Government exists to secure your rights. Do you know what they are?

0:00Music Helping to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, this is the Constitution study on the America Out Loud Network with your host Paul Engel. According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are created to secure our rights. But how can we tell if they're doing their job if we don't understand our rights in the first place? Hello there, everyday Americans, Paul Engel here with the Constitution study where we read instead of the Constitution. Teacher Rice and Generations should be free. Glad you could join me today. You know, it's interesting. People talk about right, but when you ask them to define what is a right, they tend to stutter. They're not entirely sure. We talk about rights, but we don't always understand what is a right or there are different types of rights.

1:06And, and, you know, we are excited. I'm free of a speech and free of religion, but we understand the concept of right. What is a right? I've done some research on this. I've actually written articles on this and let me give you the brief understanding. So a right as defined legally is a just claim immunity or privilege. Now, that's the very basis. There's a lot that involves rights. Right? For example, you talk about a just a just claim, meaning you have a right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, one would provide for you. You have a claim on government money to provide you an attorney. That is a right. You think of freedom of religion, freedom of speech. That's a just immunity. You have an immunity from being being infringed upon your freedom of speech, your freedom of religion, and a just privilege. Well, you have the right to vote. That is a privilege that you have. That is your right as a citizen of the United States.

2:10Now, rights are positive and negative. A positive right is something somebody must do for you. So think of provide you an attorney. A negative right is what someone cannot do to you. Think of the first amendment, right? Your freedom of religion. People can't infring on your freedom of religion, your freedom of speech. You're right to keep them bare arms. They can be alienable or unalienable. So certain rights, like the right to life, liberty, and property, are unalienable rights. They didn't come from government. They came from God. They came from our creator. So we have those rights. They can't be they can be infringed upon, but they can't be taken away. Take compare that with your right to vote. Right? That's that's given to you by government and government can take it away, generally as a as a punishment for a crime. So when we talk about rights, it's actually a lot more to them. But the to me, the core understanding of rights is in order for something to be a right, I must be able to exercise it without infringing on the rights of others.

3:21That that that is almost almost universally true. I say almost right because obviously if I if I have a right to an attorney and people have to pay taxes to get the attorney, I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm taking their their money. But in general, when we talk about rights, can I exercise that right without infringing on the rights of others? That is one of the fundamental aspects of rights. And I want you to keep those those things in mind, right? Positive versus negative alien, versus unable in the question, can I exercise that right without infringing on the rights of another as we look at the stories that I want to get to today? That especially this first one because it involves a lawsuit and an activist group who's filed a motion to dismiss federal civil rights charges arguing that when it entered a church to disrupt the service, that conduct amount of pure speech and assembly was therefore protected by the first amendment.

4:27According to the motion, quote, the Constitution does not contain an exception to free speech and churches. All right, let me break this down a little bit because understand the legitimate use of a right does not involve the the deprivation or the infringing of a right of somebody else. So I mean, this is I believe it's a federal lawsuit. So I that's important to understand right you're talking about Congress shall make no law of a bridging among other things preventing your you're bridging for your speech, you're right to piece of the assemble all of that now. A federal grand jury and died at 38 people on the charge of violating the freedom of access to clinic entrance is act, which also protects access to churches and violating the clue, clux clan act, which criminalizes efforts to the private Americans of their fundamental rights. Now I've talked about the face act before I haven't really talked about the clue, clux clan act, but what we're dealing with this is a again question of conflicting rights.

5:35Now, according to the indictment agitators who were opposing immigration, customer enforcement, enter the church because one of the church pastors worked for ice and refused to leave when this group refused to leave when asked. And they shouted things like who shut this down we shut this down. They were screaming at crying children, they prevented parents from getting their children into Sunday school. One agitators told a child's parents they were not season going to hell. They were very disruptive. But I want to get back to the parts of the free exercise or the face act and the clue, clux, again, the, where does the Congress get the authority to determine access to clinics, right to make a clinic different than any other business they don't. What the deer talking about is churches and to me the clue, clux clan acts is the more is the better target because if I understand it correctly, it says if you try to pride people of their fundamental rights, then under clue, clux, clan act, that is a crime.

6:47Right. In this case, the claim is that they're depriving people of their ability to exercise their religion. They're free actually protected by the first amendment. This also, by the way, is their freedom to be to a peaceably assemble. You also have the liberty to go to a church service without being disrupted. In other words, in the exercise of their freedom of speech, they've this group violated the rights of others. And now they want to get out of jail free card saying we can do anything we want because it was speech and assembly except that's not the way rights work. When you use your right to infring on the rights of another, that is your right to no longer or legit. That's not a legitimate exercise of your right. Let me say that again, when you use your rights to infring on the rights of another, that is not a legitimate use of your rights. But there's another twist to this because according to the motion the defendants have provided, they said there was no alleged conduct that cross the line into violence, threats or anything that went beyond free speech.

