Is the world becoming “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World”?

My advice to pretty much everyone today is breathe. Things have been crazy the last few weeks. The Biden's debate performance, which led to calls for him to drop out of the race. After Biden announced his departure from the race, we had the intrigue around who the Democratic Party would anoint as his successor to the nomination. Then there was the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and the subsequent investigations full of finger pointing and recriminations.

You could be excused for feeling exhausted, disoriented, even on the verge of collapse, which brings me back to my advice. Take a few minutes. Take a breath. Let's look at things calmly and rationally. Then we can decide the best way to move forward.

Hello there, everyday Americans. Paul Engel, here with the Constitution Study, where we read and study the Constitution, teach the rising generation to be free, and, yes, we take the time to breathe. I think that's important. That's one of the reasons why I try not to be at the bleeding edge of what's going on. I try to take some time, consider things, try to, you know, I'm not going to be the news guy.

I'm not going to be the guy you're looking for, for the latest news and information. There are other people who are here that do a great job at that. I want to take time and consider what's going on. So it was about almost two weeks ago now, we had the assassination attempt on former president and now presidential nominee, Donald Trump. And of course,

as expected, lots of guesswork, lots of assumptions, lots of accusations, lots of finger pointing, lots of recriminations. It's been crazy. Now, back on Monday, right, we had Director Cheadle, the director of the Secret Service, came before Congress, she came before a House committee hearing to be,

well, they call a hearing, they call it fact finding. Let's face it, it was a political grandstanding. That's the only way I could describe the bits and pieces. It was a five, I think it was at least five hours worth of testimony. Most of it, to me, seemed to be political grandstanding.

So I found some recordings of the hearing and I want to take a couple of clips and describe to you what I saw, what I heard, kind of take some time and analyze this. But I want you to remember what we're listening to is as much political theater as anything else. Here's a perfect example. This is a representative Fallon, and he is sitting in front of two head silhouette targets with the markings on them. It is a miracle President Trump wasn't killed.

Compare, Torrey's life is over because that damn shooter made it on the roof. It wasn't roof that was dangerous. It was a nut job on top of the roof. You know what else is dangerous? I believe your horrifying ineptitude and your lack of skilled leadership is a disgrace.

Your obfuscating today is shameful and you should be fired immediately and go back to garden Doritos. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. So, as you see, that isn't an investigation. He's not looking for information.

He's not attempting to understand. Mr. Fallon is grandstanding. He's putting on, he's getting on his political soapbox and he's pounding his fist to gain attention. Nothing more.

So I completely dismiss this. Now there were many of the representatives that asked questions. Here we have a clip from Mr. Frost. How many times was the Secret Service alerted about a suspicious person at the July 13th?

A man that had a bicycle? A man that had a range?

An individual with a backpack is not a threat.

There was a suspicious person. When did the person be identified from being suspicious to being a threat? Now, apparently the way Marjorie Taylor Greene believes that the sniper, and I will not use his name, even though others do, was in a position. He was easily seen. It was quite obvious what he was doing.

He had a gun. He was pointing. Why did they not take the shot then? But she also goes on to say, well, he had a backpack. He had a bicycle.

He had a range finder, none of which makes a person a threat. Heaven forbid. If we decide that people with bicycles are threats, then pretty much, I think about a third of people in most major cities are considered threats because they are on a bicycle. Think about it. I mean, she's gone beyond this simple Monday morning quarterbacking.

He's like, wait a second. We know now, where were you then? My grandfather had a great line. He used to say, where were you when the page was blank? You see a guy walking around with a backpack.

How many people were walking around there with backpacks? A range finder, which, by the way, looks like a pair of binoculars. And if you're an event like this, would you possibly want a set of binoculars to get a better view of Mr. Trump or any other speaker? So does that make them a threat?

This is, to me, the worst part of Monday morning quarterbacking. I think she was right to, in a very calm point, saying a person on a bicycle is not a, a person with a backpack, I should say, is not a threat. A person with a range finder is not a threat. Now here's a much better question. Similar list, you know, information, but much better presented in understanding of the situation.

