Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / Who holds the gavel accountable?

Transcript

Who holds the gavel accountable? · 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.
• 0:30
  The way most people exercise their right to petition the government for redistrievance is through the courts.
• 0:36
  So keeping up on what the courts are doing is important.
• 0:40
  Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution Study, where we read instead of the Constitution, teacherizing generation be free.
• 0:47
  Glad you could join me today.
• 0:49
  You know, I do spend a lot of time looking at what goes on in the courts.
• 0:54
  Now, part of it is just the nature of the job.
• 0:57
  It's the business here of what's going on, often involves looking at what courts are doing, because well, the courts are where decisions are made generally, or at least supposedly based on the Constitution of the United States.
• 1:12
  I say supposedly because, well, let's just say that's not always the case.
• 1:16
  So I naturally kind of see what's going on in the courts, and I want to bring that to you because there's there's some important information that comes out of these court decisions, even what cases the courts are looking at.
• 1:28
  So let's start with this.
• 1:30
  Uh the case is called Watson versus RNC, and it's a dispute of challenging a Mississippi law allowing election officials to accept mail-in ballots up to five business days after election day, so long as they are postmarked on refor the day of the contest.
• 1:49
  This to me is interesting for several different reasons, right?
• 1:53
  Because uh again, we often talk about election day.
• 1:56
  And there are some there's some beliefs about election day that not are not always accurate.
• 2:02
  Now remember, Congress does has generally I should say the states set the time, place, and manner for holding elections.
• 2:09
  However, Congress can modify those for uh uh dealing with, but they can modify those, but only for elections for House and Senate.
• 2:19
  But Congress chooses the time of choosing presidential electors, and uh the day on which they give their votes, and those days that they shall be uniform throughout the United States.
• 2:33
  So we have to understand that while we generally think of an election day, um the the actual ability of Congress to deal with these elections, the what the constitution says is limited, right?
• 2:49
  Congress can set the time, place, and manner for elections in House and Senate, and only in House and Senate.
• 2:54
  They determine the time of choosing electors, in other words, when the the uh the states legislators appoint the electors, which nowadays is done based on the vote of the people of the state, but that must be the same throughout the United States.
• 3:12
  So this brings us to the situation in Mississippi.
• 3:15
  How do you define election day?
• 3:19
  So uh again, Mississippi, and there are several states that have variations of this that say you understand that if the vote is cast by election day, okay, then we can count it as long as it arrives within a few days afterwards.
• 3:39
  Some days, some states say it's five days, Mississippi says five days.
• 3:42
  I think some states go as far as two weeks.
• 3:45
  But the point is, as long as it's postmarked by election day, then the ballot was cast on election day.
• 3:52
  Now, of course, this bothers some people because one, they want you, we we're it's the instant coffee in the microwave generation.
• 3:59
  We want our answers now.
• 4:00
  And how are we going to know our answers on election day?
• 4:04
  You know, how are we going to get those nice little updates on all the the screens and all the the TV stations and whatnot?
• 4:11
  Well, if they can if votes still arrive afterwards, which brings me to the question.
• 4:17
  Is election day the day the votes are cast, or is election day the day the votes arrive?
• 4:24
  And that to me is the fundamental question here.
• 4:27
  Now, this, of course, this was challenged, and the district court for the Southern District of Mississippi looked at this and they said, nope, the state is correct that Mississippi statutes does not conflict with federal law because the ballot was cast by election day.
• 4:44
  But again, this only really should apply to House, Senate, and um uh choosing electors.
• 4:50
  But that's that that's uh that's where things are a little iffy.
• 4:53
  So hang on to that for a second.
• 4:55
  Well, this was of course what sent to the circuit court, the Fifth Circuit, they disagreed.
• 4:59
  They said no, um, that the quote-unquote federal election day statutes preempts Mississippi's law because they say that that apparently that election day is the day the ballot is received, not the day the ballot is cast.
• 5:15
  Again, interesting.
• 5:16
  I I haven't looked at the details to see how they came to that decision, but but that's their decision, and now this is sitting with the Supreme Court, and it's gonna be interesting because like I said, it really comes down to well, how do you define election day?
• 5:32
  Now, the fact that after COVID, we had such a dependence on mail-in ballots, that became problematic.
• 5:41
  Or I should say the problem became more widespread, which has led to a lot of these challenges, and we'll just have to wait and see uh how the Supreme Court comes down on this particular question.
• 5:53
  Um, you know, whether or not election day is actually the day the ballot is cast or the day the ballot is is received and recorded.
• 6:03
  That to me is an interesting question.
• 6:05
  Because again, really, if you think about it, because the constitutionally, this only matters for races for House, Senate, and uh House and Senate, actually.
• 6:15
  In fact, the only real impact where I see this to be problematic is presidential electors.
• 6:20
  You see, Congress sets a date when the president election must be appointed.
• 6:27
  And um this is where things get a little tricky.
• 6:32
  See, uh Title Three, Section One of the United States uh US uh U.S.
• 6:37
  Code says that the electors of president and vice president shall be appointed in each state on election day in accordance with the laws of the state enacted prior to election day.
• 6:48
  So the state is supposed to appoint the presidential electors on election day.
• 6:56
  Well, if they're accepting ballots that have been cast by election day but haven't been having a ride for five days, well, then how do you appoint presidential electors if the votes haven't been counted yet?
• 7:13
  This to me seems to be a problem because again, and it's not just mail in ballot, mail-in ballots just may be the one that we're talking about now, but think about it this way.
• 7:20
  How often have we had close elections?
• 7:23
  Right?
• 7:24
  Go back to uh what was it uh 2008 in you know, Florida and the hanging chads and the pregnant Chads and the challenges and challenges.
• 7:33
  There is not sufficient time allowed by art of by Title III, Section One of the U.S.
• 7:41
  Code to allow for challenges and problems within the election.
• 7:48
  So I think uh three USC one has a problem, and that is if the votes are cast on election day, and again, this only really matters for president.
