Hello again, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another episode of Freedom's Creed. I want to thank you for tuning in. And as a reminder, go to my website, which is Freedomstreed with Rexread.live. And you'll notice that you can listen to it from the website, as well as you'll notice that there are more than enough places where you can actually go and listen to it. You can pull up Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, wherever your favorite place to listen to podcasts may be, just go there. And when you do, if you would kindly write a review for the podcast, that would be much appreciated by me, your host. It's interesting when I talk to family or friends about the podcast. Many of them give me suggestions for topics that they would like to hear me discuss. I certainly take those suggestions into consideration, but in the end, naturally, I'm the one that decides the topics that I will discuss. Sometimes it doesn't take too long for me to come up with the subject matter, but there are other times when it does. So just depending on what the subject matter is, will determine how much time I spend typically on any one episode. Naturally, regardless of the subject matter, there is going to be some overlap. In my mind, it's difficult to talk about any one subject without referring to our liberties or the freedoms that we enjoy as American citizens. So, of course, there may be some redundancy in the things that I talk about, but that's okay because it comes with the territory. So let's go ahead and get started. I'm talking today about standards and how we're judged in a civilized society. What standard is used to apply to all of us? Or is there a standard that applies to all of us? We all are different with respect to our education, our socioeconomic status, and a host of other things. However, irrespective of those differences, shouldn't we all have a standard that we are judged by? In other words, if we commit a crime and if evidence is presented that convicts us of that crime, should it matter how much money you make? Should it matter what your status in life is in terms of meeting out justice upon someone who has broken the law? I'll bet you if I conducted a poll and asked people if they thought that there was a different standard applied to different people based upon their political affiliation, there would likely be very little room in the lukewarm middle. Most people would probably be very adamant one way or the other based on their political affiliation. And in my mind, is that a proper standard for judging people who have committed crimes or who have done something wrong? I'm not so sure. To answer my own question, we are judged in a civilized society by the law. And that standard should apply to all of us. But we know, if we have some experience in life, that that doesn't always take place. There are so many different variables that go into each individual case. But the bottom line is that all of us, no matter what our status is in life, should be judged by the same standard. It just makes sense. I mentioned a moment ago some of the places that we get our standards from, whether that's a political standard, that's kind of funny, uh, a religious standard, military standard. There's also the standard of what's right and what's wrong. There is cultural or moral relativism where the individual is thought to be their own best judge in terms of what is right and what is wrong. There are various standards in society that we adhere to, what we would consider to be quote unquote normal. Now, I had a colleague once who was a member of the gay chamber of commerce in a large city near where I live, and she told me one day after going to a meeting that one of the things that they discussed was to eliminate the word normal. And I could only surmise from that discussion with her is that their intent was to get rid of anything that could be associated with the word normal, because they were concerned about pushing a particular agenda, and if they could eliminate the word normal from their vocabulary, then there's less accountability for choices made in life. Now that's just me. I could be totally wrong and totally misled. I'm by no means making a judgment call here. I'm just simply pointing out that based upon the group, there are going to be different standards applied. That's life, I suppose, but what I'm getting at is there should be a standard that all of us can be judged by and that all of us can actually abide by. One of my concerns is what happens when we abandon societal standards that have guided civilized society for so long? Do we or can we expect that things would kind of go off the rails? It seems to me that that's the case. Can we really exist as a civilized people without a standard by which to live by? I really don't believe so. Now, I don't care what a person's religious affiliation is or if they have no religious ties or don't believe in God or any of those things. I'm just talking about a particular standard that is good for America. We know the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And whether people want to believe that or not, that's fine. They don't have to believe that if they don't want to, but it's a fact. Those Judeo-Christian principles, for the most part, teach about doing good to other people, about treating people the way you'd like to be treated. Now, if we use that standard in our lives today, don't you think we'd have a much more harmonious society, a place where people could live together without hatred, without doing unkind things to each other? It seems to me that that would be the case. Unfortunately, because of the place where these standards are coming from, many people decry them as, oh, you're trying to push your beliefs or your religion upon me, and I don't