Latest / Palafox Media Network / Kingdom Revelations: Debating the Supreme Court

Transcript

Kingdom Revelations: Debating the Supreme Court · Palafox Media Network

• Charles: Good evening everyone. This is ⁓ Charles Warfare. Welcome to Kingdom Revelation. I'm your host and ⁓ surely I'll be joined by Greg Fink, who's gonna be talking about a lot of the issues that's been going on with the Supreme Court rulings and how they'll affect this country, this nation. And ⁓ we're gonna be getting to the the heart and soul of these rules that have very significant and ⁓ material impact on our everyday life. how they affect the ⁓ constitution of the United States, how they affect everyday Americans and citizenship. And so I'll be glad to be joined shortly about with ⁓ great feet. But let me get into my commentary for tonight. Are we gonna be a nation of laws where the rule of law is objective, fair, equable, where every American citizen has a right. To go into a court of law and get justice. ⁓ we're gonna have three separate branches of government. Our United States Constitution was built upon the separation of the power. We have the ⁓ the legislative branch that makes the laws. We have the judiciary branch that interpret the laws, okay? And so the jujits each has own unique power. Congress has to make the laws. The judiciary has to interpret the laws and the executive has to be charged over ⁓ military ⁓ so that we all have equal powers. That's what makes us the most unique nation and experiment of democracy that ever have existed. One power, one authority cannot be dominant over the other party. But my brothers and sisters, what we have now is in our judiciary. We have judicial terrorists, in my opinion, that have that believe that they have the best intellect, they have the best knowledge, they have the a superior understanding of our values and who we are. And you be basically have nine black road roaded gangsters who feel like they can dictate and change legal precedents. Some of the cases that we've seen in the last couple of days that this Supreme Court It's overruling judicial judiciary precedent. The rule of law, every lawyer knows that the the basic foundation of law is stay decisive. Let the decision stand. You cannot have a arbitrary and capricious ruling from the highest court in the land. But yet that's what we've been having over and over and over again. The robbers courts have been insulting the legal precedent, fundamental thing, seventy-one-year-old precedent that they've making up, new areas of load, new understanding that that's that's been creative in their own cerebral minds. No going against Congress authority to to make the laws. That's Congress job. You have the Supreme Court thinking that with their arrogance that they can make law, that they With no basis for it. We have the Supreme Court has got to be reign in. They're over the top. They are outrageous right now. And we have to reform this. I believe I said this in a man in my law school buddies at the University of Florida Law School as a first year law student. I believe then, and I told a lot of my friends that we the Supreme Court needs to have a fifteen year maximum term limit. Why? Because when you give a life forever a life appointment on the bench, these jurors become they take on a a a misplaced godlike syndrome complex where they think that they can rule and make decisions with no big legal authority, with no legal basis. They just making things up. They ignore legal precedents. For decades and decades we have honor and you have this robber's court. being not just a political bias court, but there there's no understanding reasonably some of the conclusions that they have erased as for a legal precedent. We cannot allow this to continue. Because the one thing that a judiciary must have is credibility. The citizens must have respect for the the Supreme Court. Right now, polls have been saying since this robber courts have been involved, the the poll numbers for the j the legitimacy and credibility of the Supreme Court is lowered Congress. That's really awful when you are judiciary bread and the people, the citizens think that you are worse than the political bread. And that's supposed to be biased by nature. So we're gonna talk about many of these specific cases in general, but the Supreme Court needs to be rang in rang in immediately. Reform is necessary. And I think the biggest form reform we need is to put a 15-year term limit on the Supreme Court jurors because I believe that a jurors need to live and see their decisions from that bitch. And if you put them on there forever, they become they become a live in their own echo chamber that they're untouchable. They're out of touch with the average American citizen that they're making laws for. And they don't have to live by those laws because they end up ⁓ too many of them now are dying on the bench because they're too old to function. And so there needs to be a 15 year maximum limit. And so we're gonna talk about these issues with Greg Freak and Greg, really happy today. Come on in here and let's start talking about some of these cases. The first topic we wanna deal with here, this birthplace citizenship. Greg, it is very clear, a third grader re the United States Constitution has that simple paragraph, not a lot of words, not paragraph. And it it clearly says any citizens that's born in these United States is a citizen merely by birth. And so I don't think this was a legal layup in my opinion. And so I think a third grader would would understand this. But we have a president and and a GOP party that wants to deport. just about everybody and I think this is the scheme is to say that if you're not born in this country w on the plain meaning of the of the constitution, clearly this wasn't a complicated case to me. It was very Greg: No. No, it wasn't a complicated case. I mean ⁓ I I think it was a campaign promise that he made and it was a campaign promise that he wanted to go ahead and pursue. He had ⁓ promise this to his ⁓ MAGA base that he was gonna bring it up whenever he got elected and he went through the motions he did and ⁓ I I'm sure he already knew the Supreme Court was gonna strike it down. I think like you said, anybody would know the Supreme Court would strike it down. I mean but you know, that being said, you know, he fulfilled his campaign promise to his supporters and that's what he did. I mean Lot of presidents do that regardless of ⁓ their knowledge of the feasibility or the constitutionality of it. I mean, ⁓ we you know, and you talk about, you know, I like to comment on what you saw talk about this ⁓ Supreme Court here. I mean, you gotta realize it's Justice John Roberts, the same guy who gave us Obamacare or ⁓ the Amer the ⁓ American Health Care ⁓ Affordable Care Act. And a lot of Republicans were angry with him at the time. Whenever he did that back in two thousand ten. And so it's not, you know, I mean, i it is a very political judicial body. It is that. That's not neither here nor there, but it's been very political for several decades. And ⁓ actually probably over over a century or so. But as we ⁓ look at our two hundred fiftieth anniversary here coming up ⁓ this ⁓ next week, I mean we're we're seeing here that the Supreme Court, yes, probably should have some sort of ⁓ term limits eventually looked at, but the forefathers did not write that in. And so, I mean the constitutionality of the Supreme Court is ⁓ exactly the way it is now, in my ⁓ in my opinion. But the whole pro birthright citizenship, you're right, was a layup for them to just go ahead and say, Hey, you