Congress trying to look like it’s cleaning house

As another election approaches, elected office holders often attempt to try to look like they're doing your business for you. Suddenly, they're concerned about the southern border, illegal voting, and ethics. Does anyone really believe that these politicians have had a change of heart? Or is this just more showboating, attempting to convince the American voter that they're actually doing a good job? 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. I'm glad you could join me today, as we want to look at, well, it looks like a little bit like, well, so it's like that house cleaning, we don't actually clean the house, you just kind of shove all the dirty laundry in the closet, and you know, you pretend you throw the dirty dishes in the oven, and you don't actually deal with anything, you just make things look a little nicer. That's what it seems like, right? It's, I want to take a look at some examples here today, and actually, I want to start off with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Hoof and Mouth Disease.

Now, I'm actually giving her credit, right, because she's been out after Justices Thomas and Alito for a while now. This is nothing new. She's been trying to get them like a dog with a bone. So she finally did something, well, at least constitutional. She filed articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives against Justice Thomas.

Resolved that Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. All right. Okay, so let's, okay, she filed article of impeachment, and I give her some level of credit. These are actual, real articles of impeachment, not the stuff that MTG has been putting out, Marjorie Taylor Greene. These are actual, they look good.

I mean, they look like someone, it was actually written by somebody who knows the law, except, well, a little bit of investigation, they don't know the law. So article one says, the Constitution provides the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, yes, and that all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Okay, stop there for a second. That's absolutely true. So far, so good.

Actually, I want to point out that article three judges only serve during their good behavior, so there's actually an easier bar to impeach a justice, a federal judge or justice, than there is, say, president or vice president, but she's going for the Big Magilla. Continuing on, section 13103 and 13104 of Title V, United States Code requires judicial officers, including associate justices of the Supreme Court, to file annual reports disclosing financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, transactions, and other information. Specifically, 13104a2a of such title requires disclosure of the identity of the source, a brief description, and value of all gifts exceeding minimal value, and section 13104a5a of such title requires disclosure of a brief description, the date, and category of any purchase, sale, or exchange of real property exceeding $1,000.. So I did something really weird. I actually went to the United States Code and looked it up.

Now, sure enough, section 113104a2a says that under gifts and reimbursements, the identity of a source, a brief description of the value of all gifts aggregated more than minimum value as established by section 7342a5 of this title, or $250, whichever is greater, received from any source other than a relative of the reporting individual during the preceding calendar year, except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported, and any gift for the fair market value of $100 or less, and yadda yadda. So this, to me, is the important one. And why do I say that? Because she also refers to 104a5a. Now, 104a5a deals with real property other than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual's spouse.

Now, why do I point that out? Because, keep, actually, keep that in mind, and we'll talk about that in a minute. She goes on in the, in the articles, Clarence Thomas and his conduct as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States engage in high crimes and misdemeanors by refusing to report the source description of value of gifts and by failing to report the description date and category of his sale of real estate property as follows. Okay. Over the last, course, the last 15 years, Justice Thomas and his wife, Virginia, Ginny Thomas, have received gifts of value from Harlan Crowe without reporting the source description and value of such gifts.

All right. Stop. Issue number one. It's the, go back to A2A, and it, with the value of,

it has to be more than $1,000.

. Okay. That's the number we need to be looking for. She goes on to say, throughout such time, Mr. Crowe has served on the Board of Directors of the American Enterprise Institute, which fairly, regularly files amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases in whose position Justice Thomas regularly adopted.

Okay. There's nothing unethical about it.

Amicus, that's saying that Mr. Crowe, or one of the big companies that he serves on, actually had a case before the courts. It's a friend of the court brief. It's another entity offering an opinion. That is not a conflict of interest.

If that was a conflict of interest, everybody, every justice who donated to any organization, that organization, if they were to file an amicus brief in a case, would have to recuse themselves. So this is, this is pylon, right? She goes on to say, the unreported gifts include, but are not limited to, non-commercial transportation on a private airplane and a yacht to and from Indonesia in 2019, that at approximately $500,000.. Non-commercial transportation on a yacht to and around New Zealand in and around 2013.. Non-commercial transportation on a yacht to and around Greece in 2007..

Extensive free lodging and food at Top Ridge Resort in the Adirondacks. I want to stop for a second. Okay. So we have a lot of travel, but remember what it says about the gifts, right? Lodging, except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported.

