CGR WEDNESDAY 062123 David Shestokas

Now we're cooking on all cylinders. David, my apologies. Okay. So you were mentioning about the origination of laws.

So something that I've been kind of going after. Conservatives have begun to embrace a different form of decency. Dennis Prager came on and gave a talk about Pride Month. And he opened the talk by talking about some guy that survived the Holocaust and was asked whether or not he hated German people in his writing, which I guess is a fairly well-known book.

I don't remember the name of the book right now. But at any rate, he said there's only decent people and not decent people in the world. And that was a kind of a Jewish philosophy, Jewish thought process, whatever, however you want to look at that. But he then correlates that to saying that, you know, that you can be engaged in sodomy as a lifestyle and still be decent. The dictionary definition for decency is moral. You have to be moral to be decent.

Sodomy is not moral. And it goes to who decides what is morality. And then that broadens the question to where do we get life, liberty, and our pursuit of happiness? Where do our rights come from? If we decide to redefine these issues of morality and decency and so forth, and we say that man now is going to subjectively be the one who's going to make those decisions, and we throw God's definition out, then we also, by our actions, throw out all the rights that God's given us because we're saying God's not giving us those rights. Those rights are coming from a man, which means they can be taken away. And there are no absolute rights because every definition is subject to the interpretation of, I don't know, whatever man is in charge. Not only whatever man is in charge, but rather everybody gets to decide for themselves. And if they get to decide for themselves, then essentially there is no law.

Because you can't point to this as being what you said about no absolutes, no absolute law, no absolute right, no absolute truth. Then absent and absolute, everybody gets to decide for themselves. If everybody gets to decide for themselves, there is no law. It is in effect lawless. And I fear regularly that this is the direction we're going when they go and say that you can do these things and they become lawful or they're only lawful because you decide they are for yourself. Then, in fact, what authority is there to enforce anything? Where does the authority to enforce anything come from? Then government, if they're saying each individual is a law unto themselves, then essentially they're saying there is no government either.

If you can decide these things for yourself, it seems to me that you can decide whether or not you're going to pay taxes for yourself. You can decide that I'm perfectly fine going 90 miles an hour in a school zone regardless because I'm comfortable doing that. It makes me feel good.

I have the need for speed. Everything is lost and it moves along to anarchy. Doesn't it also speak to the idea that you drop a pebble in a pond and it has ripple effects? This is one of the things that I argue and I'll go back to the morality clause. When we instituted and changed the definition of marriage, I had been arguing for 20, 30 years before that, that as soon as you do that, now you subject children to someone's sexual preference.

You have to teach that sexual preference to the kids. Everybody would tell me, oh, that's ridiculous. Oh, that's not. Well, guess what? It is exactly what's going on. There's a lawsuit going on right now where you have a group of parents that have had enough. And they're suing a school board to get these books removed. So now the counter, right?

Oh, we have freedom. Mike Pence was on with Jordan Peters. Is that his name, right? Peterson.

And gave an interview. And in the interview, he came out strong against children shouldn't be introduced to hormones and so on up to the age of 18. But you know, at 18, you can do whatever you want.

Here's the problem. They're not going to decide at 18 to mutilate their bodies and take hormones in a vacuum. It's going to be taught to them for that first 13 years from the time they're five to the time they're 18. They're going to now they become a target. And they begin to be groomed in the school. Okay, you say we can't do it till 18. And then they'll keep pushing that because they're already pushing for the age of consent to be down to somewhere around 12.

That's their goal. Yeah, this is all very, very problematic. And of course, it is when you get away from that have an absolute saying and we start and I started out with the recognition that today is the longest day of the year. And you can't change nothing.

Yeah. I mean, there is nothing no legislature, they can call it something else. They can call it June 20th, 20, 20th, or whatever. But that doesn't make any difference.

It's still the longest day of the year. And that that is so, so true about so many things of life, this whole binary or non binary gender business, you know, I mean, that's, there are just two, there's two genders. That's, that's, that's all there is. And whatever you call them, it doesn't change that fact.

And that's it. And that's the same situation with all this. And so it becomes it becomes lawless. And apparently lawless is the is the goal lawlessness is the goal.

