CGR WEDNESDAY 100423 David Shestokas SCOTUS Trump J6

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 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. We thank Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry and our help and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry and all the supporters.

Thank you and God bless you. 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 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 US Food and Drug Administration.

NEPA products do not treat, reduce, cure or prevent disease. Welcome to Chosen Generation with your host, Pastor 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. And welcome to the program. Great to have you with me. Thanks so much for being here. I know you have a choice on where you can listen each and every day.

And I thank you for keeping it tuned here to Chosen Generation Radio, where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses. We are in a very, very interesting time in our nation's history, a historic time. If you were paying attention to the historical aspect of this, for the first time in our nation's history, yesterday, the Speaker of the House was removed. For only the second time in our history, a vote came up regarding the removal of the Speaker of the House.

And the last time was in 1910, and it failed. The last time that a Speaker of the House served this short of a term was during Reconstruction. And I want to tell you that I stand with Matt Gaetz and the eight Republicans. There are those who are castigating them, suggesting that because the Democrats voted for the removal of a Republican Speaker of the House, somehow that's evidence that they are coercing and coming alongside of the Democrats. Folks, the Democrats would have voted for the removal of the Republican Speaker of the House, no matter what. Because they can't go back to their districts and say, yeah, we were afforded the opportunity to vote for the removal of the Republican Speaker of the House, and we decided to take a pass.

No, not going to happen. There's no indication in my mind that their vote had any bearing on the principles upon which Matt Gaetz and seven others took a stand yesterday. And one of the most telling signs to me was the Republican Congressman from Tennessee in an interview that he gave, where McCarthy called him, literally, more or less, the morning, yesterday morning, and castigated him for his biblical position of faith. Because he had publicly said, I don't know if I'm going to cast my vote for my friend or vote my conscience. And he said the disparaging things that were said to him by the speaker in that phone conversation about his faith and about his decision to pray and seek God for his decision, made the decision for him.

Because he could know in no way support a leadership that would attack someone for praying for wisdom. That was probably the most telling thing for me, knowing everything else, and all that's going on. That in and of itself, boy, we need new leadership.

We've known we need new leadership. And then to listen to the rah rah speeches that were given yesterday in support. We'll get into that more. Rick Manning will join me at 930 a.m. We'll talk about that. I'm sure Melanie Collette and I will talk about it.

I'm sure my next guest and I will talk about it. It is probably the biggest story of the day, although there are others and we're going to get into some of those as well. Also, brand new evidence about the whole JFK assassination. You may have heard one of the individuals that was on the detail has come forward, is putting out now a new book.

He's 88 years old. And he said that he's the one that put the bullet on the gurney that made its way to the hospital. And so we'll dive into that a little bit. But the background behind that and the destruction of trust in our government and in our law enforcement that has surrounded the JFK assassination.

It is dangerous. And we need to in perspective also, irrespective of what happened, what didn't happen, we need to also be of the mindset of what happens when we forget that we are a government of We the People. Let me bring on my next guest who is our constitutional originalist and someone who speaks so well to the issue of the We the People. I want to welcome to the program, my good friend David Chistokas. David, welcome. Good to have you.

Thank you so much, Greg. It's good to be here. On Wednesday morning, it marks the middle of the week for me. So it's always a great opportunity. And it often frequently seems that, thank goodness, we're not on, like say, Friday when there's already been no news or everything's already been hashed out. Seems like Monday and Tuesday, everything happens. And then by Wednesday, there's a few things to talk about. We've got a couple things to talk about today. I would agree.

I would agree. You know, one of the other things and I didn't mention this in my opening statements, but I don't know if you saw this or not. The Supreme Court made a decision regarding John Eastman and the January 6 appeal.

I was not real familiar with this. Clarence Thomas recuses self as SCOTUS rejects John Eastman's January 6 appeal. Supreme Court's decision affirms a lower court ruling that identified former Trump attorney as a key figure in overturning the 2020 election. So the Supreme Court rejected a request by indicted right wing attorney. This is by the way, this is written by Huff Post.

So my description is predicated on reading their article. The Supreme Court rejected a request by indicted right wing attorney John Eastman and throw out court rulings that identified him as a key figure in former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The court's ruling on Monday affirms lower court decisions that resulted in Capitol riot investigators getting access to Eastman's emails as part of their probe into the events of January 6. A federal district judge in California had previously ruled that Eastman's emails include evidence of a likely climb related to Trump's attempt to stay in power.