This comes, I believe, from Mr. Fry. Was Mr. Crooks observed at the AGR building prior to the shooting?

Because, according to Secretary Tito, it was seconds before he started firing. That's not a lot of time to react. And should that have been earlier? That would be another interesting follow-up question that I have not heard. But at least Mr.

Fry's understanding that, you know, just because someone is suspicious doesn't mean you go tackling them to the ground. It doesn't mean you violate their rights. You keep an eye on them. And then you see, when do they go from suspicious to threatening? And could the Secret Service have done a better job?

Yes, they could have done a much better job of identifying the threat earlier.

Why they couldn't do that, I'm not going to speculate. A, because I don't have the experience, and the information I'm hearing is somewhat contradictory. Some say there weren't enough resources. Some say the resources that were there were not trained in the skills necessary.

I don't know yet. Hopefully, we'll find out. Now, let's listen to a couple of, I believe this is from Mr. Donalds.

If you're roughly the same height or slightly higher, you're basically going to see the top of his head, maybe, if he's any good, the scope.

In fact, I've heard it was an extremely, the counter-sniper shot was a difficult shot because there was no center mass to shoot at. This wasn't a large target. It was a small target. So yeah, okay, they didn't see him. That, to me, is not really crazy, unreasonable.

What's concerning is he wasn't identified, getting up onto the roof. While he'd already been identified as suspicious, now he's acting more suspicious and moving more towards that dangerous, that threatening identification. But again, Monday morning quarterbacking is what we're seeing a lot of here. Okay, let's listen to some questions from Mr. Burchett.

Ms. Cheadle, the shooter was set up on the roof of the AGR International Building, as we know. Was the roof identified as a potential vulnerability days before the rally?

Yes, it was. Were there agents stationed? No, they had local law enforcement officers. They were inside the building, not on the roof. And then, well, it looks like it's a metal roof.

Why didn't anybody hear? Mr. Burchett, have you been there? I haven't. I don't know.

Was it exposed metal roof on the inside? Were the Leos directly under the roof? Was it insulated? Was it a sound barrier? You don't know.

Now, neither does Ms. Cheadle, but really, again, almost looking for anything they can find to go. Ms. Cheadle has done a disastrous job.

To me, there's plenty of evidence there that she has been derelict in her duties and should be removed from that position. But I want you to see what we're seeing here. What the House is doing is not investigating to find out what happened. They're not investigating to do. they need to reallocate funds within the Secret Service budget.

They're not looking to see what were the errors that we can fix by legislation. This is a political kangaroo court. And probably one of the more ridiculous questions came actually from Ms. Boebert. You said you spoke with President Trump after the assassination attempt.

And I want to know, did you apologize to him directly for nearly having President Trump killed?

if the director of the Secret Service apologized to a protectee for the failure? Tell me, there is no legislative purpose. It's ridiculous. And again, it's one of the reasons, how can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

This is political theater. And I want to drill that into your heads that this is nothing but political theater, because we're not going to fix anything by spending hours having politicians play to the cameras with anybody on the other side.

Again, this isn't a legal investigation. There's no constitutional investigatory authority vested in Congress. This is not lawmaking. This is not legislating. This is political grandstanding.

And this is why, part of the reason why we have such a corrupt administrative state, because when Congress looks at, sees a problem, rather than dealing with it legislatively, they come out and play political games. The Democrats do it. The Republicans do it. This is about TV time and showing off for your constituents. Now, there are going to be some political ramifications from this event.

Specifically what they are, we'll have to wait and see. But I want to talk about those after the break. I don't want to rush them to get this through. So before I go, my question pile has gotten exhausted. I don't have any questions to answer.

Normally I would do questions at the end and I haven't gotten them. So if you have a question, please contact me. Please let me know. Go to constitutionstudy.com slash questions and ask your question. You will get an email requesting confirmation of your email address, but I'm not requiring that in order to ask questions.

But I love answering questions. I've got a couple of questions that people asked. They didn't ask me to answer it online, so I didn't bring them on. But again, I love answering questions. I don't want people to feel that it's a stupid question.

