CGR WEDNESDAY 101823 David Shestokas Constitutional Originalist

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

That's Chosen Generation Radio, where no topic is off limits and everything filtered through biblical classes. My passion is the fight for freedom. My father fought for a World War II defending our country. Today we are no longer fighting with guns. Instead, we are fighting an ideological battle for control of our country by contributing to causes that support your constitutional rights.

I am Patriot Mobile. I thank and praise God for this borewell that God has enabled us to put in this village with the prayer and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Radio Ministry. By the prayer and support of Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Ministry, we could put the borewell in this village for the community.

Before this community was drinking dirty water and that was really causing a lot of sickness. But now they are getting pure and fresh water and all the communities are so thankful for Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Ministry and all the supporters. And we pray for all of you that God would bless you and God would use you so that we can put more and more borewells in a poor and needy community, those who are really having a problem of the water. This borewell we have put and pure and fresh water is coming and we are so thankful for all of you. We thank Pastor Greg Young and Chosen Generation Ministry that help us and supporters of supporting our community and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village.

We pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this village and we pray for all of you that God has enabled us to put more and more borewells in this why they were doing it, we described what to the sea meant, what a two-state solution was really all about, and we gave you a very clear perspective of the challenges that were faced, and we also went very deeply into the challenges that were faced by the very first time since 1948 that an Israeli government was actually truly conservative and focused on returning Israel to being the God-focused country that it was originally founded as, called by God as, when he called Abraham and told him, this is the land that you will possess. We'll talk about that. We'll also talk about what's called Red Ed, and that's the CCP and Friends Marxist brainwashing and subversion of our education system. Michael Morris will be with me from News Busters and MRC. We'll have Rick Manning, we'll be talking about the Speaker of the House battle and what's taking place and what to expect there today and as as this moves forward, and then also Melanie Collette will be with me today, and we're gonna talk about politics in New Jersey and her congressional run, so we'll get into that today coming up. But joining me now, as he does on Wednesdays, and always, always, always a pleasure to have him join me, our constitutional originalist, David Shostakis. David, welcome. Good to have you. Thank you so much, Greg. Good morning. It's great to be with you and your audience today.

All kinds of things. Sometimes, of course, often when we finish up, I have to run out and get into a courtroom, in which case it's really, really disappointing to hear all the things that you have coming up, you know, and I wish that I could either call in or participate or listen more, you know, but thank goodness most of the time you're available to catch up with later on Rumble and otherwise. So I try and keep pace with the world, thanks to you. Well, you know, thank you. I appreciate that.

I appreciate that. Well, and I appreciate these opportunities for us to come together and talk about, you know, these issues through a constitutional lens, because there isn't anything that we're supposed to be doing that doesn't, that isn't impacted by that. And and as I'm, you know, reflecting yesterday, I had a guest that was on and we were talking about this terrorism or no communism awareness act. And so it's a it's legislation that's being pushed through.

I believe it it may be just in in the area that she's in, but it's, it's specifically supposedly is designed to push back on or or teach the the ills of communism. But the problem is, is that it's it's being done under the auspices of it keeping common core in place, which is not good for our education system. And then the the advocates keep pushing democracy, we've got to do this for our democracy. Now, I may, you know, so I mean, it seems to me, David, that there's so many people that just don't get that we're not a democracy. And and that they're, you know, literally kind of shooting themselves in the foot, right, to suggest, well, we're going to battle communism, by using the concept that we're a democracy. That's not a winning combination, is it?

I would suggest that it's not a winning combination. Of course, in terms of a primer on that subject, of course, we are not a democracy. As you mentioned, we were designed to be a constitutional republic. And the idea of a constitutional republic is in fact, to protect minority, protect minority thought from the tyranny of the majority.

And they're trying to impose the tyranny of the majority and in that situation. And so there's always an education, you know, there's always a debate in terms of education in terms of what gets taught, whether it's truth or not, you know, while you're talking about, they're trying to say communism, I presume that's in in juxtaposition to capitalism, which of course, they're not exactly separate and apart from one another either. But I always think people should always in terms of the debates that go on in terms of education might be a good idea to watch the movie Inherit the Wind and the whole Scopes Monkey trial situation from almost 100 years ago now, where the two famous folks, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, were at odds in a courtroom as to evolution versus creation. And this is an ongoing battle in terms of what gets taught in public schools. But the fact is, is that this is all an argument to go to total vouchers and let let parents decide where their kids go. You can support education without without indoctrination by allowing parents to choose schools.

So it's a it's a very, very complex subject. But to your question is, no, we're not a democracy. The founders expected that there would be what they call in a democracy, the tyranny of the majority. And that is where 50% plus one gets to decide for everybody else what that what happens. And that in fact, I would suggest is practically the definition of communism because communism says the state owns everything and the state gets to allocate everything, whether it's rights or property.

And if you have 50% plus one, the 50% plus one are quite capable of saying we own everything and we will tell the rest of you how the world is supposed to work. And that is that's actually pure democracy and communism are pretty much the same thing. And that's why we're not a democracy. It's HR 5349. And it's actually a federal bill that's been introduced in in the House of Representatives.

And and it's called crucial communism teaching act. And again, these are these are the kinds of things and there's a lot of Republicans that are pushing for this as well. But but you know, all of their endorsements, all speak about the importance of our democracy.

Right. And and again, you know, I think this goes to what what we've been talking about before and what and that is the indoctrination in our education system, and a lack of of understanding what you just clearly were explaining. And you know, it, it, it, it cuts multiple ways. It's, it's the ability for it for each individual's voice to matter in decisions that are being made regarding the general population.

So the other side, you know, the danger side, and let me ask you this, um, this is going to seem a little off, but I don't know that it is. But, for example, the First Amendment, and freedom of speech, we have individuals that are in the streets in support of Hamas. Now, Hamas, has clearly said that their goal is to kill Jews to wipe Israel off the map. But it's also to kill Americans and wipe America off the map. So when you have, you know, because I'm thinking about this in terms of okay, in in World War Two, if you had Nazis marching in the street in America, would would would their free speech right, give them the ability to continue to march for the march for the anarchy and destruction of our country? Or would that make them an enemy combatant? Because I look at it as as as a citizen, it's fine for us to discuss, again, you know, policies, even even perhaps ideologies, but to, to call for the burning down and destruction or or or anarchy, I don't know, or or even to declare war from from our streets.

Where does that sit? I was fortunate over the weekend to run into the run into the old 50 year old movie called Skokie, which was all about the Nazis and their proposal to in fact, and actual Nazis, these people said they were the National Socialist Party of America, and they wore swastikas and etc. And then their intent to hold a march within that down in the village of Skokie, Illinois. All the debate goes on is is in the movie relative to free speech and and Nazi Nazi situations and they're professing professed ideology to in fact, essentially commit genocide against Jews. And I would encourage folks to why it's on YouTube.