• 8:00
  Um House and Senate, okay.
• 8:03
  Yes, you have to have the elections by election, you know, the Congress can say this is the time, election day.
• 8:09
  All other elections, Congress has no real say.
• 8:23
  So again, this to me seems to be a problem in federal law, in that there's not sufficient time.
• 8:30
  And again, when this was uh originally passed, I think the prior version was passed in in 1948.
• 8:40
  Um, I don't know if back then, you know, the states had popular votes for presidential electors.
• 8:47
  Maybe it wasn't much of an issue.
• 8:49
  Maybe it, you know, maybe everyone just voted on election day and the the count was relatively easy, and there was not the opportunities or the requirements for these recounts and whatnot that we've seen in in later elections.
• 9:02
  But that to me is where we run into a problem.
• 9:05
  It's not um uh uh it's not the the mail-in ballots cause a problem, but again, it's only for a couple of elections.
• 9:14
  Doesn't say we shouldn't deal with it, but we need to remember that Congress can only deal with election day for House, Senate, and the day that uh which in the day that the presidential elections are appointed, not the day you vote for them, the day the legislature appoints them.
• 9:32
  But again, since very few people actually have bothered to learn how we actually elect a president, most people don't realize this.
• 9:40
  Okay, another case, this one also coming out of Mississippi.
• 9:45
  Uh, it involves a street preacher's challenge to uh um uh a his conviction for preaching outside of a designated protest area.
• 9:57
  So apparently back in 2019.
• 10:00
  The city of Brandon, Mississippi passed an ordinance setting a designated protest area during live events at the amphitheater.
• 10:09
  Um, Oliver said he could hardly reach anyone with his message if he was forced to stay in the protest area.
• 10:18
  Uh for preaching outside of the protest area uh for violence, he was fined $304 and a year of probation.
• 10:27
  But here's where the interesting twist is.
• 10:30
  You see, when he's first sued, again back in 2021 to block the enforcement of this rule.
• 10:35
  The lower court said that the street peacher uh Gabrielle Oliver could not challenge the city's ordinance under the Supreme Court's 1994 Heck versus Humphrey decision, which prevents challenges when a judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.
• 10:53
  Now, I'm not entirely sure what Heck versus Humphrey is dealing with.
• 10:57
  I'm not sure why this is involved, because let's face it, if you were wrongly convicted or wrongly sentenced, that should be challengeable.
• 11:06
  But that's not the point here.
• 11:08
  The twist is Mr.
• 11:10
  Gabriel is not looking to overturn his conviction or his sentence.
• 11:16
  He's looking to make sure that this doesn't happen again.
• 11:19
  He is asking for an injunction stopping city officials from enforcing this ordinance in the future.
• 11:28
  Now, because of this, the Supreme Court said yes, he can go ahead with his case.
• 11:34
  Here's the problem I see, though.
• 11:35
  And I don't see a problem with it.
• 11:38
  But it looks like he's making a challenge based on the First Amendment.
• 11:41
  And remember, the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law.
• 11:46
  Congress didn't make this law.
• 11:49
  So this cannot violate the First Amendment.
• 11:51
  Something completely lost on the Supreme Court of the United States.
• 11:54
  I know they say the 14th amendment rewrote the First Amendment so that it would apply to the states, except it did no such thing.
• 12:02
  There's no language in there doing that.
• 12:04
  What this is is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
• 12:07
  It is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
• 12:11
  By the way, not only you'll love this, not only is this a civil case, but uh Mr.
• 12:18
  Oliver actually has a could could file a criminal complaint because the officers of the city have deprived him of a right protected by the Constitution of the United States.
• 12:28
  Not that I expect anybody to actually do that, because if there's one thing I've noticed, um most uh uh the FBI, the US Transition, they don't actually look at 18 cases based on Section 242 of Title 18 because you mean we might actually get in trouble for for violating someone's rights.
• 12:48
  Yeah, I've I'm I wouldn't hold my breath if anybody did that.
• 12:51
  But this case is going forward.
• 12:53
  Um, we'll see what happens with it.
• 12:56
  Meanwhile, a house subcommittee is looking at ways to challenge a 1982 Supreme Court decision.
• 13:05
  The case Plier versus Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that barred illegal immigrant children from enrolling in public school and argued that these illegal immigrants were entitled to the benefit of public schools and many others under the 14th Amendment.
• 13:23
  I'm not quite sure how they got there.
• 13:26
  But then again, this is the nine high priests in black robes who apparently cannot read and cannot understand the basic language history of the basic language of the Constitution.
• 13:37
  From which the 14th Amendment reads, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
• 13:47
  Nor do pro nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law, nor denied any person with this jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
• 13:56
  So it cannot be a privileges and immunities claim because that's reserved to citizens.
• 14:03
  And you don't have a right to uh a state-funded school if you're here illegally.
• 14:10
  And again, equal protection, you're still dealing with you know a scenario.
• 14:15
  Wait a second, the court simply made up this nonsense to say you're here illegally.
• 14:21
  You've committed a crime, and you're supposed to be eligible for state-funded benefits when you come here and uh and and commit a the a crime, the crime of coming here.
• 14:33
  Now, according to, I think it was Chip Roy, who, not surprised, he's a representative of Texas, says that um these public school enrollments have cost Texans almost two billion dollars, and it's cost the United States 78 billion dollars in total.
• 14:49
  So Roy Subcommittee is looking at ways how do we challenge this?
• 14:55
  And um, hey, Mr.
• 14:56
  Roy, uh reach out to the Constitution study.
• 15:00
  I'll take a look at it and see what ideas I can help to come up with the constitution, because I've already pointed out it can't be a privilege of immunities.
• 15:06
  And I'd have to look at the at the plier plyer versus dough case to get more details on how the court came to this nonsense, but I'd be willing to do that and and uh you know, write up a paper, give you some advice on how you could actually challenge this.