7:55The protest was a little bit of peer peaches speech and assembly. Well, remember, a church is private property. Right. It's generally owned by some organization known as the church. Sometimes they're incorporated. Sometimes they're not, but it is private property. Your ability, your freedom of speech doesn't allow you to invade someone's private property and effectively take over. That is a deprivation of property. That's due process of law. It acts as if while we did with the ifs could they do the exact same thing in your living room? No, they couldn't, but that's the misunderstanding of rights or I should say this is the legal twist. Remember, these defendants are being counseled by attorneys whose job it is to get the best outcome for their client, meaning I don't know if the attorneys believe this motion or not, but to them it's the best move they have to get in their clients. I think that's the reason why the government is putting these defendants out of their charges.

9:01And again, the motion claims that the government is punishing the defendants because their message no, they are punishing the defendants because they deprived others of their rights. They invaded private property. They were asked to leave and didn't that trespassing that's criminal trespassing. meeting that is not free speech. That is a private people of their freedom of speech. So I want us to consider this really seriously as we examine this rationally and with evidence, does someone have a right in their exercising of their rights to deprive you of your right? No. Right? They don't. This idea that their speech, the agitator speech, is more important than the speech of the people assembling for their service is ludicrous. The idea that they have the right to take over someone else's property is ludicrous. The idea that all they were doing was assembling. They were not disrupting in others is ludicrous.

10:04It is a legal ploy and I hope not only does it fail, but I hope the judge slaps it down with the the true ridiculousness that it deserves. Right? I mean, I really hope we get something along the lines of Mr. Madison, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I mean, that's what I'm thinking. That would be the response that I would have if I were the judge which then again, I'm not. Let's say there's something else. So, Dallas police have become the latest in the line of cities that are shutting down their automatic license plate readers, their flock cameras.

11:06Now, they're claiming it's because of a funding pause. Not sure why the the the that issued according to the department's social media. They received notice that the governor Abbott issued a directive ending funding for flock camera use. So, they're shutting it down. Now, if you know we can't do it without the state's money. So, we're not going to do it. Now, again, these on Mac like they've brought up a lot of questions about rights. As I've said before, people tell you have to write to privacy. You do not have a right to privacy in public. What can be seen from public public view is not considered private. If you want to do it behind closed doors, close the curtains. That's up to you. Once you're in the public, there's you don't have a right to privacy. It's how this information is collected and how it's used. That is the concern we have. According to the Dallas police department, they said these cameras remain an important investigative tool.

12:08And are used daily by detectors and officers, developed leads, identified vehicles associated with criminal activities and assistance solving crimes. Okay, my question is how are you using them to develop leads? In other words, when you go searching for someone's data, do you have a warrant? They say we want to identify vehicles are associated with criminal activity. Did you get a warrant to search for this information? See, I understand the logic. These can be very powerful tools in certain criminal investigations. The question is, are these law enforcement agencies following the law, the Supreme Law Land, the Constitution when it comes to collecting, storing and accessing this data? For example, okay, so the police department sets up these cameras to collect data except the police department doesn't hold the data. Let me say it again, the police department doesn't hold the data.

13:10Floc safety holds the data. So in other words, the city has, what, Sunday contract to have a third party hold on to the data for them. That to me is a concern. Right? It's, you're not saying we've got our data and we can, we're setting up rules right? This data can be accessed by a lot of people outside of the city's control. That's problem number one. And as I've already mentioned, how people gain access to this data? Does it require anything more than a simple login ID? Is there, does someone have to file a court order, a warrant that says, I'm searching this data for this reason? I've got probable cause supported by author affirmation. Why is it they don't have to supply a subpoena, a warrant? And that warrant not become part of the audit trail, right? Oh, okay. I have a warrant to search for this. Let me post the warrant onto the end of the database so that I know that my search was supported by this warrant.