want any part of that. Well, the bottom line is doing good to other people is a good thing. So if that's the standard that we're going to use, then is there anything really wrong with that? What is the outcome then when we try to redefine what is considered to be normal or accepted as appropriate behavior in society? I mentioned a moment ago of a group that was trying to do what they could to eliminate a particular word from their vocabulary. What impact does that kind of behavior have on society, or does it have any impact on society at all? I think we can all look around and answer that question for ourselves. To me, if we don't have a standard of behavior, then presumably any behavior will be looked upon as acceptable behavior. To accept such a notion, to me, has a devastating impact on our society and the fabric of our society as a whole. Now, we as individuals certainly don't have a right to judge other people, but guess what? The law does have the right to judge other people, and who makes up the law? Well, we do. The legislative branch of government has that right to create laws, and the law makes judgments, or rather those appointed as judges make determinations based on evidence regarding guilt or innocence. The long and short of it all is that people are the ones who make these decisions. People make the laws, people are appointed as judges to judge based on the evidence that is presented in a court of law. Our laws, of course, have evolved from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It's not a perfect system, I don't think anybody has ever claimed that it's a perfect system. I certainly wouldn't say that. But what I would say is that it's a pretty good system. The Constitution doesn't say a whole lot about the judicial branch, but it does say in Article three, Section II, Clause III that quote, the trial of all crimes shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes have been committed. All of us are no doubt familiar with a trial by a jury of peers. So in other words, maybe you've received a jury summons and you had to report for jury duty. And perhaps you've even been chosen to serve or be impaneled on a jury. I've had that experience myself, and it's what we all come to expect. We complain about getting a jury summons, but hey, that's our system of government, so we should all be joyful when we get that glorious jury summons. I actually think it's a pretty ingenious system. And if, heaven forbid, any of us are ever accused of a crime or are sued by someone else, then we would want a jury of our peers. And that's really where it ends, because our peers are going to be based on the evidence making judgments about us that could impact our lives for good or ill. I love the fact that Lady Justice is blindfolded. Presumably it's because justice is supposed to be blind. In other words, the individual is judged based upon evidence and no other reason. We can all ask ourselves if that type of judgment takes place today for everyone. If you're well connected, you have deep pockets, or you espouse the correct political belief, then perhaps you may be able to, let's say, get out of a tight situation. We've all seen this happen before, and to me it's despicable. But what about the average American, which most of us consider ourselves to be average American, at least I do? What happens if I'm not well connected? What happens if I don't have deep pockets? What happens if my beliefs are outside the so-called mainstream of public opinion or political persuasion? What happens then for someone like me or like yourself? Typically when high powered lawyers are involved and you're an average person, then good luck. Well, I've enjoyed talking about various standards in our society today. And certainly I could talk a lot more about standards, about laws, about the way people are judged, but I won't. I believe that making a podcast that is shorter in duration is more appealing, and that's just me. But I find that when I listen to a podcast that is 45 minutes or 60 minutes or two hours long, that's just too long. And most people just don't have the time to devote to listening to a podcast that is that long. Now, if it's really, really important to them, then yes, they will find the time. But most people, I think, want to listen to a podcast that is much shorter in duration. And that's why I say when you listen to my podcast, please take a couple minutes to provide some feedback. I greatly appreciate it. As always, I'll leave you with a positive thought, and this one comes from the Federalist Papers number seventy eight by Alexander Hamilton, dated May the twenty eighth, seventeen eighty eight, and what I'd like to do is not only read this but maybe deconstruct it for just a minute. He says this quote, there is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves, that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. Think about delegated authority as it relates to the Constitution. We have representatives, and in a sense, they have had authority delegated to them, so that whenever they exercise or create law that is void of principles, then the whole exercise is also void. Hamilton said it quite plainly that any legislative act that's contrary to the Constitution is not valid. Oh how very nice it would be if this standard were applied today. Clearly, it was Hamilton's position that without clear principles, or may I say, standards, we would be faced with a situation where the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves. Oh, wait. Sadly, it seems to me, we have a lot of members of Congress who are in that position that they may not only do what their powers don't authorize, but what they actually forbid. Heaven help us, people. But hey, if you can think it, you can plan it. If you can plan it, you can do it.