Share This Episode
Chosen Generation Pastor Greg Young Logo

CGR WEDNESDAY 062823 David Shestokas SCOTUS making big decisions

Chosen Generation / Pastor Greg Young
The Truth Network Radio
June 28, 2023 8:00 am

CGR WEDNESDAY 062823 David Shestokas SCOTUS making big decisions

Chosen Generation / Pastor Greg Young

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1339 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

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

That's Chosen Generation Radio, where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses. 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 and by the prayer and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio 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 Radio Ministry and all the supporters. 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, and this borewell we have put in this village and pure and fresh water is coming and we are so thankful for all of you. Lastly, we thank Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry that help us and supporters of supporting the border.

Thank you and God bless you. Hi, I'm Tim Scheff, a certified natural health practitioner of over 40 years. I went under usage to a product that changed my life. The product is called Vibe, available at I thought I was on a good nutritional program before I discovered Vibe. I was taking the traditional vitamin and mineral tablets and 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-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, coupon code chosenjinradio at checkout, and receive $20 off your first order of $50 or more. That's, coupon code chosenjinradio. Get yours today. These statements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Neato products do not treat, reduce, cure, or prevent disease. Welcome to Chosen Generation with your host, Mr. Greg Young. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that you should shoe forth the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light, which in time past were not a people but are now the people of God, which had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

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 and welcome to the program. Great to have you with me. Thanks so much for being here. I know you have a choice of where you can listen each and every day, and I thank you for keeping it tuned here.

To Chosen Generation rating, I've got a great program lined up for you today. Bottom of hour number three, Reverend Clennard Childress Jr., If you've never looked at that website before, you really need to. The statistics are stunning when it comes to how the abortion agenda has targeted black Americans. It's horrific, horrific.

And of course, it continues across red, brown, yellow, black, white, doesn't matter. They're after the unborn, and now we see they're after the children as well. So we'll have that coming up for you. Michael Morris will be joining us this morning. We'll be talking about Sensor Track, also fake news, what they're not telling you, and why.

What's the deal there? Claire Lopez joins us, our national security expert, along with my co-host Rick Manning, to talk about what's happening in Russia and to give her insight into the upheaval that's happening there. And we're going to stay on top of that story. Valerie Karolinko will be on with me next week to discuss this as well.

And I'm looking forward to these conversations with my Russian background as a Russian linguist and the things that I was exposed to through my training and so on. I'm just very interested. I've been following this for years. Let's see, what else do we have? Next hour, we have a couple of special guests that are going to be joining us. And hang on, I had, I had all that information right up here in front of me, right at my fingertips.

And now my calendar seems to have skipped. There we go. So also Chadwick Moore will be with us. He is the author of the new book, Tucker. And so we'll be talking about Tucker Carlson, his impact on media, what it meant for him to get moved off of Fox and where's that headed?

And just how he's been really a disruptive force to MSM and even to the faux conservative networks. So we'll talk about that with Chadwick coming up. David Shostakos will be joining me here any moment now. But I want to talk to you about these products right back here on my shelf. And I want you to know that they are, they're top notch. I'm getting constant reports from folks about how they are helping make them feel better.

They're just improving their health. They've improved my health dramatically. And I really sincerely encourage you to get over to

I talk to folks all the time. I'm struggling with this particular issue or that particular issue. And I'm telling you these products do make a difference. Now I also use a detox product called Root. And I strongly recommend that too.

You can get that at And that's Clean Slate is that product, that detox product. And it works.

And the two work so well in conjunction with one another. If you'd like to know all of the things that I am personally taking, there's about six, seven, about seven products that I take, eight products that I take every single day. Vibe, Resvante, Ultrashot, which covers my B vitamins, by the way. Flex, the glucosamine combination. The Cell Ready, which is what I take at night, which is your minerals, give your body that to work on. I take the apple cider vinegar gummies and the ashwagandha gummies. And then I take the Omega-3 and I take that four times a day.

