SCOTUS rulings are significant wins for the constitution

Unknown Speaker 0:00

Be advised, you are now entering a work free zone, a place where facts always trump fiction. And truth always prevails. Here we destroy the liberals, the left and the Democrats at home, online and in political office, whining, screaming lashing out or tantrums will not be tolerated. Welcome to the last gay conservative podcast. Here's your host, the beacon of truth, your binary brother, the holiest tomo, the leader of the gay world. He may not be straight, but he's straight to the point. Ladies and gentlemen, your host Chad.

Unknown Speaker 0:52

Yeah, hello, everybody and let's go, Brandon, welcome to another episode of The Last gay conservative. It's me Chad law, your host, the holiest homo. They are binary brother, freed from the shackles of liberal stereotypes and discrimination. Super excited to be here today. We've got a lot to cover. As I mentioned in the last episode, I was really sick, and a lot went by. But I want to focus on some of the most important things that I actually think a lot of people aren't aware of which we had three very, very big wins for the United States Constitution. And through the Supreme Court, obviously, you guys know Roe v. Wade, which we'll talk about a little bit, but we're not going to talk about Roe v. Wade, what everyone's hysterical about, I really want to focus on the constitutionality and the legalities of this Supreme Court ruling. We have the gun law ruling from the Supreme Court against the state of New York. And they just ruled federal agencies like the EPA, and the CDC, for example, may not interfere and meddle in states business. In other words, the EPA was going after states that weren't following Biden's environmental steps that he's taking to Greenify. All of this, I call it green washing. So the states aren't following the green washing, they still have coal, they still have the fossil fuels or whatever. So they're getting dinged. And states that rely on those resources are like, wait a minute, the we're in charge here, not you, you don't get to come in as an agency, who's never been confirmed. Now doesn't have any congressional oversight, is 100% linked to the executive branch with zero inclusivity of democracy? I guarantee you I don't know the leader of the EPA, I don't know the leader of the CDC without looking it up. I don't know the leader of the NIH. Well, we know it's Fauci. But

Unknown Speaker 3:11

my point being is that we continue to allow federal overreach, which is one of the main reasons why people like me, and people in the media in the same form that I'm in, really see this socialist agenda. Because federal 100% federal control is socialism. And that is the direction that we're going. Like I say, that is the pain that we're feeling. That's what's happening. The Supreme Court had a lot to say about it. So I want to go through, I want to read the rulings, I want to give you my take on the rulings and talk a little bit about what it means for the Constitution. And the legality of it, hopefully, will be a nice change from you seeing either one extreme or the other, pro life and pro choice yelling and screaming at each other without any knowledge of what this Roe v Wade decision actually means, as it pertains to their rights, our rights, states rights, and basically the right to govern at the local or within localities or community levels. That has been systematically stripped away from us, every single year, every single moment by Democrats in order to create this federal dependency. I mean, if you can't see it by now, I don't think you're ever going to see it, but it's wide open. It's right there for all of us to see. And with the addition of more and more and more sort of executive agencies or agencies that roll up to the executive branch that don't require any congressional confirmation, any background check, any anything really, the president can just stick someone there Obama was the key of this

Unknown Speaker 5:00

And so as you see these agencies pop up more and more with everyone, the state, the community that you live in the locality, the county, whatever it is, gets more and more control stripped away. The other part of it is that those federal agencies control huge millions, if not billion dollar budgets, in which they control the distribution to the states, which they use as a control tactic to get the states to do what they want to do. It's ridiculous. It's opposite of democracy. And basically, what it's created is this little sort of board around the executive branch, I don't mean the cabinet. I mean, this sort of Board of agencies around the executive branch that has more control than our Congress in some areas. So we're gonna go through that today. I hope all of you guys have had a great week, we're still broadcasting from Las Vegas. And hopefully, we'll be able to continue to do so until some of these meetings are wrapped up. Quick, funny story, I got a text message from my dad, yesterday or the day before yesterday, just checking in saying, hey, love you miss you. When are you going to be back? You know, because I need to be back. But

Unknown Speaker 6:26

he said that, and, you know, I am very bad at responding on my phone. Anyone who knows me knows that. So 24 basically, 24 hours later, I responded, and they said, Oh, Miss you, love you too. hope everything's well. Excited to get out of here, basically. Because you know, Vegas is cool, but it's, you don't want to be here forever.

Unknown Speaker 6:47

Unless, you know, you're really established and have a beautiful home and all of that. But anyways, I digress. So I got this text message from him. Right. And

Unknown Speaker 6:59

you know, he's in his 60s.

