve your health.
• 37:48
  Go to chemicalfree body.com forward slash out loud today, get nature's super multivitamin, doctor formulated green 85 juice formula, empower your immune system, cut your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order.
• 38:02
  You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands.
• 38:06
  What about washing your nose?
• 38:08
  I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe, air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants, make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear.
• 38:16
  No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.
• 38:19
  Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion available in stores and online at clear.com.
• 38:29
  That is XLEAR.com.
• 38:32
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the sprout book.
• 38:34
  And I'm also a father with a three-year-old daughter.
• 38:38
  And that's why we grow sprouts.
• 38:41
  Did you know that you could take seeds, add water, and get fresh organic vegetables in three to five days without soil, sunshine, or fertilizer for under a dollar a serving?
• 38:54
  That's the miracle of sprouting.
• 38:56
  And I want to share that with you.
• 38:58
  Go to the spouting company.com/slash out loud and use the code out loud for a special offer.
• 39:11
  Welcome back, everyday American Drew rejoined the Constitution study.
• 39:15
  Today we've been talking about regulatory failures.
• 39:17
  And I want to diverge just a little bit here, because one thing I've noticed is well our pursuit of our dependence, our worship of expertise has really turned certain private organizations into de facto regulatory agencies.
• 39:37
  You think of uh, well, the American Bar Association, where you know, lawyers are vetted by a private agency, which pretty much every state adopts as their vetting platform.
• 39:49
  They actually have laws that says you cannot practice law in their state unless you are a member of the bar, unless you're a member of a private organization with its own rules.
• 40:00
  And standards that effectively turns again this private organization into a de facto regular state and federal regulatory agency.
• 40:11
  And it's not just the legal realm, the judicial realm, it's the medical realm.
• 40:15
  The American uh the Academy American Academy of Medicine, the AMA, holds great sway over a lot of the regulatory bodies in our various levels of government.
• 40:27
  The AMA says it, it must be okay.
• 40:31
  Problem number one is the AMA, it's not a government entity.
• 40:35
  It doesn't have the legal requirements, legal oversight of a government entity.
• 40:40
  Nobody in the AMA is elected by the people.
• 40:42
  No one on the AMA is appointed by someone elected by the people, but it still holds great sway.
• 40:50
  So uh uh back in early February, the AMA announced to multiple news outlets that uh surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.
• 41:02
  What surgical interventions?
• 41:04
  Well, transgender circle surgical, the so-called gender affirming care, which is actually gender denying care.
• 41:11
  It denies that this that the boy is actually a boy, claims it's a girl, and that they can change him from a boy to a girl with cosmetic surgery by mutilating his body.
• 41:20
  It's it's this crazy.
• 41:21
  And the AMA said, you know what?
• 41:23
  Surgical intervention should wait until adulthood.
• 41:27
  I agree.
• 41:28
  Sad that it took that long for them to get to that point, but okay, I agree.
• 41:33
  However, in a recent newsletter, the AMA's board of trustees categorically denied that the AMA had changed his policy on gender surgery and accused reporters of mischaracterizing the organization's stance.
• 41:49
  Now, again, why is this important?
• 41:51
  You have the A, the American Medical Association making allegedly medical decisions not based on medicine, not based on science, but based on politics.
• 42:04
  A perfect example.
• 42:05
  So uh Mehmet Oz, the the head of the uh Senator for Medicaid and Medicare Services, the administrator, he held a meeting with the heads of America's major medical organizations.
• 42:16
  They wanted to discuss the the the again, gender treatment for minors.
• 42:21
  Now, according to reporting, Dr.
• 42:22
  Oz pressed on a specific question.
• 42:26
  Why did these organizations recommend medical intervention for young patients, including hormone treatment, puberty blockers, and surgery, when the research on whether it helped young patients in the long term, especially on mental health was inconclusive.
• 42:43
  That to me is the interesting.
• 42:44
  Why are you pushing this when the evidence for it is, I would say inconclusive at best, but that was the question.
• 42:52
  However, these leaders, these quote unquote leaders, almost unanimously defended pushing their gender denying care, despite a lack of evidence that it was helpful to the patient.