know, we're for civil rights, we're for normal rights, and we actually know how to read the constitution. It's not really even a rights issue, it's just a an ability to know actually learn how to read the words that are on a page and know the definition of the words. Yeah. And so I mean it's not really much of a Charles: Yeah. Greg: Rights are a non right issue, really. I mean the error they came up with today and yesterday is ⁓ very, very intriguing. I mean and ⁓ not all their decisions were bad, not all of them were evil, not all of them were trampling on people's rights. And so I mean, a lot of them I I agree with. But go on over the next one. Charles: agree with the birthright citizenship case, but quite frankly, I don't think it was a one that the su the school should even been deliberating on because it's just that plain and simple. It you know, it was it was more political driven than anything. That's why that's why labor is it was a judicial layout. I mean, it was a very easy case. I think that there's a lot of ⁓ political politics about this, but the but again, this was such a legal layup. that a a a a third grade or seventh grade civic student can understood the the basic plain meaning of that of the constitution. So I that was very easy. The fact that about it for them was very scary. Greg: Right. But when you look at all the big decisions that they made today, I mean this one here is politically driven. The next one's politically driven. The next one's politically driven. So I mean a lot of them are you know, a lot of these cases are cases that really shouldn't be, you know, tried in the judicial system because they're more or less just built around campaign fundraising talking points more than anything else in my opinion. Charles: Well, I agree, I agree. ⁓ the the most of ⁓ that there they became way legally the the legal issues was not as complicated as the political people driving and the intensity and the and the the rivership act as a goal as deliberation shouldn't have occurred in my professional legal opinion because these cases are not as convoluted or complex as many cases sometimes can be. Now the distinction between the the ⁓ what Roberts was doing in with the Obamacare or the was was something a little bit about that because this is the thing. Obamacare was tr was driven by a legislative act of Congress, which supports so there has to Yeah, and I agree with that part. But the difference here is that we're t in terms of the birthright citizenship, that's something that's in the Constitution And the question is whether or not whether whether or not the executive branch could even have the authority or standing, what we call it in law, the legal standing, to even bring that case to the level where it reaches the Supreme Court. The really the executive branch really has no standing on that in my in my opinion. So Greg: Who cares that? Exactly. And and we the same way we didn't have any standing whenever Obama brought ⁓ boarded the ⁓ the Affordable Care Act back then 'cause ⁓ there's nothing in the constitution about health care. Well yeah. Charles: The difference is Congress made a law. So then that became a legislative act of the customers. So the question is that, and then you had citizens that was affected because you had certain members of Congress were trying to deny it the certain citizenship. So the citizen has standing on the market. Here you just had executive branch by executive order saying, Supreme Court, make this make this unconstitutional. That's why I was so legally ridiculous because there was a standing issues, but the Supreme Court is taking on issues that has no they don't let it run this natural legal procedure, right? So they just high fast track these political things with no legal standing or authority, in my opinion. So that birthright citizenship case should never be w with wit no because of the fact that there was no one Greg: It never should have been. Charles: that had a real redress towards of that. Because we I don't think executive any president, regardless of political party, can just bring tell it interpret something without someone being injured or harm from it. You know, so that that's why Greg: And imagine it would have been imagine if it would have passed. I mean, imagine if ⁓ you know, basically you're saying anybody that was born here from a different country is not l no longer a citizen. Imagine how many people in ⁓ Trump's staff in his inner circle and his ⁓ administration would have to leave the country or be deported. I mean, just imagine how many, you know, the the hypocrisy here on all different levels of Republicans and Democrats and every single level, whether it's the corporate world, the political world or the service industry. I mean, it would've been entirely ⁓ You know, if i if it were gonna go to the level a la that a lot of people want to take it to, it would have destroyed economically this country. Charles: It would have not only that for great, but it our military soldiers that have ⁓ children on foreign nations that this that's a that's been expanded to saying that if you serve in ⁓ capacity in our military, even your foreign lead, you still have citizenship here. So eventually that were being questioned and not all that, but I I think that that the issue that no one really talking about is is that the danger of this is that for all political parties that it Greg: Exactly. Charles: It it will affect so many hundreds of millions of people, Americans, if you start saying that if you wasn't nationally ⁓ you know, born here, y y you know, you shouldn't be here. That's a lot of people. Love that immigrant people. And it's so it's it's a that's a Greg: It is a people. I mean there's more people out there than there are fake voters. Charles: Correct. Yeah. And so I I think and and that that's that's ⁓ that would be what we well both political parties, like say unfunding mandate, the economic chapter of that would be outrageous. And I I that like but to me, I was gonna be honest with you, I was very concerned and I thought they probably would have you know, ⁓ with this score's history, I I was I was I was I had embraced for them to say that, yeah, you know, if you're not you know, that I I thought they were gonna basic say that No, you don't you you don't have citizenship to be regul if you're Greg: You gotta give them a little more credit than that. Charles: Well, I I I don't. I mean this this Robin's courts, I just can't give him any credit till I see it. I can't give him no fake or credibility points, you know, it is what it is. Greg: But they made another good decision with the ⁓ transgender issue and the man. Charles: We'll go that. Let's go to that. The next issue that ⁓ that I agree with is from a spiritual standpoint. I agree with from a legal standpoint. Now, they essentially Supreme Court said that that transgender or male born, scientifically fa born males, okay, can ⁓ it it can be barred from ⁓ participating in female scientifically born. female athletics. Because one, regardless of people's philosophical feelings about transgenderism or whatever, the fact of the matter, there's there's a natural size to this thing. We've lost our freaking minds with we let we lost common sense with this issue. But the bottom line is that there are there are physical differences between males and females average wise. And so When you have a a transgender athlete, so to speak, that's a male in nature, they're gonna be bigger, stronger than the female born athletes in general generally speaking. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's not fair to the ⁓ a normal ⁓ female woman trying to s compete in female sports and you got a male physically more stronger by nature, then say because in their mind They're saying they was born around gender and they decided they're gonna be a female, which is a transgender situation. So now clearly they are dealt they are dominating these naturally born women's sports. And that's just not fair. Anyway, you look at that. I don't think it's reasonable. I don't think it's fair is one thing, but I just don't think that's reasonable. So again, now I agree with the court on these two Greg: No, it's not. Charles: rulings a as it relates to ⁓ the transgender ruling. I agree with them on the person. Citizenship issue. And I think I may agree with them on a one, but I also ⁓ agree disagree with them on ⁓ on some so let's go with the next one. The that next up is the they overturn a 91 year old president by expanding the presidential affirm of independent agency. Greg: Okay. Charles: I I totally disagree with this because in order for our democracy to work, and particularly to me, the most in my opinion, the most important job in in terms of democracy-wise, is the inspector general, not the attorney general. The inspector general has always been considered an independent agency. And that's the agency that supposed to be independent that can continu that that can perpetually continue Irrespective of whoever transfer political power, political parties, right? So the inspector general can do investigations about wrongdoing, corruption. Because if you have a president that's compromised, particularly with all the money that the and and all the stuff that we we we we legitimately hear from the current president, the inspector general used to now used to have authority to do investigation. Independent investigation with subpoena power. to put people on the oath to see if some corruption and fraud and for nothing ⁓ you know another world leaders is you know you know ⁓ a president or a president is selling out America's best interest. So now this ruling after nine years of of of judicial interpretation, here they go saying that a president, this particular president can fire a members of the FTC, ⁓ the Federal Trade Commission. So we've lost that level of independence. And that is the first big step of this manly democracy. And and what I mean they want people to understand is that correct political parties can change in in an election cycle. So you gotta have some structures. If we wanna keep this experiment called democracy perpetual and ongoing, we have to reassert democracy. It is it's just it doesn't just Greg: Mm. Charles: last forever. We citizens have a obligation to make the democracy work. Greg: Yeah, but part of the democracy here is I mean th th this is a the gig we got. I mean, I think, you know, it's not just the FTC that he is firing people. He wanted to be able to fire people in the Department of Education and the I think the ⁓ look at the article here, the National Labor Relations Board. And ⁓ I mean ⁓ basically other agencies that are under the executive branch and that's the whole thing of the they are under the executive branch, which is under his purview as a commander in chief and the ⁓ chief executive officer of the country. I mean and so I mean it's ⁓ you know, you're right. It is chaotic and it is clunky and it's weird, but it's also the way it works whenever you bring in a private sector CEO to the presidential position as opposed to the previous ninety one years you've had political Poser boys becoming their presidents. You have people who are serving in the Senate or serving in the Congress or serving as governors or serving as other elected officials, and they've been brought up through the political pedigree to to that level of president. And so they're they're used to working with different legislative bodies. Here we once again, I reiterate, we have a first with Donald Trump being the first CEO. There's a he has a lot of firsts, but he is the first CEO, and this is the way CEOs run a lot of their organizations, and he's running the country. as an organization, good, better indifferent. But ⁓ you know, it is underneath the executive branch and it is underneath his purview. Now, is it chaotic? Yeah, is it clunky? I mean, are there checks and balances? Is it probably need to be written in the constitution or ⁓ cr amendments being being created? Probably because we've never had a private citizen come in and be president before like this. Except for whenever he was there back in two thousand sixteen. And so I mean, maybe we should have some legislation or some statutes in place a safeguard this year a little stronger from ⁓ from happening. But we don't have those yet and maybe it's time for Congress to get off their butts and create some statutes and get ⁓ passed and go from there. Charles: Yeah, I'll do that covers need to make stuff clear, but it's always been interpreted break. That's my point. Now it's just Greg: But we've had elected officials who weren't CEOs. Charles: Yeah, but the Hubert Humphrey had these ⁓ s the courts have interpreted this as being independent. I disagree that it it it y it's only now that these agencies, a particular agency is being considered a part of the executive branch. They've never been part of ⁓ interpreted that way. And that's my point. Ninety one years we've been going back and forth. The courts have interpreted them as being independent, it's not under the purview or the authority of any president. of of Democrat Republican administration for all these decades. So this is my with the Rothbard's court. Greg: Okay. Okay, but but but part of this is they're talking about the Department of Education. The Department of Education is chaired by somebody who's appointed by Trump. I mean and and so I mean how how is that not part of the you know, the executive branch whenever the leaders of these different agencies were appointees by the Trump administration? What? And so how how are they this is my ⁓ I guess this is my ⁓ public affairs ignorance here 'cause I've probably done Take enough civics here to know that, but how is a agency that is chaired or directed by an appointee of the president not under the direction of the president who appointed that person in charge? Okay. Charles: Basic basic basic concept. The Department of Education One was established by Congress, number one. So that's an independent agency. That's what made these agencies independent. President come and go. So the actual department was initiated from a legislative thing under co Congress constitutional authority. So he any president can point their political bias representative as the leader of that organization. But they're not the institution. The the executive doesn't have a right. A president don't have right to demolish all these, like what those try to do. That was all illegal. But but but so to answer your question is that the Congress is the one that can establish now a president can recommend new agency, but ultimately take Congress to legislate it and fund it. So Congress is to use the power to legislate it and fund it. They keep it perpetually going. So that's for all these ⁓ organizations. And that's what goes to my earlier point. This is being interpreted as being not necessarily under the authority of the any executive president. You know what I'm saying? They can appoint their people to run it and they're gonna run it and implement policies favorable to whoever's in office. That I agree with. But that's a type of argument saying that they can basically just you know, just do whatever they want. Greg: But basically but but but but no reality you've been around a few presidents and so have I. I mean have you seen any president try to cut jobs or cut waste or cut funding or cut anything in the federal government? No, they always enhance and enlarge their agencies. They always enhance or or get funding or get Congress to find funding to enhance everything. And so I mean y here we have a budget issue. We we're trying to cut budgets and federal budgets and cut ⁓ you know, cut spending. And and this is what cutting spending looks like. Sometimes you have to cut wages and in order to do that, I mean, you know, i it's breaking a lot of eggs to make a really ugly omelet, but it's you know, y you're right. It's it's the first time we've seen this and it's the first time we've ever seen a president try to ⁓ to ⁓ cut, you know, cut people and cut administration to where it's ⁓ you know, not pushing a two or three tr trillion dollar budget every year. Then granted. I get it. You know, he he the the the spending is still there, which is kind of irritating to me that we're we're we're trying to cut jobs but we're trying to increase spending in other places, but you know, I can't make sense of everything. Yeah. Charles: Well, w but one of the things is I think they made a intriguing for lack of better euphemism, ⁓ they made a a an intriguing exception as it relates to the Federal Reserve, right, agency in in particular, they said that the that the the president doesn't have authority to file Lisa Cook, the current ⁓ board member of the Federal Reserve. ⁓ and one I think that There's two points that they kind of use legalese or words to w wig wiggle out of of a or principle. And that was they had no cause, number one. And and the second point was they made a distinction that the Federal Reserve is not necessarily funded by it is kind of funded by Congress, but it's not really established by Congress. And you have a lot of conspiracy theories that's way out there to extreme side that Baker said that the the Federal Reserve is actually illegal and unconstitutional. I agree. You know, nah nah nah nah. And they're believe that, you know, and it's a big, big it's been going on for decades and y you well aware of it. Greg: It is all We'll see you again. Yeah, it's a huge private bank. Yeah. Charles: Is it a proof pro and and and there's some legitimacy to that. Greg: There is. I mean there's a they got way too much power, they have they throw way too many big ones with the ⁓ the little oversight they really have. Charles: Right. Yeah, they have little a minimum oversight if and the question is really have oversight. It's a lot of clandestine things that they do that nobody really knows what they'll do until they do it. You know what I mean? Almost like those yeah, yeah, very secretive, ⁓ almost like those secretive, you know, military kind of courts or secretive documents of courts that we have that nobody really know what's going on. So so that's really a very tricky though. Greg: On the five. Charles: That they rule that for ⁓ you know, basically you can't really file the Federal Reserve, but you can fire like big agencies that's been declared independent for decades, which is how they square it up is really intriguing. But I think it's always amazing how the people with the money and the big money always get treated differently for the scolders and everybody. Yeah. Greg: That is and that is ironic. I mean whenever they say you can fire some group but you can't fire another and it there's no ⁓ commonality, there's no consistency whatsoever with their decision making, that is troubling. Because I mean it tells the other. Charles: Now, Another another another ruling they got that I I I think they got this one right and I also believe this was a the was a legal they uphold that the mail ballot or ballots that you can count even after election day. In other words, just say like some statement have a two or three days to count count mailing votes. And and the intriguing thing about this, the president that was against this. Greg: I could do. Charles: Actually use the same mill and battery. Greg: He voted on time and that that's the difference. He voted in Florida mail in ballot and it was done on time. A lot of these states, I mean I mean, I I think that mail in ballots should be counted up until they should be postmarked on election day. And anything after that, I mean they can receive them after election day, but the postmark should not be after the election day and ⁓ it should be a real postmark, not a fraudulent one, which we we we do see as p possible with the fraudsters out there. Well, I mean all reality it wouldn't have mattered in my opinion if they would have how they would have ruled because the states that cheat are they're gonna keep on cheating anyway. They don't care about federal laws. They that that's that's why they cheat. Charles: E e you know, each state can can do their voting laws based upon their citizenship or the state ⁓ state register. So like for example, ⁓ some states may have three days, some days may have up you know, up to ten. You you just don't Greg: Some states catting until they get the guy they want went to w to win. Some so some states don't have any any ⁓ consistent days. Like California, it's not like just ten days or fourteen days. It's however many votes we need to get to make sure this person wins. I mean it could be a new day. Sometimes they vote for six months. Charles: I think most of ⁓ have the postmark day of the election and then it usually is like you have different states have different time frames in order to count the ten days, whatever. But I do think there need to be some kind of common out in terms of getting election results quicker. We should have two weeks to know Greg: Should bit. ⁓ Well yeah, I mean there's eleven exactly. Florida has eleven million voters. We know how everybody votes here the next day. Within forty eight hours, everything is all done. Yeah. And so actually within twenty four hours, ninety nine point nine percent of it's all done here in Florida. And we are the third largest state in the nation and we can figure it out. And we're a bunch of retirees here for goodness sakes. We're not even where Silicon Valley is. Where Silicon Valley is, I was trying to get a database for the state of California. I still haven't received any paperwork back or anything. I said them paperwork in there, but they wouldn't even take a payment for it online. They said you had to mail a money order in order to get the data. And it's been three weeks now. I haven't heard a hide or a hair from it. They haven't even cashed the money order. I have no idea if they even got the money order. 