CGR WEDNESDAY 060723 Part One David Shestokas

Hi, this is Pastor Greg and you're listening to Chosen Generation Radio. Get more at chosengenerationradio.com.

That's Chosen Generation Radio, where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical classes. My passion is the fight for freedom. My father fought for a World War II defending our country. Today, we are no longer fighting with guns.

Instead, we are fighting an ideological battle for control of our country by contributing to causes that support your constitutional rights. I am Patriot Mobile. I thank and praise God for this borewell that God has enabled us to put in this village with the prayer and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry. By the prayer and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Ministry, we could put the borewell in this village for the community. Before this community was drinking dirty water and that was really causing a lot of sickness, but now they are getting pure and fresh water and all the communities are so thankful for Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Ministry and all the supporters. And we pray for all of you that God would bless you and God would use you so that we can put more and more borewells in a poor and needy community, those who are really having a problem of the water.

This borewell we have put and pure and fresh water is coming and we are so thankful for all of you that we thank Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Ministry that help us and support us to put the borewell. Thank you and God bless you. Thank you and God bless you. Thank you and God bless you.

And now, Chosen Generation, where no topic is off limits and everything is filtered through biblical glasses. And now here's your host, Pastor Greg. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Did I say it?

Yes, I did. Good morning. It's Wednesday morning. And I hope you're ready for a good day.

I've got a great day coming up for you. The Bicot, the Patriot Bicot. Wayne Ellen Root has put out a new book called The Patriot Bicot. We'll have Wayne on at the bottom of our number three. Also, we'll talk about some fake news with our friends from MRC. Rick Manning will be with me, Americans for Limited Government. We'll get back into some of the Biden crime family stuff. And his look from the DC perch on what may be happening with the DOJ and the FBI and really addressing the illegalities of their behavior and continued illegalities of their behavior. We'll talk about some of that.

And then I'm going to talk with you at the top of the next hour. There's a piece that Dennis Prager put out. And it has to do with the Pride Month and his take on this thing. And there's some problems, quite frankly. There are some problems. And there are some problems when conservatives do conservative light.

You cannot have conservatism without morality. And we'll talk about that in the next hour. All right. Well, I'm very excited to welcome my next guest to the program. He is here on Wednesdays to help me kick Wednesdays off. And I want to welcome my very good friend, Mr. David Shostakovich. David, welcome our constitutional originalist. Thank you so much, Greg.

It's great to be with you again. I know we missed a couple of things and a lot of stuff has been going on both in the world and locally. For me, I've been in court a couple of times on two election related matters regarding the one regarding where you said something about fake news. I did a couple of interviews since I was in court last week and they've come to call the things that I'm involved in fake elections. One of which has to do with where supposedly the people of the state of Illinois were supposed to have amended their constitution and yet the actual text of the amendment that we were voting on here in Illinois was not on the ballot. There was an explanation of what that amendment should be doing, but the actual text of the amendment was not on the ballot. That's a good thing.

I think a good phrase for that is, in fact, a fake election. And so I was in court on that last week. We're supposed to have a ruling today on that matter that the judge is going to release in court this morning at 9 o'clock. And then, of course, we have my ongoing matter that I was in court again on in Will County, which is southwest of Cook County in Chicago.

Joliet is the county seat for people that know where Joliet is. And that has to do with the fact that all 310 precincts in that county are conformed to an algorithm that indicates that that election is predictable. And I was supposed to have actually, they're trying to find myself and my client $40,000 saying that we brought approval of this lawsuit. I remember we talked about that two weeks ago when you were on. So you were scheduled to have a hearing about that the next, well, that Thursday.

Yeah, we had it last Thursday. That hearing was last Thursday and the amendment one was last Wednesday. We're expecting rulings on both those matters this week. And I anticipate trips to the appellate court coming soon.

Okay. Because the judge in this case is in a biased position, essentially. Well, that's certainly not for me to say because I'm in front of the judge. Well, but but it, okay, so either way, if even if we went, I expect the other side to appeal.

I got it. They were I expect either either either way, it's gonna end up being bumped up no matter no matter what the decision is, because neither one of you are going to be satisfied with whatever the judge has to say. And, and, and, and, and the state feels compelled that they need to defend, I guess they're, they're, they're pretending to defend their integrity or their character, right? They're pretending to defend something that they call law. You know, that they refer to as law, but certainly on the constitutional amendment thing, there are a lot of there's some detailed laws to what is supposed to appear on a ballot for voters, right? In fact, they're going to amend the Constitution.