And it really truly honestly is making a gigantic difference for me. You got to remember where I come from, you know, physically. I died four times. My situation is as a nurse, the head of nursing for Galen nursing in San Antonio said when she looked at my file and then introduced me to her nursing class, she introduced me as the only living conniver that her nursing students would ever meet. I had a gentleman in my home who marched with Patton. He was in World War II. He was then in the Korean War. And then he was in the Colombian drug wars working as a chaplain and ministering down there in Colombia during that time. Went through the tents of the injured and so on. Said in all his years, 90 plus years, never heard of anybody that survived all the injuries that I had. I had a gentleman who was a captain in a forward medical unit in Afghanistan who treated, this was a triage unit.

And he looked at my testimony and he said, my goodness, you're three dead soldiers. My point is, is that if this stuff can help me get to the place that I'm at, imagine the difference that it could make in your life. Because I'm almost 100% certain that there's not going to be, but maybe two people that will ever listen to this program that are going to have anywhere near the challenges that I've faced.

And I don't say that like I'm bragging about a badge of honor. I'm just saying that, folks, honestly, this stuff will really help you. My mom, 86 years old, her legs were all swollen up. They were talking about different surgeries. They were trying to figure out how to help her. She started on Vibe.

Within three days, all the swelling in her legs are down. She called me the other day. She said, honey, you got to order more product for me.

I said, why, mom? She said, because every morning everybody's showing up. There's a line of people at my door from my apartment complex of people that are coming over to take a shot of that Vibe.

They're showing up every day. So my 90-year-old aunt is now on this. My cousin is on this.

I'm telling you, this stuff works. I'm going to take just a couple of minutes. I want to show you this video, give you this explanation. This is how you sign up for it.

It's free to sign up, but you do need to navigate a couple of windows that are going to pop up on you. I don't want you to get lost in the mix. So here we go. And then David Shostokis will be joining us.

We'll be talking about SCOTUS decisions right after this. Hi, I'm Tim Shep, a certified natural health practitioner of over 40 years. I went under use to a product that changed my life. The product is called Vibe, available at I thought I was on a good nutritional program before I discovered Vibe. I was taking the traditional vitamin and mineral tablets.

I 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-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 Coupon code Chozen Gin Radio at checkout and receive $20 off your first order of $50 or more. That's Coupon code Chozen Gin Radio. 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. Hey, this is Pastor Greg. I just want to take a minute to walk you through how to sign up at CGR Wellness. So you're going to type in And that is going to take you over here.

And the first thing you're going to do is you're going to come over here and you are going to, we're going to shrink this down so it doesn't get in our way. You're going to go right over here to create account. And it is going to offer you the opportunity to create an account. You've got to type in an email address. So we're going to type in an email address.

Be good if I put a good one in there, right? There we go. And now there is a window that pops up. Now when this window pops up, here's what you need to do. You need to just X out. Just close that window. Okay.

Just close that window. Now we go over here and we'll use a strong password and then we'll put in our name and we'll put in our last name and then we'll put in our, an address and the city. And we'll choose our state. And we don't need a phone number.

And it wants us to make sure that we're not a robot. So we'll do that. Wow. Okay. And we'll create the account. And now the account's been created.

Now there is a share code. I don't remember what it is right now, but it doesn't really matter. Now you'd go over here and type in vibe. It's your first product you're looking for. And there is the fruit and veggies, a superfood liquid multivitamin.

Click on that. And, and you're going to order. I recommend that you order two and I'll tell you why. If you order two of them and add those to the cart. Now here comes the cart. Now you're going to get your second bottle for half off.

When you type in chosen gen radio, chosen gen radio, and click apply. And that's going to give you 20 bucks off. Plus you're going to unlock free shipping.

So now when you get your, your order, you'll get no, no shipping charge, two months worth for the price of a month and a half. And then you can go back over and you can securely check out putting in your billing information and so on. And you're off to the races. So that's how you do it.

Nice and easy. Again, When that little window pops up, just X out of it. You don't need that because you're going to get a $20 discount.

Once you completed the form and created the account, go to the top, click in vibe, and then go. Now I use vibe, resvante, ultra shot, the EPA fish oil, the flex. And I also use, this is your, your apple cider vinegar, and this is your ashwagandha. I use those as well.

I'm going to run through this really quick with you. Again, Omega three. And then these products up here, your vibe, your resvante, the ultra shot, and the flex. Those are the ones that I personally use every single day.

I can recommend each and every one of those to you and just assure you that they do a great job. They've made a gigantic difference in my health. All right. God bless you. God bless your health. And thank you for supporting our Indian ministry through this as well.