'Cause it's all done by snail mail. And so I mean, you know, and and that being said, that's California, the the leading state, the progressive state, the the the the first state that's supposed to be ⁓ leading out all the policies and leading all the legal and cultural you know, realities of the the nation. So goes California, so goes everything everything else. But that's not that's not reality. That's a fallacy. Charles: Yeah, I I I I I I think that, you know, Scottish I think most of the decision Greg was I I agree with most of ⁓ Greg: I scope did a pretty good job. Charles: It I think I think I think they did overall did a pretty decent job. ⁓ I'm not a fan of the war ⁓ of the Roberts Court, but I do think majority of the decision was pretty ⁓ I really couple up. But I tell you another one I wanna move to, which is I think it's very important to regular Americans, which is these we call ⁓ in law geofence warrants. And basically ⁓ Yeah, the the the geofence warrants basically Greg: No. Charles: is and I got a case right now asking about this with this this principle that probably will be affected by this case. So basically what you do is you have the police think a a crime or something is done and they start to use the geo g geofence warrant and get subpoena from cell phone companies to try to ping word that ⁓ you know cell phone activity, cell phone records, cell phone. along to see whether or not the personal suspect or potential ⁓ criminality or criminal act was done. So they go up in there and get these warrants on people ⁓ you know, cell phone information. And and I'm I'm literally got a case with with this s situation going on right now. And so basically what the court is saying now is that there's a there's a real expectation of privacy that a citizen has. And so you can't do that. It is it is what's called a a a a search and relate to the fullful mimic. A reasonable search. So it's just like a stop. You know, you have to have a reasonable articulately a reasonable suspicion in order to stop someone. And so this search needs to be reasonable because there is an expectation of privacy. And I think that's a real big thing for every every merch, you know Greg: What is most So my question to you about the geofencing, because ⁓ we do a lot of geofencing and advertising and marketing and PR and stuff like that through digital geofencing. So what we do there is when we do the ⁓ ads, which you'll probably see on YouTube here whenever our show's over, or on Amazon or on Hulu or any ⁓ OTT or digital device, people will do ads that will geofence a household. So basically all the different IP addresses in that household will get those ads. And that's not really gathering data, that's more or less r ⁓ releasing data. So I am assuming here with these geofence ⁓ warrants is that they're basically grabbing all those IP addresses in the house and data data mining all the different data devices in those houses where maybe one person has a warrant before or five other people also live. Is that what they're doing? Charles: Yeah. In some cases it could be like that. But it but the the question is is that it it it's a is a it usually the court refines things unconstitutional if the search is broad and just indiscriminate. If it's not narrow tailed, if not specifically narrowed to that particular dis the defendant with some other evidence, they usually gonna feel like that is ⁓ unreasonable violation. Greg: It'd be more of a blanket warrant than Charles: That's kind of what these things really are. There there there's a there's a hunch or suspicion from police officers that this person did something wrong and they automatically go to a judge and present, you know, probably not the greatest level of evidence, and they get this broad, you know, a jail offense warrant to go out there and go to a cell phone company and get a pin that says that this person was in that facility. But that doesn't necessarily mean the person did the crime neither. Greg: Kind yeah, kinda with James Comey and all those guys did with ⁓ Trump whenever they went and got those Pfizer court warrants here about Trump about things that were not even real. Kind of James Comey and all the FBI people and all the James ⁓ tenant or whatever ⁓ all the different guys in ⁓ two thousand sixteen, whenever they got the Pfizer court warrants about things that were the Hillary dossier ⁓ or the Steel Dossier rather, and things that they knew were false and they knew were fraudulent, but they were using that to get type of warrant on Trump and his people and their cell phones and stuff like that. So it's very similar to that then, right? Well Charles: Well no well the w the father court's actually is a very h ⁓ high security court that that that they Greg: But they saw how we're given little data. Charles: present r real articulable evidence. But the devil they authorize that warrant. You know what I'm saying? Greg: Yeah. Yeah, but they did. But they gave bad evidence and fake evidence. Charles: There's a big difference between the the FISECOR and these jailfish wounds. They're everyday ⁓ police kind of activity stuff from cell phone concretors and things like that. That's there's a there's a it's a house status in the Pfizer Corps. Greg: Alright. Yeah, I mean well, ⁓ you're right. The PISA court normally has a higher standard, but whenever they're using it against Trump back in two thousand fifteen or sixteen, I don't think they I think they lowered the standards and just basically disintegrated them to where it's very similar to where we're seeing here with this ⁓ warrant thing here. So I mean what I'm seeing is that, you know, i there's a lot of similarities in hypocrisy and the law enforcement and the ⁓ DOJ. And it seems to be blind to no matter who's in charge. And basically the whole overset and the overstep needs to Charles: The difference, Greg, was that there was video, there was photographs, there were witnesses that worked at Mar Lago that said he had these documents and how loose it was. So they had vo they had real evidence to justify getting those horn. They didn't just get them. I mean there was Greg: I'm talking about the steel dossier. The steel dossier was no not not videos or w and picture or nothing. The steel dossier was all fallacy and all basically opposition research, political hype. Charles: Well, I mean that's still a thing. I mean that one I I don't know if that was one The file in court, the main thing with the classified documents cases. Greg: Well yeah that's different. Yeah, you're right about that. ⁓ Yeah, but I'm not talking about that. You're you're spinning into that conversation. I'm not you're right, I agree with you on that one. And so I I I'm talking about the one where th they they were wrong on. Charles: You're Yeah, well I like I said, I I'm not sure ⁓ on that with the steel dossier thing 'cause I j I'm just not sure where with all the spin, I I don't know. But I know about the files of court, it's a little bit more legitimate. I don't I was fourness of the steel dossier kind of deal, like I I mean it it it's it's a lot of conspiracy and nonsense false about that. Maybe some sports that's revelent and factually true, but i i i the people pushing that so delusionally insane. Yeah, I I can't I can't follow the legitimacy of it, honestly. You know what I mean? There may be some it may be some legitimate stuff there, but the people who pushing it ha lack the credibility and candor to make me believe where they're saying ⁓ in terms of the steel dossier thing. And I I'm I'm that's just my, you know, honest as Yeah, you're Greg: Yeah. Right, yeah. Yeah yeah, but be because when it comes to the classified document issue, I mean we have we found classified stuff at Biden's place and I'm sure we'd probably find stuff at Obama's and Trump's place and Mike Pence's place and I think the difference is that Trump wanted to hold on to his and keep it as ⁓ momentos and everybody else just, ⁓ take it back. We don't care. It's a mistake. Some clerk brought it here and ⁓ you can take it back. Charles: Well, let's transition from these Su Supreme Court cases and and and go to the the Iran Greg: We got one more case. We got one more First Amendment case to talk about. See ⁓ campaign finance restrictions. Okay. Charles: Okay, which one is that? Well, the campaign finance descriptor we we we fundamentally disagree on that. I believe the campaign finances was was was was was wrong in a sense because we already got a finance campaign problem where corporations