• 43:08
  Only one of these organizations, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, seemed to change their mind and were now recommending that gender surgery not be performed on children and adolescents.
• 43:21
  Shortly after the meeting, the ASPS issued a statement where they explained that given the lack of evidence and emerging concerns about potential long-term harms, it recommended that surgeons delay gender uh gender-related breast, chest, genital, and facial surgery until the patient is at least 19 years old.
• 43:43
  Again, you have politicians making decisions based on medical advice that is politicized, not based in medicine.
• 43:54
  And we wonder why we have these types of regulatory failures.
• 43:58
  You wonder why a young lady just won a two million dollar lawsuit again, a malpractice lawsuit against her her doctor for pressuring her and her parents to mutilate her body when all she really needed was a little time and little understanding and maybe someone to talk to.
• 44:17
  You want to see how this is further politicized, the state of Colorado basically said, listen, if you are if you have a you have a child who feels a certain way and doesn't like to, right, wants to change, you could only get professional treatment if you followed the political mandate of the state.
• 44:37
  Meaning, if you wanted to be to be more homosexual, if you want to be comfortable with being a homosexual, you could get treatment.
• 44:44
  If you wanted to, if you're uncomfortable with being a homosexual, no, this the state said you cannot have a professional help you do that.
• 44:52
  If you wanted to change your gender, the professionals could help you all you want.
• 44:56
  If you didn't want to change your gender, oh no, that was illegal.
• 44:59
  And this case went to the Supreme Court, which back on March 31st came up with a decision.
• 45:05
  The good news is they decided that that Colorado law was it violated the Constitution.
• 45:12
  The bad news was they they claimed it violated the First Amendment, which it can't, right?
• 45:17
  The first five words of the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law.
• 45:20
  Congress didn't make this law, it cannot violate the First Amendment.
• 45:24
  What it did violate was the 14th Amendment.
• 45:27
  It deprived both the patient and the doctor of their liberty without due process of law.
• 45:34
  That's problem number one.
• 45:35
  Here's problem number two.
• 45:37
  It was an 8-1 decision.
• 45:40
  Now you may think, well, the 8881, that's that's a pretty good uh uh margin there.
• 45:45
  I'm trying to figure out how one of these justices, and I'll let you guess who in just a second would think that um a patient that does not want something could not be able to see treatment because the state said so.
• 46:01
  That a doctor that was willing to provide, in this case, speech therapy.
• 46:05
  That's why they came with the First Amendment argument.
• 46:07
  All she does is talk with patients.
• 46:08
  She doesn't give them drugs, she doesn't perform surgery, no medical devices, she talks to them.
• 46:14
  Well, you shouldn't be allowed to talk about an idea that that is contrary to what the state says.
• 46:19
  Now, again, I'll give you three guesses who that justice is.
• 46:24
  By the way, if you came up with any name other than Katanji Brown Jackson, uh you haven't been paying that close attention to what I've been covering on the uh on the Supreme Court this session.
• 46:34
  Now, how did Ms.
• 46:35
  Jackson come to this conclusion that uh um doctors and patients shouldn't be able to seek the treatment they want because the state doesn't like it?
• 46:44
  Well, she said that uh the Colorado's law was based on the medical professionals' board consensus that this medical treatment, uh, which again seeks to change gay and transgender person's sexual orientation is ineffective and harmful.
• 46:59
  Well, I I hate to point out to her, but um, where's their evidence?
• 47:04
  So you're just saying they say that.
• 47:06
  They they have a consensus.
• 47:08
  But here's the thing: reality isn't based on consensus.
• 47:11
  At one point, the consensus was the world was flat.
• 47:15
  At one point, the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.
• 47:20
  And at one point, Ms.
• 47:22
  Jackson, the consensus was you didn't have any rights that a court needed to pay that a white man needed to pay attention to.
• 47:30
  By the way, those are the words of the Supreme Court you currently sit on.
• 47:34
  So consensus isn't reality.
• 47:37
  But this is the type of regulatory failure where it wasn't the actual failure.
• 47:42
  You have a judge who simply says, well, the regulatory body says it's it's ineffective.