Eastman's considered the legal architect of the plan to have then Vice President Mike Pence use his ceremonial role to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden's victory. Boy, I'll tell you, the loaded wording in this article, David, is just unbelievable. And then it says most noticeably, the Supreme Court ruling says that Justice Clarence Thomas had recused himself from the decision.

Thomas has recently come under fire for not recusing himself in cases where he may have a conflict of interest, specifically after a pro publica report earlier this year revealed that the conservative justice failed to disclose lavish gifts he received from a GOP mega donor for years. Interesting comments. You know, my familiarity with some of the things regarding Mr. Eastman has to do with the current that the continuing action in California where he's defending his law license, where they're trying to take his law license away in California, plus the situation in Georgia, where of course, I have Pastor Stephen Lee as one of my clients, who's a defendant along with Mr. Eastman and the president over there. This particular ruling of the Supreme Court, as you read it, it was the first I've heard of it, but it's like you said, it's amazing the language, the ceremonial duties of the vice president and where they say the indicted far right wing individual. And of course, Mr. Eastman has been a well-respected constitutional scholar for many, many years.

And so it's just, yeah, it's amazing the loaded language. So I'm not familiar with what he was trying to achieve in this particular instance. It sounds like he was interested in having a finding overturned and it's pretty rare for an appellate court to overturn a finding of a lower court. They may overturn a decision, but for them to overturn a finding, and it sounds like the lower court made a finding that his emails were relevant to a congressional investigation and he's asking them to overturn that finding. It's pretty rare because there's two things courts do, right? Well, courts make decisions and judgments that they enter.

But in the meantime, on the way to the judgment, they often do what they call make a finding relative to a factual issue before them in terms of making the judgment. And so it sounds like in this instance that Eastman has asked them to overturn a finding. It's almost rare, almost unheard of that a higher court would overturn a finding, even if a finding seems to be out of bounds. They'll usually find a way to overturn them on the law if there's a way to do that.

So there's two things. You make a judgment on the law and then you make findings of fact. And those are situations when there's not juries. If there's a jury situation, of course, the juries are what they call the finders of fact. When there's no jury involved in a particular court case, then the judge is the finder of fact. And that's what it sounds like that they were asking the court to do something extremely unusual.

So it's not surprising that they would turn it down. It's just also strange the language, as you said, the charge language to describe all this as opposed to just discuss, oh, I don't know, the facts rather than contain all the facts with this charge language like the indicted individual, far right wing, the ceremonial duties. Those are all unnecessary to tell the story. And the other, the assaulting language and insulting language towards Clarence Thomas as well, which is incendiary.

And when you break that down and actually get behind and look at what it is that he's being accused of having received, I think one of the things was as he was taken out to dinner, he and his wife. I understand. Yeah.

You know, I mean, oh, my gosh, that. Wow. Yeah.

You know, knocking on a couple of doors in Georgia will get you a RICO charge, my friend. Yeah. Well, so it's so it's I mean, folks, you know, you but but this is the way they write these things. And this is this is what we've what we've gotten into. And and and, you know, again, it's it's just.

It's destructive. And I think what we have to look at and this is where I was talking about, even with the JFK situation, the goal, one of the goals of the Communist Party is to destroy all of our American institutions. And, you know, it's one of the discussions, one of the major discussions you've seen people talk about what happened yesterday and regarding Speaker McCarthy and Representative Gates, that Gates is was doing things to destroy the institution of the House of Representatives, as opposed to saying, no, Gates is trying to restore the institution of the House of Representatives so that, in fact, it does represent the people as opposed to well-funded lobbyists and those those other kinds of groups. I was lucky to see much, much of the debate on the House floor yesterday. And I was so impressed with Matt Gates and the things that he had to say and how he talked about the the promises that were made and that were not kept in terms of the in terms of the McCarthy getting the speakership back in January.

Among them, I was, as far as I'm concerned, most telling was, in fact, there was a promise to have what they call 12 individual funding bills so that they could vote on funding for different subjects and debate those different subjects separately. Right. And through the course of time, that never happened. And then we wound up with this crisis of continuing resolution. And we're going to have to fund the government or shut down.

Which is wholly, which is wholly under, yeah, yeah. Gates mentioned about all that was apparently from August to mid-September, they went on vacation. They were gone for six weeks. And then they said, oh, my gosh, we got a crisis. No, they could have addressed 12 different funding bills. From what I understand, they passed one or two and then didn't bring up the other 10. And this is, that was a huge promise because that gives the Congress the ability to actually debate the merits of individual kind of spending.