with all this advertisement has has really taken over from the parties. The parties can kinda hide and allow big money donors to to flood. the the the the television or radio, people tablet, cell phone and all that. So now i there's gonna be no it's gonna be all gas, no breaks in terms of the political machinery on all party side that should easily confuse people because you can't control the the unlimited funding now. So it's like un Greg: Yeah. Like a party time. Charles: Yeah, it it it's gonna be wild and economic insanity. ⁓ in it's gonna be it's just gonna be listen, the super wealthy corporations ⁓ they gonna love it. But for the average Joe public it's gonna be confusing and just overwhelming to figure out what's bringing the lies now. Greg: Yeah. More than already. Yeah, yeah, I I think you and I were talking about this before the show. I mean, you know, it it you talk about corruption in politics and and and this is me being cavalier about this of course, 'cause I work in politics and campaigns and as a you know, my career and everything for the last twenty eight, twenty nine years. But the the corruption is there whether the funding is there or not. I mean i you know, I mean the the corruption is so minute and actually not minute, but so trickled down to where so bottom up really. I mean i yes it's gonna increase the ⁓ or enhance the ability for it but ⁓ a lot the the people who are already being bought off and being paid to to do the to do the the deeds of the ⁓ the wealthy who are controlling them are only winning by the people who want to win To become those next people. So I mean and ⁓ I mean it's ⁓ and this is not being overly cynical about elected officials, because I know a lot of very good elected officials. There are enormous pu ⁓ public servants out there that get a bad deal and a raw deal. However, that being said, there is a lot of opportunity for money here to go ahead and tell people how to vote and how to campaign and how to message. And that is a reality of politics and it's gonna it's been that way since the Bible times and since ⁓ for several millennia. And basically what the Supreme Court did today with their, you know, basically releasing the ⁓ parties from having a restriction on controlling on taking money from corporations for the party narrative, like whether it be Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or whatever political party it is, and then releasing that restriction. Basically, ⁓ yes, it did turn it into the wild, wild west. It is gonna be very interesting to see how tainted it's gonna be on the media airwaves. And the biggest thing is We're what we're gonna see is we're gonna see how the people who are not part of the powers of be and not part of the big money, ⁓ how are they are able to ⁓ rise up against those who do have the money and realize that at the end of the day it's messaging that always wins. I mean money is a mother's muck of politics as my parapolitical professor always told me, but messaging and good messaging is really what drives the campaign home. And so we're gonna see if the guerrilla type of tactics of campaigning and the social media and the ⁓ lower funding tactics of ⁓ campaigning are going to overwhelm or overtake the ⁓ the spit and polish and the wonderful boutique type of ⁓ campaigning. Charles: Yeah, but but but Greg, this is i i the the court and legislative we've always wanted to have fair access or equal ⁓ you know, you have the fair or fair equal, I don't know what to call it. Fairness the fair, you know, like you wanna give equal time to equal document fairness. Yeah. So so it it's kind of with that concept, Greg, that now you're gonna have the super wealthy just can buy off the little little little man, a little little woman that they can't afford. Greg: You on the public airway. Current doctrine. Charles: afford to even ⁓ compete with, you know, these trillion dollar companies and billion dollar companies. They're gonna yeah, but the difference is though, Greg, is that now you have a d a double economic guerrilla access now because first of all, the the parties were politically prohibited. So then but they kinda indirectly let all the corporations do all their dirty work. Now you got the corporation and the parties Greg: It's been like that already though. Charles: So this is the incentive. Greg: It isn't sanity, but it's but but I also do think it's gonna there's a possibility it's gonna reverse here eventually. The next administration, next court system. ⁓ Charles: I doubt that because it's it's hard. It's hard to take something back, Greg, once you legislative give it. It's very hard to. ⁓ Greg: Everything reverse. Yeah, That's the thing is that if they feel a tangible and you're right. If they feel a tangible benefit of it, they don't want to take it back. So that's the question is that is this gonna create a benefit or not to society. If society doesn't think it's gonna benefit them at all, they're probably gonna uprise against it. Or if they do think they're gonna benefit from it, they're gonna embrace it. Charles: Yeah, well I I yeah, I I I w that that remained to be seen, but I I think that it's gonna it's gonna just it's gonna be it's gonna be just in insane. Let me let me ⁓ metaphorically give an example of this w how how ⁓ as we talk and this gun in my mind. Now think about it like this, Greg. If you ⁓ or say a responsible parent ⁓ or you have a a sixteen year old kid ⁓ got the driver's license, right? Greg: It does, yeah. Charles: They wanna go out on Friday night to the movies, right? Now, they haven't really started getting a real job. So they really the little money they got maybe from allowancer, right? So the pair of give them like fifteen or twenty bucks to go to the movies and get the popcorn and whatever. And expect them to come home to a certain hour, right? Now, what you think be the difference if you give a fifteen or sixteen year old kid keys to the car. Greg: No. Charles: and twenty bucks versus if you give them two hundred bucks and the keys to your car. What Greg: Yeah, they'll never go to the movie. Probably game more Yeah, yeah, yeah. Most likely if you give a kid two hundred dollars on the keys to your car, they're probably gonna go to the town next over or they're or they're gonna go somewhere else and go shopping. They're they're they're not gonna worry about some daggone movie. They the movie's just a foregone excuse to get out of the house. And so basically you have a whole bunch of ⁓ you know, just yeah wild you can you wild behavior. Charles: The more money you get them, the poor Greg: Do you think that's a good analogy for the campaign finance? Charles: Well yeah, the analogy is this. The more money that kid has, the more potential drugs, alcohol or negative stuff they can buy with the money that they have. Because why? They have a fluid amount of money, right? Versus But the twenty dollars will kinda cap or limit the level of stupidity that they can engage in with their with their age and maturity, right? Kind of cap ⁓ off. But that's kind of what we've been doing, because we know that the politicians are greedy and corrupt by Greg: They are not gritty. They're they're not all gritty and corrupt. Charles: So what I'm trying to say to you though, so we've been kinda putting the handcuffs on the parties and then say, okay, you can get it through third parties because we wanna put it a little make it a little harder for you. Now we'll be scared ⁓ about that's what we're saying now. That's what the Supreme Court said now. So now it's gonna be insane. You know, I mean, you you talk a lot about