14:15Because you've seen numerous situations where law enforcement has violated the law. In search of this frequently searching for love interests, right? Some of them have been prosecuted, some not. So you don't have a right to privacy, but you do have a right to be secure in your person's houses, papers and effects. And that means that the same way the police can't simply come up, come up to on the street and say, give me your ID. Legally, they can't. They have to have at least a reasonable, articulate suspicion that you are involved in a crime, either past, present or future. All right. That's important understanding. And that is part of the problem with these cameras. Is that no one is saying, hey, where's your reasonable, articulate suspicion? Where's your probable cause? Where's your warrant? That needs to be built into the system. And there's no reason. Flop doesn't have to build a system. It's a private system. That to me is another serious part of the problem here. Again, so it's not a question of your right to privacy, but it is your right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

15:21And these ALRPs have been used repeatedly for unreasonable searches and unreasonable seizures. Now, I have some more articles, some more stories I want to get into, but before I do that, I have a break coming up. I want to remind you, you know, we're still dealing with the after effects, not just of COVID, but with our government's response to COVID. A vaccine shedding, vaccine injury, long COVID, these are all real. These all exist. What do we do? See, the problem is the spike protein. That's the, the, the part of the toxic part. That's the, the inflammatory part of COVID-19. It's the part, by the way, those mRNA vaccines taught your body to make. That was the whole idea. We'll teach the body and make the spike protein, and it will learn to defend against it. Of course, they didn't tell you that, oh, by the way, it's going to let it run loose through your body. That's the whole other issue. So what do we do? Well, our friends at the wellness company have come up with a product called Daily Spike Support.

16:27It can be taken protectively to, to deal with the effects of a vaccine, of shedding, even of COVID itself. It uses a revolutionary combination of greens to both block and dissolve that spike protein. Now, I'm not an epidemiologist. I'm not a doctor. I don't play one on TV, but it's backed by document of research. It's been vetted by the chief medical board of the wellness company, and they've got the evidence to show it. Go to americatloud.shop, click on the spike support panel, do your own research. I want you to be an informed consumer. When you've done your research and you're ready to give it a try, use the code out loud to get 20% off of your order. So whether you're concerned about actually having had COVID or the mRNA vaccine, or just you've been exposed to the spike protein by shedding, take a look at spike support by going to americatloud.shop, click on the spike support panel, do your research, be that informed consumer. Don't forget, when you're ready to buy, use the code out loud to get 20% off of your order.

17:32Are you looking for a healthy snacks? But you've had enough of all the sweet sugary energy bars? Good news! There's new bars to try. That savory crunchy impact with goodness. Barbar's are based just on six simple natural ingredients, a certified organic veggie nut and seed bar. That's low temp dried, never baked or fried. Bar bars are plant-based, gluten-free, and loaded with nutrients and protein. Head over to barbar.com slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America out loud listeners. That's B-E-A-R-B-A-R dot com forward slash out loud. Your heart is the most crucial muscle in your body. Are you doing enough to keep it strong?

18:35Introducing the wellness companies break through healthy heart formula designed by Dr. Peter McCullough, now upgraded with Torin. This daily supplement supports cardiovascular health and works to protect cells against oxidative stress, packed with D-ribose, to boost heart function, Torin to help maintain heart muscular health, co-enzyme Q10, and selenium citrate to help reduce risk of cardiac disease, and a vitamin B complex with L-carnitine for energy and muscle support. Indoor by the wellness companies chief medical board, this formula is your ally for heart health. Re-claim your health now at TWC.health-forward slash out loud and use code out loud for 20% off your first order plus free shipping. Are you tired of struggling with low energy? We get it. That's why we created organic energy juice. In just one minute, you'll have clean, natural energy all day and never struggle with low energy again. And it tastes amazing. And there's no toxic chemicals or stimulants that make you crash. You shouldn't have to struggle with low energy and with organic energy juice, you won't.

19:39If you're struggling with low energy, then buying organic energy juice is the right decision. With our double your money back guarantee, there is zero risk to try it. Go to chemicalfreebody.com-forward slash out loud for an exclusive discount. That's chemicalfreebody.com-forward slash out loud. A men's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers and woods. But it is a principle. And patriotism is loyal to that principle. I'm happy to report that American patriotism flows freely once again. America out loud.News is that place to awaken your heart, soul and mind to the out loud truth. Welcome back, everybody. American, you rejoined the Constitution State. They were talking about understanding your rights.

20:40I guess I was going to get to the second amendment here. Some point in this program in here. Absolutely correct. Because again, the Constitution, second amendment, the right to keep in bear arms, the right of the people to keep in bear arms should not be infringed. Now that's half of the second amendment. The first amendment says, the first half says, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep in bear arms should not be infringed. So we have a militia that's necessary to security of free state, but it's the right of the people to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed. That has not stopped political acting committees, courts, politicians from simply ignoring the inconvenient truth that the right to keep in bear arms is not to be infringed. It's not to be encroached upon. Now we're going back out to Hawaii where district judge claims that Hawaii's law that says we will not issue a firearm ownership license anyone under the age of 21 doesn't violate the second amendment.