So she talked, Top Ridge, I don't know what Top Ridge is. It's a resort in the Adirondacks.

It's owned by a company controlled by Mr. Crow. I have to wonder about that one. So it's mostly trips and transportations. And that's what she's complaining about.

And also, and some other things. Okay. Now, here's an interesting question. There are a lot of accusations. There's absolutely no evidence provided.

Now, again, this is an article of impeachment. This is not the actual trial. But I would hope that she would actually have evidence of this. She goes on to talk about a. Justice Thomas failed to disclose a 2014 sale of a single story home and two vacant lots privately held by Justice Thomas and two family members to Mr.

Crow for $133,363, an amount significantly higher than the price of other properties in the neighborhood, and significantly higher than $15,000, the amount Justice Thomas valued his one-third stake in the properties in 2010.

. Okay. I don't know what the comparables are. So she says a significantly higher price than comparable properties, or I should say, other properties in the neighborhood, based on what? This may be true.

This may not be true. But when you talk about this, you should be talking about comparable properties, meaning similar sizes, similar limits in development. I also find it interesting that she goes down to 2010, to say, well, in 2010,, Justice Thomas valued his one-third stake at $15,000, which means the value was about $45,000.. Now, between 2010 and 2014,, what changed? A lot could have changed the property to increase its actual value.

So, again, I'm a little suspicious because it is AOC, but at least these are actual articles of impeachment. She's making actual claims. But hang on to your socks for just a second, because I did a little more research and I looked at the subchapter that this is part of, the financial disclosure requirements of federal personnel. Failure to disclose this information does not appear to be a crime. Now, I'm not an attorney.

I haven't studied the federal law. But if I'm reading this correctly, if I look through the subchapter one, dealing with financial disclosures, there's no mention of crime. There's no mention of punishment. So this is a reporting requirement, but this doesn't necessarily mean it is a crime. So she's claiming this is a high crime or misdemeanor.

Doesn't appear to be a crime. Could it be bad behavior? Yes, it could. Misdemeanor, bad behavior. Absolutely.

Article two complains that he doesn't recuse himself from matters that involve his wife's, his spouse's, financial interests.

She says that Justice Thomas participated in the consideration decision of numerous proceedings concerning entities in which his spouse, Virginia Ginny Thomas, had a financial interest. Okay. Again, doesn't appear to be a crime, because it's not a crime to fail to recuse, for a judge to fail to recuse. But again, does this look bad? Yeah, it actually does kind of look bad.

And not that I expect Mr. Thomas to get a fair trial in the Senate. I don't expect him to be impeached, because I doubt the Republicans would pass these articles of impeachment. I give AOC credit for actually filing, not only filing articles of impeachment, but articles of impeachment that have some semblance of constitutionality, not the high crimes and misdemeanors. she's talking about.

Misdemeanors, possibly. Bad behavior by a judge. Okay. Yeah, possibly. If your wife is financially or legally involved in a company, that's seen before the court, should a judge recuse themselves?

Yeah. Doesn't make it a crime if they don't do so, at least not that I've seen from what I've read in the law. Again, not a lawyer. If someone out there knows a federal statute that says it's a crime for a judge to fail to recuse themselves, but it certainly does look like it could be bad behavior, a misdemeanor in the original sense of the word, which means, yeah, maybe Justice Thomas should be impeached. I know a lot of people that are going to be very upset about that, because Justice Thomas has been on the constitutional side of many cases, not all, but I'd say more than 50, 60%, 75%, maybe.

I've loved reading some of his opinions and some of his dissents. But again, if these allegations have merit, if they are true,

then yeah, maybe Mr. Thomas shouldn't be on the court if he's allowing the legal and financial interests of his wife to cloud his decisions, whether or not he recuses. And the questions of the travel, a reporting issue, not so sure. It's a question of, was he hiding this information? To me, if I were in the Senate and I were to see this, there are certain pieces of evidence I would like to see to show that what Mr.

Thomas did was A, that he did not report what he was supposed to report. And B, was that bad behavior sufficient to be removed from office? Again, her allegations make a good point. I'm sad to say it, because I've been very appreciative of the opinions I've heard from Justice Thomas. But the failure to report is not to me the biggest issue, but to say that.

he's failed to recuse in cases where he, through his wife, have a financial or legal interest. Yeah, those concern me. I really only wish that more members of the House would take as close a look at the actions of other members of the court.