And welcome back to Children Generation Radio where no topics off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses. Again, I hope that you'll get over to Follow those instructions and place your initial order. And I was talking with someone the other day, you know, if you're looking for vitamin B, if you're concerned about anti-aging legitimately, look up resvante on the site after you get signed up at CGR Wellness. Look up the resvante. Cleveland Clinic has the documented evidence that shows the activation in your body of what this resvante does because of the high level of resveratrol that's in it.

It's the most concentrated level on the market. And, and it it makes a difference. So just encourage you, you know, think about your health.

And then know that by by changing your health pattern, you're also changing the health pattern of our friends in India. All right. Joining me now is, and he's with me here on Wednesdays, very pleased to have him with me. I want to welcome to the program, my good friend David Shostakis. David, welcome. Good to have you. Thanks so much, Greg.

It's great to be with you. I'm glad to do this each and every Wednesday it lets me know the week's half over. I'm rolling toward the weekend. You're getting over the hump. That's the deal. There you go.

Getting over the hump. No doubt. No doubt. Well, and so there's a lot that's going to be happening with SCOTUS. We're going to get into that this morning. There was a decision that came out late yesterday, a six three decision that the Supreme Court did having to do with the issue of the state courts and the state legislatures and federal elections. Why don't you go ahead and give us your analysis on that. And then you and I were talking a little bit about that in the green room. And I really want to pursue that conversation with you here.

Sure, absolutely. Yeah, there's been a relatively it's a relatively new theory in terms of it being so expansive that the state legislatures, because of the authority granted to them by the United States Constitution in terms of time, place and manner regulations of federal elections, that because their authority for that is derived from the United States Constitution, that state courts do not have anything to say about what a state legislature does. That's the that's the most expansive reading of that authority and that of that theory, that there's an independent state legislature authority that's derived from someplace other than just the state constitution. And consequently, state courts are very limited in what they can do or say about how state legislatures regulate federal elections.

And yesterday, the Supreme Court said no, no, no, no, no. State courts can, to the extent that they are enforcing state constitutional law, can oversee or provide oversight to the state legislature and see to it that in fact, they follow the law of the state constitution in terms of regulating and the time, place and manner activities of the conduct of a federal election. And it's actually kind of been a it was actually kind of a relatively new theory it's that's been put forward in the last in the last few years. And the United States Supreme Court actually did say that the state state state judiciary has a role in regulating or oversight of the legislatures when it comes to when it comes to regulating federal elections to the extent that if the if the state legislature were to violate the state constitution in its right in its in the course of its regulation, they would still have authority to do so.

And so yeah, and so everyone, while there's people that are saying this is wrong, they don't believe it, it actually was a relatively novel theory. My, my take on the exclusivity or the plenary authority of the state legislature when it comes to the regulation of federal elections, they have, it seems to me that because there's a specific clause that says the state legislatures have the authority to choose presidential electors, that they have a plenary authority when it comes to when it comes to choosing presidential electors, electors, but when it comes to other aspects of elections, state courts do have a do have a role. That's my view of it. And I agree with the majority there.

So, so let me let me ask you just a couple of questions. State judges, I know in a lot of states, state judges, if I'm not mistaken, there are there is an election to elect a state judge, but all state judges are not necessarily elected some states appoint I because I if I'm not I thought that I you know, I get Abbott's press releases, okay. And it seems to me that there have that he has appointed judges in certain instances, there's a mix of there's a mix of systems throughout the throughout the country on that. Even in some states where were states, it's even at the trial level may be elected, and then judges at the appellate level may be appointed. Or when there's vacancies, there's situations where the governor's can fill vacancies, pending an election, there's a there's a patchwork of selection processes around the country. So the reason for me asking that question is, and you and I have talked about powers and rights, states, powers, people's rights, and and how that relates to the government.

The state legislatures are the closest, the very closest thing to the will of the people. That's how they're designed. Why no, no, no, hey, listen, I'm watching it. I mean, I want we've fought in California for 18 plus years. And and I get to Texas thinking that, you know, we're going to be cool and not so much. But my but but theoretically, that's that's the deal. The deal is is that that's the closest level that the people have is their state legislature, then it moves up through the state ranks and then and then you have your relationship to Congress. And again, the house being the closest Senate was supposed to protect states rights that got blown up by the 17th amendment.