But David, let me let me back up for a second. Okay. To speak to your constitutional expertise is not the, because we talk about Congress, right, holds the purse strings. So isn't one of Congress's primary responsibilities, the, the fiscal actions and fiscal responsibility of the federal government and, and it's, and, and being transparent regarding those issues to we, the people from whom they collect taxes?

Absolutely. There's actually a direct constitutional mandates regarding how funding should start. That in fact it does start with the House of Representatives, not the Senate. That it's in fact the duty of the House of Representatives to do these things and not the Senate. The Senate may or needs to concur for an end result, but it needs to be begun in the House of Representatives. That's a direct constitutional mandate.

And when the House throws everything all in a big mix master and says, oh, here's 12,000 pages or whatever, then, then they are obviously obfuscating for the American people what it is that they're doing. And, and those folks that, that went together to make McCarthy speaker in the first place had a promise that he would not do that. He did it last week. Yep. Now he's gone. And, and how, how wonderful that somebody is held accountable to keeping their word. This is, this is a, this is a wonderful thing that somebody is held accountable for keeping your word and that, and how, what a terrible, terrible thing that people are saying that Gates is undermining an institution by requiring that somebody keep their word, that they become trustworthy within the institution.

And so, no, this is an amazing thing. But yeah, there's a constitutional basis for what was, what was the precursor to yesterday. And that is that the House is responsible for these things. The House is responsible for initiating all tax and funding measures. And so consequently, obviously, if they don't tax and fund things, then, then there's no spending.

And so, yeah. No, McCarthy broke his word on, as far as I'm concerned, perhaps one of the most important things. They talked about a variety of different things where he broke, he broke his word and whatnot, some of which may be log rolling or whatever and making different deals. But the fact is, is yeah, they had a promise that we were going to have a situation where the American people could know what folks are voting on. They could vote separately on Ukraine. They could vote separately on the border issues and whatnot. But now it was all put in together into one. Yeah, all that, let's just do it for another 45 days. And then, Gates had had enough. And what you talked about regarding the Democrats and none of them voting to save McCarthy, they were never going to do that. They were all, none of them voted for McCarthy to be speaking in the first place. There's no reason for them to vote to keep McCarthy. Roofers are furious about this new product that's going viral.

Replace your whole roof. Yeah. Hang on.

They always want to run a commercial before they let you watch your video. But I want to play, this is one of the pieces of Matt Gates's responses yesterday to in part what was said. One of the things that struck me about the whole thing, those that were in support of McCarthy, it was a cheerleading thing. There was absolutely no substance to it. It was, oh, you know, Kevin McCarthy, he's our man.

If he can't do it, no one can. I mean, that was the kind of nonsense that was there. Hang on. When Gates was on fire in response to those kinds of things, among them, one of the Congressmen said the Republican caucuses met and exceeded. Here we go. Here we go. Listen to this.

From Florida. My colleague says we've passed the strongest border bills in history. Well, guess what? Look at the border right now. We didn't use sufficient leverage in the debt limit or in any other thing to actually get results on the border. The border is a disaster, really something I don't think you're going to be campaigning on that you fix the border. Second, you said you streamlined regulations. What the gentleman from Louisiana doesn't tell you is that all of the regulatory reform he was just bragging about is waivable by the stroke of a pen of someone in the Biden White House. Do you really think you got anything for that?

It's a total joke. And then finally, the welfare to work that the gentleman from Louisiana said we got. The welfare programs that they said that they streamlined with their welfare to work stuff, they're actually going to grow, because while they did work requirements, they blew out those programs with expanded eligibility. I'm real glad you guys didn't put work requirements on Medicaid.

It probably would have resulted in Medicaid expansion. And when it comes to how those raise money, I take no lecture on asking patriotic Americans to weigh in and contribute to this fight from those who would grovel and bend knee for the lobbyists and special interests who own our leadership, who have, oh, boo all you want, who have hollowed out this town and have borrowed against the future of our future generations. I'll be happy to fund my political operation through the work of hardworking Americans ten and twenty and thirty dollars at a time. And you all keep showing up at the lobbyist fundraisers and see how that goes for you. I reserve.

I love who I get chills. I love that. And I'm going to tell you a story as to why, because our House district representative here in Texas, Andrew Murr, has a lobbyist that sits on his sofa in his office. When you walk in, there's a there's now it may not be there this this second time, but his first term is and his second term, there was a little sofa that sat. And when you would walk in the door, the sofa was to the left. The hallway went down and his office was towards the back. And on that sofa sat a lobbyist with a phone who would get a phone call from the Masters and then go down the hall and tell the representative how he was supposed to vote. And before he would leave the office, he would confer with that lobbyist as to how he was going to conduct himself on the floor in those upcoming moments.

Bought and paid for. That's the political system we're dealing with. That's the political system that Matt Gaetz went after yesterday.

And that's exactly what he's talking about right there. He was amazing. If anybody has the opportunity to replay yesterday and watch it, it's clearly worth doing, because there is just that when you speak about somebody talking truth to power, this is this was absolutely what was going on. I had a particular moment when when one of the one of the defenders of the Republican caucus in the House has met and exceeded expectations. And Gaetz got up and said, perhaps our expectations are too low. You know, and just he had an answer for everything.

It was just amazing. Well, here in in in about 10 seconds. Well, I guess it can be a little longer than that. And I'm trying to wait. Okay, so it's not going to let me skip it. All right.

Well, go ahead and continue there. There's another one in here. Where it where he says that, where he responds to and some of you may have heard this, that Oh, they're they're creating chaos. The speaker is chaos.

Yeah. You know, and frankly, that was that was kind of clever and kind of I'm not so sure that that was that was true to that, because the speaker actually was institutionally having smooth waters as opposed to chaos. We're supposed to have chaos. Democracy is supposed to be messy. There's supposed to be people that are competing ideas and and and going back and forth and not agreeing until they hammer things out.

There's not supposed to be. You know, I I frequently like and what happens in Washington to worldwide wrestling. You know, the one one wrestler comes out and says, I'm going to kick his butt.

And the other guy goes, I'm going to kick his. And then they go in the back room and they count up all the money that comes from television and the tickets. And then they divvy up the money between.

Yeah. And I get I get the same sensation. That's what happens in both Congress and so many state legislators. You know, they pretend that they're fighting each other and then they get together and say, OK, how are we going to divvy up all these taxes? Oh, we need some more.

And and somehow or other that's going about the people's business as opposed to divvying up the people's money. And so now, God bless Matt Gates and the and the folks that stood with him yesterday. All right. Let's I'll play this.

Got about now. Twenty seven seconds. And then and then I'll play this little piece. And it's not very long. It's only a couple of minutes. You have to watch a six minute commercial in order to in order.

Ninety second clip. Yeah. That YouTube is just trying to make some bank here. Somebody is anyway. At any rate. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

It's all it's all part of the free market system. I get it. All right. Come on. Here we go.

Load up, load up. Oh, it's going to. OK, so now we got to have another another commercial on top of that.

Usually it gives you the skip ads opportunity, but it didn't it didn't afford me that opportunity. OK, one more time. And what are you going to do? What are you going to do? You know, leave me guessing. All right, here we go. All right, let me pop this over here so those that are viewing can see it that way and those that are listening will will hear it.

But here we go. A friend from Oklahoma says that my colleagues and I who don't support Kevin McCarthy would plunge the House and the country into chaos. Chaos is Speaker McCarthy. Chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word.

The one thing that the White House House Democrats and many of us on the conservative side of the Republican caucus would argue is that the thing we have in common, Kevin McCarthy said something to all of us at one point or another that he didn't really mean and never intended to live up to. I don't think voting against Kevin McCarthy is chaos. I think thirty three trillion in debt is chaos. I think that facing a two point two trillion dollar annual deficit is chaos. I think that not passing single subject spending bills is chaos. I think the fact that we have been governed in this country since the mid 90s by continuing resolution and omnibus is chaos. And the way to liberate ourselves from that is a series of reforms to this body that I would hope would outlast Speaker McCarthy's time here, would outlast my time here and would outlast either of our majorities reforms that I have heard some of the most conservative members of this body fight for and some of the reforms that we have been battling for that I have even heard those in the Democrat caucus say would be worthy and helpful to the House, like open amendments, like understanding what the budget is. We have been out of compliance with budget laws for most of my life, most of many of your lives. And by the way, if we did those things, if we had single subject bills, if we had an understanding on the top line, if we had open amendments, if we had trust and honesty and understanding, there would be times when my conservative colleagues and I would lose might be a few times when we'd win. There'd be times that we would form partnerships that might otherwise not be really predictable in the American body politic, but the American people would see us legislating.

Hi, everyone, George Stephanopoulos. So there you go. And I gotta tell you that that is exactly what we have sent them there to do is to legislate. And you know, I'll just close this out. And then we're going to take a break and come back because we've got some other topics we want to talk about with you as well. But that is to say this, that, you know, we we have this this.

And I watched a gentleman stand on the floor and hold a stack of documents that he threw in the air. And he said, How should I be expected? I I'm supposed to vote on on on this. I was supposed to vote on this. And you hand this to me 10 minutes before I get on the floor and say, Okay, now we need you to make a decision and vote on behalf. My constituency sends me here to represent their interests, their interests. How am I supposed to represent their interests, when you give me 10 minutes to read 281 pages of stuff, and and all of this and make five or six or 10 votes.

And you've given me literally no time whatsoever, except that you just say to me, Hey, it's good. Go ahead and vote. Yes. That's not representing my constituency. And I'm, I mean, he was he was just, folks. That's what Matt Gaetz fought for yesterday, was that every representative on that floor owes the responsibility to we the people to understand what they're voting for on your behalf, and vote according to you, the will of the people.

Stand with Matt. I'll be back with more Children's Generation Radio coming up right after this brief break. Hi, I'm Tim Scheff, a certified natural health practitioner of over 40 years. I want to introduce you 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-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 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 US 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 www.cgrwellness.com, 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 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 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.

Superfood liquid multivitamin. Click on that. And you're going to order. I recommend that you order two and I'll tell you why. 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, cgrwellness.com. 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. We'll 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 your generation radio where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical glasses. I'm your host, Pastor Greg. And again, cgrwellness.com cgrwellness.com.

You can pick up the same products that I'm using. And I really do encourage you, you know, with with the fight that we're in the battle that we're in, maintaining your health, staying strong in your health because the the war that we're in is going to require all hands on deck. Speaking of hands on deck, you had a suggestion as we were talking in the green room there about somebody that might be a good replacement for the Speaker of the House. That's not necessarily in the house right now. But as I understand that the Speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the house.

That said, that's absolutely correct. The Constitution creates the office of the speaker, but any indication that the House of Representatives shall elect a speaker, but there's no requirement that the speaker be a member. And that, of course, is among the reasons why any number of people have been floating the idea that President Trump be chosen as speaker at this particular point in time now that the speakership is vacant. For my for my mind, if I if I had a vote and if I had the opportunity to nominate someone, I would actually nominate the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton.

He has gone through some amazing things in terms of survival in Texas. But more importantly, if there's been somebody that's been a defender of our elections, a defender of the powers and authorities and prerogatives of the states relative to the federal government, it is, in fact, been Ken Paxton. I understand that there's 48 pending lawsuits against the Biden administration that have originated from Ken Paxton's office. If there's somebody that understands both the interplay and the relationships and the limitations that the federal government should have, it would be Attorney General Paxton. It's a pipe dream.

There's obviously no probability that it will happen. But I did send out a tweet in the middle of the night last night, and I was just so pleased and delighted when I got my notifications and it said Attorney General Paxton has liked your tweet. So I'm honored that the attorney general determined that he was going to like my tweet. He didn't share it, though. I will tell you that.

He just liked it. So I appreciate that. Well, I'm going to have to look that up. Was that on your David Shostokis account?

At Shostokis, yeah. At Shostokis is the X, I sent it on X, why I so call it Twitter, it's the X platform formerly known as Twitter. But I did that in the middle of the night. And when my notifications came up, I was just honored that Attorney General Paxton maybe got a chuckle, maybe enjoyed it, but he did like it. But I do know that he didn't share it. Well, I'm going to go ahead and share it right now.

So it'll be shared and I'll tag him in it again. All right, let's shift gears to what is going on with regards to, oh, I know what I wanted to talk to you about very quickly. And that is they just issued a gag order in that New York trial with President Trump.

Oh my goodness, yes. Yeah, apparently President Trump criticized some of the court personnel and the judge didn't like that there was a critique of the court personnel. It seems to me you can't get much more First Amendment than speaking about the services that you get in a courtroom. And yet this judge says Trump somehow overstepped the judge's sensibilities and has issued some sort of order limiting President Trump's ability, or the ability of anybody else for that matter, to critique the conduct of their personnel. And it seems to me that they're all public servants and you have the ability to critique them. I guess there was some indication about a relationship between one of the court clerks and Senator Schumer from New York that the judge took umbrage at. Nobody said that President Trump was untrue.

They just apparently didn't like it. And so now the judge is telling President Trump that he can't say certain things absent certain kinds of sanctions. It will be interesting to see whether or not Trump pays attention to that and whether or not if in fact the judge decides to issue some sanctions and whether or not those wind up getting appeals on First Amendment grounds. You know, frankly, judges limiting speech outside the courtroom is actually a fairly dangerous power the judges have. And typically those things don't find their way to the appellate or Supreme Court.

This guy might be inviting such a contest. And it would be pretty interesting to see if Trump were to not follow the judge and the judge were to impose some sanctions. And then this whole thing gets interrupted while that gets a interlocutory appeal on its way to the United States Supreme Court.

So it will be very, very interesting. But limiting somebody's speech outside the courtroom on issues of the public conduct of court personnel seems to me to go at the heart of First Amendment issues. Because Trump didn't actually comment on the evidence or the particular case or whatnot.

He did comment on what he thought was interesting background and relationships regarding one of the clerks. And somehow or other that the judge found that offensive. And this is, we shouldn't have judges finding things offensive and then limiting speech in the public square.

We're inside. There's so many places we have to defend things that should be just common sense that belong to Americans. But we don't, but we have to defend them.

Yeah, well, no, no, no surprise. The issue, though, of those, you know, gag orders and now as these situations, you know, just continue to evolve, it seems to me that their goal, obviously their goal is to try to preclude him from from holding office preclude him from being able to run, you know, interfere with that in whatever way. I have to wonder if they feel as though they have some distant shot at a at a criminal charge. Now, if he's charged, let's let's say because there's been conversation, okay, if he's charged with a felony, he can still run. So let's, let's say, you know, in hypothesizing that he were to be convicted in in one of these cases now, the the case regarding jack smith, that has criminal implications, correct?

Yes, correct. The Georgia case has potential criminal implications, although to me, that's the that's the longest shot on their side. Because you're talking about trying to determine his state of mind to believe that the election was or was not correct. That's actually that's actually a more critical issue in the jack smith matter in in Washington and the related j six cases out of Washington, Georgia, which I'm currently intimately involved, right?

So I asked, you know, it has to do with a variety of other things. And I've been calling attention to any number of reporters as I've been doing interviews the last week, 10 days about that is there's a count one in the indictment of in the Georgia case. You see, it's supposedly a RICO charge, right? And a real charge is supposed to have a over overriding criminal enterprise with a with a common goal. Okay, I've challenged everybody that I've spoken to to read the first count of the indictment and find where that common goal is defined in the indictment. Everybody says that he's being indicted for an effort to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election.

That language is nowhere, no place in the in the indict. The indictment actually, as far as I can tell, at the moment, seems to be held a state of crime. And I would expect that kind of there to be some litigation about that matter.

I can't say who's going to do that litigation, but I can expect that now before this all gets said and done, that will take place. Now let me back up real quick. And we're going to be crunching down on our time here.

But let me back up real quick. And and you made a statement about the Jack Smith. Jack Smith's issue is the moral is the Marlago document issue. Is that not correct?

He's on both. So there's two DC right Marlago. So the Washington DC is the January 6 issue and was he and them claiming that he was the reason for the insurrection and trying to go after him that way. The second piece is the Marlago again, the the the DC case, the Georgia case, and and 98% of the Marlago case and and of course, the Bragg case, I mean, the Bragg case is nonsense. It's not even worth the paper. It's written on from from every attorney that I've talked to about it. But those other three cases, the only piece in the Jack Smith case in Florida, that has any water to it, according to one of the criminal justice attorneys that I had that that's not that's on, you know, on our side. But but he said is the obstruction of justice, the last three pieces of that.

And those are the only ones that that really have any hook to them at all, where where there's going to have to be some plea of of some sort, but relative to everything else, it's all everything else is pretty much nonsense. Well nobody a few people are paying attention to what President Trump says about reading the Presidential Records Act when it comes to Florida. If if he is in fact protected by the Presidential Records Act, there's nothing that he's obstructing. So so so the point so the point would be that there was that they didn't have a right to demand those documents back. So so so that in and of itself then unwinds because you can't obstruct something that that that was not barrier was not a legal demand, right? Okay, if the demand in itself was not legal, based on the existence of the Presidential Records Act, right, which I wrote about originally when I when I when I read that indictment, and that President Trump regularly talks about. Yeah. And that, of course, the general media regularly ignores person back a law that allows him basically to do what he did. Okay. And then doesn't allow folks to demand such documents from him.