So that there's an opportunity to come in and give a dictator an opportunity to impose whatever, whatever he thinks. I'm, I'm real concerned that this is all filtered the judiciary as well. You can't, you literally cannot depend on judges to follow the law. The judge gets to decide what he wants. He gets to decide the outcome and then back up the law into the into the outcome that he wants. The historical approach to judging the historical approach to judging is the laws in place, you get the facts, you apply the facts to the law, and then you come out with the decision as opposed to this seems fair to me. So I will make up some law that makes it gives us the outcome. This is it's in filter the judiciary. It's ubiquitous.

This is a very, very dangerous thing. It's interesting about the judiciary, because 99 90% of what they do, judges do is not really of not really earth shattering. It's not really a big deal for for what they decide most of its managerial, a lot of its administrative. But you should be able to count on them to come through and apply the absolute law when it becomes important. We can't depend on that anymore either.

Right. This is, we're in very dangerous, what some people would call post constitutional territory. And it's almost post post legal territory as well. And this is a very difficult place for for me to be.

I go in a courtroom and I depend on an outcome being based on what the law was when I walked into the courtroom. And then sometimes I walk out shaking my head and go, Hey, what just happened? Yeah, what just happened here? What just happened here?

Yeah. And it's, so this is, this has gone through the whole, the whole of society, in so many places, you know, from the from the other institutions that we used to used to revere. And we revered places like the FBI because they were employed to the law, the Department of Justice. Literally, literally the Trump, the Trump indictment is literally made up law. These crimes that they're saying that President Trump is accused of and committed, they don't exist. There's something called the Presidential Records Act that in fact allows him to do the things he does without, actually, for the most part, without explaining to other people. You know, it's at his discretion, the National Archives has no authority to get any presidential documents, whatever. They're at the mercy, if you will, of the president under the law.

But of course, the law doesn't matter to these people. Well, let me let me let me let me share something. This is the Hodge twins posted this. I'm not sure. I guess it's from some something called the ketchup feed. I'm not familiar with it. But this happened at a at a McDonald's.

Okay. And and folks, when you see this, I mean, this is this is this is what we are devolving into. These kids are attacking the staff, breaking all of the equipment, stealing that they they stole the cash register. It's it is just a scene of absolute utter chaos. And this is what you were just talking about, David, about about about the anarchy. Yeah, those kinds of things develop from policies that are being instituted by, if you will, these Soros prosecutors where, you know, the law here in the state of Illinois says that retail theft of three hundred dollars or more is a felony.

They will not in Cook County with Kim Fox of Juicy Smollett fame will not enforce the felony law unless it's a thousand dollars or more. So so people are, you know, come in with a calculator and bring up to nine nine nine hundred ninety nine dollars and fill up their bags until they can. And then they then they leave. And then what happens?

The stores close. And now nobody has that. Nobody can get their medicine. Nobody can get their food. It's just it's utter insanity.

And it's completely uncivil. Of course, civil society is we have the situation where, of course, we have our rights, but we also have responsibility in terms of having those rights. And that's that's what we've lost. We we just have this situation where everybody has rights, but nobody has a responsibility. And this is and that's that's that's that foundation that we're you know, that we're describing, folks, that is the bedrock. And again, where do we get our liberty from?

Where does our freedom come from? And I'm very concerned about about the direction. I'll close this section with this. Then we'll take a quick break.

We'll come back. We've got a number of other issues to talk about. But Mike Pence was in that interview with Jordan Peterson and and his statement in there was, you know, again, defending up to 18. But he said, but at 18, you know, you you know, you should have a right. And then he said, and my Christian faith. He invoked his Christian faith to suggest that it was Christian and loving to support sex change after the age of 18. Folks, read your Bible.

Read your Bible. Because that mutilation of the body. And changing your sex and and and all of that perversion and deviance. As a Christian, I don't not support it because I hate the person doing it. I don't support it because the word of God says it's wrong. The word of God says that the consequences of these wrong choices, the sin is eternal suffering.

And I love people and I don't want to see anyone. Renouncing God's purpose and plan. And then at the end of their life, standing there and saying, well, you know, what about me and and God saying, you made your choice. You were given the choice to choose. And you chose your path, your way. And you said, I don't want you in it. Well, now we're at the end. I'm not going to be in it. There's the door. Hell awaits you. Because you accepted the condemnation, you embrace the condemnation, light came to you, you rejected light. But as a Christian, my responsibility is to share that truth with you in hopes that you will walk into the light and walk out of the darkness.