Unknown Speaker 7:03

He might be pushing 70 By now I don't, I don't remember. But I get this text message. And he writes me back. And he's like, would love to see you with all these freakin pink heart emojis. And I'm just like, What is going on now? We know as men get older, their testosterone level drops. My dad was pretty strict and pretty intense growing up. And now he can't even watch Bridge over the River Kwai without crying. So he's gone totally soft in his old age. And and I think that's kind of what happens to most men. So I see these pink emojis. And then like, there's one of two things happening. One, he's really lost it and just has no testosterone left, like, who's the gay one, me or him? Or my mother has stolen his phone? And is texting. So I write back and I go, Are you seriously using heart emojis? Who's the gay one now? Or is this mom on your phone? And so

Unknown Speaker 8:08

all of a sudden, it just goes dead quiet. And I get a text message a little bit later. And it just says, I'm very tech savvy. Now. It's like, no busted.

Unknown Speaker 8:18

Man. Oh mighty. So funny. Having older parents now. You know, you grow up with your grandparents. And you think, Oh, God, my parents will never get that old. I'll never get this old. And then you just wake up one day and you're like, Okay, I've got parents that are older. But like I always say this is the best age for parents and kids because you have the maturity level to be good friends with your parents, without any of the added sort of stress or drama. And furthermore, you get to sort of connect on a different level, you know, and learn from them and hear stories and all of those things. I don't want to paint it like my parents are elderly, because they're so not I mean, you me, you watch Grayson, Frankie, and they're in their 70s I think Jane Fonda is in her 80s now, but I don't know about Lily Tomlin. Anyways, I'm getting off track here. So just thought I'd share a little texting information to you how I communicate with my parents is pretty, pretty funny. Heart emojis. I just it's so funny I never in my life would have ever expected and I still am not convinced that it was him. But I never in my life would have ever expected my dad texting me heart emojis. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 9:51

We were lucky to get any emoji

Unknown Speaker 9:56

was actually way before emojis but it was you know one word answers

Unknown Speaker 10:00

Learn a little bit more Kurt. Now, it's very sensitive. So

Unknown Speaker 10:07

it's funny. Good news is is that sensitive is he is nowadays, he hasn't lost his political sense and understanding what's best for the country, sends me articles on a daily basis to pull from and superduper appreciate it. And it's always fun to have family that that cheer leads you on regardless of how busy or whatever's going on in their lives or, or our lives. So let's talk a little bit about the Supreme Court decision, shall we? It's, it's been a win. You all know, I love to use the word hattrick. The constitution has won three times. Back to back to back, all the way from the Supreme Court justices that Trump appointed and all the drama we went through with Brett Kavanaugh, the attempted drama we went through with Amy Comey, Barrett, the idiotic media, who has no other goal but then to politicize the Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS, as they like to call it,

Unknown Speaker 11:18

their whole goal is to politicize it. So they become an enemy, just like your congressman,

Unknown Speaker 11:26

or the president that you don't agree with when really, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political arm of government. I assume you agree with me it is critical for Americans to have confidence in the Supreme Court. Is that true?

Unknown Speaker 11:43

That is true. And I agree with your earlier statement that the courts should not be politicized. The Supreme Court is merely there to interpret the Constitution and measure the Constitution itself against legislation or laws, or things that have been challenged as unconstitutional. So although it's difficult, sometimes with their decisions on each side, we have to understand that they are coming together in order to defend the Constitution, not personal beliefs. So when people are out, picketing in front of their homes or threatening them, and you know, Justices having to go underground, essentially for for safety. That is a big problem. And it's a problem that the media created. It. This is not a political Supreme Court as like they like to call it days Supreme Court, the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it has already recognized.

Unknown Speaker 12:55

It didn't limit it. They simply took it away.

Unknown Speaker 13:00

That's never been done to write so important to so many Americans. There's no point in saying good morning, because it certainly is not one.

Unknown Speaker 13:09

This morning, the radical Supreme Court is eviscerating American rights and endangering there's health and safety.

Unknown Speaker 13:17

But the Congress will continue to act to overcome this extremism, extremism and protect the American people. That's why just in the last two weeks, I signed a sweeping package of bills, not just the money we allocated, but also said we're going to protect and give immunity to abortion providers here in the state of New York. I've warned about how this decision risks, the broader right to privacy for everyone. Actually, I would argue that this Court is less political. I mean, just in the election of 2020. They refuse to hear anything around election fraud, election issues, you know, Dominion machines, and all of that. They refused all of that, because it's really not something that you can compare or or set against the Constitution. It's 100% political, there's no constitutionality involved, according to them. So this whole concept or notion that Trump and Trump errs, have the Supreme Court in their pocket, and that we are rolling out this psycho conservative agenda to take rights away is ludicrous because I believe this Supreme Court actually has a nice variety of different backgrounds, etc. It'll it'll be interesting to see this, Kenji. I don't know what a woman is. Supreme Court justice. It'll see how she falls into the fold. But again, liberals have a tendency to forget the Constitution as there are only apply what they like or what they don't like, which is going to be interesting to see how that works with this. With this new