Anyway, I don't want to go too far into the litany of all of that. But my question or my I guess my thinking on this is, is, was the purpose of trying to give these legislatures more, you know, that more of their what would seem to be natural proclivity to defend the will of the people when it comes to an event because federal elections impact us people may say, Oh, well, no, we're just going to talk about state election. Well, you can't, because what they're doing up there, I mean, look, look at Obergefell. Yeah, you still got over 30 states in this country that have a constitutional amendment that says marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else is illegal. And not one single Attorney General in the entire country, not a governor, not a state legislature, nobody is standing on their own damn constitution. Well, that's, that's got to do with the interplay of the Federal Supremacy Clause. Okay, which is another reason why state legislatures need to have control over because that you just touched on it.

All of that federal stuff has is whoever is in those offices is making those decisions. And unless we have a direct ability to influence those elections, pardon me, pardon me for but we're screwed. It's not saying that we don't have the ability to influence the elections.

This decision is yesterday doesn't say that it doesn't take away the people's ability to influence those elections. What it does say is that if in fact the state legislature were to do something in terms of regulating the election that ran afoul of the state constitution, the state judges still have the have the ability and say to interpret the state constitution. And in fact, that's a that's kind of a long standing tradition that if the if a state judiciary interprets a state law or a state constitution, that interpretation outweighs the federal interpretation. The federal law, federal judges defer to state courts when it comes to saying what state law is. And so this is not in this is not out of line with what the tradition is.

And so I, I'm just really, really surprised. So because it has to do with balancing and actually its limits on the authority of the federal judiciary, in terms of saying what state constitutions have to say. So why would so why would Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas dissent?

Do you think? I think that perhaps they don't trust state judges. And they might not be the only ones Is it possible that they just don't don't trust the judiciary at this point since judiciary since there's been a lot of activism and at the judicial level when it comes to a lot of these kinds of situations, both in state courts and federal?

I think there's a real possibility I lived through that in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped everybody's authority. Yeah, of course of the 2020 election, it was issuing orders left and right that had nothing to do with election law. It was it had a law that was but they were issuing orders that said that the you didn't have to verify signatures, even though the law is quite clear. But so there's a perfect example, you have a state court, state Supreme Court, whatever, but it's still a state court that is literally issuing directives that are in violation of the Constitution. And the legislature can't their hands are tied, they're bound, they don't have the power or the authority to overturn a what is what was clearly an unconstitutional decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I mean, that's that. That's an issue.

It's an absolute issue. And there's a but historically, there's a mechanism for that when you talk about it being clearly unconstitutional. Historically, there should be a mechanism to appeal the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to the to the federal courts when it's in violation of the Constitution. So there's, you know, and let's and let's trust those federal court judges because by gum, they're on track.

All right. Well, you know what, I we probably could we could probably both become red in the face, not not arguing our points, but in frustration over how broken the system is. You know, I mean, I think that's I think at the end of the day, that's that's the issue is, is the system is broke. All right, let's move to SCOTUS and and talk about some of these decisions that are coming up and some of the things that that they're looking at now. Let's see, I just saw here, they they buy a vote of seven to two, they the justices ruled that state courts had applied the wrong test to determine whether countermen statement was true threats.

This is regarding Billy Raymond countermen, a Colorado man who was sentenced to four and a half years for stalking based on his Facebook messages. Did you see anything about that? I have not. Okay, we might we might want to table that way. It's it's interesting.

So it says justice throw Colorado man stalking eviction in First Amendment dispute. That appears interesting to me. All right, so here's here are that.

Hang on, I've got I've got it up here. Okay, here we go. So we've got an affirmative action case at the college. This is this has to do with Asian American students and their inability to be able to get into higher education because basically of affirmative action types of determinations that that that favor one minority group over all other minority groups.

Your thoughts on this one? Yeah, I think there's a fair probability that they're going to back off from something that's been in the Supreme Court laws Supreme Court position since a case in the late mid late late 70s early 80s vacuum versus California that allows for the utilization of race in admission decisions. And I think maybe there's a chance that we'll get to where where we should be.