• 15:20
  I think it'd be a rather interesting exercise.
• 15:23
  But then again, I guess I'm weird that way.
• 15:26
  So what do you think?
• 15:28
  Uh are these some good examples of um, you know, try trying to see what's going on at the courts.
• 15:36
  Uh, you know, what's going on there?
• 15:38
  What's Congress trying to do?
• 15:39
  Remember, Congress, with the exception of the Supreme Court, Congress created the inferior court, so they have a lot of say over their jurisdiction.
• 15:47
  Kind of interesting.
• 15:48
  Now, I I've got uh some more stuff to cover, but I do have a break coming up.
• 15:54
  Before I go, you know, I was talking before about the how COVID was used to change our elections.
• 16:01
  Well, COVID's still having an impact on our lives.
• 16:05
  You know, uh, you've got long COVID, you've got um uh you know vaccine injury, you've got shedding, and people are still being impacted by the the toxic spike protein that's the the part of COVID-19 that really gets you some inflammatory, the toxic part of the virus.
• 16:24
  The part that these MRNA quote unquote vaccines taught your body how to make.
• 16:29
  Does that sound crazy?
• 16:30
  Sound crazy to me.
• 16:32
  So what do you do?
• 16:33
  Well, our friends at the wellness company have come up with an answer.
• 16:37
  It's a revolutionary combination of ingredients designed to block and dissolve the spike protein.
• 16:43
  Now, I'm not a virologist, I don't play one on TV, but this is backed by documented research, and it's been vetted by the chief medical board of the wellness company.
• 16:52
  Find out more, go to AmericaOutloud.shop, look up the Daily Spike Support panel, click the link and do your own research.
• 16:59
  I want you to be an informed consumer.
• 17:01
  So you need to do your own research.
• 17:03
  If you decide to give it a try, use the code out loud at checkout, and you'll get 20% off of your order.
• 17:08
  So whether you're concerned about shedding or vaccine injury or just long COVID, and you want to give it a try, go to AmericaOut Loud.shop, look up the Daily Spike Support panel, do your own research, make sure it's what you're looking for.
• 17:23
  And then when you're ready to check out, remember to use the code out loud to get 20% off of order.
• 17:28
  By the way, share this with others who may have be suffering from some sort of vaccine injury or long COVID.
• 17:34
  That's what I've done.
• 17:35
  Please do that as well.
• 17:46
  This is Dr.
• 17:46
  Peter McCullough.
• 17:47
  You know me from America Outloud Pulse and the McCullough report.
• 17:51
  Well, I'm inviting you to join me in Nashville, July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for a truly historic experience in 2026.
• 17:59
  America Outloud News 250 slash 10 Nashville.
• 18:03
  I'm calling all patriots to be a part of this unforgettable weekend, packed with inspiring entertainment, incredible fireworks, and nationally recognized speakers who proudly stand for freedom.
• 18:15
  Together with you and our partners, Clear and the Wellness Company, we'll celebrate two major milestones.
• 18:21
  250 years of America and 10 years of America Out Loud News, led by Malcolm Out Loud.
• 18:28
  I can't wait to see you there because your presence matters and you are family.
• 18:33
  So make history with me and Malcolm.
• 18:35
  Register now at AmericaOutloud.news forward slash Nashville.
• 18:40
  That's AmericaOutloud.news forward slash Nashville.
• 18:44
  We'll see you there.
• 18:45
  One in three people will face cancer, and most never see it coming.
• 18:49
  I'm Dr.
• 18:49
  Kelly Victory with the wellness company, and I know this personally.
• 19:04
  That's why I formulated SHIELD, a two-part system designed to support immune health and antioxidant defense.
• 19:11
  A chemical-free cocoa mix and soft gels.
• 19:14
  Prevention is power.
• 19:15
  Visit TWC.
• 19:22
  Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?
• 19:26
  Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.
• 19:29
  Bear bars or a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients.
• 19:36
  Bear bars or plant-based, organic gluten-free, contain six grams of protein and are low temperature dried for unique crunch.
• 19:45
  Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups or sweeteners.
• 19:52
  To learn more, just visit barebar.com/slash outloud.
• 19:57
  Is your gut a mess?
• 19:58
  Two-thirds of America.
• 20:00
  Suffer because of gastrointestinal issues, and I was one of them.
• 20:03
  That is why we created a three-step doctor formulated completely natural gut reboot system that you can do at home in just minutes a day.
• 20:12
  Go to Chemicalfreebody.com forward slash out loud today, get the Malcolm Healthy Gut bundle, reboot your gut and your energy, and save 20% on your first order.
• 20:30
  Welcome back, everyday Americans.
• 20:32
  We've joined the Constitution study.
• 20:34
  Today we've been talking about what's been happening at the courts.
• 20:37
  And let's take a look at the couple things.
• 20:39
  I talked to you before about the SCOTUS case Mirabelli B.
• 20:43
  Bonta.
• 20:44
  And uh it had to do with uh, well, parental rights and the fact that California law required anyone who worked at a school to not only hide from the parents the child's desire to transition, their gender disformation, to hide a serious mental condition from the parents to, but also to encourage the child towards down that road of mental disturbance through the the use of the child's preferred pronouns, to uh uh you know, using all false names and all these things that the school was required to do by law, and that they were prohibited from even giving the parents permission, even telling the parents what was going on.
• 21:26
  And uh the Supreme Court said no, that denies parents their right.
• 21:30
  The the children don't belong to the state, they belong to the parents, the parents guide their upgrading bringing.
• 21:37
  They've they said they have a liberty under the 14th Amendment to control the raising and upbringing of their children, and that California was violating that, and they basically said no, bad California, bad, bad California.
• 21:52
  Well, California took no time at all, trying to I don't know how to put this.
• 21:59
  They they're they're trying to kind of narrow the scope, they're trying to find a way of reading this that says, No, well, you know, we we I know you said no, but really maybe couldn't we under these circumstances.