Back 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 body.

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. 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 onto 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. 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. For the first time I tried Vibe, I had more energy in about 20 minutes. I started thinking clearer. You can believe I slept better. Get yours today at cgrwellness.com, coupon code chosengenradio at checkout, and receive $20 off your first order of $50 or more. That's cgrwellness.com, coupon code chosengenradio.

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. Look, I am for marriage between a man and a woman. I am for life from conception. I am for following the Bible, and I believe that our founders started this nation on biblical principles.

I am in support of our military and believe that America should play a role in world security. I believe our Constitution was intended for a moral people and that the Bible contains the only true moral code. I believe we are all born sinners and that God in His grace and mercy sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins and that if we will confess our sins, He is just and righteous to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. I believe salvation is not just accomplished in a little prayer, but that it is found in how that transformation is lived out. Jesus is to be the Lord of our lives, and we should follow biblical precepts. This is not legalism or works, but a life lived out in love and honor towards the one who died for my sins. Faith without works is dead and is no faith at all. I believe that we will fall and that we need to have a repentant heart and that God will ultimately bring us into perfect action through Jesus Christ, spirit man perfected and soulish man in progress. I believe that we are not to live in guilt and shame when we fall, but we repent and get up and move closer to Jesus. I believe that if our nation will repent and turn from wickedness that God will heal our land.

I believe that as a Christian I must occupy until He comes and that to call evil wicked and to warn about those evil acts is a part of the mandated Christianity. That to love also means to be willing to take the risk necessary to confront a friend with the truth in hopes that their heart will be turned because their life matters, even if it means in that moment they will possibly hate me. It means that I must risk scorn to stand for truth and that I can never sit silently by while evil attempts to conquer the world. God is my everything and Jesus is the love of my life. That does not make me weak but strong, not silent but bold and not fearful but courageous. Therefore, if you are my friend, while we may not fully agree, know that I share what I share because I care.

If you strongly disagree with these beliefs, they are not debatable for me and you can, if you choose, unfriend me. I do not say this in anger but in love. I wish for you eyes to see and ears to hear that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation and that God, not man, gets to decide what is truth, life and the way. God bless you.

God bless you. And welcome back to Children's Generation Radio where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses. My special guest is David Shostakos and we've been talking about the law and one last piece to that, that we were just talking about, having to do with the legislation because the argument becomes then, well, you're just trying to legislate morality and you can't legislate morality. Can you speak to that for a second?

I mean, I know what my answer is. Yes, you can. Basically, that's what law exists to do. Law exists to organize society around an agreed set of moral code, if you will. And that's it.

Of course you can. We say, where does the crime of murder come from? It comes from thou shall not kill to begin with.

It's obviously immoral to take somebody's life. And so then you're not supposed to covet your neighbor's wife, you're not supposed to... Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not steal. I mean, where does the idea that you don't steal, it comes from that. Don't bear false witness, right? Don't lie about people, don't bear false witness. Your slander laws, you know, I mean, these are all predicated on, as you said, those first 10 commandments.

Yeah, it all builds off of there, which by the way, above the entrance to the Supreme Court, there's a sculpture of Moses carrying the tablets as one of the major sources of law for the United States. And so of course you can legislate morality. That's what law is.

It expands the code of conduct that enables civilized society to exist. If you do not have restrictions on your liberty, if you will, then in fact the other guy has no restrictions on his liberty, in which case neither of you have any liberty because both of you are free to decide for yourself how you're going to treat the other person. You can be free to decide for yourself that you're going to kill the other guy. And if you're free to decide that you can kill the other guy, then he is not entitled to his inalienable right to life. And it doesn't exist.

Then it doesn't exist. Of course it's all built on morality. And these days the argument is, of course, that everybody can get to decide stuff for themselves. Well, if everybody gets to decide for themselves, we have no law. And there needs to be an agreement, in which case if we have no law, we have no freedom. That sounds kind of oxymoronic, that you must accept restrictions on your freedom to be free.

But the fact is that's absolutely true. You have to accept restrictions on your freedom because that means the other people in society have restrictions on theirs that allows you to exercise your maximum freedom without impinging on the other guys. My favorite Bastier quote is, the freedom to extend my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

That's the easy one to understand. I can see you right here, and I can see your nose right in front of me. And that's the extent of my freedom to extend my fist is your nose. And it's mutual. It's a mutual agreement.