There are only two stupid questions in the world. The one you don't ask and the one you ask three times. If you don't know, there's probably others that don't know as well. And if one of you asks, I'll be more than happy to answer them. So again, go to constitutionstudy.com slash questions, fill out the form.

If you give me a valid email address, then I can communicate with you directly, answer your questions, and answer any follow-ups, if that's what you want. But if you don't want to give me an actual email address, that's fine. Submit the form with a bad email address and I'll do my best to answer it here on the radio.

Now, one thing I've found to be important to getting all the work done, I get a lot of work done, I work a lot of hours and a lot of stuff, is I need to get a good night's sleep. Blessedly, I generally sleep pretty well, although my wife not so much, which is why she reaches for the REM sleep supplement from Healthy Cell. It's the only sleep supplement designed to support all four stages of sleep, to help her fall asleep, stay asleep, sleep deeply so she can wake up refreshed. If you go to americoutloud.shop, you can find out more about REM sleep. You'll also find out how you can save 25% off of your first order of any product from Healthy Cell.

You just use the code OUTLOUD when you check out. So again, go to americoutloud.shop, find the card for REM sleep, get all the details, check out all the great products there at Healthy Cell, but be sure when you check out to use that code OUTLOUD. It lets them know that you listen to America Out Loud, and as a thank you, they give you 25% off your first order.

Poor sleep affects over 70% of us. The CDC even labeled insufficient sleep a public health epidemic. Advanced Nutrition Company, Healthy Cell, created REM sleep to help you quickly fall asleep, stay asleep, sleep deep, and wake refreshed. Unlike other supplements that don't work, REM sleep is not a pill. It's a gel you swallow, with ultra-absorption of science-backed ingredients, supporting all four stages of sleep, using calming herbs, amino acids, and sleep hormone support.

Over a thousand reviews, with an average star rating of over 4.4, proves it works. Take back your sleep. Go to HealthyCell.com and use limited time. code OUTLOUD for 25% off your first order. Risk-free.

Love it or your money back. Guaranteed. HealthyCell.com. Code OUTLOUD. HealthyCell.com.

Code OUTLOUD.

It has 32 milligrams of niacin in the form of niacinamide, which is 200% of the daily requirement, vitamin B6, folate, which is methylated folate, vitamin B12, magnesium, 100 milligrams of magnesium citrate. I commonly recommend that for heart patients. 100 milligrams of potassium citrate, which is a small amount of additional dietary potassium. One gram of soluble fiber, which is amazing to pick up a gram of fiber just in the supplement, beetroot powder, aji, flower seed oil, aronia berry juice concentrate, coenzyme, Q10, we recommend that for so many patients on statins, vitamin K2, grape seed extract, and reversitrol, which is the active ingredient that's in red wines. that's so beneficial for heart disease.

It's all in the Healthy Cell supplement. I'm so excited. I will be recommending this to my cardiovascular patients. It's quick to take. It's readily absorbed.

If you go to America Out Loud Talk Radio, the website platform for our show, click on the banner bar for Healthy Cell, and that'll lock you right into getting a discount on your very first purchase of Healthy.

It's a patent-pending gel you swallow. Get heart healthy. Go to HealthyCell.com and use code OUTLOUD for 25% off your first order. HealthyCell.com. Code OUTLOUD for 25% off.

Now, again, after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, the House immediately said, well, you know, we got to have a hearing. Well, what they really meant was a kangaroo court, kind of a show so that their members could express their outrage and be seen expressing their outrage for hours and hours and hours. But there's going to be repercussions from this, and we'll get a hint of some of these. First, we're going to hear from the ranking member, Mr. Raskin.

But I will be joining the chairman in calling for the resignation of the director, just because I think that this relationship is irretrievable at this point, and I think that the director has lost the confidence of Congress at a very urgent and tender moment in the history of the country, and we need to very quickly move beyond this. So ranking member Raskin says, no, I'm going to join the chairman. We're going to call for your resignation because you've lost the confidence of Congress. I find that interesting because the director of the Secret Service doesn't work for Congress. She works for the president.