That is, is that people will be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Yeah, I think that would be it would be a wonderful thing because on the on the whole, these kinds of programs that are where they say they're designed to overcome past discrimination, replace it with a different discrimination. And so I think there's a I think there's a fair probability that the plaintiffs in this case are going to make some progress in having people in returning America to a meritocracy.

That is where people would be judged by their by their by their success, where you wouldn't have to check a box and say, whatever what color and ratio are, that's all that's divided is devices, these devices to make you check such a box, as far as I'm concerned. And so if, you know, they, they go back to that, I think there's a I think there's a real it looks like there's a real probability. They certainly had no fear in terms of getting rid of Roe. And so if they if they back off of Bakke, it would be a wonderful thing for the country to step in the right direction. All right, student loan relief is also on the agenda.

And it looks like they might render a decision with regards to this situation. Again, not, you know, and I actually had a gentleman that was on who was talking about that, you know, that this this whole concept is it's really counterintuitive to our to our way of life. For for for these for, you know, to have this just free education per se, obviously, we need to bring costs under control. And I think that we are a bit out of control. Well, from the policy standpoint, my my my feeling is, is if they got out of student loan business, then the costs would come down, because the education system is just just puts itself together to soak up the money that becomes available.

Yeah. But that's a that's actually a different policy question from the matter that's before the Supreme Court. Apparently, the matter before the Supreme Court is whether the president has the authority unilaterally to do anything about the student student loan situation without an act of Congress. And it's pretty clear that the president does not have such authority. And I fully well expect the fully well expect the court will in fact say the president doesn't have such authority that if if the Congress wanted to do that, and pass a law that would give people the some sort of what they call relief, that that would be a separate subject. So the issue is whether the president has the authority to act unilaterally in this instance, and it's pretty clear he does not. And so I was looking for the reason for those of you watching, okay, come on, come on, share, I got a wheel that doesn't like to turn in the front.

So it gets sideways, and then it blocks me from rolling forward. Well, we're gonna call Thomas Jefferson about that. He's, he's the guy that invented swivel chairs right now. So well, there you go.

I'll put him on speed dial here. No, I was looking for I had a guest on it's been a while, but I had a guest on that was talking about, you know, basically, why you don't need to spend, you know, $125,000 to send your kid to college. And, and, and the book has a whole ton of options for, you know, career choices that don't involve that that don't involve, you know, going to college that that that, you know, give you whether it's mentoring or vocational schools, or what have you, but opportunities that are outside of that, that particular path, if you will. And I just, you know, I mean, it's, it's, it's all that also, but that is also legitimate. I mean, you're, everybody is not in a place where, you know, they can and right now, honestly, and you and I, I think you and I would agree that right now, colleges are indoctrination centers. They're not education centers.

They're not they're not preparing. They're not Yeah, that's a whole separate, separate thing. But what you what you wind up with with student loans, where the government is guaranteeing them is a subsidy, right from the government for for for schools, and then the schools just raise the prices to soak up the subsidy. Yeah.

Oh, it's Yeah, it's really simple. You want to bring in under you want to bring the costs under control, get rid of the subsidies, and the money will go away and they'll have to lower the price. We talked about that yesterday with Dr. Carol Hornsby Haynes, you know, about school budgets to I sat on the school site council and I remember sitting there and the principal saying, Look, we've got x number of dollars for secondary or English as a second language. And we've got to use that money.

You know, we have certain parameters we can go we you know, we can kind of skirt the edges by going out to here. But if we don't use all of the money this year, then they'll then they'll trim the budget on us for next year. And, and, and, you know, well, I know, I understand and so you know, it was now on the other hand, you know, we're where you had where we had shortages, where we actually needed additional funding, but we didn't have it. You know, it was frustrating to be in a situation where you had all this money designated over here that wasn't needed. And where you had real needs, you know, for resources and so forth, you didn't have the ability to be able to do that. And you couldn't take what was here and and and move it over to where it actually was going to make a difference.

But I hear what you're saying. All right, let's let's move on to the next one. Next on the on the list congressional redistricting. Yeah, they in this regard, they actually had said that, well, that that was another case from a different I think it's Louisiana, if I'm not mistaken. And I believe it was Louisiana neighbors sent sent the redistricting map back to Louisiana indicating that the map that they had was not in fact, did not recognize the appropriate distribution of the demography demographics of the state. And so they wanted to break it up and say that they had to put together a second majority minority district in in Louisiana that didn't exist. This is too bad, because the courts are not well, well, well placed to do such a thing that they to get into such minutia.