Unknown Speaker 15:00

Justice. Anyhow. All right. So let's get into New York, shall we? Alright, so at the end of June, June 23, the Associated Press reads in a major expansion of gun rights after a series of mass shootings, the Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans have the right to carry firearms in public for self defense, ruling likely to lead to more people legally armed, the decision came out as Congress and states debate gun control legislation. That's right. So again, the way this happened was in New York, they tried or were trying to pass all of these anti Second Amendment laws. Basically, what they were doing is what they accused the right of doing all of the time, especially like when it pertains to abortion. The left argument always is, well, you're not making it illegal, but you're making it so difficult with your legislation that it basically will be virtually impossible for someone to get an abortion now, whether whether that's true or not, I'm not going to go there, I don't know. But what I will say is, this is what's happening with gun laws in our progressive states, is that they want to take away concealed carry, they want to take away various types of guns, they want to take away certain amounts of bullets that can be loaded into magazines, and they want additional background checks, even though go through federal background checks. They want medical information lined up. And this is all just the basic stuff that came up in Congress discussions. I'm not saying they want all this as a conspiracy. This is exactly what was spoken about on the floor of our Congress, House and Senate. So under the guise of gun safety,

Unknown Speaker 16:48

this case goes to the Supreme Court. And basically, the decision struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry a gun in concealed ways and public. The justices said the requirement violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That is it again, a win for the Constitution. Why is that a win for the Constitution? Because the Second Amendment is absolute. It's not, oh, right to bear arms. But or you can be armed with this, but you can't be armed with that. That's not the Second Amendment. The second amendment.

Unknown Speaker 17:38

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To ensure the balance of power remains in the hands of the people. The framers of the Second Amendment crafted 27 words

Unknown Speaker 18:00

in one sentence,

Unknown Speaker 18:03

to succinctly and definitively

Unknown Speaker 18:06

protect our freedoms from controlling political groups

Unknown Speaker 18:12

that, you know, and for Biden to sit there and say, Oh, well, you know, when the Second Amendment came about, it wasn't made for everyone to have any you couldn't buy a cannon? Well, first of all, I know you were a teenager during the Revolutionary War. But if you had money in those times, you absolutely could have a cannon, no problem. It was not regulated. There's nothing in any historical

Unknown Speaker 18:38

research data, just journals, writings, anything that says pertaining to the Second Amendment, that's there's limitations. There's not people might not have a need for a cannon, just like people might not have a need for an AR and they just want to use a, you know, short barrel, shotgun pump action, shotgun for home protection. But the crazy thing is, is that they're deciding for us. And so Justice Clarence Thomas, he wrote the majority and he says that the Constitution protects, quote, an individual's right to carry a handgun for self defense outside of the home, unquote. That right is not a quote, second class. Right. He also said, we know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need again, that's true. Why do we have to prove our ability to carry to them especially when it has to do with personal information? You know, the background checks, great, make sure someone's not a rapist or a murderer or, you know, felon, but I mean, for them to try to eliminate someone's ability to get a killed sealed carry permit. And let me tell you, I have one in Nevada and I have one in California. And California was so