None of that was there. Yeah, yeah, they're not not the least of which would be would would be common sense would dictate that you would have the the actual writing of what it is that the amendment is going to say, I mean, that would just in my thought process, just be common sense to put that on the ballot, since that's what you're voting on. Yeah, and that was not on the ballot. That would that would be like, just in my mind, as an example, you know, you've got three candidates that are running, that would be like leaving one of the names of the candidates off just just putting a blank space, but no candidate name. And or better, you have none of the names of two candidates. And then in the third space, you have candidate Y is in favor of everything you you you're in favor of explanation of what candidate Y is. Yeah, well, and and no and no name for Canada, no actual name for candidate Y. Right. Yeah, that's, I think that's a fair analogy of what what they're trying to do with that. Wow. Okay. That's a fake election.

I think so. Yeah, I know we're going to talk about some Supreme Court stuff, but I will tell you, yes, in both these matters, they've been subject to a motion to dismiss. And we are arguing that the manner in which the subject the motion to dismiss is being applied is in violation of the First Amendment's right to petition the government for redress of grievances. And we are, in both cases, trying to both judges have tried out outlined or signaled that they're trying to say that there are certain kinds of requirements for us to survive a motion that do not, and in my opinion, do not exist in law. And we believe that's a 14th Amendment violation in due process. And so the both these cases are going to be structured, depending on the outcome to possibly be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Right. So we'll see what happens. But maybe maybe in a year or so, we'll be talking about a case that I have pending before the US Supreme Court.

I don't know. Well, it's it certainly could be that and and, you know, something to add on to that, because there's there are a lot of issues, like what you're talking about, in the sense that these legal matters, they have to go to a lower court, then they have to go to an appellate court, then then from there they go where where would they go from a appellate court in this instance, both these both these cases originate in state court in state circuit courts, okay, which will be the trial court, and then it would be a state appellate court, then the Illinois Supremes. And then depending what happens with the Illinois Supremes, at least there would be the potential to ask for a hearing with the United States Supremes. So we go from so so because it would be at the state Supreme Court level, the next logical space to go would be the federal or the the US Supreme Court. It wouldn't it wouldn't move from there into a federal appellate, because because that system is is designed in the same way you have the lower state courts, you have a lower federal court, then you have appellate and then you have Supreme Courts on both ends. And in this instance, it would move from the state Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court. In the federal system, you start the trial courts are called the district courts. And the district courts go to the circuit courts. Strangely enough, the reason that they're called circuit courts is there was they were originally conducted the original first level of appeals were originally conducted by Supreme Court justices who wrote a circuit. Got it.

Okay. And so now the appellate level courts in the in the federal system are called the circuit courts, and they have their and they have their own set of judges, by the way that are are appointed, right appointed to those positions. Yeah, they have their own set of judges, what they call Article Three judges that are appointed by the President approved by the approved by the Senate. And then from those, then there's the appeals to the United States Supreme Court. Okay, so the reason I bring that up, David, and I wanted to highlight that for our audience is, is because we hear about some of these, you know, issues and hot matter cases, and even a criminal case, as an example, we have the situations with, you know, Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden, or or Hillary Clinton, or what have you, there's a slow legal grind that takes place.

And especially decide, depending on the size of the fish, if you're going to try to catch a really big fish, you've got to make sure that you really have a hook in that fish, that they can't jump off. Yeah, there's, there's certain requirements to that, if in fact, there was an issue that wasn't raised in the trial court, not raised in the beginning of the case, it will never get, you cannot raise it later in the appellate courts. So like I just mentioned, we're talking about the first and 14th amendments. In our in our two cases, we're talking about those at the trial court level. If we don't talk to them about them at the trial court level, you can't bring them up ever. They're gone.

They're gone. And so we know. So if you have a, if you have a thought that you think something may have interest for the United States Supreme Court, you have to include that in some way, in your original case. So even in a criminal, so in a criminal matter, then you've got to make sure that you have everything lined up. And every possible issue that you want to make sure is is is going to be brought to bear on whoever it is that that that they're, you know, that that's the target of the criminal case, you need to make sure that everything is there. Because whatever isn't there, once it's once the once it's done at trial level, it's done, you can't you can't be bringing it in at the appellate level or further on up the line.

That's that's exactly correct. There's obviously it's law and there's some some exceptions to that. But that's the general rule. Well, and and and so I, you know, I just I am we're going to take a quick break in just a second.