corruption and and this is your issue, right? Greg: Your packs and your ECOs and five. Charles: And so now I'm trying to tell you that with all this unlimited money money involved with the corporation and the parties, I mean, are you kidding me? Greg: Yeah, I mean it's gonna give us the ability to raise more money to go after corruption. So Charles: And you okay, but now how do you think that's gonna affect your issue of order frog? Greg: Well, voter fraud is ⁓ it's gonna it's gonna complicate it by far because voter fraud is one of my biggest issues and I've been f studying it and everything else and since two thousand I guess two or three. And so ⁓ and and you know, I've seen it since the nineties and everything. So I mean, yeah, the funding of the voter fraud is gonna be huge. And the I think ⁓ to me the biggest frustration here is is ⁓ campaign finance was more or less restricting people who are trying to go after it. And ⁓ because the people who are doing the voter fraud are criminals and criminals don't really follow the law. They're fraudsters and it actually goes a lot farther than just voting rights. It has to do with identity theft and credit card theft and counterfeits and so on and so forth. And that's that's really the the depths of the voter fraud is is that you know, once you get somebody's voter ID, you're getting that information, that that metadata, that personal PI I information to go and get a credit card or go and get this or go and get that. And so The fraudsters know what they're doing and so that's one thing I try to enforce people, voter fraud is not about votes. Voter fraud is about identity theft and and counterfeits and you know ⁓ stealing you know, ste stealing the identities of people and stealing their wealth and stealing their you know, kinda like ⁓ how they had those ⁓ those ⁓ real estate scams and those ⁓ so so somebody goes ahead and gets a mortgage on your house and or something like that or or get something on your house and or or a car loan or something like that. But a lot of that has to do with a lot of the information you get from their voter database. A lot of the PIA information is what you get to get to the next step. Charles: But but Greg, you always talk about one of the issue of voter for our it is that when we when you the difficulty of proving it, number one, number two, the the for lack of better word, the the reservation of prostitute to try to prosper on both point. So d that's that so I'm what I'm born is is that so with all how in the world you think that that's gonna do anything but make Greg: It's gonna make it difficult. It'll make it more difficult. But it's gonna be harder for both sides to raise the money. I mean actually probably easier for both sides to raise the money, but it's gonna be ⁓ you're yeah, I see your point. It is gonna be harder to get the entrenched ⁓ money out of the corrupt ⁓ legal people and the corrupt elected officials, but you know, that's that that's gonna be hard to do. I get it. Charles: Brought up work. Okay. Well it'll be harder. Well, let's transition to the a couple more topics briefly. But I ran I r I ran briefly the I ran understanding. I was out there commercial fishing the weekend and so I was out on reality and you know and so I I I come I come back and I figured that I I I I find out that the whole weekend Greg: You wanna talk about a Rant? At he weren't in the Persian Gulf. Yeah. Charles: We bombing Iran, Iran bombing us. It's supposed to be a peace truce through the memorable understanding. Then I hear the president saying that today too was supposed to be the new start of peace. So what's what's really going on? It's just it's Greg: Iran fired first. America responded. Iran fired. America responded. I mean maybe Iran just doesn't win the money. I guess they don't need it because you know they they they shot a a Panama ship. They shot a Bahrain. They shot a Kuwait. I mean I guess, you know, they don't need it. They I mean I and maybe that's one reason why I think the Iran deal that Trump made was so awesome and so good and so wonderful for Pro Iran because it was not an attainable deal. It's only attainable if the both sides actually comply and agree. But whenever they don't do what they're supposed to do to get the to get the ⁓ benefits from the ⁓ treaty or from the MOU, it doesn't it it could be the it could be the most perfect as Trump would say, the most perfect, beautiful bill in the world or the most pu beautiful MOU in the world. But whenever Iran's not gonna follow through with anything, it doesn't really matter what it is. Ain't worth the paper it's written on. Because they're not. They like to war. They like to kill people. All they had to do was stop killing people. That's really it. All they had to do is stop shooting at tankers and stop trying to kill people and quit funding terrorism. It's not a really hard ask. It's not a really hard task. I mean, they can't go after uranium already 'cause we bombed the Sun Age out of that area there, so we already know they can't reach it or insp or or take it or or or use it. So that's good. That's done. All they had to do left is just quit killing people. ⁓ Charles: But but this is this is problem with it was was Israel bombing Lebanon, Greg. It never stopped. And that was one of the part of the deal. Greg: Problem. Those are two different countries. Yeah, but those are other I mean the I mean, Iran should quit worrying about Lebanon, worry about Iran. Okay, I mean and maybe we should quit worrying about other countries, just worry about America. Maybe everybody should be an isolationist nation, I guess. I have no idea. But I mean Charles: You always need friends, allies, space and and and you know, a territory at a strategic point in history depending on or potentially anyway. So you you just can't go out alone in anything in the modern era. Can you? So w that that I think that we that we need to wait and see how that situation develops. Greg: Yeah, you're correct. You're right. I mean I agree. Charles: But I I won't Greg: I I I th I I think I told you a couple of episodes ago there's never gonna be a peace in the Middle East in my opinion, and there's never gonna be. Still in my opinion, peace in the Middle East. I mean, these people wanna kill each other and they gotta quit win I mean, Israel and Lebanon and Syria and and you know, Kuwait and Qatar and Qatar, wherever you wanna however you wanna say it, and Turkey, I mean ⁓ all these different nations have all s gotta figure out how to get along somehow. Otherwise they're never gonna get along. And all this is just in paper time, we need quit worrying about exporting and importing through the Persian Gulf. Find a different method, find a different path. Find a I mean, we only used two percent of their diagram oil anyway. And I think it's also funny that oil dropped almost a hundred some odd percent, over a hundred percent, to sixty dollars a barrel and gas didn't move any. I think that was kind of funny. You know, gas dropped twenty cents and went up ten cents and oil went from like a hundred and eighty a barrel to like sixty five a barrel and the gas price and no genny. So what did d are is our gas prices really influenced by this or is that just an excuse? Charles: Maybe. Well, a I listen maybe that though I know I was able to feel ⁓ at least about seven, six or seven dollars difference in filling up leaving out of town of recently. So yeah, that drop made sense at least where I was at ⁓ you know Greg: It it for a while, I live on Palm Coast. It went from three ninety nine a gallon, then it went all the way down to three