Well, she works for the director of Department of Homeland Security who works for the president. She's in the executive branch. Now, she was appointed, I believe the directorship, I'm not 100% sure, was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. If not, then the directorship of the Secret Service approval or appointment was vested in probably the DHS secretary. So it doesn't matter if they've lost the opinion of the confidence of Congress.

The question is that she lost the confidence of her boss and her boss's boss, which apparently that hasn't happened. But listen to Chairman Comer. You were subpoenaed today to provide answers, and, ma'am, you did not do that. So, as ranking member Raskin stated, he and I will be sending a letter requesting that you submit your resignation as a step toward accountability in what happened. Okay, here's the interesting part.

So Mr. Comer says you were subpoenaed to provide answers. Answers in some questions aren't really there yet. I mean, I'm sorry, from what I saw, not what I heard, from what I saw, she was subpoenaed in order to provide a a whipping post for the members of the committee to disparage and denigrate. I'm not defending the director.

I'm not defending Ms. Cheadle. What she's done, what I've heard, report of what she's done at the Secret Service is terrible, lowering the standards for female agents and thereby weakening the protection of their protectees, placing sex above effectiveness, providing bonuses to managers that cut their budgets.

Okay, I understand the government process. I'm not necessarily opposed to that. But in doing so, did they also cut the budget needed to fulfill their mission to protect?

It was a political stunt. It was a political show.

You knew that Comer, and probably Raskin, you knew they were going to call for her resignation. You knew this was going to happen. This was just a show to say, see, we are calling for it because we called you here and you didn't give the answer. More accurately, you didn't give the answers we wanted. Now, some of those answers just aren't available yet.

In fact, some of those answers are still part of the investigation that's still ongoing by the inspector general, which would be a better place to get answers to this than at a political appointee. So while I'm not saying Ms. Cheadle shouldn't resign, let's be honest, Mr. Raskin and Mr. Comer are playing political games, and they're trying to win political prizes, and we should not be surprised at all.

Now, let me tell you what I took away from this and actually some of the reporting on the hearing. We have bipartisan calls. The one time you can get politicians to agree on something, from both sides to agree, appears to be either when they're picking your pocket or attacking a disliked opponent. So yes, there are bipartisan calls for Director Cheadle to step down. And after the hearing, there have been more of those.

Yes, the Secret Service was told about a suspicious person at the Trump rally multiple times before the shooting. But just because someone is suspicious doesn't mean they're a threat. It means they warrant more attention. And what I haven't heard is, okay, why did this man not get more? Once he was identified as suspicious, why was he not investigated more?

Why did he not garner that attention? And there could be a lot of reasons. It could have been a mistake. It could have been a lack of resources. It could have been something else that drew their attention.

Those are the questions that I really want to have answered.

What else we got? Oh, here's the other thing that this to me is a reason to get rid of Cheadle. First of all, she lied. She lied to the American people. And she lied when she said that the reason they didn't have agents on the roof that the shooter used was because it was sloped and it was dangerous.

That's hogwash. That is a bald-faced lie. Either she was repeating something she was lied to about, or she knew better and was just trying to cover her backside. That is a reason for her to resign. She says the buck stops with her, but so far they stopped just before actually doing something.

The fact that she's been lying, apparently she graded the protection of Trump as an A, but we know that's a lie. We now know that there have been multiple calls for at least two years to upgrade the security package for Mr. Trump, and those requests were denied by people within the head of the Secret Service. We don't know why, but I'm sorry, if you say Trump has got A protection, I would hate to see what a failing grade is. There's an obvious—there were not enough trained bodyguard agents.

There were not enough—they brought in Homeland Security personnel to fill in the gaps, but they aren't trained in the procedures of protecting a principal. So there's a problem. You had a glaring breach in the security. You had a line of sight rooftop with—again,

nothing was done to not just secure the rooftop, how about obscure the rooftop? So why were the Leos inside rather than outside? If the Leos said, we cannot be on the roof, why did the Secret Service not take that into account in the protection plan? Why was there not even something, a fire truck with an American flag put between the roof and the stage so that a shooter could not get a clean shot? Why?