Let's start at the Supreme Court and work our way down. But no, at least here, like I said, it kind of pains me, but yeah, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has a point. And if she can prove these charges, not simply make them, but prove these charges, then maybe there's a cause to remove Justice Thomas.

Okay, I've got a break coming up. So, before I get into something else, let's take a break. Before I go, though, please check out the Patriots Program, constitutionstudy.com slash patriots. I'm putting together a group. It's an invitation-only group where I want us to educate ourselves, to know what the Constitution says, put in place tools of communication that we can avoid the censorship, find out what's going on in other locations, and then have people that are prepared, that are willing to get involved, whether it's offering advice, whether it's showing up at events and rallies, whether it's just getting involved in cases.

I'm not looking for people to leave their existing groups. I want to find patriots that can help others. That's the purpose of this, is to find those people that have really great situations or really great causes and give them the constitutional tools they need without having to depend just on me. I'd like a bunch of people to do this. As I mentioned, this is invitation-only.

The only way to get an invitation is to pass the boot camp. Again, go to constitutionstudy.com slash patriots. Look through the page. See if you're interested. Even if you're not interested in signing up, take the boot camp.

The boot camp is free. It's about a one-hour video. You'll learn a few things. Then, if you pass the boot camp and you're willing to sign the oath, then you'll get an invitation to join us at the Patriots program. Again, that's constitutionstudy.com slash patriots to find out more.

The other thing I know about you, I've been running around lately and you get to the end of the day and I'm post-toasty. My brain is fried. I'm having a hard time focusing on any one task. That's when I reach for Healthy Cells, Focus and Recall vitamins. That's right.

Vitamins. Not caffeine, not sugar, not coffee, not energy drinks.

Vitamins. And they work. In about 15, 20 minutes, my brain is able to focus again. And I don't get the jitters and I don't get the drops afterwards, the crashes. Go to americoutloud.shop and find the Focus and Recall ad to see more about this great product.

It comes in a easy to use, travel ready gel pack. So you can throw them in your briefcase, in your purse, in your backpack and have them when you need them to get the work done. Since you are an America Out Loud listener, if you use the code OUTLOUD at checkout, you can get 25% off your first order from Healthy Cell. Not just Focus and Recall, any of their great products. So please go to americoutloud.shop to find more.

Head to the healthycell.

com website. Once you've decided what you want to try and you go to checkout, be sure to use that code OUTLOUD to get 25% off your first order.

In 2008,, people could spend an average of 12 seconds on a task without becoming distracted. Five years later, it was only 8 seconds. The digital age is narrowing our attention span. Trouble concentrating or recalling information is frustrating, embarrassing and kills productivity. Advanced Nutrition Company, Healthy Cell, created Focus and Recall to boost your brain power.

And, unlike other supplements that don't work, Focus and Recall is not a pill. It's a patent pending gel you swallow. With ultra absorption of science backed ingredients to help you immediately sharpen focus, concentrate longer and strengthen recall. These physician formulated gels come in a small gel pack. Tear off the top, shoot it down.

Thousands of five star reviews proves it works. Supercharge your brain and see the difference. 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. Are you worried about spike proteins and how they may impact your health? Are you looking for help? The Wellness Company has an answer in the form of our clean, pure, all natural spike formula, developed by experts like Dr. Peter McCullough.

The Wellness Company's spike formula includes the incredible natokinase, dandelion root, black sativa extract, green tea and iris sea moss. Even better, the spike formula by the USA. So you know that you can trust and rely on it. if you're concerned about spike proteins. Buying American made naturalistic ingredients of this quality separately costs over $100..

Our spike formula is only $65.

99.

. Get spike formula today by going to twc.health. OUTLOUD. listeners use the code OUTLOUD at checkout for an additional discount. Go to twc.health, promo code OUTLOUD and get peace of mind if you're concerned about spike proteins.

You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands. What about washing your nose? I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe. Air loaded with bacteria, viruses and irritants. Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with Clear.

No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation. Clear is a natural, drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion. Available in stores and online at clear.com. That is X-L-E-A-R dot com.

Welcome back, Everyday American to rejoin the Constitution Study. Today we're looking at Congress as it's trying to look like it's cleaning house. I say trying to look like, because I've been through this before and I don't expect anything to actually come of a lot of this stuff. It seems it's more show than go, but hey, let's see. Maybe something will happen.