21:45Now I contend that the very requirement of a firearm ownership license violates the second amendment because it infringes on a person's right to keep in bear arms. If you say an adult's right, it doesn't say someone over 21, it's the right of the people. Now the judge, by the way, wrote the state presents significant evidence that both society and technology changed dramatically from the founding to a century later. Technological advancements and firearms in the 19th century render them more portable, lethal and available. To my responses, so what? See, it doesn't say that the right of the people to keep in bear arms as long as they're not too portable or as long as they're not too lethal. See, the reason the Constitution, when they drafted, they were looking at fundamental rights and the fundamental understanding is you have a right to keep in bear arms.

22:45It doesn't say, by the way, firearms, it says arms. That includes firearms, it includes swords, knives, bats, batons, technically it includes cannons. You can even make the argument that it includes nuclear weapons. Now, someone out there saying, but why would anyone need a nuclear weapon? Well, I don't can't think of one, but you know what? It's not called the bill of needs. It's called the bill of rights. And the answer for one is simple. Why do we have people armed? Well, we need a militia. We need unarmed populace. Why? To make sure our state remain free. Who here thinks that, who here remembered when people were talking about a president using a small tactical nukes to put down uprights within the United States? Who cares if it could it happen? Sure. We hear about it overseas. There's there's talking always is Putin getting ready to use a nuke in the war in Ukraine.

23:51Well, what's the prevent someone from using one here? Now again, we have rules put in place. We have process put in place. But really, if you're saying that the government says we need this in order to keep people safe, what's the deterrent? Again, I'm not talking about people actually having nuclear weapons, maybe nuclear energy. What if they come up with these small form factor, nuclear reactors, the modular nuclear reactors? As the government going to say, you can't have them because you might turned into a weapon and that would be dangerous. You have it right to keep them bare arms of all sorts keep meaning to own bear meaning to carry. It says nothing about age. So this district judge violated her oath of office her name is Jill a K.O. Tech, I'll take a she violated because she ignored the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say the right to keep bear arms as long as they're not too portable or not too lethal or not to available.

24:58I have a right to keep them bare arms. By the way, that doesn't require age. There's no age restriction in the second amendment. Now, there's a parental over understanding of a responsibility. There were guns in my house for as long as I've known. As a small child, there were guns in the house. And you know what? My father taught me as a small child. You don't touch the guns. Trust me, I was more worried about getting a beating from my father than what might happen if I, but if I touch a gun. When I was old enough, my father taught me gun safety and how to shoot a gun or how to handle a gun. When I was old enough, I had access to guns. I didn't have to get his permission. He didn't have to go out with me. I could go and use the guns as long as I was safe with them. That's the right to keep him bare arms. It doesn't have an age restriction to it. But this is, again, I don't have the right to use my right to keep my arms too harm someone else.

26:00I can't go walking down the street waving my gun around shooting into the air. That wouldn't fringe on the rights of others. But I have a right to both own my guns and to keep them on my person to bear them, to carry them in public. And this judge's belief that well, they're just too lethal. Doesn't supersede my right. This judge is wrong. Her decision is wrong. And her decision, by the way, is not law. Yeah, I want to make that one point to it's not law. It's her decision. And the wise law is superseded by the Constitution of the United States. The problem we have is way too many people don't really understand rights. They think rights are fine until government has a reason to infring on them. I mean, how often do I talk about courts and this idea of strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny and rational basis. These are all standards that a court has created, not the law, not the Constitution, a court come up came up with with how hard government has to work in order to infring on your rights.

27:12You see, if you look at this, what this judge is basically saying, listen, the state has said our interest, our state interest in regulating guns is sufficient to infring on the right of 18 to 20 year olds from getting our permission to have a firearm. Except the compelling government interest, the only compelling government interest a government legitimately has is to protect our rights. This is, you know, they're saying we have a right because we have a compelling government is just keeping people safe. Your compelling government interest is in keeping is protecting people's rights so they can keep themselves safe. It's this misunderstanding of rights and their limitations. And the fact that courts have repeatedly said, sure, government can infring on your rights, as long as they come up with a good enough reason, which means the courts don't treat them as rights. They treat them as privileges as something the government bestows on you, ignoring the fact that according to the declaration, our unalienable rights come not from government, but from our creator.

28:21Meanwhile, out of Massachusetts, we have this question of out of state carry permits. Again, in Hawaii, we're talking about you need government permission to own a firearm. That's an infring on your rights who's saying, I need, I can need to go to the government and say, please may I to exercise right. That's not a right. That's a privilege. That's a problem. Now many states have carry licenses. In fact, where it lived now in Tennessee, they have a permitless carry. It's not true cost to social carry, but it's pretty close. You don't need a permit to carry in public. I still have a permit it serves other purposes, but again, you're asking government for permission for state like Hawaii and Massachusetts to exercise a so-called right. They're not treating it as a right. In a previous court case, the Supreme Court said, listen, if you are going to not recognize out of state carry permits, then you must issue out of state carry permits. Otherwise, you're depriving people that right to keep in their arms.