I think that was a shame. I think they did right when they overturned a good section about 10 years ago, the Voting Rights Act. And now they've stuck their nose back into someplace where they said they were going to get out of it.

Okay. All right, next up Christian designer, Supreme Court seemed receptive to arguments on December 5 2022. By Christian web designer who said Colorado's law forcing her to create websites to celebrate same sex weddings and fridges on her constitutional rights. Although the court has become increasingly protective of religious freedoms in recent years, those in the left say the courts embrace of those freedoms comes at the expense of LGBT individuals at the hearing three or three creative versus the latest the bite administration back the law. Yeah, Colorado can't seem to understand the law. Colorado keeps coming back, even though they keep losing at the Supreme Court on basically First Amendment grounds that says you cannot compel speech.

You know, it's one it's one thing. There's two two two sides of the First Amendment. One is that you're free to say what you want. The other one is that the government cannot make you say something that you don't want to say. And but Colorado has no compunction about saying, Oh, no, no, no, we don't care what the Supreme Court says. We're going to continue on this path where we're going to try and compel compliance with with what we think people should say. It's almost a thought police approach. Right.

And there's there's no reason to believe that the court will not continue on the same path as a master take and whatnot. That says, you know, it's one thing when you're offering a general service to the public. Right.

This is, you know, if you you know, you got a restaurant and somebody comes in, they want to order a meal and you go, I'm not going to I'm not going to serve you because you're black or because you're gay or this or that. That's it. That's one thing.

But it's a different thing that if you offer a service to the public, that includes you making a statement that is using artistic talents, whether it's creating a web or whether it's created a website or whether it's creating a cake design, you are now participating in the message that this individual wants to send. Right. And that's it. That's clearly unconstitutional. It's clearly compelled speech by the government. And there's no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will not slap Colorado around again, for the third or fourth time on the same in the same subject area. And and of course, of note there is that the Biden administration when it says back the law, they're backing the Colorado law that attempts to force your speech. So and they have made it very clear that their intention is is to shove this agenda down our throats. And you know, they're there. They're on the side of Bud Light. And they want to make you agree. Yeah, you know, having some Bud Light in anticipation of Fourth of July or whatever.

I don't think they celebrate Fourth of July, frankly, but that's a separate question. Well, yeah, they something else. All right, Christian postal worker justices seemed receptive on April 18, to arguments of an evangelical Christian mail carrier who quit the US Postal Service after refused to accommodate his wish not to work on the Sunday Sabbath. The case is Groff versus DeJoy.

Thoughts? Yeah, well, for many, many years, of course, he was off on Sundays, they were able to accommodate that. And that was the tradition. But apparently now, of course, the Postal Service has a deal with Amazon to fulfill do fulfillment for Amazon over the weekends. And when and so the Postal Service made a different deal. And the Postal Service started doing services on the weekends that weren't weren't weren't part and parcel of this man's job for all for most of his career. And they essentially said, Well, if you don't want to work on Sundays, then you don't have to work at all. And I believe that they're going to come down on his side for a couple reasons, the least of which is that was not a condition of his employment for all the time that he's been employed.

And for them to now change the rules because they made a different deal. And my goodness, it's the Postal Service, you don't think they've got somebody that's willing to willing to work on Sunday to make overtime or time and a half. It's it's insanity. It's insanity because of course, the generals, the general, the general rule from the courts is that the the state needs to make the state or the government needs to make a reasonable accommodation.

And so if, if this guy's already working five days a week, the rest of the week, and they don't and they have other workers that are going to fulfill their, their do their agreement with Amazon over the weekend, it's insanity to say that they have to fire this guy because he won't work on Sunday. Yeah, it would it would seem that way. It would seem that way. All right, let's see.