So yeah, all kinds of things. So it's a but it appears to me that they have no idea. They don't even care if they win. They just want to tie him up. They want to tie him up and paint him as a as a crew and have that painting as a as a criminal, just like at the top of the show when you talked about where they said the indicted lawyer, John Eastman, they want to be able to say that stuff.

Right. And and and perhaps there's no real interest in even bringing these matters to trial so that they continue to say the indicted thing and 90 pending charges and those that kind of massive headlines. So but yeah, no, there's all kinds of things. And this whole fraud thing in New York is incredible.

I've yet to see. It's incredible that there's in fact a victim. There's no victim in New York.

There's no victim. It's insanity, Greg. And so hopefully we'll stop the insanity, as my good friend John Chambers would say, you know, and we'll continue to work towards stopping the insanity. I hope what Mr. Gates did yesterday is a step in that direction and stopping the chaos. And we'll do a lot of things. But it was it was a victory, I think, for the Constitution yesterday to bring the speakership in line with actually representing the American people. We'll see.

We'll see who gets selected. Yeah. There you go. Well, so the the Supreme Court is getting ready to start deliberating again. Yeah.

That'll be opening up, I guess, in another two weeks, roughly every October. Yeah, over is when they start to hear oral arguments and having their their fall fall session. And one of the biggest cases that's there has to do with the, in my opinion, has to do with the Chevron doctrine. Yes. Yeah, that would be just absolutely incredible to be able to strip some of the authority from the from the administrative state, from the unconstitutional set of set of agencies that have all three aspects of the executive, legislative and judicial built into them, which is firmly against, of course, the basic principles of the Constitution.

Yeah, I was trying to find but I'm not I'm not locating it right now. Okay, there we go. All right, here we go. So it's the Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo, whether the court should overrule Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. In other words, folks, will will these radical three letter EPAs and FCCs and and and so on BLMs will they finally be reined in? Yeah, or at least to some degree so that they don't get to because we're at the as it stands for the most part, they get to pass regulations, which is legislative, they get to enforce the regulations, which is executive, and then they get to decide on the effectiveness or decide on violations of the record regulations, which is judicial. And Chevron says right at the moment that the courts of the United States are supposed to defer to interpretations of the law as made by the agencies. That's a that's a broad that is a broad description of Chevron. But if Chevron were to say no, no, no, no, no, or if the court was to say no, no, no, no, no, Article Three of the Constitution gives the judicial power to the Supreme Court of the United States in such lower courts as the as the Congress shall create, then they will be taking back from the agencies and a bit of power that has been abdicated by our originally three, three branches of government. Now we have four branches of government. Plus, of course, said the whole media that's supposed to be the fourth estate. So this book by my friend Michael Daugherty, The Devil Inside the Beltway, is his story of his battle against the FTC and against this, what was created by the Chevron doctrine, which initially destroyed his company.

He is now back in the med lab business. But he, unlike so many who just bowed down and and found either either paid or what have you, he said, no, it's wrong. It's unconstitutional.

It's illegal what they're doing. And I'm going to fight it. And he did. And he fought it. And some of the battle still continues.

But he finally, just in the last year, finally got some final relief with regards to this situation. But if you folks you really want to understand what this battle is about, this is a great book. It's called The Devil Inside the Beltway by Michael Daugherty. And reach out to me if you'd like to get a copy of it. All right. Oh, one minute to go. There you go. All right.

It's just sokas.com. Two things to get their constitutional sound bites and the brand new book on the Declaration of Independence, folks, we it is so important, especially in this day and age and in light of what happened yesterday, is just another reminder of how important it is for us to understand our constitutional rights, the constitutional duties of the three branches of government, as you said, David for now, plus your, your your free press that's not free anymore. But it's supposed to be an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch. And they're supposed to be a balance of powers. And you should understand what that's about.

So you can hold your representatives accountable. David, thanks for being with me today. I greatly appreciate it. Thanks so much, Greg. Have a blessed week. You too, sir. All right. We're going to take our break. We will be back with more Children Generation Radio coming up. Melanie Collette joins us on the other side.