29:27The Second Amendment Foundation has sued Massachusetts back in August of last year, because well, let's just say they're dragging their feet and processing these out of state carry permits. By the way, this is the long side of the gun owners action league and several other non-residents who have requested out of state carry permits and have been waiting forever to get them. According to the Chief United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, Denise Casper, she said plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that their LTC applications are effectively denied during such periods. Massachusetts begrudgingly makes carry permits available for out of state residents, but makes the process of acquiring and renewing them on an annual basis, unconstitutionally burdensome. That's the from the director of the Second Amendment Foundation's legal operations.

30:29He says delay of multiple months for both new applications and renewals, which are required every year are commonplace and without grace any grace period for those folks with pending renewals are members who are subject to these delays have their rights extinguished for extended periods of time year after year. So they sued. Well, of course, it turns from Massachusetts. They tried to get the law suit thrown out. As you might have guessed from what I quoted from the judge, their tend to get thrown out has failed. As the judge noted, right, if you if you want an out of state permit and they are delayed, your rights are effectively denied during such period, that's a cause that is a grievance that needs to be redressed. The fact that it's out of state doesn't make a difference. The fact that it's guns doesn't make a difference. Right. Your right to keep their arms is a right protected by the Constitution of the States, the Supreme Law of the land, making people pay by either financially or by delaying for the right to exercise their rights is unconstitutional.

31:41It's a deprivation of rights under code. Technically, you could say the, the state of Massachusetts, those running the system for out of state licenses are committing federal crimes because they are denying people their right protected by the Constitution of the States under color of law. Well, we just can't, we can't do this quickly enough. We just need to take our time and all this. And I remember when I lived in New York and I had a carried permit, I could not carry in Massachusetts. Because Massachusetts didn't recognize that permit. And at that time, Massachusetts didn't even offer out of state carry permits. I couldn't get one, which I found really interesting because I actually went up to Vermont. And I'd take a slightly longer route so that I wouldn't go through Massachusetts. But I was going to, I went to Vermont because Vermont said, sure, you're welcome with your guns. We don't care. They didn't even issue permits. They were constitutional carry decades before it became popular in New York. It became popular in other states in the United States. Now, you're right to keep and bear arms. Doesn't mean you can violate a person's property rights. That's why when I scroll up at a location that has that little symbol with the firearm and the red circle and slash.

32:54I don't bring my firearm in. If it's as long as it's private property, public property, we got issues private property. You have a right to control that I may not do business with you. I made decide that I don't that that my right to keep and bear arms, my right to defend myself is more important. Then whatever I would purchase or service, I would conduct business, I would conduct on your property. That is my decision. But again, keeping bear arms that doesn't supersede private. In fact, I had a situation, a gentleman had come to my house. He was coming to ask to hunt on my property and he'd done this before and we were chitchatting on the front porch. And I noticed he had a little bit a little darenger in his cover all pocket. And we got talking about stuff and I said, yeah, I noticed he says, oh, sorry, I would meant to leave that in the car. I have no problem. I said, I don't have a problem with you carrying as long as it remains in your pocket. In fact, the fact that I can see it makes you happier because now I know it's there. And I make sure you keep it you take it out into the pocket. We're going to have an issue. And we both had a bit of a chuckle about that because we both understood neither of us were threatening each other.

34:02Neither of us are trying to harm each other. But he recognized that my property rights included the ability to control whether or not who would be allowed to carry on my property. I didn't have a problem with him carrying on my property. But if I did, I could put a sign out on my on the end of my driveway with that firearm symbol. I'd be a hypocrite, but okay, but it's understanding that just because I were keeping bear arms doesn't mean I can carry it on someone else's private property without their permission. But the means that the government cannot a deny me my right delay my right require that I even that I get their permission. Now, I understand the concept of, you know, well, you may be a felon, you may be legally unable to carry a firearm. That is that's called what you're doing is called prior restraint. Right. You're you're straining me because I might have a problem. That is the violation of due process of law. That's where all these federal lawsuits, 1983 lawsuits come from. It's the violation of due process of law, the deprivation of rights under color of law.

35:12It is a violation of the second amendment, which is the right that's being infringed upon. And to me, it's important. Understand, you have a right to keep bear arms. You don't have a right to carry on someone else's private property. You do have a right to carry it in public. And all these entities that are infringing on the right allegedly for safety are depriving you of a right protected by the Constitution. United States, generally for some prior restraint or something they think you might possibly do. And that's not the other they have to remember in our legal system, the one making the accusation has the burden of proof. If the government says you need our permission, you have the burden of proof that we're not allowed to carry. And the very fact you're asking permission, they're asking for issues means you probably don't have that burden of proof. Okay, I got a couple of things. I mean, what stories I want to look at, but I do have another break coming up before I do that though. Do you know, do you know where your money is going?