There's another one that came up. And and it's on the front page of the SCOTUS blog. Court narrowly interprets ban on encouraging or inducing immigrants to remain unlawfully in the United States. On Friday, the Supreme Court issued this decision in United States versus Hanson. The question before the justices was whether a federal law that criminalizes encouraging or inducing an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully violates the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech. The court narrowly interpreted the law to avoid the First Amendment concerns that would be raised if encouraged or induced were given their ordinary conversational meanings, and include meanings such as influence, encourage or inspire with hope as the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had held they did. The opinion shed light on the new on the newer justices views on the freedom of speech and the direction the newly reconfigured court may be pushing First Amendment law. So Hanson challenged the constitutionality of the ban on encouraging or inducing immigration. He relied on a First Amendment doctrine known as the overbreadth doctrine, which allows a defendant to whom a law can be constitutionally applied to nonetheless challenge it as unconstitutional if the law makes a substantial amount of protected speech illegal, so that and so that uncertainty about the scope of the law may show protected speech.

Yeah, there's and that overbreadth doctrine is got a long, long history dating back to many, many years where where they were encouraging guys to burn their Selective Service cards and say that that, you know, folks in opposition to the draft. So it's a it's always it's basically been interpreted those kinds of things have been interpreted that it's one thing to talk about breaking the law, then it's another thing to talk about, probably giving people the opportunity or the methods by which they can, in fact, do so. And so assisting somebody in in the breaking of the law is a bit different than talking about the breaking of the law. But so they say you can interpret this narrowly. And in upholding the law, they interpreted narrowly what it meant to encourage somebody to break United States law. And to that extent that if you, if your encouragement includes some sort of overt act beyond the speech, then you're still breaking the law. All right, we'll have to take a look to keep an eye on that and see, see, see how that progresses that usually those kinds of cases end up coming back up in in, in different forms.

Oh, they do, you know, to kind of test to test the waters. All right, we got about about 10 minutes left left, let's get into what you were talking about regarding the release of that recording that that was put out regarding President Trump and and I guess the indictment piece. Now, my the only recording that I was aware of was the one where he was sitting around talking with some individuals and and made reference to some document that that supported his position on whether or not they should they should or should not have taken an action or should take an action with regards to a particular military situation regards in regards to Iran, right? In particular, and that's, there's a there's a recording that CNN released a few days ago. And many people have been saying, well, this is a smoking gun in terms of President Trump's intent and knowledge of the documents that were involved in the seizure at Mar-a-Lago that are the subject of the indictment in Florida. And the truth is, is that this recording for anybody that's listened to it, there's a couple of things about it. One apparently is is that it took place in Bedminster, New Jersey, from my understanding.

And so in two years, some shuffling of papers in the background, like he's he's showing something or whatnot. Of course, we don't know what those papers are, in fact, involved. We don't even know what those are. And three, we have no idea. And there's no relationship that we know of to Florida.

So there's people I was talking about this with some folks yesterday. And the fact is, everybody that's saying this is some sort of smoking gun related to the Florida case, there's a couple of, couple of problems with that. When you want to get in a recording or a photograph or some other kinds of, some other kind of documentary evidence in a courtroom, you have to do what they call lay a foundation. In terms of laying a foundation, you have to have a human testify that either they're the ones that made the recording or they are a participant in the recording, they're familiar with the contents, and that the recording fairly and accurately represents what took place at that particular point in time.

At this moment, the only information that's always been presented is it says, staffer number one, staffer number two. We have no idea who the participants are in this thing. We don't know the source of this matter.

There's huge foundational problems when it comes to when it comes to that. Then second of all, the state, the government will, if they try to get this in evidence, they're going to try and say, well, this goes to the intent and knowledge of the president as to the status of classified documents. We, and of course his lawyers will say, we don't know what's relevant is not his general intent or general knowledge of classification law, but rather the relationship of this recording to the documents that are specifically involved in the Florida case.

So you have the relevancy argument besides the foundational argument. There's every reason to believe that this recording will never see the inside of a courtroom. No jury that will be deciding, if it ever gets to a jury, no jury would ever be deciding on the basis of this recording, the situation of the documents in Florida. So while it is quite overblown, the other situation is that they've said that President Trump's been quoted as saying this recording exonerates him. I would suggest that what it exonerates him for is that in the aftermath of the election and the run up to January 20, there was all these things going around, coming out of Pelosi's office, that Trump was considering some sort of war and doing some crazy things and whatnot. It appears as though General Milley created a war plan for Iran, sent it to Trump unsolicited, that Donald Trump never asked for any kind of war plans for Iran. But they're trying to paint him as some sort of crazy warmonger. And Trump is in a private conversation saying, look at this, Milley was trying to set me up with this stuff and I never asked for this.

