Hello again, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another episode of Freedom's Creed. Today is Tuesday, November the first, twenty twenty two. And welcome to the podcast. You know, I'm really just getting my feet wet in the podcasting world, but last week I had a nice little what I would call victory. I had in a 24-hour time span, I had dozens and dozens of downloads of the podcast. So thank you to each of you who are taking the time out of your busy day to listen to the podcast. I appreciate it to no end. So thank you. I anticipate in the future that I will have a subscriber network where those of you who would like to subscribe to the podcast, you may do so. Right now, however, I am not in a position to do that. And so I will continue to provide the material and the content that I do, trusting that each of you who are listening will tell others about it and that they can listen and that I can grow my network in terms of those who listen and hopefully have some content that not only each of you continue to enjoy, but that new listeners and new subscribers in the end will enjoy that as well. So, anyway, let me get on with the program for today. Stop all this mumbo jumbo talking about subscribers and stuff. Gee whiz, come on. Now, I'm sure that most of you are aware of one Paul Pelosi who was allegedly attacked in his home by a man with a hammer. I'm not questioning the validity of the attack or the authenticity of such an attack, but I do find it ironic that a mere week or so before the midterm elections that this happens. It's true that the criminal justice system is a worthy topic to discuss. However, it's ironic to me that these kinds of things often happen just before an election. And isn't it interesting? You can go back to, I don't know, probably decades to other elections and how, in fact, I think one person coined it as an October surprise, meaning that something was going to come out of the woodwork. You could bet on it. In fact, something I think did come out of the woodwork back in the day, which caused that individual, whoever it was, to coin the phrase October surprise. So I'm not saying that this is an October surprise. I just want to talk about some of the aspects of this particular case and how it matches up with other cases and other alleged incidences that we have in our country by the so-called average Joe or Jane, as it might be. With respect to the Paul Pelosi case, I just thought it's interesting. The things that I've learned about it anyway, it was kind of weird. It was almost like he knew the guy and he it was just we it's just weird to me. I don't know how, and you don't know who to believe anymore. It's hard to believe who's telling the truth about all of this, whether it's law enforcement or an attorney general or whomever. It's just so hard to determine what's the truth and what's fiction. Certainly with this whole Pelosi thing, it does seem to be an example of the wealthy, well connected who seem to have privileged positions, more so than the rest of us, and that it turns out, to me anyway, looking like a dual justice system that we have in our country today. And perhaps you've thought about that as well. I know a lot of people do. A lot of people that I talk to think that as well. That if you got money, if you got fame, if you're somebody who is somebody as far as the world's concerned, then you'll be able to get out of whatever it is that's going on with you, or you'll be able to defend yourself and have others come to your defense because of who you are and how well connected you are. It's a sad reality, but it it is true. One thing I want to know about this case, though, is where are all the leftists who typically rage about the unfairness of quote unquote white privilege? I mean, seriously, if nothing else over the last couple of years, haven't we been taught that somehow because white people are privileged, that you know they have they are certainly entitled to this dual system of justice. And because of white privilege, well, it's gonna turn out better for them. But seriously, I don't think I've heard of one reporter, one news anchor, anybody who's associated with the news in any way talk about how Paul Pelosi has white privilege. Why is that? Why isn't anybody asking that question or making that determination that Mr. Pelosi, because of his whiteness, has white privilege. Why isn't that being asked? Is that just a question that we're just not allowed to ask anymore because of the political persuasion of the person involved? In Pelosi's case, there have been multiple press conferences just since last week, I think it happened last Friday. All of these press conferences regarding Paul Pelosi. Why? What does that say about the value of an average life? An average Joe or average Jane, is their life not as important as Paul Pelosi's? Wow, that's a pathetic commentary on our society today. And you know, I may be getting wrapped around the axle on this, whatever. But it's true. Why isn't the media bringing up the fact that Paul Pelosi is white and privileged? Why? I'd like to know. And maybe, just maybe, you'd like to know as well. Let's take, for instance, all the people who are in law enforcement to any degree, particularly the state's attorneys general, those folks I want to kind of focus on at this point too, with respect to certain states attorneys general who haven't or don't or won't charge people who have committed crimes allegedly, uh, particularly when the race of the alleged perpetrator is anything but Caucasian. Why has there been this rash of people in larger cities across the country who have not been charged for alleged crimes? Now, whether or not you want to believe that that's happening, that's on you. And if you don't believe that that's happening, perhaps you ought to consult another news source than what you're currently getting, because it is happening across the country, especially in big cities. And when you think about it, why doesn't the left or leftists, and for the most part, anyway, call for an end of the violence in major cities across America, like New York City, LA, Chicago, Portland, etc., etc.? Why? Why don't we see leftists, for the most part, calling out for an end to this kind of violence and lawlessness throughout the country? I think, in fact, that shouldn't all politicians, regardless of party, be shining light on this violence? Does political party have something to do with right and wrong and what's against the law and what's not? I don't think so, but it's unfortunately that's what it's turned into today. You're often judged on the basis of your political views. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is some scary sh stuff. Where's the media particularly in all of this? Shouldn't they be raising the red flag every single day they're reporting on the violence and violence that should be making the news every day? Shouldn't the violence that's going on right now be highlighted on every evening newscast? Let's not pretend that it's not going on or happening. It is happening. We're not living in some stupid fairy tale. I mean, have we just come to accept the fact that this is the new normal, that somehow we just have to live with this kind of violence and the violation of people's rights, their ability to stay safe and to be safe, no matter where they are, whether that's in their home, driving in their car, walking down the street. Really, to be technical, it's not walking down the street. You always hear people say, Yeah, walking down the street. No. People walk down the sidewalk unless they got a screw loose, and then they walk out on the street. But otherwise, most people walk down the sidewalk. In any case, why isn't the media focusing on this violence that's taking place across our country? They should be doing it on a regular basis. It should be on every single newscast at night. It should be in print media, it should be in every other form of media until we get a handle on this. This is not an acceptable way to live, people. Instead, and unfortunately, what is happening is that political pundits and politicians are blaming the attack on Paul Pelosi. Yeah, here it comes. Wait for it. On MAGA Republicans, as well as trying to make these connections to January the 6th. I mean, this is despicable, ladies and gentlemen. It's a perversion of the truth, and we need to put a stop to it. But there's no accountability, no responsibility among those who are elected to represent us, unfortunately, and among those who are tasked with the responsibility of presenting the news as it happens, not really not presenting the news, but reporting on the news. What they're doing actually is presenting their side of the uh events or the pretended events or whatever it is, and it's their spin, it's what they want people to hear. It's a it's sickening when you think about it. Well, here's what I want to know, ladies and gentlemen. Did these same people that I've just mentioned the very same people did they respond in the same way, for instance, when some deranged individual had a bag of goodies and he was in the vicinity of Justice Kavanaugh's house with plans to actually murder the justice? Did they carry on and respond in like manner the way they have done with the Paul Pelosi attack? See here, let me think for a second. Um no, they didn't. To hear idiots blame this attack on so-called MAGA Republicans or trying to connect it to the January sixth, whatever you want to call that, is just plain irresponsible. It's despicable. It's it makes me sick, and it ought to make you sick as well. If it doesn't, then look into it a little more and maybe it will. I hope it will. Here's another question that I would ask, and that is what does political affiliation have to do with people's safety? Does it matter what side of the fence you're on, if you're extreme left or extreme right or in the middle or at any point and between any one of those points? As if to say, well, you're conservative, for instance, so equal justice under law doesn't apply to you. Okay, thank you. Bye-bye now. But it seems that in our society, if you were perceived as a leftist, then you know you're down with the struggle. You're tired of all this injustice that's been going on for decades and decades against certain people. So because of all that, well, congratulations. You're exempt from any accountability or responsibility. Bye bye now. What I'm about to say next, I have brought up in other podcast episodes, and that is this. I'm going to go back to the summer of 2020. Where was the outrage from the leftists practically non existent? Why do political opinions matter when considering the safety of citizens? Can anyone answer that question for me? W why does it matter? I mean, listen, please, we don't even have to go back to the summer of 2020. Where's the outrage from leftist run cities to the ongoing and in some locales daily shootings that are taking place in their cities? Why this selective outrage for someone who attacked Paul Pelosi uh with a hammer, no less? Oh, right, right. He was the same skin tone as Paul Pelosi, so yeah, we can jump on him and ridicule him and convict him in the court of public opinion before it even ever gets to trial. Right, white privilege. There you go. Why does the skin tone of an individual have anything to do with whether or not we should convict an alleged criminal? What does that have to do with anything? As if to say that if we do pay attention to the skin tone of people and we don't convict those who have a darker skin tone, that somehow we'll be making up for all the injustices that have taken place against people with darker skin tones over the course of our history, that's stupid. We'll never ever be able to make up for that. But it doesn't mean that just because that happened, that we somehow gotta go soft on alleged criminals who have skin tone that may be a little darker than other people. That's just dumb. It's the beginnings of a totally lawless society and anarchy. Watch and see. I mean, we were that close to anarchy in the summer of 2020. And in reality, it won't take much for us to get there again and to stay there for an extended period of time. Think about this though. Is law enforcement and laws in general the only deterrent to acts of violence taking place across the country? In other words, just because we have laws on the books, is that enough of a deterrent to keep people from committing violent acts? Doesn't seem like it's been the case, does it? Clearly, it's going to take much more than just having laws on the books to help young people overcome the disposition to commit violent acts against other people, innocent people, I might add. The bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, is that young people need to be taught to respect law and order in a civilized society. We're supposed to be the higher species. We're supposed to be the evolved species. We have the ability to think, to reason, to learn, to grow, to be whatever we choose to be in life. We're not subject to the way it is in the jungle or on the prairie or in the savannah. We don't just survive on basic instinct, although it does seem to be manifesting itself in our society these days, basic instinct that is. It's ridiculous. We are not animals, people. I'm reminded of something that Denzel Washington said once in an interview with someone regarding making headway in the criminal justice system. That's what the interviewer was talking to Denzel Washington about, and he actually said this, I think it's more important to make headway in our own house. By the time the system comes into play, the damage is done. They're not locking up seven year olds. Do you blame the system? It starts in the house. It starts in the home. End of quote. I agree wholeheartedly with what Denzel Washington said in that interview, because it's exactly right. It may not be what people want to hear, but does that really matter? In rough situations, people need to hear what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. The bottom line in all of this, ladies and gentlemen, is that we need to do more to make sure that our voice is heard. I think in many ways we are living in a very vulnerable society. It seems to me that it wouldn't take much to tip the scales toward complete anarchy and toward complete chaos in our society. It wouldn't take much, think about it, if you were unsure how you were going to get your next meal or where you were going to live, how you were going to live day to day, you would be led to do something that you might not normally do. Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, uh if you can imagine it, and I think most of us can, would be utter chaos in our society to have millions of people acting in this way. It would be devastating, to say the least. So to me, what needs to happen is we need to stop catering to two different types of criminal justice. We need to act just like lady justice, who is blindfolded. So no matter who comes before the law, based on evidence that's presented, and only evidence, not conjecture, not skin tone, not any other characteristic, but people who come before the law are innocent until proven guilty. And the way that that happens is by a preponderance of evidence. If evidence is presented and it's beyond a reasonable doubt, then that is the standard. That is the way that we in our civilized society conduct justice. Why do you think the Constitution mandates that people are tried by a jury of their peers? It's not perfect. I'm not saying that it's the most perfect thing since sliced bread. It's not. But it's the best we have. And we can't just rely on the law to meet out justice. I want to close this episode today by reading a quote from a religious leader by the name of D. Todd Christofferson, who said this When secularization separates personal and civic virtue from a sense of accountability to God, it cuts the plant from its roots. Reliance on culture and tradition alone will not be sufficient to sustain virtue in society. When one has no higher God than himself and seeks no greater good than satisfying his own appetites and preferences, the effects will be manifest in due course. There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues. Ladies and gentlemen, if you can think it, you can plan it. If you can plan it, you can do it.