They just put it on YouTube about two weeks ago, probably regarding this is available. It's a 50 year old movie. The the debate and the First Amendment debate that goes on in the movie and yet against the backdrop of Holocaust survivors having this in the streets of the hometown because Skokie, Illinois, still to this day is largely a Jewish population made up of still many Holocaust survivors and their children. And so I would encourage folks to watch that because all the issues that are that you're talking about are brought forth in that situation. The United States Supreme Court still at one point ruled that they were able to able to conduct their march and that this was speech. But the debate as to whether or not we should ignore such things and close the windows and close the doors and and just assume that they're going to go away because they're allowed to speak is no that's the actual other side of the debate is you're supposed to the idea of free speech is to allow both sides to be able to talk about what they want to talk about and presumably the marketplace of ideas will in fact be effective and win. But I would also say that these days we have a lot more a lot more I hate speech legislation there where in fact you do things that encourage violence becomes criminalized and these people them the people there that are doing these marches just clearly don't understand what they're what they're doing because these are the most of them are the same folks that are in favor of LGBTQ plus whatever the alphabet soup of the day is most of those rights and the Hamas folks in there and that community are not only in favor of killing Jews but they're in favor of exterminating folks that have different sexual preferences and peccadillos so I would suggest that they need to they need to learn what what they're what they're putting together and now we've got a different debate where Vivek is saying well these are just stupid young people that we should you know just give give them a pass because they're stupid young folks and that's just ignorant as well I used to like Vivek but that's just that's just crazy because these people are actually supporting murders and genocide and so that's that goes beyond stupidity that goes that makes you dangerous and so but is it but it better but it is protected down protected speech but down when now when speech becomes provocative that is what they call fighting words that's no longer this no longer speech from that standpoint it's not considered a free political speech so it's a complex situation but it still comes back to your first question and that's education free speech is gonna come up I want to talk a little bit when we get a chance about the judge that tells President Trump he can't say stuff you know when when we get to when we get there because that's an absolute First Amendment thing and President Trump President Trump is such a groundbreaker he's you know criminal defendants are supposed to be innocent until they're proven guilty so how is it a judge can tell a criminal defendant that he can't say things about his trial it's certainly one thing for the judge to have some control over the over the lawyers right because the lawyers are within the legal system they have certain rights and privileges but a criminal defendant if I'm not mistaken is innocent until he's proven guilty and if he wants if if a criminal defendant wants to try his case in the court of public opinion I suggested he has every right the only reason for a judge to issue such an order is the judge doesn't want to be embarrassed these but these are the same orders that we've seen repeatedly when it comes to a lot of the j6 defendants they the majority of them were given a form of a gag order and told that they were not allowed to speak about their case they couldn't defend themselves publicly while there was this onslaught of misleading and and disinformation I there was a I saw a post in my Facebook feed of someone asking for prayer but there was a let me see if I can find his name he ran for governor in in Michigan Ryan Kelly had had run for governor against Governor Whitmer in in in Michigan he went on January the 6th and he was just sentenced to 60 days in prison and yeah these are these are situations you're describing and so many people don't have the megaphone to match the government's or the government or the government supported press and I mean not necessarily financially but rather philosophically where this press is supporting the government so they hold on the whole debate that's going on of course the reporters say well we can say whatever we want the reporters report what they want about the about the trial about the about the story and yet the criminal defendant himself is a muzzle in terms of in terms of doing this this is probably been a problem throughout our history but there's never been a criminal defendant with a with a megaphone that equals the government's to to challenge this challenge these orders because those orders most of you can understand the lawyers and the situation where once again they're they're involved with say the discovery matters and there might be some sort of sensitivity regarding say the identities of confidential informants very limited circumstances but if somebody wants to criticize the judge if somebody wants to criticize for that matter of the jury the process why is a criminal defendant supposedly supposed to shut up about what's going on in his trial when it comes to the press I can see no good reason for that except the protection of the government you know and that's what free speech is all about it would be interesting because apparently president Trump said she's issued an order I'm gonna talk anyway if they want to lock me up I'll go to jail this is the ultimate civil disobedience but that is how you in fact handle those kinds of things but there is nobody with a with a megaphone to match the president's except maybe what 60 some odd years ago when they locked up Martin Luther King this and and he continued he continued to talk and some of his people continued to talk so when there's out when there's a wrong you it's very unusual but this is it this will be I don't know I I would hate to be the lawyer that walked in and said mr. president you can't talk anymore yeah well you know we're gonna have Enrique Tario's mom Zuni on our program tomorrow you know to talk about you know some of this very stuff because you know it would certainly appear that her son is you know that this is it's all political it is this is this is 100% political and and and you know when you stop and think about what we're seeing and you know dictators like Maduro and and and Putin and she and the you know Iranian leadership and and and what we're battling I mean we're watching some of that same kind of tyranny take place here in our country and and I want to be clear once again with my audience when we talk about what we're dealing with we are not against the constitutional republic form of government that our founding fathers envisioned quite to the contrary what we are pushing for what we are desiring is a return to that form of government where everyone has an equal voice and it's so interesting to watch the other side talk about equality and tolerance and all those kinds of things but there is no equality and there is no tolerance when it comes to the perspective that we're talking about you know it just they're just plain is not and you know again they they run with the with the j6 narrative and you you can't you can't take in all of the actual facts surrounding that day and then come to the conclusion in my opinion that this was an insurrection this was American citizens expressing their deeply held convictions and provable facts that the current government is not acting within the confines of the Constitution in defending the rights of American citizens period yeah pretty much period and there's not much there's not much to add to that and it becomes very very frustrating in so many places and the you know the so many things that they are prosecuting or persecuting these days are actually for the protection of the government not the protection of the rights of the people these you know I think we've you've done some stuff with people with the classified documents and their documents number in the billions classified documents 99% of them are not for the protection of the Republic or the or the safety of the people but rather for the protection of the people that generated the documents to keep them out of the limelight and to keep them from being accountable and that's that's that's the secrecy level as well beyond what the government is supposed to do that's the same kind of thing about these gag orders that you're speaking up there you know the gag orders in theory are actually they put them they put them out and say that this is to protect against the the bringing the court into disrepute well if the courts not doing its job properly or the courts not following the law it seems to me that the court should be brought into disrepute or the court should be challenged in that regard and that's what gag orders are supposed to do they're protecting the government they're not protecting the defendant most of the time of course I do a lot of criminal defense work and 99% of the time or better I tell my client to shut up because the whole Fifth Amendment thing anything you can anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law and that's largely true and so it's typically not beneficial for a defendant to go out and comment on the case in public and so you know I'm from time to time of some cases are in the news and now when I tell my defendant I said you can talk about this but don't talk about that because this is something that potentially can that can harm you there's a reason is there right but the Fifth Amendment is to protect the accused right even from self-harm even from self-harm from self-harm yeah but again order is to protect the court it's not there to protect the defendant you know it's there to protect the court and so the gag order I would suggest even though they've been historically used through the course of course of our country and they've been historically accepted I would say that it's actually anathema to the First Amendment when you impose it on the defendant imposing a gag order and use imposing a gag order on some of the other participants that may have access the information that's perhaps not otherwise publicly known and by participants I mean attorneys the paralegal the jurors I mean you don't want the jurors out holding press conferences after you know after every session and I and I and I think that there's you know a reasonable expectation that that the juror would would be at least during the trial would be protected or or or somewhat anonymous and so attacks by by the criminal side against them in an effort to try to intimidate them but you know but we've seen that by from the other side we've seen the other side in cases where they were trying to get a particular opinion we've seen them docks certain members of juries and things of that nature I mean and and and we've seen very little done just you know the the judge just kind of throw their hands up and say well you know there's really not much I can do about that I mean you know so yes there's there's a certain I would I would think an expected behavior right some there's places and people for whom such orders certain information confidential but as the as to the criminal defendant there himself or herself it would seem to me that there is no basis for infringing on their First Amendment rights if they want to be if they want to criticize the court while the case has gone on why can't they well and I would think too to your point you know if they're out there saying things again it's a double-edged sword so so you know let them speak if they if they accidentally or if they say something it can be used and the and the prosecution can grab that quote and bring it into the courtroom if it if it if it becomes evidentiary to to the prosecution so it it's it's really you know I mean that's kind of where the I don't know self-imposed gag order exists right yeah no it's a gag order a gag order 90% of the gag order is there for the protection of the court not the protection of the defendant and when when courts issued things that are for the protection of the government I would suggest to you that there are anathema to the idea that our government exists to protect our rights certainly if President Trump wants to challenge such a thing and risk going to jail that would be in that that would actually be keeping with the civil disobedience of philosophies of Gandhi and Martin Luther King okay you know he said no this is this is an illegal and important immoral order and I'm not gonna obey it let the court do what they want and I will submit to the submit to the punishment for not failing to obey it but I'm going to challenge this he's one of the few people that have the power of the you know the megaphone to be able to do such a thing like you said the same situation existed for probably many of the many of the j6 defendants where there were things being said about them in the press being said about their cases in the press being said by congressman in there in the j6 hearings and whatnot and yet they were muzzled and yet they were muzzled they could not be part of the debate defending themselves in public and because of course then they would run the risk of being jailed for commenting on their case and again that would be their own decision I'm sure their attorneys would tell them to be quiet for any number of reasons but certainly you know we've got I've got I've got this situation going on that there's a lot of press interest in with Reverend Stephen Lee and we we do quite a few things because it's interesting for the folks to know about Pastor Lee's history of service and serving at 9-11 and serving about that serving at the Las Vegas Mandalay Bay shootings he's been involved in many many newsworthy events but when it comes to commenting on the case it's unwise for him to do so and so he does not and so these are these are these are decisions that people need to make but you have to you have to understand that when a judge issue tells a criminal defendant they can't say something it's protecting the government it's not protecting it's not protecting the defendant and any time the government that's classified documents and the government does so many things to protect itself rather than protecting our rights and we are in a post-constitutional world because long ago back in the 1940s once once they had this Wickerd versus Filburn and said the Commerce Clause could regulate the fact that a farmer was growing wheat in his backyard to grow bread for his family or to make bread out for his family out of the wheat the federal government has had their fingers in everything including that including the little little pond that forms outside the back of your house one now when it rains and so those are all for expansion of government not for the protection of people and you're exactly right when you say the goal is to return to limited government and that whose purpose exists to protect our rights and one of those one of those cases is is you know the Chevron case that we've talked about and it looks like the justices are are you know adding to that particular piece of legal legal argument that they've taken on another case that that that matches that let's see so Friday afternoon they so you've got relentless versus the Department of Commerce and Loperbright Enterprises versus Raimondo both of which challenged the 1984 Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Council decision another another case where you're talking about a situation where the government has made rules to protect itself rather than protect the rights of the people just as a little primer I know you and I have discussed this before but just for background for for the folks the Chevron decision is a decision that allows the allows the alphabet soup of federal agencies to not only make law that is to issue regulations regarding the area that they're to area there to regulate but rather also to enforce those regulations and then make judicial decisions interpreting those regulations that they issued and so and back in 1984 the Supreme Court said yeah you know what we're gonna let these agencies make these kinds of judicial decisions which the Constitution reserves for the courts and the courts will have to defer to the agency's interpretation of the law that governs the agency it's utter insanity but it's there to protect the agency not to protect the rights of Americans that Chevron that Chevron philosophy is another situation where the government is active to protect itself not to protect the rights of the of the people for which it exists there's an interesting aside as I'm as I'm reading the SCOTUS blog on this that the the the relentless versus Department of Commerce case also allows Justice Kitanji Brown Jackson to not recuse herself so that means it's a case that the full court now will be will be allowed to to bring a decision on which I think is significant and that may be the reason why they did it is is they didn't want when they bring the decision they didn't want somebody to say well you know you you you barely won but you you whatever it also says it says although the court might normally have simply put the case on hold it rule it ruled in the Loper bright case the court instead took the unusual step of fast acting the relentless case for its consideration suggesting that it might have other plans for the case and at the same time the Loper bright case was conspicuously absent from the December argument calendar released on Thursday even though the case will be fully briefed by the time the argument session begins so I I don't know what the jockeying of those two things necessarily means but my my suspicion is is that they wanted to make sure that they had a a a case regarding Chevron that included the full court with with no no no ability for one side to argue one way or the other regarding when they make the final decision that sounds like sounds like your speculation is probably correct but there's no real reason for them to review those things if they're going to let Chevron stand as it did and so presumably the idea would be in fact to cut back on the authority of these I would suggest unconstitutional agencies that have the executive judicial and legislative authorities all rolled into their all rolled into their work because of course we're supposed to be have separation of powers and checks and balances we've lost that in so many places and it's all again one day we should just do a whole 17th Amendment show because the 17th Amendment is the is the problem where senators were directly elected and they were turned into not representatives of the state legislatures but rather just super members of the House of Representatives and so that that consolidated government upon power in the federal government by getting by then by the 17th amendment and so it all trade all traces back to the 17th amendment and and one huge destruction of a major piece of the balance of our constitutional republic and so well and and there's and there's an awful lot that is going on you know within the the courts as well you're two primary most conservative quote-unquote justices and and I think you and I both would argue that they're not conservative they're they're constitutional originalist which is what the court is supposed to be made up of those that are looking at the historical positions and precedents and and then and then using the intent of the founders in the writing of the Constitution to determine whether or not something that is presented is constitutional and that really at the end of the day that that's the the court's purpose is is kind of above the the grade of right or wrong per se but but more in line with is the decision is what has happened the the intent of the of the writers of the Constitution in the application of the rights either taken away or granted in the case before us yeah the the court is assumed the position of an ongoing constitutional convention as opposed to the application of the Constitution as it was written there's not supposed to be an ongoing constitutional convention if you want to amend the Constitution there's a process for them it's found in article 5 there's two separate ways to do that approach that but it's found in article 5 there's a way to do that you should not be amending the Constitution by changing the meaning of words by pretending that it means something that it didn't mean when it was written that's the same with every law you know it it's not it's not just the Constitution but every law should be in fact applied according to the manner in which it was intended by the folks that wrote it and passed it presumably to presumably under under constitutional procedures as an example right you know when you look at what is it title seven I think it is that has to do with you know such with sex right right the the the the court made a a decision in a case to redefine title seven and the word sex to include gender orientation yeah and there's nothing like that in the in the law it did it was not there it doesn't belong there the if they want if somebody wants to go change the law go go lobby the Congress if you want gender gender orientation added to the chip and it's a title seven then go go to the Congress you don't go to the court and say oh please amend this law for us that's not their job and it's never been their job but they've taken on that job and the real action I'm sorry they took on that job and I can say why they've taken it on and still goes to the 17th amendment separate separate show one day just devote to the 17th amendment and let people understand what we lost when the 17th amendment was passed we lost the balance that protected our rights and protected the federal government from encroachment and the reason that I that I bring that up is is that this was a a case decided on June 15th 2020 that says that an employer cannot fire someone for being homosexual or transgender and before somebody you know even your your your week need I don't know a week need Christians get all goofy on me this specifically has to do with the ability of a church who holds to a traditional biblical interpretation of those kinds of behaviors and lifestyles having the ability to say no that lifestyle those behaviors are are not allowed and we and we do not employ individuals that are openly engaged in those activities because they are in violation of our deeply held belief system and we're going to hire people that align with the guidelines and bylaws and beliefs of the church and now under under this law and and it's you know it the media is not going to report this they're not going to let you know what's happened but under this law churches are being forced into a very difficult situation when it comes to their hiring practices yeah to be able to have the government force them to consider and to hire people who are not adherence to their to their philosophical and worldview is just our religious worldview essentially destroys that portion of the force of the First Amendment that says you know Congress shall make no law interfering with freedom of religion and so of course that does in fact interfere with the freedom of religion and so yeah it's a thousand little cuts and of course the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and you you have to pick and choose the battles where you condemn you can do your best but you need to be in the battle yeah it's you know again it it it just and and when and once you do that now you're redefining it when it comes to schools when you're got you know there there's a there's a variety of areas now and when we talk about what's happening to kids and what they're being exposed to which is not a debate in in my opinion it's not debatable they are being exposed to these things that that is being done because of these kinds of decisions there's there in in in in my humble opinion David I don't think there's any other way to view that you know there is no other way to view that that's how why we're wise post constitutional when we're able to be post constitutional because nobody nobody's been taught what the Constitution is and they don't understand what it's about and what it's for and then of course ever since Woodrow Wilson wound up with the war to save democracy we've had the whole situation that somehow or other were a democracy and not a constitutional republic there's anything people don't people don't understand the advantage them personal advantage to themselves personally that the Constitution is there to limit the government to protecting their rights to exercise their ability to pursue life liberty and happiness and so it's really you know and the funny thing about it is it's not that complex the people that are involved in the defense try and try and try and get involved with the people that make the complicated arguments about democracy and it's and it's benefits and the folks that the folks that are defending the constitutional republic as an order fail to I just go you know it exists to protect your rights and it exists to protect the rights of rights of minority of thought and it's it's not a complex argument and if people go you know don't you want to be out don't you want to be able to think what you want to think and everybody goes yeah well then why is it that I should be forced to think what you want to think you know it's it's a day well it's really not complex yeah and and you know it it really flows from a a globalist perspective as well when it comes to the children because the whole part of the whole thing behind this is called is something called the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the first state that in that that brought that into law was the state of Washington and they codified that and and and in in doing so it was the first step in stripping you know parents are are stepping up now and and beginning to say wait a minute I'm a I'm a you know I'm a parent here these are my children you don't have a right to hide things from me and and and impose your worldview on my child except that 40 years ago in the 1980s this Convention on the Rights of the Child was introduced as law in Washington and it has crept its way all the way across our country from one end to the other and it's now codified in in virtually every state around around the nation and so slowly parents without realizing it you know and and and always under the auspices it's just like the communism act that I mentioned to you and when we started our program right well yeah that's a good thing yes we definitely we want to you know I mean when you and I went to school we did learn about communism and we learned that it was bad I mean it's pretty