And this was in a private conversation. And to the extent that this overcomes the argument that Trump was trying to be a crazy person and run up to a war with Iran, it does, in fact, exonerate him as to that particular political attack. So since this is never going to, I don't believe we'll ever see the inside of a courtroom for any number of reasons that I just discussed. There's a fair probability that since it was released, knowing or illegally leaked, knowing that it would never see a courtroom. And the idea is to poison the both the jury pool.

Right. And the American people from a political standpoint, that, you know, he's he's he's a guilty person. And of course, the only thing it really did in the end was call attention to Anthony Wiener's laptop and some of the perverted stuff that was found on Wiener's laptop. I've seen all kinds of conversation about Anthony Wiener, whom at whom I have a dean and now and Hillary Clinton is since the release of that because Trump is referred to during the course of this. Can you believe all the stuff that was on Anthony Wiener's laptop? And so the conversation I think is I think the release of this thing is going to backfire on the people who intended to release it.

All right. Religious liberty is is really a big deal right now. And and there's I mean, there's a there's a lot of you know, you have the guy in in I forget what state he was in was at Pennsylvania. He was on the street and and there was a one of those pride parades. And he was holding a sign that just basically said, Hey, God loves you, but he doesn't love your sin. And the police, you know, grabbed him and arrested him for saying that he was, you know, inciting whatever. It seems as though, if you espouse a biblical worldview, you're you're you're getting targeted by both, you know, certain police actions, as well as social media. Where's this go?

Do you? I mean, even though we talked about a couple of these cases today. Where does this go, David? Yeah, this is a very, very dangerous situation that we're in these days where they're working to literally suppress people's speech. And that's the that's the ultimate in protection of the First Amendment. And that is political speech. And that that man's statement there was was political speech.

And it's not incitement. He's not asking anybody to riot. He's not telling people to attack folks at the parade. He's not encouraging anybody to break the law. He's just expressing his opinion. And because it's a not favored opinion in under those circumstances, you know, it would be like arresting somebody at a at a Fourth of July parade that's waving a flag for the restoration of the Soviet Union. There's there's there would be no difference in that. And that would be just as illegal to arrest a fellow that's waving the old flag and saying, restore the Soviet Union and make make Illinois a constituent republic of the Soviet Socialist Republic.

Although they many people in Illinois might think that was a great idea. Tongue in chief, sort of. Sort of. But the fact is, is that this is this this is dangerous. That's the bait. That's why the country was created. That's why these folks left left England and and actually why they left the Netherlands after having left England. And then they came over here to be able to express themselves and and exercise their religion.

This is this was the problem with the whole Obama approach to that. The whole Obama approach to that was, oh, you can have your religious liberty as long as you do within the four walls of the church. You know, as long as and then it became within the four walls of your house, you can have those opinions as long as you do it. But as soon as you step on your front porch, you better abandon those thoughts. You can't carry them with you and take them to your car or go to work with them or be thinking about God in any way, shape or form outside of your house.

And I guess the church, those are the only two places. So in between, you need to empty your mind. Otherwise, we're going to know. Yeah, it's it's it's insanity. Well, we got to keep fighting back. We have got to keep fighting back.

David, thank you so much. Just focus calm. A great way to fight back is to go to just focus calm and pick up the Constitution, his writings on the Constitution, and and also the writings on the Declaration of Independence. And those two are intertwined. You cannot separate one from the other.

They are congruent. And it is important for us to understand how they how they speak to each other, constitutional soundbites and and the Declaration of Independence, creating the Declaration of Independence. I encourage everybody they can get it out. They can get it out one day shipment. You can have it before the Fourth of July. And then you go in on the Fourth of July, open it up and go to the paragraph that says we we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and read those 55 words. That's what we should be doing on the Fourth of July. And I would encourage folks to, in fact, get that book get it between now and the Fourth of July and share with your friends and neighbors when you go to your barbecue. All right, we got to jump. We'll be back our number two coming up right after this brief break.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-06-28 10:50:08 / 2023-06-28 11:10:22 / 20

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime