Hello again, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another episode of Freedom's Creed. I always like when March rolls around because I know that spring is on the way and that warmer weather is on the way. Now, I do live in a predominantly warm climate year-round, and so I haven't had to deal with the literally feat of snow that some people have received in other parts of the country. Another reason why I like March is because I like March Madness NCAA basketball, and that is now upon us once again. I'm looking forward to this topic that I'm going to discuss today, and I hope that you will find it of interest as well. I think it's something that all of us, regardless of political party or no party or whatever, it should be something that we're all interested in and seeing some changes take place. Now, I get it, when it comes to change and politicians, that is something that is often a very tedious task for we the people. So anyway, let's get on with it. But first, let me say that in less than two weeks, I will celebrate my second full year of the podcast and be beginning my third year. It's all very crazy and new to me still, but I appreciate all who have downloaded past episodes and continued to do so, and of course, tell all your friends, relatives, coworkers, enemies, whomever. I don't care. In sincerity, though, I do appreciate all of you who have taken the time to download episodes of the podcast and listen. It means the world to me more so than I could probably ever say. So thank you. Anyway, I was recently reading the Truth in Lending Act. Most of you are probably aware that this particular piece of legislation, which then became law, was designed to protect consumers, which is definitely a good thing. Don't get me wrong. I want to read a short excerpt of what the Truth in Lending Act actually says. And I quote, among other requirements, the Act requires creditors who deal with consumers to make certain written disclosures concerning finance charges and related aspects of credit transactions, including disclosing an annual percentage rate, and comply with other mandates, and requires advertisements to include certain disclosures. The Act has been amended on numerous occasions, adding requirements for credit cards and open end credit for mortgage credit, such as ability to repay standards, loan origination, appraisal independence, and mortgage servicing and others. So naturally, it got me to thinking about this idea for some legislation, if it's even possible, about truth in government. There are a lot of examples that I could have come up with to discuss today. I'm only going to highlight one, and that is, wait for it, the origins of COVID. First off, I'd just say that it's hard to believe that it's been three years nearly since all of this COVID-19, the pandemic, the lockdowns, and all of the other really disasters that were foisted upon our country and many other countries as well. Initially, many in our government recognized that it came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Because it wasn't the accepted narrative, however, those individuals were ridiculed, canceled, demeaned, discredited, and accused of spreading disinformation. But very recently it's been reported on multiple outlets that COVID-19 was most likely the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, China. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the first evidence or the first report that I actually witnessed or read was from the Wall Street Journal. There were other outlets, as I said, who talked about this and who reported on this. And as far as I'm concerned, it's welcomed news, period. And naturally, a lot of the news accounts of this now well-known revelation say that, oh, well, we can't confirm it for sure, but this is what we surmise. That's essentially what they are saying. What I can't figure out, though, with all of this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the U.S. Department of Energy? Why is that the government entity that is reporting on this or coming to this conclusion? Why not have it come from the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, or the AMA, the American Medical Association, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Why not one of these government entities? I guess ultimately it doesn't matter if I understand that or not, it is what it is. The Department of Energy was the agency that came out with this, and I don't know if there is a reason for it, but be that as it may, that's how it happened. You know, and speaking of these other agencies that I just mentioned, aren't these organizations supposed to be concerned about our health? Right? I mean, about what could be possibly dangerous for us as human beings, as Americans? Shouldn't that be their concern? Shouldn't they be apprising us of how we can better navigate some of the, I don't know, travails of the human experience? In other words, shouldn't all of these agencies that I mentioned, aside from the Department of Energy, all of which are government agencies, shouldn't they be in the business of being apolitical? That's what I always thought they were supposed to be. Well, the answer to that question, if you don't mind me saying, is an emphatic yes. They should be concerned about the health of people, and they should be apolitical. Let's talk about this idea of being apolitical. My grandma Reed taught school for over 30 years, and she'd be very happy if she were alive today to hear me talking about this. Let's define apolitical. Specifically, to be apolitical is to have no interest or involvement in political affairs. As a matter of fact, being apolitical is to have an aversion to politics. And to be sure, an aversion is to have a feeling of repugnance towards something, antipathy. In other words, it is a very strong dislike towards. Now, I don't know about you, but I expect government agencies, people who work in the government, to be a political. They're not elected. They're not held to any account by the people in the positions that they hold. And of course, people who hold elected positions, well, that's a different matter, of course. But answer this for me if you can. Do we currently have agencies in the federal government that act apolitically? I don't know. Now, what I do believe is that there are good people working in these agencies. But it would seem to me that many of the leaders at the top of these organizations or agencies are anything but apolitical. And that is a real problem, ladies and gentlemen. Listen, when politicians or government agencies have agendas, the rest of us are typically screwed, because they are generally doing that which benefits them, not that benefits us. Usually it's a wreck for the rest of us. So I would ask another question, and that is, how do we get truth in government? Think about that. How do we get truth in government? Not your truth or my truth or representative so-and-so's truth, but the truth. Because let's face it, there's either truth or there's fiction or untruth. There's not anybody's personal truth. Facts are facts, the truth is the truth. None of us can create our own truth out of whole cloth. It's not possible. It's just not possible. So to be completely honest, I don't know how we get truth in the government. I don't know how to answer that question. It'd be like Congress deciding to create legislation that would essentially hold themselves accountable for what they do. Much like how they created the truth in lending legislation, which then became law, that was a good thing to help protect consumers. But one thing is certain, ladies and gentlemen, our government and those who are in it, meaning the Congress, they're really good at ensuring that other people are held to account, that businesses are held to account, etc. But when it comes to holding themselves accountable, that is a completely different story, as you well know. So answering that question about how we get truth in government is a very difficult question to answer, in my view. We can vote people into office, we can essentially vote people out of office by voting for those that we would like to see replace those who are not getting the job done, or those who are clearly in the position that they are to gratify themselves and to get all that they can individually, make a name for themselves, command top dollar whenever they leave office, or because of their position as a representative, they're getting paid by these corporations and different entities for enacting legislation or using the bully pulpit to talk about that industry or corporation in a favorable manner. And if you don't think that happens, well, you should probably pay more attention to what's happening around you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a pretty short episode, but it's something that I wanted to talk about and to bring to your attention, and I hope that it's something that stirs your desires to want to learn more about it. And what I'm going to do for my closing quote, I'm actually going to read something that I created myself, and I'm calling it the Truth in Government Act. It says this quote, among other requirements, the Act demands that politicians who deal with we the people must make certain verbal and written disclosures concerning telling the truth and being honest. As it relates to aspects of campaign promises, honesty in debates, telling the truth to the press, and specific compliance with other mandates from we the people, and also the important mandate to disclose all actions of a nefarious nature to the people. This act may be amended from time to time based on the will of the people to require and insist on full disclosure of any conduct that violates the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. End of quote. So as always, ladies and gentlemen, if you can think it, you can plan it. If you can plan it, you can do it.