straightforward thing we understood that it was bad now children it's been taken out and children think that Marxism is good they come out of our education system believing that the Marxist way is the best way which is insanity and I get that you want to re redirect that and and and reinstitute truth into that but just like any of these other things the problem is is is when the government has total control over the environment you're in trouble and that's what we're watching in this Convention on the Rights of Children has taken away parental rights and it's the reason why because it says your four-year-old in your five-year-old is now in your household where it used to be dad mom and kids and and and a biblical order in your home it's now kids mom and dad maybe and in the majority of cases dads thrown out the house well that's where they're again that's the expansion of the power of the government by they're stepping in and saying they're doing stuff to protect the children you know by removing the parents their government's protecting the children and that's comes to mall is the is the is the kids version of communism where the where the state is in charge of the kids as well I'm gonna go back for a moment to this movie Skokie because one of the stories there's a there's a child of a couple of the Holocaust survivors that doesn't understand why her parents are so upset about the Nazis marching and because the parents had always gone out of their way to try and protect their daughter from hearing the horrors that they lived through that that's another moment and somewhere along the line the dad had to sit down with the daughter and actually explain how her grandmother went to a gas chamber she didn't know this because they were hoping to protect her my actually my my view of communism didn't come from education in school I came from my grandmother who's eight eight had eight brothers and sisters killed by communists in Lithuania you know and in the guise of protecting kids we from those these kinds of terrible things that actually go on in the world we allow the government then to tell them that oh these things aren't so horrible they're not so bad they're in fact wonderful and go along with the things that Karl Marx spoke up so they need to know they need to know the truth about stuff too and but there's nobody actually to tell them that except their parents and their parents unfortunately we've lost a generation of parents who don't any longer know about that god bless the greatest generation who freed us from these things of the Nazis but you know all so many folks like my dad were stoic about things that happened in the war they didn't want to talk about it they didn't want to tell their kids so their kids wouldn't grow up in a world that where they think there's this for these horrible things that happen in the world they think parents that have experienced bad stuff need to be able to sit down with their kids and say listen there's evil in the world and you need to be able to recognize it and here's what I live through and unfortunately that's probably a mistake the parents do make that in terms of trying to protect their children from from the bad things that are going on in the world yeah people should see that movie it's available on YouTube now it's called Skokie there you go lessons it's full lessons on First Amendment and children and relationship between parents and parents that have experienced horrible stuff and it's sk okie by the way it's a 1981 film Skokie sk okie yeah and they're the First Amendment issues the issues of Nazis and the issues of suffering and actually interactions between kids and parents it's all there I would encourage people to go and there's some tremendous tremendous theatrical performances that the the actors in the movie are just incredible and I would get and and you know I I just to what you were saying about you know how how kids are presented with some of this material folks just as from coming from someone who's you know raised five kids we are our kids were exposed to a lot of stuff growing up we sat with them watched movies and then had discussions and conversations about the content of those movies because the reality is no matter whether you homeschool or how you do this your kids are going to get exposed and your kids are going to hear a truth or what they are going to perceive to be a truth and you have to be the first one to that base period under every circumstance as the parent you've got to be the first one to present that truth so that they already have a sense of oh I already know this I already know this and and that has to happen in your home and and you know one of the things as you know that that that always was so amazing to me watching my children grow up was the realization that they are uniquely made every one of my kids is uniquely different personalities are different behavior patterns are different thought processes are dead they they are their own individual person and you have to treat that accordingly and you have to and and the sooner that you begin to respect and understand that and I'm not talking about giving your kids authorities and liberties at an age when they can't handle it I'm talking about just simply recognizing that you know what there's a lot more that they can process than you may think and they're processing it and if you're not being the guide to guide them and how they process it then they're going to process it on their own and they're going to look for another source as their source of authority on that issue and as a parent you don't want an outside source to become that influence on your child as they are developing you want to be the one to bring them that that's your responsibility as a parent it's your job to be the one that filters the world to them and helps them to have that that firm foundation to launch from and I just yeah I just felt like it was this was a great conversation to lead into me making that comment well there's all kinds of things it's all to do with First Amendment historically parents have been in charge of their families there's been court decisions in their favor for through our history and let's just hope we can continue to work on restoration of the constitutional republic and that we're talking about so it's great and I am off to try and do some of that in a courtroom this morning there you go and I've got Melanie Collette coming up with me next and she's going to be talking about her run to try and and and turn representatives into turn New Jersey red can you even imagine but it can't happen it can't happen we'll be back with that coming up right after this break David thank you so much for being with this morning I greatly appreciate it sir all right take care of Greg