These were failures. This was not an A. This is not a C. Maybe it was a D. Maybe it was a D, only because once shots rang out, the Secret Service did what the Secret Service is trained to do.

Bodies, rushed to the principal and tried to cover him. Now, even there, there was a failure. Again, one of the most famous shots in my mind of this event was when they were standing Trump up. and you listen, right? They come in.

Trump goes down. The agents come in. They cover him. They check to make sure he's medically okay. Can they move him?

Everything's fine. Okay, we're going to move. What are we doing? On your count, one person's in charge. Okay, go.

He stands up. They help him up. He's finding his shoes. And what do you see? You see Donald Trump's head.

His head is exposed because the agent on that side isn't tall enough to cover the principal. One of the neighboring agents had to use his arm to help obscure the view of Donald Trump's head. I lay that at Cheadle's feet. As a director, the standards for every protection package should be based on the needs of their principal, not on the politics of, we want 30% of the agents to be female. That is a failure.

So that's why I say I might give them a D. The only reason they don't get an F is the fact that once shots fired, there were agents that did the right thing. The agents showed up, they swarmed him. When they saw a gap in the protection, one agent used his arm to help cover and they moved to get Trump out of there. That's the only reason I don't give the Secret Service a failing grade in this point of protection.

A lot has been made about the fact that Cheadle, well, she apologized to Trump. Okay, I think that's the nice thing to do. That's the polite thing to do. They also point out that Cheadle never visited the site. That's not her job.

She's the director. She has people that do the planning, and she has people that do the investigation. She's a political appointee. She's not a security expert. Now, sure, there are people that are frustrated with the lack of detail so far, and some of it may be warranted.

But again, these things take time to get all the details, and if the investigation is done properly, they're trying to not only collect information, but validate information before it is given to the higher-ups so that they don't spread the dreaded misinformation. You see, Congress doesn't want that. They want stuff now, now, now, now. A lot of people want that now.

I'm more concerned, again, about what's been done to the Secret Service under Cheadle, the focus on DEI rather than preventing their principals from DIE-ing. That to me is a problem. I'm willing to wait for information. I'm also concerned about some of the communications. I'm hearing now that the radio traffic during the event was not recorded, so we've got no evidence of what was said, where, when, and why.

There are reports that Cheadle used non-government communication methods to communicate government information, to use signal, and the question is, why? Was that a violation of FOIA? I mean, there's a lot wrong here. I don't think we need to go to hyperbole and rhetoric to find reasons that Ms. Cheadle should do the honorable thing and resign or be fired, but I'm not into this political grandstanding of, we've got to make everything just look so awful because it was our political opponents that let this happen.

What I do think we should be asking ourselves is when we bring in a new administration, whether it be a Harris administration or a Trump administration, when they are selecting directors,

was Ms. Cheadle a DEI hire? Was she simply hired? because, hey, we need another woman, let's take a woman in there? That is dangerous.

Was she a political hire? She's in the right political party, she says all the right things, she's a political loyalist, a party loyalist.

If that's how we're choosing the heads of these agencies, not just the Secret Service, all these agencies, we should not be surprised at these failures. I think we've already seen it at the FBI, at the DHS, at ATF, at DOJ. When you place politicians in such positions, we get political decisions and political outcomes. I would love to see people with experience in these departments being put in those director positions, the ones that know what it means to guard and protect D, someone that has been there, done, that, knows the priorities, not playing politics, but actually trying to make the agency the best that it can be, that places their devotion to the job the agency has done and the Constitution of the United States above the political party, political rhetoric, and political posturing. That's what I'd like to see.

You know what else I'd like to see? I'd like to see more people using their money to promote freedom and liberty. When I was in corporate America, there are a lot of people that walked around with two cell phones. They had to have one for work and one personal, because you didn't want to have personal communications on your work device. Some workplaces actually forbid that.