But for our first break, but I just wanted to bring that up. So because, you know, it's very frustrating. And I know, you know, this is for you're as frustrated as everybody else is. But it's very frustrating to watch these these criminal activities, we've seen the phony behavior that's taken place the Russia, Russia, Russia, and things of that nature. But then when we know that there's actual evidence that suggests that there was criminal activity that took place, and there's documents, and there's, you know, witnesses, and there's all these kinds of things, you know, like, like even with the Durham situation, I mean, he had two different trials.

And in both instances, the individuals were acquitted. You know, I'm saying and it's just it becomes incredibly frustrating for the average American who's looking at this. And and I think that we need to recognize that there is a justice system. And the justice system is does lean should lean is supposed to lean in the favor of innocence, rather than in the favor of guilt. But that means absolutely, yeah, absolutely. But that means the prosecutor has to really make sure that every i is dotted, and every t is crossed.

And every time something new pops up, they've got to pull back and say, Okay, now I need to grab that. And I need to investigate that, because I want to make sure that that gets into the case. Well, one of the more interesting things that you kind of referring to at the moment, if the price if in fact, somebody found that guilty, there are no appeals for the prosecutor, right?

Okay. If they lose at the first level, it's over in a criminal matter. There are no appeals that doesn't exist. And, and it should be because when the government's looking to take somebody's life, liberty or property, we need to hold him to follow the law.

Well, so let's take a quick break on that. Because the irony in that, in my opinion is, is that here you have two individuals, one guy that everybody is still talking about, he lied. And yet the jury decides now he didn't lie. I mean that but but everybody but but he is still referred to. I mean, on both sides of the aisle on in in in news media reports and everything else as the guy that lied, okay.

And and yet the jury somehow decided that he didn't lie in spite of the fact that all the evidence suggested that he did and all the witnesses said that he did and makes no sense to me. But you have that kind of thing going on. While at the same time, you've got ridiculous nonsense charges against these January six people, and they are being railroaded into prison. Now, we'll be back more children generation radio coming up straight ahead, my guest David just focus as we continue, we're going to get into some Supreme Court, we've got affirmative action, we've got an election issue, we've also got a marriage issue that's coming up that they're going to decide on.

And we'll talk about all that right after this. So up next, we have clean slate, when you have different things like cancer, and different diseases that are autoimmune related, it can really help with inflammation because you're helping clean the bot and clean slate is a formula that's made from a natural orthosolic acid that basically is put into a formulation that's naturally occurring, that uses different processes from polarization to heating to cooling to different types of catalysts, which will go in the body and really help communicate to get rid of those things that don't need to be there. People don't understand why there's so many autoimmune disorders, but our environments toxic, the land, air and water have changed. We've been exposed to nuclear war.

And the issue is, if there's a nuclear bomb, or there's pollution, or there's war in one country, it actually affects everything up to the stratosphere. So we're all connected. And we've really got to clean things out.

You can pick up your clean slate today at cgr4life.com that's cgr4life.com pick up your clean slate today. Hello, I'm Mike Lindell, CEO of MyPillow. Retailers shopping channels and now even banks have tried to cancel myself and MyPillow. Well during these times your support has meant everything to us. So my employees and I want to personally thank each and every one of you by passing the savings directly on to you. We're selling the best products ever for the best prices ever. For example, we have my standard size MyPillow regularly $69.98 now only $19.98 with your promo code. Or you can get custom fit with my premium queen size MyPillows regularly $79.98 now just $29.98.

Or my king size regular $89.98 now just $34.98. So go to MyPillow.com now and use the promo code on your screen or call the 1-800 number below to receive this exclusive offer. If you do it right now, I'm going to include a free gift with your purchase.

Thank you and God bless. Hi, I'm Tim Scheff, a certified natural health practitioner of over 40 years. I went and reissued to a product that changed my life. The product is called Vibe available at CGRWellness.com. I thought I was on a good nutritional program before I discovered Vibe.

I was taking the traditional vitamin mineral tablets, wasn't really feeling any different. So I tried Vibe. Vibe is an all-in-one vitamin mineral supplement. It's a liquid multivitamin. It's cold pressed, whole food sourced, non-radiated, gluten-free and has no pasteurization. Vibe is like fresh juicing without all the work.

It supports four areas of the body, cardiovascular health, immune health, anti-aging and healthy cell replication. Vibe is available in a 32-ounce bottle for home use or a very handy one-ounce travel packet for life on the go. The first time I tried Vibe, I had more energy in about 20 minutes.