Unknown Speaker 20:00

difficult, they wanted pictures, videos, all kinds of stuff. And in we had boats. So it was easy for us to say that we're bringing the boats in at night there's shady people on the dock, which is true, but it's not. It's not necessary to be able to conceal, how's this, go to a class, register, register the weapon that you're going to conceal. And that's it, put it online and it's done. You know, it just is crazy. Now where it's interesting is California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have similar to New York's laws. And those laws are going to be changed quickly. It's going to be very interesting to see how Newsom Chairman Newsom, has the People's Republic of California adjust to these laws. I think he's just going to ignore it. I think he's going to ignore it. I think he's going to get sued over and over again, the Supreme Court's not going to take it. And he's going to do what Democrats do, which is just ignore, ignore, ignore and then try to pass it through their huge majority legislation. The New York Governor Kathy Hutsul, who's an absolute psychopath says the ruling came at a particular painful time with New York mourning the deaths of 10 people in a shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo. This decision isn't just reckless. It's reprehensible. It's not what New Yorkers want. She said, Well, first of all, where's the polling data? Where's the information? And when we think of New York, everyone always thinks of Manhattan? Sure, maybe people in Manhattan agree. But there's a whole other state, there's farmland, there's agriculture, there's cities, there are on the rougher side, you know, what about that? What about police officers that are retired, that might be targets? I mean, it the argument can go on forever. But the bottom line is this, the Supreme Court has spoken. The second amendment is absolute, which I've said forever. And every time things get screwy, it's because we apply our own adaptation of the Constitution. It's very, very clear. You, me and the country has a God given right to bear and keep arms. And you know what, more and more and more people are taking advantage of that, right? Because the writing's on the wall here, guns are either going to get taken away, which that's what the Liberals want to disarm us, or the military, or the federal officers are going to get involved getting in getting more involved in our gun ownership, I should say, it goes on to say the lawful and legal gun owner of New York State is no longer going to be persecuted by laws that have nothing to do with the safety of people and will do nothing to make the people safer. He said, and maybe now we'll start going after criminals and perpetrators of these heinous acts. Again, why make it about the gun? When it's your stupid criminal laws that have destroyed your state? Yeah, you're mourning the deaths of 10 people in the grocery store. And I don't want to undermine that. I don't want to make it seem like I don't care or have empathy, because I really do. It was a terrible tragedy, just pure evil. But what about the 1000s of people that are murdered on a regular basis in New York? What about all the gun violence, the gangs? What about the DA is sort of approach to catch and release that has increased your crime rate significantly? Don't you want to take care of that before you take care of the other? Does it make sense to ban something before you have the right policies in place to make that impactful? It wouldn't be impactful. You know, it's very interesting to see this case, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association going after the student New York. And, you know, people say, Oh, well, like in this AP article, for example, it says the court's decision is somewhat out of step with public opinion, about half of voters in the 2020 presidential elections that gun laws in the United States should be more strict. According to the AAP vote cast, an expansive survey of the electorate, an additional one thirds of that laws should be kept as they are. Well, about one intends that gun laws should be less strict. Okay, the vote cast is not not super reliable. But we can say that half about half of the voters like it says in the 2020 presidential elections that gun laws in the US should be made more strict. Well, let me tell you this, let's repol that even after Uvalde because people see the writing on the wall, people see the direction this government is going to get involved and overreach into our personal lives, which is why people are just running in droves to the gun stores. Everything's out of stock. It's absolutely insane. So

Unknown Speaker 25:01

for them to justify this by saying people want stricter gun laws and the stricter gun laws that they're referring to, are things that are basic, basically additions to what we already have. They talk about expanded background checks. Okay. I think most Americans are okay with that. You know, I think most Americans are okay, with expanded background checks. I also think most Americans are okay with the additional, maybe some additional safety regulations, it doesn't matter. But these polls don't tell the full story. People want to be safe. And guns provide that for people. And about 50%, which, by the way, is under 50% is not in step with America or Americans. Okay, because there's another 50%. So they're gonna make it all about mass shootings, and, you know, and guns and the whole thing, but really, it's not about that. And it's the same with Roe v. Wade. There's nothing about this. That's political. The Democrats have made this political, they have made this political so they can be victims, they can use the victims of these horrible crimes, for political purposes and sound bites. And they're using they're trying to turn the supreme court against the American people see, they attack every single arm, right? They go after the conservatives in Congress, harass them go after their homes, etc. They do the same thing with the President.

Unknown Speaker 26:45

Not right now. But when Trump was in office, do you remember it was just psycho, psycho, psycho, psycho, psycho psycho all the time, every day all day antiTrump. And now, they're pulling the same crap with the Supreme Court.

Unknown Speaker 27:01

And personally, I think that it's disgusting, that we can't respect or try to understand the Supreme Court's position, their job is to weigh something against the Constitution. It's no different than waiting test results in the university. You know, everybody gets a C, then you create the standard as the C being the highest, and it goes down from there.

Unknown Speaker 27:36

They don't get to that say, Well,

Unknown Speaker 27:40

I don't know, I feel like the Second Amendment is no, they get to read the Second Amendment, they get to look for any cracks or holes that would allow for interpretation. If they find those, then they have to research whether or not those should be used, or not to push for Word or ban certain legislation. Or, like in the concept of the Second Amendment. There.

Unknown Speaker 28:12

There is no loophole, no fact, no hiding? No nothing. It cannot be misinterpreted. The second amendment, in my opinion, is probably the most clear amendment possible. You know, you've got these First Amendment issues that they're not issues we believe we understand we know. But the left likes to use them. Like the big thing that they love to say is Oh, I'm all for free speech. But you can't yell fire in a movie theater and expect to get away with it. Like, yeah, you can that is your right. It's your right to say whatever you want. However, with action, or words, come consequences. We have to be the ones to self govern ourselves against the Constitution. And if not, we go to jail, or we suffer or whatever it might be. But it's up to us. It's not up to the liberals. And you know what, I know them so well, by now. It just

Unknown Speaker 29:13

it's so funny. And the reason why I know them so well. And how it pertains to this is because we didn't hear anything about this. Why didn't we hear anything about this? Well, a it's not a high emotion issue. Low intelligence, high emotion, it's pretty cut and dry. And be there's absolutely no argument for the other side. None.