You didn't want business, corporate sensitive information on an unsecured device like your personal cell phone. It was very cumbersome. Well, guess what? Patriot Mobile has a solution to that. They call it Patriot Mobile One, a versatile mobile service provides access to different networks on a single device and allows reliable coverage and connectivity, but also security.

So if you have a phone that supports dual SIMs, not only can you get multiple network access to allow you to roam where maybe your primary provider doesn't cover very well, or if you have the situation I talked about where you need two lines, but you don't want to carry two phones, PMO is the answer. Patriot Mobile One. And you can add a second line for a little $15 a month. Go to patriotmobile.com slash PMO to find out more. And please, when you check out, use the code CONSTITUTION.

It'll give you free activation, and it also lets them know that, hey, you listened to the Constitution study. Again, Patriot Mobile is the country's only Christian conservative cellular provider, wireless provider. And they've got the tools to not only work for your home, but for your business. While you're out and about, hey, check out americaloud.news. I do so every day, every evening.

It's on my reading list. I'm looking for stories and articles and videos and podcasts, not only that I can bring to you here, but that I can share. I share it with friends. I share it with family. I share it on my website.

I share it on social media, and you can too. In fact, it's more important than ever that we share this information, these multiple points of views. As people try to censor unpopular speech, let's explode it. Let's exercise our rights to speak what other people don't want us to say. By doing so, you don't just share news and information.

Oh, no, no, no, no. You're helping to secure the blessings of liberty for all of us.

I've relied on the sanitizing power of povidone iodine for years. COFIX-Rx has harness that power to help cleanse germs, allergens, and viruses in your nasal cavity. You brush your teeth and wash your hands daily. Stay healthy by using COFIX-Rx to wash and cleanse your nose daily. Get COFIX-Rx today.

Go to America Out Loud Shop and click on the COFIX-Rx banner, or type in COFIX-Rx.com forward. slash out loud. Buy now and receive a 20% discount with a 30-day money-back.

Welcome back, Everyday Americans. You've rejoined the Constitution Study. We've been talking about all the madness in the world, and we've spent a lot of time with the repercussions from the Trump assassination attempt. Let's take a look at some other things that we should be keeping in mind.

Recently, Kentucky became the latest state to ban the merchant category code to track firearm businesses. The way it works, at least as I understand it, is whenever you use your credit card, the companies assign a code based on the type of business that you're in. So if you sell clothes or hardware or shoes, that's your merchant code. And the anti-gunners have come up with this great idea that we should have a firearms merchant code. You sell firearms.

Well, part of the problem with that is a lot of places that sell firearms don't just sell firearms. But again, why we focus on the tool? I've been having this discussion with several people lately. You focus on the tool rather than the tool that's operating the tool. By that, I mean the people like the guy that shot Donald Trump.

You focus on the gun rather than on the idiot that was operating it. But states like California and New York mandate identifying any business that sells guns as being a gun shop. So imagine you go into, say, a Dixie sporting goods or some other large sporting goods store. And of course, they have fishing and they've got soccer and basketball and football and track and all of these sports. But they also happen to sell.

shotguns, say, for duck hunting.

Well, not only does Dixie sporting goods get identified as a quote unquote gun store, but every sale made at Dixie is flagged as being a sale from a gun store. See, these codes, they claim these codes are somehow going to make people safer. They do no such thing. They're just there, in my opinion, to simply make it more uncomfortable for people to be a gun store. You don't want to be flagged as a gun store, because then could you be targeted for it?

I mean, it's a lot like California has never failed to keep secret private information on their databases. You know, like when they released the names and addresses of a bunch of concealed carry license holders. Yeah, they've never done something like that. So Kentucky has become the latest in the list to say, no, you cannot use a merchant code.

to identify gun stores. It was HB 357.. It was called the Second Amendment Privacy Act, and it was voted on back in February by the House and the Senate, and then it went into law without the governor's signature. The governor said, I'm not going to sign it, but it basically went into the way it's set up. If you ignore it, he didn't veto it, but he didn't sign it, so it just kind of went into law, and it took effect on, I believe it was July 15th.