And that's the whole thing. And again, when you talk about, whatever it is, the deviance issues, whatever, whatever someone does in the privacy of their own home, my morality actually extends to their front door to say, you're free to do what you want to do inside of your house. You still can't have sex with your daughter. Well, I was just going to say, as long as it is not a violation of someone else's rights in there. So you can't take somebody in your house and commit rape.

You can't hold somebody hostage. You're not allowed to create illicit drugs that you're then going to take out and sell out in the neighborhood. I mean, there are issues that do exist with regards to that as well.

And I'm glad you bring that up because that becomes the other argument. Well, I should be able to do what I want to do inside of my home. But within the guidelines of a form of morality, there is a right and there is a wrong.

And that's why... Go ahead. And absent absolutes, we're devoid of any, you know, we're devoid of organization. If we're devoid of organization, we are devoid of freedom. You've got to have some organization to have some freedom. Well, and that's why Scalia's dissent on Texas versus Lawrence was so prophetic relative to where we are today in all of this sexual deviance.

Because he said, okay, as soon as we say now that sodomy anywhere is perfectly fine and it's all legal and you can do that anywhere you want, you're now unbridling that beast. And it is going to impact children. And children are going to be unsafe. And they are.

And they are pushing with all of this. And transgender changing children's sex? Well, you're making a child a sex object. And this is paving the way because they've already begun the process of trying to change pedophilia.

They have what they call them minor attracted persons, MAPs. They're changing the definition, folks, from sick pervert pedophile to, oh, well, they're just a minor attracted person. It's okay. It's okay. It's not okay. It's not okay because you're now interfering with that child and that child's rights and their ability to grow up and the whole thing about even 18 is wrong. Of course, we had that whole situation where we wound up with the 18-year-old vote because of Vietnam and the old enough to fight was the old enough to vote. They should have gone the other direction and said, no, we can't draft anybody under 21. That should have been the, you know, if you want to volunteer before you're 21, that's your business.

But if you want to. But we can't draft anybody till they're 21. And consequently, nobody gets to vote until they're 20. And that used to be the age of majority for making contracts.

It used to be the age of majority, obviously, for and still is for drinking and things like that. People just don't develop. I have no idea how I got to be 22. I did some stupid stuff. I did some stupid stuff when I was 21.

You know, I have no idea how I got to be 22. And this is and that's just that's just a part. That's also a part of nature and nature's nature's got people mature and take time to understand the world around them and understand them to live. And so the thought and the idea that somebody that's five, six, seven years old can determine that they're not comfortable in their body is just absurd.

It's just absurd. There's always been ages. You know, I, I couldn't make my first whole community until I was eight years old. I, I saw a meme, I'm sorry, but I saw a thing about this that I thought was quite insightful. A woman had gone in and she said she was 28 years old.

I think 28, 28, 29, 28, I believe. And she had gone in to the doctors and she wanted to have her tubes tied. And, and they said, oh, wait, no, no, no, you, we, there, there need, you, you need to, you need to think, you need to think about this.

We're not just going to tie your tubes. You've got to, you've got to wait. There's a waiting period. There was, there was like a, like an entire, like one year or whatever. I mean, she said it was like this really long waiting period.

And she came home and she was like, wait a minute. I'm 28 years old and I want to have my tubes tied because I really don't think I want to have children and bring children into this mess. And no one will tie my tubes because they're concerned that I'm not old enough to make that kind of life altering decision. And yet they'll feed hormones and mutilate teenagers, permanently damaging them for the rest of their lives. Where's the logic in that? There is no, there is no logic in that. You know, it's just that it's absurd and it's so difficult to comprehend that there's actually medical professionals that will in fact engage in that kind of what they call gender affirming care, whatever that is.

I have no idea. The language is just so, the language that's being used to make these things sound acceptable, like minor attractive people and gender affirming care. And this kind of language is just obscene because it covers up what actually is happening or it's a, it's an effort to cover up exactly what's happening.