For example, a group of senators, believe it or not, a bipartisan, well, sort of bipartisan group of senators, they've proposed a bill that would prohibit members of Congress from trading in the stock market while they hold the office. I say most sort of bipartisan, because there are four senators, one of which, Mr. Josh Hawley, is a Republican. The other three, Jeff Merkel, Gary Peters, John Ossoff, they're Democrats. Doesn't bother me that they're Democrats.

It sounds like it's a good idea. Mr. Ossoff made a statement at a press conference where he said, members of Congress should not be playing the stock market while we legislate and while we have access to confidential and privileged information. This is long overdue. This is necessary.

I agree with Mr. Ossoff. I absolutely do. The idea that Congress is the only place where you can legally participate in insider trading is truly offensive. I mean, it's one of the reasons you see people enter the House and the Senate, and they are, what would you say, of moderate, modest means, right?

Upper middle class. And suddenly they're multimillionaires. That's because Congress, members of Congress, directly and indirectly, they play the stock market, but they also have insider information about laws that will impact the people who, the corporations whose shares are traded on said stock market. So this bill, should it pass, big if, would require lawmakers to divest from any previous stock purchase by 2027.. It would affect lawmakers, the president and vice president, their spouses, and their dependent children, and apply to securities, commodities, futures, and trusts.

Now, Mr. Merkley noted that members of Congress made more than $1 billion from stocks last year. What's interesting is that they're apparently, according to Mr. Merkley, their portfolios consistently get higher than average rates of returns. So it's not simply the amount of money, but they, you know, it's like, was it the Bernie Madoff, right?

Their portfolios, they keep going up, they keep going up. I wonder why.

And so again, I think it's a good idea. And I haven't read the entire of the bill, so I don't know all the details about it, but the general idea is a good one. And I think it should be bipartisan. And I don't mean one lone Republican that's on there. I mean, this should be bipartisan in both houses.

Now, we'll see what happens as it makes its way through the Senate and eventually over to the House and to see what they say about it. But what do you think? Do you think that our representatives should be able to use their position to enrich themselves because they have access to information that other people don't? It is the definition of insider trading, where you trade on information that is not publicly available. And members of Congress have been doing it for decades.

In fact, members of any administration, I believe, have been doing it for decades. But that's, I think, I think it's a good bill. But since we're talking about what happens when it goes to the House, the House has their own bill. I've talked about a bit before, it's called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE Act. And it's passed the House and it amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in elections for federal office.

Now, I have kind of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, yeah, I agree, before you can register to vote, you should have some evidence that you are an actual citizen eligible to vote. The problem is the way Congress is doing it. See, under Article 1, Section 4, the state legislature set the time, place, and manner of voting, although Congress can alter such regulations by law. And so that's okay.

if registration is part of the manner of voting, which to me is a little iffy, right? It's not actually how you vote, it's how you show you're eligible, it's the list of who's eligible to vote. So that's a little weak in my standpoint. But I'm also concerned the way the bill, and if it's worded the way I think it is, they talk about elections for federal offices, because most people don't realize there are only two offices, federal offices, that the people actually vote for. You're a member of the House, and you're a member of the Senate, right?

Granted, there are two senators, but it's one office. I'm talking about, those two offices. The people don't vote for president. But the concern I have is this whole idea that the federal government is in charge of registration from the Biden executive order, turning the executive branch into a registration hustle, we'll call it, to the,

again, the way so many of these are looking to the federal government to fix the voter registration rules. I was listening to an interview with, it was Mac Warner, the secretary of state of the state of West Virginia. And he was talking about, he talked about the executive order that Biden signed and that how it was illegal for him to do so. It was a violation of the constitution. And the thing.

I emailed his office and I asked him, I'm waiting for a reply. He says, hey, I believe you're correct when you say those are unconstitutional. That means those are illegal registrations. Are you, or is your office, or is your office directing the county clerks to refuse to accept these registrations because they are unconstitutional? It's a very simple question.

And it should be a very simple answer. The president doesn't have the authority to register people. Only Congress can change the manner. Now, granted, it's not changing the manner, it's getting involved, but it's also a partisan move. It's, well, let's just say it's obviously partisan.

But the general idea, and I believe this again, I believe it should be done primarily at the state level because legally, this bill only affects registration for votes for House and Senate. The problem is nobody registers for a federal only election. You don't register to vote for House and Senate. You register to vote in the county and district in which you reside. So registration isn't limited to those offices, so that Congress has no legal authority to change the manner in which they are elected.