And, as I said, those who are promoting this idea, they say, well, you know, these mass murderers racked up thousands of dollars in credit card charges before they carried out their attack. Of course, and again, we also had the, what was it, the View, Joy Behar, that was incredulous, that someone bought a box of ammunition and they weren't investigated for it. 50 rounds, a box. Then again, she knows nothing about guns. But I'm trying to figure out.

is how, if you, basically, if you're saying this, merchant?

is a gun dealer, is a gun shop, how does that identify a potential mass murder? Again, let's say they go into Dick's and they buy, are you sure they're buying guns and ammo, or are they buying, again, sneakers and socks and maybe some jerseys for a local sports team? Again, it's not based in anything scientific. It's an emotional reaction. And to a similar extent, these states that are saying no are making a similar emotional reaction, in my opinion.

But it comes down to, you know, one side says this will curb gun violence, the other side says, how? And we never get to that how.

Again, they spend thousands of dollars on their attacks. over what period of time?

And how do you know what they were spending that money on? How do you know that,

again, the charges here were for weapons or ammunition? You don't. Again, it's meant to, and while it doesn't directly create it, really, the data there couldn't be used to create, say, a gun registry. It certainly could be used to put restrictions on businesses that sell firearms or ammunition or accessories or anything else they want to label as a gun shop.

Again, if you want to deal with gun violence, you start with the people committing the violence and you protect the rights of everybody involved, or you're not doing your job.

Well, let's switch gears. Of course, I've talked a lot about President Trump. Let's talk about President Biden. And of course, Biden has stepped out of the race for president and he's endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, who's been best known for hackling and maybe some inappropriate use of laughter or metaphor.

Do you remember that Kamala Harris was the border czar, that shortly after taking office, Joe Biden said she will be the one leading the dealing with the border?

The same borders are that never. didn't actually go to the border for months and months and months. You know, the borders are that never, apparently, according to the person who held the job from 21 to 23,, never actually talked to the border patrol chief, then Raul Ortiz, never had one conversation.

And that was the border. Is this how the Democratic Party expects Kamala Harris to act as president? Never actually dealing with the people involved, just leave it to the agencies to go off and do whatever they want to do. and, you know, give your speeches and laugh at the wrong things and cackle at these things. You got to remember, this is the woman when she was running for nomination for president in 2020, did not get a single delegate from the Democratic Party, not even from her own state.

You know, this is a situation of. someone would ask me, would I vote for Kamala Harris? Well, let me ask you a question, Ms. Harris. Show me where you fulfilled your oath to support the Constitution when it cost you something.

You certainly weren't there to execute the laws of the United States completely. You and your principal completely ignored the Constitution and laws of the United States when it came to immigration. So if you're not going to do the job when you were vice president and border czar, if you aren't actually going to do the job, why should I expect you to do the job now? I mean, doesn't anybody remember the parable of the talents? You know, you were faithful in many things.

You were faithful in small things. Now let it be faithful in large things. You were faithful with these talents. Now I'm going to have you manage cities for me.

Kamala Harris wasn't faithful as the borders are. Why should we trust her with more?

Why? That's the question I keep asking myself. I want people to ask themselves, why?

Not because of what they said, but what have they done? So far, I can't find an answer that would give me any reason to even consider. Kamala Harris for president. Has nothing to do with Democrat versus Republican. It has to do with a job being done.

And if you're not going to do the job, why would I hire you to do the job?

I mean, after all, if you ran a McDonald's franchise and you hired somebody to be a burger flipper, but they never flipped the burger, you wouldn't really put them in the role of assistant manager or even manager, would you? That's kind of what we're being asked to do. And we really shouldn't be surprised, because who was it that said? the office of vice president wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit? Let's face it, the primary role of the vice president is two things.

One, to break ties in the Senate. And two, to be there in case the president's dead or down, at least incapacitated. And then we take this person, we expect them to either take over the role via an election or, if the president's, incapable.

But we live in this mad, mad world where we pay no attention to what people do.