• 47:48
  Really, based on what?
• 47:50
  Where's your evidence?
• 47:52
  Besides, Ms.
• 47:53
  Jackson, you're not there to make medical decisions.
• 47:56
  You're there to make legal decisions.
• 47:59
  And as I pointed out, the Constitution of the United States, you'd swore an oath to uphold and support.
• 48:05
  Says that a person cannot be deprived of their liberty without due process.
• 48:09
  No state can make a law that deprives a person of their liberty without due process of law.
• 48:14
  Yet this deprives of liberty of both the patient and the doctor for no other reason than a hack medical profession says, well, we all agree that the world is flat.
• 48:25
  That's basically her position.
• 48:28
  Another example of Miss Jackson declowing herself, proving herself to be an affirmative action higher.
• 48:34
  And I can't wait to get into this one and a couple more.
• 48:37
  There's been a couple other stories that uh as I write them, uh as I do my analysis and write them, we're gonna have some fun.
• 48:44
  But I got one more.
• 48:45
  This one, you love this one.
• 48:48
  Um, so apparently uh the Pennsylvania House was considering legislation marking women's history month.
• 49:00
  Um, and it was actually being promoted by the Democrats in the Pennsylvania House.
• 49:05
  They were promoting this uh this resolution to recognize women's history month.
• 49:12
  Now, I don't have a legal issue with this.
• 49:14
  I think it's a foolish waste of time.
• 49:16
  Um, I don't think it really does much of anything except maybe cause contention.
• 49:22
  But I find it very interesting that the very Democrats that proposed the resolution identifying women's history month hold the resolution from the floor after a lawmaker, this kid happens to be a Republican, tried to attach an amendment spelling out the biological definition of a woman.
• 49:43
  Now, if there's not an example of legislating uh uh uh of regulating through legislation based on flawed premises, there you have it.
• 49:53
  We're gonna have women's history month, but we can't actually define a woman.
• 49:57
  If you're gonna buy divine woman by
• 50:00
  What an a woman is the definition of a woman.
• 50:03
  Well, you can't have that.
• 50:05
  The scientific definition of a woman in defining women's history month.
• 50:11
  No, we can't have that.
• 50:14
  You talk about a regulatory failure, not the yanking of the resolution, but what it was yanked for.
• 50:21
  Now, I don't live in Pennsylvania.
• 50:23
  I've visited there a few times.
• 50:24
  I've been to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and some other places in between.
• 50:30
  But I have to ask you if you are in one of the districts represented by the House members that pulled a resolution for Women's History Month because they actually wanted to find by scientific methods by biology, what a woman is.
• 50:51
  What kind of people are those?
• 50:53
  What kind of regulatory structure do you suppose they would create?
• 50:59
  Now, I don't know if this Republican representative did this for political as a political stunt, or just as a, hey, if we're gonna, you know, in this day and age, if we're gonna recognize women, we gotta define what a woman is.
• 51:15
  Or if it was just, you know, hey, politics, I know it'll become a poison pill because this was not about recognizing women.
• 51:23
  It was about actually, well, maybe it'd been recognized, but it had a an undercurrent of destroying women.
• 51:30
  Well, if we're gonna have National Women's Month, does that include uh are we gonna say that Benjamin Franklin thought he was a woman, therefore we can recognize him?
• 51:39
  Are we supposed to take you know James Madison or John Adams or George Washington and recognize them on Women's History Month because, well, there's there's some you know, professor came up with a paper that said these are actually transgender, they just in their society couldn't uh be outspoken about it.
• 51:56
  If that sounds ridiculous, is it any more ridiculous than pulling a women's history month resolution because they actually wanted to find a woman?
• 52:06
  See, this is the um the craziness of the the the regulatory system, the failures of the regulatory system.
• 52:18
  So often it involves um, well, it involves people who've who apparently can't read and understand the constitution, who are not willing to follow what the constitution says.
• 52:30
  I know what the constitution says it, but we can we can kind of manipulate it and change it and move it around here.
• 52:36
  People who depend on so-called experts who rarely seem to provide their evidence because when their evidence falls under scrutiny, their evidence frequently falls apart.
• 52:49
  Are we being regulated by we the people?
• 52:53
  Are we being regulated by those we represent who represent us?
• 52:58
  Or being regulated by experts and special interest groups, because those who repres who are there to serve us are more afraid of them than they are of us.
• 53:11
  See, these regulatory failures to me point out two very important things.
• 53:15
  One is, well, we're not in control of our servants in government.
• 53:21
  And the other is we are more than willing to give up our liberty if someone tells us what to do.
• 53:29
  And that, ladies and gentlemen, to me is the scariest part.
• 53:33
  Because most of these regulations have no legal basis, they have no constitutionally sound basis.
• 53:40
  They're in void, they violate the supreme law of the land, they're illegal, but we still follow them.
• 53:46
  Mainly because most of us don't realize they're illegal.
• 53:49
  We may have a we may feel they're wrong, but we don't realize that it's not just they're illegal, they're a violation of our rights.
• 53:56
  There are null and void, as uh the Supreme Court has said on at least three occasions.
• 54:02
  As the uh Alexander Hamilton said, no law, no uh legislative act contrary to the constitution can be valid, but we pretend it is.
• 54:14
  Now I'm sure this is gonna bring up a lot of questions.
• 54:16
  And I love questions.
• 54:18
  I love when people ask me questions.
• 54:20
  I love the chance to answer those questions.
• 54:22
  It's why I've set up a sole section on the website for questions.
• 54:26
  Go to Constitution Study.com/slash questions and uh ask.
• 54:30
  Yes, I asked for your name and email address because I'm going to email you a response.
• 54:34
  Me, myself, personally.
• 54:36
  I don't have anyone else do this for me.
• 54:38
  This is stuff I do myself.
• 54:40
  But I also want you to know if you'd like me to answer it on the radio program.
• 54:44
  Well, there's a checkbox.
• 54:45
  Please answer on America at Loud Talk Radio.
• 54:47
  Check that box and I will answer it right here.
• 54:49
  So not only you, but everyone else gets to hear the answer, the question and the answer as well.
• 54:53
  I don't use your name unless you specifically tell me to.
• 54:56
  I I may use your first name, but I'm not identifying you because I believe people you know want some semblance of privacy.
• 55:06
  And I I try not to pick on people unless, well, they're kind of unless the tone of their question asks for it.
• 55:13
  I know I understand people are unfamiliar with these types of things.
• 55:17
  But I think it's important because it's how we learn.
• 55:19
  When we ask questions, that's how we learn.
• 55:21
  And by the way, when you ask questions, that's how I learn as well.
• 55:25
  A lot of these questions, you know, are covering something I may not have not have thought about and may not have been aware of, and I have to go investigate and figure that out.
• 55:33
  So it helps both you and me.
• 55:36
  And of course, if we put on the radio program, it'll help others as well.
• 55:39
  So please go to constitutionstudy.com/slash questions, ask your question, tell me if you'd like me to answer on the radio, and then sit back and listen to the answer.
• 55:48
  Because the only thing I ask is if you have a question, ask it.
• 55:52
  And if you ask it, listen to my answer.
• 55:55
  Speaking of the radio program, I hope you'll come back and join us here for the Constitution Study on America Out Loud Talk Radio, heard on the iHeart Radio Network every weekday, 4 p.m.
• 56:04
  Eastern time.
• 56:05
  You can listen on our media player.
• 56:07
  We also have apps for Apple, Android, and Alexa.
• 56:09
  And of course, you can always listen via podcast.
• 56:12
  It does take a day or two for an episode to go from talk radio to podcast, but get to listen in your favorite podcast app.
• 56:18
  Do me a favor, though, subscribe to the show.
• 56:21
  Leave us a rating on Apple Podcasts.
• 56:22
  It helps the algorithm show us to more people so they can see, they can click the link and join us here for the Constitution Study.
• 56:30
  Speaking of links, you can find all the links you need at the homepage at AmericaOut Loud.news.
• 56:35
  But please share those links with friends, family, neighbors, anywhere you can.
• 56:39
  By doing so, you're helping to share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation home.