I know a lot of people said we'll get the feds to do it because then everybody will have to follow. Except no, they don't. because that act is unconstitutional. By the way, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, unconstitutional because Congress is affecting the manner of not just elections for House and Senate, as allowed by Article 1, Section 4, but the manner of voting for state and local elections as well, including electors for president. That's the problem.

We don't know this. We don't understand this. It's one of the reasons why I was at an event this morning and I was talking to somebody about what we did, why I do what we do. And it was really just the ability to educate people so that they understand what their rights are and they understand when government is breaking the rules and they're prepared not just to look at it and say, no, no, no, that's wrong, but they're prepared to defend their position, to assert their rights legally. So when I look at this and everyone goes, it's great, it's great because you don't want illegal aliens voting.

I agree. But are you willing to break the law to get it? Because that's what this bill does.

I've also heard people complaining about it because, oh, there are going to be people who legally should be able to vote but won't be able to because, for some reason, one person called it a poll tax because she didn't think there was a way to get a proof of citizenship without paying some money.

I don't know. Do you have a birth certificate? Did you have to pay to get your birth certificate?

Okay, you paid to get a passport. Did you pay to get a social security number? Have a social security card? I'm sure there are ways of proving citizenship that don't require funding. If not, well, then there'd have to be, because I disagree that it becomes a poll tax, but the constitution does prohibit people from being denied the right to vote by paying any tax, not just a poll tax, any tax.

Technically, I guess a fee is not a tax. It's a questionable argument. They have some small ledge to step on, but boy, it's pretty thin.

Other people say they can't get access to proof of their citizenship. Well, then how are they living here?

I mean, again, when you talk about—I look at things and try to be reasonable and rational. If you need to get a driver's license, you have to prove you live someplace.

There are certain requirements you have to abide by. To me, it's a weak argument. I agree that there may be some extra hoops to go through to exercise a right, but you're talking about protecting the election. You're talking about protecting the republic.

If you're not willing to make sure that people have the legal authority to vote, they have the legal right to vote before they're allowed to vote, then the voting becomes almost meaningless. because now it's not just citizens that are voting. Well, it's a crime for a citizen to not vote. Yeah, and nobody ever commits a crime. It's a crime to kill somebody, but that doesn't stop people.

It's a crime to drive under the influence. It doesn't stop people. It's a crime to lie in court. It's a crime to steal. It's a crime to do a lot of things.

It doesn't stop people from doing it. So everyone that comes out and says, it's already criminal to do that, it doesn't stop them, and that's the problem.

Now, here's the interesting question. There are several people that are saying that there's only one reason why, let's face it, it's mostly Democrats don't want to require proof of citizenship to vote. Now, I'm not willing to say this person's exactly right because I'm not in other people's heads. But yeah, it seems plainly simple, based not only on their rhetoric, but the actions of some of their members in cities and states. They want illegals to vote because they tend to vote Democrat.

Some people say it's because that's what they've come from. This type of corrupt Marxist regime, that's what they're used to. That's what they'll vote for. Some will just look at it and say, hey, look at who's giving us all the goodies. We want to vote for them.

The point is, if you're unwilling to do anything to make sure to help protect our elections, to make sure that they're secure, to make sure that only people who are legally eligible to vote actually vote, and that they only vote once, if you're not willing to do anything,

it's not proof of evil intent, but it sure does smell like it. It sure does act like it. I talked before about this other group, the National Task Force on Election Crises. I pointed out that one of the members is Jim Baker, the Russia hoax. There's 100 Biden laptop.

debacles involved. in both of those. More information is coming up. For example, former Homeland Security security chief Michael Chertoff is part of this group. Yeah, remember, co-author of the Patriot Act, the act that violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments, the one that said that the government can spy on the American people.

It's just fine. We just want to keep you safe.

You have Michael Masterson, former senior cybersecurity advisor to DHS, to the CISA group. that has been all about spying on the American people.

It seems that those, and even more of the people that make up this Task Force on Election Crises seem to have their hands in crises of the past that were used to manipulate and, well, corrupt our elections.

Now, granted, this is not a government entity. They're free to have their own position. They're free to hire whoever they want. The question is, will your government officials listen to these people? And why would they?

Why would they not? Unless, of course, we, the people, actually inform them of the biases of this group. More importantly, let's look at what actions they plan, and let's look at if those plans are biased, if those plans violate the Constitution. Let's go after the plans rather than the people. But it is certainly something I think it's worth keeping an eye on.

Okay, time for another break. I'm talking about a private entity, and whether or not you support them, well, it's really important. But what if you could support companies that actually support the Constitution? Buy from companies that believe what you, and I believe. Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.

They've got the best 4G and 5G coverage on all the same networks, using all the same towers as the major carriers. They've got great customer support, and, best of all, they share your values. They support organizations that are fighting for religious freedom, for your constitutionally protected right, for your right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They also support veterans and first responders. Switch to Patriot Mobile today and get free activation with offer code CONSTITUTION.

Simply go to patriotmobile.

com slash CONSTITUTION. Use the promo code CONSTITUTION. You can find a plan that works well for you, and using that promo code CONSTITUTION, you will get free activation. It's a pretty cool deal. I've been on Patriot Mobile for a while, and I truly love the service, and I love supporting organizations that are fighting for our rights, not against them.

Speaking of fighting for your rights, there's a great way to get some information you can really use. That's going to americaoutloud.news every day. I do to get news information, stuff I can share with you, and stuff I can share with others, and that's the important part. See, it's great. The stories are great.

They've got great articles. They've got the podcasts. They've got videos, but what's really important is that we share this information. If we talk about securing the blessings of liberty, that means we have to exercise the blessings of liberty, and we can't expect other people to know if nobody shares. So do me a favor.

Go to americaoutloud.

news. Find those articles, and the podcasts, and the stories that really move you. Share them with friends. Share them with family. Do all that we can to secure the blessings of liberty.

Expert opinions, honest debate, and in-depth investigations are what you've come to expect from americaoutloud.

news. We don't shy away from speaking the truth boldly and plainly. All that's missing is the propaganda that has infected legacy and social media. Get the best of down-and-dirty, wholesome American speak.

Now is our time, my fellow Americans. America, Out Loud talk, radio. Liberty and justice for all.

Got gastrointestinal issues? We created a three-step, doctor-formulated, completely natural gut reboot system that takes less than two minutes a day to start working for you. Step one, gut detox formula, a gentle way to clean the intestines and balance the body. Step two, nano silver solution, a safe way to restore gut balance and restore your health. Step three, and protect us from pathogens.

Step three, green 85 juice formula, a simple way to replace the 85% of nutrition farmed out of our soil so our body can repair itself and increase energy levels. Go to chemicalfreebody.com forward, slash outloud today, get the Malcolm Healthy Gut Bundle, reboot your gut and your energy, and save 20% on your first order. World-class care from doctors you can trust, all from the comfort of your home. That is One Wellness. Dr.

Peter McCullough and his team at The Wellness Company launched the One Wellness membership to provide free monthly supplements and unlimited telemedicine access with doctors that share your values. The Wellness Company's chief medical board designed every supplement and medical protocol with your health in mind, from groundbreaking supplements like the Spike Support Formula to unique care like Freedom from Big Pharma. Join a healthcare system that puts your health and well-being above the interest of Big Pharma's bottom line. It's the way healthcare should be, with a company that shares your values. Go to outloudcare.com today and use code OUTLOUD for 25% off your first month of One Wellness.

Welcome back, Everyday Americans. You've rejoined the Constitution Study. Today, well, we've been looking primarily at Congress, making it look like they're cleaning house, you know, not really cleaning up the house, but sweeping the dirt under the rug, throwing the dirty laundry in the closet, the dirty dishes in the oven, to make it look like they're cleaning things up when, they're not really. But I got a couple other articles, a couple of news events I want to talk to you about. One is the latest judge to, well, smack the Biden administration when it relates to the Title IX.

Title IX is the, references, the federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sex, which the Biden administration has tried to rewrite to say it's based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This is not a third or fourth judge that has done this. What's interesting in this one is this judge from the Southern District of, where is he? Southern District of Mississippi, I believe.

Judge Louie Gorilla Jr. claims that his injunction to prevent Biden, the Biden administration, from putting into place the new rule to rewrite the law, would apply nationwide.

Now, on the one hand, hey, I love judges that look at the law, says the law says this, and you yahoos in government can't simply make it say something else, because that's what you want. He did point to the court's recent decision regarding Chevron deference as a strong precedent in his decision, but he has no legal authority to enforce an injunction outside of the parties involved.

He doesn't have, I guess the biggest issue is, well, he's enjoining the Biden administration, but there's nothing in the law of the United States, I'm aware of, that gives a district judge the authority to have a nationwide injunction.

They cover a district. That's the of their authority, is that district. But again, not surprised we don't pay much attention to the Constitution nowadays anyway. But it's the good news, bad news, right? Good news, another judge can actually read the law.

The bad news is he went far, he went beyond the law when he claimed it was a nationwide injunction.

I don't see the, again, the Constitution says that Congress gets to create the inferior courts, of which the district court is one of them, and they get to set their jurisdiction. And I believe Congress said, here's your district, you can take cases that apply to this district, not the entire nation. The next one, again, we're dealing with the Biden administration, this time it's the Interior Department, which basically said, yeah, we're going to take about 20-some-odd, 28 million acres of land, and we're simply going to say, yeah, no more drilling, no more oil, no more gas, no more mining activity. You know. what no one says, though, is this land wasn't legally acquired by the United States.

See, Congress can write laws for a land purchased from the states with the authorization of the state legislature. Alaska wasn't purchased from the states, Alaska was purchased from another country. Now, okay, this is the, I guess, maybe you come under the treaty clause, right? There was a treaty between the US and Russia that involved money for the acquisition of land. But again, Congress doesn't have the authority to write general legislation for that land.

Again, as someone tried to remind me on one of the comments, I say try to, because he made the statement, but he, well, let's just say he missed the mark. Words matter.

And the words of the Constitution matter. And if you go to Article 1, Section 8, I believe it's Clause 18, no, sorry, 17.. This is, Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the district not exceeding 10 miles square, as made by the cessation of particular states, and the exceptions of Congress become the seat of the government of the United States and exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. In other words, Congress's ability to general legislation is limited to the District of Columbia and the land has been purchased from the states for forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards, and other needful buildings. In fact, the acquisition of land by the federal government is nowhere authorized by the Constitution of the United States.

So Alaska,

the whole thing, in fact, with most of the Western states, is the acquisition of land, I believe, in violation of the Constitution. But then it also involves the,

well, it's not quite extortion. Well, I guess maybe it is. Congress said, listen, if you want to become a state, you have to turn over all the public land to us to be disposed of, except they never disposed of it. So there's the other rub I have. And when I see all this land, what do I see?

I see the federal government taking vast tracts of land within a state, not by purchase, but by, again, effectively extortion, and then using it to promote their political agenda.

You see, the Alaskan territory should be, what happens to it, should be decided by the people of Alaska, not by a couple of bureaucrats in Washington, D.

C. That's the big problem. You see, it's not a question of what the people of Alaska want. It's what the bureaucrats want. And this is true in many of the Western states, because vast tracts of the Western states, sometimes 70, 80% of the land is actually owned by the federal government, because they promised to dispose of it, and then they never did.

So we end up with this, again, government control via the abuse of their power. Again, Alaska was acquired by a treaty.

I don't believe it was quite constitutional, but that at least, I believe, could be argued. But again, the fact that to become a state, basically the states had to allow the federal government to control vast tracts of their land,

again, it's about as close to a protection racket as I can think of when it comes to the Constitution and the people of states.

Now, another place where, again, the will of people, the will of Alaskans, is ignored because the bureaucrats think they know better. Well, this is happening also in Northern Virginia, only it's not the federal government, it's the school board. See, the Fairfax County School Board voted unanimously to approve changes to their educational curriculum to include, to broaden examples of family structures to be more inclusive of the many families in our schools. However, it appears the overwhelming majority of parents in the district, of community members in the district, don't support these lessons, don't support exposing young children to such issues as of sexuality and what they refer to as a gender identity. And that's kind of the point to me.

You see, I see people complaining that the school board is ignoring the will of the people. But I have to ask, how many of the people ran for school board?

I agree, it's a problem when the school boards aren't listening to the people. But let's face it, the school board, I'm pretty sure the school board in Fairfax County was elected by the people of Fairfax County. And the question is, where were you when they were choosing those school board members?

I'll continue to keep driving this point home as we approach the 2024 election. See, a lot of people focus on who can vote and how many people vote. I think that's focusing in the wrong place. We should be focusing on. how do people determine who to vote for.

I'm not saying you should choose who I choose. I'm curious in how you decide, what is your focus?

Because apparently the people of Fairfax County, when it came time to vote for the county school board, the board members' fidelity to the input of the people, the will of the people, wasn't high on their list.

Maybe they were more interested in what people said, or maybe they just didn't care. Maybe they were just glad that somebody would take the seat. But this is the direct consequence of either a lack of involvement or vetting via a standard other than what people do.

And whether it's apathy or a questionable method for determining who to vote for, these are the consequences. That's the bad news. The good news is this is a county school board. I don't know what the vote for a school board member is in Fairfax County. But I bet it's really very small.

There aren't millions of people voting in the school board, would be my guess. Thousands, maybe only hundreds of people, hardly showed up to vote for a school board member. Think about that for a second. Possibly only a few hundred people actually voted for each of these school board members. If that's the case, are the people of Fairfax County going to invest their time, their fortune, their sacred honor, in representing on a school board?

It's funny. I've thought about it. Now, again, my child isn't in school. We were never in public schools.

But I certainly considered it.

School board, let's be involved. Wouldn't it be interesting, imagine if I were on our county school board, looking at things from a constitutional standpoint? I don't know.

To me, it's certainly something worth thinking about. What are the children in my county being taught? I'm pretty sure they're not being taught the Constitution, because I can't get a member of the school district to return a call when it comes to volunteering to teach the Constitution on Constitution Day. But no sense crying over spilled milk.

But I want to bring this back to the beginning. See, Congress is trying to look like they're doing something. Now, they may be sincere in their desire to move forward. I believe that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is sincere about wanting to get rid of Justice Thomas.

I don't think it's so much about his financial records or whether or not he recuses. I think she's much more interested in getting rid of him because of the way he votes on the.

court. At least, that's what it appears like, because she usually complains after he votes away, she doesn't like. But at least she's sincere.

I love the idea of getting members of Congress out of the stock market.

But is this all show and no go?

Same with the idea, again, keeping illegal aliens out of the voter rolls. Great. It's not Congress's job.

In fact, I believe it's a violation of the Constitution for them to do so.

As we approach the actual election, more and more we're going to see politicians do what politicians do, namely to look good, namely to show off, to get people to vote for them. Sadly, if history is any lesson, as soon as they win election, they're going to go right back to what they've always done. It's one of the reasons why I don't vote for people based on what they say. I vote on what they do, and I look closely at what they do. What they do is very, very important, especially at the county level.

I focus much more on my county mayor, the county sheriff, the county council members than I do on president. Why? I have almost no influence on who is president. Even this radio program, I have a fairly small influence on who the president's actually going to be. I can't make a difference here in my county.

I'm working on ways to make more of an impact here in my county. What are you doing in yours?

See, it's one thing to let Congress sweep dirt under the rug. It's another thing to be the parent and come in and say, no, you've got to clean it up. You've actually got to do the dishes. You've got to clean your laundry. You've got to sweep up.

You've got to make your bed. I don't care if you don't like it. It's the job. You've got to do it. And, as the actual sovereign in this country, as the people who have the power, whose consent is required for the government to be legitimate, it's up to us to hold our representatives, our employees, accountable, because what they do, they do in our name.

If you look up the record of your member of the House, the Senate, of your governor,

your state legislature, your county boards, if you looked up their record and you're embarrassed by what they've done, what are you doing to change? Either change what they do or to change who does it. Sadly, the vast majority of the people listening right now, what they're going to do is nothing.

The good news is, it doesn't take the vast majority to make a difference. It takes a small minority with a passion to follow the Constitution, to do what is right, to get others to join in and make a difference.

And believe it or not, I know people don't believe when I say it, but once you learn what the Constitution says, once you learn what it means to be free, it changes your life. It changes the way you look at things. And it's a change, from my standpoint, much to the better. Which is why I hope you come here and join us for the Constitution study every weekday at 4 p.m. Eastern time on America.

Out Loud Talk Radio, heard on the iHeartRadio network. You can also listen via podcast. Listen with your favorite podcast app, but do me a favor, subscribe to the show. Subscribe to the podcast. Leave the episode's ratings and reviews.

It helps raise us up in the algorithm, so more people hear, more people know, and more people can get involved. You can find all the links you need at the homepage at americoutloud.news. But I'm going to ask you to do one more thing. So yes, I want you to subscribe to the show. I want you to leave us ratings and reviews, especially on Apple.

I want you to share the links. Share the links to the episode. Share the links to the show page. Share the links so that people can see that the blessings of liberty are still available, if we will exercise them. We were taught as children to share.

Well, here's something worth sharing. It's not the Constitution study, ladies and gentlemen. It's not just the Constitution study. It's sharing the blessings of liberty for others to enjoy that will save our future.