I started thinking clear, even believe I slept better. Get yours today at CGRWellness.com, coupon code chosenjinradio at checkout and receive $20 off your first order of $50 or more. That's CGRWellness.com, coupon code chosenjinradio. Get yours today. These statements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Neuva products do not treat, reduce, cure or prevent disease. My passion is the fight for freedom. My father fought for World War II defending our country. Today, we are no longer fighting with guns.

Instead, we are fighting an ideological battle for control of our country by contributing to causes that support your constitutional rights. I am Patriot Mobile. Did you know you can do your tithing and love offering right from your computer? Visit www.chosengenerationradio.com to support Chosen Generation and make a tax-deductible donation. Now back to Chosen Generation with Pastor Greg. And welcome back to Chosen Generation Radio where no topic's off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses and my very special guest is our constitutional originalist and my good friend, Mr. David Shostakis.

David, again, welcome. Good to have you with me. Well, there's a lot to unpack with regards to this. My overall point, I guess, in trying to bring it up was just simply to say that the wheels of justice grind forward slowly. If you're on the side where you're the grindee, you know, you're glad for that.

If you're on the side and you're the grinder, it could be frustrating. And for the people on the outside, depending on which side of that you are on, it's either, you know, well, it's painstakingly aggravating when you know you're innocent and yet the wheels of justice keep grinding on you and you have to, you know, get to that place of finally getting acquitted. By the same token, if you're on the other side and you know that you're dealing with guilty people, you know, you're like, man, you know, we've got them. Let's nail them. Let's bring down the rule of law upon them. And I guess the point of it is that because of our system being set up, you mentioned Jefferson talking about the system and we talked a little bit about, you know, the grand jury system and the power of the grand jury, but more significantly, how that levels the playing field. That's what they're designed to do. Both the juries, the grand jury, which of course traces its history all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

So we've got 900 years of tracing that system. And then they call it the Pettit jury, which is the jury that hears trials and makes decisions. And that is the greatest invention for the protections of freedom. Grand juries, unfortunately, have become kind of a vestigial and almost a cover for prosecutors these days, as opposed to a shield against the citizenry. But regular juries still quite regularly find people not guilty when perhaps the government is overstepping its bounds.

And so they're very, very important and useful, useful elements of protecting our freedoms still. And so and, you know, you were talking about saying a different case and saying everybody knew he lied. People in the media were saying people on both sides of the aisle are saying. But we don't know what happened in the courtroom.

Yes, sir. We don't know what the jury what evidence the jury actually heard. There are things that are admissible in court for reasons for good reasons.

Long story. And there are things that are not admissible in court for good reason. And so there's a fair probability that the jury didn't hear some things that perhaps came out in the media or they did hear things that the media ignored. And so I wouldn't question their decision based on what one would say the or do they say the common understanding or the the general general view of the world? What happened happens in the jury room is or in the in the courtroom is not necessarily what happens in the rest of the world. I will say, yeah, I will say this. And I've talked to several men, probably at least a half dozen, yes, that that are in the D.C. area.

And and they, you know, are speaking to people in in in that community. And and and they've, you know, basically all come to the same conclusion, which is if you're a conservative, don't have charges brought against you in D.C., you'll be guilty. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. And and if the case is associated with particular names, Trump being one of them, depending on which side of that you are on, if if you are if they assume that you are in some way related to or an ally of Trump, you're guilty. It doesn't matter what you did. It makes no difference. And if you are on the side that is opposing Trump, then you are innocent.

And again, it doesn't matter what you did. So unfortunately, finding a jury pool in D.C. that is that is going to be fair and unbiased. And you know, I mean, this is this is coming from people that live there who are saying that it's not possible to find an unbiased jury in D.C., just like it's very difficult to find one in certain parts of New York, for certain.

You've got the same the same kind of animosity, if you will, that exists there. That Manhattan district, as an example, you know, that not only is the prosecutor, you know, in office because he swore that he was going to take down the Trump name, but you've got jurists that are going to be sitting in that jury that are of the same mindset. Yeah, this is problematic, although the real unfortunate part is, is that the judges actually could see to it that that doesn't happen. The judges can control those kinds of things when the when there's juror bias that shows up and it's brought to the judge's attention by the by the defense counsel. And the judge sweeps aside the defense counsel's exceptions to get a juror. I would still put it I would put that on the judge in the end for allowing bias juries to be composed.

Now, I mean, I'm sure there's difficulties, but nevertheless, you've got a large pool. If the if the judge has his eyes and ears on impartiality and fairness, then in fact, you should still nevertheless come up with an unbiased jury. And if you fail to come up with an unbiased jury, I suggest that the that that lands at the feet of the judge. And so because because certainly what they call voir dire, the process of selecting the jury is designed to reveal biases and these kinds of problems. And if a judge is inclined to be open to creating an impartial jury, he has a lot of sway on what he does that when they when you're selecting a jury, you have so much so many preemptory challenges. That is, you don't have to explain the challenge to a juror and you can just kick them off. But once once you're out of those, then you have to challenge jurors for cause. And quite regularly, if you challenge a juror for cause after after asking them some questions that reveal bias, the the judge can can allow that allow that juror to be excused. So when I I would suggest that the problem still ultimately turns out to be the judiciary failing to see to it that the composition of the jury is impartial. And that's probably true, although I you know, again, I mean, this was one of the reasons that CPAC moved away from there.

They came back there this year. But one of the reasons it's that that CPAC moved away from there was was was because of the incredible bias against any any conservatives for for, you know, for several years, for at least three years, it was deemed to really kind of be unsafe. And and and I would still question whether or not it is safe. I mean, think about this, you've got Supreme Court justices, who whose homes have been targeted by activists, several of them death threats, verifiable, legitimate actual death threats, you know, because of their conservative views with Kavanaugh and and, and, and, and Amy.

Tony Barrett. Yeah. You know, in particular, I think even, you know, Gorsuch has had has had his, you know, threats as well. So, and and and Alito. But at any rate, the point of it is, and I know there's been a discussion to the Kagan and a couple of them have also had, you know, things spoken against them, as well, I want to be fair, as far as, as pointing it out, no Supreme Court justice should be concerned about their own physical life and health and safety, to the extent that it, you know, would impact how they would decide what cases to hear and and how those cases would go we that that should not happen. And there should be security put in place to keep that from happening.

That's just Pastor Greg's two cents worth. It's been a danger of public life ever since Julius Caesar. You know, I so it's it's unfortunate and it's true.

That's a that's a part of the dark side of humanity. But wouldn't you say that it has been and I and I agree. I mean, we've had attempts on President's lives. You can go back to President Reagan and what happened, you know, in that situation, I mean, there there had been attempted assassinations. Lincoln was assassinated.

Kennedy was assassinated. You see, and there's been other situations, you know, besides, you know, icons like Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, or, or Martin Luther King, you know, or what have you. But my point is, is that I think today, it seems to me, in my 60 years of life, that I've never seen what I'm watching today with, you know, doxing media, I mean, Tucker Carlson's wife having to hide in the bathroom, because there's people pounding at the front door while he's sitting, you know, on air at Fox.

Those kinds of things. This seems like we've crossed over into a into a into a different sphere than previously and I and I, I say that and I know you're not being dismissive with it. But when you're saying well, you know, we've known this since Julius Caesar, I agree.

But it seems to me that we're at an at a whole nother level relative to this, this this attempt to intimidate and, and that it's very similar, eerily similar to what we saw in in Nazi Germany. I don't mean to be dismissive. No, no, no, I knew that.

I knew that I knew that I and I was not taking it that way at all. And, and, you know, you are someone who has a long standing as a public servant, as well, you have filled that role, you have held that position. And in doing so, when you took that oath, you also took on and understood the dangers that were associated with being principled and making the right decision and making the right call, and that there would be people that would be angry, angry enough to make threats against you and to put potentially your life at risk.

And I and I and I completely respect that. My question is this, does it seem to you like over the course of the last six, seven, eight years, we've elevated this to another level? Let me tell you, just from personal experience, the fact is, of course, as you mentioned, I was a prosecutor, I put people in jail, I put bad people away, I prosecuted them. I had many colleagues that did the same thing, and many colleagues that either ran for other offices or ran for judge. Everybody was everybody in my position that we're doing that we're always concerned on their political, political material, to make sure that even though it's very nice to put your family and your pictures of your wife and children and everything on your on your materials, people that were like myself were very reticent to do so because of the possible dangers associated with the jobs that we had and what kind of danger it might put our our families, our wives, our children in that in those kinds of positions.

So Greg, maybe maybe that's why I'm not quite so well, you know, you you bring something up that I think is interesting and relative to and again, you know, everything is shaped by perspective. You were a prosecutor. And so therefore, your, your opponents were criminals, crime bosses, crime rings. Yeah, you you had the potential of, you know, of prosecuting a situation that that injured the criminal empire or criminal business of these individuals, and maybe the guy that you went after wasn't the one that was pulling all the strings, although that was the goal. But nonetheless, it hurt the organization, and therefore that puts a target on your back.

So to that point, I respect that now step away from that for a second. And let's just talk about the the city council member. Let's just talk about the the the state legislator, or the or the or the guy sitting in Congress or or the or the senator. Let's talk about those individuals whose job it is to legislate, but certainly not to they're not in direct contact with bad guys. They're not prosecuting bad guys. They're, you know, that that's not their what they're doing.

They're supposed to be there for the good of the people. And yet today, if they don't make the right decision or say the right thing or use the right pronoun, they they potentially are going to be in possibly a position of physical harm. That's what I mean. And to me, in my lifetime, that seems like an entirely different I mean, I mean, there have been there have been times, you know, I mean, I think back to, you know, being again, from California, in San Francisco. And it's interesting, because it's very similar. The militant LGBTQ in San Francisco, who threatened pastors who threw Molotov cocktails into the bedrooms of pastors homes, who would not come along line and in alignment with, you know, with their sodomite ways.

So I it's it has happened before, but in an isolated way. Now, it seems that it is very broad. And I think it's the reason why you see these corporations going quote, unquote, woke. It's because certain individuals are being threatened and told, Look, if you don't go woke, something may happen to your family. Ah, I certainly can't speak to that last point.

I have no no information about that. But I would call your attention again, I this is these are these are problems that have plagued humanity for a long, long time. And we and both sides have a nut.

There's there's some crazy people associated with with either team dating back to what comes to mind is the San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk, who was in fact, you know, one of the first publicly gay officials that got killed in that in San Francisco related to that. So this is unfortunate and sad. I don't know that it's any worse than it's ever been, because it's always you're always in danger when you're in the public life, because there's always unfortunately a fringe element of society that thinks violence will, in fact, solve their issues. And so we have to be careful. We have to be secure. We have to be safe. Perhaps the dissemination of information that's around is does allows this situation to fester and aggravate. But again, I was in that. But it started out talking about judges, Supreme Court justices.

And theoretically, you know, they should be insulated as well from these kinds of these kinds of problems. But if you're in public life, there is going to be some sort of screwball that disagrees with whatever it is that you're doing and thinks that perhaps they might be able to solve their particular animosities by taking you out. And it's sad.

I hope to. I personally, like I said, because I was part of these discussions where people were running for judge or other offices and they're going, geez, should I put my family on these pictures because that's possible danger to my family. Should I have my children on Facebook so that they know who my kids are and stuff?

This is that these are these are problems that people that are involved in public life somehow these days are in fact, they have to they have to they have to consider and have to think about. No question. All right. Quick break. Then let's come back. We're going to do a rapid fire to close out our time together on on SCOTUS and and on and on what's going on over there. And and as a caveat, just really quick to close this out, too.

There's no question. This is what sin nature does. This is what fallen man does. And it's the reason why our country was founded on Judeo Christian principles. And it's the reason why our founders said that without a moral people, our constitution is not not created to contain an immoral mob. It's not and and laws are sufficient for moral people because moral people will pay attention to the law. immoral people don't.

It's the same reason that we talk about the gun argument and we say, Oh, let's take away all the guns. Well, the only people that are going to turn in guns are law abiding citizens. They're the only ones that are going to be disarmed.

Criminals will not be disarmed. Same same story. Same exact story. All right, we're going to take a break. We'll be back with more Children Generation Radio coming up right after this break. Hi, this is Pastor Greg and you're listening to Children Generation Radio. Get more at ChildrenGenerationRadio.com.

That's Children Generation Radio where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical glass. Hi, I'm Tim Scheff, a certified natural health practitioner of over 40 years. I went under issue to a product that changed my life. The product is called Vibe, available at cgrwellness.com. I thought I was on a good nutritional program before I discovered Vibe.

I was taking the traditional vitamin mineral tablets, wasn't really feeling any different. So I tried Vibe. Vibe is an all in one vitamin and mineral supplement. It's a liquid multivitamin. It's cold pressed, whole food sourced, non-radiate, gluten free and has no pasteurization. Vibe is like fresh juicing without all the work.

It supports four areas of the body, cardiovascular health, immune health, anti-aging and healthy cell replication. Vibe is available in a 32 ounce bottle for home use or a very handy one ounce travel packet for life on the go. The first time I tried Vibe, I had more energy in about 20 minutes.

I started thinking clear, even I don't believe I slept better. Get yours today at cgrwellness.com. Coupon code chosen gen radio at checkout and receive $20 off your first order of $50 or more. That's cgrwellness.com coupon code chosen gen radio.

Get yours today. These statements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Negro products do not treat, reduce, cure or prevent disease. My passion is the fight for freedom. My father fought for a World War II defending our country. Today we are no longer fighting with guns.

Instead, we are fighting an ideological battle for control of our country by contributing to causes that support your constitutional rights. I am Patriot Mobile. Hello, I'm Mike Lindell, CEO of MyPillow. Retailers, shopping channels and now even banks have tried to cancel myself and MyPillow. Well, during these times, your support has meant everything to us. So my employees and I want to personally thank each and every one of you by passing this savings directly on to you. We're selling the best products ever for the best prices ever. For example, we have my standard size MyPillow regularly $69.98, now only $19.98 with your promo code. Or you can get custom fit with my premium queen size MyPillows regularly $79.98, now just $29.98. Or my king size regular $89.98, now just $34.98. So go to MyPillow.com now and use the promo code on your screen or call the 1-800 number below to receive this exclusive offer.

If you do it right now, I'm going to include a free gift with your purchase. Thank you and God bless. So up next, we have Clean Slate. When you have different things like cancer and different diseases that are autoimmune related, it can really help with inflammation because you're helping clean the body.

And Clean Slate is a formula that's made from a natural orthosilic acid that basically is put into a formulation that's naturally occurring that uses different processes from polarization to heating to cooling to different types of catalysts which will go in the body and really help communicate to get rid of those things that don't need to be there. People don't understand why there's so many autoimmune disorders, but our environment's toxic. The land, air and water have changed.

We've been exposed to nuclear war and the issue is if there's a nuclear bomb or there's pollution or there's war in one country, it actually affects everything up to the stratosphere. So we're all connected and we've really got to clean things out. You can pick up your Clean Slate today at CGRforLife.com.

That's CGRforLife.com. Pick up your Clean Slate today. And welcome back to Chosen Generation Radio where no topic's off limits and everything filtered through biblical classes and my special guest is David Shostakos. You know, there's some things about just really quickly on the Harvey Milk thing because Harvey Milk was killed along with Mayor George Moscone by Dan White. Dan White used something called the Twinkie Defense.

It was his initial thing. But yeah, but at the end of the day, that situation really was Dan White had been fired and Dan White wanted his job back and Moscone decided that he wasn't going to give him his job back. And so he was a disgruntled ex-employee who killed the person who wouldn't hire him and killed the other person who had the most influence in that decision regarding his hiring. Now, Harvey Milk, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the reality is, again, just like the reality of the LGBTQ and that is that Harvey Milk was a pedophile and not a good person by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, no, no. I'm not justifying the murder. I'm not justifying the murder. But what I am saying is that he was not a martyr. He was not martyred because of LGBTQ.

There's not a connectivity between those two. That's a false narrative that the LGBTQ community wants to just like the Matthew Shepard case. The Matthew Shepard case had nothing to do with him being a homosexual. It had to do with the drugs. But that was promoted as, oh, he was killed because he was a homosexual. Milk wasn't killed because he was a homosexual. Milk was killed along with Moscone because of the influence that he had relative to Dan White being rehired as a member of council. So it's dangerous to be a city council member. There you go.

I agree. And it was certainly, and again, isolated cases versus now on a much broader scale, the issue of doxing. That was something that was not happening 30, 40 years ago.

The tools weren't available. And it is today. 30, 40 years ago, you got within a few blocks of your office. You knew it was time to turn on and really be aware of your surroundings and what's going on. Not that you wouldn't be otherwise, but even more so because they knew where you worked.

Now it's not just knowing where you work, but it's knowing that while you're at work, they may go after your family at your house because some idiot put your address and all your information out, even if you were trying to protect them. Anyway, let's jump on to the Supreme Court situation. So we've got several cases. There's an affirmative action case. There's a voting rights acts case. There's an LGBTQ. This is how they phrase it, an NPR LGBTQ rights case.

And then there's a Sunday work at USPS case. I think you and I have talked briefly about that before. We did speak about that briefly, yes. And then there's a, they're calling it a true threats case. Supreme Court term revisits the question the courts never answered. What is a threat, a true threat? What does the prosecution have to prove? Does it have to show the defendant intended to frighten his target or it is enough to show that his words would have had that effect on a reasonable person?