• 22:12
  I mean, literally just days after the decision came down, California filed an emergency motion trying to create what they called an abuse exception.
• 22:22
  Uh I guess they they they they used you know vague uh language to come up with an abuse exception, but again, what is the abuse?
• 22:31
  You're telling me that um uh you know, telling the parents what's going on at school is somehow preventing abuse.
• 22:38
  This is the warped and twisted nonsense that goes on between the ears of California's uh political leadership.
• 22:46
  And this claim that you know, not actually treating a child's mental disorder as a mental disorder as being abusive.
• 22:54
  Well, it's just an attempt to get around the Supreme Court decision.
• 22:57
  And that's exactly what the Ninth Circuit found.
• 23:00
  Uh the Thomas Moore Society uh filed a an opposition brief, uh, calling it and then run around the Supreme Court, and the Ninth Circuit said, uh, yeah, though, um you're just trying to get around the decision and basically declare that anybody that disagrees with the state is being abusive to their children when they do so.
• 23:24
  So again, this is just California, again, trying to manipulate the judicial system to allow them to treat parents as the evil enemy if they don't fully endorse this harmful progressive nonsense that boys can become girls and girls can become boys.
• 23:45
  And they tried and well, they failed in this round.
• 23:49
  Do you really think they won't try again?
• 23:52
  I expect them to.
• 23:54
  But it's not only states that are abusing the judicial system.
• 23:59
  Now, we all remember Carter Page, right?
• 24:02
  Uh Trump's campaign advisor who was wiretapped by the FBI.
• 24:07
  Well, according to a FBI agent, um, another gentleman, a Walid Fares was electronically monitored for a year between 2017 and 2018, and he was assigned to investigate this gentleman as part of Robert Mueller's quote Russia probe, right?
• 24:28
  Now, all right, Mr.
• 24:29
  Mueller's dead, but you had this whole nonsense of you know Russia, Russia, Russia, it's all Russia's fault.
• 24:36
  Now, what's interesting is in Carter Page's case, the FBI literally withheld evidence exonerating um uh uh uh uh him, as well as in the Fair's case.
• 24:49
  They hid this from the court in order to get their warrant.
• 24:54
  And this is part of the problem.
• 24:55
  See, the reason why the Fourth Amendment, the warrant clause is so specific, it must be based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, uh, and specifically identifying the places to be searched and the people or things to be seized.
• 25:10
  Now, the reason why it's got to be probable cause, but it's got to be supported by oath or affirmation, is you need someone under oath to make a testimony, because if they lie under oath, that's a crime.
• 25:22
  So I have a question here.
• 25:26
  If the Bureau withheld information, is this what's called a Brady violation?
• 25:31
  Uh the Brady requirement is in court, you the the prosecution has to bring forth information that might be helpful to the defense.
• 25:43
  I don't know that that's a judicial requirement under the uh uh under the warrant clause, but it certainly seems to be quite apropos.
• 25:53
  If you're saying there's probable cause, but you have evidence that says that exonerates the person, meaning there is no probable cause.
• 26:02
  Isn't that manipulating a witness?
• 26:05
  Isn't that coming in?
• 26:06
  Isn't that lying to the court under oath?
• 26:08
  When you say, well, here's my probable cause.
• 26:11
  Oh, I know there's information exonerating the witness, but I'm still coming to you with probable cause.
• 26:17
  That seems to be at least lying to the courts, if not outright uh uh uh perjury by providing false testimony.
• 26:25
  So that to me seems to be a a pretty big idea.
• 26:30
  But that also leads me to another interesting twist, one that I haven't seen uh adjudicated and really should.
• 26:37
  See, during an interview with real career lawyer investigations, Mr.
• 26:40
  Farr said I had no idea any of this was happening.
• 26:43
  This is shocking because they told my lawyer that I was only a witness, and then they just needed some, and they just needed some information, meaning the FPI knowingly lied to Mr.
• 26:58
  Fair.
• 26:58
  Now, here's to me the problem, because the federal courts have determined that the FBI can lie to people, but it's a crime if people out of the FBI.
• 27:10
  By the way, every state, I think does the same thing with their state law enforcement.
• 27:14
  It is a crime to lie in law enforcement, but they are they're perfectly allowed to lie to you.
• 27:19
  That to me is not equal protection under the law, right?
• 27:24
  That is not uh that that's a way of depriving people without due process of law.
• 27:29
  In other words, if you if you have to lie to somebody to get information, you know, then if you've misled somebody to me, this is even worse.
• 27:40
  We're saying, oh no, no, we're not investigating you.
• 27:43
  We just need some information from you.
• 27:45
  Well, we're really investigating, but we're not gonna tell you.
• 27:49
  That is an issue that I think really needs to be investigated further, because you're you're it's not simply the the case, again, it creates a a dramatic power and balance.
• 28:01
  Because let's say, let's say, let's say you just misremember something, right?
• 28:05
  You're being interviewed by the police.
• 28:06
  It's why, by the way, you have a right to remain silent, and it's why almost every attorney I've ever talked to about it, I've ever heard talk about this as keep your mouth shut, invoke your right to remain silent, and then shut your mouth until you've converted a lawyer.
• 28:22
  Because anything you say can be used against you and will be used against you in a court of law.
• 28:28
  Even if you misremember something, they will spin it as lying.
• 28:32
  It this is what I've heard from again, numerous, numerous lawyers.
• 28:37
  According to reports, investigators could find nothing criminal on Mr.
• 28:41
  Fairs during their probe.
• 28:43
  Nothing.
• 28:44
  And in fact, according to lead case agent, they concluded he was honest.
• 28:48
  Yet Mr.
• 28:49
  Muller's team continued to secretly spy on Mr.
• 28:52
  Fairs without providing the the anything, the the spy court, the Pfizer court, any of the exculpatory evidence that could have shown that Mr.
• 29:03
  Fairs was was clear.