Unknown Speaker 29:38

Because, again, the benchmark is the constitution. It's not the laws in California or Maryland or Florida or whatever. It's not precedent. It's not other rulings. It's certainly not the court of public opinion. So what is it?

Unknown Speaker 29:57

The constitution so it's a bit

Unknown Speaker 30:00

Big win. I mean a big win for the Constitution. And it's very, very interesting to see. Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts noted limits of the decision states can still require people to get a license to carry a gun Kavanaugh wrote and condition that license on fingerprinting, a background check, mental health records check and training and firearms handling and in laws regarding use of force among

Unknown Speaker 30:29

other possible requirements. So again, big conservative Kavanaugh, you know, Mr. hateful, white supremacist, whatever they like to call him, puts in notes, this decision still can be applied Well, next to some of the state legal regulations, fingerprinting background check mental health records check, which I'm totally in disagreement for. Because what is mental health? Right? It's you take one antidepressant, I think that's everyone in the world. You take one antidepressant and you have a mental health issue, who's setting the standards of whether or not mental health but anyways, training, fingerprints, background checks, all of those things are still good.

Unknown Speaker 31:16

Again, all of these people say, Oh, these laws would lead to more guns on the streets and more violent crimes. Never ever in history, has gun ownership numbers corresponded with violent crime, never. There are more gun owners now than there ever have been in history. And secondly, from Biden's administration, and all these George Soros backed DJs. But second from that murder, and gun rates were not high after the mid 90s. And you'll see that most states, when you look at the criminal statistics had their highest problems in the 90s when gun gun violence and gangs were rampant.

Unknown Speaker 32:07

And we've been able to control that. Have we controlled that by limiting gun ownership? Absolutely not. There's no correlation. They say, Oh, more guns means more violence. Where are the facts here? Because there's currently more guns in this country than there ever has been before? Is there more violence? Yeah, but it has nothing to do with guns. Everyone knows that. Because just before Biden, we didn't have this issue. The gun violence increased after supported by the executive branch DBAs. And State's Attorneys decided that they weren't going to prosecute for a lot of crime. And they were going to not arrest people just bring them in, let them go for gun crimes. So it's not about how many guns are there. It's about how the left and how these progressive cities and states are enforcing the existing laws and they're not. And when they're not being enforced, and encourages people to then use them and be more violent. And we have to remember in 2010, you know, the Supreme Court ruled that you could keep a gun at home for self defense, again, before this white power SCOTUS that they're all talking about on Twitter.

Unknown Speaker 33:27

You know, before all the histrionics it's important to remember that in 2010, was the last sort of major gun decision. And the justices established like a nationwide, okay, or green light for people to keep guns for self defense in the home. In that opinion, Justice Thomas, who actually is 74 now wrote, in his opinion, that quote, nothing in the Second Amendment's text draws a home slash public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Exactly. There is no adaptation, and it's the preme Supreme Court's job to follow that. So big win for the Constitution there, it'll be interesting to see these progressive states starting to roll back their laws, and how much fighting screaming and crying will be, but again, we're not hearing a lot about it, because it's pretty much not arguable, you know, the argument that they have is, well, you know, the mass shootings and this and this, but they've never been able to come up with gun ownership numbers as it pertains to mass shootings, gun violence, murder, etc. They've also not been able to correlate responsible gun owners that are not criminals, and murder, crime in general. It actually goes down, the more people carry so that's why we're not hearing about it. That's why they're focusing on Roe v. Wade, but it'll be interesting

Unknown Speaker 35:00

To see what happens with these gun laws, so yeah, a big win for the Constitution. Moving on, we have Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade. Again, it's a touchy subject. And I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I do not have a major hat in the ring here. Okay, I lean towards being pro life. But I also do truly understand from my experience, and my background, where some some of these women, why they're so passionate about pro choice I do, I really do understand where they're coming from. I don't understand the reactions. But I think that's just a small group. Anyways, Roe v. Wade, a big win for pro life groups, but even bigger win for our Constitution. See, what most people don't understand about Roe v. Wade, is that Roe v. Wade is not an issue of whether or not someone can have an abortion. It's not, it never has been. It was and always is about the states and the right to privacy, and how those things where abortion fits into the puzzle, the right of the states, the right to privacy, and medical procedure, or, in this case, an abortion. In this case, you have a sweeping ruling or law that completely undermines states and states rights and community. And anything like Roe v. Wade, where it encourages federal oversight, federal involvement and federal requirements for people in different states. It's that's a problem. Regardless, it's a big problem. Because we as Americans have the right to live in areas that we align with. You know, I talk about this all the time, it's like the the Constitution is there to empower the states and the individual states constitutions, which should trickle down to counties and cities and localities that then can be governed by or in a democratic format, but in a more local way. So it represents the community itself. If you want to visualize the overall hierarchy, you have to start with smaller subdivisions, townships, school districts, cities, counties, and regional councils. On top of these comes the State Capitol, the big Dawgs in Washington DC, each level in this great American log pile has the power to draft legislation. And most of the time, the higher you go, the more authority you have. But that doesn't necessarily mean the people up here are in charge. You see, our nation has a long tradition of local governance. And as a result, the real world collaboration between Washington and the states is more of a rolling sporadic collaboration in which both sides at least in theory, try to be mindful of their respective spheres of influence, will road and do that. And in this country, there are communities that are significantly pro life and don't believe in abortion, and don't want it around. And you know what, that's okay. Because majority rules, democracy rules. And if the majority wants to live in a community where access to abortion is not available, based on the community beliefs, that is 100%, their constitutional right. It's also a constitutional right for people to move, or try to educate that community in a way that maybe helps your case. But ultimately, we've gone away from communities. You know, it's basically a very mini version of globalism, where I don't want to say nationalism, because nationalism is very, very important. But I guess what I'm trying to say is, we have downplayed and watered down the importance of community, community elections or kind of nothing, very, very low turnout, you know, City Board members, you know, their