36:17I mean, when you buy goods and services from a company, do you know where they're spending their money? I stopped doing business with a lot of companies because I found out that they were spending their money on people that were trying to infring my rights nonprofits, NGOs, other groups that were lobbying to infring my rights. It's one of the reasons why I joined Patreon mobile, not because they're America's only Christian service as well as provider. Nope, that's that's good. That's not why. Not because they got great forging 5G coverage on all the same networks and towers and major carriers. Not even because their customer support support is 100% US based is really nice to talk to a human being that speaks English. That's not why I joined them. I joined them because Patreon mobile not only believes that I believe, but they put their money with their mouth is. They support organizations that are fighting to protect our rights, for your religion, speech, press to keep them bare arms to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures to not be denied due process. They also support the sanctity of life, our veterans and our first responders. These are all great things. So I joined them as a customer years ago.

37:24And I loved them so much. I became an affiliate. That means if you go to patreon mobile.com slash constitution and sign up for a plan. A portion of your cell phone bill goes to support the work we're doing here at the Constitution study. By the way, join me at Patreon mobile today. Get free activation by using the code Constitution at checkout. So if you want great wireless service with a company that that's not only a Christian conservative, but supports our local workers, our sanctity of life, our rights, our veterans, our first responders. Join me at Patreon mobile today by going to patreon mobile.com slash constitution, finding a plan that works for you. See if you eligible for a discount. Don't forget to use the code Constitution to check out to get free activation. I also hope you'll swing by America out loud.News. I go there each and every day for news and information. Not just for the radio program, but to share with friends and family and neighbors. So that's the important thing. We live in the information age. A lot of people have a lot of information, but there's still a lot of filters, a lot of controls, depending on where you go.

38:28So it's more important than ever that you go to americatloud.News because you can trust them and still verify the work that they're doing. So yes, read the stories, read the articles, share them, friends, family, neighbors. Watch the videos, listen to the podcast, share them as well. I take them to civic groups, other organizations. You'd be surprised to walk off from people saying, I didn't know that. That's right. Because of commercial news, they don't want you to know. So when you go to americatloud.News and you share that information, you're not just sharing americatloud.News. You're helping to secure the blessings of liberty for all of us. I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book. I want to share something that's powerful. You can grow your own food right on your kitchen countertop. Sprouting is an ancient method that turns ordinary seeds into living vegetables in just three to five days. No soil, no sunshine, no fertilizer. Just seeds, water for under a dollar, a serving, you can grow nutrient dense packed greens anywhere. City apartments, dorm rooms, off the grid cabins.

39:34In a time when food prices are rising, Sprouting gives you control, abundance and peace of mind. Join the self reliance revolution. Go to thesproutingcompany.com. Slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive offer. We wouldn't go a day without washing our hands, brushing our teeth and washing our nose. Well, wait, we wash our nose. Yes, the number one place where bacteria, viruses and pollen enter the body is through the nose. So the average person breathes over 23,000 times a day. That's 23,000 opportunities for bacteria, viruses and irritants to get into your nose and make you sick. For an extra layer of protection, wash your nose with clear. That is clear. XLEAR. Clear's drug-free nasal spray features xylitol, an ingredient proven to block adhesion of many nasty bacteria and viruses and effectively clean, not just rinse like a saline, but wash your nose. Clear nasal spray quickly alleviates congestion, opens your airway and ensures your body's natural defenses are strong.

40:39Read the research studies for yourself at clear.com. That's x-lear.com. Protect yourself from the pathogens and junk you breathe. Pick up a bottle for you and your family today. Prepare for the next pandemic with the wellness companies Contagian Emergency Kit designed by Dr. Peter McCullough. Get life-saving medications like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, plus a free nebulizer and a guidebook for safe use. Order now by going to TWC. Get your health-forward slash out loud and use code out loud for $65 off your first order plus free shipping. Welcome back every day of American Jury. Join the Constitution today. We're talking about understanding our rights because our understanding is crucial to defending and inserting our rights. I just want to reason why John Jay said every member of the state a diligent need to read instead of the Constitution was country teacher, I should be free. But it's reading is one thing studying is another thing because you starting is an attempt to understand why is that important? Well, I saw an interesting article.