sixty three a gallon. Now it's back to three ninety a gallon. Charles: Yeah. Well, we'll well again, those issues are ongoing and we'll wait to see what happens with that. But I wanna I wanna close out on our podcast session, which is the power of God is. Now ⁓ Orlando Nated, all pro running a former all pro running back, you know, Chris Johnson used to play for the Tennessee Titan ⁓ in in the National Football League. He was recently retired and at thirty nine years old. Greg: Right. Charles: He was recently diagnosed with ALS, which is a a brain sclerosis of the brain that affects the nervous system and makes your muscles weak. And now he lost the motor skills to not be able to speak. And he was on Good Morning America. I think it was yesterday or sometime ⁓ this week. And he basically had to communicate with his eyes, ⁓ almost like performer actor. I I think I don't know if it's Christopher Reese, I believe one that w to play Superman, ⁓ had to kinda use the computer, ⁓ as well as the ⁓ the former ⁓ movie critic. He he had ⁓ situation where he had to talk to his computer. So that technology allowed him to use his eyes to talk. It was a very tragic ⁓ situation, but the fact the boldness of this young man to go publicly with with his condition this early, I I I I I'm praying for him. I'm praying for his family. He got a beautiful family. He's from the Orlando area. He was amazing, amazing ⁓ all pro running back ⁓ for the Tennessee Titans. So, you know, I just wish that ⁓ I I invoke everyone that's on the sound of our voice to pray for this family that the power of God is not like man, ⁓ we are limited, God is unlimited. ⁓ I pray for this young man and and and and and and his boldness and his faith to go forward. Because a lot of time when people great, when they get in a very the lowest point. They tend to be private and don't want the world to know what's going on. They lock people out. And the fact that he and his wife and his children are are just boldly telling people to inform people about the condition, to bring awareness to it. I think it's bigger than and my my prayers are with this family and I I and I I just ⁓ hopefully ⁓ they you know they know have a word less and extended, you know, life capacity because ⁓ you know, a ALS is very debilitating disease. And this form is seemed to be going on him very rapidly in a negative way. And ⁓ but his spirits are still great. So I pray for the best ⁓ about that situation. So you have any comment about that, I preach Josh Greg: Yeah, anybody going through that situation and and he has a great football player and ⁓ for what I hear, a great person. And so our prayers are definitely gonna be going out to him and his family. For everything he's going through, I do understand ⁓ it's very hard for a lot of people to be public about their troubles and trials and everything that they're going through and other plight that they're medical issues that they're going through. But I think it's very important for people to come out whenever they are having situations like this unless they're gonna just be woeing in their misery. if they want to be leaders and and vessels of God and and talk about how they're able to to come through everything through the Lord's hand and the Lord's leadership and everything. I think that's all very important and very good to do because people need to see that reflection of the spirit in in very troubled times. Charles: Exactly, exactly. And ⁓ and again, ⁓ I wanna thank everybody ⁓ thank you, Greg, for joining us tonight on Kingdom Revelation where Yeah, you're welcome. ⁓ this is the show where we we we we real talk, real situation, real issue with real people. We we're authentic, we're now for no one but expanding Greg: For having me. Right. Charles: the kingdom of God. My loyalty is the kingdom of God, not any political party. Right. My loyalty faith is in God and Jesus Christ. And so we don't apologize for that on this show. And ⁓ we're we're not we're very specific. We're not just praying to a high power. We're praying to God Almighty, Jesus the resurrected Savior. Right. And that's what we believe here. And ⁓ and we wish you all God speed. We ask you to You know, this is a people power show. The elites don't like what we're saying. They want to colonize our thoughts, our ideas, and triple and minimize the the gravity of God and and and and go into that satanic foolishness and devil will but this is is it's time now for the people of God to be intentional about the things of God, the ways of God and the thinking of God and the word of God and the truth of God. Because this is the whole point of revelation. Revelation is true. And revelation requires you to when you get revelation to walk in the power of the revelation. Otherw otherwise the revelation will be wasted. And God doesn't want us to waste the revelation that He gives us, you know. So ⁓ but ⁓ we wanna thank you all for joining us and at the end of the program you can see how to contact us. We on all the social media, all the the the media outlets, you can find us here. And ⁓ we like for you to comment, like, tell us what you feel. We can always, you know, agree or disagree in a respectful manner. We can have difference opinions, but we we all gotta be one citizens and one way of thinking if we're gonna be Americans. And we gotta think in in a way that's the best interest of this country. And when you love this country, you ought to be criticizing to make it better. It never gonna be better by just ignoring things. You have to speak up. Greg: Exactly. You've got to do that. If if you're just sitting there and watching the train go by, you're gonna keep watching it go by because I mean the America was founded by people who came over here from the ⁓ cross a pretty big ⁓ ocean here to come here and ⁓ to get things going in the right direction and and separate themselves from the Church of England and and from the dictatorship of the king over there. And yeah, a lot of people might compare what we're going through today as a kingdom or Or fiefdom or some sort of a dictatorship here with Trump. It's not, in my opinion. But it's just a that are point in time. But the point is that the people who are saying that are the ones who are making this country great because they actually I'd I'd rather have somebody complain and be active than have people just sit back and watch and not not do anything. It's like one thing you talk about, the non voters. The non voters are the ones who are Putting us in a situation. We people have gotta get activated to realize their rights, realize our motivation, and realize the Lord has put us in this incredible country here for a reason. I mean, we have two hundred and fifty years here, our anniversary coming up and and you know, give out our indifferent, it's America and I hope everybody's gonna be very safe this weekend and be very careful. Don't Texan drive don't drink and drive. Charles: Right. And I it it it it it's a very w roll up onto a holiday ⁓ very soon and we need to be responsible and and be careful as you drive. We ⁓ we don't need you out there driving and w alcohol drugs. Exactly. If you're gonna go celebrate, go to a place that's secure, that you don't have to, you know, get yourself i in a situation or home or put other people in in home way. by your action inaction. So we we're gonna wrap it up tonight. And we thank again, we thank you and may God bless you and be with you and be intentional and walk in power. And ⁓ we'll see you ⁓ next week, Lord's will. And always Rocco. Thank you great. All right, good night everybody. Greg: Thank you, Charles.