Coles Whalen, a singer songwriter from Colorado and Billy Counterman, a man convicted and sentenced to four and a half years in prison for stalking Whalen and making true threats against her. The case was heard in April. Yeah, well that becomes actually, strangely enough, kind of a first amendment sort of issue. Also what they call mens rea when it comes to criminal charges, because typically you have to have a particular state of mind to be convicted of a crime. And a particular state of mind is either that you intended to do something or you were so negligent as to, you should have known the problem with that. And these kinds of issues, when you talk about true threat is what was the intent of the individual when they were saying something. But I, I suspect the standard is still going to wind up to be in any event that you can infer the intent by what a reasonable person would garner from the information surrounding the making of the threat.

Nobody ever really knows exactly what's going on in somebody's mind unless they write out a confession or they leave a note and say, I'm intending to kill so and so. Absent that, we always utilize that evidence surrounding the conduct of the individual and what a reasonable person can infer from that. So I suspect that will wind up being the, being the basis of the decision on that. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Let's jump to affirmative action. Now, now this particular case, and it's really poorly written by NPR, but as I understand it, this has a lot to do with, with our with our Asian friends. And, and the fact that Harvard because of affirmative action, even though the Asian student might have higher grades, better grades, work harder, all those things, they're not getting in to these elite schools. And those positions are being filled by individuals who have lower test scores. And, and, and in, in some instances, you know, end up not not getting through or whatever, it doesn't really matter. But the point of it is, is that it's not a merit based system.

And, and that's really what this is about. Yeah, well, it's been a problem for about 45 years now, ever since Becky, Becky versus California. And where the Supreme Court originally allowed the use of race based race based considerations in admissions to schools that are receiving federal money, which is a way, which of course is interesting, interesting too. Why is Harvard getting any federal money? Harvard's got millions of dollars in, in their, in their foundation and whatnot, they can fund anything they want to. If they wanted to, like Hillsdale, they could give up getting federal money, then they could let in and out whoever they want.

But that's a separate, separate issue. But yeah, here's the, here becomes the problem that Harvard obviously is not conducting their admissions process in a colorblind fashion, because they are in fact, limiting to a certain percentage the number of Asian Americans that can be admitted, or they are increasing the number of other races that should that they think should be admitted in the name of diversity. And so I don't know why diversity is a goal in and of itself in any event. It seems to me that a university is supposed to have diversity of what?

Thought. Diversity of thought, not necessarily diversity of immutable genetics. And so I suspect that the Asian American plaintiffs in that case are going to be successful.

The other one I want to get in real quick, got about two minutes on this, but this is 303 Creative versus Elena's. The case pits, they claim two constitutional principles against each other. On one side are the laws that guarantee same sex couples equal access to businesses. On the other business owners who see themselves as artists and don't want to use their talents to express a message they don't believe in, which is which is really a light way of saying the issue here is is one of morals and one of conscience, and one of religious freedom and and freedom of expression. And they, to my belief under the First Amendment should have a defense to be able to not have to participate in something that they are morally or have a conscious objection to. Yeah, they start that off from an improper constitutional premise, saying that there are two constitutional principles at issue here. There are not two constitutional issues at issue here, because what a government is trying to do in this instance is compel speech.

They're trying to say that an artist must say something that the artist does not agree with. That's the only constitutional principle involved in this case. You know, you don't, there is no, it's historically, there's, you know, freedom of speech is two things. It's one is you're free to say what you want, but you're also free from having the government say that you must say something. And the other, there is no, there's no other, there's no principle on the other side that says that in any way, shape, or form ever says that you must say something. Providing services is a bit different in terms of discrimination if somebody wants to come in and have dinner or things like that.

None of that involves your saying that you condone whatever it is that is involved in their lifestyle. But in this situation, they're saying that Colorado is saying a web designer must design a website for somebody with whom she disagrees. That's the only constitutional principle involved. There are not two principles. There's just the one that the government may not compel speech Colorado is obviously a very strange place. No question, no question, because this has already decided for them in the masterpiece cake case.

And yet they're back in front of the court again, basically defying the court to, to, to stand on its, on its own merit and on its own decision that it's already made. David, thanks for being with me today. I greatly appreciate it. Folks. Our number two is coming up right after this. Stay tuned for more chosen generation radio.