• 29:04
  Evidence that is required by law.
• 29:08
  So let me ask you.
• 29:09
  Um, who at the FBI is going to jail?
• 29:12
  They've committed a federal crime, ladies and gentlemen, among other things, they violated 18 USC Section 242.
• 29:19
  And in fact, I'd go on to say they'd violate section 241.
• 29:22
  See, 242 is when you are deprived of a right under color of law.
• 29:28
  241 is when people conspire to deprive someone of a right under color of law, which certainly sounds like what happened here.
• 29:35
  So let me ask you, ladies and gentlemen, who is going to jail?
• 29:39
  See, it's one thing to investigate.
• 29:41
  Hey, we think something's going on, we're going to do our investigation, but once they came out with no corroborating facts that Mr.
• 29:50
  Fairs had done anything wrong, why did they continue to surveil him?
• 29:56
  Why do they continue to deprive him of his right under the Fourth Amendment to be?
• 30:00
  Secure from unreasonable searches.
• 30:02
  Why did they continue to try to deprive them of his right under the Fifth Amendment to be to not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law?
• 30:11
  Why?
• 30:12
  More importantly, why is no one at the FBI actually being held accountable?
• 30:19
  That to me is the big issue.
• 30:21
  It's this like this falsehood that says that the government can lie to you, but you can't lie to government.
• 30:26
  Uh-uh.
• 30:27
  That's not the way this works.
• 30:29
  And the fact that the courts let this happen, again, show the corruption of our judicial system.
• 30:36
  And when you see people within the FI misleading a court, lying to a court, sending a court down the primrose path in order to get the warrant that they want.
• 30:50
  Ladies and gentlemen, that is to me more than a simple crime.
• 30:56
  To me, that should be a that should be a felony.
• 31:01
  It should be punishable by at least a year in jail.
• 31:04
  And in fact, if you have the the uh the 241 statute, the conspiracy statute, that's punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in jail.
• 31:12
  We're not talking about somebody that made a mistake.
• 31:16
  We're talking about people on Mueller's team that blatantly violated this man's rights, that lied and misled a court.
• 31:26
  And if we let that go without punishment, without accountability, what's to stop him from doing it in the future?
• 31:34
  Well, Cash Mattel wouldn't let anything like that go.
• 31:36
  Yeah, but he's not going to be FBI director forever.
• 31:39
  If we let this, if there's no accountability, then there's no deterrent to do something like this in the future.
• 31:48
  All right, let's head back to California where they got another bit of a smackdown.
• 31:54
  It's California law uh 22949.80.
• 32:00
  Um apparently this law was attempt to regulate um not just who could buy guns, but but guns marketed towards younger shooters.
• 32:11
  It was about a 22 version of an AR-15.
• 32:15
  Now, an AR-15 shoots a 223.
• 32:17
  And if you're not familiar with firearms and the lingo, a two, two, a 22 versus a 223 sounds very similar, right?
• 32:25
  0.22 versus 0.223, but the rounds are drastically different.
• 32:29
  All right, 22 is a squirrel gun.
• 32:31
  It's it's something to use for small varmins.
• 32:34
  It's often what people first learn to share.
• 32:37
  That's what the first gun I learned to shut them, was a 22.
• 32:40
  Very small round, very low power, and as opposed to a 223, which is a high power center fire rifle and uh can be used even for medium-sized game.
• 32:50
  Um, but the the thing is I used to have an uh a uh a 22 that looked not exactly like an Air 15, but it has that same type of look.
• 33:00
  And that is what California was going after, claiming that these were marketing, that they were marketing firearms to children.
• 33:08
  This was their attempt to get around, you know, Supreme Court decisions about the right to keep and bear arms.
• 33:13
  Now, again, if you are a youthful shooter, if you're a younger shooter, it's an excellent gun for that, right?
• 33:21
  It's again low power, not a lot of kick, not a lot of recoil.
• 33:25
  Uh, but it looks cool, and it's a great gun to learn on.
• 33:29
  In fact, when I teach people to shoot, the first guns they handle are 22s.
• 33:34
  That's what they're designed for.
• 33:35
  But the thing, it looks scary, and that's really where California seemed to get all bent out of shape.
• 33:41
  How dare you have a scary looking gun?
• 33:45
  And uh that apparently just got shot down by uh uh the the, I think it was the Ninth Circuit uh shot this one down.
• 33:54
  Um, no, sorry, it was the um it was a it was a district uh for the Central District of Columbia.
• 34:01
  They said uh it is hereby declared that section 22949.80 in its entirety violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution on its face and has applied to plaintiffs.
• 34:13
  So they're saying, listen, you're suppressing speech.
• 34:15
  I can't violate the First Amendment because Congress didn't make this law, but again, we're dealing with courts who apparently can't actually read the Constitution.
• 34:22
  Um they also currently enjoined the defendant, Rob Bonta, the attorney general, um, from uh enforcing this law.
• 34:32
  The attorney general is uh directed to issue an alert through an information billing, letting everybody know, all the district attorneys, all the city councils, all the city attorneys that they cannot enforce this particular law.
• 34:46
  But they went even a little bit further because they went after apparently these these uh uh gun ads and in gun magazines as their target as their attempt to get around it.
• 34:57
  And the attorney general was not only ordered to pay attorneys' fees for the firearm policy coalition coalition and the second amendment foundation, but Gavin Newsom, who pushed the law, and the state of California is going to pay one almost 1.4 million dollars in fees for this violation of the Constitution.
• 35:19
  I get I have the issue with the First Amendment because Congress didn't make this law, but it certainly does violate the second amendment and California's getting a bit of a pushback, which I don't know, it just sounds like a good idea to me.
• 35:31
  And of course, the people that brought the suit are getting some funding, the second amendment foundation on familiar the fire and policy council, not so much, but uh gee, you know, these organizations could use some funding because the other side gets a lot of funding.
• 35:48
  A lot of the times the corporations we do business with are funding these agencies, these these groups that are attacking our rights.