And the other amazing thing is, is that there are mainstream people. Now you mentioned Vice President Pence and Vice President Pence. Obviously, I doubt that the statement where he kind of got equivocation about the 18 year old situation where he started to equivocate would otherwise be his beliefs. I doubt that his beliefs changed. Unfortunately, I'd have to say that he was making a political choice in moderating what his otherwise, in what his views were rather than making a moral and an appropriate choice. There's not too many heroic people around these days.

There's not too many heroic judges. You know, I would love to see, you know what I'd love to see? I'd love to see Trump and Robert Kennedy be on a ticket together. This would be the, because the Republicans don't want Trump and the Democrats don't want Kennedy. Which tells you that between the two of them, they're doing something right. You're, they're probably in the right direction, right? Yeah. Yeah. They're doing something right.

When the GOP doesn't want Trump and the Democrats don't want RFK, they're doing something right. And I would guess, and in another way, it would be, if they were a third party together, based on my experience with election activities, it would be so much more difficult with three candidates. Ah, okay.

As opposed to the traditional two. Right. To manage the election, that would be so much more difficult to manage for those of those people with the desire to do ill about the electorate. I've been thinking about this because you're going to wind up, if you do that, you're going to wind up with Democrats who probably haven't voted since John F. Kennedy got killed. That would be their voting for RFK and there would be, and vice versa, it would be so much more difficult for the people that mess with elections to mess with an election. If Robert Kennedy and Donald Trump were on a ticket together, not Republican, not Democrat, the American Freedom Party or whatever they want to be.

This would be, and you heard it here first, you heard it here first, it would be just so hard. It would be, I see what people do relative to elections. And when there's three candidates, it's very, very difficult for the people that are messing with elections to do their nefarious work. Interesting. That's a separate thing altogether. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, it is. I agree. All right, let me see here.

I'm pulling up. Okay, so court strikes a blow for sentencing discretion under provision in federal firearms statute. Did you see this one?

No, I haven't. People given consecutive sentences under the federal law that imposes penalties for use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking may now be entitled to a new sentencing hearing. According to the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Laura versus the United States, the justices ruled that federal criminal sentencing laws do not require Erfin Laura, who was convicted for his role in a drug trafficking related murder, to receive multiple consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. That's an ongoing issue in terms of what the, it's an ongoing issue, strangely enough, of separation of powers to what degree the legislature can, in fact, interfere with the execution of the judicial authority, to what degree it can say that the judges have to do something. And so I would suggest that the Supreme Court, you can say with a unanimous decision that they're exercising due diligence in terms of protecting the authority of the judiciary to be separate and to have a separate but equal power in the separation of powers of our government. Interesting, there's also the Supreme Court gives government broad authority to dismiss whistleblower lawsuits. The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Department of Justice has broad but not unfettered authority to dismiss whistleblower lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act's qui tam provision, even when the government initially elected to allow the whistleblower to proceed with the action.

Let's see. That's an interesting and complex kind of area of law. It has to do with whether or not whistleblowers, that doesn't stop whistleblowers from proceeding on their own. It has to do with the Department of Justice has the ability to join whistleblowers under the current statute, and now the court has said not only do they have the ability to join, but if as things develop the DOJ determines that they do not want to continue as participants, they can voluntarily dismiss their participation. So it doesn't do away with whistleblowers, what it does do away with is, or whistleblower lawsuits, what it does do away with is the government's obligation to continue to be part of a whistleblower lawsuit once they elect to do so in the first place.

So that's a really complicated neighborhood. And apparently, Thomas Cavanaugh and Coney Barrett are calling into question the qui tam device and its inconsistency as compared to Article Two. Yeah, that perhaps private litigators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation, the court should consider the competing arguments of Article Two issues in an appropriate case.

So it says it closes by saying it thus appears that the court now includes three justices prepared to broadly question the system that has for decades been the centerpiece of the government's anti-fraud efforts. Yeah, well, which is strange the way they put it, is the government's anti-fraud effort, because again, these are things that are initiated by whistleblowers themselves, or they go to the government and ask the government if the government wishes to participate. And the law allows the government to participate in, say, recovery of – among the things under these whistleblower actions are misuse of government funds. Whistleblowers that have information about misuse of government funds can initiate a lawsuit under these False Claims Act to indicate that the government misspent the money, and then they can recover it, in which case they have the ability to receive a reward as partial payment of the partial portion of the recovery. And as the law currently stands, the government – if the government sees – if the DOJ sees merit in the lawsuit, then they can join the whistleblower in the pursuit of the lawsuit. And this is a great thing, obviously, for the whistleblower, because the whistleblower then brings the resources of the DOJ to bear against this misuse of government funds.