Unknown Speaker 39:18

people know them, some people don't.

Unknown Speaker 39:21

It goes on and on and on to the point where the federal government has essentially said, We don't care. All we care about is Capitol Hill, the White House and the Supreme Court, and we're going to rule you that way. But that wasn't the way this country was intended to be ruled. And so by removing the community aspect, what you have then is these people on both sides, looking to enact legislation and looking to enact policy, either from a federal or, you know, the full state level, which for giant states like California is important.

Unknown Speaker 40:00

because there's different communities within the state, but either on a state total and the total state level or a federal level, instead of at a community level, because the communities in the Liberals have have shown us that the communities don't matter. And if you don't like something in the community that you live in, you need to stand up and scream and kick until you get what you want. Not go find a community that aligns with your own values, a community that will protect your values, acumen, a community that will pop prop you up, no.

Unknown Speaker 40:32

Stay and resist. Well, how's that working for you look at these people are just melting down. So the Roe v. Wade, overturn is a fantastic example of constitution constitutionality coming first, because, again, it's up to the states, to then empower the communities or localities to manage or govern themselves, have their own version, not own versions, but have their own democratic process. So what Roe v Wade did was essentially said, We don't care whether you like it or not, we don't care if it goes against your beliefs or not, you must provide this, and you must follow these weekly term benchmarks. Well, again, I've talked about this a million times that they couldn't even detect a heartbeat at the time that they laid in those benchmarks. So that's another thing that needed to be relooked. At anyways, the hilarity of the whole thing is that Mississippi was trying to do a 15 week law, which is in lockstep with Roe v. Wade.

Unknown Speaker 41:41

You know, you have to argue that it has to do with the condition of the mom, but

Unknown Speaker 41:46

I don't know, to me, it's a gray area, but had this Jackson Women's Health Organization not sued the state of Mississippi about this 15 week law, we would have never been here, we would have never seen the insanity that we're seeing today. And it's very interesting to watch the reactions of these politicians who have been so pro life, their whole life, like Joe Biden, and all the sudden, they're pro choice and against the Supreme Court. And now you have all of these states that are either creating abortion protection laws, or pro life or anti abortion laws. And that's exactly what's supposed to happen. It's working the way it's supposed to work. California is never going to have abortion bands at all, never. It'll expand constantly. Mississippi, however, may or may not, they might have bands. But that is the point. representative democracy means that our government is representing us, not what the Fed tells them to do, not what Biden tells them to do. By dangling federal funding like a carrot. It's disgusting, but what's happening is supposed to happen. And again, it's a constitutional right of states in order to have better specific and individual community governance. So we know that Roe v Wade, essentially was a 1973 lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights. And at the time, it was illegal in Texas unless it was done to save the mother's life. And so the law came out of our story, the lawsuit came out of Texas, made his way to the Supreme Court. And it like I said it created a puzzle piece of how we fit privacy, belief and medical rights all together. Yeah, I mean, you look at all these stories, and it's like, you know, routers, US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade ends constitutional right to abortion. It's completely fake news, false narrative. It doesn't there's no constitutional right for an abortion in Roe v. Wade. The right to privacy as it pertains to getting the medical procedure is constitutional. I mean, just here on Planned Parenthood, right. The Supreme Court eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, but we're not backing down. We're doing everything we can to keep abortion accessible to all people. What just happened in the Supreme Court on June 24 2022. The Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs versus Jackson's women health organization the ruling upheld Mississippi ban on abortion 15 weeks of pregnancy, overturned Roe v Wade and ended Federal Constitution right to abortion in the United States. By overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court erased nearly 50 years of precedent took away our power to make our own personal medical decisions. And they gave that power to law