• 35:54
  It's why I joined Patriot Mobile years ago.
• 35:57
  I wanted to buy from a company that believed what I believed.
• 36:00
  I didn't want to buy from a company that's supporting things that I dislike or I disagree with.
• 36:05
  Patriot Mobile's America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
• 36:09
  They've got great 4G and 5G coverage and all the same networks and towers that the major carriers use, and their customer support is 100% US based.
• 36:17
  But as I said, I joined them because they take a portion of every dollar to support organizations that are fighting to protect your rights.
• 36:25
  Freedom of religion, free of speech, free the press, freedom to keep and bear arms, free to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures and to not be deprived of life limit or property without due process of law.
• 36:36
  So squish to Patriot Mobile today, get your new line activated absolutely free by using the code constitution at checkout, and you're also helped support these organizations, including now the constitution study, simply by paying your cell phone bill.
• 36:48
  Just go to PatreonMobile.com says constitution, find a plan that works for you, see if you're eligible for a discount.
• 36:54
  Everyone from first responders and veterans to families with multiple lines can get a discount.
• 37:00
  And don't forget that promo code constitutional checkout to get your new line activated absolutely free.
• 37:05
  Support those who are supporting your rights by going to Patriot Mobile.com/slash constitution, signing up today.
• 37:11
  And remember, use that code constitution at checkout to get your new line activated absolutely free.
• 37:17
  I also hope you'll head over to AmericaOut Loud.news.
• 37:20
  I go there each and every day for news and information, and not just for the radio program and the website, but because we live in the information age.
• 37:27
  We have access to more information than our founding fathers could have ever imagined.
• 37:31
  And the corporate media has been found out lying to us.
• 37:34
  So we need to find stuff for ourselves.
• 37:37
  How do we do that?
• 37:38
  Well, one place to go is America Outloud.news, because it's a place you can trust, but also verify.
• 37:44
  And then I want you to do your part.
• 37:45
  It's one thing to go there and gather information, but I want you to share it.
• 37:49
  Yes, read the stories and articles, but share them.
• 37:52
  You'd be surprised how many people say I never knew this was happening.
• 37:56
  Listen to the podcast, share the videos, and let other people know what's really going on.
• 38:02
  See, it's by doing this work, but not just finding out the news, but by sharing it with other people that we help secure the blessings of liberty for all of us.
• 38:17
  What about washing your nose?
• 38:19
  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.
• 38:28
  No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.
• 38:31
  Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion.
• 38:38
  Available in stores and online at clear.com.
• 38:41
  That is XLEAR.com.
• 38:44
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book.
• 38:46
  And I've devoted my life to helping people reconnect with food at its most alive stage, the sprout.
• 38:54
  When you germinate a seed, you're not just growing food, you're activating potential.
• 39:00
  Sprouts grow without soil, sunshine, or fertilizer right on your kitchen countertop.
• 39:06
  They're organic, fresh, and cost less than a dollar a serving.
• 39:10
  It's nature's fastest form of farming accessible to anyone anywhere.
• 39:15
  Discover the joy of growing your own food and the power of living nutrition.
• 39:20
  Visit the sprouting company.com and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer.
• 39:31
  Welcome back, everybody Americans you rejoin the Constitution study.
• 39:34
  And we've been talking today about what's going on in the courts, and we left off with um California getting smacked on for attempting to ban a junior version of the AR-15 through a not saying that the gun itself is a problem, but because it was it was advertised, it was marketed to the youth shooter, which, well, hey, as long as it's legal, shouldn't they have access to guns as well?
• 39:58
  Well, let's stay out in California.
• 40:00
  Because one of the things they have is uh they prohibit switchblade knives.
• 40:05
  Um a case was filed and and actually heard uh first in district court, then in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, uh, in the case Knife Rights Inc.
• 40:14
  versus Bonta, which challenges the uh the the ban on switchblade knives.
• 40:21
  Now, the attorney for Knife Rights Inc.
• 40:23
  says the record is clear, switchblades are unquestionably protected by the second amendment.
• 40:28
  The state entirely failed to present any evidence that switchblades are not in common use or that they are dangerous or unusual.
• 40:36
  We hope the Ninth Circle fully apply the proper standards demanded by the Supreme Court and rule in our favor.
• 40:41
  See the a three judge panel said, nope, California can have this law.
• 40:48
  It's being requested to be heard by the on banque by the entire court.
• 40:51
  But I want you to consider this.
• 40:53
  So the we often talk about the second amendment relating to firearms, but it says the right to even bear arms shall not be infringed.
• 41:01
  And arms, at least back in the 18th century, were defined as weapons for office, offense, and arm and armor for defense.
• 41:10
  Now, a switchblade is a knife, and a knife is certainly a weapon for offense or uh and and could be used for defense.
• 41:19
  It is therefore in arm, therefore it is obviously protected by the second amendment.
• 41:24
  Now, again, we were dealing with courts, and judges seem to have this inability to read the constitution, they focus on what previous courts have said.
• 41:34
  This theory of of case law, which is not law, it's at least not at the federal level, right?
• 41:39
  Because the constitution says that that says all of uh lawmaking power, all legislative power is vested in Congress, not the courts.
• 41:48
  So when the courts pay attention to what other courts say rather than the actual law, they're actually acting in bad behavior, which is a violation of their oath of office and a violation of their term of office.
• 42:00
  So I want to keep an eye on this, not because I've ever, you know, uh not a huge fan of switchblade knives, but I do have knives and I carry knives because there are times when you need a knife.
• 42:13
  And why should the state tell us you can't have this weapon because we don't like them?
• 42:18
  We think they are scary.
• 42:20
  But again, it so often comes down to the judges.
• 42:24
  And you know, in at the federal level, judges are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.
• 42:31
  Meaning who we the who the states choose as a president has a long-term history.
• 42:37
  Their impact on the country goes on for as long as their judges are on the court.