She's got the position. I mean, Biden said it because she's a black woman. Not because she's any good at it. Now, I want to ask you, if you're getting open heart surgery, do you want the surgeon that went to school, did the study, did the work, did the training, and has become skilled in their craft? Or do you want the person who got the job because they were black?

Now, listen, to me, this is just as bad for black surgeons, because now everyone's going to look at a black surgeon and say, wait a second, are you really good? or did you just get the job because of your color? That's what we've turned so much of our government into. They call it DEI. Really should be DIE.

It's the death of honesty. It's the death of merit. It's the death of integrity. And that's the mad world we live in. Whether you're talking about a secret service director or vice president of the United States, more and more we ask, did you get the job by merit or by politics?

You expect a political appointment. I understand that. But you would think a political appointment would be to the advantage of the candidate. And if the only reason you have the advantage you have is the color of your skin, you don't bring much to the ticket.

But that's where we are. And now, in many ways, that devotion, that slavish devotion to racism, has left the Democratic Party with a candidate they really can't get rid of politically, but they can't survive having.

Again, I try not to prognosticate, but really, if Kamala Harris is the best you can put forward, wow, that really says a lot.

But I keep coming back to a very important fact, and that is we look at these players and we go, how could they do this? Why this? Why that? Well, they did it because at some point, some place, the American people said, that's what we want.

We had Joe Biden because the American people, with the caveat that there were a lot of shenanigans, but the American people, at least millions of American people said, that's who we want for president. We had Donald Trump because millions of Americans said, that's who we want for president. And same with Obama and the same with Bush and the same with Clinton.

We complain and rail, but we seem to always forget that it's a majority of we, the people, that have led to much of the problems we have. Same with Congress. You have Congress playing stupid games. Let's put on these show trials, these show investigations. That's really an opportunity for us to grandstand and play to our constituents, to make it look like we're doing something.

Well, you hired him.

Remember, you did. You hired him. And now you're surprised that they pandered to you, because, well, it worked in the past. We live in a mad world. We live in a world unmoored from an anchor of reality.

And it's in several different locations we see it.

But here's the thing.

I can't remember the poet who wrote the poem, If. It starts with, if you can keep your head about you while all others are losing theirs. And it goes on and on and on in these circumstances. And it closes, and you are a man. indeed.

Here's the question. Are the American people man enough and woman enough to stand up for the truth? The Constitution says such things. We hire people to fulfill them. If they don't do it, we don't want them.

Are we man enough to say, you can bribe us with all your goodies, with all of your loan, forgiveness and your programs and your promises, but we won't take the bait.

We're going to hire states that are going to stop accepting the bribes from Washington, D.C. so that they can be free and make their own decisions based on what their citizens want. Not what the politicians in D.C. want. Are we brave enough to do that?

Because if we wish to be the land of the free, we need to be brave enough to live that way. That means not being dependent on the handout and the goodies from others. It means making our own decisions, living with the consequences, learning from those consequences, and then adjusting our decisions based on what we've learned, our future decisions based on what we've learned from our past. If you wish to survive in a mad, mad, mad, mad world, you have to anchor yourself to something, to truth. Here, at the Constitution Study, we anchor ourselves to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

If you want to join us, we're here every weekday at 4 p.m. Eastern Time on America Out Loud Talk Radio, heard on the iHeartRadio network.

Our shows go to podcasts. The episodes generally take a day or two before they're listed in the podcast, but you can listen in your favorite podcast app. But do me a favor, subscribe to the show. Leave the episode's ratings and reviews, especially on Apple. It helps raise us up in the algorithm so that other people can find the Constitution Study here, find the truth about the Constitution.

You can find all the links you need at the homepage at americaoutloud.news. But this is information worth sharing. It's not enough to just have it, to just see it, but you need to share it. Think about it, if we're talking about a truth anchored in law, anchored in the Constitution, anchored in the protection of your rights, is that not the blessings of liberty we seek? And would not sharing that information be sharing more than just the Constitution Study and America Out Loud?

Would it not be sharing the blessings of liberty?