And so I don't know if it's been the centerpiece, but it's certainly been an element. But all this suit does is say that if the government decides to join a whistleblower in one of these False Claim Acts, then it says they can, in fact, later on change their mind and determine that they're going to dismiss their participation. It doesn't mean the suit's dismissed.

It means that the DOJ's participation in the suit is dismissed. It's really, really complicated. Well, and there's a lot of cases where – and I understand, to a degree, the reasoning behind it – you don't want the citizenry running out and basically filling the courts full of frivolous lawsuits against the government, who is literally we the people. You know, I don't know why not, frankly. Okay, well, then maybe I'm – I mean, that was just, I guess, an assumed premise.

But there are so many instances where if the government does something egregious to a citizen, to a free person upon the land, that free person upon the land has to get permission from the entity that did the egregious thing against them in order to be able to take any action to protect their own rights. I remember years back, my wife was working as a lifeguard on an Air Force base. And they were trying to shave hours, and she was all of about 97 pounds, and she was supposed to be there early, early in the morning using this, like, 300 or 400-gallon vacuum to vacuum the bottom of the pool, to clean the pool by herself.

This thing probably weighed 500 or 600 pounds. And she's supposed to operate this with plugged-in electric around the pool by herself. Well, it got tangled in the lifeguard stand, and, you know, she got her back injured trying to hold that thing, trying to keep it from falling into the pool, which would have made all the water electric. And so she really hurt her back, and she still to this day has some issues with her neck and her upper back.

There was no compensation at all, medical or otherwise. She had to go and try to find an attorney, and the government basically said, no, we've decided that we're not going to let you bring any kind of an action. Yeah, I think we want to do 20 minutes or a half hour about sovereign immunity and how sovereign immunity has no place in a republic because it was built out of the thought, when you say sovereign, it built out of the king is protected from being sued. We have no king. Sovereign immunity, that whole concept has no place in a republic whatsoever, but that's a whole separate discussion.

I know we got a couple of minutes left. I just want to bring to people's attention the fact that we've got two weeks till Independence Day. And if I could encourage folks to go to creating the Declaration of Independence over on Amazon, find my book about the Declaration of Independence, find out what it was that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and Richard Henry Lee had in mind when they constructed that document, declared our independence. The things that went into their thinking and what Jefferson utilized as a backdrop to the creation of the document. I think, unfortunately, this is a great opportunity.

We have too many holidays and we don't use them as a learning experience. One of the things that's neglected too that you and I have talked about in that conversation is the link between the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Because when they do, if they do, which they don't very much, but if they do and when they do teach the Constitution as a social study, as something along that line in school, they teach that as a standalone document. And they slice off the Declaration of Independence and they lead and have led generations now to believe that the Declaration of Independence was, I don't know, just kind of a happenstance. That it has absolutely no connectivity to the United States Constitution.

Yes, exactly correct. And without the Declaration, you have no Constitution. The 26, 27 grievances, depending how you count them, they're all somehow or other expressed in the execution of the Constitution. The idea that there are inalienable rights and that we find them expressed in the Bill of Rights, they're all derived from the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is in fact a legal document because it had the legal effect of creating the United States of America.

And to say that it's just a nice piece of writing and it's just kind of interesting and whatnot is just foolishness. And it has the, we hold these true self-evident 55 words that defines what it means to be an American. And where our rights come from, which goes back to the last half hour's conversation about morality and the foundation of that and the basis for that and who has given us life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And for those that are out there running around talking about forms of justice, guess what? All forms of justice are founded in that Declaration of Independence.

With the Declaration, all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator. We've run out of time. David, thank you so much. I really appreciate the conversation this morning.

I think we've covered a lot of ground and some really significant ground. Thank you so much, Greg. Have a great rest of your Wednesday. I'm on my way to do what I can for justice, truth, justice in an American way. I'm off the court. Hear, hear. All right. Okay, folks, we're going to take a break. Jared Nott joins me on the other side. Tiny blenders have big consequences. We'll talk about it coming up.