Unknown Speaker 45:00

makers, the court's decision most harms blacks, Latinos, indigenous and other people of color communities where whom systematic racism has long blocked access to opportunity and health care, which is so funny, because the founder of Planned Parenthood was trying to control the population of blacks. I mean, Alito said it best right when he said the court's Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973, was based on the erroneous view that a woman's constitutional right to privacy entitled her to terminate a fetal life she was carrying, again, constitution, were in the Constitution. And again, you know, when you're using the right to privacy as it pertains to a medical procedure like abortion, that you have no case. I mean, that the right to privacy is important. HIPAA, all of those things are important, but you can't stand on that as a constitutional right to determine whether or not you can have an abortion or get an abortion. It goes on to say the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. Alito wrote, Roe was egregiously wrong from the start, its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision had damaging consequences. It's time to heat the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. Boom, mic drop done. I mean, what can you argue with that? So it's another huge win for the Supreme Court. Next, we have a one that I'm most excited about, is the supreme court ruling that barred or limited the Environmental Protection Agency's power to combat climate change within the states? Very interesting NPR here, right. So I'll just read this to you guys. The US Supreme Court on Thursday dealt with a major blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate carbon emissions that caused climate change. The decision by the conservative court again, they have to add conservative court majority sets the stage for further limitations on the regulatory power of other agencies as well. Well, thank God, these agencies are ruining our lives, ruining states lives taking away jobs, and they have no accountability to anyone. Who does the EPA report to the President. It's insane. There's a Harvard law professor named Richard Lazarus. He said that's a quote that's a very big deal, because they're not going to get it from Congress because Congress is essentially dysfunctional. Quote, this could not have come at a worse time. I love that's the favorite quote, quote right now, bro gun laws, This couldn't have come at a worse time. There's so many mass shootings and for guns and people need a billion abortions, and we need the EPA to save us from climate change. That doesn't ever get old. For these people. Don't they ever go? Okay, I'm tired. I mean, could you imagine spewing this garbage all day every day? I'd be exhausted. Very, very sad. The Harvard law professor says this could not come at a worse time, like I just said, because what the consequences of climate change are increasingly dire. And we're running out of time to address it. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock, again, using emotional, non intelligent blurbs in order to get people freaked out without understanding what's really going on. This guy, Jonathan Adler, he's the runs the Case Western Reserve. And he says, quote, The cord is definitely sending a signal to regulatory agencies more broadly, that they only have the power that the Congress delegated to them, and that agencies need to think twice before they try to pour new wine out of old bottles. Thank you. He goes on to say, quote, an agency can't simply retrofit and old statute and create new tools or new mechanisms to address a problem that is generally within the agency's jurisdiction. I mean, basically, they're saying you cannot come in to this area without any votes, any democracy and start using regulatory measures to control states. Again, it doesn't work like that the Constitution is absolute. It's very, very clear. I mean, the ruling it's so clear it says the EPA nor any other agency may adopt rules that are transformational to the economy unless Congress has specifically authorized such a rule to address a specific problem like climate change. Justice Roberts, who wrote the decision, basically called major questions doctrine, neither the EPA nor any other agency may adopt rules that are transformational to the economy. The ruling goes on to say quote, certain extraordinary cases both separation of powers, principles and practical understanding of legislative intent makes