• 42:43
  Here's a perfect example.
• 42:45
  Uh U.S.
• 42:46
  District Judge Susan Nelson, who was appointed by Obama, um, well, she ordered the release of a four-time deported MS 13 gang member with quite a colorful history, including rape.
• 43:03
  So not only is this guy been deported four times, right?
• 43:07
  Four times, uh, he is still here illegally.
• 43:10
  He is a convicted sex offender and assailant under federal law.
• 43:17
  And yet this judge says, oh, yeah, yeah, let's let's let's let them go.
• 43:22
  Uh let's release him.
• 43:23
  I don't know, is he supposed to show up later to get deported?
• 43:26
  I'm not quite sure what's going on here, but uh uh according to uh a Lauren Biss, she's the uh acting assistant secretary, I think of Department of Homeland Security.
• 43:38
  Uh, she said the releasing violent criminals is inexclusively reckless, and now this criminal will be able to perpetrate more crimes against innocent Americans.
• 43:47
  And to me, this is again, this isn't this is what's described is an activist judge.
• 43:54
  Uh by all means, this person should not only be detained, they should be detained only long enough to put them on a plane back to El Salvador.
• 44:03
  They should at uh you know, they should either be removed from this country or incarcerated for the less rest of their natural lives.
• 44:11
  But this judge says, no, no, we have to let him go.
• 44:15
  And I'm curious what the logic for this person for this judge is.
• 44:21
  I mean, again, it's not like you're talking about somebody that oh, they were caught up in an ice sweep, and this is this is someone's grandma, and there's a no.
• 44:30
  This man is already been deported four times.
• 44:34
  Maybe deportation just doesn't work.
• 44:36
  How about you just lock them in the slammer for a while?
• 44:38
  He has a criminal record for both rape and assault, and her solution is to let this person into the public, maybe hoping he shows up for a later court date.
• 44:50
  I have no idea what the logic behind this could possibly be.
• 44:58
  But there you go.
• 44:59
  Again, this is a judge making this decision, and I believe in no way following the law.
• 45:05
  Now, again, we've talked a lot about people where you're dealing with government actors.
• 45:09
  How about one that's not a government actor?
• 45:11
  So there is a case in in federal court uh that if in the state of Tennessee, uh, three people, two of whom are minors, have sued XAI uh well, claiming that it knowing that that um X knowingly uh designed their AI, the GROC, their large language model, to um uh to their image generator to create people using sexually explicit content using real photos of others, meaning you take an innocent photo of a person, and according to them, you can stick this into GROC, right?
• 45:51
  You can can upload it and tag it and then go to GROC and say, hey, make a image of this person in some in some sort of fashion, right?
• 46:04
  Uh show this person as a cowboy or or show this person uh as a as a sailor or show this person, you know, uh digging a grave.
• 46:13
  Well, apparently one of the things they allow it to do is to show them in sexually explicit images.
• 46:21
  Now, the lawsuit was actually filed in San Jose, California, because that's where XAI is based.
• 46:26
  Uh, and they're seeking class action status, meaning they want to represent any person who is reasonably identifiable in these sexualized images or videos generated by Grok based on real images of them.
• 46:39
  I mean, just imagine.
• 46:42
  Imagine you or your wife, and uh someone takes a uh a birthday photo, and then someone takes it and turns it into something you know suitable for Playboy or penthouse and posts it on the internet.
• 46:55
  Better yet, imagine your son or daughter, some picture they post on Facebook, and some little pervert turns it into a sexually explicit image, and then that gets posted on the internet.
• 47:06
  Because guess what?
• 47:08
  What's on the internet never really disappears?
• 47:11
  Oh, yeah, you can delete the photo, but it never really disappears.
• 47:15
  There are archives of it that live forever.
• 47:19
  Now, this group of people is looking for obviously looking for damages, they haven't specified what they're looking for yet.
• 47:24
  They want their legal fees, but we'll see what they want an injunction, a permanent injunction require XAI to stop making these images, to stop creating sexualized images of people.
• 47:36
  Um, I believe without even their consent.
• 47:40
  So I uh again, consent is a big deal, right?
• 47:44
  I would certainly be very unhappy if I were to find uh that someone took pictures of my wife or my daughter and turned them into pornography, sexualized images, and then posted them on the internet.
• 47:56
  People went all then crazy when um uh uh people who were taking uh uh well, let's just say pornographic images of their lovers, and then when they broke up, they would put them on the internet in order to get back at their at their former boyfriend or girlfriend.
• 48:15
  Imagine not even having to have done anything to simply have uh uh a computer generate a false image that looks exactly like you of something you never did.
• 48:27
  Imagine trying to explain yourself you know, you're you're a uh a young person applying to college, and they look at your social media and they discover these images, and they have to question well, how do we know this isn't real?
• 48:41
  How do we?
• 48:43
  Or as I said, imagine you know, you got some pervert out there who collects all of these pictures for his own little you know, child pornography site, and you didn't this never actually happened, but again, a spouse, a son, a daughter, is suddenly found through again through no actions of their own.
• 49:06
  They didn't do anything.
• 49:08
  This is a made-up image of them, and um, I think the people that are doing this are really should be uh uh prosecuted as well, but they're asking X to shut it down.
• 49:24
  Um, again, because you're making the sexualized images, but I have a wonder who's going after the people that are that are making the request.
• 49:33
  You know, X didn't X Groc didn't just suddenly wake up one morning and say, you know what?
• 49:37
  I'm gonna make pornography of random people images I see on the internet.
• 49:42
  Someone is asking the system to do this.
• 49:45
  Are they being held accountable for generating pornography?
• 49:49
  And in some cases, I imagine child pornography to making images of somebody without their consent.
• 49:57
  You know, when I put on an event, if I request.
• 50:00
  The event, I have to get I have to get a release from people if I want their their likeness to appear in a video.