41:40Now recognize that according to the courts, the 14th amendment, your right to be at liberty, to not be denied liberty without depressive law, includes the right to the raising of your children. To controlling not only their health care, but their educational upbringing, their children are yours to oversee. Now schools have used their access to children in many cases to let's just say try and cut parents out of the process. We see this a lot with schools that are promoting transgendarism in kids and refusing to tell the parents, hiding this information from the parents. Well, got my in attention was an article this came from the daily signal that said there may be another tool to help parents protect their rights that most people are unaware of. In fact, I hadn't thought of it that way, but it kind of makes sense. What is that tool? It's called the individuals with disabilities education act.

42:42Federal law passed 1975, renamed back to 1990, but a guaranteed children with disabilities access to free appropriate public education. We've seen this right when you see children with disabilities have accommodations made for them. What's interesting is according to America first legal. The law also gives parents extensive authority over evaluation, educational services, school records, and individualized education programs. So according to America first legal, the IDEA toolkit arms parents with an arsenal of tools designed to ensure that they not the government remain in control of their children's education. You see, according to America first legal, the IDEA guarantees parental consent for evaluations and services, participation in individual education program development access to records, notice of proposed changes, and the ability to revoke consent for services.

43:46See, parents have the right to be part of the team that determines if their child has a disability in the first place. That's the part that got my attention. See, when I think about the IDEA and I think about disabled children, I'm thinking you need disability. But if the IDEA says none of the parents have the right to be involved in the question of a disability in the first place, that gives parents a lot of tools, doesn't it? And if the schools violate their rights, according to this, this document published by America first legal, parents can demand mediation from the state or local education agency. They can request a due process hearing before the agency. They have the right to appeal the local education agencies due process hearing to the state education agency. They have a lot of tools before they even get to an actual court to bring a lawsuit if the state deprives them of these rights.

44:48So while Congress may have passed the IDEA to secure the rights of children with disabilities, it secured a lot of rights for parents. Now while my daughter is well beyond the age of primary or secondary education, this understanding that it is the parent, not the government that decides what's best for the child, with extraordinary, barring extraordinary circumstances. So the question is, what will you do to protect the education, the upbringing of your children? And do you have more tools than maybe you first thought? Maybe if you're concerned, maybe reach out to America first legal, there's no relationship right? They're not sponsoring anything, but I find it interesting. And I love finding these organizations that help people protect their rights. Maybe this is a situation that you might find helpful. Speaking of kids, let's head out to California. The California Legislature amended a law that it involves with, it's called the California Digital Age Assurance Act.

45:56It's a digital ID. And the idea was that the original bill, which again, government news since signed last year, required operating systems, to select real time age data on the people using their computers that they're running them for things like app stores. It used to be involved websites as well. I guess they dropped the website and some of the websites. But again, the state of California says your operating windows, single windows, right? They have to collect digital age information. They have to have a digital ID in order to use things like app stores and other tools. But again, I don't like the government coming in and telling me what is age appropriate for my child. The government doesn't know my child. Why are they in the middle of this? But there's another concern, right? So now the government's going to decide what's age appropriate.

46:58Because well, if they got an age verification law for things online, well, then they've got to limit that. And of course, they're sharing this age data with the app stores and developers. So now, not only that, but the Apple app store or the iPhone app store or any of the apps, they have to keep a record of the age of everybody using their products. And are you really comfortable with Apple, Google and the state of California knowing such information? Because it's not simply, oh, we know they're age. They have to verify their age. They have to have some data, something to prove their age. Now, what do we often use to prove our age? Well, I know a lot of people use driver's license. If I go to buy a bottle of wine at the store, I have to show them my driver's license. Now listen, there's not a human being on the planet that looks at me and says, you know what, Paul? I think you're under 21. I mean, I got gray hair. I got a gray beard. I look well past the age of drinking, but I'm still required to provide my driver's license.

48:08So what are they going to use for your digital age verification? Huh? But Paul, someone out there saying, you know, if you've got nothing to hide, what do you worry about? I may have nothing to hide, but I have everything to protect. See, a dark web service recently advertises back at the end of August. They're offering 153 million scans of driver's licenses. They have more than 10 million other identity cards and 3 million travel documents or international IDs. And at least almost 600,000 medical cards. I want to think about this, right? You go somewhere and they want a copy for driver's license. Well, are they making a photo copy to keep a paper record or are they making a digital copy that may be hacked? 153 million driver's licenses.

49:09Now, where did all of this hacked data come from? Well, according to a security researcher, it came from a company who was hired to verify people's identities. Nexus. It was advertised on a Russian language cybercrime forum called Explite. A security researcher, Vyanket found that a search on Nexus returned 11.5 million result pages, roughly 15 results per page. In other words, roughly 153 million license scans in this database. And the number increased by nearly 400,000 within 24 hours. So I want you to think about that. You have the state of California says we want you to prove your age. Well, how are you going to verify that you're actually 18 or 21 or whatever it is? Well, we have to prove who you are. We have to identify your identity. Are they using a company like Nexus, which apparently has been hacked and has their data now available to cyber criminals?