Unknown Speaker 50:00

less reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text, the delegation claim to be lurking there. He goes on to say to convince us otherwise, something more than merely a plausible textual basis for the agency action is necessary. The agency instead must point to clear congressional authorization for the power eight claims. And that is our hat trick. We have told progressive states to stop immediately limiting our ability to open carry, we have sent the message that medical choices should go to the States, just like we regulate doctors, we regulate prescription drugs, it's the same concept. The states need to run those things and the communities within the states. And the people need to decide based on their representative government. They said, well, it leads the choice A my my bodily choices to lawmakers. Well, you would you were elected the lawmaker, the lawmakers elected representative of you. So what's the issue? And then lastly, this EPA decision, which I think is a really, really great precedent, because there's other agencies now that are going to have to be limited, like the NIH with Fauci and COVID. CDC, hopefully, as well, because, again, this country is too large, way too large for us to try to place sweeping policies and it just doesn't work. It's never worked. It never will work. But all in all, this Supreme Court has really proved itself to be constitutional, not political, like so many people say these are constitutional decisions that are absolutely in line with the Constitution. And anyone who says otherwise needs to get their constitution out. If you notice, when the Liberals talk about it, they never say, well, the Constitution reads this, because they can't, because the Constitution is absolute. They say, well, the Constitution reads this. But but that doesn't necessarily mean what it means. No, no, that's your interpretation. That's not the Constitution, the Constitution works. It's worked thus far, it is really the basis of why we are the number one country in the world, why we are the richest country in the world, why we make the most progress in technology, manufacturing, in the world, all of it is because of the Constitution. And so again, none of these decisions are arguable, there's absolutely nothing to argue, it goes to the Constitution. And the Constitution does not say or limit anyone's right to carry and own a weapon. The Constitution does not explicitly give the right to an abortion, the Constitution does not explicitly give the right to the federal government to determine who can and can't have an abortion. And lastly, federal agencies that have no congressional oversight are so entrenched in our local state government. Finally, they've had enough we've had enough it's done. It's over with it's complete. Now. It's just so easy to predict the liberal responses to all of this not hearing anything about the EPA not hearing anything about the guns, we're talking Roe v Wade only right now, it's pure insanity, because I believe that it's the only decision that has semi gray area, which I don't think it has gray areas that pertains to the Constitution. I think it has gray area because gun laws and environmental agencies don't have that same emotional hysteria that Roe v Wade brings to the table. And the reason why that is, is I think that these it's become a moral issue. And so we have to start looking at things legally. And it might not be what everyone wants. There's a lot of issues in the Constitution that make things more difficult for politicians, for people, whatever it is, and that's done on purpose. So we're not constantly or getting too far away from the actual belief or the actual foundation of the Constitution itself. And my favorite are these woke companies that are like, we'll pay you $5,000 to go get your abortion if you live in an area that doesn't support it. Everyone's like, yeah, yeah, go go Netflix, go Disney. Well, guess what? Of course, they're going to do that. Do you know how much cheaper it is for them to pay you to get an abortion than it is for them to pay you to have maternity leave? It's an it's a dollars and cents thing. You cannot think that these people actually care. No, they want you to abort and get back to the office, be productive. Take your three days go get it done, or however long it takes them come back. Don't have the baby. That means you'd be out for three 612 months, whatever it is. Oh, no, but yeah, the EPA too. I mean, the EPA is the biggest Joe

Unknown Speaker 55:00

And I'm glad that it's these agencies are getting slapped back. They need to I mean, George W. Bush was the founder of excessive federal overreach, abusing executive orders, then it went into Obama, Trump also, it's a little different there because he was doing things that I approve of, but he was still doing it. And I have to take myself back as

Unknown Speaker 55:23

a follower of the Constitution and say, What was that right? Well, all, even though I agreed with the stuff that he was doing doesn't mean that he should have been able to do it through executive order. And so I think what we're going to see what we're finding is part of the country that understands the foundation and doesn't want to fix it if it's not broken. And then you have another part of the country that wants to throw it all out and start over. And that's the left, they wish there was no constitution. And so they do other things, because they can't get rid of it. But that is where the split is happening. It's not pro life versus pro choice. And maybe those things are the veneer over the issues at hand. But the issues all come down to constitutionality and emotion. I don't like this. So it should be out of the Constitution. The other people say, Well, I like this and the Constitution says say the same. That's where the split is going to be. It's all going to come down to the Constitution of the United States. And the left's argument always is, it was in the 1700s. And it was all white men, they didn't take account for this or that, and they're slave owners, and it just doesn't stop. We don't need to fix something that's not broken. The more we try to fix it, the more we break it, and the worse off we are, which is why I love that the Supreme Court saying look, read the Constitution, look at it, see it find me where it says the EPA has a carte blanche to harass and micromanage the states, find me in the Constitution where it says a woman has 100% right to an abortion, or a man has 100%, right to a vasectomy or to whatever it is, there's nothing in there about these things. Tell me in the Constitution where it says you can only keep and bear arms. If you meet all the checkmarks on this box, we're going to make it so difficult for you that the hassle isn't even worth the reward. And guess what the reward is protecting yourself and your family. Some reward? Right? All right, guys. Well, thank you very much. This episode was a lot of fun to talk about. I think the Supreme Court has done a fantastic job. And I hope that we'll continue to see rulings this year that are pro constitution. And I hope people start to see that just because things are not convenient doesn't mean that they're not correct. You've just listened to the last gay conservative. I'm your host Chad law reminding you what Reagan once said. There's no more striking symbol of democracy than the picture of a citizen casting a ballot electing a leader choosing his or her own destiny. God bless you President Reagan, and may God save America.

Unknown Speaker 58:27

You just listen to the last gay conservative podcast hosted by Chad law. For this episode and others, please visit our website Laska conservative.com. We are also available on Apple podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and anywhere else you listen. If you enjoyed the podcast, please like, subscribe and share. You can also follow us on social media at Lasky conservative. We proudly support the following causes the Convention of States action, the National Rifle Association, the American Conservative Union, the Lincoln club, the freedom watch and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. The Alaska conservative podcast is produced by Joshua Chavez, Assistant Producer Alyssa Quwata. Creative Director Max Tucker. And narration by Aviva mansion and we Charles the Alaska conservative is a production of bend right Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. 2022

Transcribed by https://otter.ai