• 50:08
  But now they're saying, well, Grock can make it, and because Grok made it, well, they, you know, Grok holds a copyright or X holds a copyright, not the person whose image was stolen to make it.
• 50:19
  There are a lot of issues behind this.
• 50:21
  And I think it's going to be a fairly long and involved case.
• 50:26
  I don't expect this one's going to go away anytime soon.
• 50:29
  I fully expected to see it at the Supreme Court.
• 50:32
  It may take as many as two to three years, but I expect it to be there.
• 50:36
  And of course, I'll cover it when it gets there.
• 50:39
  But I want you to remember, see, we live in a litigious society.
• 50:43
  And what happens in courts is the main reason that it's the main way people seek a redress for a grievance.
• 50:50
  I have a grievance against somebody.
• 50:52
  This group has a grievance against Grok.
• 50:54
  Uh, people had a grievance against California's laws.
• 50:57
  People had a grievance against uh you name it.
• 51:01
  And what did they do?
• 51:02
  They went to court, right?
• 51:04
  The the Mississippi street preacher had a grievance and he sued.
• 51:09
  He went to court.
• 51:10
  He petitioned the government for a redress of that grievance.
• 51:15
  What about the rest of us?
• 51:16
  What are we going to do if when these court decisions are being made not based on the law, not based on the constitution, but simply based on uh a judge's whim?
• 51:30
  When a judge says, hey, yeah, I know, sure, you know, they've entered this country illegally multiple times.
• 51:36
  They've been uh they've been convicted of rape and all these terrible, but we gotta let them walk until what, until some court case and hope they show up.
• 51:47
  Aren't they the definition of a danger to society?
• 51:50
  Isn't that why we deny bail because someone is too dangerous to be allowed out during the uh the uh preparation for their trial?
• 51:59
  It's crazy.
• 52:01
  And at the federal level, judges are held accountable not directly by the people, but by the people's representatives in Congress.
• 52:09
  So let me ask you, where are those members of Congress looking at the actions of these judges and saying, you know what?
• 52:16
  Um that's not good behavior, therefore you don't have the right to be a judge anymore.
• 52:21
  Right?
• 52:21
  Article three, section one.
• 52:23
  The judges of both the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior.
• 52:29
  Think it's about time we remind our representatives in the house that it's their job to oversee the judges and when their behavior is not good to hold them accountable by impeachment, and then remind our senators that we now hire.
• 52:44
  Hey, remember, if they acted badly, it's their job to, it's your job to make sure they're removed.
• 52:51
  See, isn't it always how do you coming back to we the people?
• 52:55
  We the people, the opening three words of the constitution, we the people.
• 53:00
  According to the preamble, we ordain and establish this constitution.
• 53:03
  It's our job.
• 53:05
  We are the sovereign in this country, and we have to hold our employees and government accountable.
• 53:11
  Now, this year, ladies and gentlemen, it's the semi-quincentennial.
• 53:14
  It's the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
• 53:19
  And uh, I think it's a great opportunity to celebrate.
• 53:22
  So, what do you do?
• 53:23
  Oh, obviously, I would say we should all sit down and read the Declaration of Independence.
• 53:28
  Not that hard, it's not that long.
• 53:30
  But you know what else would be good?
• 53:32
  Reading and studying the Constitution.
• 53:34
  Those are two documents I think we should take this year to dedicate.
• 53:38
  We're gonna read them, we're gonna study them, and we're gonna figure out how to apply them to our lives today.
• 53:44
  You know, Ronald Reagan said freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
• 53:49
  And based on what I've seen over the last few years, this may be that generation, but it doesn't have to be.
• 54:15
  What better way to start than by taking this 250th anniversary?
• 54:19
  I'm gonna read and study the declaration.
• 54:21
  So I know what they were complaining about.
• 54:24
  Because guess what?
• 54:25
  When I look at Washington, DC, each and every one of those 27 grievances, I can make the same claim against some group in Washington, DC.
• 54:35
  So please uh join me.
• 54:38
  Pick up a copy of the declaration, find it online, absolutely free.
• 54:41
  Read it, study it.
• 54:42
  And oh, by the way, if you have questions about it, you can always go to Constitution Study.com/slash questions and ask.
• 54:48
  I'll answer any question I can that's there.
• 54:51
  But we need to be prepared.
• 54:54
  We need to read and study.
• 54:56
  And I think the best place to start, especially on this 250th anniversary, is by reading the declaration of independence, giving a good study.
• 55:06
  Go through those 27 grievances, ask yourself, hey, can I charge this against the federal government?
• 55:13
  Can I charge this against my state government?
• 55:15
  And then get to the end.
• 55:17
  Those powerful words.
• 55:18
  I love these words.
• 55:20
  When they the signers of the declaration said, in support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
• 55:31
  Ladies and gentlemen, what will you pledge to your freedom and to the freedom of the next generation?
• 55:39
  Today's the day to start.
• 55:41
  Find a copy of the declaration, find it online for free.
• 55:44
  Let's read it, let's study it, and let's start applying it to our government in DC.
• 55:50
  I also hope you come back and join us here for the Constitution study on America Out Loud Talk Radio, heard in the iHeartRadio Network every weekday at 4 p.m.
• 55:59
  Eastern time.
• 56:00
  You can listen on our media player.
• 56:02
  We also have after Apple, Android, and Alexa.
• 56:04
  And of course, you can always listen via podcast.
• 56:07
  Now it does take a day or two for an episode to go from talk radio to podcast, but you get to listen in your favorite podcast app.
• 56:15
  Just do me a favor, subscribe to the show.
• 56:18
  Leave us a rating, especially on Apple Podcast.
• 56:20
  It helps the algorithm show the Constitution study to more people.
• 56:25
  And of course, the more people to see it, they're likely to click the link and join us here.
• 56:29
  Now, speaking of links, you can find all the links you need at the homepage at AmericaOutloud.news.
• 56:35
  But please share those links.
• 56:37
  Share this program and share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation home.