50:21Think about it. Your name, your address, your date of birth, your height, your weight, color of your eyes, color of your hair, all this, your driver's license summer, all this information is now. Oh, and by the way, your signature that they collected in order to, again, verify your identity now has apparently been hacked and is available to any criminal with access to the dark web. And what's concerned about this? And what's concerned that what California is asking is making this data more data available to these hackers. Now, I understand, well, we just want to protect it. We want to protect the children. Yeah, but you're not protecting the children. Are you see your controlling the children? You're asking people to give up some of the more confidential information they have information. We otherwise would not give away.

51:21I get mail off. I shred, you know, my paper, I shred because I get, you know, junk mail and I don't want my name and address out there. So I shred it. I don't hand over my ID, simply because somebody asks for it. There's got to be a good reason for it. And I want them to keep it safe, which makes me wonder. How many businesses, how many entities, how many companies are using services like Nexus for identity verification that has now been hacked? What about your rights? And again, California, you know what? It's not your job to protect the children. It's your job to protect the rights that parents so that they can protect the children. Now, I agree. There are parents that do things I would never let my child do. Absolutely true. Doesn't mean I have a right to take their children away. Whether it's to physically remove them or to pass laws that regulate how they live their lives. See, when we understand our rights, I don't have the right to tell others what to do.

52:25But then either do they have the right to tell me what to do. Now granted, well, like I said, when my daughter was young, I had a lot of security on my network. It helped that I spent 30 years working 19. I spent 20 years working in data centers that I understood things like Matt and routers and proxies and all that. So in content filters so I could protect my family. That was my job. If you don't have those skills, you can hire somebody to do it. There are plenty of people out there. I'm sure that would do it for a small fee. You could buy a device that does it. You could hire a service that does it. That's my responsibility. And when government says we're going to require this and we're in doing so unintentionally granted. It's unattended. The consequences that your identity is now exposed on the dark web for someone to steal. I think there's a problem there. Houston, I guess Sacramento. We have a problem. Just another reason why I'll never move to California.

53:29At least I can't and let me never say never. I see no good reason to move to California. I see no reason that's good enough to go to say I'm going to give up my rights to become a member of that communist state, at least a citizen of that communist state. Now I hope you have a better understanding a little bit more of your rights. Hopefully I've actually generated some questions. Now that's a thing about it. You know, what do I said that maybe you don't understand or maybe you'd like more clarification or maybe you'd like it. You have a specific incident you'd like me to answer. Well, it's really simple. You can there are two ways you can ask a question. Once you go to Constitution Study dot com slash questions, the other is simply email me at questions at Constitution Study dot com. Both ways you get a message to me and you can ask your question. I do ask for your name and email address because well, I'm going to email your response. It's kind of hard, but I don't have an email address. Now if you'd like me to answer the question here on the radio on the website, there's a button you check that says, please enter on America, I'll tell radio.

54:34If you email me, just mention that in the email. I'll be more than happy to answer your question. Not only via email, but here on the radio program because I bet you if you're asking a question, there are other people that have the same or similar questions that you've beneficial others. I see I love questions. I love when people challenge me. I don't love it when challenge me, but it's important that I take these challenges that people ask questions. It helps me verify the facts behind what I'm saying. So it's very helpful to me as well as helpful to others. I think it's probably our best learning tool is by asking questions. So again, head to Constitution Study dot com slash questions or email me at questions at Constitution Study dot com. I do ask you be polite. I do ask that I have something to do with the Constitution Constitution. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but I am open to all questions. I will answer them to the best of my ability because questions to me. They're important. So please share your questions. It helps me. It helps you. And I certainly think it's worth both of our time.

55:44I also hope you think it's worth your time to come back here and continue to listen to the Constitution Study every weekday for PM Eastern time on America out loud talk radio heard on the I heart radio network. Now you can listen on our media player. We've also got apps or Apple Android and Alexa and of course all the episodes go to podcasts generally a day or two after their heard on talk radio. So you get to listen in your favorite podcast at do me a favor subscribe to the show leaving a rating on Apple podcast. It helps the algorithm decide when it's going to share us right the more the more subscribers the more forced on five star reviews. The more likely the algorithm is going to put me on the list when someone's looking for a podcast that's related to all. I don't know maybe the Constitution study the Constitution things like that. So please do that subscribe right the show. You can find all the links you need at the homepage at America out loud dot news but please share those links share this program. Help share the blessings of liberty to everyone who calls this great nation.

56:47Oh